The Kitten, the Witches and the Bad Wardrobe Willow & Tara Forever

by **crazyredlizard** » Sat Mar 13, 2004 3:06 pm

www.dailyfreeman.com/site...4969&rfi=6

Weddings march on today in New Paltz

By Jesse J. Smith , Freeman staff 03/13/2004

NEW PALTZ - The village will be back in the spotlight today as up to 50 same-sex couples exchange marriage vows on a Main Street property near the Wallkill River.

Organizers said five ministers empowered to perform weddings in New York will "solemnize" the marriages during the noontime ceremony, but they would not identify the ministers or say whether two Unitarian clerics who presided over same-sex weddings last weekend in New Paltz will participate.

Those ministers, Kay Greenleaf and Dawn Sangrey, could face criminal charges for marrying unlicensed couples. New Paltz Mayor Jason West, who married 25 unlicensed same-sex couples on Feb. 27, was charged a few days later with 19 misdemeanors and was ordered by a state Supreme Court justice to refrain from presiding over any more such ceremonies.

Greenleaf and Sangrey met Thursday with Ulster County District Attorney Donald A. Williams to discuss last weekend's nuptials, and Greenleaf said later that she expects to be charged. Williams has said he expects to make a decision next week.

Sangrey said she and Greenleaf don't believe they did anything illegal.

"Our view is that we are not breaking the law because the constitution(s) of the United States and of New York state say there will be no discrimination," she said. "If anyone is breaking the law, it is the (New Paltz) town clerk for refusing to grant marriage licenses to these couples."

State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has said New York law does not allow same-sex marriage, and no municipal clerk in the state has issued a license to a gay couple in the two weeks since West thrust New York into the national debate on the subject.

Today's ceremony is being organized by a group called New Paltz Equality Initiative, which, according to spokesman James Fallarino, has a 12-member executive board and 200 volunteers.

Sangrey said she would officiate again if asked but that other clergy were coming forward, "and they might want to take a turn."

The couples who wed today will sign "marriage affidavits" similar to the ones used at the Feb. 27 and March 6 ceremonies.

New Paltz Police Chief Raymond Zappone said officers will be present at today's ceremony, but he did not say whether the presiding ministers might be arrested on the spot for performing the weddings.

"Our first priority is the safety of all of the people in the area," Zappone said. "We want to make sure nobody is inconvenienced by the traffic and the crowds, but we will also be observing (the ceremonies)." Each of the previous ceremonies attracted several hundred onlookers.

No arrests were made during the Feb. 27 or March 6 ceremonies, and protesters were few.

Some village residents have complained about how much the same-sex he weddings and their aftermath are costing the village. Zappone said his department incurred $1,379 in expenses to staff the Feb. 27 ceremony and another $3,402 the night West was arraigned for the 19 misdemeanors.

West said after the Feb. 27 ceremonies that "not one dime" of taxpayer money would be spent on costs related to the weddings.

But if the weddings are a drag on village coffers, they appear to be a boon to the local economy.

Alyson Graham, manager of the Gilded Otter, a restaurant and brew pub on Main Street, said business has been up since New Paltz became a flashpoint in the gay marriage debate.

"On Saturday nights (since the weddings began), we're seeing a lot of New Jersey (license) plates in the parking lot," Graham said. "I think a lot of people are coming to town because they're curious about the weddings, and local people are coming out to the watering holes to discuss what's going on."

But not all in New Paltz are happy about the attention the village is getting.

Village Trustee Robert Hebel, who filed the lawsuit that resulted in the Justice Vincent Bradley's restraining order against West, urged Williams to deter further weddings by prosecuting the ministers who preside over them.

"They can say anything they want, but the bottom line is they are breaking the law," Hebel said.

by **Warduke** » Mon Mar 15, 2004 3:27 pm

From Yahoo...

Quote:
N.Y. Ministers Charged for Marrying Gays

By MICHAEL HILL, Associated Press Writer

KINGSTON, N.Y. - Two ministers were charged with criminal offenses Monday for marrying 13 gay couples in what is believed to be the first time in the United States that clergy members have been prosecuted for performing same-sex ceremonies.

District Attorney Donald Williams said gay marriage laws make no distinction between public officials and members of the clergy who preside over wedding ceremonies.

Unitarian Universalist ministers Kay Greenleaf and Dawn Sangrey were charged with multiple counts of solemnizing a marriage without a license, the same charges leveled against New Paltz Mayor Jason West, who last month drew the state into the widening national debate over same-sex unions.

The charges carry a fine of $25 to $500 or up to two years in jail.

"As far as I know that's unprecedented," said Mark Shields a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, a Washington-based gay rights group. "It's ridiculous that prosecutors would spend their time charging anyone with a crime who is simply trying to unite two people with basic rights and protections."

Since West joined San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom as the only elected officials to marry gay couples, the issue has spread rapidly across the country. Courts, legislatures and elected officials are wrestling with what supporters say is a matter of civil rights and opponents call an attack on the time-honored institution of marriage.

Greenleaf, who acknowledged performing the ceremonies in New Paltz knowing the couples did not have licenses, said she signed an affidavit for the couples and considers the ceremonies civil.

Williams said he decided to press charges because the marriages were "drastically different" from religious ceremonies because Greenleaf and Sangrey publicly said they considered them civil. Some Unitarian ministers, Greenleaf included, have been performing ceremonies for gay couples since before the issue entered the national debate.

"It is not our intention to interfere with anyone's right to express their religious beliefs, including the right of members of the clergy to perform ceremonies where couples are united solely in the eyes of the church or any other faith," Williams said.

Williams had said before Monday's charges were announced that it would be more difficult considering charges against clergy because the clergy had not sworn to uphold the law.

He said his decision to press charges was influenced by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's opinion that gay marriage is illegal in New York and by the injunction issued by a state supreme court justice against West.

The ministers performed the weddings March 6.

On Saturday, Greenleaf and Sangrey were joined by a third minister, the Rev. Marion Visel, in performing 25 more ceremonies, which went off without protests or arrests. It could not immediately be learned if more charges would be brought.

The ministers' lawyer, Robert Gottlieb, was unaware of the charges when contacted by The Associated Press and declined comment.

Unitarian Universalists have roots in a movement that rejected Puritan orthodoxy in New England, and they support a free search for spiritual truth. Atheists and pagans are a significant part of their membership.

Unitarians have backed gay rights since 1970, and not only endorse same-sex unions, but some churches also offer the couples premarital counseling. The denomination counts nearly 215,000 people as members nationwide, according to the 2004 Yearbook of American & Canadian Churches.

West married 25 gay and lesbian couples Feb. 27 in a highly publicized marathon ceremony. West is now under a court order temporarily halting the weddings.

In Oregon, Multnomah County commissioners decided Monday that they will continue to issue gay marriage licenses despite legal objections from the state. About 2,000 gay couples from around the nation have flocked to Portland to be married since a March 3 county review of state law concluded that denying such applications would be unconstitutional.

Portland remains the only major city in the United States where gay couples can get married.

Firefox: One Browser To Rule Them All.

by **xita** » Mon Mar 15, 2004 8:22 pm

crazyredlizard, that's awesome , thanks for that report. It's amazing some really amazing things going on.

- - - - - - - - - - -
"No more twat. No more twat for me. Twat gets me into trouble!" - Crack Whore Jenny, The L Word

by **Gatito Grande** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 12:17 am

Brian, I know you've got this story under the header of "Bad News" but I really don't think it is. Civil disobedience strengthens causes, in general, and this action (marrying people f'Chrissake!) particularly so. :pride

GG Even people not inclined to support s-s marriage can see the ridiculousness of these arrests---and whenever that happens, it tends to provoke cognitive dissonance: an Aha! moment that sez "Maybe two men or two women marrying is NOT the downfall of Western civilization! Out

by **Kieli** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 8:46 am

and didn't know if it should go in the GLBT thread or this one so....here ya go:

The Gay Science: What do we know about same sex parenting?

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

by **crazyredlizard** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 1:18 pm

Thanks Xita

It was a great day really. Difficult to describe. But I can say this: it was one of those days when everything felt right in the world, even if it was just for an hour. Certainly a "warm fuzzies" afternoon.

As for the ministers being charged, I just wonder if the DA will be able to look his minister in the eye when he goes to church on Sunday

Peace and Gay Love from Woodstock

Lizard

by **tyche** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 1:06 pm

If you click on the link, they have several charts giving a breakdown of the stats. Here's the article:

Quote:
sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/03/18/MNGTB5MUOI1.DTL

Numbers put face on a phenomenon

Most who married are middle-aged, have college degrees

Suzanne Herel, Rona Marech, Ilene Lelchuk, Chronicle Staff Writers

There were doctors, lawyers and -- yes -- even an Indian "tribal chairwoman."

The 4,037 same-sex couples who obtained marriage licenses in San Francisco hail from 46 states and eight other countries, are highly educated, range in age from 18 to 83 but generally are middle-aged, and represent hundreds of occupations.

That's the picture painted by demographic information released Wednesday by the San Francisco assessor-recorder's office that tracked the licenses issued between Feb. 12, when Mayor Gavin Newsom gave the go-ahead to same-sex nuptials, and March 11, when the state Supreme Court ordered them stopped.

"It really did represent, in its final composition, people from everywhere," said Carole Migden, the lesbian chairwoman of the state Board of Equalization who got married at San Francisco City Hall to her longtime partner and officiated at more than 100 other same-sex weddings. She said she wasn't surprised to find that the majority of the couples were between the ages of 36 and 50, and that 68.8 percent held at least a college degree.

"Many of the couples were parents. Many of the couples were older. Who's apt to say, 'Let's throw everything down and go get married?' -- perhaps people with a little more financial ability," Migden said.

"Amazing," said Thom Lynch, executive director of the San Francisco Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Community Center. "I think it talks about how deeply this reaches people. ... That just shows the whole cliche that we are everywhere. Well, we really are."

Couples came to San Francisco to marry for political reasons and also because of the iconic meaning the city has, he said. Indeed, of the 17 foreign couples, some came from Canada and the Netherlands, where same-sex marriage is legal.

"For many, many people, this is the heart of the gay and lesbian movement, " Lynch said. "Even throughout the world. Even in progressive countries."

That was the case for people like John Humber, 33, who flew from Nashville to marry Michael McBlane, 27.

"We got really, really excited when we started reading stories of people getting married there, especially people who have been together so long," he said. "We decided it was something special and something historical, and we wanted to get involved. Plus, it's a beautiful city."

Ellen Pontac, 62, who married her partner of 30 years in February, said the lengths people went reflects the depth of feeling about the right of same- sex couples to marry.

"It just shows how much people want to get married. It was the only place in the United States at the time where someone could get married," Pontac said.

Opponents of the same-sex unions, however, point to opinion polls and the passage of a state ballot measure that defines marriage as solely between a man and a woman as evidence that the majority of Californians feel differently and believe that what took place in San Francisco was wrong.

"When you compare the little over 4,000 couples that sought to obtain a marriage license, that winds up being .000087 percent of 4.6 million people of California who voted in favor of preserving the institution of marriage," said Robert Tyler, head of the California office of the Alliance Defense Fund, which asked the state Supreme Court to stop the marriages.

Of the couples who obtained marriage licenses, 91.4 percent live in California. Significant numbers also traveled from Washington, Oregon, Nevada, New York and Florida.

The bulk of the couples came from San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley, but many also were from Sacramento, San Jose, Alameda, Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz. A large number were from San Diego and Los Angeles and some Southern California Republican enclaves like Anaheim in Orange County.

They came from Kalamazoo, Mich., from the marriage capitals of Las Vegas and Reno, from Paris, France, and Paris, Tenn.

The couples work as attorneys, artists, teachers, doctors and in other traditional careers. But there were also the tribal chairwoman from Ukiah, the airline pilot from Michigan, the self-defined cowboy from California and a strawberry breeder from Florida.

More women than men tied the knot.

Said Lynch, "I think that gays and lesbians are not exactly the same people. Relationships and the ways they're formed are different."

Ethnicity was not part of the demographic data released by the city, but many people involved in the 29 days of same-sex weddings agreed that the majority of the newlyweds were white, some were Latino and a few were African American or Asian American.

Bill Jones, who officiated at 457 same-sex marriages, recalled a lesbian couple from Germany, several deaf couples, two cops from New York and a couple of farm boys from Nebraska.

Most of the couples said they had been together for between two and 37 years, according to Jones.

Benjamin Lopez, legislative director and lobbyist for the Traditional Values Coalition, which opposes same-sex marriage, said he wasn't surprised by the demographic profile of newlyweds or the great distances they came.

"The fact that gay couples from 46 other states came to California to marry plays into the strategy and the plans of Gavin Newsom," Lopez said. "By showing flagrant disrespect for the law he said, 'Come here. We will marry you if your state will not. Then you can go to courts in your home states and challenge the validity of your licenses at home."

Maryann Martindale, who flew to San Francisco from Salt Lake City to marry her partner of three years, said she didn't know what to expect when she returned home. But she said the response has been overwhelming supportive. That's been true even at her job at a time management company -- started by a descendent of the founder of the conservative Mormon church.

"It's encouraged great dialogue," Martindale said. "That surprised me. I didn't think anyone would be rude. I just thought I'd be ignored."

Suddenly, playing with yourself is a scholarly pursuit. - Lucille, Arrested Development

by **Gatito Grande** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 3:17 pm

Great article, tyche.

Quote:
"When you compare the little over 4,000 couples that sought to obtain a marriage license, that winds up being .000087 percent of 4.6 million people of California who voted in favor of preserving the institution of marriage," said Robert Tyler, head of the California office of the Alliance Defense Fund, which asked the state Supreme Court to stop the marriages.

Oh yeah, that's a relevant statistic. Not.

Quote:
Bill Jones, who officiated at 457 same-sex marriages, recalled . . . two cops from New York and a couple of farm boys from Nebraska.

Awww.

Quote:
"The fact that gay couples from 46 other states came to California to marry plays into the strategy and the plans of Gavin Newsom," Lopez said. "By showing flagrant disrespect for the law"

What is w/ this bullsh*t that sez that this all boils down to some politician's or judge's "strategy and plans" (or "agenda" )? It's like LGBTs either don't exist at all, or exist only as political ciphers (instead of as human beings, w/ *all* human qualities). Like a couple would be together for 30 years, and then come to the SF Court House only to toy w/ this "sacred institution" as some kind of political game?

But the Real News here, is that there is either no news, or better, good news:

Quote:
Maryann Martindale, who flew to San Francisco from Salt Lake City to marry her partner of three years, said she didn't know what to expect when she returned home. But she said the response has been overwhelming supportive. That's been true even at her job at a time management company -- started by a descendent of the founder of the conservative Mormon church.

"It's encouraged great dialogue," Martindale said. "That surprised me. I didn't think anyone would be rude. I just thought I'd be ignored."

GG Most excellent! Out

by **Willster** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 12:41 am

Not sure if it's been talked about it before and not even sure if lots of kitten are interested since most of them are not from Quebec, but i think it's good news for the community, here's an article that was in a Montreal newspaper today.

Gays can marry in Quebec

Court of Appeal throws out challenge, clearing way for same-sex couples to wed

ALLISON HANES, MIKE DE SOUZA of the Gazette Quebec Bureau contributed to this report

The Gazette

ADVERTISEMENT

Michael Hendricks said yesterday that when he ties the knot with longtime partner René LeBoeuf in April, their wedding will set a record for how long it took to plan.

"It will definitely be one of the most expensive weddings ever," Hendricks joked.

That's because their walk down the aisle will mark the end of a court fight Hendricks and LeBoeuf launched in 1998 - a fight they never thought they'd win.

But, to their delight, the Quebec Court of Appeal yesterday cleared the way for them to set a wedding date, making Quebec the third province in Canada to allow same-sex couples to marry.

It quashed a legal challenge mounted by a Catholic organization to a Quebec Superior Court ruling.

That September 2002 ruling gave gays and lesbians the right to marry, but it also imposed a two-year moratorium on nuptials pending any appeals.

Both the Quebec and federal attorneys-general declined to contest the decision, so the Catholic Civil Rights League fought on alone.

Yesterday, the appellate court threw out the Catholic league's challenge on the ground that attitudes and laws have evolved in Canada to the point where the federal government is considering legislation to allow same-sex marriages.

Because the league was granted intervenor status at the Supreme Court of Canada, which Ottawa has asked for legal advice on the issue, the Quebec appellate court said the matter seems to be beyond the scope of its jurisdiction.

In the meantime, it removed all obstacles to the exchange of vows by same-sex couples. Following the lead of Ontario and British Columbia, the court specifically stated that marriage licences can be issued immediately.

"In the absence of a valid reason for objection - and homosexuality is not a valid motive for objection - the marriage of the intimates can be celebrated in conformity with the law," the five justices wrote.

Hendricks and LeBoeuf marched right over to the Montreal courthouse to apply for their permit, a walk they have taken twice before only to be turned back.

After waiting for their number to be called - 63 - a clerk handled their paperwork, told them of more documentation they must provide and set up a date for a requisite interview.

"We're elated," Hendricks told the media, which had assembled to witness the historic moment. "Marriage makes two people one, and it's a magical sort of thing."

LeBoeuf said, "It's taken us five years and they've never accepted a paper from us before. I think we're going to get drunk tonight."

Celebrating gay-rights groups called the landmark decision another step in the fight to make same-sex marriage legal across the country.

"This is fantastic," said Irène Demczuk, co-ordinator of the Coalition pour la reconnaissance des conjoints et conjointes de même sexe, a group that was instrumental in persuading Quebec to become the first province to allow civil unions.

Bob Gallagher, the head of Canadians for Equal Marriage, said gay couples can now marry in provinces representing more than 70 per cent of Canada's population. "The only question that remains is when all of Canada will benefit from equal marriage for same-sex couples," he said.

Colin Irving, one of the lawyers who represented Hendricks and LeBoeuf, said, "This will have great influence when the Supreme Court looks at it."

But the Catholic Civil Rights League vowed that the fight is not over. Phil Horgan, the league's vice-president, said that not only will it continue its challenge before Canada's highest court, it will exercise its muscle at the ballot box in the looming federal election.

"We're very disappointed," he said. "The Quebec Court of Appeal has wriggled out of making a very important decision (by passing the buck to federal decision-makers). ... The people of Canada have a role in our court system, and they will have to make their voices heard to elected officials in the campaign."

Guy Pratte, the lawyer who represented the league, said, "I think (to examine the case on its own merits) would have been useful for the Supreme Court, because here, unlike in B.C. or Ontario, we have civil unions."

In Quebec City, Justice Minister Marc Bellemare said the

2-year-old law on civil unions, which was progressive even then, could pose a glitch for couples who entered into civil unions and now wish to marry.

They would first have to dissolve that union, Bellemare said, but that could be difficult because they would be required to prove they are no longer living together.

He said he would study possible amendments to the civil union law to clear up the problem.

Bellemare said the appellate ruling was a historic step for fundamental rights.

For Hendricks and LeBoeuf, nothing stands in their way. Together for more than 30 years, the couple had already set their sights on marriage when civil unions were introduced and decided not to settle for anything less.

"We might have chosen it if it wasn't a second-rate marriage for homos," Hendricks said. "Choice means dignity, and with this we now have the same choices. We are finally equal."

Same-sex couples wishing to marry can obtain information on the marriage ruling or civil unions from the justice department at: http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca; or by calling toll free, 1-(866)-536-5140

ahanes@thegazette.canwest.com

here's the link to the article too:

www.canada.com/montreal/m...DA7E07D19F

by **crazyredlizard** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 8:10 am

Didn't make it down there this weekend, but here's a happy report from http://www.dailyfreeman.com (the local paper around here)

Arrest threat doesn't faze ministers at gay weddings

NEW PALTZ - More same-sex couples said "I do" on Saturday in the village of New Paltz, and ministers who officiated at the weddings said they weren't afraid of possible criminal charges.

Twenty-five couples exchanged vows outside the LeFevre House on Southside Avenue, bringing to 88 the number of gay weddings that have been performed in New Paltz since late February. Saturday's ceremony, the fourth in as many weeks, was presided over by six Unitarian Universalist ministers: Charles Bluestien-Ortman, Barbara Fast, Kay Greenleaf, Debra Haffner, Katherine Hepler and Carol Huston.

Greenleaf also presided over same-sex weddings in New Paltz on March 6 and 13, and she and co-officiant Dawn Sangrey later were charged with misdemeanors for marrying unlicensed couples, a violation of New York's Domestic Relations Law.

New Paltz Mayor Jason West was charged with the same crime after "solemnizing" 25 gay marriages on Feb. 27 at the Village Hall, and he has been barred by a judge from presiding over any more same-sex weddings.

Asked whether she feared being arrested for participating on Saturday, Haffner replied: "I had no choice but to be here."

"It's not a criminal offense," said Hepler, who came to New Paltz from Lyncroft, N.J.

Greenleaf refused to comment on the charges against her, but said: "It's a wonderful, celebratory day." She and Sangrey, who did not participate on Saturday, are to answer the charges against them on Monday in New Paltz Town Court.

Saturday's weddings originally were to be held at a Route 299 nightclub called The Wave, but the owner of that establishment backed out after the state Liquor Authority implied his liquor license could be revoked if he hosted an illegal activity.

The LeFevre House, where the weddings were performed in front of some 200 spectators, is the headquarters of the group New Paltz Equality Initiative, which has been organizing the same-sex wedding ceremonies.

Saturday's ceremonies were conducted on a makeshift altar in chilly but sunny weather. The couples - who carried flowers and rings and wore jeans and tuxedos, high heels and tennis shoes - didn't seem to mind tramping through mud and snow to get their turn in front of the ministers.

Four generations of women surrounded M. Charity Gray and Anna M. Cognetto when it was their turn at the altar. The couple, from Poughkeepsie, have been together 13 years. They were joined by Cognetto's mother, Margaret, their adopted daughter, Jessica Miller, and 4-year-old granddaughter, Kira Joan Martin.

"Talk about grace and dignity," said Gray, adding she was overwhelmed by the support of the community.

Craig Peterson and Daryl Martin of New York City exchanged vows while their 11-month-old daughter, Maya Carol, slept in Peterson's arms.

"It's going great. We're having a ball," Martin whispered, so as not to wake Maya. The couple currently is in the process of adopting the girl.

Nyack Mayor John Shields, who is openly gay and favors same-sex marriage, though he has declined to preside over them, attended Saturday's ceremony and said: "All we ask for is equal rights under the law. I don't know why people who fall in love are treated like second-class citizens."

Responding to a protester's sign - "Support Traditional Marriage" - Shields said: "I believe in traditional marriage, too."

The protester was one of only four who picketed the ceremony.

Dwayne Johnson and Brian Giampaoli of Poughkeepsie were the 17th couple to exchange vows on Saturday, and Johnson said: "We want to be treated equal and have the same rights as everyone else.

"It used to be illegal for blacks to marry," said Johnson, who grew up in South Carolina. "It is time for the laws to be changed."

Barb Wilson and Michelle Shaffer, traveled to New Paltz from Marietta, Pa., to exchange vows.

"They (the ministers) are really going out on a limb for us," Wilson said.

"I hope no one ends up in jail," Shaffer added.

"It's a very happy day for us," said Joseph Miele of Schenectady, whose daughter, Nicole Miele, wed her partner, Kaela Wallman. "If you can't support your own children, who can you believe in?"

Protester Diane Garrison of Wallkill said she supports President Bush's proposal for a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

"They (proponents of same-sex marriage) keep saying 'Equal rights for all people.' It's special rights for a special interest group that practice an unhealthy and unnatural lifestyle," she said.

After the ceremony, New Paltz Deputy Mayor Rebecca Rotzler told a cheering crowd: "The one person I can credit with what is happening in New Paltz today is George W. Bush."

Peace and Gay Love from Woodstock!

Lizard

by **Gatito Grande** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 11:47 am

Quote:
Protester Diane Garrison of Wallkill said she supports President Bush's proposal for a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

"They (proponents of same-sex marriage) keep saying 'Equal rights for all people.' It's special rights for a special interest group that practice an unhealthy and unnatural lifestyle," she said.

Unpack the "logic" of this, and what she (and other 'phobes) are saying, is that queers aren't human. See, if we demand an equal right---a right equally guaranteed all people---it automatically makes it a "special right", because we are "specially" not people. But because our "not people" status is temporary---we can be forced out of our "lifestyle"---they (the 'phobes) can't be charged w/ being bigots. It's not like they hate us abstractly, in our human-shaped bodies. It's only when those bodies are in motion, living our 24-7 queer lives, that our specialness boots us from "We The People" (w/ the equal rights). Brilliantly Orwellian double-think.

I swear, these *ssholes remind me of white people in the Jim Crow South. You didn't have to have laws that said "black people will not be permitted to vote", you just had to give 'em unpassable "citizenship tests" or a "grandfather clause".

Yeah, come to think of it, the "grandfather clause" is the perfect parallel to the "Protect Traditional Marriage" canard: "Because you black people (queer people) weren't allowed to vote (marry) before, ergo it's justified to prevent you from voting (marrying) now."

GG We Shall Overcome . . . Today! Out

by **Ben Varkentine** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 2:24 am

Kittens might want to watch The Daily Show tuesday night...they're doing a story on gay marriage.

by **Warduke** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:12 am

From Yahoo...

Quote:
Black Clergy Rally Against Gay Marriage

By MARK NIESSE, Associated Press Writer

ATLANTA - More than two dozen black pastors added their voice to the critics of same-sex marriage, attempting to distance the civil rights struggle from the gay rights movement and defending marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

"When the homosexual compares himself to the black community, he doesn't know what suffering is," said the Rev. Clarence James, an African-American studies professor at Temple University.

Jones and 29 pastors rallied late Monday with their supporters at an Atlanta-area church where they signed a declaration outlining their beliefs on marriage and religion.

The declaration is meant to pressure state representatives to approve a constitutional ban on gay marriages, which will be considered again by the Georgia House as soon as this week.

The declaration, to be presented to state leaders Tuesday, says same-sex marriage is not a civil right, and marriage between a man and a woman is important because it's necessary for the upbringing of children.

"To equate a lifestyle choice to racism demeans the work of the entire civil rights movement," the statement said. "People are free in our nation to pursue relationships as they choose. To redefine marriage, however, to suit the preference of those choosing alternative lifestyles is wrong."

Same-sex marriage is already illegal in Georgia, but supporters of the ban say the constitution needs to be changed to make sure a judge does not direct Georgia to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

"It is a threat to who we are and what we stand for," said Bishop William Shields of Hopewell Baptist Church. "If nothing else gets us out of the pews, this ought to."

But the Rev. Paul Turner, a gay pastor from Atlanta who helped organize a pro-gay marriage rally last month outside the Georgia Capitol, disagreed: "How do they figure that it's not a civil rights issue?"

"This is just a way for those conservative leadership in the black community to say, 'Look, this isn't a matter of civil rights because we're black and we didn't have a choice in being black.' And they think gays do, and that's not true," Turner said.

Elsewhere Monday:

_ In Oregon, the county that was poised to become the state's second to allow gay marriage backed off until courts intervene. Commissioners in Benton County, home to Oregon State University and the liberal city of Corvallis, decided to stop issuing all marriage licenses until there is a court ruling on whether gay marriage is legal in Oregon.

_ In St. Paul, Minn., supporters of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage gathered by the thousands in one of the largest Capitol rallies in memory, waving hundreds of signs on the Capitol steps and spilling over onto the lawn and parking lot. The House is expected to pass the bill Wednesday, with a Senate committee planning to take up the measure later in the week.

_ In New York, two Unitarian Universalist ministers facing criminal counts for officiating at same-sex weddings pleaded innocent. Kay Greenleaf and Dawn Sangrey were charged after marrying 13 gay couples during a public ceremony in New Paltz, but the district attorney has said he does not expect to seek jail time.

_ In North Carolina's Durham County, a gay couple filed a lawsuit after being denied a marriage license. State law invalidates any claim of marriage between people of the same sex. Register of Deeds Willie Covington said the law gave him no choice.

Firefox: One Browser To Rule Them All.

by **Gatito Grande** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 2:44 pm

Quote:
"When the homosexual compares himself to the black community, he doesn't know what suffering is,"

Maybe, but what about when Congressman John Lewis, perhaps the greatest living black civil rights hero, makes the comparison? These self-appointed 'phobic spokespersons don't speak for the entire black community---least of all, for LGBT African-Americans!

GG What do you bet there's white Republican $$$ behind these African-American ministers? Out

ETA: I made the above post, before hearing that John Lewis testified today before the Senate Judiciary Committee, in hearings on the f*ckin' proposed amendment:

Quote:
Rep. John Lewis, D-Georgia, an opponent of the amendment and a black lawmaker, invoked the civil rights struggles of the 1960s in which he took part. "I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on same sex marriage," he said.

www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLIT...index.html

Edited by: Gatito Grande at: 3/23/04 7:21 pm

by **Lukean** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 4:08 pm

Quote:
"When the homosexual compares himself to the black community, he doesn't know what suffering is," said the Rev. Clarence James, an African-American studies professor at Temple University.

As a black woman, I get positively enraged when I hear shit like this. It is quite apparent that the "esteemed" professor is not well versed on any history besides his own race's. How pathetically narrow-minded and uneducated of him to make this assumption. Gays throughout history have been persecuted, executed and tortured almost as much as blacks who were sold into slavery. What part of that suffering did they miss out on?

And this man should keep in mind that African nations often sold their prisoners of war into slavery. Blacks selling other blacks. I wonder if he conveniently forgot about that? Yes free blacks and black slaves have suffered incredible indignities in this country. So have gays and the indignities they've suffered are not relegated to just this country or even the past couple of centuries! Some early societies have had issues about homosexual relationships and stiff, often deadly, penalties were doled out as punishment. So I take exception to this offhand, narrow remark of his. And I am ashamed even more so as a black woman to hear reverse discrimination being parroted publicly.

Erm...btw, this is Kieli....just using a different handle because my regular handle isn't logged on presently.

"Due to budget cutbacks, the light at the end of the tunnel has temporarily been shut down. Sorry for any inconveniences this may cause you."
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end...

by **sheila wt** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 2:21 am

That's a twist to the situation...

Oregon County Bans All Marriages

Quote:

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 Posted: 11:58 PM EST (0458 GMT)

PORTLAND, Oregon (Reuters) -- In a new twist in the battle over same-sex marriage roiling the United States, a county in Oregon has banned all marriages -- gay and heterosexual -- until the state decides who can and who cannot wed.

The last marriage licenses were handed out in Benton County at 4 p.m. local time (7:00 p.m. EST) Tuesday. As of Wednesday, officials in the county of 79,000 people will begin telling couples applying for licenses to go elsewhere until the gay marriage debate is settled.

"It may seem odd," Benton County Commissioner Linda Modrell told Reuters in a telephone interview, but "we need to treat everyone in our county equally."

State Attorney General Hardy Myers said in a statement that he was "very pleased" with Benton County's decision. "It is my sincere hope that the legal process will provide clarity for each of Oregon's counties."

The three County commissioners had originally decided to start handing out gay marriage licenses this week but on Monday reversed that decision amid a growing firestorm of lawsuits across the country, and decided instead to put a temporary halt to all marriages.

Rebekah Kassell, a spokeswoman for Basic Rights Oregon, a pro-gay marriage group, told Reuters; "It is certainly a different way for county commissioners to respect their constitutional obligation to apply the law equally to everyone.

"We appreciate that they are willing to say they are not going to participate in discrimination."

Tim Nashif, the spokesman for the Defense of Marriage Coalition, said; "Oregon not only has the only county in the nation issuing illegal (same-sex) marriage licenses, we probably have the only county in the nation refusing to issue marriage licenses at all."

"We are happy Benton County is not going to violate the law by issuing illegal marriage licenses, but we are perplexed as to why they would not issue legal licenses," he added.

Benton County, whose county seat is Corvallis, is home to Oregon State University and is seen as a bastion of liberalism.

Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union said it would file a lawsuit Wednesday against Oregon or an unnamed state entity over the state's failure to register the more than 2,550 marriage licenses issued by Portland's Multnomah County to gay couples since March 3.

Multnomah County, the state's most populous, is the only jurisdiction in the United States that continues to issue same-sex marriage licenses. Local governments from San Francisco to New Paltz, New York, have halted the practice amid lawsuits and protests.

--------------------------
"She had tasted Willow on her tongue, and she had worn Willow on her skin. There wasn't a shower in the world that could have washed that away." (Terra Firma, by Tulipp)

by **Diebrock** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 12:53 pm

Quote:
King's Widow Backs Gay Marriage

Provided By: The Associated Press

Last Modified: 3/24/2004 11:45:10 AM

(Pomona, N.J.-AP) -- The widow of Martin Luther King Junior called gay marriage a civil rights issue, denouncing a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban it.

Coretta Scott King said Tuesday that Constitutional amendments should be used to expand freedom, not restrict it.

She said, "Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."

King, the widow of the slain civil rights leader, made her comments during a speech at The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey.

Her comments come two days after more than two dozen Black pastors raised their voices to criticize same-sex marriage. The Black clergymen sought to distance the historic civil rights struggle from the gay rights movement, defending marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

"When the homosexual compares himself to the black community, he doesn't know what suffering is," said the Rev. Clarence James, an African-American studies professor at Temple University.

James and 29 pastors rallied late Monday with their supporters at an Atlanta-area church where they signed a declaration outlining their beliefs on marriage and religion.

The declaration is meant to pressure state representatives to approve a constitutional ban on gay marriages, which will be considered again by the Georgia House as soon as this week.

The declaration, to be presented to state leaders Wednesday or Thursday, says same-sex marriage is not a civil right, and marriage between a man and a woman is important because it's necessary for the upbringing of children.

"To equate a lifestyle choice to racism demeans the work of the entire civil rights movement," the statement said. "People are free in our nation to pursue relationships as they choose. To redefine marriage, however, to suit the preference of those choosing alternative lifestyles is wrong."

link

_________________

Independence is my happiness, and I view things as they are, without regard to place or person; my country is the world, and my religion is to do good.

I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

by **Warduke** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 10:18 pm

From Yahoo...

Quote:
Oregon Gay Married Couples Sue State

By Teresa Carson

PORTLAND, Oregon (Reuters) - Nine gay couples sued the state of Oregon on Wednesday for refusing to recognize their marriages; a legal test case intended to prompt the state's highest court to hand down a ruling on the hot-button issue.

"Oregon's constitution does not allow people to be discriminated against because they are lesbian and gay, but that is exactly what Oregon's marriage law does," Jann Carson, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon said, adding that the lawsuit would "get this issue before the courts in the fastest way possible.

In the lawsuit, filed by the ACLU in Multnomah County Circuit Court, the plaintiffs claimed that their rights were violated when the state refused to recognize their marriages or register their licenses.

Multnomah County, which includes Portland and is the most populous in the state, has handed out more than 2,550 marriage licenses to same-sex couples since March 3. It is the only jurisdiction in the United States still issuing licenses to gay couples after cities from San Francisco to New Paltz, New York, stopped the practice under threat of lawsuits.

In Oregon, attorneys from both sides of the issue have agreed to focus only on the constitutionality of the marriage statute and to expedite filings and arguments, so as to put the issue before the state Supreme Court as soon as possible.

Opponents such as the Defense of Marriage Coalition plan to intervene in the case, but will also stick to the single issue and run a streamlined process, lawyers for the coalition said.

The coalition, which opposes same-sex marriage, will drop another suit in Multnomah Circuit Court in order to speed the new case through, spokesman Tim Nashif has said.

The ACLU's Carson said she hopes for a circuit court decision by the end of the month. The case could be heard by the state's appeals court, although lawyers said the case would likely pass directly to the Oregon Supreme Court.

In addition to the lawsuit, some groups are working to put a measure on Oregon's November ballot to change the constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Some of the Multnomah County commissioners who supported issuing the same-sex licenses also face recall efforts.

"Our most important hope on this matter is that ultimately it be decided by a vote of the people," said Nashif of the Defense of Marriage Coalition

Firefox: One Browser To Rule Them All.

by **kpmuse** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 11:36 pm

Dem Leader Breaks From Kerry & Supports Gay Marriage

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: March 25, 2004 12:02 p.m. ET

(Washington, D.C.) House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi Wednesday said she supports same-sex marriage and approves of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

The remarks put her at odds with her party's presumed presidential nominee John Kerry but were welcomed in San Francisco, her home district.

It is the first time she has directly voiced her support for gay marriage and for Newsome. It came during an interview on Fox News. In the past Pelosi has stated her opposition to amending the US Constitution but has evaded questions on gay marriage.

Host host Neil Cavuto on her position on same-sex marriage.

"Can same sex couples marry?" Cavuto asked.

"Yes," Pelosi responded.

"So what the mayor of San Francisco is doing, you would approve of it?" Cavuto asked.

"Yes," Pelosi said.

As Democratic Party leader in the House, Pelosi is the highest ranking politician in the US to endorse gay marriage. Kerry believes marriage should be limited to heterosexual relationships, supports civil unions, opposes amending the US Constitution but supports an amendment to the constitution of his home state, Massachusetts.

Pelosi's stand raised concerns among conservative Democrats. As House Minority leader, Pelosi campaigns across the country for Democratic candidates and is a highly visible spokeswoman for the party.

"She represents the people who elected her and they expect and appreciate her leadership on this issue," said Geoff Kors Executive Director of Equality California. "The argument that this hurts other candidates...is not valid. Polls have moved dramatically on this issue."

But Winnie Stachelberg, political director of the Human Rights Campaign, in Washington, said that while she welcomed Pelosi's support for gay marriage, blocking the proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage remained the top goal for gay activists.

by **Gatito Grande** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 6:50 pm

I missed hearing about this: Dan Savage is a favorite columnist of mine. The story of his "marriage" shows the ludicrous situation we are living in.

Quote:
MY MARRIAGE LICENSE

This gay man got a marriage license in Seattle last week. Unfortunately, I only obtained it by agreeing to marry a lesbian.

by Dan Savage

According to the Seattle Times--and King County Executive Ron Sims and Lambda Legal's Jamie Pedersen--I'm to "blame" for Sims and local gay rights groups finally getting off their asses and actually doing something about gay marriage. And how did I accomplish that? By showing up at the King County Administration Building last week and obtaining--obtaining, not just asking for, but actually getting--a marriage license. There it is, right on this page, in all of its sanctity-of-marriage glory. It's got my name on it, and Ron Sims' name, and King County's seal.

I may be the only openly gay man in Washington State who has a legal marriage license. Unfortunately, it's not a license to marry my boyfriend--the guy I've lived with for 10 years, the guy I started a family with, the guy I'm still crazy about--but a license to marry my coworker, Amy Jenniges. As much as I enjoy working with her, I'm not going to leave my boyfriend for Amy.

If Sims and Pedersen want to blame me for forcing them to actually do something, fine. I accept the blame. However, let the record show that it was never my intention to sue the county, as they told the Seattle Times. Yes, it's true I obtained a marriage license. But I wasn't planning to make myself the center of a lawsuit.

So why did I apply for a marriage license last week? To make a point about the absurdity of our state's marriage laws.

Amy Jenniges lives with her girlfriend, Sonia, and I live with my boyfriend, Terry. Last Friday I accompanied Amy and Sonia to room 403, the licensing division, at the King County Administration Building. When Amy and Sonia asked the clerk for a marriage license, the clerk turned white. You could see, "Oh my God, the gay activists are here!" running through her head. County clerks in the marriage license office had been warned to expect gay couples sooner or later, but I guess this particular clerk didn't expect us to show up five minutes before closing on Friday.

The clerk called over her manager, a nice older white man, who explained that Amy and Sonia couldn't have a marriage license. So I asked if Amy and I could have one--even though I'm gay and live with my boyfriend, and Amy's a lesbian and lives with her girlfriend. We emphasized to the clerk and her manager that Amy and I don't live together, we don't love each other, we don't plan to have kids together, and we're going to go on living and sleeping with our same-sex partners after we get married. So could we still get a marriage license?

"Sure," the license-department manager said, "If you've got $54, you can have a marriage license."

The nervous clerk spelled our names wrong on the first marriage license she printed out, and when she tried to correct it, her computer crashed. So another clerk took care of us--a nice woman who appeared to be a lesbian and who got the joke. She issued us our marriage license while her manager watched.

"He's been keeping an eye on me for weeks," she said. "He's afraid I'll up and issue a license to a same-sex couple."

Her manager broke in: "If it were up to me, I'd give you a license," he said to Amy and Sonia. "But we've got to change that law first."

The nice, might-be-a-lesbian clerk told us that she was relieved that a same-sex couple had finally shown up and asked for a marriage license.

"The media calls every day and asks, 'Have any come yet?' We were beginning to think that no one was ever going to show up."

Us too--which is why we decided to take matters into our own hands. Like I said, Amy and Sonia and I didn't show up at the county building last Friday because we were planning to sue. We came to make a point about the absurdity of our marriage laws. Amy can't marry Sonia, I can't marry Terry--why? Because the sanctity of marriage must be protected from the queers! But Amy and I can get a marriage license--and into a sham marriage, if we care to, a joke marriage, one that I promise you won't produce children. And we can do this with the state's blessing--why? Because one of us is a man and one of us is a woman. Who cares that one of us is a gay man and one of us is a lesbian? So marriage is to be protected from the homos--unless the homos marry each other.

Is it putting too fine a point on it to say that this is a pretty fucked-up situation?

Finally, almost as maddening as the fact that the county will issue me and Amy a marriage license but not Amy and Sonia, is the fact that we were, according to the people we spoke with at the county, the first same-sex couple that showed up asking for a marriage license. We've been beating up the straight politicians for weeks on this issue but now I have to ask: What the hell is wrong with the queers in this town? We sat in our offices waiting for someone to call for a demonstration, trying to be good media types and report on the news instead of trying to make it. But eventually we got tired of waiting and Amy Jenniges wrote a call to arms in last week's Stranger, a call that led to Monday morning's demonstration in the county building. Our call to arms and the hard work of Brian Peters evidently freaked the shit out of Sims and led to the filing of a lawsuit on behalf of six gay couples. Great. About time. But this should have happened weeks ago.

Anyway, we're happy there's finally been some action. And I'm happy to have a "marriage license." It's not the marriage license I'd like to have, of course. But, still, let me count my blessings: I have a 10-year relationship (but not the marriage license), a house (but not the marriage license), a kid (but not the marriage license), and my boyfriend's credit-card bills (but not the marriage license). I don't know what a guy has to do around here to get the marriage license. But I guess it's some consolation that I can get a meaningless one anytime I like, just so long as I bring along a woman I don't love and my $54.

www.thestranger.com/2004-...city4.html

GG Just think: Dan's "marriage" to a lesbian is what the Federal Marriage Amendment is designed to "protect" Out

by **Kieli** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 9:39 am

I thought this might be interesting. It's a bit from our local paper, The Richmond Times Dispatch:

Traditional Family "A Myth"

Or you can read the article here:

Quote:
'Traditional family' a myth, historian says

But marriage between a man and a woman is still most common

BY MARILYN RAUBER

MEDIA GENERAL NEWS SERVICE Mar 28, 2004

WASHINGTON - Families aren't what they used to be.

More than 4,000 gay couples tied the knot when San Francisco opened its doors to same-sex marriage last month. The latest U.S. census found that gay partners are raising children in virtually every corner of the country.

The New York Times runs gay commitment announcements on its wedding pages, and syndicated "Miss Manners" columnist Judith Martin is grappling with gay-marriage etiquette.

"Dear Miss Manners: If my same-sex marriage is eventually invalidated . . . am I obligated to return all my wedding presents?" a reader asked. Martin said no.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week, Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, a Colorado Republican who sponsored a constitutional ban on gay marriage, lamented the demise of "traditional marriage."

"The only way to preserve traditional marriage is a constitutional amendment," Musgrave told the panel.

But family historian Stephanie Coontz argues that the traditional image of the family - with a stay-at-home mom, breadwinner dad and two kids - is a modern myth.

"We think of it as a tradition, but it was a fluke," said Coontz, co-chairwoman of the Council on Contemporary Families, which studies family issues.

The nuclear family emerged in the aftermath of World War II, spawned by family-friendly incentives such as the GI Bill, veterans benefits, the welfare safety net and medical breakthroughs that kept spouses alive longer.

"Marriage is a fluid institution," said Steven Nock, a University of Virginia sociology professor. "What we celebrate as traditional family values are really not traditional," he said.

The trends toward couples marrying later, both spouses working full time and the prevalence of single-parent families mirror marriage in the pre-industrial revolution era, Nock said.

Back then, partners waited to inherit property before marrying, both spouses worked on the family farm or in the store, and single-parent families were common due to death, not divorce.

Despite the recent focus on same-sex marriage, marriage between a man and a woman is still the most common living arrangement in the United States, according to the 2000 census.

Married couples made up more than half of all U.S. households in 2000, and seven in 10 children lived in two-parent families, including step-parents and adoptive parents.

Although four in 10 marriages are likely to end in divorce, the rate is slowly dropping. There also are signs that affluent couples are having more than the average two children, according to Coontz, who is writing a book on the history of marriage.

Acknowledging changes in modern family life, the Census Bureau in 1990 included "unmarried partner" as a category of household relationships. The 2000 census found the number of unmarried couples rising.

About 5.5 million unmarried couples were living together in 2000, up from 3.2 million in 1990. The 2000 survey found that 594,000 of the couples were gay.

Gay couples with children live in 96 percent of all counties across the nation and are most likely to be found in areas with a higher concentration of heterosexual couples with children, said Lisa Bennett, family project director for the Human Rights Campaign, which champions gay rights.

For example, couples in the South, gay and heterosexual, are more likely to be raising children than gay and traditional couples elsewhere.

"It shows how similar gay people are to their surroundings," said Gary Gates, a demographer with the Urban Institute, an economic and social-policy think tank.

The Washington-based Human Rights Campaign says seven states - California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Vermont - specifically allow same-sex couples to adopt children and grant joint legal parentage in cases in which one partner is the biological parent. Jurisdictions in 16 other states grant various gay adoption rights.

Florida is the only state that bans gay singles and couples from adopting children.

But Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a Christian group that promotes traditional families, sees the push for same-sex marriage as "more radical" than the 1970s move to no-fault divorce. Perkins blames no-fault divorce for a 34 percent rise in the divorce rate between 1970 and 1990 and a 125 percent increase in single-parent households.

Perkins said he fears that same-sex weddings would signal the end of meaningful marriage. "It becomes just a package of benefits and nothing else."

In addition to a gay-marriage ban, Perkins favors tighter divorce laws. The former Louisiana state lawmaker helped fashion a "covenant marriage" law in 1997, which makes it harder for couples to divorce.

More than two dozen states, including Virginia, have debated the idea, but only Arkansas and Arizona passed legislation similar to Louisiana's. Couples can choose a traditional marriage contract or one that requires pre-marital and divorce counseling and limits the grounds for divorce.

U.Va.'s Nock said only about two in every 100 Louisiana couples have opted for covenant marriage.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

by **Warduke** » Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:43 pm

From Yahoo...

Quote:
Mass. Lawmakers Agree on Gay Marriage Ban

By JENNIFER PETER, Associated Press Writer

BOSTON - The Massachusetts Legislature adopted a new version of a state constitutional amendment Monday that would ban gay marriage and legalize civil unions, eliminating consideration of any other proposed changes.

The vote came at the opening of the third round of a constitutional convention on the contentious issue, as competing cries of "Jesus Christ" and "Equal Rights" shook the Statehouse outside the legislative chamber.

Lawmakers had voted earlier this month in favor of a similar amendment. The revised version adopted Monday would ask voters to simultaneously ban gay marriage and legalize civil unions — rather than taking those steps separately. It clarifies that civil unions would not grant federal benefits to gay couples.

By adopting the new language, lawmakers blocked consideration of several other amendments — including ones that would have weakened the civil union provision and one that would have split the question in two, allowing voters to weigh in separately on gay marriage and civil unions.

The Legislature must still take two more votes before the amendment is considered approved. If that happens, it will go to the 2005-2006 Legislature for further consideration before going to the voters in the fall of 2006.

Under a state high court ruling issued in November, the nation's first state-sanctioned gay marriage will take place in Massachusetts on May 17. The constitutional amendment would have no effect on this deadline, but Gov. Mitt Romney has said he might seek a way to delay the marriages if a constitutional amendment were adopted this year.

The version adopted Monday is the best possible solution, said Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees.

"There is no single clear solution to this issue," said Lees, who sponsored the measure with Senate President Robert Travaglini. "If there was such a solution, we wouldn't be here today. But this amendment attempts to strike a balance between those citizens who want to be heard in defining marriage yet never taking away the rights and benefits of gay and lesbian couples."

Gay-rights supporters wanted lawmakers to uphold the full marriage rights accorded by the state's highest court, the Supreme Judicial Court, in November. Conservatives wanted an amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman but without creating civil unions.

While gay marriage supporters dominated the halls of the Statehouse on the three previous days of the constitutional convention, in mid-February and mid-March, hundreds of religious opponents of gay marriage mixed into the crowd on Monday.

Police tried to ensure that the close quarters and high emotions did not lead to physical conflicts.

"This is a very crowded situation, and it could be one in which some little thing might set something off," said State Police Lt. Paul Maloney. "It's a much more intermingled group than we've seen in the past."

After each intonation of "Jesus" by gay rights opponents, gay rights advocates tacked on "loves us." The two opposing sides then shouted "Jesus Christ" and "Equal Rights" simultaneously, blending into a single, indistinguishable chant.

"I'm just here to support Christ," said Olivia Long, 32, of Boston, a parishioner at New Covenant Christian Church. "We love all people, but we want to keep it like it was in the beginning."

Next to her, Eric Carreno, 26, of Somerville, held a sign that read: "Christ does not discriminate. Why do Christians?"

"I think my Christian brothers and sisters need to understand tolerance," Carreno said. "They need to understand that Jesus never said anything bad against a homosexual."

San Francisco officials have performed more than 3,400 same-sex marriages and some other counties and cities have challenged laws barring such unions. President Bush has endorsed a movement to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban the practice.

Firefox: One Browser To Rule Them All.

by **Gatito Grande** » Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:17 pm

Quote:
The vote came at the opening of the third round of a constitutional convention on the contentious issue, as competing cries of "Jesus Christ" and "Equal Rights" shook the Statehouse outside the legislative chamber.

Quote:
Next to her, Eric Carreno, 26, of Somerville, held a sign that read: "Christ does not discriminate. Why do Christians?"

"I think my Christian brothers and sisters need to understand tolerance," Carreno said. "They need to understand that Jesus never said anything bad against a homosexual."

Damn straight!

Quote:
Under a state high court ruling issued in November, the nation's first state-sanctioned gay marriage will take place in Massachusetts on May 17. The constitutional amendment would have no effect on this deadline, but Gov. Mitt Romney has said he might seek a way to delay the marriages if a constitutional amendment were adopted this year.

What's this about? He's dreaming, right?

I'm curious about one thing: as I understand it, the amendment is supposed to "automatically convert" any same-sex marriages to civil unions when/if (Please God, NO) the amendment is approved by the voters. But isn't that then an "ex post-facto" (retroactive) law, which is specifically banned by the U.S. Constitution? (State constitutions cannot violate the U.S. Constitution)

GG Hello, John Kerry? This is Your Conscience calling. "It clarifies that civil unions would not grant federal benefits to gay couples": this is what's known as "Separate and Unequal." Persons who would be President of ALL citizens of the U.S. denounce such Bullsh*t. Capice? Out

by **maudmac** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 11:40 pm

Interesting/funny stuff:

Attack of the Gay Agenda!!!

Where Is My Gay Apocalypse?

12 Reasons Same-Sex Marriage will Ruin Society

Bush's version of the Constitution

dreams of the drifters die hard, y'all / bodies dance through the dark to submission
fast feet and saturday night leave you nowhere to stand / but nobody here is leaving

by **Warduke** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:51 am

From Yahoo...

Quote:
Father, Son Clash on Gay Marriage Issue

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - When David Knight married his boyfriend of 10 years, his parents were not among the mothers and fathers proudly snapping photos and sipping champagne at San Francisco's City Hall. His mother is long gone, dead of cancer when he was 17. And his father, well his father ...

These are precarious times for the gay son of state Sen. William J. "Pete" Knight, the arch-conservative architect of California's Defense of Marriage Act.

"He believes in something I don't," David Knight says, his voice tight with checked emotion as he talks about the patriarch he idolized in his youth. "I'm sorry about that and I feel sad that we can't discuss it ... I don't agree with him, but I think he's a good man."

Whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry moved from a hypothetical question to a presidential campaign topic after Massachusetts' highest court and San Francisco's mayor forced the issue, prompting conservatives to call for rewriting the U.S. Constitution and dividing state legislatures across the land.

For the Knights, it's the ultimate wedge issue.

The elder Knight, a 75-year-old Republican being termed out of office this year, is California's most outspoken opponent of marriage for gay and lesbian couples. Since spearheading the 2000 ballot initiative that reinforced California's "one man, one woman" marriage laws, he has used the courts to keep state agencies from granting spousal rights to same-sex couples. His nonprofit group is at the center of the legal challenges to San Francisco's same-sex wedding spree.

The younger, a 42-year-old custom furniture maker in Baltimore, flew to the city with his longtime partner and got married just two days before the California Supreme Court shut down the weddings. The court is considering whether city officials had the authority to contravene state law by sanctioning almost 4,000 gay and lesbian marriages.

Sen. Knight would not talk about his son, or his son's legally uncertain marriage to Joseph Lazzarro, an architectural designer. But during an interview with The Associated Press, he insisted his drive to keep gays from marrying doesn't make him anti-gay.

"We've had homosexuals since time immemorial," he said, "and nobody cared as long as they did their work and they didn't flaunt their sexuality and didn't try to push it on you and say, 'You have to accept me.' But now they are going to say they want to be classified as normal, and I can't accept the fact that two men, married, is normal."

The senator, who represents a heavily Republican Southern California district, took his 14-word California Defense of Marriage Act to voters after twice failing to get a similar bill through the Democrat-controlled Legislature.

Years earlier, David Knight had told his father he was in a committed relationship with another man.

David Knight was the only one of the retired Air Force colonel's three sons to follow their father, a record-setting test pilot, into a career as a military pilot. He graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy and flew jets in the first Persian Gulf War.

"My father was certainly proud of me. He spoke at my pilot training graduation," David Knight recalled.

After he came out, David said everything they shared was severed by their disagreement over what his father considers an unacceptable lifestyle.

"As far as the rejection, it's hurt every day since, and that's just a reality," David Knight said. "I don't think he's proud of me anymore, but I will say I could call my father at any time and he would not hang up on me."

The younger Knight doesn't think his father's crusade has anything to do with his own sexual orientation.

David Knight nevertheless felt compelled to lend his voice to the heated campaign over "the Knight initiative," as Proposition 22 became known. His opinion piece for the Los Angeles Times in 1999, "My Father is Wrong on Gays," characterized his estranged father's position as "a blind, uncaring, uninformed, knee-jerk reaction to a subject about which he knows nothing and wants to know nothing."

David did not publicly counter his father's politics again until San Francisco's historic experiment.

With the senator calling the parade of unprecedented nuptials "a sideshow," his son found himself torn between familial loyalty and his responsibility as a gay man to make another statement.

"The worst image David could muster for himself was that he would be the poster child, and it has taken a long time for him to understand that you can do that without selling your guts," said Lazzaro, 39, the more naturally extroverted of the pair.

The son could not be talked out of going through with the marriage. The memory of his father reaching out to shake his hand at family events, while refusing to greet or even look at Lazzaro, still angered him.

"We're a classic conservative family — keep it in the closet. If you don't talk about it, it's not a problem," he said. "I know I have my father's love and I honestly feel that, but I want his acknowledgment. I want him to recognize me and Joe."

As the gay offspring of a conservative politician, David Knight belongs to a small but visible group that also includes the lesbian daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney and the gay son of Christian activist Phyllis Schlafly.

Knight and his new husband have a reality check of sorts in Lazzaro's parents. Although it took time for them to accept them as a couple, his mother gave them matching rose boutonnieres to wear on their wedding day. Joseph Lazzaro later called his father, a retired auto worker, not knowing what to expect.

"He said, 'Congratulations, I'm very proud of you,'" Lazzaro recalled. "I told him about how it went with David's dad, and my dad said, 'I feel sorry for David's dad because he is just missing out on so much and there is going to be a hollow place in his life.'"

Firefox: One Browser To Rule Them All.

by **tyche** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 1:00 pm

Quote:
sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/04/06/BAGBG610IJ1.DTL

THE BATTLE OVER SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

Gays find marriage a mixed bag

License doesn't guarantee benefits granted heterosexual couples

Rona Marech, Chronicle Staff Writer

When Kory O'Rourke called her car insurance company and asked that her spouse be added to her plan, the representative on the other end of the phone "didn't blink" -- even when it became clear that O'Rourke meant her same-sex partner, whom she had just married in San Francisco.

"Oh, congratulations," the representative at the Progressive Group of Insurance Companies said. "I'm going to issue you a $78 credit, so you guys be sure to go out and have a nice dinner on us."

O'Rourke was thrilled -- but it turns out the exchange should never have taken place. In changing O'Rourke's coverage, the representative apparently violated company policy. Progressive is not officially recognizing marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples, although it is investigating whether to change its policy, said spokesperson Todd Morgano.

Confusion and discrepancy are all too common, as gay newlyweds have returned home from San Francisco and other wedding-positive cities and started to demand a few of the benefits that come with marriage. The federal government has compiled a list of 1,049 rights and responsibilities contingent on marriage -- from survivor's rights to Social Security benefits. Many gay couples have begun with simple steps: asking their employers and insurers to offer them the same health care and car insurance coverage extended to married heterosexuals. The results have been decidedly mixed.

The conversation David Greer of Chicago held with a human resources employee at Dean Foods, the dairy processing and distribution company where he works, is typical of the conversations that have played out in personnel offices nationwide.

According to Greer, he explained he had married his same-sex partner in San Francisco and wanted to change his official marital status and add his new husband to his health care plan. The addition would mean Greer's partner -- who is self-employed -- would be required to pay only a fraction of the $500 monthly health insurance premium he now pays, Greer said.

The officer responded that the company doesn't offer domestic partner benefits.

"But this isn't a domestic partnership," Greer said. "This is marriage."

Acting on orders from Mayor Gavin Newsom, San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in February. A month later, the state Supreme Court ruled that the city had to cease issuing the licenses. The court will decide this summer whether Newsom had the authority to defy Proposition 22, the voter-approved ballot measure that defines marriage as only between a man and woman.

"The courts have not declared the license illegal, so until they do, we consider the license a legal document," Greer said.

Between Feb. 12 and March 11, 4,037 same-sex couples obtained marriage licenses in San Francisco.

After some back and forth, Dean Foods told Greer they would not recognize his partner.

Greer bridled when a personnel representative told him to be patient. "I had asked two years ago about domestic partner benefits, and I was told at that time they wouldn't be extended," he said "I felt I had been patient enough. ... I just wanted to be treated fairly."

Dean Foods responded in a statement that "the California attorney general has stated that the marriage licenses in question 'are not recognized by the State of California' and were issued 'in violation of state law.' " The company will abide by the California Supreme Court's decision, it said.

O'Rourke, an English teacher at South San Francisco High School, says she's never been an activist, but marrying her girlfriend in San Francisco changed that. "Something about standing there for five minutes and having them tell me I'm the same as everyone else," she said.

Though her spouse has health insurance coverage through her own job, O'Rourke approached the South San Francisco Unified School District's Personnel Department and asked to add her partner, Kate Sheppard, to her health plan.

She didn't hear back for almost a month, but last week -- after several calls from a reporter -- the assistant superintendent of personnel services said the district would extend equal benefits to all married employees, whether they are in a heterosexual or gay relationship. Married spouses are entitled to dental and vision coverage, benefits domestic partners do not have under the district's current plan.

"It's such a feeling of more than acceptance," O'Rourke said. "Not only do they tolerate me, they embrace me. ... It's such a gesture of good faith."

In the legal chaos the same-sex marriages have produced, some major health and car insurance companies have taken positions as follows: Kaiser Permanente, the health care provider, and AAA of Northern California, which provides auto insurance, are recognizing same-sex spouses and will continue to do so unless the state Supreme Court rules that the licenses are invalid, spokes- people said.

But State Farm Insurance, which offers car, home, health insurance, is taking the opposite tact -- the company is waiting for the court ruling this summer before changing its spousal policies, according to spokesperson Bill Sirola.

San Francisco resident Annye Bone, who works at an adult materials wholesaler in the city, said that after a bit of dogged pushing, her employers -- she did not name them for fear of upsetting supervisors -- had given her a change of status form to add her spouse to her health plan.

The company doesn't cover any part of a spouse's premium -- in this case, $283 -- but the switch is important, because Bone's provider, Health Net, pays for allergy and antidepressant medication, and her partner doesn't get that coverage on her current plan.

Bone is waiting for the paperwork to get processed. But Brad Kieffer, a spokesperson at Health Net, said the company didn't recognize same-sex marriages. California employers can opt to offer workers domestic partner coverage, he said, but a marriage license cannot be substituted for proof of domestic partnership.

It has been much less complicated for Michael Coburn, 39, of Albuquerque. He married Randy Elliott in Sandoval County in New Mexico on Feb. 20, and soon after, he asked his employer, Honeywell International, to add his spouse to his health plan. The company immediately complied with his request.

Honeywell International did not comment on their benefits policy.

The change doesn't affect Coburn financially, he said, because the company already offers domestic partner health care benefits. And every employer must treat same-sex spouses as domestic partners for tax purposes under IRS regulations. That means that unlike married heterosexuals, married gay workers must pay income tax on the value of the benefit. This is true even in cities such as San Francisco and San Jose, which both recognize the marriages of gay city employees.

But money wasn't the point for Coburn.

When he recently checked his online benefits page, he was "tickled" to find his partner listed as "spouse."

"It was essentially that simple," he said.

E-mail Rona Marech at rmarech@sfchronicle.com

What kind of novels do you write: fiction or nonfiction? - US immigration officer to Ian McEwan

by **urnofosiris** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 5:22 am

Quote:
This is a letter that was written by my girlfriend last week on her live journal. I figured I'd share.

BTW, for some reason in some places, Bette Midler is being credited as the author. We have no idea how or why or when that happened but it's out there.

D

GODisTigger, I'm a bit late with this reply, it is very nice to see you post again. I just wanted to say that this great letter is making rounds outside the internet now. Saturday, I was reading the the celebritý page of my newspaper and the woman who makes the columns had a blurb about this letter and Bette Midler. The letter itself was not printed, it are only short columns with some celebrity gossip, but it talked about a letter about gay marriage to George Bush being attributed to Bette Midler, who is a great proponent of gay marriage. She (Bette Midler) thought it was a wonderful letter but unfortunately she did not write it.

This woman is always a week late with her news (usually gossip rather than news). I hardly ever read something in her columns that I have not read on this board already. She clearly gets her news from other sources so she did not interview Bette Midler herself, but I was very pleased to read this. If mentions of this letter manage to find their way halfway across the world into a Dutch newspaper, it must mean the word is really getting around. Very cool.

Edited by: DrG at: 4/7/04 4:23 am

by **sheila wt** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 6:13 pm

CNN

Quote:
NEW YORK (AP) -- Thirteen same-sex couples sued the state of New York on Wednesday, seeking to have the state law that denies gay and lesbian couples the right to marry declared unconstitutional.

"This case is about ending the discrimination that is currently written into the marriage laws of New York," said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, at a news conference.

Plaintiffs include state Assembly member Daniel O'Donnell and his partner of 23 years, John Banta. The NYCLU, the American Civil Liberties Union and a private law firm are representing the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit charges that state health regulations defining marriage as being only between a man and a woman violates the state Constitution's equal protection, privacy and due process provisions.

The health department and state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer have said that the state prohibits clerks from issuing licenses to same sex couples, but Spitzer has said state laws may be open to a constitutional challenge.

Many of the couples at the news conference said they had hoped to be married by New Paltz Mayor Jason West, who now faces misdemeanor charges for officiating at 25 gay weddings.

O'Donnell's sister, comedian Rosie O'Donnell, was married at a ceremony in San Francisco in February to her partner, Kelli Carpenter. But O'Donnell said he was born and raised in New York, and "I want to get married here in Manhattan at the Plaza."

--------------------------
"She had tasted Willow on her tongue, and she had worn Willow on her skin. There wasn't a shower in the world that could have washed that away." (Terra Firma, by Tulipp)

by **WebWarlock** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 5:11 am

Remember folks, not everyone from the South is this stupid.

www.chicagotribune.com/ne...i-news-hed

Quote:

In South, issue of gay marriage exposes hate and fear

By Dahleen Glanton

Tribune national correspondent

Published April 8, 2004

DAYTON, Tenn. -- As a longtime crusader for conservative Christian values in this Bible Belt town, June Griffin has taken on everything from preserving anti-sodomy laws to fighting the state lottery. But the biggest challenge yet, she said, is the issue of same-sex marriage.

"They are forcing their way into our towns, breaking our doors down, saying, `We are sodomites and there is nothing you can do about it.' They want to be able to commit sodomy without it being called a crime, and then cover up their sins with our tax dollars," said Griffin, 64, a Dayton minister.

"We still have mountain boys living here," she said, "and they might not know much about giving speeches, but if you come across their property, they will fill you with lead. This is a God-fearing place, and we don't see anything wrong with running [homosexuals] out of town."

Last month, the Rhea County commissioners moved to ban homosexuals from living in the county, but rescinded the motion two days later after an outpouring of opposition.

While many Christians are calling for tolerance, some evangelicals see homosexuality and same-sex marriage as an assault on the most sacred values of their religion. Nowhere has the opposition to gay marriage been more intense than in the South, where conservative Christian values are firmly ingrained.

Already angry over failed efforts to display the 10 Commandments in public buildings and offer prayer in schools, evangelical Protestants have deemed gay marriage their No.1 concern among social issues when it comes to choosing a candidate to vote for, surpassing abortion and gun control, according to polls.

As gay couples have obtained marriage licenses in places such as San Francisco and upstate New York, local governments in the South are scurrying to find ways to keep from legally recognizing them.

Last week, Georgia, which already has a law banning gay marriage, approved a constitutional amendment ensuring that same-sex couples would not be allowed to wed. The amendment will appear on the November ballot, and is likely to energize Christian conservatives at the polls, according to political science experts.

"We are overwhelmingly opposed to same-sex marriage and we are overwhelmingly in support of a federal constitutional amendment to ban it," said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. "The courts are trying to force us to redefine the nature of the family, the basic building block of human society. It's a dangerous move, and people won't allow it."

The message is being spread throughout the South that homosexuality is not acceptable.

Sinful, destructive lifestyle

The Southern Baptist Convention, with more than 16 million members and 42,000 churches nationwide, has undertaken an initiative to convince gays that they can become heterosexual if they accept Jesus Christ and reject their "sinful, destructive lifestyle." The "hate the sin but love the sinner" message is being taught in thousands of adult Sunday school classes across the country.

In New Orleans, fundamentalist Christians tried to ban the annual Southern Decadence festival, or "gay Mardi Gras," an event that draws thousands of homosexuals. A conservative Christian lobbying group has vowed to end the popular Gay Days at Disney World in Florida, equating the annual gathering to "a meeting of the Ku Klux Klan." Across the South, churches are holding rallies and preachers are denouncing homosexuality from the pulpit.

In Wilmington, N.C., parents complained that the elementary school library carried the children's book "King & King," in which a prince falls in love with another prince. The Atlanta Human Relations Commission recently found that Druid Hills Golf Club, a private country club, discriminated against gay couples by refusing to provide spousal memberships as it does for straight couples. In Lafayette, La., a teacher scolded a 7-year-old boy in front of his classmates and sent him to a school behavioral clinic for telling another student about his lesbian mothers.

But one of the most direct actions against homosexuality was what happened in Dayton--a town of about 6,000 residents located about 25 miles north of Chattanooga. Dayton is best known as the site of the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, in which John Scopes, represented by Chicago attorney Clarence Darrow, was convicted of teaching evolution in school.

Rhea County commissioners said they thought they were passing a resolution supporting a constitutional amendment forbidding same-sex marriage, but instead, the motion sought state legislative approval to charge homosexuals with crimes against nature. It also gave the county attorney authority to come up with a law to ban homosexuals from living in the county.

"We need to keep them out of here," Commissioner J.C. Fugate said when introducing the motion. His comment was met with laughter and applause from the audience.

Two days later, after thousands of letters, e-mails and phone calls from throughout the world, they rescinded the motion.

"We couldn't have paid $2 million to get this kind of publicity, but it's the kind of thing that never goes away," said Rhea County Atty. Gary Fritts, who said he planned to rework the motion to reflect the county's opposition to gay marriage. "This [gay marriage] has caused irreparable harm all over the world. Some people are embarrassed and want to look down on us, but a lot of people have called and said, `Hey, go to it, boy.'"

Some sympathize

Gay activists have gotten involved in the controversy, and recently 300 people showed up at the county courthouse to protest. There has been talk of having a "gay float" in the annual Strawberry Festival parade and holding a "Rhea County Gay Day" this summer that would attract homosexuals from all over the country. A Chattanooga radio station drew angry callers who promised that visiting gays would be met with violence.

As a conservative evangelical Christian, Kenneth Daniel Miller does not condone violence, but he sees homosexuality and same-sex marriage as "a sin that goes against God's command."

"They want us to endorse the homosexual lifestyle, but Christians will never do that," said Miller, 23, who graduated with a degree in Bible from Bryan College, a religious institution in Dayton. "If we allow gay marriage, it will dehumanize people and they will be no different than some kind of mechanized cog."

Bobbi Riggles, 48, and her husband, Steve, 54, said they are appalled at the way their neighbors are carrying on over gay marriage. They believe the commissioners are out of touch with many people who live in Rhea County.

"The entire county does not think like that, and most of us were shocked that something like that was said," said Bobbi Riggles, who moved to Dayton with her husband from New Jersey 10 years ago. "This has drawn a line between the fundamentalist people and those of us who are more accepting. And we are just embarrassed by it all."

Josh Runyon, 27, who grew up in Dayton, used to believe he would go to hell because he is gay. Everywhere he went, people reminded him of it--on the street, in the fast-food restaurant where he worked and in the church where he worshiped.

Since he came out at age 14, Runyon, the son of a preacher, has grown used to Christians telling him that his sexual orientation is an abomination and quoting the Bible to make their point. Some offered to pray for him; others threatened to burn a cross on his front lawn if he didn't renounce his sexuality.

"Christianity stopped making sense to me, so when I turned 18, I left the church. I just didn't feel welcome," said Runyon, who later moved to Chattanooga. "People are locked in ideas from 20 years ago. I was taught that homosexuality is a sin and that gay people were going to hell. So I decided to stop going to church and just be gay."

Rev. Matthew Nevels, a former Southern Baptist minister, said he left the convention after church members shunned his son when he was dying of AIDS. Nevels, of Chattanooga, is president of Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.

`Fear is based on ignorance'

"So many pastors have master's degrees in divinity or PhDs in theology, but they follow a prescribed course of study in seminaries that don't offer any research on sexuality. There is an unwillingness to look at things in an open-minded way," said Nevels, associate pastor of Pilgrim Congregational Church in Chattanooga.

"The fear is based on ignorance," he said. "And the majority of people in the churches just accept what society dishes out without challenging it. They accept that being gay is a sin because of one or two verses in the Bible, which often are misinterpreted."

Bill Watson, 36, and his partner, Jason McDowell, 25, can't understand why people are so angry over same-sex marriage. They live in an apartment in Chattanooga where they are raising McDowell's 5-year-old nephew. Recently they flew to San Francisco to get married, and now they hope to adopt the child, whose mother is too ill to care for him.

They said they are prepared to go to court to challenge Tennessee's anti-gay-marriage law as well as the law that prohibits same-sex couples from jointly adopting children.

"People used to criticize gays for being promiscuous, and here we are trying to have a monogamous relationship and people are upset about that," said McDowell, a nurse. "When people come to our home, they see this is a normal family. We are not running around in tutus like you see on TV. We are boring. We come home, put the baby to bed and go to sleep. If we are lucky, we can get a movie in."

Steve White, director of Chattanooga CARES, an AIDS resource center, said images of same-sex couples have sparked fear and furor among fundamentalist Christians. "There is a certain level of fear and loathing in places such as Rhea County, and they use that fear as an excuse to hate," White said. "These are rural people who want to be separate from the people in New York and San Francisco. So any sort of differences are discouraged."

"We are at a crossroads here, and it is not going to be a gentle discussion. It is going to be a fight," he said. "But if you look throughout history, people who are afraid lose the battles, and people who have courage win. I think we have seen the faces of the people who are afraid."

Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune

I grew up in an area where the Klan had one of it's national headquarters nearby. I have seen people accept these swaggering, illiterate assholes who are perfectly forthcoming in their desire to violence against another person because how they were born, but they can't accept two people in love that just want to be left the hell alone??

Warlock

-----

Web Warlock

Coming Soon to The Other Side, The Netbook of Shadows: A Book of Spells for d20 Witches

"I’m so glad that I know more than I knew then.

Gonna keep on tryin’ till I reach the highest ground." - Stevie Wonder, "Higher Ground"

by **sheila wt** » Fri Apr 09, 2004 12:52 am

The Crucial Rights Under Tort Law That Only Spouses Can Assert

Quote:

What Gay Couples Lack -- Besides Marriage:

The Crucial Rights Under Tort Law That Only Spouses Can Assert

By ANTHONY J. SEBOK

Friday, Apr. 09, 2004

On Wednesday, April 7, thirteen same-sex couples, with the aid of the New York Civil Liberties Union, sued New York State. They argue that New York should allow them to get married, and has violated their rights by refusing to allow them to do so. This suit is just the latest episode in a series of low-intensity conflicts surrounding the question of whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to be married.

The debate over same-sex marriage has been described by partisans on both sides as a fight over cultural, as much as material, gains. The cultural stakes are very high. However, I think it is important to remember that in most of the country, gay and lesbians couples still lack many of the material benefits that come from marriage.

In this column I want to discuss just one small set of those benefits--the rights in tort that the law gives spouses.

Who Can Sue in Tort, Besides the Person Directly Injured

In tort law, the right to recover damages for negligence that causes personal injuries usually remains in the hands of the person who has been injured. Thus, suppose Dan, while driving, hits Paula and injures her. Paula can sue Dan for her personal injuries.

However, sometimes individuals other than Paula can also sue, even if they were not physically injured by Dan. For instance, if Paula died from her injuries, Paula's immediate family -- including her parents -- could bring a wrongful death action against Dan.

What would the damages be? In New York, as in most states, Dan could be held responsible to Paula's family for the lost pecuniary benefits she would have provided them had she lived, as well as for her conscious pain and suffering before she died.

Furthermore, Dan could be sued by Paula's husband for the "loss of consortium" he would suffer even if Paula was not dead, but merely unable to provide him companionship while she was recuperating. ("Consortium" includes sexual companionship, but is certainly not limited to it.)

Finally, in most states, Dan could be sued by Paula's immediate family for their emotional distress if they were present when Paula was struck. This is commonly known as the "bystander rule" for negligent infliction of emotional distress - NIED - If a mother is a "bystander," looking on, when her child is hit by a car, then she can sue and recover.

The Pattern Underlying the Tort Rules: Special Benefits for the "Nuclear" Family

The rules for wrongful death, loss of consortium and NIED are quite technical, and they take up more than a few hours in a first year torts class. But as my students quickly perceive, there is a pattern to the rules.

The pattern is this: The rules clearly give members of the "nuclear" family benefits in tort that no one else has. And, most relevant for our purposes, they rules clearly give to married spouses more benefits than even children might have.

Not a Marriage Incentive, but a Special Material and Emotional Aid

It is always fun to ask students whether they believe that these benefits actually do help incentivize couples to marry -- and courts have sometimes claimed. (These courts are typically stretching to try to explain why, for example, couples who cohabit cannot sue for NIED or loss of consortium and married couples can -- even though both equally lose companionship.)

The "incentive" argument is tenuous at best. It's hard to believe, by comparison, that the so-called "marriage penalty" in the tax code could have been a reason for the decreasing marriage rate in the United States. And it's equally hard to believe that couples marry in order to maximize the damages they might claim if their spouse was grievously injured.

Nevertheless, these can play an important role in people's lives after a horrible accident has happened that turns their lives upside down. The availability of compensation through tort litigation may be as important to grieving spouses as life insurance -- yet it need not be bought through costly premiums, and it is available whether or not one has planned for the future.

In very simple, material ways, the extra money can help bereft partners focus on the important things -- such as helping the injured spouse recover, or, in the case of death, moving on to a new, post-tragedy life.

Furthermore, as the experience with the 9/11 Compensation Fund has shown, there is an important symbolic value to these tort rules. As the Special Master, Kenneth Feinberg, has reported, many parents, children and spouses found the process of claiming money under the Fund's rules to be cathartic.

And conversely, when family members have been excluded from the distribution of the money, their main complaint is that they feel that the government, is denying that the significance or reality of their relationship with their loved one -- while recognizing others with their loved ones.

A Comparison: States' Tort Rules Regarding Unmarried Heterosexual Partners

It is for all these reasons that the partners of gays and lesbians have a strong interest -- emotional, material, and symbolic -- in being included under the rules that favor heterosexual married couples.

The argument for the exclusion of gay or lesbian partners, until now, has been the presented as the same as the argument for the exclusion of heterosexual partners who are not married to the accident victim. (Of course, the argument is not really the same, however: Unmarried heterosexual partners at least had the marriage option; unmarried gay or lesbian partners, until recently, obviously did not.)

Most states do not allow heterosexual couples who "merely" live together to claim the same rights as married couples. For example, California -- which had been famously expansive of tort rights -- rejected in 1988 a claim by a cohabiting boyfriend who witnessed his girlfriend's death in Elden v. Shelden. The California Supreme Court cited the need for "bright line rules" is designing tort claims for "bystanders."

Not all states have been so formalistic with the rules concerning heterosexual couples, however. In 1994, in Dunphy v. Gregor, the New Jersey Supreme Court allowed the fiancé of a man who was scalded to death to sue for NIED even though she was not married to the victim whose death she observed.

The New Jersey court rejected the California court's reasoning. It held, instead, that whether someone's connection to a victim of an accident was "close and intimate" was something that could be decided on a case-by-case basis.

A number of courts, such as New Mexico and New Hampshire, have followed New Jersey's lead, but they are still in the minority.

Even Unmarried Heterosexual and Homosexual Couples Are Not Legally Equal

Furthermore, no state has taken the further step of allowing a same-sex couple to satisfy the functional "intimacy" test set out by the New Jersey Supreme Court -- so that one partner could recover for witnessing the other's death.

That means that, in the eyes of the tort system, gay and lesbian couples are not treated the same when it comes to wrongful death, loss of consortium and NIED as even certain cohabiting heterosexual couples. This is wrong.

Four states have tried to tackle this inequity. In California, for example, there was a public outcry with respect to this issue (among others) when, in 2001, Diane Whipple -- a San Francisco lacrosse coach -- was mauled by two dogs owned by a neighbor in her apartment buildings. Whipple's longtime companion could not sue for wrongful death or NIED because they were lesbians, and (thus) were not married.

The California Legislature then amended the state tort law to allow that "domestic partners shall be entitled to recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress to the same extent that spouses are entitled to do so under California law." Plainly, the law extends to both homosexual and heterosexual partnerships.

Some States Have Addressed This Inequality with Domestic Partnership Laws

Three other states -- Vermont, Hawaii, and New Jersey -- have handled the problem by passing broad domestic partnership laws that provide to same-sex domestic partners many but (but not all) of the same rights enjoyed by married heterosexual couples.

Vermont and Hawaii have the most expansive domestic partnership regimes. Both were created in response to court decisions that threatened to force the states to allow same-sex marriage, and guarantee equal rights in tort to gays and lesbians. New Jersey's Domestic Partnership Act was also passed under a judicial threat to require same-sex marriage -- and probably would be used by the courts to extend the Dunphy case to cover same-sex domestic partners.

Meanwhile, Massachusetts, too, is debating whether it should follow the path of Vermont and Hawaii and create a domestic partnership category that would, among other things, extend the material and symbolic benefits of tort law to same-sex couples.

Suppose Massachusetts does nothing (that is, it does not amend its Constitution), and same-sex marriage is allowed for the first the time in the United States. Then gays and lesbians would automatically enjoy the same rights in torts as heterosexuals in Massachusetts.

(It is likely that those tort rights would not be recognized under the choice-of-law rules of many other states -- making cases about accidents involving out-of-staters more complex, and the outcomes potentially less favorable to gays and lesbians.).

Same-Sex Couples Deserve Equality in These Important Tort Law Rights

The debate over the rights of same-sex couples, whether it is resolved by domestic partnership rules or same-sex marriage, has important implications for the tort law rights of gays and lesbians.

These rights in tort involve benefits which partners in long-term loving relationships have every reason to expect, especially if they are extended to any heterosexual couple who chooses to marry -- even those like Britney Spears, who marry in Las Vegas on a lark.

Furthermore, the recognition of these rights in tort concerns more than "mere" money. The rights to sue confer dignity and social equality to gays and lesbians, and sends the message that we, as a community, take their emotional lives seriously.

The treatment of gay and lesbian partners under the rules of wrongful death, loss of consortium and NIED must reflect an attitude of equality and respect. Currently, in many states, it does not.

--------------------------
"She had tasted Willow on her tongue, and she had worn Willow on her skin. There wasn't a shower in the world that could have washed that away." (Terra Firma, by Tulipp)
Edited by: sheila wt at: 4/8/04 11:55 pm

The Kitten, the Witches and the Bad Wardrobe Willow & Tara Forever

Wives and Husbands - the Gay Marriage Thread

good news

Re: Bad News

Re: Bad News

Re: Bad News

Thought this was interesting...

Re: Bad News

Stats on gay newlyweds in SF

Re: Stats on gay newlyweds in SF

Good News

More good news from New Paltz

Re: More good news from New Paltz

Suggested viewing two

Re: Bad News

Re: Bad News

Re: Bad News

Oregon County Bans All Marriages

King's Widow Backs Gay Marriage

More Oregon stuff

Finally! A Top Dem Shows Support for Marriage

Dan Savage's "Marriage"

Traditional Family "A Myth" Historian Says

Re: Bad News

Re: Bad News

it doesn't hurt so bad when you're laughing

Re: it doesn't hurt so bad when you're laughing

Re: it doesn't hurt so bad when you're laughing

Re: A Letter to President Bush

Gays and lesbians sue New York over marriage

Re: Gays and lesbians sue New York over marriage

What Gay Couples Lack -- Besides Marriage

Who is online