Wives and Husbands - the Gay Marriage Thread

[tyche]

This is good news...

Quote:

---

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/04/09/BAGP762TDA1.DTL

THE BATTLE OVER SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

Group loses bid to join suit over state ban

Conservatives don't trust attorney general to stoutly defend law barring gay marriage

San Francisco judge refused Thursday to allow a group opposed to same-sex marriage to intervene in a suit challenging state laws that prohibit such unions.

The decision was a blow to the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, whose lawyers had argued that they did not trust California Attorney General Bill Lockyer to vigorously defend state laws that define marriage as between a man and a woman, including Prop. 22, the 2000 voter-approved initiative that says the state will recognize only heterosexual nuptials.

"We have an attorney general who has a political perspective that is far different from the one he has to defend,'' Robert Tyler, a lawyer for the group, argued in court.

After the ruling, Tyler said that if Lockyer's office is left on his own, the state laws banning same-sex marriage could be in jeopardy. "There is the great likelihood that arguments will be missed, challenges may be dismissed,'' he said.

Ceide Zapparoni, a lawyer representing the city, disagreed with Tyler's argument, telling Superior Court Judge James Warren that so far the attorney general has been a "zealous'' advocate in the litigation.

Lockyer, who remained neutral on the issue, had no comment.

In ruling against the conservative group, Warren concluded that it had not shown that it would suffer any direct harm if the state laws banning gay marriage were either struck down or upheld, and its interest in the outcome was merely political.

"We're dealing with a political interest,'' Warren said. He acknowledged that the state laws are liberally construed to allow parties to intervene, but he said that they must demonstrate some direct harm.

The group had asked to join a suit brought by the city of San Francisco and six gay couples against the state seeking to overturn state laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman because they say they illegally discriminate against same-sex couples. Tyler had insisted that the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund would either be "vindicated or destroyed'' by the outcome of the case.

"Our clients have a direct interest in preserving the institution of marriage," Tyler said, noting that the fund boasts 15,000 members. He said his interest was to defend the rights of the 4.6 million Californians who voted in favor of Prop. 22.

Zapparoni responded that many people have strong opinions about this case. But if every one of them were allowed to intervene, she said, "it would turn this litigation into the equivalent of a town hall meeting.''

Warren's ruling bars not only the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund from joining the case, but also its legal counsel -- the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, a religious rights advocacy group that has played a prominent role in opposing San Francisco's same-sex marriages. The group has filed two suits seeking to overturn the gay and lesbian marriages that Mayor Gavin Newsom authorized, beginning on Feb. 12.

"This is a serious injustice to the people of California,'' Tyler, a member of the Alliance Defense Fund, said after the hearing. He seemed surprised by the judge's ruling and said the group's members would explore their options, which include appealing Warren's ruling.

Zapparoni said that if the religious rights advocacy group and its client were allowed to join the suit, they could have expanded the issues beyond those raised by the plaintiffs, introduced their own experts on marriage and family law, and caused delays and more expenses. "They could have turned this into a circus,'' she said.

In other action this week, the state Judicial Council, which sets policy for the court, ordered Presiding Judge Donna Hitchens of the San Francisco Superior Court to appoint a judge to review Lockyer's request to coordinate the two suits filed by the city and the six gay couples with three other pending suits. Hitchens has appointed Judge Richard Kramer to review Lockyer's request.

E-mail Harriet Chiang at hchiang@sfchronicle.com.

---

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

[GiftofAmber]

Gays Protest Unfair Tax Laws

04.16.04



By Doreen Brandt



(Washington, D.C.) As the clock ticked away to the midnight deadline for filing income tax returns, thousands of gay and lesbian couples across the country protested tax laws that penalize gay families.

Protests took place in front of post offices in nearly 40 cities nationwide.



"Want to Tax Us? Then Marry Us!" said Robin Tyler, the national chair of http://www.dontamend.com, whose group is helping to organize the protests all over the country.



One of the biggest demonstrations was in San Francisco where nearly 4,000 gay and lesbian couples were married this year but whose unions are not recognized.



Many gay couples are forced to pay thousands more than couples who are legally married, and advocates like Geoffrey Kors of Equality California say that's against the law. "Clearly being taxed unequally is a violation of equal protection of the law under the California and federal constitution," Kors said.



In Fredericksburg, Virginia, protestors carried signs with slogans saying "Tax me the same, treat me the same."



“We are protesting to highlight the extra pain we feel on tax day when the federal government forces us to enter into a legal fiction of being single—when we are actually longtime together couples,” said Kathy Kelly, Executive Director of Marriage Equality Georgia, in Atlanta.



“In reality, our lives are completely intertwined—just like any other married couple. We own our homes, bank accounts, and investments together, yet we are forced to divvy all that up as if we are single persons when it comes to income taxes.”



Same-sex couples are denied 1,049 rights that heterosexually married couples enjoy.



Earlier this week, the Human Rights Campaign released a study showing gay families pay on average higher taxes and get fewer benefits.



"Our families are taxed on health insurance for our partners, are unable to secure Social Security survivor benefits and pay more federal income tax when one parent stays at home than married couples. Now, the president and many in Congress want to tamper with the Constitution to make that kind of treatment permanent," said HRC President Cheryl Jacques.



The study also showed that when a gay or lesbian parent dies leaving a young child behind, the loss of Social Security survivor benefits to the family can range from $100,000 to $250,000, depending on whether state laws permitted both parents to establish a legal relationship to the surviving child.



Among the other cities where same-sex couples held protests were New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Boston. Gay marriage will become legal in Massachusetts next month, but even then same-sex couples will continue to be denied federal rights.

[Diebrock]

Quote:

---

Marriage Lite

Straight Couples Use French Civil Unions Law Created For Homosexuals



P A R I S, April 17 — France resolved its debate over same-sex marriage several years ago by creating civil unions. But the law has had unexpected effects.





What began as a way to provide some legal protection for people in homosexual relationships has become a real alternative for heterosexual couples in France, thousands of whom come to municipal offices to sign "civil pacts of solidarity," or PACS, rather than get married.





‘Now We Have Rights’



The ceremony itself takes just a few minutes. The couple goes to a court and assures the clerk they are not married to anyone else. After a few more basic questions, the papers are signed and the PACS is official.



"Now we have rights," a woman in a same-sex union says, "which we didn't have a few hours ago."



Under the civil pact, each partner is eligible for the other's work benefits. And after three years, they can get the same tax breaks as married couples. Ending the PACS can be as quick and easy as signing one.



"It is not necessary to divorce," says Daniel Borrillo, a legal specialist. "It is only necessary to inform the authorities that you decided to terminate the contract."



If there's a dispute, one party gives notice, and three months later, it's over.



The PACS law was hugely controversial when it was going through the French parliament in the late 1990s. Opponents of the law clashed with its supporters.



The law passed, but only after it was expanded to make heterosexuals eligible for civil unions as well. Otherwise, some argued, the law would be discriminatory.



It turned out to be a big change.



Marriage Attitudes



Some straight couples opting for the civil pact are older and have married before, but most are young couples.



In a country with a divorce rate of 38 percent, where some 40 percent of children are born out of wedlock, many consider marriage an obsolete institution.



"My parents got divorced," one woman says. "I don't regard marriage as sacred."



So, a law initially written for gay couples has evolved into a sort of marriage light for straight couples.



"It was the need of the gay community," says Pascal De Bodard of the Gay and Lesbian Center of Paris. "But at the end of the day, it was to the benefit of the whole French population."



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

[urnofosiris]

Quote:

---

The law passed, but only after it was expanded to make heterosexuals eligible for civil unions as well. Otherwise, some argued, the law would be discriminatory.

---

Now isn't that ironic.

[Gatito Grande]

Quote:

---

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 . . .

---

Somehow, I think "towns" is not the real word meant here! (or, "Bend over, we're comin' to getcha!" )



Re: Tort Law. This is also reminiscent of the Christine Littleton case in Texas. Littleton was the legal widow of a man who died due to medical malpractice, for which she sued and won. But when the defendants learned that Littleton was a transwoman, they went back to court claiming that, "since chromosomes determine gender," Christine Littleton wasn't really legally married to the victim, ergo she did not have the legal status to sue (as spouse) for wrongful death. To the horror of TG/TS people everywhere, the Texas courts found for the defendants (retroactively invalidating the Littleton's marriage), and Texas is now a black hole as far as getting one's gender marker (Driver's License, birth certificate, Social Security, etc. etc.) legally changed.



GG Tort law, tax law, the ability to avoid testifying in court against one's spouse (as Rosie O'Donnell and Kelli Carpenter found out): all the things straight (and gender-normal) couples take for granted . . . Out

[Darcy]

I found the article about French couples opting for civil unions rather than marriage interesting. I recently read "Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America" by Jonathan Rauch.



One of his arguments is that the proliferation of civil unions, domestic partnerships, and other arrangements of that ilk (which he refers to as "marriage lite") are the real threat to marriage. When marriage is only one of many options for establishing a legal relationship, it dilutes the meaning of marriage and makes it seem less special. When people see loving, committed, long-term couples who can't/don't marry, it makes it marriage seem less important as an institution.

*****************
I don't care if it is an orgy of death, there's still such a thing as a napkin! - Willow in "Superstar"

[Ben Varkentine]

It works.

Quote:

---

By Peter Hart



Even before George W. Bush endorsed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages, the amendment's potential impact was clouded by careless reporting.



Some advocates claimed that the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment would permit states to allow civil unions for gays and lesbians-- a disputed interpretation that a number of media outlets failed to question. On February 11, ABC World News Tonight correspondent Terry Moran explained that the amendment "would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but allow states to establish civil unions for gay couples." Moran continued by saying that "some conservatives are unhappy that the proposed amendment would allow civil unions for gay couples."



But the language of the amendment as originally introduced by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R.-Colo.) did not necessarily match Moran's description:



Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

Some legal scholars pointed out that the "nor state or federal law" clause could be interpreted as blocking civil unions legislation for gay couples (TAPPED, 2/11/04). But by taking their cues about the amendment's legal ramifications from its proponents, some media outlets failed to clarify the issue. The New York Times (2/8/04), for example, explained that "the proposed amendment would allow state legislatures to recognize gay civil unions, a provision that had alienated many conservatives."



Other papers managed to convey the reality of the legal dispute. The Washington Post (2/14/04) devoted a whole article to the topic, reporting that "the amendment's possible interpretations are a matter of furious debate among constitutional scholars and political activists, with some contending that it would allow Vermont-style civil unions and others saying it would not." The Post noted that two of the amendment's authors "contend that the opening sentence also would forbid some kinds of civil unions," though others weren't so sure.



After FAIR activists contacted ABC and the New York Times, though, the reporting shifted. In response to emails from FAIR activists, Times public editor Daniel Okrent wrote on his web journal (2/19/04): "I urge the Times to report on it more fully-- not just on what the amendment really means, but also on the debate over what it really means." On February 25, the Times did just that, offering a short piece on the legal debate over the amendment: "Some conservative scholars who oppose gay unions and some gay scholars who oppose the amendment are arguing that it might effectively block any marital benefits for same-sex couples, no matter what name is used."



The piece did tilt in favor of the amendment's proponents, offering two responses to a single comment from a critic of the amendment. The Times story was also unfortunately framed to suggest that criticism of the original amendment's language was relegated to just two small groups of legal scholars-- "a handful of conservatives" who oppose gay unions, and "a few gay legal advocates" who oppose the amendment.



In its February 24 broadcast, ABC World News Tonight also changed the way it reported the amendment. Correspondent Terry Moran ended his report: "The president says he supports states deciding for themselves whether they want to establish so-called civil unions for same-sex couples, though gay rights advocates say the constitutional amendment he is backing might ban even those arrangements." This description acknowledged the controversy over the amendment's interpretation, which had been omitted from his earlier summary.



The attention given to the proposed amendment's murky language, combined with strong congressional reluctance to ban civil unions, led Republicans on March 22 to submit a revision that removed the clause "nor state or federal law." But some legal analysts and gay rights advocates argue that the phrase "legal incidents thereof" still threatens the states' ability to authorize civil unions-- as noted by the New York Times (3/23/04) and several other newspapers. As Extra! went to press, no television networks had reported on the wording change or its disputed meaning. When the rights of many may turn on a handful of words, it's vital that media clarify the potential ramifications of the Federal Marriage Amendment.

---

www.fair.org/extra/0404/f...ivism.html

Ben



"Never be discouraged from being an activist because people tell you that you'll not succeed. You have already succeeded if you're out there representing truth or justice or compassion or fairness or love."

-- Doris 'Granny D' Haddock

[Gatito Grande]

I got the following in my email today (sorry, there's no online link):

Quote:

---

NEWS RELEASE April 30, 2004



For more information: Nadine Smith 813-817-6093

Sean Kosofsky 248-761-2886





GAY LEADERS DRAFT STATE BY STATE PLAN

TO WIN MARRIAGE EQUALITY



Federation Hosts "Marriage Summit" in D.C. To Harness New Tools and Energy





(Washington D.C.) In an unprecedented move, leaders of statewide gay

rights organizations gathered in the nation's capitol to draft the plan to

fight for marriage equality in every U.S. state and territory. The meeting

was called by the Federation of Statewide Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and

Transgender Advocacy Organizations in Washington D.C. and took place April 22-26.



The Federation called an emergency "Marriage Summit" that brought together some of the top GLBT leaders working on marriage related civil rights work in over 30 states and territories. Also at the meeting were experts in the areas of polling research, political campaigns, law, internet activism and more. The leaders returned to their respective states with a clear picture of what challenges to face and community resources to win marriage equality in every state. This strategy will be integrated with the existing strategies used by national GLBT organizations.



"I have returned home with renewed hope and stronger resolve than ever that we will win," said Michael Mitchell, Executive Director of Equality Utah and

an Executive Committee member of the Federation. "I am certain that in Utah,

incredible things will happen for the GLBT community in terms of education,

voter mobilization and new volunteers coming into our movement because we

are under attack. The Federation Summit was exactly what I needed to connect with other seasoned activists around the country who have run and won campaigns."



"In our courtrooms and legislatures state organizers are winning battles

every day," said Andrea Hildebran, Executive Director of Kentucky Fairness

Alliance and an Executive Committee member of the Federation. "We are better positioned than every before to make dramatic strides toward marriage

equality in the South. Our stories need to be told and the real fight for

marriage equality is on the ground in the states. Our work in Kentucky will

only improve because of the planning, analysis and networking we have done

with other Federation members in Massachusetts, Hawaii, and other states."



Activists have won a number of legal and legislative victories in states

around the country. Marriage is a state issue and more GLBT leaders at the

national level are focusing more energy at winning local fights.



Funding from Gill Foundation and the Freedom to Marry Collaborative was

instrumental in making the Summit of the States a success.

---

GG Coalition-building: warms my activist heart! Out

[tyche]

Quote:

---

www.365gay.com/newscon04/05/050304prysbMarr.htm

Gay Marriage Not Banned Presbyterian Church Court Says

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff



Posted: May 3, 2004 2:11 p.m. ET

(Cincinnati, Ohio) A Presbyterian ecclesiastical court has ruled that an Ohio minister did not break church law when he married several same-sex couples.

The ruling overturns a decision last year by a lower court that found the Rev. Stephen Van Kuiken guilty of violating the orders of the Church.

Van Kuiken was rebuked but not removed from the ministry as a result of the original trial.

Van Kuiken, 44, pastor of Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church in Cincinnati, said at the time that the Church is facing a crisis of theological intolerance.

He said he would continue to marry gay and lesbian couples and appealed his conviction.

In its ruling, released today, the synod court said that constitution of the Presbyterian Church does not specifically prohibit ministers from marrying same-sex couples.

It noted that while the faith's top court in 2000 had ruled that same-sex marriages are impermissible, "it avoids an outright prohibition by using the words 'should' and 'should not' in guidance for sessions and ministers."

The court ordered that the lower court's decision be reversed and a rebuke of Van Kuiken dismissed.

"A new era has dawned in the Presbyterian Church, a day for which we have waited and hoped," Van Kuiken told the Cincinnati Enquirer today.

The denomination has 2.5 million-members in the US.

On the weekend, the Methodist Church reaffirmed its position that "homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching" and has reopened the case of a lesbian pastor who came out to her bishop.

©365Gay.com® 2004

---

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

[Warduke]

From Yahoo...

Quote:

---

Mass. Warns of Gay Marriage Reprisals



BARNSTABLE, Mass. - Gov. Mitt Romney's top legal adviser said Tuesday that if local clerks issue marriage licenses to out-of-state gay couples, that will make the marriages void and could result in legal repercussions for the clerks themselves.



Clerks will be required to seek proof of residency or the intention to move to Massachusetts from all couples — gay and straight — who are seeking to marry as of May 17, when same-sex weddings become legal, attorney Daniel Winslow said Tuesday before the state's first training session for city and town clerks.



The consequences of an illegal marriage could be severe for the couple, particularly if they have children, because of legal questions of support and custody, Winslow said. There also would be legal consequences for the clerks, though Winslow declined to say what those could be.



"What conscientious clerk ever would issue a license in violation of Massachusetts law when the consequences and ramifications to children and innocent parties would be so great?" Winslow said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I simply can't see that any clerk would do that."



The state planned to hold the first of five training session for clerks Tuesday afternoon in Barnstable. At the session, clerks will see the state's new intention-to-marry forms, which have been altered to remove gender references and now include a place to show what proof of residence was provided.



The state Department of Public Health plans to advise clerks that written proof is the best documentation, though the sworn oath of the couple applying for marriage is legally acceptable, Winslow said.



Massachusetts law does not allow couples to be married here if their marriage would be illegal in the state where they live.



"This has been a practice that up until now has not been widely followed," Winslow said. "But Massachusetts marriage laws have never been so broad compared to the rest of the nation before."

---

---

Firefox: One Browser To Rule Them All.

[Warduke]

From Yahoo...

Quote:

---

Mass. Town to Let Out-Of-State Gays Wed



By JENNIFER PETER, Associated Press Writer



BOSTON - Officials in Cape Cod's gay tourism mecca of Provincetown voted to offer marriage licenses to out-of-state same-sex couples, potentially setting the stage for another legal battle over gay marriage.

       

Thumbing their nose at Republican Gov. Mitt Romney's stance, the town's selectmen unanimously decided Monday to issue marriage certificates to all couples as long as they attest that they know of no legal impediment to their union.



Romney immediately issued a statement Monday threatening legal action against city and town clerks statewide who defy his interpretation of the law.



Romney's office has warned clerks that they will be required to seek proof of residency or the intention to move to Massachusetts from all couples — gay and straight — who are seeking to marry as of Monday, when same-sex weddings become legal.



"We are a nation of laws," Romney said in the statement. "If they choose to break the law, we will take appropriate enforcement action, refuse to recognize those marriages, and inform the parties that the marriage is null and void."



Provincetown town clerk Doug Johnstone did not return a call for comment early Tuesday, but in the past he has resisted Romney's instructions to obtain proof of residency from couples before issuing marriage licenses.



Romney based his decision on a 1913 Massachusetts law that says couples cannot be married here if such a marriage would be void in the state in which they live. And no other state currently recognizes gay marriages.



But the Provincetown Board of Selectmen said gay couples who live outside Massachusetts and have no intention of moving here will still be issued marriage licenses, as long as they attest that they know of no legal impediment to their union.



Huge crowds are expected in Provincetown on Monday, the day that the decision by the Supreme Judicial Court, the state's highest court, takes effect that legalizes gay marriage in Massachusetts. For months, business owners and hoteliers in the gay-friendly seaside town at the tip of Cape Cod have been preparing for an anticipated summer rush of gay weddings.



Romney's office has said the consequences of an illegal marriage could be severe for the couple, particularly if they have children, because of legal questions of support and custody.



There also could be legal consequences for the clerks. Under state law, officials who issue a license "knowing that parties are prohibited" can face a fine of $100 to $500 or a prison sentence of up to a year.



Attorney Mary Bonauto, who represented several gay couples whose case led to the court decision legalizing gay weddings, said Romney's interpretation of state law should bar marriage to gay couples only from those states that have laws on their books that declare gay marriages "null and void." She estimates that only about 20 states have that type of law.



"It's because of his personal beliefs that he is applying the law to all 49 (other states)...," Bonauto said. "I find it sad that the Massachusetts governor would penalize a town for recognizing that Massachusetts has no business denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples whether they are Massachusetts residents or not."



The Legislature has given preliminary approval to a constitutional ban on gay marriage, but it must still receive an additional round of approval from lawmakers during the 2005-2006 session and then by voters in November 2006. The constitutional amendment would simultaneously legalize civil unions.

---

---

Firefox: One Browser To Rule Them All.

[Kieli]

One reason why this fight STILL hasn't gotten far enough:



California Lesbian Mom Has NO Parental Rights

Quote:

---

By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer



SAN FRANCISCO - A woman has no parental rights over the twins she was raising with her lesbian partner — even though she is the children's genetic mother, an appeals court ruled.



Upholding a lower court ruling, the 1st District Court of Appeal decided only the woman's partner — who gave birth to the twins after artificial insemination with eggs provided by her lover — has full parental rights.



The court said though the genetic mother was a loving, at-home parent, "functioning as a parent does not bestow legal status as a parent."



"An adoption decree would provide objective, formalized proof of the parties' parentage intentions," the court said.



The case is expected to be appealed to the California Supreme Court, but underscores that laws dealing with parental rights for gay or lesbian couples are largely unmapped territory.



The woman suing for parental rights — identified in court papers as K.M. — never sought to adopt the now-8-year-old twins, who live with their birth mother in Massachusetts. Her attorney, Jill Hersh, said her client "didn't adopt because she was the biological mother. She didn't think she had to.



"The legal system hasn't caught up with the modern-day facts of this case," Hersch said.



Diana Richmond, the attorney for the birth mother, praised the decision, saying it "beautifully upholds the freedom of choice of same-sex partners on whether both partners will or will not be the parents."



She said the women "had agreed that only one of them will be the parent."



"They never agreed to an adoption and no adoption proceedings were initiated," Richmond said.



Shannon Minter, an attorney for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said if the genetic mother was a man, she would have been awarded rights to the children, pointing to a 2002 California Supreme Court decision granting a non-biological father rights to a child he helped rear.



"These children are going to be just as hurt as anybody else would by losing a parent," Minter said. "Regardless of being married or not, if K.M. was a man, she would have been automatically, without question, a legal parent."

---

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.

Edited by: Kieli  at: 5/12/04 11:30 am

[Gatito Grande]

Quote:

---

Diana Richmond, the attorney for the birth mother, praised the decision, saying it "beautifully upholds the freedom of choice of same-sex partners on whether both partners will or will not be the parents."



She said the women "had agreed that only one of them will be the parent."

---

I always have to wonder about these kind of cases: how an LGBT person will effectively argue against LGBT rights, simply to advance their own personal (selfish?) interests in a legal case.



GG How do they live with themselves? Out



Then again, I suppose this is just an example of what I once heard described as "the Seven Hells of Lesbian Divorce" (and that's was when the divorce was only unofficial! )

[Warduke]

From Yahoo...

Quote:

---

Supreme Court Won't Block Gay Marriages



WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court refused Friday to block the nation's first state-sanctioned gay marriages from taking place next week.



The justices declined without comment to intervene and block clerks from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples in Massachusetts. That state's highest court had ruled in November that the state Constitution allows gay couples to marry, and declared that the process would begin on Monday.



The Supreme Court's decision, in an emergency appeal filed Friday by gay marriage opponents, does not address the merits of the claim that the state Supreme Judicial Court overstepped its bounds with the landmark decision.



A stay had been sought by a coalition of state lawmakers and conservative activists.



A federal judge ruled against them on Thursday, and the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision on Friday, setting up the Supreme Court appeal. The appeals court agreed to hear arguments on the request to bar same-sex unions in June, after several weeks of legal gay marriages.



The stay request had been filed with Supreme Court Justice David Souter, a Massachusetts native who handles appeals from the region. He referred the matter to the full nine-member court.



Mathew Staver, president and general counsel of the Florida-based Liberty Counsel, had told justices in a filing that they were not asking the Supreme Court "to take any position on the highly politicized and personally charged issue of same-sex marriage."



Instead, Staver wrote, they wanted the court to consider whether the Massachusetts judges wrongly redefined marriage. That task should be handled by elected legislators, he said.



In the Supreme Court's last ruling involving gay rights, justices ruled last year that states may not punish gay couples for having sex. In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia complained that the court "has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda" and was inviting same-sex marriage.

---

---

Firefox: One Browser To Rule Them All.

[LoverofLesbianCharacter2]

I just wanted to say that I can't believe gay marriage is even a question. I believe that it should be an inate human right. The only reason people make a fuss is because they have moral issues with it and whatever happened to the suppossed separation of church and state? I have actually spoken to someone close to me who opposses it. He believes that homosexuals should not have the right to adopt children. I am like ? If I had a child and then heaven forbid I passed away and the child was going to be adopted by a gay couple, please by all means, love this child. Geez people make no sense.

[Ben Varkentine]

From MSNBC/Newsweek:



(Excerpts, link to full article at bottom)

Quote:

---

The debate isn't just dividing Americans by state—in many families it's the cause of friction at the dinner table. Polls show a sizeable generation gap when it comes to supporting same-sex marriage. In a NEWSWEEK Poll, 41 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds back gay marriage, compared with 28 percent of Americans overall. Generation Y is more tolerant than its elders, says pollster Celinda Lake. Christine Dinnino, 17, has regular fights about the marriage issue with her father, Samuel, a 43-year-old retired Army sergeant in Inverness, Fla. Though Samuel bases his objections on the Bible, Christine sees gay marriage as a civil-rights issue. "It used to be illegal to marry someone of a different race," she says. "That sounds pretty foreign to the typical 15-year-old today." While baby boomers tend to view homosexuality as anti-establishment, young people often see same-sex marriage as a way of integrating gays into society, says demographer Neil Howe, who has written about differences among the generations. "They see it," he says, "as domesticating something that might be threatening to society and making it mainstream.



Younger people may also be more accepting because they've had greater exposure to gay people than previous generations had. Fewer gays are closeted, and the average age for "coming out" is now 16, down from the mid-20s in the 1970s. Knowing someone who is openly gay or lesbian is the single biggest predictor of tolerance on same-sex marriage, says Wolfson. And if you don't personally know someone who's gay, you'll find plenty of gay characters and culture on TV. Recent research by Edward Schiappa, a professor of communications at the University of Minnesota, found that seeing likable gay characters on shows like "Will Grace" had similar effects to knowing gays in real life. In one study, students with few or no gay acquaintances were shown 10 episodes of HBO's "Six Feet Under." Afterward, their levels of anti-gay prejudice dropped by 12 percent.



Cultural conservatives are all too aware that such sympathetic portrayals of gay life can only hurt their efforts to portray same-sex marriage as a threat to American culture. "This generation has been subjected to an enormous amount of pro-gay propaganda," says Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute at Concerned Women for America.

---

I wonder if that professor included Will & Tara in his research...off to Yahoo! Here's the link to the full article:



msnbc.msn.com/id/4987495/

Ben



"Never be discouraged from being an activist because people tell you that you'll not succeed. You have already succeeded if you're out there representing truth or justice or compassion or fairness or love."

-- Doris 'Granny D' Haddock

[WebWarlock]

From the Trib.



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

Quote:

---

Gays Get Massachusetts Marriage Licenses



By KEN MAGUIRE

Associated Press Writer

Published May 17, 2004, 7:15 AM CDT



CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- Two by two they emerged from City Hall, the nation's first gay couples set to legally marry, breaking a barrier many never believed would fall and putting the United States among four countries in the world that recognize same-sex weddings.



With the passage of a midnight deadline, Massachusetts became the first state to process marriage licenses for gay and lesbian couples Monday. Cambridge was the only city to seize the first possible moment, opening its offices to 260 couples -- even supplying a giant wedding cake -- as thousands of sign-waving well-wishers cheered into the wee hours.



Despite the late night, some couples said they would try to leapfrog the state's three-day waiting period by asking a judge to let them tie the knot later in the day, a routine request that is rarely turned down.



"Somewhere, someone's working really hard to find that loophole," to quash the gay-wedding march, said Baxter Brooke, 35, of Cambridge, who hoped to wed her partner, Sonia Hendrickson, 36, on Monday. "We're worried that it's not going to last."



Other Monday wedding plans included the seven couples who brought the lawsuit that eventually led the state's highest court to declare gay marriage legal.



The first couple to receive marriage paperwork was Marcia Hams, 56, and her partner, Susan Shepherd, 52, of Cambridge. After 27 years together, they sat at a table across from a city official shortly after midnight, filling out forms as their adult son looked on.



"I feel really overwhelmed," Hams said as they left the clerk's office and walked through a throng of reporters. "I could collapse at this point."



Massachusetts was thrust into the center of a nationwide debate on gay marriage when the state's Supreme Judicial Court issued its 4-3 ruling in November that gays and lesbians have a right under the state constitution to wed.



In the days leading up to Monday's deadline for same-sex weddings to begin, opponents looked to the federal courts for help in overturning the ruling. On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene.



The SJC's ruling emboldened officials in San Francisco, upstate New York, and Portland, Ore., to issue marriage licenses as acts of civil disobedience earlier this year. Even though courts ordered a halt to the wedding march, opponents pushed for a federal constitutional gay marriage ban, which President Bush has endorsed.



The SJC's ruling also galvanized opponents of gay marriage in Massachusetts, prompting lawmakers in this heavily Democratic, Roman Catholic state to adopt a state constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage but legalize Vermont-style civil unions. But to take effect, it must get by another legislative session as well as voters. The earliest it could wind up on the ballot is 2006 -- possibly casting a shadow on the legality of perhaps thousands of gay marriages that take place in the intervening years.



As of Monday, Massachusetts joins the Netherlands, Belgium and Canada's three most populous provinces as the only places worldwide where gays can marry. The rest of Canada is expected to follow soon.



Married couples are entitled to hundreds of right and protections under Massachusetts law, including the ability to file joint state tax returns, automatic preference for making medical decisions for a disabled spouse and workers' compensation benefits. But other rights, such as the ability to jointly file a federal tax return, are not available because federal law defines marriage as between a man and a woman.



Early Monday morning, police estimated that more than 5,000 people had descended on City Hall in Cambridge, across the Charles River from Boston and home to Harvard University. Besides scores of reporters, many in the crowd were family and friends; others simply wanted to join the party and express support.



Police said the crowds were orderly, and no arrests were reported. About 15 protesters, most from Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church, stood near City Hall carrying signs. The group, led by the Rev. Fred Phelps Sr., travels around the country protesting homosexuality.



But the atmosphere was overwhelmingly festive. People cheered and held signs reading "Yay!" and urged couples to kiss as they left City Hall. The city provided a giant wedding cake for couples, many of whom had waited in line for hours.



"We came here because I've been waiting seven years and I don't want to wait another day, another second," said Alex Fennell, 27 a Boston lawyer marrying Sasha Hartman, 29. "For me, it's excitement and gratitude. It's nothing I ever thought we would be able to do."



Hillary and Julie Goodridge, namesakes of the landmark lawsuit that started it all, tried to get a marriage license in Boston three years ago but were turned down. This time, Mayor Thomas Menino planned to greet them at Boston City Hall, where they were expected first thing Monday morning.



Out-of-state gay couples are likely to challenge Massachusetts' 1913 marriage statute, which Gov. Mitt Romney, a gay-marriage opponent, has cited to limit marriages to only Massachusetts residents. The law bars out-of-state couples from marrying in Massachusetts if the union would be illegal in their home state.



Several local officials, including those in Provincetown, Worcester and Somerville, have said they will not enforce Romney's order and will give licenses to any couples who ask, as long as they sign the customary affidavit attesting that they know of no impediment to their marriage.



Both sides in the debate say the issue may figure prominently in the November elections across the country.



Candidates for Congress could face pressure to explain their position on the proposed federal constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.



Voters in Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Missouri and Utah -- and probably several other states -- will consider similar amendments to their state constitutions.



But the possibility of future bans didn't faze Chris McCary, 43, and his partner, John Sullivan, 37, who came to Provincetown to get married -- despite that their union won't be recognized back home in Alabama.



"This is the most important day of my life," McCary said. "This window could be closed in the future but it's still worth it."



* __



Associated Press writers Martin Finucane, Jennifer Peter and Matt Pitta contributed to this story.

---

Warlock

-----

Web Warlock

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

"D&D doesn't teach children that monsters exist. Children already know that monsters are real.

D&D teaches them that monsters can be defeated."
- Unknown

[kyraroc]

I was there! They opened Cambridge City Hall at 12:00 AM this morning to start issuing marriage licenses! I was back in Boston visiting friends, and went and joined the crowds. I'll post more later - but it was beautiful.

Lost in Ecstacy

[kyraroc]

Cambridge, MA, midnight on Monday. In the "People's Republic of Cambridge", everyone is eager for their city to be the first in the nation to issue unquestionably legal, inarguably legitimate marriage licenses to gay couples. So City Hall opens at the first possible minute it's allowed to do so.



The gf and I have timed our vacation back to our old hometown so that we can come help celebrate. What's the good of living out-of-state if we can't be out-of-state agitators, after all? We head straight from the airport to a party in honor of the occasion. As midnight approaches, people start making jokes as it begins to penetrate that this is really going to happen - we grin as we check the sky to see if it's falling; "No meteors yet!" "I'm beginning to think this isn't going to cause the end of the world after all!" It's actually a beautiful day. Surprisingly so for spring in Massachusetts - temperatures in the 70's, not a cloud in the sky, across the whole state.



Cell phone calls start coming in from people already at City Hall - they say the atmosphere is "electric". We hop in a taxi, and head down to Central Sqaure.



The streets have been blocked off for blocks around City Hall. So many people are there - thousands - that they've spilled out onto Mass. Ave., across the street, up the steps of the post office, the YMCA on the other side of the road. At City Hall itself, people are thronging the hillside, the steps. People are on the walls, people are standing in the window embrasures! Everywhere, there are cheering crowds.



There are policemen there, in riot gear, but all they're doing is keeping a pathway through the crowd clear for the happy couples. There is no violence, and no threat of violence. Instead, everyone is smiling, snapping photos, clapping. I can't remember when I've seen this many people this happy. It's infectious. People grin, and you grin back.



Earlier, there were protestors - a few sorry souls from the Fred Phelps organization carrying bizarre signs claiming that God destroyed the space shuttle. They parade for the cameras a bit, and then leave, outnumbered, overwhelmed, or simply not having the heart to keep going in the face of so much joy. They're gone by the time City Hall opens. Many of the anti-gay organizations that usually show up at rallies haven't bothered to come. Maybe they just think they'd get political backlash for it, but I like to think that even they realize just how gauche it would be to rain on this particular parade, to throw a protest sign in the face of people who only want to get married, and have waited so long for it. So by the time things get started, there are no protest signs.



Instead, there are Morris Dancers. Drummers. Guitarists. People throwing rice. People holding up signs about about equality, about rights, about love. By far the most popular sign of the evening, the one that captures the spirit of what's going on better than anything else, just says "YAY!" It passes hands throughout the night, until no one remembers who had it originally. It's everybody's sign now. A new round of cheering starts every time someone waves it around.



This is a crowd that wants to cheer. It cheers everything. It cheers every time a couple goes into the building. It cheers every time a couple comes out. It cheers a guy who comes out with a megaphone to announce how long you're going to have to wait if you go in to apply right now. He seems baffled by the response to what he thought was going to be a long boring announcement about long boring lines, but the crowd has picked up on some of the important facts buried in his words: "150 couples already in line"; "will take anyone else who wants to come in"; "will stay open for as long as it takes to get this done." So they cheer, and cheer some more.



Being a small person, I've become very skilled in manuvering myself to the front of a crowd so that I can see, so I lead the gf up a hill, over a wall, under a dripping rain gutter, but its worth it when we make it to the front and can see firsthand just who everybody's cheering for.



Many couples, who went in before there were so many people, seem taken aback, surprised by the huge, clapping, smiling throng that greets them as they emerge. After an initial hesitation, these couple smile back, swell with pride, walk tall down the walkway through the crowd. Some, beaming, hold up their licenses when they reach the top of the steps - tiny certificates, like an index card - and the crowd goes wild with applause and cheers. The applause gets thunderous whenever an elderly couple comes out, or a couple with children. Almost all of the couples are grinning from ear to ear (their children vary from tremendously excited to tremendously bored.) People ask them for their autographs. As they walk towards the street, people start chanting "Kiss! Kiss! Kiss! Kiss!" Many of them do, to redoubled cheering.



There are couples of all ages, all races, all mixes. You can't help but wonder how long the older ones have waited for this, how much they went through to finally get here, how much the rest of us owe to them. About two-thirds of the couples are lesbians (which makes sense for the Boston area, where the lesbian population is pretty high), and maybe a quarter of the couples came with children. There are even a few straight couples, maybe ones who wanted to wait to get married until it was a right everyone else shared, too. They get cheered as well - this is a day for equality. Everyone has a right to their happiness here.



Although we moved away two years ago, the gf and I see all kinds of people we recognize in the crowd. Friends, former co-workers. The gf screams with surprised delight when her bellydance teacher comes out of city hall, another woman on her arm, happily waving a certificate.



The crowd starts singing. "Going to the Chapel" and "I'm Getting Married in the Morning" are the favorites, although the second verses tend to get a little ragged, the musical theater fans singing the words and the rest stumbling along. Someone plays a drum and the whole crowd begins clapping in rhythm, breaking into more spontaneous clapping whenever another couple comes out.



The crowd has thinned out considerably by the wee hours of the morning, only the die-hards now. We try to make up for it by being louder, although our hands hurt from clapping and our voices are hoarse from shouting. Eventually, the gf and I have to go, stumbling down Mass. Ave. to find a taxi and a 7-11 that stocks anything vegan. Someone still was holding the "YAY!" sign aloft when we left, like an unfallen flag.



All through the next day, stories start circulating. A couple got a waiver on the post-license wait period from a judge and got married around 9:00 AM, the very first in MA, right there at Cambridge City Hall. A couple from Florida got turned away at Cambridge for admitting to being from out-of-state, but got quietly directed by another couple to go to Somerville, where they've publicly said they're not going to ask anyone where they're from. They get their certificate. In a small Massachusetts town, a woman, nervous that her marriage is going to be taken away by the government, asks how long it's really good for. "'Til you die", he replies. There are weddings on beaches, in parks, at City Halls, in churches. Walking through my old Davis Square neighborhood in Somerville, the church across the street from where I used to live is covered in hand made signs: "Open for Business!" "Gay weddings proudly performed here!"



I'm still shaking with the excitement of it. This is happening. The avalanche has started. It might be slowed, it might even be pushed back for a little while, but it will not be stopped. It is coming. One way or another, it will arrive.



--- kyraroc

Lost in Ecstacy

[AmbersSecretAdmirer]

As a straight male, living in Scotland, I applaude Massachusetts and hope that all of the US, and the UK, will follow Massachusetts wise policy.

TARA AND WILLOW 2GETHER 4EVER!!! BLESSED BE ETERNALLY!!!

[BytrSuite]

That sounds wonderful, kyraroc. Thank you so much for sharing your firsthand perspective.

________
Leela: I was just curious because of the armed guards.
Grunka Lunkas: (singing) Grunka Lunka dunkity darmed guards -
Bender: (shouting) Shut the hell up!

[Warduke]

Thanks kyraroc, sounds really amazing.



I'm surprised that there weren't more protesters but that's a very good thing. Not many losers to try (in vain) to ruin the day.

---

Firefox: One Browser To Rule Them All.

[Willowlicious]

Wow, Kyraroc, that gave me chills. How awesome and inspiring! Thanks.



Amy

[urnofosiris]

Quote:

---

I'm still shaking with the excitement of it. This is happening. The avalanche has started. It might be slowed, it might even be pushed back for a little while, but it will not be stopped. It is coming. One way or another, it will arrive.

---

I hope with all the hope I have that it will engulf the entire planet. Thank you for posting this.

Edited by: DrG at: 5/18/04 3:13 pm

[Puff]

kyraroc thank you for your post it sounds like it was a truly amazing experience to witness. Your post made me smile, it sounds like everyone was having so much fun.

---

It's a moo point. It's like a cow's opinion. It's moo.
Words of wisdom from 'Friends'

[sam7777]

Thnaks kyraroc!!! Just beautiful. I'm from Massachusetts and I have never been prouder of my home state. How could anyone want to take away happiness from so many? Wish I could have been there as well.

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

[Jinx]

Kyraroc, your story gave me chills. I was sitting at my computer grinning like an idiot as I read it, and then my mom came and asked me what I was so happy about. Anyway, I just can't express how happy I am, so I'll just say Yay!



Jinx

[seurat]

Thanks kyraoc for that great post, you really brought the scene to life for us. As amazing as that first day response sounds, let's hope it goes on and on and spreads throiughout your land until it becomes commonplace and accepted as a matter of course. As it should be, as it seems to be here in Toronto. Although I think you're being too kind regarding the picketers decision to leave, I'm glad they did leave and not ruin the day. The haters will fight back, but I also believe they will lose this battle. Congrats for being there at this watershed moment in US history.

"Life's complications and frustrations/they disappear when the music starts playing/I found a place where it feels alright/I hear a record and it opened my eyes/do you remember what the music meant?" - Speakers Push Air, Pretty Girls Make Graves

Edited by: seurat at: 5/18/04 7:04 pm

[Patches]

Thanks Kyraoc, what a wonderful account. And now good Kittens ... Kathy and I are about to tie the Celtic eternity knot in our local United Church! June 27th, 2004 - ten years to the day we met. A little over one year since marriage became legal in Ontario and the local press doesn't think our nuptuals are newsworthy; let's have a rounding "HOORAH!!" for that. We live about 65 Km outside Toronto and no one seems to bat an eye, even out here in the "far far" burbs!



Just a matter of time, and when the dust settles, everyone's going to wonder what the fuss was all about.



Peace!!

Patches (the soon to be married! - eeps!! )

You know I've heard about people like me. But I never made the connection. They walk one road to set them free, And find they've gone the wrong direction. But there's no need for turning back 'cause all roads lead to where I stand. And I believe I'll walk them all No matter what I may have planned

Edited by: Patches at: 6/6/04 7:30 pm

[sprhrgrl]

my partner and i were at the airport when we saw the news about the massachusetts marriages. we should have been waiting, should have been anticipating it, but had become caught up in our own lives rather than following the proceedings of the decisions (silly us). we were at the airport on the way from seattle to florida - i think it was a layover in georgia - where he is from. while where there i met his friends and family, and we had a very quiet little commitment ceremony. we had discussed getting married in portland while we could have but we held off - we are both awaiting our legal name changes, and didn't want to have the incorrect names on our marriage license.



when discussing marriage, we realized that we don't really need to get married. we have both promised each other time and time again that we will be with each other forever, or try our very hardest. we've been through a lot, enough to sufficiently prove to both of us that we will be able to face anything that the world throws at us. we now have matching tattoos of buttons on our wrists, something we had talked about a long time ago - that if we got married, we wouldn't have rings or something so expensive that we would lose. one of my partner's friends did the tattoos for free, i drew them. his best friend (and ex girlfriend) held his hand during the tattoo and gave him away.



it was simple and perfect. it was what we needed. i can't decide if i want this icon - - or this one - - but either and both work so well.



one of my favorite lesbian couples is getting married, i recently learned. they did a commitment thing a while ago, so it's interesting to me to wonder how different this wedding will be - if it is the magnitude, the ceremony of it that makes it different, or what. it will make me cry, though, whatever it is.

Sweetie, I'm a fag. I been there. - Tara (Dead Things shooting script)