GG June: traditional month for weddings *and* LGBT Pride---you just knew there had to be a reason for that!
Out
Edited by: Gatito Grande at: 6/7/04 12:16 pm
by Gatito Grande » Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:14 pm
Out by Morgana333 » Tue Jun 08, 2004 3:23 pm
by maudmac » Wed Jun 16, 2004 9:36 pm
Quote:
Cherokees Ban Gay Marriages
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: June 15, 2004 5:18 pm. ET
(Tahlequah, Oklahoma) The Cherokee Nation Tribal Council has passed a law banning same-sex marriages. The vote followed a public outcry after two women were granted a marriage application by a tribal court last month.
The motion passed unanimously, but it was shrouded in secrecy until moments before council members were asked to vote on it. Several members later said they should have had more time to consider the motion and its implications.
"I don't like having something dropped in our lap at the last minute," council member Jackie Bob Martin told the Oklahoman newspaper.
Todd Hembree, the attorney for the council, said it is his legal opinion that same-sex marriage was banned all along because Indian tribes are governed directly by federal law and the US Defense of Marriage Act bars gays from marrying.
The two women, both native Americans, applied and were granted the marriage application in mid May. The women, who have not been identified, live in the Tulsa area.
David Cornsilk, a gay Cherokee activist living in Tulsa, helped the women, both members of the tribe, receive the application. Cornsilk says because Cherokee law is genderless there was no reason they should not be allowed to marry.
But, after the license application was granted Cherokee Nation Chief Justice Darrell Dowty issued a moratorium on license applications.
The federal Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996 and states that no "Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."
Cornsilk has not indicated if the couple will appeal.
©365Gay.com® 2004
and i don't really care if you think i'm strange / i ain't gonna change
by JustSkipIt » Thu Jul 01, 2004 3:36 pm
by Darcy » Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:17 pm
*****************
I don't care if it is an orgy of death, there's still such a thing as a napkin! - Willow in "Superstar"
by na71684 » Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:46 pm
by Darcy » Fri Jul 02, 2004 12:16 pm
*****************
I don't care if it is an orgy of death, there's still such a thing as a napkin! - Willow in "Superstar"
by Pj all the way » Mon Jul 05, 2004 11:54 am
by xita » Mon Jul 05, 2004 11:17 pm
- - - - - - - - - - -
"Trust is a risk masquerading as a promise."
by pocket gnome » Tue Jul 06, 2004 12:32 am
Quote:
As of right now the United States of America has a divorce rate of about 51% of heterosexual marriages.
) by Warduke » Tue Jul 27, 2004 10:36 am
Quote:
France annuls first gay wedding
The tribunal in Bordeaux declared the marriage of Stephane Chapin and Bertrand Charpentier "null and void".
The mayor, Noel Mamere of the Green Party, was suspended for a month after defying government warnings that he would be breaking the law when he wed the two men in the town of Begles.
Justice Minister Dominique Perben had already declared the wedding invalid.
The prosecutor in the case said that the marriage was not in compliance with French law.
The couple's lawyers argued that no article in the French civil code forbade the marriage of two persons of the same sex and no text defined marriage as "the union of a man and a woman".
Shopkeeper Bertrand Charpentier, 31, and nurse Stephane Chapin, 33, have said through their lawyers that they would appeal against this ruling, AFP news agency reports.
"We will fight all the way as we announced almost two months ago," Mr Charpentier.
Mr Chapin said: "We were expecting it. In any case, we are still married, we will see later [what happens]."
Mr Mamere, who presided over the wedding in Begles on 5 June, also vowed before the ruling to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary.
The union generated intense controversy in France
A civil contract called the Pacs already gives some rights to cohabiting couples, regardless of their sex, but not the full rights of marriage, notably over taxes, inheritance and adoption.
by sheila wt » Tue Jul 27, 2004 10:05 pm
Quote:
SPRINGFIELD, Massachusetts (AP) -- A man who married his partner of 23 years after gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts is having trouble getting a new passport.
Donald Henneberger, formerly Donald Smith, recently received a letter from the National Passport Center in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, denying his request for a name change on his passport. The center said it would not recognize a marriage license for a same-sex couple as proof of a name change.
The center addressed the letter to "Mr. Henneberger."
Henneberger married his partner Arthur Henneberger in May, when same-sex marriages became legal in the Bay State. On the marriage license, the couple checked a box that automatically changes the last names of the partners to whatever they request.
The letter from the National Passport Center cites the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which states a marriage can only be between a man and a woman, and a spouse can only refer to a person of the opposite sex.
Donald Henneberger said he had no trouble with the Social Security Administration, another federal agency, when he requested a card in his new name.
He and his partner now have gone to Probate Court to get further proof of Henneberger's name change.
"The woman at Probate Court said, 'What do you want to do -- change your name to Henneberger? It's already Henneberger,"' Donald Henneberger said.
Rep. Richard Neal's office advised the Hennebergers to return to court, and this time the court would initiate the name change. The couple had sought the Democratic congressman's help.
"You have to publicize your intent, demonstrate that you are not changing your name for fraudulent purposes and then you have to appear before a judge," said Jennifer Levi, a professor at Western New England School of Law. She said the Probate Court name-change process is cumbersome.
Henneberger balks at spending $180 in court fees and waiting for the eight-week process to run its course.
"It's discriminatory," he said.
--------------------------
"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 Warduke » Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:23 am
Quote:
Calif. High Court to Rule on Gay Nuptials
By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO - Exactly six months ago, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom sparked equal parts elation and outrage when he allowed same-sex couples to get married in the famously gay-friendly city — even taking part by officiating at some unions.
On Thursday, the California Supreme Court was set to decide if Newsom exceeded his authority.
Legal experts — and even the Democratic mayor — assume the court will rule Thursday that Newsom's actions violated state laws defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. What's less clear is how the seven justices will treat the thousands of same-sex marriages that were sanctioned before the court intervened in March.
"It appears quite obvious the court is going to rule against the mayor," Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said Wednesday. "We think that's unfortunate and it's wrong, but of course the more human question is what to do with 4,037 marriage licenses that belong to couples in relationships and with families."
Gay rights advocates say the most they can hope for is that the justices will say nothing — at least for now — about the validity of licenses gay couples received at San Francisco City Hall between Feb. 12 and March 11, the day the court issued an injunction halting the unprecedented wedding spree.
The city, as well as several legal groups, sued the state the same day, alleging that California's marriage laws as written are an unconstitutional abridgment of the civil rights of gays and lesbians. Those cases, which echo arguments leading to the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts, are scheduled to be heard later this year in San Francisco County Superior Court.
Thursday's opinion will not address the constitutional question, however.
The ruling "is important, but it will not resolve whether same-sex couples have the right to marry and be treated equally under our state constitution," said Jennifer Pizer, a lawyer with the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a gay rights legal aid group.
Larry Levine, a professor at the McGeorge School of Law at the University of the Pacific, said while it was doubtful the justices would declare the marriages valid, they have another option besides ruling them invalid.
"The middle position would be to keep those marriages on hold because the court is going to have to decide the ultimate question anyway," Levine said. "In my opinion, that would be the most hopeful result that could be expected."
Lawyers for the state and a Christian legal organization that filed the pair of cases challenging the mayor's decision have asked the court to nullify the disputed marriage licenses if it finds that Newsom's action was unlawful.
"There was no expectation these licenses were valid from the beginning, and to put off for a later day is simply to invite more lawless conduct and lot of repetitive litigation that will come to the same answer," said Jordan Lorence, the Alliance Defense Fund lawyer who argued the case before the justices May 26.
Gay rights groups have organized rallies to follow the Supreme Court's ruling Thursday, and whatever the result, called for same-sex couples to show up at their county clerk's office on Friday requesting a marriage license.
by shuyaku » Thu Aug 12, 2004 11:44 am
Quote:
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- The California Supreme Court voided all same-sex marriages sanctioned by San Francisco this year and ruled Thursday that the city's mayor overstepped his authority by issuing licenses to gay and lesbian couples.
The court said the city violated the law when it issued the certificates, since both legislation and a voter-approved measure defined marriage as a union between a man and woman.
The justices decided with a 5-2 vote to nullify the nearly 4,000 marriages performed between February 12 and March 11, when the court halted the weddings.
Their legality, Justice Joyce Kennard wrote, must wait until "the constitutionality of California laws restricting marriages to opposite-sex couples has been authoritatively resolved through judicial proceedings."
The court, however, did not resolve whether the California Constitution would permit a same-sex marriage, ruling instead on the narrow issue of whether local officials could bypass California's judicial and legislative branches.
San Francisco, as well as several legal groups, sued the state earlier this year, alleging that California's marriage laws as written are an unconstitutional abridgment of the civil rights of gays and lesbians. Those cases, which echo arguments leading to the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, are scheduled to be heard later this year in San Francisco County Superior Court.
Thursday's opinion will not address the constitutional question, however.
The ruling "is important, but it will not resolve whether same-sex couples have the right to marry and be treated equally under our state constitution," said Jennifer Pizer, a lawyer with the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a gay rights legal aid group.
Lawyers for the state and a Christian legal organization that filed the pair of cases challenging the mayor's decision have asked the court to nullify the disputed marriage licenses if it finds that Newsom's action was unlawful.
"There was no expectation these licenses were valid from the beginning, and to put off for a later day is simply to invite more lawless conduct and lot of repetitive litigation that will come to the same answer," said Jordan Lorence, the Alliance Defense Fund lawyer who argued the case before the justices May 26.
Gay rights groups have organized rallies to follow the Supreme Court's ruling Thursday, and whatever the result, called for same-sex couples to show up at their county clerk's office on Friday requesting a marriage license.
Oh God, Willow—you’re giving me the gift of Karen Carpenter. Just when I think I grasp the full extent of your love." - Tara
"Why do birds suddenly appear? It’s because, you are queer…" - Willow (Gods Served and Abandoned by AntigoneUnbound)
by Ben Varkentine » Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:59 pm
Quote:
Gay marriage seems to have fallen flat as Republican wedge issue this year -- with the war continuing and the economy stumbling, it's hard for swing voters to get all hot and bothered about matrimony -- but you can expect it to be campaign fodder again today.
The California Supreme Court has just issued its decision in the case challenging the validity of nearly 4,000 marriages performed in San Francisco earlier this year. The court invalidated the marriages, but its ruling isn't as sweeping as it might be.
When San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom began granting marriage licenses to gay couples in February, he did so based upon his contention that the California constitution's prohibition against discrimination trumped a state law banning gay marriage. The Supreme Court didn't say Newsom was wrong today; it just said that he isn't entitled to make that judgment for himself. Interpreting laws -- and deciding whether laws violate a constitution -- is a job for the courts, not the mayor, the Supreme Court said.
The Bush campaign will undoubtedly say that the court made the right decision, but there's a bit of irony here. In an effort not to look like gay-bashers, the Republicans have cloaked the gay marriage fight in the language of "judicial activism." People, not judges, should get to decide the issue for themselves, they say. But in the San Francisco case, the California Supreme Court says that judges -- and not the people's elected representative -- should make the determination about the law on gay marriage.
California courts will soon get their chance to weigh in on the question that wasn't answered today. Lambda Legal and a number of other groups have filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of California's law against gay marriage.
And in a statement released just after the California Supreme Court ruled this morning, People for the American Way President Ralph Neas made it clear that the fight will continue nationwide as well. "While today’s ruling is heartbreaking for thousands of committed gay and lesbian couples and for their friends and families, it is far from the final word on the struggle toward full equality,” Neas said. “Our nation’s history is a story of steady progress achieved by people working together to eradicate discrimination from our laws and institutions. Every battle against discrimination has encountered resistance. Every fight for equality has faced setbacks. But the deeply rooted American values of freedom, fairness, and equality under the law will be victorious in the end.”
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
by Warduke » Sun Aug 15, 2004 1:30 am
Quote:
Marriage Debate in a New Arena
By William Wan and Lee Romney Times Staff Writers
With supporters of same-sex marriage losing a major round in the California Supreme Court, the debate seems likely to move to the Legislature, a shift that will pose risks for leaders of both major parties.
Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez said Friday that the Legislature would take up a bill next year to legalize gay marriage, and that he believed it would pass.
"I see this as a modern-day civil rights issue," Nuñez (D-Los Angeles) said in a meeting Friday with Times editors and reporters. "Sure it's controversial … [but] I suspect it will go to the governor's desk."
Both Democrats and Republicans say that whether the bill becomes law will hinge on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Democrats might be able to win passage of a same-sex marriage bill but they don't claim to have the votes to override a veto if Schwarzenegger doesn't sign it.
So far, the governor has remained ambiguous on the issue, even while many fellow Republicans have opposed it. During the flood of marriages in San Francisco, Schwarzenegger was carefully vague, offering opinions that were open to interpretation. Then in June, after being pressed on the issue in a Folsom restaurant, he answered: "I don't care one way or the other."
In a radio interview Friday morning, Schwarzenegger's opinion seemed largely the same, and did not deal with the fact that he could have the final say in legislation. "I think right now our law says that we don't accept same-sex marriage…. If the people change their minds, then so be it. If the courts change their mind, then so be it. Then we will follow those laws," he said.
Supporters of gay marriage hope that a major factor in the legislative debate will be the roughly 4,000 same-sex couples who wed this winter in San Francisco. Despite Thursday's state Supreme Court decision rendering the marriages invalid, those couples have pushed the issue into the state's political spotlight and put a human face on the concept, supporters say.
"Before San Francisco, same-sex marriage was an abstract idea," said Matt Coles, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union. "It's much easier to treat an idea in a shabby way than a person in a shabby way. The couples who got married and their vivid stories are going to be a very powerful force in the debate."
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the licenses for same-sex couples six months ago despite state law declaring that marriage is between a man and a woman. Newsom believed state marriage laws violated provisions in the state and federal constitutions against discrimination.
Opponents are downplaying the importance of the couples in the political debate, particularly in light of Thursday's ruling. "I don't think this event will have any impact one way or another," said Assemblyman Ray Haynes (R-Murrieta). "It was all a big game from the beginning, and the court said the game's over."
Either way, the Legislature is poised to be the next battleground for the issue.
Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), who had proposed a bill in February allowing gay marriage, plans to reintroduce that measure in the upcoming legislative session.
His previous attempt foundered amid election-year politics and the swarm of other issues facing legislators. But the bill passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee, which supporters say marked the first time a legislative body in the United States had formally voted in favor of same-sex marriage.
This time, however, Leno believes the legislation has newfound support largely because of the thousands of couples who took advantage of the gender-neutral licenses. Leno said he had garnered the new support of Secretary of State Kevin Shelley as well as the state treasurer, insurance commissioner and controller.
"Time is on our side," Leno said. "With every month, public support grows."
Others, however, are skeptical about whether politicians will embrace the controversial matter. "I don't think the Legislature is going to rush into such a divisive issue," said Larry Levine, a law professor at the University of the Pacific. "Not when they can wait for the courts to act."
Action to allow gay marriage in the states that have legalized it has come initially from states' supreme courts and not their legislatures. No state legislature in the country has yet approved same-sex marriages.
Most Californians do not support gay marriage, opinion polls show. According to a recent Los Angeles Times poll, less than a third of Californians believe same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. The same poll shows that almost half of the people who identify themselves as Democrats support gay marriage while Republicans are overwhelmingly opposed.
The numbers also show that California is more closely divided on the concept than the country as a whole. Nationwide, only a fourth of respondents said they favored same-sex marriages.
Republican legislators and other opponents argue that voters already decided against gay marriage when they passed Proposition 22, which bars California from recognizing same-sex marriages that might be allowed in other states.
"The fact that people voted to protect marriage put a high, high hurdle in front of any judge that would want to create gay marriage out of their own case law interpretations," said Randy Thomasson, director of the Campaign for California Families.
Leno countered that Proposition 22 only addressed how same-sex marriages performed in other states would be viewed in California and not the central issue of whether gay marriages as a whole should be allowed in California. Meanwhile, court cases filed in San Francisco and one in Los Angeles challenging the constitutionality of same-sex marriage are moving forward and are expected to reach the state Supreme Court within a couple of years.
With the legislation and litigation moving ahead on separate fronts — and successful constitutional challenges to heterosexual marriage laws in Massachusetts high court last year and a Washington trial court last week — gay rights proponents are optimistic.
"We have a good chance in the Legislature and the courts," said Jon Davidson, chief counsel for the gay rights group Lambda Legal. "Everything we've been through the last year will have significant impact. We're moving forward."
But Jordan Lorence, the Alliance Defense Fund attorney who challenged San Francisco's actions before the California Supreme Court, said he was convinced that the crusade for gay marriage would ultimately fail. If the courts or Legislature move to legalize gay marriage, he predicted, the voters will step in to reverse it. "This juggernaut of inevitability is illusionary," he said.
*
Times staff writer Jean-Paul Renaud contributed to this report.
by Ben Varkentine » Mon Aug 16, 2004 3:33 pm
Quote:
Imperfect Unions
By JONATHAN RAUCH
What happened to Governor McGreevey - that is, James E. McGreevey, the Democratic governor of New Jersey, who announced his resignation on Thursday because he was secretly gay and had "shamefully" conducted an extramarital affair - was strange, to say the least. Pundits wondered whether there would be broader ramifications for gay civil rights, same-sex marriage or American politics. I doubt it. A rich and seemingly unique concatenation of homosexuality, adultery, suspicions of political featherbedding, and rumors of extortion and sexual harassment made the McGreevey scandal look like an aberration.
What happened to Mr. McGreevey - the man, not the governor - was not strange at all. It was familiar to almost every gay American of Mr. McGreevey's generation. Marriage, not homosexuality, lies at the heart of it.
Mr. McGreevey is 47. I am 44. We have in common being among the early members of the post-Stonewall generation. We came of age in the 1970's, when overt expressions of anti-gay animus were becoming unacceptable in polite company. The worst of official repression was past. Vice-squad raids and scandalous arrests and federal witch hunts were not central fears in our lives. There was still plenty of unofficial discrimination and ugly and ignorant rhetoric, and we all feared the low-grade terrorism known as gay-bashing. But on the whole we were free, as no previous generation had been, to get on with our lives.
There was one thing, however, we knew we could never aspire to do, at least not as homosexuals. We could not marry.
By that I mean not just that gay couples could not marry. Self-acknowledged gay people - coupled or single, adult or adolescent, open or closeted - also could not hope to marry. The very concept of same-sex marriage had yet to surface in public debate. We grew up taking for granted that to be homosexual was to be alienated and isolated, not just for now but for life, from the culture of marriage and all the blessings it brings.
Social-science research has established beyond reasonable doubt that marriage, on average, makes people healthier, happier and financially better off. More than that, however, the prospect of marriage shapes our lives from the first crush, the first date, the first kiss. Even for people who do not eventually choose to marry, the prospect of marriage provides a destination for love and the expectation of a stable home in a welcoming community.
The gay-marriage debate is often conducted as if the whole issue were providing spousal health insurance and Social Security survivors' benefits for existing same-sex couples. All of that matters, but more important, and often overlooked, is the way in which alienation from marriage twists and damages gay souls. In my own case, I did not understand and acknowledge my homosexuality until well into adulthood, but I somehow understood even as a young boy that I would probably never marry. (Children understand marriage long before they understand sex or sexuality.) I coped by struggling for years to suppress every sexual and romantic urge. I convinced myself that I could never love anybody, until the strain of denial became too much to bear.
Others coped differently. Some threw themselves into rebellion against marriage and the bourgeois norms it seemed to represent. Some, to their credit, built firmly coupled gay lives without the social support and investment that marriage brings. And some, determined to lead "normal" lives (meaning, largely, married lives), married.
At what point Mr. McGreevey realized and acknowledged he was gay I don't know. I do know that many gay husbands begin by denying and end by deceiving. Perhaps that was so in his case.
Opponents of same-sex marriage sometimes insist that gays can marry. Marriage, they say, isn't all about sex. It can be about an abstinent, selfless love. Well, as Benjamin Franklin said, where there is marriage without love there will be love without marriage. I'm always startled when some of the same people who say that gays are too promiscuous and irresponsible to marry turn around and urge us into marriages that practically beg to end in adultery and recklessness.
For most human beings, the urge to find and marry one's other half is elemental. It is central to what most people regard as the good life. Gay people's lives are damaged when that aspiration is quashed, of course. Mr. McGreevey can probably attest to that. But so are the lives of spouses, of children. Mr. McGreevey can probably attest to that, too.
The country is still making up its mind about same-sex marriage. Massachusetts has it. Most states have pre-emptively banned it. On Thursday, the California Supreme Court invalidated about 4,000 same-sex marriages performed by the city of San Francisco, but gay-marriage advocates hope that this is a temporary setback. Through litigation now working its way through the system, California's highest court may yet overturn the state's gay-marriage ban.
The McGreevey debacle suggests why all Americans, gay and straight alike, have a stake in universalizing marriage. The greatest promise of same-sex marriage is not the tangible improvement it may bring to today's committed gay couples, but its potential to reinforce the message that marriage is the gold standard for human relationships: that adults and children and gays and straights and society and souls all flourish best when love, sex and marriage go together. Nothing will ever make the discovery of homosexual longings easy for a young person. But homosexuality need not mean growing up, as Jim McGreevey and I and many others did, torn between marriage and love.
Jonathan Rauch is the author of "Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights and Good for America."
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
by Kieli » Tue Aug 17, 2004 7:57 pm
Quote:
Tuesday, Aug. 17, 2004
Last Thursday, August 12, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling rebuffing San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's efforts to authorize same-sex marriages in California. The outcome came as no surprise. Virtually every legal commentator had predicted that the court would reject the position Newsom has been taking.
Newsom contended that a Mayor in California has the power -- indeed, the duty -- to disregard state statutes that he believes violate the state or federal constitutions, even when those statutes have not been tested and invalidated by any court. But as I noted in a prior column, Newsom's broad claim is not very convincing.
What was less foreseeable than the high court's decision itself, however, was its reasoning. Exactly how would the California Supreme court explain its result? And exactly what - if anything - would the court say and do about the 4,000 or so marriage licenses that San Francisco had already issued to gay couples?
We now have the answers to those questions, and they provide some interesting food for thought.
An Abundance of Caution: Avoiding Certain Disputed Legal Questions
Overall, the court's opinion was an unusual mixture of cautious disinclination to decide certain disputed legal questions on the one hand, and broad rhetoric, reasoning and action on the other. Let us first analyze the careful aspects of the ruling.
To begin with, the court repeatedly and explicitly steered well clear of expressing any views on the "ultimate" question in the California gay marriage controversy -- whether the statutes that define marriage as only between a man and a woman are consistent with California's constitution.
In addition, the court made clear that the meaning -- as distinguished from the validity -- of various of the key statutes would also have to remain in dispute until another day. For example, one such statute is so-called Proposition 22 - a popularly-adopted initiative passed by California voters in 2000. Proposition 22 provides that "[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." And under California law, popularly-enacted initiative statutes ordinarily cannot be substantively amended by the legislature. So it becomes important to know exactly what Proposition 22 means to know exactly what the legislature cannot tinker with.
Right now, various legislators in the state are trying to rewrite the California family law code to allow same-sex marriage licenses to be issued within the State. They argue that such amendments do not interfere with Proposition 22, insofar as that measure was - notwithstanding its broad text - designed to deal only with California's recognition of marriages entered into in other states, and not intended to govern marriage licenses issued in-state. (For more on this issue, readers can refer to one of my earlier columns.)
The California court did not interpret Proposition 22 so as to either embrace or reject that reading. Instead, it left Proposition 22 out of its analysis altogether - on the ground that other California statutes clearly limit marriage in California to heterosexual couples only. These other statutes, because they do not take the form of initiatives, can be amended by the legislature at its will. We thus have no guidance on whether the current legislative proposals are prohibited by Proposition 22 - the key legal roadblock in their path.
Broad Rhetoric and Action: The Court Is Clear on the Limits of Mayoral Power
In contrast to its careful avoidance of the issues described above, the court said a lot - perhaps too much - about the limits on executive power that made Mayor Newsom's actions in directing the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses untenable. Again, Newsom claimed he had the power to disregard state statutes he believed to be unconstitutional under the state and/or federal constitutions.
In rejecting Newsom's claim, the court might have said simply that local executive officials - such as mayors -- who are part of a statewide hierarchical system lack such power. But at times in its opinion, the court went further to suggest that
no executive official - local or supreme - could ever have such a power.
Was this broad rejection of all executive power to decline to enforce based on constitutional objections sound? Dissenting Justice Kathryn Werdegar thought not - criticizing in particular a passage in which the majority intimates that even the President lacks the power to decline to enforce a ministerial law on the ground that he thinks it is unconstitutional. The court quotes an 1838 United States Supreme Court case for the proposition that "to contend that the obligation imposed on the president to see the laws faithfully executed implies a power to forbid their execution is a novel construction of the constitution, and entirely inadmissible."
But more recent authority from the U.S. Supreme Court indicates that the President may indeed sometimes have that power. For instance, as then-Assistant Attorney General (and later acting Solicitor General) Walter Dellinger observed in a 1994 memo, "Opinions dating to at least 1860 assert the President's authority to decline to effectuate enactments that the President views as unconstitutional. . . . More recently, in Freytag v. Commissioner, all four of the Justices who addressed the issue agreed that the President has 'the power to veto encroaching laws. . . or even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional.'"
Are Executive Officers Competent to Make Constitutional Judgments?
The California court's broad rejection of executive power here seems to rest in part on a practical assessment of the aptitude of executive officers to make constitutional judgments without the benefit of prior judicial guidance. The court remarked, "Certainly attorneys have no monopoly on wisdom, but a person trained for three years or more in a college of law and then tempered with at least a decade of experience within the judicial system is likely to be far better equipped to make difficult constitutional judgments than a lay administrator with no background in the law."
But the comparison between the aptitude of courts and the aptitude of executive officials is a false one. The real comparison ought to be between the aptitude of the legislature that passed the statute in question, and the executive official who wants not to enforce it. Legislators are no more likely than are executive officials to be learned lawyers. Yet the California court's broad holding is that all executive officials must obey statutes that legislatures (apparently) think are constitutional, even though no court has yet validated them.
To put the point another way, the "presumption of constitutionality" that attaches to each legislative statute - and which does much work in the court's analysis - is itself undermined by the court's functional analysis of the legal sophistication of the relevant actors. There is no reason to believe that a legislature's instincts about what is constitutional are likely to be any better than an executive official's.
Indeed, many executive officers throughout American history have been among the most talented and insightful of constitutional lawyers. Perhaps the best example of this is President Abraham Lincoln, who - I daresay - was a more sophisticated constitutional lawyer and thinker than anyone on the U.S. Supreme Court during his day.
Why does the California Supreme court's disparagement of the capacities of all executive officials to make constitutional judgments matter? Because it is but one part of a pervasive court-centric perspective that has been repeatedly reinforced by the U.S. Supreme Court, and that is now internalized by all the key institutional actors, including high-level executive officials themselves.
Similar rhetoric and reasoning - when extrapolated -- leads to things like President George W. Bush signing a bill (the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform proposal) into law even though he says (in his signing message, no less) that he thinks the bill is unconstitutional, but that this question is for the courts rather than the executive branch.
Nor was this broad repudiation of executive power necessary to resolve the Newsom case. As I have explained in an earlier column, a local California Mayor simply does not have the power to independently disregard statewide statutes, even if higher level executive officials - like a Governor - might. The court could easily have rested its opinion on this far narrower ground.
A Broad Rejection of the Marriage Licenses Already Issued
The California Supreme court also ruled quite broadly on another question: Do - or did
-- the licenses already issued by San Francisco to same-sex couples have any legal force and effect? The majority offer a blunt "No": Because the licenses were issued unlawfully, they never have had, and never will have, any effect at all.
To some extent, the majority's instinct is right: Until and unless California statutes defining marriage as between only men and women have been judicially invalidated, the San Francisco same-sex licenses cannot have any legal force - the persons who hold them cannot now enjoy any of the legal benefits distinctive to the institution of marriage. So couples possessing these licenses should know - and the California Supreme court was right to remind them - that these licenses should not currently be relied upon.
But the court went a step further. It said that even in the event that California marriage statutes are later invalidated by appellate courts, same sex couples would have to go through the marriage process (again) in order to obtain marital benefits. As the court put it: "[S]hould the current California statutes limiting marriage to a man and a woman ultimately be repealed or be held unconstitutional, the affected couples then would be free to obtain lawfully authorized marriage licenses." (Emphasis added.)
Analogies, however, suggest this is not necessarily such an obvious conclusion. Suppose, for example, a woman applied for admission to a public military university but was ineligible notwithstanding great grades and test scores, simply because state statutes prohibited women from attending. Suppose further that a courageous admissions officer nonetheless processed her application and sent her a letter of admission indicating that she qualified based on her grades and scores compared to those of other applicants that year, and based on his view that gender cannot be a ground for exclusion.
Such action by the admissions officer - in direct violation of state law - would not be "authorized." And yet after a suit challenging his action resulted in the invalidation of the gender-based admissions statute, would it be clear to everyone that the woman student would now need to reapply? I don't know.
Justice Werdegar's dissent invokes an even more powerful analogy. She observes that "interracial marriages that were void under antimiscegeny statutes at the time they were solemnized were nonetheless recognized as valid after the high court rejected those laws in Loving v. Virginia."
This analogy seems right on the money. At the time the interracial marriages were voided, no court had yet held the statutes banning interracial marriage to be unconstitutional. Yet after the Supreme Court so held, interracial marriages, suggests Werdegar, were recognized automatically. Why should same-sex marriages be treated differently?
The majority gave no adequate answer to Justice Werdegar's powerful analogy. And that is a bit of a shame, because breadth in an opinion is always most satisfying when accompanied by corresponding depth.
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 skittles » Sat Aug 21, 2004 4:58 am
skittles
by maudmac » Sat Aug 21, 2004 9:37 am
i wasn't sniffing your spicy brains
by skittles » Sat Aug 21, 2004 10:23 am
skittles
by maudmac » Sat Aug 21, 2004 11:03 am
Goodness gracious.Quote:
Bush Twins' Gay Wedding
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: August 18, 2004 5:02 pm ET
(Washington) In what is likely to be a major embarrassment for President Bush, his twin daughters have reportedly agreed to attend a gay wedding in nearby Laytonsville, Maryland.
The wedding is that of their beautician Erwin Gomez and his partner James Packard. Although not recognized by law, the two, who also wed in San Francisco when it was legal there, will exchange vows and rings and hold a reception for friends at their Laytonsville home.
Gomez works at the Elizabeth Arden shop in Chevy Chase.
The New York Daily News reports that Gomez gave the First Daughters invitations to next month's affair when the girls came in for their weekly eyebrow waxing and they accepted.
"I gave them the party invitation, and they said, 'That sounds great, we'd love to come - it sounds like a lot of fun,'" Gomez told the News.
"The way they reacted, they were very open-minded."
Jenna and Barbara Bush may be looking forward to the nuptials but Dad may have something to say. The President has been one of the main opponents of same-sex marriage. (story)
Despite his admiration for the twins, Gomez has little time for the President or his views on gay marriage.
"I think it's wrong - he has no right to touch that," he told the News. "He's trying to change the freedom of America. ... History is repeating itself, just like blacks and Jews were discriminated against."
A White House spokesperson for the twins, Susan Whitson, told the paper: "At this point I cannot confirm that the twins are attending. I only comment on official campaign activities."
©365Gay.com 2004
i wasn't sniffing your spicy brains
by Warduke » Tue Aug 24, 2004 6:41 pm
Quote:
Cheney's Gay Marriage Comments Draw Fire
By TODD DVORAK, Associated Press Writer
DAVENPORT, Iowa - Vice President Dick Cheney, whose daughter Mary is a lesbian, drew criticism from both proponents and foes of gay marriage Tuesday after he distanced himself from President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
At a campaign rally in this Mississippi River town, Cheney spoke supportively about gay relationships, saying "freedom means freedom for everyone," when asked about his stand on gay marriage.
"Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue our family is very familiar with," Cheney told an audience that included his daughter. "With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone ... People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.
"The question that comes up with the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction or approval is going to be granted by government? Historically, that's been a relationship that has been handled by the states. The states have made that fundamental decision of what constitutes a marriage," he said.
Bush backs a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage, a move Cheney says was prompted by various judicial rulings, including the action in Massachusetts that made gay marriage legal.
"I think his perception was that the courts, in effect, were beginning to change, without allowing the people to be involved," Cheney said. "The courts were making the judgment for the entire country."
Addressing Bush's position on the amendment, Cheney said, "at this point, save my own preference, as I have stated, but the president makes policy for the administration. He's made it clear that he does, in fact, support a constitutional amendment on this issue."
Those comments drew criticism from the conservative Family Research Council, with President Tony Perkins saying, "I find it hard to believe the vice president would stray from the administration's position on defense policy or tax policy. For many pro-family voters, protecting traditional marriage ranks ahead of the economy and job creation as a campaign issue."
Perkins added that if Cheney sees a problem with activist judges, "then how can he not endorse the same solution the president and his pro-family allies have proposed? We urge Vice President Cheney to support President Bush and a constitutional amendment on marriage."
Steven Fisher, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, a gay and lesbian advocacy group, said Cheney's remarks show a stark difference with Bush's efforts "to put discrimination in the Constitution."
"President Bush is feeling the heat. The administration has been using gay Americans to drive a wedge into the electorate. There are millions of American families who have gay family members and friends, who are offended by the president's use of discrimination," Fisher said.
Last month, Lynne Cheney said states should have the final say over the legal status of personal relationships, a comment that came just days before the Senate failed to back the ban.
Cheney said the amendment did not have the votes to pass, but he also said the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which President Clinton signed into law in 1996, may be enough.
"Most states have addressed this and there is on the books the federal statute, the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, and to date, it has not been successfully challenged in the courts and may be sufficient to resolve the issue," the vice president said.
The Cheneys have two daughters, both of whom are working on the campaign. Mary Cheney is director of vice presidential operations for the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. She held a public role as her father's assistant in the 2000 campaign and helped the GOP recruit gay voters during the 2002 midterm elections.
During the 2000 campaign, vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney took the position that states should decide legal issues about personal relationships and that people should be free to enter relationships of their choosing.
Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina, oppose the amendment. The Democratic candidates also oppose gay marriage, but defend a gay couple's rights to the same legal protections as those conferred in marriage.
by maudmac » Tue Aug 24, 2004 8:33 pm
Quote:
"I think his perception was that the courts, in effect, were beginning to change, without allowing the people to be involved," Cheney said. "The courts were making the judgment for the entire country."
i wasn't sniffing your spicy brains
by Warduke » Wed Sep 08, 2004 8:47 am
Quote:
Canada rejects Vatican on gay marriage
MONTREAL (AFP) - A Canadian official said that opposition from the Vatican would not stop plans to allow gay marriage if the nation's high court rules it legal.
Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Kimberly Phillips said the issue came up when Canada's new ambassador to the Vatican, Donald Smith, presented his credentials.
Legalizing gay marriage creates "a false understanding of the nature of marriage," Pope John Paul II told Smith.
The pope has repeatedly expressed his opposition to gay marriage.
While Canada understands the pope's position, "the government of Canada recognizes that this important issue will elicit strong views from all sides. In such a debate, it is important that the discussion is respectful of such difference of opinion," Phillips said.
Canada's high court has yet to rule on the issue of same-sex marriage, but the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia have already allowed it.
by Dave V » Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:41 am
Quote:
Fri, September 17, 2004
Same-sex matrimony
Manitoba ruling makes it legal for gays and lesbians to marry
By FRANK LANDRY, LEGISLATURE REPORTER
The province of Manitoba has begun issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples -- and two have already tied the knot. In a highly anticipated decision, Court of Queen's Bench Justice Douglas Yard yesterday ruled it unconstitutional to limit the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman.
"The traditional definition of marriage in Manitoba is reformulated to mean a voluntary union of two persons for life to the exclusion of others," Yard told a courtroom packed with media, government officials and gay-rights advocates.
Supporters let out wild cheers and began hugging each other following the decision.
GOT HITCHED
The Vital Statistics Agency said it would immediately begin issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples. By 4 p.m., at least three couples had obtained the documents. Two of the couples got hitched yesterday.
"It is just so wonderful to be able to marry my beautiful Stefphany," said Michelle Ritchot, who legally tied the knot with her long-time partner Stefphany Cholakis.
The couple was married at 1:30 p.m. in the Crowne Plaza revolving restaurant. The director of Vital Statistics waived the 24-hour waiting period between the issuance of the licence and the marriage ceremony.
Theirs is the first same-sex marriage to be registered in Manitoba. Another Winnipeg couple, Liz Manning and Reese Lagaratera-Manning, was also married shortly after.
Yard's ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed in August by three Winnipeg couples, including Ritchot and Cholakis, seeking a declaration that same-sex couples be allowed to marry in Manitoba.
Neither the province nor Ottawa fought the suit, marking the first time the feds have not opposed, or asked for an adjournment of, a same-sex marriage case.
"This is very exciting," said Jordan Cantwell, who is marrying partner Laura Fouhse tomorrow. "I don't think either one of us expected this to happen so soon."
The historic ruling didn't sit well with some religious groups. Roman Catholic Archbishop James Weisgerber said he regrets the courts have decided to strike down the traditional definition of marriage.
"It is difficult to understand how the unique importance of marriage to both children and society will not be gravely undermined by including in the definition of marriage, unions which are not equipped for reproduction," Weisgerber said in a written statement.
Despite the criticism, Weisgerber said Canadians "must be committed to the equality of all persons."
Manitoba is the fifth jurisdiction to recognize same-sex unions, following British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and the Yukon.
Manitoba Justice Minister Gord Mackintosh says it's unacceptable that there's a patchwork of marriage laws across the country.
"Some provinces have a certain rights regime and others do not," Mackintosh said. "Timely federal leadership would have made a difference."
Mackintosh added, "This does not mean priests and ministers will be required in any way to perform same-sex marriages. "This is about civil marriages and the issuance by the state of marriage licences."
by Gatito Grande » Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:37 pm
Quote:
"It is just so wonderful to be able to marry my beautiful Stefphany," said Michelle Ritchot, who legally tied the knot with her long-time partner Stefphany Cholakis.
)! Out Quote:
Judge won't nullify N.Y. same-sex nuptials
by PlanetOut Network
Published 2004/09/17
A New York Supreme Court justice has rejected the idea of invalidating the nuptials of more than 250 same-sex couples who were married this year in New Paltz, N.Y.
Justice Michael Kavanagh indicated in the Sept. 10 ruling, however, that he was "inclined" to permanently bar village officials from presiding at marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, the Daily Freeman newspaper reported on Thursday.
The decision was in response to a lawsuit filed by village Trustee Robert Hebel, which seeks to broaden an earlier injunction from Kavanagh that blocked Mayor Jason West from performing the marriages. West had solemnized 25 such marriages without licenses on Feb. 27.
Despite the injunction against West, gay and lesbian couples continued to marry in New Paltz before officials who were appointed "marriage officers" by the Village Board. Clergy members also performed some of the nuptials.
Kavanagh's recent ruling suggests, however, that he may forbid all civic officials from acting as marriage officers for same-sex unions.
"It is painfully apparent that these appointments were made as part of a rather transparent attempt by a majority of the board to circumvent the full import of this court's ruling," he wrote. "The Village Board would be well advised not to engage in similar conduct in the future."
The ruling does not affect the clergy members who preside at weddings of same-sex couples.
Couples in New York state do not need a license to marry, provided that the marriage is solemnized by an authorized official or clergy member.
Three major lawsuits pertaining to marriage equality are progressing through the state's judicial system.
by Warduke » Sat Sep 18, 2004 10:43 pm
Quote:
Louisiana Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban
By KEVIN McGILL, Associated Press Writer
NEW ORLEANS - Louisiana voters overwhelmingly approved a state constitutional amendment Saturday banning same-sex marriages and civil unions, one of up to 12 such measures on the ballot around the country this year.
With 99 percent of precincts reporting, the amendment was winning approval with 78 percent of the vote, and support for it was evident statewide. Only in New Orleans, home to a politically strong gay community, was the race relatively close, and even there the amendment was winning passage. Turnout statewide appeared to be about 27 percent of Louisiana's 2.8 million voters, somewhat low for a state election.
Christian conservatives had conducted an intense grassroots lobbying campaign for the amendment, which had been expected to pass easily. The civil rights group Forum for Equality had already promised legal action against it.
"It's gratifying to see the people of Louisiana had an opportunity, as distinguished from judges, having the final say on the issue of whether traditional marriage will continue to be the fundamental institution in our state," said Darrell White, a retired state judge and consultant for Louisiana Family Forum, which pushed for the amendment.
John Rawls, a lawyer for Forum for Equality, reiterated the group's contention that the amendment does far more than stop gay marriage and that it could affect many private contracts between unmarried couples, gay or straight — a claim its supporters dispute.
"I am disappointed that so many Louisianians either did not read the amendment or are so afraid of gays that they voted for this amendment anyway," Rawls said.
Louisiana already has a law stating that marriage can be only between a man and woman, but supporters of the amendment want to protect that law in the Constitution. The amendment also would prohibit state officials and courts from recognizing out-of-state marriages and civil unions between homosexuals.
Rawls said there were many possible grounds for challenging the results in state and federal court. One appeared Saturday, when voting machines were delivered late to some New Orleans precincts, keeping some from casting ballots for hours.
State director of elections Frances Sims said at least 59 precincts did not have voting machines when polls opened because officials with New Orleans' clerk of court's office failed to meet drivers who tried to deliver the machines earlier that morning. The problem was solved by midday.
Julius Green, 58, said he went to his polling place in New Orleans' Bywater neighborhood about 10 a.m. and found no voting machines — just a crowd.
"This is ridiculous," Green said. "It makes people feel that their vote don't count."
Advocates of the amendment and its opponents agreed it will be up to the courts to decide exactly what the measure does and does not do.
Similar amendments to ban same-sex marriage are on ballots in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah. Petitions in Ohio are still being verified.
by Gatito Grande » Sun Sep 19, 2004 6:34 pm
Out by skittles » Sun Sep 19, 2004 6:41 pm
skittles
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests