GLBT News

[Willowlicious]

Heh. Yes, I'm quite sure that it was today's ruling that finally did poor ole' Strom in. A new day has truly dawned.

Edited by: Willowlicious at: 6/26/03 9:33 pm

[sprhrgrl]

Heh, I was just heading here to make that oh-so-obvious connection, Willowlicious. The AOL reel said he died peacefully (it's weird, but this crappy AOL news really is helpful), but I think that's just a big gay lie!

sprhrgrl.com

she's my everything

racism=sexism=homophobia

The truth shall set you free, but first it will piss you off. - Gloria Steinem

[Amymlc]

From the University of Arizona Pride listserve:

Quote:

---

www.petitiononline.com/07...ition.html



The above is a link to an online petition opposing a (or an alleged...)proposed amendment to the constitution. Even if this is not true, and I'll admit I don't have the time right now to hunt down any information (not

home and very busy) to double check, but it sounds like it's right up some conservative groups' alley, so I don't find it hard to believe.



In any case, I felt it was worth your while to take a look and see what these idiots are up to now. Please take the time to check it out and let your voice be heard in opposition to such ridiculous drivel. I support a strong government, but not one whose sole purpose is pandering to the desires of a few narrow minded individuals who want the country micromanaged...according to their narrow view of what 'should' be.



My biggest fear with all this, I suppose is 'what's next'?



Thanks for your time

---

It's a little confusing to me, but I think this is a petition that supports gay marriage and is against the Federal Marriage Amendment. It's funny though because if you go read some of the comments that people wrote, a lot of the people are homophobes who are against homosexual marriages. They just don't know what they are signing I guess.

[Ben Varkentine]

"Legalize homosexuality? Over my dead..."

Ben



"Any frontal attack on ignorance is bound to fail because the masses are always

ready to defend their most precious possession."

[Kieli]

ROTFLMFAO! Ben you really are evil!

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.

[tyche]

The effects of the Supreme Court's ruling are already being felt.

www.nytimes.com/2003/06/2...rtner=UNTD

Quote:

---

Justices Void Prison Term Given Gay Teenager in Kansas

By DAVID STOUT



WASHINGTON, June 27 — In one of the first consequences of its landmark ruling on gay rights on Thursday, the Supreme Court today set aside the lengthy prison sentence imposed on a gay Kansas teenager for having had sex with a younger boy.



In a brief order with little elaboration, the court vacated the 17-year sentence imposed in 2000 on the defendant, Matthew Limon, and returned the case to the Kansas courts "for further consideration in light of Lawrence v. Texas."



The case of Lawrence v. Texas, which was decided on Thursday and overturned an Texas antisodomy law, upheld the constitutional right of gay people to engage in sexual activity in private.



The court's directive today that the Kansas courts reconsider the Limon case with Lawrence v. Texas in mind was tantamount to an instruction to set aside the prison term imposed on Mr. Limon, and perhaps to take a close look at what has been called the state's "Romeo and Juliet Law."



The statute gained that nickname in some legal circles because it regards oral sex differently when it involves heterosexual teenage couples, as opposed to youths of the same sex.



When one member of the couple is aged 14 to 16 and the other is older, the act is statutory rape under the Kansas law and the most common penalty is probation if the two are heterosexual. But probation is not available to same-sex teenage couples.



Matthew Limon was one week past his 18th birthday in early 2000 when he performed oral sex on a 14-year-old boy at the center for developmentally disabled young people where they both lived. No violence or coercion was involved.



Had Mr. Limon performed oral sex on a 14-year-old girl, he could have received a prison sentence of about 15 months, and possibly just probation. Instead, he is now about three years into a 17-year sentence in the Ellsworth Correctional Facility. Under his sentence, he was also ordered to register as a sex offender upon his release.



The American Civil Liberties Union has rallied behind Mr. Limon's case. The organization says it is not challenging a state's right to punish older teenagers for having sex with younger ones, but rather that the rules should not be different for same-sex couples and heterosexual couples.

---

Edited by: tyche at: 6/27/03 2:09 pm

[JustSkipIt]

People may like to argue that "this kind of case almost never happens" (i.e., arresting gays for having sex), but it sure does happen around here.



The ruling is hugely important to everyone imho but particularly here in Texas. One of the reasons that it is so important is that for the last 3 legislative sessions, legislators have proposed and argued laws to prohibit gays from adopting, fostering, etc. Some of the laws are absurdly expensive financially to the state and more than that, would actually remove children from the homes that they already are placed in. The reasoning behind these laws?: with the sodomy law, by definition homosexuals are criminals. And do we want criminals raising impressionable children? Now that logic can no longer be used.



Yeah for the Supreme Court! They got it right! Debra

---

Well there's not even breathing room between pleasure and pain. -- Aerosmith.

[sprhrgrl]

As for that petition posted above, check out allianceformarriage.org. . . Their logo doesn't even make much sense. . . It sounds to me a lot like the defense of marriage act. . .

sprhrgrl.com

she's my everything

racism=sexism=homophobia

The truth shall set you free, but first it will piss you off. - Gloria Steinem

[darkmagicwillow]

Good point, Debra. I've seen arguments like those too many times, and now they've lost their tenuous basis in the law.



sprhrgrl, ah, so that's what the Christian radio station was talking about on my way home today. Yeah, it's basically the defence of marriage act made into a constitutional amendment so it can't be struck down under the 14th amendment.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

[maudmac]

For the life of me, I cannot understand what motivates people to feel threatened by our desire to have the same rights everyone else has.



And, yeah, technically, the implications of this ruling are as great for straight folks as they are for queers. It keeps the government out of their bedrooms, too. Not that they were really going to jail for all that oral sex, but still.



I don't know whether to laugh or cry about it, but I honestly laughed when I got the news that Strom Thurmond had died. And, like many of you, the first thing that popped into my head was, "We killed Strom!"



Oh, okay, I'll just go ahead and be frank. My condolences to the people who cared about him. But, for the rest of us - Good riddance to bad rubbish. That man represented the worst of humanity and brought shame upon the South, Congress, hell, all of humanity. I can't be sorry that he's not part of this world anymore. I'm sorry he ever was.



I'm not surprised to find the phobes and fundies running around like maniacs trying to preserve the precious moral foundation of this great nation. Whatever. I've got your moral foundation right here.

---

Pussy crack corn...and I don't care! -- Margaret Cho

[sprhrgrl]

Heh, heh, about Strom. . .

sprhrgrl.com

she's my everything

racism=sexism=homophobia

The truth shall set you free, but first it will piss you off. - Gloria Steinem

[maudmac]

Oh, Strom got his, alright. Such justice.



Thanks for that link, that's hilarious.

---

Pussy crack corn...and I don't care! -- Margaret Cho

[Kalita]

In case there was any question...



Law to be clear: It's marriage



Pride week, however, isn't necessarily reaping rewards. THe second half of this article shows how the SARS angle is causing difficulties.

"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?"

- Marilyn Pittman

[Darcy]

Quote:

---

When I was telling him about the Canadian courts, a friend of mine actually tried to tell me that same sex marriage was legal in California and Florida. I explained that it was "domestic partnership" not marriage, and was told that I didn't know what I was talking about. Would someone who lives in California please clarify?

---

Frustrating, isn't it? I remember when the Hawaii Supreme Court first ruled in favor of plaintiffs seeking same-sex marriage rights. I told a co-worker that my partner and I would be flying to Hawaii if it stood up, and he expressed surprise that it wasn't already legal. (He at least had the brains to believe me when I explained how things stood.)



Florida? What drugs is he on? Florida is one of the states that still had a sodomy law until they were struck down Thursday, and still doesn't permit adoption by g/l parents. He's probably thinking of Hawaii - y'know, one of those states with palm trees.



I'm not from California, but I have been following the status of same-sex marriage and domestic partnership legislation since the Hawaii case was filed. We have registered our Domestic Partnership in California and our Reciprocal Beneficiary Relationship in Hawaii, as well as obtaining a Vermont Civil Union.



No state in the US allows or even recognizes marriage between same-sex partners. Vermont offers civil unions, which is an explicitly different status, but those are not recognized by any other state. They can get away with this because they don't have a comparable status in their own laws. California's Domestic Partner status and Hawaii's Reciprocal Beneficiary status are explicitly not marriage, and are available to people other than same-sex couples, such as adult siblings sharing a househild. As with Vermont's civil unions, Domestic Partnerships and Reciprocal Beneficiary Relationships aren't recognized elsewhere because other states don't have a comparable status. Hawaii actually amended their constitution to avoid having to recognize same-sex marriages.



Massachusetts and New Jersey currently have lawsuits making their way through the system seeking full marriage equality. Connecticut has considered some kind of civil union/domestic partnership legislation, but hasn't yet acted on it.



Lambda Legal has a horror story about a gay couple, registered domestic partners in California, who drove East to visit family of the partner who was dying of AIDS-related complications. In Maryland, he got very ill and had to be hospitalized. The hospital refused to allow the partner into his room because he wasn't "family", and told him their California status wasn't valid in Maryland. When the patient's mother and sister arrived, they insisted that the partner be allowed in, but by then the patient had slipped into a coma, and died without regaining consciousness. So the ability to have our relationships' legality be "portable" is essential, isn't provided by any status other than marriage, and we'll have to fight for it even then.



There is a legal argument to be made that under the "full faith and credit" clause of the US constitution, which requires that states must give full faith and credit to the official acts of other states, that if a state recognized same-sex marriage, the other states will have to do so as well. This was the underpinning of the Loving v. Virginia decision, which forced Virginia to recognize an inter-racial marriage performed in another state even though its own laws prohibited it as miscegnation.



Several European countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden) and Canada (at least Ontario) now permit same-sex marriages. The US fuss over Canada is three-fold. First - I believe the European marriages are restricted to their own citizens, while Canada has neither residency nor citizenship requirements. Second - it's just plain easier to get to than Europe for most US citizens. Third - the US generally recognizes as valid marriages performed in Canada. I've read that this is actually a treaty provision, but I don't know that for sure. So we could have a collision between a treaty with another nation and the mis-named federal and state "Defense of Marriage" acts.



I'm not waiting for a final decision on how the US will handle Canadian marriages of US same-sex partners. We're planning to get married in Toronto in August, just in case. If we have to get married again in New Jersey when we win the marriage lawsuit (I know, I'm an optimist!), that's fine. It would be nice to have a ceremony that we knew would have legal effect - that would be worth inviting our families and friends to!

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

[Gatito Grande]

Congratulations, Darcy on your impending (latest! ) nuptials. And thank you for your extremely informative post.



Isn't it (bitterly) ironic that we queers are accused of attacking marriage (which thus must be "defended" from us), when we love it so much, that we will try to get it again and again . . . to the *same* partner!



GG And in the case of Toronto, queers love marriage so much, they'll risk SARS to get it! Out

[Cipher]

BTW, if you want to read the actual ruling, you can get it from a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26jun20031200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-102.pdf



Or go to courts.net (or start from courts.net and select Federal), click on Supreme Court, then click on Opinions, and then on Latest Slip Opinions. Look for Lawrence v. Texas.



I found JFK's majority opinion fairly understandable. O'Connor's concurring opinion made my brain hurt trying to understand her reasoning for not overturning Bowers v. Hardwick given the things she cited. But Scalia's dissenting opinion really takes the cake as a ranting exercise in circular reasoning and other logical fallacies showing an inability to understand the reading of JFK's opinion and in some cases an inability to understand the meanings of English words. His main problem is an inability to conceive of the concept that private consensual mutually-desired sexual intimacy between unrelated adults is itself a fundamental right which includes all forms of such acts, and not individually fundamental rights for each possible act.

[MaClayMagic]

This is on the UK AOL news today.



Gay Partners to Get

'Married Rights'

-- Vote: Should gay couples get equal legal rights?



MINISTERS are putting the finishing touches to revolutionary reforms which will give gays and lesbians the same legal rights as married couples for the first time.



New civil partnerships are expected to give homosexual couples pension and property rights, providing they sign an official registration document.



The radical moves will give next of kin rights in hospitals, allow gays to benefit from a dead partner's pension and exempt them from inheritance tax on a partner's home.



The paper is not expected to use the term "gay marriage".



But the civil partnerships are likely to be as close to a marriage contract as possible.



It is thought partners will even be able to dissolve the agreement, in a form of "divorce".



It has been reported that, contrary to predictions, gay couples will not have to spend a prescribed amount of time living together before becoming eligible to sign the new contracts.



Chief executive of gay rights group Stonewall, Ben Summerskill, said: "We are delighted that a long overdue step is being taken by the government.



"Hundreds of thousands of gay people are in stable, long-term relationships but still don't have the same rights as many others.



"It's not just social status that matters, like the right to visit each other in hospital, but the right to share a partner's pension, for example - which is something available to every heterosexual."



He went on: "We hope that Parliamentary time will be made in the next session for the Bill. Every day's delay is a very real human tragedy for individuals all around the country."







Cool! A step in the right direction. Now I want marriage rights so I can have a new shiny ring to wear!!

"Primum Non Nocere" - First Do No Harm

[walker]

MaClayMagic I too am excited about this bill but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. It's been around for ages but has come across a lot of opposition. Forgetting about the homophobes who would die before they'd vote for it, pro-gay sections of parliament also have problems with this bill. The government have very explicitly stated that this bill is for gay couples exclusively, as straight couples have the right to marry if they so wish. Many people have a problem with this as they think the civil partnerships should be open to people of all sexualities as not everyone wishes to get married. I tend to agree with this position but I get the feeling that the arguement is going to end up stalling the bill for quite a while.



If anyone has heard of what amendments have been made to the bill this time round I'd be really interested to know.

I'm a foot without a sock without you - Fran Healey, Travis

[Shadow]

I've been reading this and I figured I could tell you how small country I live in decided to talk about gay marriage in parlament. and since it's broadcast on tv i got to see it.



first of all i live in croatia and since war here ended only 6 years ago we hawe A LOT of issues. this country is full of anger towards anyone who is different that i would really prefered if they didn't even get in to discusing should gay marriage be legalized.



one of the people in parlament, i'm not sure which one, actually said that gay people disgust him and that the money that would be spend on marrying them should be spent on CURING them.



well... i almost threw up after that.



how can people be open minded and welcome gay marriage when complete idiot like that gets to sit in the parlament and say something so awful?!



i always figured i would do anything i could to get out of this country and this is just one of many reasons.



just thought i should share...

We don't need lists of rights and wrongs, tables of do's and don'ts: we need books, time and silence.

Thou shalt not is soon forgotten, but Once Upon A Time lasts forever.



Philip Pullman

[Ben Varkentine]

One step forward, two steps back.



From the Yahoo! Newsfeed:



By Peter Kaplan



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican leader of the U.S. Senate said on Sunday he supported a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.



Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist expressed concern about the Supreme Court's decision last week to strike down a Texas sodomy law. He said he supported an amendment that would reserve marriage for relationships between men and women.



"I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between, what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined, as between a man and a woman," said Frist, of Tennessee. "So I would support the amendment."



Full article here:



story.news.yahoo.com/news...riage_dc_4



And pardon me while I gasp at the fact that this man is from Tennesee.



Remind me to tell you all some time about the latent actor in Tennesee who wouldn't say one of his lines in my play because he thought it made him sound "too gay."

Ben



"Any frontal attack on ignorance is bound to fail because the masses are always

ready to defend their most precious possession."

[Gatito Grande]

Frist, that scumbag! And this is the face of the "kinder, gentler" wing of the Republican party.



Elsewhere, gay marriage is the cover story on Newsweek, specifically "The War Over Gay Marriage." Y'know, I really hate that phrase, "gay marriage." It's not "gay marriage" we're after, it's simply marriage . . . for same-sex, as well as different-sex couples.



And yeah, Senator Frist, this queer Anglican believes that marriage is a sacrament, too. In Christian tradition, the Church pronounces its blessing over the love that the couple share in their hearts, not over a mere interlocking penis and vagina. *sshole!



Here's the link to online version of the Newsweek coverstory:



www.msnbc.com/news/932621.asp?0nw=n2d



GG Het marriage *can* be a sacrament---they just don't look as fab! Out

[Cipher]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Darcy

The hospital refused to allow the partner into his room because he wasn't "family", and told him their California status wasn't valid in Maryland.

---

One's "family" is not up to others to define but rather oneself. It is not the place of the hospital to decide who can and can't visit a patient, it is the patient who decides who they want or don't want visiting. The "family" rule is to protect the patient in the absence of consciousness (and perhaps protect the hospital from being overrun by a mass of "friends" who are not actually close with the patient), but when the hospital refuses to consider the reality of the patient's life and living situation they are failing their patient. When the law supports this it is not providing Equal Protection to all people but instead picking and choosing in an arbitrary manner.



I think the rule should be that anyone who lives full time with the patient is considered "family". That includes roommates who have no particular relationship other than a claim of friendship. (An exception needs to also be considered in the case of domestic violence; barring the suspected abuser, especially if that's what put them in the hospital.) Serious exclusive dating relationships also need to be respected. Of course, if the patient is conscious they should be consulted and their word is final on who may or may not visit them. And of course if the patient is in critical condition and needs urgent measures then non-staff are generally barred from the room until it is safe.



This is just one area in which marriage restrictions violate Equal Protection. Medical decision proxies are a related one. There are several areas in which people have the right to designate each other (and in the few that aren't recognized, they arguably should be) and which are all easily designated by official recognition of marriage--since most are fairly universal to the concept of a life-partner. Denying marriage to some and creating greater obstacles to them pursuing those rights than others face (or outright refusing on arbitrary grounds) is not providing Equal Protection under the law. (Actually, "domestic partnership" with a weaker standard of entry than marriage has would also be unequal, unless available to opposite-sex couples on the same domestic-partner standard; but then since marriage is still restricted, things still wouldn't be equal even if it was.)

[xita]

Here is the

salon version of this 2 step backwards article. You know this is a direct response to the Supreme Court Ruling. Scalia, Frist and their ilk are running scared knowing theirs is a losing battle. The times are changing and they can't keep up.



Senate majority leader endorses gay marriage ban



- - - - - - - - - - - -

By William C. Mann



June 29, 2003 | WASHINGTON (AP) --



The Senate majority leader said Sunday he supported a proposed constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage in the United States.



Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said the Supreme Court's decision last week on gay sex threatens to make the American home a place where criminality is condoned.



The court on Thursday threw out a Texas law that prohibited acts of sodomy between homosexuals in a private home, saying that such a prohibition violates the defendants' privacy rights under the Constitution. The ruling invalidated the Texas law and similar statutes in 12 other states.



"I have this fear that this zone of privacy that we all want protected in our own homes is gradually -- or I'm concerned about the potential for it gradually being encroached upon, where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned," Frist told ABC's "This Week."



"And I'm thinking of -- whether it's prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home -- ... to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern."



Asked whether he supported an amendment that would ban any marriage in the United States except a union of a man and a woman, Frist said: "I absolutely do, of course I do.



"I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between -- what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined -- as between a man and a woman. So I would support the amendment."



Same-sex marriages are legal in Belgium and the Netherlands. Canada's Liberal government announced two weeks ago that it would enact similar legislation soon.



Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., was the main sponsor of the proposal offered May 21 to amend the Constitution. It was referred to the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution on Wednesday, the day before the high court ruled.



As drafted, the proposal says:



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



To be added to the Constitution, the proposal must be approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate and ratified by three-fourths of the states.



Frist said Sunday he respects the Supreme Court decision but feels the justices overstepped their bounds.



"Generally, I think matters such as sodomy should be addressed by the state legislatures," Frist said. "That's where those decisions -- with the local norms, the local mores -- are being able to have their input in reflected.



"And that's where it should be decided, and not in the courts."

-----------------------------------
blonk, blink, blong

[Wytchi Grrl]

I've just been reading up on Aol for the latest -

---

New Gay Rights 'Heterophobic'



-- Vote: Should gay couples get equal legal rights?



PLANS to give gay and lesbians the same legal rights as married couples have been blasted.



Campaigners and opposition politicians criticised the proposals and said they should have been extended to provide legal recognition for all unmarried couples.



Human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell described the plans as "heterophobic" and "retrograde'"'.



"It is divisive, heterophobic and discriminatory to exclude unmarried heterosexual couples," he said.



"Cohabiting heterosexuals also lack legal recognition and protection. This is a grave injustice."



The revolutionary reforms will create civil partnerships to give homosexual couples pension and property rights providing they sign an official registration document.



The radical moves will give next of kin rights in hospitals, allow gays to benefit from a dead partner's pension and exempt them from inheritance tax on a partner's home.



Mr Tatchell said the Government had missed an opportunity to create a new, modern legal framework for gay and heterosexual couples and other "relationships of care".



He added: "It is a pity the Government has opted for an unimaginative, watered down version of marriage, instead of having the foresight to devise an entirely new, modern legal framework for partnership recognition."



The Government paper is not expected to use the term "gay marriage".

---

Make of that what you will, personally I cannot say I'm surprised.



Here were the results of their non-scientific "Fun" (pfft) vote -



Should gay and lesbian couples have the same rights as heterosexual married couples?



63% Yes 8,415

37% No 4,938

Total votes: 13,353



Do you think gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to get married in church?



51% Yes 6,838

49% No 6,442

Total votes: 13,280



and finally a word of advice, avoid their posting boards on the subject, unless you feel up to facing a large majority of the posters openly gay bashing. I'm sure some of whats been said, can't be allowed - unless it's unmoderated.



Wytchi

---

Witchcraft Grrls

Sassy Eggs

[Kalita]

Just clearing up a couple things in the spirit of completenes...

Quote:

---

Several European countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden) and Canada (at least Ontario) now permit same-sex marriages.

---

The Netherlands and Belgium certainly do, but limit it to their own citizens (no drive-in weddings for out-of-towners). Sweden does not, as far as I know; it's in a group including Denmark, France, Iceland, and Norway which recognize the civil-union setup.



As for here in Canada, Ontario is the only jurisdiction currently issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. The federal government has promised legislation which will make it go naition-wide, and should take effect within the year. Ontario allows anyone who comes to an issuing bureau to take out a license, hence anyone can get married here. Heterosexual marriages made here are certainly recognized south of the border; as you mentioned, exactly what status same-sex marriages will have is still to be seen.



"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has. "

- Margaret Mead

Edited by: Kalita at: 6/30/03 8:16 am

[Wytchi Grrl]

Here's the latest from the uk! from aol news



--REVOLUTIONARY reforms for new "gay marriages" have been proposed by ministers.



The controversial civil partnerships will grant gays and lesbians the same legal rights as married couples for the first time.



Gays will be able to sign an official document at a register office in front of the registrar and two witnesses, although there will not be an official ceremony, said ministers.



Today's radical moves, which would cover England and Wales, will allow gays to benefit from a dead partner's pension, grant next of kin rights in hospitals and exempt them from inheritance tax on a partner's home. The consultation paper does not use the term "gay marriage" but the civil partnerships have clearly been designed to be as close to a marriage contract as possible. Partners will even be able to dissolve the agreement in a form of "divorce".--



Ok it's not technically marriage but boy is it a big step in the right direction. Anyone care to dance!!!!

---

Witchcraft Grrls

Sassy Eggs

[concrete]

Actually, there is a slight difference between The Netherlands and Belgium re s/s marriage:

The Netherlands does not limit this stricktly to their own citizens: one of them has to have the Dutch nationality AND have permanent residency in The Netherlands whilst the other partner can be from anywhere else in the world. For two foreigners who wish to get married in the Netherlands, this obviously does not apply, moreover, they would mostly come from countries where such unions are simply not recognized (except when they're Belgian, see below) so that would be a rather "useless" (for lack of a better word) enterprise for them.

Belgium on the other hand does restrict s/s marriage: only 2 people from countries where these alliances are valid, meaning: Belgians/Belgians or Belgians/Dutch.

And now, in Canada, things are definitely going in the right direction; I personally believe it's only a matter of a few years before it becomes fully equal. And that's how it should be

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.

Even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious. ...

[Ben Varkentine]

"To take another notorious Texas law, if you own six or more dildos in this state, you are a felon, presumed to have intent to distribute. Whereas if you have five or fewer, you are merely a hobbyist."



Gad, I love Molly Ivins.



www.workingforchange.com/...N=23928308

Ben



"Any frontal attack on ignorance is bound to fail because the masses are always

ready to defend their most precious possession."

[skittles]

I'm rather surprised at this news... not that it isn't good... but at who the article is about!! and, yes, this isn't as fantastic as the supreme court news, but it's still good... I hope..



NYTimes article (requires registration)



New Wal-Mart Policy Protects Gay Workers

NYTimes, July 2, 2003



By SARAH KERSHAW



SEATTLE, July 1 — Wal-Mart Stores, the nation's largest private employer, has expanded its antidiscrimination policy to protect gay and lesbian employees, company officials said today.



The decision to include gay employees under rules that prohibit workplace discrimination was hailed by gay rights groups, already buoyed by a Supreme Court ruling last week that struck down a Texas sodomy law, as a sign of how far corporate America has come in accepting gay employees.



The decision was first disclosed today by a Seattle gay rights foundation that had invested in Wal-Mart and then lobbied the company for two years to change its policy. The group, Pride Foundation, which along with several investment management firms holding stock in Wal-Mart had met as shareholders with company officials to discuss the policy, received a letter last week from Wal-Mart outlining the new employee protections. Wal-Mart officials confirmed the policy change today.



"It's the right thing to do for our employees," Mona Williams, Wal-Mart's vice president for communications, said in a telephone interview. "We want all of our associates to feel they are valued and treated with respect — no exceptions. And it's the right thing to do for our business."



Ms. Williams said the company was sending out a letter today to its 3,500 stores and that store managers would then convey the policy change to the company's more than 1 million employees. She said that while investors like Pride Foundation had a role in the decision, the most important factor was a letter to senior management officials about six weeks ago from several gay Wal-Mart employees, saying that unless the company changed its policy the employees would "continue to feel excluded."



Wal-Mart has been careful not to alienate its customers who might hold conservative views. In recent months, the company has decided to stop selling three men's magazines it said were too racy and to partially obscure the covers of four women's magazines on sale in checkout lines. The company said customers felt the magazine cover headlines were too provocative and planned to use U-shaped blinders to cover them.



Wal-Mart has also refused to sell CD's with labels warning of explicit lyrics.



Ms. Williams said she saw no conflict between the decision to limit the distribution of entertainment products based on content and the decision to protect gay employees.



"In each case, we sit down and think through the individual decisions," she said. "Putting in the blinders was the right thing to do. In this case, once again, we talked about it and decided it was the right thing to do."



With Wal-Mart making the policy change, 9 of the 10 largest Fortune 500 companies now have rules barring discrimination against gay employees, according to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group in Washington, D.C., that monitors discrimination policies and laws.



The exception is the Exxon Mobil Corporation, which was created in 1999 after Exxon acquired Mobil, and then revoked a Mobil policy that provided medical benefits to partners of gay employees, as well as a policy that included sexual orientation as a category of prohibited discrimination.



Wal-Mart said it had no plans to extend medical benefits to unmarried couples, but gay rights groups that have pressed for coverage for domestic partners said they would continue to lobby the company to do so.



Among the Fortune 500 companies, 197 provide domestic partners with medical coverage, including several of the major airlines and the Big Three automakers, and 318 have antidiscrimination policies that extend protection to gay employees, according to the Human Rights Campaign.



With Wal-Mart now joining the ranks of companies with protections for gay employees, and in light of last week's Supreme Court ruling, gay rights groups said they expected many corporations, and possibly state governments, to follow suit.



"A major argument against equal benefits, against fair treatment of employees, has been taken away," said Kevin Cathcart, executive director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, referring to the Supreme Court ruling on Lawrence v. Texas. "And so even within corporations it's a very different dialogue today, a very different dialogue."



There is no federal law prohibiting discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation, but 13 states, the District of Columbia and several hundred towns, cities or counties have such legal protections in place for public and private employees, according to the latest information from the Human Rights Campaign.



As outlined in the letter to Pride Foundation, Wal-Mart's new policy states, "We affirm our commitment and pledge our support to equal opportunity employment for all qualified persons, regardless of race, color, religion, gender, national origin, age, disability or status as a veteran or sexual orientation."



It goes on to say that managers and supervisors "shall recruit, hire, train and promote in all job positions" based on those principles and "ensure that all personnel actions" are taken based on those principles.



The company said that it also revised its policy on harassment and inappropriate conduct to include sexual orientation and that the new written policy would encourage employees to report discriminatory behavior to management.



As the nation's largest private employer and one whose stores are not unionized, Wal-Mart has long been the target of organized labor, and some of its labor practices have been challenged in lawsuits. One lawsuit, filed in San Francisco, accused the company of favoring men over women in promotions and pay.



In addition, the company faces more than 40 lawsuits accusing the company of pressuring or forcing employees to work unpaid hours.



While Wal-Mart attributed the discrimination policy change to the letter from its gay employees, it had been under pressure from several investors, including the Seattle group and three other management investment firms with stock in the company.



They are all members of the Equality Project, a nonprofit group in New York that monitors corporate policies on sexual orientation and lobbies for protections for gay employees.



Under Securities and Exchange Commission regulations, any stockholder with $2,000 or more in shares can introduce a "shareholder resolution" on an array of company policy issues, including antidiscrimination rules. The resolutions are not binding, and the shareholders have no influence over "ordinary business," including benefits and wages, according to S.E.C. officials.



The Seattle group and the other investors began discussions with Wal-Mart in August 2001, when several members of the groups went to the company headquarters in Bentonville, Ark., to try and persuade officials to change the policy, several group members said. As investors in General Electric and McDonald's, the Seattle group had already pressured the companies, through shareholder resolutions, and both companies have since extended workplace protections to gay employees.



Wal-Mart initially said it would study the issue, said Zan McColloch-Lussier, campaign director for Pride Foundation. But in a conference call in the spring of 2002, Mr. McColloch-Lussier recalled, company officials told the group, "Thanks, you've educated us, but we're not going to change our policies, we'll do management training."



More letters and telephone calls were exchanged, and then last Friday a letter came announcing the policy change.



Arthur D. Ally, president of the Timothy Plan, a religious-based investment group that had pressured the company about the magazines, said today that he would not sell Wal-Mart stock because of the revised antidiscrimination policy but would object to certain sensitivity training programs like "taking every employee in an organization and indoctrinating them in the homosexual agenda."



It was unclear today exactly how Wal-Mart planned to train employees, but Ms. Williams said that a computer-based training program would include discussion of sexual orientation.

(end of article)

skittles



How do you like to go up in a swing, up in the air so blue? Oh, I do think it the pleasantest thing ever a child can do!

Up in the air and over the wall, till I can see so wide, river and trees and cattle and all over the countryside--

Till I look down on the garden green, down on the roof so brown--Up in the air I go flying again, up in the air and down! - The Swing - RLStevenson

[willowntaraslovechild]

I know its not marriage but its still news of the good.



www.suntimes.com/output/n...gay02.html





Cook County certifies gay couples

July 2, 2003



BY ABDON M. PALLASCH Staff Reporter Advertisement















It's not quite a marriage license, but starting Oct. 1 gays and lesbians will be able to sign up for a "certificate of domestic partnership" from the Cook County Clerk--the same office that grants marriage licenses.



With support from 13 of Cook County's 17 commissioners, including a Republican and bungalow-belt Democrats, the county followed the lead of Oak Park and San Francisco in extending recognition, if not legal standing, to lesbians and gays.



"I know many gay and lesbian couples who are great parents and will be great parents," said mayoral brother John Daley, the county board's finance chairman whose support was crucial to passing the ordinance. "I'm a supporter of this and I'm not catering to any special interest groups whatsoever--it's the right thing to do."



Conservative and religious groups opposing the registry generated hundreds of telephone calls to commissioners over the last week, warning the registry was a step toward legalizing gay marriage.



"The courts look at public policy statements adopted by governments," said Ralph Rivera, legislative liaison for Family PAC. "They know they don't have the votes to pass this in the Legislature, so they try to do it through the courts, like they did in Canada--that's the danger."



Three Republican commissioners voted against the measure, including Carl Hansen (R-Mount Prospect), who said, "Gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose. But they don't have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society. This proposal is so loosely written as to allow as many as six such registrations in one year. Such a trivialization is unworthy of serious consideration or comparison to marriage in the state of Illinois."



Another Republican commissioner, Gregg Goslin (R-Glenview), voted present and the fifth Republican commissioner, Pete Silvestri (R-Elmwood Park), voted for it.



"My upbringing has taught me not to judge people," said Silvestri, whose district includes Oak Park. "This does not create a marriage. This does not incur any taxpayer cost. My family, my church, always taught me to respect people. I vote yes."



All 12 Democrats supported the ordinance.



Rick Garcia, political director of Equality Illinois, said after the vote that the lopsided tally shows the increased respect that lesbians and gays command.



"Increasing numbers of gays and lesbians are coming out," he said. "John Daley knows us. Pete Silvestri, a Republican, knows us. To know us is to love us."



Commissioner Mike Quigley (D-Chicago), who sponsored the ordinance, said it would help Fortune 500 companies that offer benefits to employees' same-sex partners. He expects thousands of couples to sign up.



So many municipalities and counties--59--have enacted same-sex partnership registries that it is passe, Quigley said.



"This is mainstream. This is old news," Quigley said.



Cook County Clerk David Orr plans to start issuing the certificates in 90 days. They will cost $30--the same as a marriage certificate.



Without much discussion at all, commissioners also unanimously voted Tuesday to hold a hearing at which developers could make offers to redevelop the old Cook County Hospital. All but two of the commissioners also voted to advertise for bids to demolish the old hospital in case no developer makes a good offer.



President John Stroger says he still thinks demolishing the old building is the best option.