GLBT News

[Gatito Grande]

Quote:

---

"Marriage for 6,000 years has been defined a certain way," said the amendment's sponsor, Robert McDonnell.

---

Ah yes: the historic institution of marriage. May I recommend Genesis 29 to see that noble model in action? [Summary: Jacob's negotiates a deal w/ Laban to receive his daughter Rachel in marriage in payment for years of labor - instead is tricked and is given her sister Leah whom "he hates" - works more years, finally receives Rachel - Boinks both of 'em, plus their "handmaids" as well.]



Isn't it romantic? Not.



GG What's "repugnant to public policy" are these hypocritical Right Wing yahoos. Out

[Diebrock]

GG wrote:

Quote:

---

"Marriage for 6,000 years has been defined a certain way," said the amendment's sponsor, Robert McDonnell."

Ah yes: the historic institution of marriage.

---

There's a great article from a historian that answered a similar statement back in December, which was "I agree with 3,000 years of recorded history."

Counterpunch.org

Quote:

---

On Marriage in "Recorded History"

An Open Letter to Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney

By GARY LEUPP



Dear Governor Romney,



On November 18 the Massachusetts high court ruled that discrimination against gay couples in matters relating to marriage violated the Commonwealth's constitution. You immediately rejected that decision, declaring: "I agree with 3,000 years of recorded history. I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman ... and our constitution and laws should reflect that." Your official website informed the public that you "will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to make that expressly clear[M]arriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman."



So you "agree with history," you say, on this question of gay marriage. As an historian, I don't agree or disagree with "history," which is not a person with an opinion, but merely the record of countless people pursuing their own ends, interacting with one another and their environments through time. (Occasionally they make breakthroughs, producing new things; there's no reason for sentient beings to be stuck on precedent.) "I agree with history" is really a meaningless statement, rather like saying "I agree with time," or "I agree with reality," or "I agree with the way my father and grandfather and my ancestors before them thought about things." What I suppose you're really saying is that you agree with the proposition that heterosexual marriage (of some sort) should be recognized by law, to the specific exclusion of homosexual unions. You deploy in support of that proposition the assertion that this is the way it's always been. Gay marriage, you thus contend, will be a radical departure from our civilized past.



But this is just not true, Governor. You invoke "History" as though it's some source of authority, but you really don't know much about it, do you? "No investigation, no right to speak," I always say, and if you want to talk about homosexual unions in recorded history you should do some study first. First I recommend you read John Boswell's fine book Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (University of Chicago Press, 1980), in which he documents legally recognized homosexual marriage in ancient Rome extending into the Christian period, and his Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe (Villard Books, 1994), in which he discusses Church-blessed same-sex unions and even an ancient Christian same-sex nuptial liturgy. Then check out my Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan (University of California Press, 1995) in which I describe the "brotherhood-bonds" between samurai males, involving written contracts and sometimes severe punishments for infidelity, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Check out the literature on the Azande of the southern Sudan, where for centuries warriors bonded, in all legitimacy, with "boy-wives." Or read Marjorie Topley's study of lesbian marriages in Guangdong, China into the early twentieth century. Check out Yale law professor William Eskridge's The Case for Same-Sex Marriage (1996), and other of this scholar's works, replete with many historical examples.



What the study of world history will really tell you, Governor, is that pretty much any kind of sexual behavior can become institutionalized somewhere, sometime. You know that polygamy remains normal and legal in many nations, as it was among your Mormon forebears in Utah. In Tibet, polyandry has a long history, and modern Chinese law seems powerless to prevent marriages between one women and two or three men. Getting back to same-sex issues, the Sambia of New Guinea have traditionally believed that for an adolescent boy to grow into a man, he absolutely must fellate an adult male and chug the semen down. I'm not making this up; see Gilbert H. Herdt, Guardians of the Flutes (Columbia University Press, 1981). Now you and I would see that as a kind of child abuse, but to the Sambians, it's just common sense. It's been that way for well over 3,000 years of their history. (You might want to ask yourself: does that 3,000 year record make it right?) Some ancient Greek tribes had a similar notion of the necessary reception of semen to make a boy a man, only with them it was an anal-routed process. (See works by Jan Bremmer, for starters, on this practice as an "initiation rite" among various Indo-European peoples.)



Some suggest that there have been two basic traditions of male homosexual behavior on this planet, prior to the evolution of the contemporary egalitarian model: these inter-generational role-specific ones, in both pre-class and more sophisticated societies; and those that involve males who assume a female or transgender identity, who often also have shamanistic roles, such as the berdache of Native American peoples, or the hijra in Hindu society. These are generally available for "straight" men to bed with if they want to. A variation of this tradition is the ancient Mesopotamian male temple-prostitute (the cult of which spread to Israel, as recorded in the Old Testament; see 1 Kings14:24, 22:47, etc.). The idea was, you'd bugger one of these holy prostitutes, mystically unite with the deity thereby, and by your fee for this pleasure opportunity, assist in the maintenance of the temple. I'm not trying to gross you out or anything, Governor, just help you recognize that there may be more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your (somewhat too confident) philosophy of sexual history.



Over the last 3,000 years to which you specifically allude (someone else was telling National Public Radio that the Supreme Justice Court ruling defied 5,000 years, which would make departure from precedent even more serious), there has in fact been no global marriage norm. In some societies, a man and woman, of their own free will, formed a relationship, decided to forge a life-long commitment, got the necessary permissions and ceremonial legitimacy, started having sex after that, and maintained a monogamous union thereafter until one died. That's been very unusual, though. Arranged marriages involving varying degrees of input by the couple (usually less by the female) have been more the norm. (Do you realize, Governor, how radically sections of humankind departed from the prior "history" you so validate, when we started insisting on the freedom of young couples to marry without their parent's consent, and to do so based on "love"---which is another complex and evolving historical category? You might perhaps read Friedrich Engels' still relevant book The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State, and learn something about how capitalism and the whole notion of the free market played a positive role here.)



For demographic and economic reasons (rather than articulated moral ones), monogamy has generally been far more widespread than polygamy. But in more societies than not, wealthy, powerful men have enjoyed the polygamous option. That of course goes for the ancient Hebrews, whose example inclined the founders of your church, that of the Latter-Day Saints, to enthusiastically endorse the practice from the church's founding in 1830 up to Wilford Woodruff and his Manifesto in 1890. Then, whether due to a divine revelation, or to a desire to get Utah admitted to the Union (it's not for me to judge) LDS up and banned polygamy. Although, of course, some rogue elements continue the practice which mainstream Mormons now consider illicit.



But to agree with three, or five, or twelve thousand years of random past practice would require you, Governor Romney, to oppose the ban that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has from its inception placed on polygamy. I tell you, though: if you refused to do that, I'd be right there behind you. I'm a tolerant person and I realize that lots of Thai and Nigerian and Saudi guys have multiple wives, and maybe I even sort of lust, Carter-like, in my heart to emulate them. But I'm not a total moral relativist, and as public policy, I think monogamy's the right road, and you should stand firm in its support, never mind the Mormon past, which isn't your fault in any case.



Another thing. Not to get personal, but I've been married to a Japanese woman for 20 years. I'm aware some people have problems with this sort of arrangement; for a long time (from 1905) in California "miscegenation" between whites and "Mongolians" of all types was banned by law. But such laws seem so stupid now, don't they? At the time, such intimacies were depicted as "unnatural" mixes of racial superiors with inferiors bound to mess up the pure white gene pool. Of course the Mormon Church was committed to the view that African-Africans were inferior (and certainly unfit as partners to Mormon whites) way up until 1978, when Spencer Kimball, the 12th Prophet, got his word from the Lord and the policy was revised. Before that, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that Virginia state law banning black-white intermarriage could not be enforced; very recently (1998), South Carolina chucked its constitutional clause, dating to 1895, forbidding "marriage of a white person with a Negro or mulatto or a person who should have one-eighth or more Negro blood." Things change if people want them to.



When I got married, the Japanese had a law that the children of Japanese men and foreign women would automatically have Japanese citizenship, but those of foreign men and Japanese women would be denied that status. (The idea was: only Japanese semen makes Japanese kids.) This discriminatory treatment reflected the longstanding patriarchal prejudices of the Japanese legal code. By chance my daughter was born in the year that the law was changed (following protests by Japanese wives of foreigners), to confer Japanese citizenship on all children of Japanese nationals. So by random chance my kids are dual-nationals. That just seems reasonable, right? But there was a time in which those in power in Tokyo recoiled at the idea that a hairy-faced foreign barbarian's offspring would mix equally with the progeny of the Sun Goddess in the Land of the Gods. My point, again, is just that views on these issues aren't historically static, and good decent people can work to change them.



The freedom to link yourself to another, and benefit from whatever range of privileges your political and cultural environment confer on "marriage," should not be arbitrarily confined to males who are attracted to females, and to females attracted to males. Even if that premise had, in fact, as you suggest, prevailed since the dawn of civilization, it would be irrational. If history (with a capital H), has any function at all, it is to induce people, merely through cumulative experience, to get more rational, and thereby alleviate the kinds of suffering they can inflict upon themselves. Recognition of gay marriage is a step towards recognizing reality, and alleviating the oppression homophobic ignorance and hatred inevitably inflict. That's the reasoning behind the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts' ruling.



You, in response, panicking at the prospect of a broader, more inclusive concept of marriage, have proposed as a half-way measure legislation recognizing "civil unions" between same-sex couples. But please, Governor, go to sleep, have a dream, an open-minded divinely inspired dream. Let God Almighty, or whoever, Himself appear to you and say, "I've decided to revise the earlier, 3000-year old institution you've been talking about. For no more shall ye make any distinction among my people as to their sexual preference. I the Lord God am no respecter of persons, but all shall come unto me and all of legal age may be worthy to receive all the blessings of marriage. So, Mitt, assemble the people in the tabernacle which is the Massachusetts State House, on Beacon Street and Park Street in Boston, and speak unto them these words, saying: 'Gay marriage actually has lots of historical precedents. May Massachusetts, cradle of the Revolution, point the way once again in demanding recognition of what is just, fair, reasonable, and civilized.'"



Sincerely,



Gary Leupp

Historian



Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion.

---

_________________

How can you kill people who killed people, to show that killing people is wrong?

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

[kpmuse]

This just left me speechless



Pope Blasts Media For Making Gays Look 'Normal'

by Malcolm Thornberry

365Gay.com Newscenter

European Bureau Chief



Posted: January 25, 2004 12:01 a.m. ET



(Rome) Pope John Paul II accused the media Saturday of glamorizing homosexuality and desensitizing the public about abortion.



In a statement to mark the lead up to the Church's World Communications Day the pontiff said the media was not doing enough to promote traditional family life.



"All communication has a moral dimension," his statement said. "People grow or diminish in moral stature by the words which they speak and the messages which they choose to hear."



"Infidelity, sexual activity outside of marriage, and the absence of a moral and spiritual vision of the marriage covenant are depicted uncritically, while positive support is at times given to divorce, contraception, abortion and homosexuality. Such portrayals, by promoting causes inimical to marriage and the family, are detrimental to the common good of society," the papal statement said.



He urged professional communicators to recognize their "moral responsibility" and to exercise "wisdom, good judgment and fairness in their presentation of issues involving sexuality, marriage and family life".



And he said if he media does not exercise "restraint" the state should step in. The pontifical statement called for regulations to stop the media from acting against "the good of the family," although it said the pope rejected outright censorship.



www.365gay.com/newscon04/01/012504popeGay.htm

[Kieli]

Yep....let's all be the same automatons that the Catholic Church would have us be. Then we can all be the same, all worship the "One True God" and be as moral as the Pope himself. Puhleeze

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.

[Gatito Grande]

Not to defend the Pope, but I doubt JP2 could even read this statement aloud (much less that he wrote it). This has all the marks (of the Beast?) of the diabolical Cardinal Ratzinger (who, come Judgement Day, is going to have hell to pay ).



GG . . . and I don't even believe in hell, but for RATzinger I'll make an exception. Out



ETA: Log Cabin finally wakes and smells the coffee

Quote:

---

GOP Gays Turn On Bush

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: January 21, 2004 8:02 p.m. ET



(Washington, D.C.) Gay Republicans Wednesday issued a strongly worded attack on President Bush's remarks about same-sex marriage warning him that "engaging in a culture war is a recipe for defeat."



Tuesday night in his State of the Union address Bush warned that he might support an amendment to the Constitution if judges continued to rule in favor of same-sex unions. (story)



"George W. Bush was elected in 2000 by bringing Americans together. State of the Union addresses should be used to unite all Americans around the nation's highest priorities. Americans are threatened by terrorism and job uncertainty - not gay and lesbian families," said Log Cabin executive director Patrick Guerriero.



The statement by Guerriero illustrated a growing rift within the GOP between moderates and conservatives.



"Log Cabin Republicans have stood with this President in the war on terror. Log Cabin supports the President on cutting taxes for American families and expanding efforts to combat HIV/AIDS at home and abroad. Log Cabin will not stand by while anyone attempts to write discrimination into the Constitution. It is unnecessary and it cheapens our sacred Constitution," Guerriero said.



"Log Cabin reminds our fellow Republicans that if you truly support family values you must value all families, the Log Cabin leader said.



"The mission of Log Cabin is greater than one President or one issue. Last night's speech shows us how much work remains in our effort to build a more inclusive GOP. To be the majority party, the GOP must be built on a foundation of freedom, fairness and equality---for all Americans," Guerriero said.

---

www.365gay.com/newscon04/...opGays.htm

Edited by: Gatito Grande at: 1/25/04 11:02 am

[xita]

Well at least now with this statement, I can understand a gay republican a little better. At least log cabin gay republicans.

- - - - - - - - - - -
"Hard work often pays off after time but laziness always pays off now!"

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

This has all the marks (of the Beast?) of the diabolical Cardinal Ratzinger.

---

Ratzinger and his cronies would roll back Vatican II if they could get away with it. But I think it's disturbing that his views are steamrolling through the Vatican and could really alienate many Catholics (especially gay and lesbian Catholics). But I'm sure he's not worried about that, the rat.

Quote:

---

ETA: Log Cabin finally wakes and smells the coffee.

---

Oh so NOW Guerriero is upset at Bush What took the LCB so long? I'm sure they're probably more upset that they were so horrifically duped. They helped to get that moron into office and he promptly turned on them and undid every one of his promises that he made to them. To be honest, I'm not surprised....I'm more surprised that they actually believed him. Any man who was courting gay Republicans on one hand while trying to win over the Christian Right on another was just asking for disaster....he'd have been forced to choose. Looks like he chose the Right over the gays. As for the LCB, well I'm sure they're feelin' a bit embarrassed right about now.

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.

[JustSkipIt]

I highly recommend listening to the ACLU GLBT Rights Discussion. It is very interesting and Matt Coles, the director of the ACLU GLBT rights project, takes questions from listeners.

---

"Your little will can't do anything. It takes Great Determination. Great Determination doesn't mean just you making an effort. It means the whole universe is behind you and with you - the birds, trees, sky, moon, and ten directions." - Katagiri Roshi

[GiftofAmber]

Ok, I, um, am wondering where these glamorous portrayals of homosexuality are. Because I certainly don't see enough of them on my tv screen. Certainly not enough to fathom hearing such a speech from the Pope.........

[Gatito Grande]

GiftofAmber, the only portrayal of homosexuals that the Vatican could approve of, is if they're, say, getting shot in the back.



GG Why does the Vatican need a whole nation unto itself? To have room for all the closets. Out

[Diebrock]

Quote:

---

How Queer-Friendly Are U.S. History Textbooks?

By Vicki L. Eaklor

Ms. Eaklor, professor of history, is the chairperson of the Division of Human Studies at Alfred University.



Note: This article was delivered as a paper at the recent meeting of the American Historical Association at a panel sponsored by the Committee on Lesbian and Gay History.



In the summer and fall of 2003 I looked at U. S. history survey textbooks designed for college-level courses. Not only was this to be part of an American Historical Association panel on "Queering the U. S. Survey," but it was also designed as a follow-up to my previous study done in 1988-91, and subsequently published in AHA Perspectives.



For the 1991 study, I had examined 23 titles and simply arranged them into two categories according to their content relative to homosexuals/ity: "some mention" (18 titles) and "no mention" (5 titles). I then described strengths and weaknesses in narrative form.



This time around I was able to see 27 titles, and decided to rate them, using the following subjective system (and arrived at only after I had seen all the texts and consulted my notes):



A = more detail on basics and/or more than 1960s-1990s and/or more than two columns/one page



B = the basics, 1960s-1990s - some on each of these areas, or detail on one-two: Stonewall, gay liberation (with or without specific organizations), gay culture; 1980s backlash, AIDS, marches; military ban, legal issues/marriage, violence, culture/media



C = minimal depth/breadth - confined to 1970s, or scattered brief references (most of the texts examined in 1988-91 would have fallen into this category)



D = minimal to basic, with negative tone or language



Method



My method was fairly simple: I consulted the index of each text, consistently looking under four headings: "AIDS," " gay," "homosexuals(ity)," and "lesbian." I noted the headings and page numbers (and any headings I had not anticipated, such as "ACT UP!" "GLF," "gay liberation," etc.). I then read all pages listed and noted the amount of coverage, the topics, and the general "tone" (positive, negative, neutral). I noted also any features, graphics, pictures, etc. as well.



Summary



The news, surprisingly, is generally very good. As opposed to the previous situation, all the texts have at least some mention of GLBTQ (G and L, actually) issues or people. The majority, in fact (21, or 78 percent), have more than minimal coverage, which was rare in 1991, when only three books had more than a paragraph. Further, the ratings breakdown, reflecting not only amount of coverage but also "sophistication," is extremely encouraging: 11 A/A-; 10 B+/B; 4 C+/C; 2 D+/D [see list of ratings by title, at end].



From my perspective, this is positive not just because of the present coverage, but because it seems to denote some "progress" in thinking about inclusion in texts on the one hand, and the influence of scholarship in GLBTQ history on the other. Again, in 1991, five of the texts under scrutiny failed to mention homosexuals/ity at all; of those, only one is still available ( America: A Narrative History ) and I gave it a B+.



Actually, since ten titles carried over from the 1991 study, a bit more comparison was possible, again with results denoting "progress." No text was worse than before, four were roughly the same, and six had more extensive and/or more positive coverage. Of the four that stayed the same, two were still good (The American People: Creating a Nation and a Society and A People and a Nation ), and two were still bad, due to minimal content and negative tone (The American Pageant and The American Past). The six that improved are those, other than the four above, that are designated with a * in the list.



So if the most obvious change is simply more GLBTQ content, there are four specific areas worth mentioning: indexing; detail; contexts; and "extras" (features, photos, etc.). The indexing is interesting; "AIDS" is the most common addition while "lesbian" continues to be rare. Actually, of the 9 texts that do have "lesbian" in their indexes, only 2 are actual entries, with page numbers; the rest are cross references only. This led me to a question and an unsettling conclusion: I began to wonder, "Who will follow Lenin this time?" (once it was Oscar Levant - !), and conclude that women's invisibility continues in subtle ways ("Lenin" and " Levant " but not “lesbian”?). “Homosexuality" or “homosexuals” is still a preferred main entry (18 times).



As to actual content, I was especially surprised to find greater detail on the "movement" in the 1960s and 1970s, and many more scattered references to sexuality/homosexuality both before the Stonewall riot and since the 1980s, with a few even before World War II. For example, rarely in 1991 were any specific organizations mentioned, or any "landmark" actions; now the Gay Liberation Front and the Gay Activists' Alliance appear here and there, and 11 texts include the American Psychiatric Association's decision to remove homosexuality from its list of disorders. Oddly, though, no more recent organization (NGLTF, HRC GLAAD) appears except ACT UP! (This could be interpreted negatively, since it links GLBTQ activism only with AIDS and only with a specific type of activism.)



The most common references before Stonewall are in relation to World War and the Cold War: homosexuals in the military and on the home front, the first homophile organizations to last (Mattachine, Daughters of Bilitis), the persecution of homosexuals during the Second Red Scare, and the Kinsey studies. Relatively rare, there are even a few references to the existence of GLBTQ life before WW II: romantic friendships among women; urban subcultures and visibility, and most commonly, as victims of the Nazi Holocaust. Of more recent events besides the ubiquitous AIDS, the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" compromise on homosexuals in the military appears most often (16 times), usually in the context of passages critical of Clinton (for failing to lift the ban, not for trying in the first place). Other topics include the issue of same-sex marriage, Bowers v. Hardwick, and a few individuals ranging from Rock Hudson to Matthew Shepard (misspelled twice, incidentally).



To me the most impressive addition since 1991 is in the form of features and graphics. Pictures of marches and the AIDS quilt are popular, but most heartening are the five boxes devoted wholly or partly (and sympathetically) to queers, like “David Kopay, The Real Score: A Gay Athlete Comes Out” (p. 993) excerpted in America's History as part of the running feature, “American Voices.” At the same time, extended treatment like this can be negative, as in the American Past feature (pp. 730-731), “Sex: From No-No to Obsession," which states, in part,



Homosexuals benefited from the new openness and relaxation of sexual attitudes. . . . they formed lobbies, soon supported by the “politically correct,” to push for laws preventing discrimination against homosexuals in housing and employment. The din was such that someone remarked, “The sin that dare not speak its name cannot sit down and shut up.” . . . . . . into the 1990s, [AIDS] was not described as threatening only gays and junkies, in part because it was not politically correct to do so, in part because researchers would have had great difficulty getting funds to research a disease thought to be the exclusive problem of groups on which conventional Americans looked with distaste.



For those questioning my ratings system, it is worth noting that the panel and audience thought I'd been generous is giving this book a “D.”



Overall, I'd say that the texts that best incorporate queer people into their narratives as a "natural" and recurring part of American life are Created Equal, Making a Nation, and A People and a Nation . Again, though, there has been remarkable progress here, as evidenced by the number of "A's" and "B's"--even a "C" is adequate, and hardly a condemnation. There is little to criticize, in fact, except some very minor mistakes or misleading statements.



For GLBTQ people, academic or not, the news is very encouraging. As I stressed in my first study, we probably underestimate the impact of texts (when students read them at all), since few American college graduates will have much exposure, beyond the required courses and texts, to any historical scholarship beyond what the media provide (and that's an entirely different issue!). While it is true that we are still "ghettoized" to some extent--seen as people in relation only to a "movement" for rights--this is hardly unique (and a phenomenon I've written about elsewhere), and somewhat offset by sympathetic treatments and more general integration into the American story. For scholars, especially CLGH members, the obvious "trickle-down" of the work of John D'Emilio, Estelle Freedman, Allan Bérubé, and George Chauncey shows us that even the most neglected or rejected areas of study might eventually make a difference.

---

For the listing and rating of the titles go to the original article

_________________

How can you kill people who killed people, to show that killing people is wrong?

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

[xita]

Ugh, us.rd.yahoo.com/mymod/hdl...ysexupheld



Teen's 17-year sentence for gay sex upheld

       

Fri Jan 30, 8:01 PM ET

       



Christopher Curtis, Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network



SUMMARY: Advocates for GLBT rights were outraged after the Kansas Court of Appeals ruled that the state can punish homosexual acts between minors much more severely than heterosexual ones.



       



Advocates for GLBT civil rights reacted with anger after the Kansas Court of Appeals ruled Friday that the state can punish homosexual acts between minors much more severely than heterosexual ones.



The 2-1 ruling affects Matthew R. Limon, who was sentenced in 2001 to more than 17 years in prison for having consensual oral sex after he had just turned 18 with a boy nearly a month away from his 15th birthday in a home for the developmentally disabled.



According to state law, sexual activity with anyone under 16 is illegal. But if Limon had been having a heterosexual encounter, he would have only faced a sentence of 15 months under the state's "Romeo and Juliet" law, which limits penalties for underage sex between heterosexual teenagers.



This is the second time the Kansas Court of Appeals has heard Limon's case. In February of 2002, the Kansas Appellate court rejected his equal protection claim. But the U.S. Supreme Court remanded Limon's case last year after its historic Lawrence v. Texas ruling, when it ruled laws cannot treat the sexual conduct of gays and lesbians differently than that of heterosexuals.



Mitchell Katine, a Texas-based lawyer who participated in the Lawrence v. Texas case, was disappointed with Friday's ruling.



"The Supreme Court wanted to give the Kansas court an opportunity to correct the case in light of Lawrence," he told the Gay.com/PlanetOut.com Network. "How many Supreme Court cases are there going to have to be before courts get the message that gay and lesbian people are to be treated equally?"



Kansas Judge Henry W. Green Jr. justified his ruling by saying legislators could claim homosexual acts entail health risks. Green also wrote that heterosexual offenses are less objectionable because they could lead to babies being born, and "same-sex relationships do not generally lead to unwanted pregnancies."



"It's insane! It's insane!" reacted Chris Hampton, a spokeswoman for the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) (ACLU) Lesbian and Gay Rights Projects. "The state is basically encouraging teen pregnancy."



The ACLU is representing Limon and told the Gay.com/PlanetOut.com Network it plans to appeal Limon's case to the Kansas Supreme Court.



Human Rights Campaign (HRC) President Cheryl Jacques said she hoped the ACLU would succeed.



"All people should be equal in the eyes of the law, yet this decision upholds penalties that are designed to target gay and lesbian people simply to show disapproval," she said in a prepared statement.



"As the Supreme Court beautifully articulated in Lawrence v. Texas, mere disapproval is never sufficient reason to treat people differently simply for being gay," she added. "We are hopeful that this case will be correctly decided by the higher courts."

- - - - - - - - - - -
"Hard work often pays off after time but laziness always pays off now!"

[Gatito Grande]

In Fred Phelps' home state: go figure.



GG B*stards. Out

[urnofosiris]

So far for all men being created equal.

[skittles]

From today's Detroit News



Blues offer gay couples benefit option



Critics say plan for small firms will raise costs; insurer says clients want program



Monday, February 2, 2004

By Amy Lee / The Detroit News



Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Michigan, the state’s largest health insurer, is offering coverage to the partners of gays and lesbians who work for small businesses.



The company said its small business customers asked for the coverage.



“For us, it isn’t about politics. It’s about meeting purchaser needs,” said Kathy Elston, the Blues vice president of marketing and sales, who guided the benefit expansion.



Conservative critics, however, say it’s another attack on traditional marriage and will end up costing other Blue Cross subscribers.



“We’re talking about a group that engages in high-risk behavior, that are stricken with serious, life-threatening diseases that are very expensive to treat,” said Gary Glenn, president of the Midland-based American Family Association of Michigan.



“You add them to the insurance pool, and it’s going to have the inevitable consequence of driving up insurance costs for everyone they do business with.”



The domestic partner benefits now available to the Blues’ small-business customers mirror those offered to married couples. Gay and lesbian couples must prove they’re in a committed relationship to qualify.



Coverage will not be offered to unmarried heterosexual couples because, unlike homosexual partners, they have the option of marrying and qualifying for benefits. Plus, the Blues said, there’s been no demand for it from its business customers.



The Blues already provide domestic partner benefits to its large clients, such as Ford and General Motors. It’s not the first to offer small-business health care coverage to homosexuals, but it’s by far the largest and represents a major step forward, gay advocates say.



Health Alliance Plan (HAP) and M-Care already offer the coverage to their small-business customers.



Benefits before Blues



The change will affect the estimated 50,000 Blue Cross businesses in Michigan with less than 99 employees.



That’s good news for Cassandra Varner, 28, who works at a small business and lives with her partner, Sheri Folta, in Ferndale.



“I was so excited when I heard this news,” Varner said. “In the next few weeks, we’ll be looking more closely and doing a cost analysis to see if it’s cheaper for (Folta) to go through me and get better insurance, or if we should just leave it as it is.”



Nationwide, more than 2,000 private employers offer health and other benefits to domestic partners, and more than 50 cities and counties and seven states offer such benefits, according to the national Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a gay rights organization.



In Michigan, employees who work for the cities of Ann Arbor, East Lansing and Kalamazoo are eligible to receive same-sex domestic partner benefits, as well as employees of Washtenaw and Wayne counties.



Michigan State University and the University of Michigan also offer the coverage. Michigan’s state employees are ineligible for same-sex domestic partner benefits.



Conservative groups view Blue Cross’ expanded domestic partner coverage as encouraging the homosexual lifestyle, said Oakland County Commissioner Tom McMillin, R-Auburn Hills. Health coverage should be reserved for those who commit to marriage, he said. Gay marriage is not permitted in Michigan.



“This really is an assault. They’re taking on traditional marriage and traditional family,” McMillin said. “Marital status is one thing; it’s completely different when you give health care benefits to people based on who you sleep with.”



Marketing director Elston said the Blues studied the records of its large customers that offer domestic partner benefits to determine whether such coverage was cost-effective. Researchers, who looked at about four years worth of records, determined that domestic partner benefits costs the same as benefits for heterosexual couples and would not increase costs for existing subscribers.



Proponents of the move argue same-sex couples are entitled to the expanded coverage because, unlike heterosexual couples, they are legally barred from marrying. Marriage automatically entitles spouses of working employees to health coverage.



“(The Blues’) research demonstrates what we know: that costs are insignificant, and it makes business sense to market this product,” said Pat Logue, senior counsel for Lambda’s Midwest office in Chicago. “If giving people health care is something that people don’t support, I don’t know what to say. This is a lifeline for people who need it.”



While health care coverage varies widely from company to company — and sometimes employee to employee — companies would pay extra to offer the coverage to their employees, Elston said. Those costs would be determined by the companies’ specific health packages and by how many employees took advantage of the domestic partner coverage.



Cynthia Dudek is an independent insurance representative in Southfield and works with Blue Cross and other insurers. She said health care costs already are rising for families, and she argues that the expansion will make health care even more expensive for everyone.



“(Blue Cross) certainly hasn’t notified the health underwriters or insurance agents about this,” she said. “This is not good news. Businesses are already struggling to keep health care affordable for families.”



But Logue, with Lambda in Chicago, said the government already distinguishes domestic partner benefits from those entitled to married couples. Health care coverage provided to a domestic partner is taxed as income, while a heterosexual who adds their spouse onto a health care plan is not taxed, she said.



Laura Kane-Witkowski, 25, who lives with partner Jessica Kane-Witkowski in Ferndale, said the Blues’ coverage to small employers gives her peace of mind.



“We’re both covered, but it’s nice to know it’s there in case something happens,” Laura Kane-Witkowski said. “Since we’re dealing with layoffs and cutbacks, it’s nice to know that option is available if we needed it.”



Proving partnership



Affirmations Lesbian & Gay Community Center in Ferndale will play a crucial role in health care coverage because the Blues will use its registry of committed same-sex couples as the legal documentation needed to qualify for coverage.



The center, on Nine Mile west of Woodward, provides a gathering place and social and educational opportunities for area gays and lesbians. It launched its registry a year ago as a way to honor those in committed same-sex relationships, yet unable to legally marry.



“We created it mainly as a symbolic acknowledgement of gay relationships,” said Kathleen LaTosch, special events and marketing director for Affirmations. “But this arrangement with Blue Cross really makes it more than symbolic; it gives it meaning and real, tangible benefits.”



Nationwide, companies, governmental units and nonprofit organizations have adopted a somewhat standardized form or process to distinguish between a domestic partner and a roommate, Logue said. Typically, couples are asked to verify in writing that they are part of a committed partnership, prove they have lived together for a specified period, state they are not involved in another domestic partnership or relationship and affirm that each individual depends on the other, emotionally and financially.



The criteria is much the same at Affirmations. Couples provide necessary documentation, fill out and sign a form, have it witnessed and notarized and pay a $25 processing fee. In return, they get two Certificates of Domestic Partnership and listing on the registry.



“We do not give that information out. It’s completely confidential,” LaTosch said. “They share the documentation with Blue Cross.”



About 100 couples are registered with Affirmations, including Varner and her partner, who registered on Feb. 14, 2003 when they celebrated their one-year anniversary.



“It was a very special night for us,” she said. “It was a celebration because it signified a commitment ceremony, and that’s really as far as we can take it as this point.”



You can reach Amy Lee at (248) 647-8605 or alee@detnews.com.

skittles



"I'll tell you how the sun rose, --A ribbon at a time." Emily Dickinson

[Gatito Grande]

Quote:

---

McMillin said. “Marital status is one thing; it’s completely different when you give health care benefits to people based on who you sleep with.”

---

Completely different: yes, now the truth can be told---Married Het Bed Death! (Hey, I been there )



Seriously, I heard this bit of good new today. Now, if we can just keep those conservative b*stards from their frickin' (Michigan) Marriage Amendment.



GG Blue Cross coverage: now do you see how attractive GG is, as a Michigan Kitten? "All this and more can be yours!" (See Singles Thread for details) Out



I swear, could my solicitations on this board *get* any more crass?

[urnofosiris]

Quote:

---

Conservative critics, however, say it’s another attack on traditional marriage and will end up costing other Blue Cross subscribers.



“We’re talking about a group that engages in high-risk behavior, that are stricken with serious, life-threatening diseases that are very expensive to treat,” said Gary Glenn, president of the Midland-based American Family Association of Michigan.

---

This just shows that some conservatives are not satisfied with "just" denying gay people the right to marry. They want to deny just about every other basic right as well. Too bad they are not critical enough to check some facts. I´d be interested to see the data that proves that gay people have more health problems than straight people. They are of course referring to sexually transmitted diseases, specifically HIV, they just don´t come out and say it. Of course this is not a problem for straight people who fuck around unprotected (and I´m told that even straight couples bound together by the holy state of matrimony which is not to be entered into lightly (hey Britney ) have been know to do that ), but it is a problem for committed gay couples. However, using that logic, lesbian couples should pay less, they have the least risk of contracting a serious sexually transmitted disease.

Edited by: DrG at: 2/3/04 12:50 am

[Kieli]

More good news from Mass.! Whoo hoo!



Mass. Court Favours Gay Marriage



I'm movin' ta Bahston!

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.

[maudmac]

We all know that homosexuality exists in the non-human animal world, but it's always nice to see another devoted couple.

---

Nurture Versus Nature At The Zoo



by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff



Posted: February 7, 2004 4:31 pm. ET



(New York City) Roy and Silo haven't a clue what Stonewall was. They don't much care to discuss gay rights either. And, don't dare ask them about same-sex marriage. All you will get is a blank stare. But, they are as together as couple can be.



Silo and Roy are chinstrap penguins and they reside at New York's Central Park Zoo where gay rights take a back seat to the occasional sardine.



Nevertheless they are completely devoted to each other and for the past six years have been inseparable.



Zoologists will quickly point out that it is an over simplification to say they are gay, but exactly what binds the two is a mystery. And, Roy and Silo are hardly unique to the animal world.



Animal sexuality is a relatively new field. The first book on the subject, Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape, unleashed a torrent of condemnation for the Christian right.



In 1999, Bruce Bagemihl published Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. It provided an overview of scholarly studies of same-sex behavior in animals. Bagemihl said homosexual behavior had been documented in some 450 species. Last summer the book was cited by the American Psychiatric Association and other groups in a "friend of the court" brief submitted to the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, a case challenging a Texas anti-sodomy law. The court struck down the law.



So, does it then follow that because homosexuality is observed in animals does it follow that it is genetically based? Not necessarily Bagemihl tells the New York Times. "Homosexuality is extraordinarily complex and variable," Bagemihl told the paper.



"We look at animals as pure biology and pure genetics, and they are not." He noted that "the occurrence of same-sex behavior in animals provides support for the nurture side as well."



That has led to a whole new field in biology and zoology, and it has both gay activists and conservatives watching intently.



Meanwhile, back at the Central Park Zoo, Silo and Roy are "necking" and having sex. Lots of sex. When they were offered female companionship, they ignored the ladies. And, it seems, the females aren't interested in them, either.



Their chief keeper, Rob Gramzay, tells the paper, that Silo and Roy seemed so desperate to incubate an egg together that they put a rock in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in the folds of their abdomens. Gramzay finally, he gave them a fertile egg that needed care to hatch. Things went perfectly. Roy and Silo sat on it for the typical 34 days until a chick, Tango, was born. For the next two and a half months they raised Tango, keeping her warm and feeding her food from their beaks until she could go out into the world on her own.



©365Gay.com® 2004

---

go         donut           go

[BytrSuite]

Aww! Gay penguins devoted to each other and raising a baby!



Awesome.

________
"...the sharks got smarter."

[Shinnen]

I just read this off Yahoo a few minutes ago... if it's been posted then please take this off. It's not a pretty article.

story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040212/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage&cid=519&ncid=716

Quote:

---

Mass. Rejects Gay Marriage Compromise

By JENNIFER PETER, Associated Press Writer



BOSTON - Massachusetts lawmakers debated a constitutional ban on gay marriage for more than six hours Wednesday but ended the day as divided as they began — and still with no resolution on an issue that has drawn nationwide scrutiny.



Legislators meeting in joint session at a constitutional convention shot down two compromise proposals that would have allowed for civil unions, rather than the full-fledged marriages the state's highest court has ordered the state to begin allowing in mid-May.



Lawmakers are to reconvene Thursday to take up a third compromise proposal — continuing the debate on an issue that has put Massachusetts at the forefront of a contentious social, political, religious and legal issue.



Massachusetts was thrust into the epicenter of the gay marriage debate in November when the state's Supreme Judicial Court ruled it was unconstitutional to ban gay couples from marrying, a decision that was reaffirmed last week.



The frenzied first day unfolded before more than 4,000 spectators in the Statehouse and reflected a Legislature deeply divided about how to respond to the court's 4-3 ruling.



"We are as divided as the Supreme Judicial Court. We are as divided as the people of Massachusetts. We're as divided as the nation on this," said House Speaker Thomas Finneran, an ardent opponent of gay marriage.



A proposal to change the state constitution to ban gay marriages had been advanced earlier, but the court's ruling gave it new urgency. A simple majority of the Legislature would have to vote twice — this year and during the 2005-2006 session — to approve a constitutional amendment before it could be placed on the November 2006 ballot for voters to consider.



House and Senate leaders met behind closed doors after the 8:30 p.m. adjournment and said they were working on a third compromise — very similar to one already rejected — that they hoped would be able to sway the few votes necessary to cobble together a majority against gay marriage.



Gay-rights advocates conceded it appeared support was mounting for a ban.



"It's increasingly clear that the Legislature is positioning itself to take back the marriage rights we currently have, to take back over 1,000 protections we currently have, to enshrine discrimination into our constitution, and to create a system of separate but unequal," said Arline Isaacson, co-leader of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus.



Opponents rooted their arguments in the constitution's guarantee of every citizen's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Sen. Dianne Wilkerson, a Democrat, drew upon her experience as a black woman growing up in Arkansas, where the public hospital did not allow her mother to deliver her children.



"I know the pain of being less than equal and I cannot and will not impose that status on anyone else," a teary-eyed Wilkerson said.



Supporters of a ban called for the Legislature to allow voters the opportunity to weigh in the issue.



"Mother Nature left her blueprint behind and she left it in DNA, a man and a woman," said Rep. Marie Parente, another Democrat. The party controls 169 of the Legislature's 200 seats. (One seat is vacant.)



At day's end, the Legislature voted 104-94 to defeat a bipartisan proposal crafted by Senate leaders who wished to ban gay marriage, but allow civil unions in Massachusetts in November 2006, the earliest an amendment could be placed on the ballot.



If the amendment were approved at that time, gay couples married in the interim would be stripped of their licenses and considered part of a civil union.



The compromise to be considered Thursday is almost identical, but says nothing about what would happen to gay couples who marry in the two-year period, according to House Ways and Means Chairman John Rogers, who helped craft the proposal.



       



Earlier in the day, lawmakers narrowly defeated a surprise amendment by Finneran that would have given the Legislature the option of adopting civil unions at some point, rather than automatically establishing them if the constitution were ultimately amended by voters.



Crowds chanted "Let the people vote!" and "Equality now!" outside the House chamber at the start of the session. More than 1,500 people rallied, some praying, others yelling.



The issue is certain to have political repercussions for state legislators facing re-election in November — and in the presidential race, particularly if U.S. Sen. John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, ends up as the party's nominee. Although he opposes gay marriage, his residency from a predominantly Catholic state still viewed as liberal is likely to draw him into debates over the issue with the Republican President Bush.



If gay marriage is allowed in Massachusetts, federal lawsuits would likely ensue as gay couples seek recognition in other states and by the federal government. While state marriages are normally respected in other jurisdictions, 38 states and the federal government have approved laws or amendments barring the recognition of gay marriage.



Adopted in 1780, the Massachusetts Constitution is the oldest still-governing written constitution in the world. It has been amended 120 times, most recently in 2000.

---

CheerZ

Shinnen



She's the most amazing girl in the whole world. She's the only girl who makes my heart beat faster and slower at the same time. When I'm not with her, I'm not living. I'm not existing until I can hold her in my arms again.

[tyche]

If you follow the link to the paper's website, there's a poll where you can vote on this issue.

Quote:

---

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/12/MNGTA4V38U1.DTL

5 years of futility may soon end for lesbian couple

S.F. moving fast to legalize gay marriage



Rachel Gordon, Chronicle Staff Writer

Thursday, February 12, 2004

Today, for the fifth time in five years, Molly McKay and her partner, Davina Kotulski, will show up at San Francisco City Hall and ask for a marriage license. And for the fifth time they will be turned down.



But if they come back in a couple of weeks, the clerk's office probably will be ready to say OK to the lesbian couple, who have been together nearly eight years and already call each other wife.



Mayor Gavin Newsom said Wednesday that he hoped to move forward quickly with his plan to buck California's law, which defines marriage as a union between a man and woman, and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.



Both sides ready for fight



It is uncharted territory for a U.S. city, and Newsom said San Francisco could well land in court and ignite a constitutional battle in California. It is a battle both sides say they are ready to fight.



"I appreciate people's differences of opinion on this,'' Newsom said. "But look, this is about ending discrimination."



Newsom said the city had lined up pro bono legal help, should that be necessary, but he wasn't ready to say who was offering it. The Traditional Values Coalition, an organization opposed to gays and lesbians marrying, said it was ready to take the city to court if it tried to legalize same-sex marriages.



Newsom asked the clerk's office at City Hall to revamp marriage-license documents so they don't contain language that discriminates against gays and lesbians. Officials were working with the city attorney's office to figure out how to put the process in place.



"This is not weeks or months,'' the mayor said. "I hope to move quickly to afford this right to those that wish to commit in a long-term relationship. ''



It won't be quickly enough for McKay and Kotulski, who will show up at City Hall today knowing they will be turned down for a marriage license.



Rally planned today



They're participating in "Freedom to Marry Week,'' in which same-sex couples converge on clerks' offices across the state to apply for marriage licenses. A rally is planned for noon today on the steps of San Francisco City Hall.



"As far as our friends and families and co-workers are concerned, we are a married couple in everything but the legal recognition of the same,'' said McKay, a litigation attorney who also serves as executive director of Marriage Equality California, a group fighting to allow same-sex marriages.



She and Kotulski had a wedding five years ago, and they have a stack of documents three inches high that enjoin them legally in many ways, such as granting each other power of attorney and property interests. But they can't file joint tax returns, and Kotulski, who works for the U.S. Justice Department, can't legally designate McKay as the beneficiary of her pension should she die.



When they went through customs at San Francisco International Airport recently, they were forbidden from filling out one form jointly as a married couple can do. "It was humiliating," McKay said. "It was awful.''



Newsom's proposal is the latest foray into an issue that is being argued over in Congress, courtrooms and statehouses across the country. Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, plans to introduce a bill today that would grant gays and lesbians the right to marry.



Before Newsom went public with his idea, he gave a heads-up to top Democratic leaders, including Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe and House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco.



The mayor described the conversations as good, but he declined to elaborate. The national Democratic Party and Pelosi had no comment.



Wedge issue



Bill Carrick, a veteran consultant in Democratic politics, said Republicans already were exploiting same-sex marriage as a wedge issue.



"It doesn't matter what Mayor Newsom does,'' Carrick said. "It's going to be up to the president to decide if he wants to use the gay marriage issue to divide people and get votes.''



The Bush administration was reluctant to weigh in on Newsom's proposal.



"The president believes very strongly that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman and that we should do what's needed to protect the sanctity of marriage,'' said White House spokesman Ken Lisaius. "Having said that, the president feels that everyone should be treated with dignity and respect, and his record reflects that.''



Barbara O'Connor, director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and Media at California State University Sacramento, said Democrats nationally might distance themselves from Newsom's push for same-sex marriage to avoid alienating middle-of-the-road voters, but at the same time allow him to energize an important Democratic constituency, gays and lesbians.



"His position will endear him to many,'' O'Connor said.



Chronicle staff writers Edward Epstein and Rona Marech contributed to this report.E-mail Rachel Gordon at rgordon@sfchronicle.com.

---

Good. I hope other cities around the country follow suit.

[Puff]

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- In a political and legal challenge to California law, city authorities officiated at the marriage of a lesbian couple Thursday, then announced they would issue more same-sex marriage licenses starting at noon.



The act of civil disobedience coordinated by Mayor Gavin Newsom and top city officials was intended to pre-empt an injunction request that a conservative group, the Campaign for California Families, promised to file Friday. The group wanted a judge to prevent the city from issuing same-sex marriage licenses.



Longtime lesbian activists Phyllis Lyon, 79, and Del Martin, 83, were married at 11:10 a.m. by San Francisco Assessor Mabel Teng in a closed-door civil ceremony at City Hall, mayor's spokesman Peter Ragone said. The two have been a couple for 51 years.



Ragone said that beginning at noon, officials would begin issuing a marriage license to any gay or lesbian couple applying for one.



(Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)



From KRON4 News

---

So, the day started and I knew my name and had my pants on. So far, so good. Yay.
Amber Benson

[maudmac]

That's awesome! I do love a bit of civil disobedience. And I cannot think of a more appropriate couple. I'm really happy for them, and glad they've lived long enough to see a day when gay marriage is a real possibility. I hope they live to see a day when it's not just a possibility.

---

go         donut           go

[Gatito Grande]

Here's CNN's story:

Quote:

---

San Francisco weds first gay couple

Thursday, February 12, 2004 Posted: 4:05 PM EST (2105 GMT)



SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- In a bold political and legal challenge to California law, city authorities officiated at the marriage of a lesbian couple Thursday and said they will issue more gay marriage licenses.



The act of civil disobedience was coordinated by Mayor Gavin Newsom and top city officials and was intended to beat a conservative group to the punch.



The group, Campaign for California Families, had planned to go to court on Friday to get an injunction preventing the city from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.



Longtime lesbian activists Phyllis Lyon, 79, and Del Martin, 83, were hurriedly issued a license and were married just before noon by City Assessor Mabel Teng in a closed-door civil ceremony at City Hall, mayor's spokesman Peter Ragone said. The two have been a couple for 51 years.



Ragone said that beginning at noon, officials would begin issuing marriage licenses to any gay couples applying for one. One lesbian couple had already lined up outside City Hall, one of the women wearing a white wedding dress.



Lyon and Martin said after the brief ceremony that they were going home to rest and did not plan anything to celebrate. The couple seemed proud of what they had done.



"Why shouldn't we" be able to marry? Lyon asked.



Thursday's marriage runs counter to a ballot measure California voters approved in 2000 that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.



No state legally sanctions gay marriage, though Massachusetts could become the first this spring. The Massachusetts high court has ruled that gays are entitled under the state constitution to marry.



State lawmakers later passed a domestic partner law that, when it goes into effect in 2005, will offer the most generous protections to gays outside Vermont.



Mayor Newsom was not present for the wedding Thursday. The two official witnesses were Kate Kendell, director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and former city official Roberta Achtenberg.



The Campaign for California Families did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

---

www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/1...index.html



GG "Campaign for California Families": my *ss! Out



LGBTs are going to disagree among themselves on this, but I think it best that Mass *not* have a so-called "compromise* on this issue, which would ban same-sex marriage, but either enact or permit "civil unions." Civil unions were a necessary stage in the fight (in Vermont and elsewhere), but we're past that now . . .



Realizing these comments belong on the Gay Politics thread!

[xita]

Maybe, I am emotional but god darn it, that touched me.

Quote:

---

Longtime lesbian activists Phyllis Lyon, 79, and Del Martin, 83, were married at 11:10 a.m. by San Francisco Assessor Mabel Teng in a closed-door civil ceremony at City Hall, mayor's spokesman Peter Ragone said. The two have been a couple for 51 years.

---

As it should be, I can't think of a more worthy couple to really be the first. I am proud of that in fact. As lesbians we wouldn't be anywhere without them. And I am proud to say that I lived in the same dorm that Phyllis Lyon once did when she was at Berkeley.

- - - - - - - - - - -
"Hard work often pays off after time but laziness always pays off now!"

[tyche]

According to local news, yesterday more couples (95 gay couples) were married in SF than on any other day in the city's history.



Here's a New York Times article:

Quote:

---

www.nytimes.com/aponline/nationalpartner...

San Francisco Officials Perform Marriage of Gay Couple

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS



Published: February 12, 2004



Filed at 11:13 p.m. ET



SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- In an open challenge to California law, city authorities performed scores of same-sex weddings Thursday and issued a stack of marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.



Applause filled the marble passages under City Hall's ornate gold dome as 87 jubilant same-sex couples breezed through brief ceremonies, promising to be ``spouse for life'' to partners some had loved without marriage for decades.



``Today a barrier to true justice has been removed,'' said Gavin Newsom, newly elected mayor of the city considered the capital of gay America.



So many couples took the city up on its surprise offer to grant previously unobtainable same-sex licenses that, by late afternoon, overwhelmed officials told new applicants to return Friday. In all, San Francisco issued 95 marriage licenses to same-sex partners Thursday.



No state legally sanctions gay marriage, and it remains unclear what practical value the marriage licenses will have. The weddings violate a ballot measure California voters approved in 2000 that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.



The move by San Francisco's mayor came as lawmakers in Massachusetts continued to debate a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in that state, where the nation's first legally recognized same-sex weddings are set to take place this spring under a ruling from the Massachusetts high court.



In San Francisco, city officials tried to keep the first marriage -- between longtime lesbian activists Phyllis Lyon, 79, and Del Martin, 83 -- confidential so they could complete it before any court intervention.



The secrecy meant that many couples started their days with no idea they would wed by evening. As word spread, they rushed to City Hall, most dressed casually in jeans with hastily assembled witnesses.



``There is a part that doesn't feel romantic at all, but obviously it feels historic,'' said Guillermo Guerra, 29, who married Andrew Parsons, 39, his partner of eight years.



The day began quietly with the morning nuptials of Lyon and Martin, who were wed just before noon by City Assessor Mabel Teng in a closed-door civil ceremony at City Hall. The two have been a couple for 51 years.



As other couples wed, scores more crowded outside the San Francisco County Clerk's office awaiting licenses, many arm in arm.



``I understand there are wrinkles that need to be worked out, but as far as I'm concerned, we will be married,'' said Molly McKay as she and her partner of eight years, Davina Kotulski, stood at the clerk's counter.



During one of the weddings, performed before TV cameras, the vows were rewritten so that ``husband and wife'' became ``spouse for life.''



A conservative group called the Campaign for California Families called the marriages a sham.



``These unlawful certificates are not worth the paper they are printed on. The renegade mayor of San Francisco has no authority to do this,'' said Randy Thomasson, executive director. ``This is nothing more than a publicity stunt that disrespects our state law and system of government itself.''



San Francisco officials insisted the licenses are legally binding and would immediately confer new benefits in everything from health coverage to funeral arrangements.



City officials also acknowledged, however, that the staying power of Thursday's decision would surely be determined in court -- and that the licenses could end up serving as a springboard to challenge the state's same-sex marriage ban.



The gay marriages were timed by city officials to outmaneuver the conservative group. The group had planned to go to court on Friday to stop the mayor's announced plans to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. But city officials struck first.



Lyon and Martin said after their brief ceremony that they were going home to rest and did not plan anything to celebrate. The couple seemed proud of what they had done.



``Why shouldn't we'' be able to marry? Lyon asked.



The mayor was not present at the morning ceremony but later presented Martin and Lyon with a signed copy of the state constitution with sections related to equal rights highlighted.



Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger did not comment on the events. Attorney General Bill Lockyer said through a spokeswoman that he hasn't been asked to issue an opinion on the legality of same-sex marriages in the state.



The conservative group fighting gay marriage has also sued to try to block California's domestic partner law, which then-Gov. Gray Davis signed in September.



That law expands the rights of gay couples in areas ranging from health coverage and parental status to property ownership and funeral arrangements.



Across the nation, gay and lesbian couples headed to courthouses seeking marriages licenses Thursday as part of National Freedom to Marry day, which has been held on Feb. 12 since 1998.



The grass roots events are meant to raise awareness about marriage equality, said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, a group working for recognized gay marriages nationwide.



In Wisconsin, gay and lesbian couples in six cities applied for marriage licenses Thursday, in part to protest a proposed constitutional amendment that would prohibit them from getting married or entering into civil unions.



Five gay and lesbian couples in Columbia, S.C., applied for marriage licenses Thursday but were denied.



And in Minneapolis, 50 same-sex couples gathered to sign up with the state's domestic partner registry, saying the registry is an important step toward legally recognized marriages.

---

Edited by: Warduke at: 2/13/04 1:30 pm

[Puff]

And the good news just keeps on coming...

Quote:

---

SAN FRANCISCO - Despite accusations that the mayor is riding roughshod over the law, conservative groups failed to stop San Francisco from issuing same-sex marriage licenses Friday as hundreds more gay couples rushed to tie the knot before the opportunity slipped away.

All day long, the marble passages beneath City Hall's ornate gold dome echoed with applause as one couple after another got hitched, promising to be "spouses for life." As of Friday afternoon, 489 couples had gotten married.

Gay couples received more good news when a judge denied a request by conservatives to immediately block the marriage spree, allowing the weddings to continue on Valentine's Day (news - web sites) and through the long holiday weekend. The judge ordered attorneys to come back Tuesday and make their case.

While it remains unclear what practical value the marriage licenses will carry, their symbolism was evident.

Emboldened by the weddings and the prospect of the nation's first legal same-sex marriages in Massachusetts on May 17, gay couples went to courthouses around the nation Thursday and Friday to demand the right to marry. They were quickly turned away.

The San Francisco marriage spree began Thursday with Mayor Gavin Newsom's blessing, drawing the ire of conservatives.

"Apparently, Mayor Newsom felt he's above the law and like a dictator, could simply dictate what the law should be," said Richard Ackerman, an attorney for the Campaign for California Families.

Hundreds of gay couples began lining up at 4 a.m. Friday, many of them rushing into town from other cities to get married before the courts could step in. San Francisco appears to be the first city in the nation to officially support same-sex marriage licenses.

"I'm not interested as a mayor in moving forward with a separate but unequal process for people to engage in marriages," Newsom said on ABC's "Good Morning America." "The people of this city and certainly around the state are feeling that separate but unequal doesn't make sense."

Mikko Alanne, 31, and his partner, Ari Solomon, 27, drove in overnight from West Hollywood, a six-hour trip. "This is the first step towards the state recognizing gay marriage," Alanne said. Even though "we won't be recognized outside San Francisco, we are very excited."

The conservative groups wanted Superior Court James L. Warren to order the county clerk not to issue any more licenses to same-sex couples, and to void any licenses already granted. Warren said court procedures require them to return after the weekend to properly make their request.

California law, as approved by the voters in 2000, defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (news - web sites) and other state officials have avoided comment, but Attorney General Bill Lockyer's spokeswoman did note that California's constitution provides broader equal-protection rights than other states.

The San Francisco ceremonies occurred as Massachusetts lawmakers ended in a stalemate after two days of impassioned debate. They are considering a ban on gay marriage in response to a ruling by the state's high court that said same-sex couples have the right to marry. The Legislature will reconvene March 11.

Around the country, other gay couples were turned away by court clerks as Thursday's "National Freedom to Marry Day" protests continued into Friday. The protests have been held every Feb. 12 since 1998.

In Richmond, Va., eight couples clutching pink "bride" and blue "groom" applications were denied licenses as legislators three blocks away debated a bill affirming Virginia's ban on same-sex marriages.

"It's a heartbreaker to be rejected," said Mary Gay Hutcherson, who was accompanied by her partner of 10 years, Yolanda Farnum. "But it was empowering. I think we deserve a license from the state of Virginia. And I think someday we will get one."

They also protested in Ohio, where Gov. Bob Taft signed a law last week making it the 38th state to officially bar recognition of gay marriages and the second to deny benefits such as health insurance coverage to unmarried employees' partners. The Ohio law is considered one of the most far-reaching bans in the country.

"It's so easy for people who have something to tell others they can't have it," said Christopher Hoffman, who was turned away in Columbus with his partner of 16 months, Joshua Jacob Wiley. "We don't want to be `domestic partners.' We want to be husbands."

---

---

So, the day started and I knew my name and had my pants on. So far, so good. Yay.
Amber Benson

[sheila wt]

Brazil’s “Human Rights and Sexual Orientation” resolution, which was introduced in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights last year, is going to be discussed in March.



Brazilian Resolution



Right now, I'm damn proud of my country.

--------------------------
"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)

[dekalog]

I just posted this link in the other thread:

www.nowtoronto.com/issues...story7.php



it talks about the fight ahead. Everyone needs to go out and make sure their leaders (MP's, Senator's, etc) know how important this is. It may not change the world, but it is a great step towards it.



for Brazil.