To Form a More Perfect Union: Marriage Equality News

UT: Legislators backpedal on anti-registry law

Link: Salt Lake Tribune

Excerpt:

If Salt Lake City ends up losing its fight with state lawmakers over its domestic-partnership registry, it may be a loss in name only.

The city worked late into the night Wednesday with Sen. Greg Bell to significantly scale back the version of the bill that advanced on a 4-2 committee vote, on party lines, to the Senate on Thursday. It changed to the point that Mayor Ralph Becker said it would have little effect, other than a prohibition on using the term "domestic partnerships."

"If this bill becomes law as now drafted, we will be able to continue forward with our goal of providing benefits to our employees and services to our residents," he told a Senate committee. "We'll have to come up with another name for domestic partnerships, which seems odd to me, but if that gives some comfort to promoters of the bill, it is a small price to pay."

Bell, R-Fruit Heights, said his bill simply seeks to ensure that the city's domestic partnerships are not a movement to undermine the state's commitment to traditional marriage, as articulated in Amendment 3, which voters adopted in 2004.

"The purpose of the bill is not mean-spirited," Bell said. "It is intended to accommodate the needs of those who don't fit into the traditional marriage category while preserving the basis of [traditional marriage]."

[.]

[jw]

WI: Same sex couple files grievance with school district over marriage leave

Link: The Sheboygan Press

Excerpt:

caption: Leigh Robert (left) and Judy Stock, a same-sex couple from Kiel, play with their dogs while posing for photos in their home. The couple is planning a March wedding in Canada. Gannett Wisconsin photo

 

A decision is expected next Thursday on a grievance filed by a female employee of the Sheboygan Area School District over the district's refusal to grant two days of paid leave for her marriage to another woman.

Leigh Robert, 38, who works in the district's recreation department and also as a secretary at Jefferson Elementary School, plans to wed Judy Stock, 51, in Canada next week. The women, who live in Kiel and are unable to marry legally in Wisconsin, appeared Thursday at a hearing before the Human Resources Committee of the district's governing board.

Board members Susan Hein, Mark Mancl and Scott Lewandoske were present at the closed, 45-minute hearing, which included Kelly Cvetan, the district's coordinator of human resources; Paul Hemmer, the district's legal counsel; and three representatives of the union for support-staff employees.

About two dozen supporters of the couple turned out, including several students from Sheboygan North High School who presented a petition that had been signed by 171 students and staff members at the school. Robert formerly worked at North High as a secretary and health aide.

Sam Gieryn, the union's bargaining representative, said support staff's contract with the district does not specify that a marriage be recognized legally in Wisconsin.

"The district has never before tried to inquire about whether a marriage is legally recognized in the state," Gieryn said. "This is the first time, and that's where we see the discrimination. The contract doesn't allow them to make that inquiry."

[.]

Frank Carcara, 37, of Sheboygan, attended the meeting with his sons, ages 4 and 15 months, for whom the couple have been baby sitters on occasion.

"Judy and Leigh are good friends," Carcara said. "The community is better than this. Sheboygan needs to look to the future. We're the human race, and prejudices need to be overcome."

Jeff Timm, the union's chief steward and a maintenance worker at the district's central office, said the district is sending the wrong message by denying Robert's claim.

"If we're going to associate our employees differently because of sexual orientation, what does that say to our students?" he said.

[jw]

Australia: 100 laws ignore same-sex couples

Link: The Australian

Excerpt:

The level of legal discrimination against gays and lesbians is almost twice what it was thought to be, with about 100 federal laws ignoring homosexual couples.

Attorney-General Robert McClelland told The Weekend Australian yesterday that an audit had found the figure to be dramatically higher than that which was identified by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

He also promised to take action to eradicate all laws that resulted in discrimination.

"The audit of commonwealth legislation by my department has uncovered more than the 58 laws identified by HREOC that discriminate against people in close, caring relationships, including same-sex couples," he said.

The Government is planning to announce much of the reform package in the May budget because legal reform will, in some cases, result in added costs for taxpayers, with same-sex partners being granted access to benefits previously off limits.

Mr McClelland said that so far his department had found that discrimination existed in every administrative area, including education and privacy.

"Areas of discrimination include taxation, social security, superannuation, workplace laws, privacy and education assistance," he said.

"The Rudd Government is committed to removing this discrimination. I am consulting closely with my department about the best way to implement the changes."

Mr McClelland is in discussions with the ACT Government to remove clauses in its civil partnerships bill that would allow gay couples to hold a public ceremony marking their union.

Mr McClelland has told the ACT that the Rudd Government would not allow civil unions, and is pushing for a system of state-based relationship registers.

It is understood that the ACT is redrafting its bill after being warned by the federal Government that it will intervene to override civil unions.

Australian National University senior law lecturer Wayne Morgan said couples should be able to access federal entitlements by registering a relationship at a state level.

[.]

[jw]

VA: Domestic partnership concern undoes bill to loosen rules on benefits

Link: Virginian-Pilot

Excerpt:

For the second year in a row, a bill that opponents say could extend health benefits to some domestic partnerships has died in the General Assembly.

The bill's sponsor and a statewide lobbying group for gays and lesbians counter that the measure is a recruiting tool for self-insured localities to attract the best employees.

The legislation proposed by Sen. Mary Margaret Whipple, D-Arlington, SB51, would allow cities and counties that self-fund health insurance - including Virginia Beach and Portsmouth - to provide that benefit to "any other class of persons" as agreed to by the locality and the policyholder.

That could include in-laws who live in a person's home, siblings, grandparents, domestic partnerships or unmarried heterosexual partners, Whipple said. She acknowledged the fact that her measure could provide benefits to gay couples may have affected the vote.

"It's certainly a concern," she said after the bill failed to pass a House of Delegates panel this week. The Senate had already passed the measure.

One of the bill's critics is more blunt. Chris Freund of The Family Foundation of Virginia, which advocates traditional family values, believes the legislation violates the state constitution by giving "marriage benefits to unmarried couples."

"The bill's language was confusing and ambiguous," Freund wrote in an e-mail. "That was done for a reason as proponents didn't want to mention the true purpose of the bill - domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples."

[.]

[jw]

Clinton pledges federal benefits for couples, defends partial repeal of DOMA

Link: EDGE Boston

Excerpt:

Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton this week pledged, if elected, to "work tirelessly to see that federal benefits are extended to same-sex couples that meet certain standards of commitment, regardless of the state in which they reside."

Clinton, speaking during a conference call Wednesday, Feb. 27, with reporters from Dallas Voice and two other LGBT newspapers in Ohio, also took the opportunity to recount her past support for LGBT rights.

[.]

The marriage issue

Clinton acknowledged that civil union laws like the one enacted last year in New Jersey are flawed, and that they fall short of offering rights and benefits equal to those that come with marriage.

But the senator from New York insisted that "civil unions, if implemented well ... are the best way to achieve that."

When the New Jersey Legislature passed the law creating legal civil unions, they included a provision creating a commission to review the law's effectiveness in extending benefits to same-sex couples equal to those offered through marriage.

That commission released its first report last week, declaring that civil unions do not work and do, in fact, create a kind of "second-class status" for same-sex couples.

Clinton said Wednesday that from what she understands about the report, "the biggest problem ... is with federal benefits, which states really can't do much about. And that's why I want to change the law to extend federal benefits."

The first step toward that goal, she said, would be for Congress to pass the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act. The bill, which Clinton has co-sponsored in the Senate, would extend the same benefits, including health insurance, to the domestic partners of federal employees.

"As some of you may know," Clinton said, "after [the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001], I lobbied very hard to get the administration to extend federal benefits under the Victims Compensation Fund to the partners of those who had perished. That was the first time we were ever able to do that, and guess what - the sky didn't fall.

"I have been pushing that very hard, to extend all federal benefits, and I intend to make that a high priority," she said.

Clinton has come under fire from LGBT activists for supporting repeal of only part of the Defense of Marriage Act, a measure signed into law by her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, in 1996, that allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions enacted in another state, and which prohibits the federal government from recognizing or extending benefits to same-sex couples. The senator has said she supports repeal of the second portion of the bill, but not the first part.

"My position really does reflect my experience in fighting the [federal marriage amendment banning same-sex marriage]," Clinton said, adding that the section of DOMA that enables states to make their own decisions on marriage helped defeat that amendment.

"I was able to use section one of DOMA to explain to senators that, as had been the tradition in America, that marriage would be up to the states. That was critical in defeating the amendment."

But, Clinton added, "the heart of what we're trying to achieve" could be accomplished by repealing the part of DOMA that prevents federal recognition of same-sex couples.

"I think my strategy in actually moving us to equal access to benefits and the rights being generally available is the one most likely to work," she said. "I will say, as I have said many times, that marriage is left to the states. States get to determine the laws. I think that is ... a historic and sensible approach for us to take. There does need to be a concerted and renewed effort to make sure that when states recognize the legality of same-sex marriage, that all benefits be extended. I believe that can be achieved."

[.]

[jw]

Vatican: Pope, ahead of U.S. trip, speaks of abortion, gays

Link: Reuters

Excerpt:

Pope Benedict, ahead of his first trip to the United States, praised Americans on Friday who oppose gay marriage and abortion and called for global nuclear disarmament.

In an address to new U.S. ambassador Mary Ann Glendon, Benedict touched on issues he will likely raise on his April 15-20 visit, during which he will meet President George W. Bush in Washington and address the United Nations.

[.]

He said Americans' appreciation of religion's role in public life is "reflected in the efforts of so many of your fellow citizens and government leaders to ensure legal protection for God's gift of life from conception to natural death."

Benedict also spoke of safeguarding the family and "the institution of marriage, acknowledged as a stable union between a man and a woman."

[.]

Glendon, a Pittsfield, Massachusetts native who in 1994 became the first woman to lead a Vatican delegation to a U.N. conference, said the German-born Pontiff would receive a warm welcome in Washington and New York.

"You will be among friends," she said, noting that Benedict's predecessor John Paul II made seven U.S. visits that were "opportunities for a conversation on the important issues of the day".

[.]

Ambassador Glendon has written articles in opposition to the freedom to marry, including a February 24, 2004 piece in the Wall Street Journal.

[jw]

Freedom to marry in Massachusetts attracts workforce

Link: Boston Business Journal

Excerpt:

Massachusetts native Jeffrey Webb loved the Los Angeles lifestyle. He had a great job as a law partner in the L.A. office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, and his life partner, Mark Schuster, was equally happy with his work as chief of general pediatrics and professor at UCLA. "We both had positions that were hard to replicate," said Webb, 43.

Even so, Webb and Schuster left the California sunshine in December and moved to Brookline with their twin sons. It wasn't the promise of enduring a gloomy Massachusetts winter that beckoned them -- it was the ability to live in Massachusetts as a legally married couple.

"That was something that was really important to us," said Webb, who married Schuster in Massachusetts soon after the couple bought a vacation home in Truro in 2004. Webb has since joined the law firm McDermott, Will & Emery LLP as a partner in the trial department, and Schuster is now the chief of general pediatrics and vice chair for health policy research at Children's Hospital Boston.

Massachusetts has a dubious reputation for losing talented workers to less pricey markets. But a trend that runs counter to the talent drain has emerged in the form of the state's controversial same-sex marriage law, a powerful lure for same-sex couples who want to live in a place where they can get married, gain legal rights and have access to spousal health benefits. In fact, some observers see the influx of same-sex couples as a boon for the state's economy.

"Since the marriage law passed, we see a lot more (gay) professionals moving into the Boston area," said Henry Hoey, a board member of the Greater Boston Business Council, a chamber of commerce for gay professionals. The organization's membership has increased 5 percent to 1,100 members since last year. "The effects of this law are starting to take hold."

[.]

The state's same-sex marriage law could provide local businesses with a unique competitive edge, according to Carissa Cunningham, director of public affairs at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders in Boston.

"Massachusetts has a reputation for fairness both generally and in the specifics that it offers gay and lesbian couples, especially those with children who are concerned about raising their kids in a place that supports their family and protects their legal rights," said Cunningham. "It makes the state competitive."

While federal law does not recognize same-sex marriage, the benefits for gay couples who decide to marry on a state level still outweigh the drawbacks, according to Rick Kraft, an attorney who moved from Berkeley, Calif., to Massachusetts with his partner and their daughter in 2004. Benefits include partner health insurance, filing joint state tax returns and automatic inheritance if one spouse dies. One downside to marriage is that in the event of a split, alimony payments are not tax-deductable for same-sex couples, according to Kraft, who focuses his estate planning practice on the legal needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

"There are hundreds of automatic rights that come to couples when they're married," said Kraft, 46.

Chris Ott, 37, and his partner, David Danaher, 40, decided to leave Wisconsin after the state passed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Ott moved to Cambridge after he sold his home in Madison. Danaher, a professor of Slavic languages at the University of Wisconsin, plans to remain until he finds a post in Boston.

The two haven't married in Massachusetts yet.

"The passage of that amendment meant that there were going to continue to be legal and financial barriers and hardships which we didn't want to contend with, especially later in life," said Ott, communications director at the ACLU's Boston office. "We wanted to live somewhere where these issues had already been settled."

[jw]

Maryland lawmakers testify for freedom to marry

Link: Baltimore Sun

Excerpt:

More than a dozen state lawmakers testified yesterday in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage in Maryland, an unusual show of legislative support even as it is unclear if proponents will be able to muster the votes for passage this year.

The House Judiciary Committee also heard bills that would establish civil unions or domestic partnerships and a bill to put a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage on the November ballot.

"You don't have to like us," Del. Heather R. Mizeur, who is openly gay, testified. "You don't have to invite us to dinner with your family. You don't even have to respect us and our relationship. But we do expect you to treat us equally under the law."

[.]

[jw]

NY: County presents brief against marriage recognition decision

Link: Rochester Democrat & Chronicle

Excerpt:

The recent decision by an appellate court that same-sex marriages from other states or countries must be recognized in New York "will have endless ripple effects throughout all facets of the lives of our citizens," attorneys for Monroe County claim.

In a legal brief filed Wednesday with the New York Court of Appeals, county attorneys maintain that the recent decision has by "judicial fiat" legalized same-sex marriage.

In the brief, the county requested that the Court of Appeals agree to hear an appeal of the Feb. 1 decision from the state Supreme Court Appellate Division, Fourth Department - a ruling that determined that New York law includes ample precedent for the recognition of marriages from other jurisdictions, even if the marriage would not be allowed here.

The Court of Appeals, the highest court in the state, needs to resolve this issue, county lawyers said in the brief. The Court of Appeals must first agree to hear an appeal before a case can proceed.

The appellate ruling has changed the legal landscape so that now "whole facets of New York society must change and respond," Deputy County Attorney William Taylor wrote in the filing.

[.]

The legal imbroglio stems from the case of a Monroe Community College employee, Patricia Martinez, who married her partner, Lisa Ann Golden, in Canada in 2004. (In the U.S., gay couples can legally marry in Massachusetts.) MCC denied Martinez's request to extend her health care benefits to Golden, and Martinez sued, claiming discrimination. A trial court sided with the college, determining that marriage in New York is only legal between a man and a woman, but the appellate court reversed that decision in a 5-0 ruling.

The appellate judges determined that New York has long recognized marriages from other jurisdictions - except in some cases, such as polygamy or incest - and that the Canadian marriage of Martinez and Golden should also be valid here.

[.]

Rochester attorney Jeffrey Wicks, who represents Martinez, said the unanimous appellate decision shows the strength of its legal foundation.

"In order for the county to win (on appeal), the Court of Appeals, in effect, would have say to Canada and Massachusetts, 'We're sorry, but we do not recognize marriages performed by you,'" Wicks said. "This would upset over 100 years of New York's long-standing legal tradition of recognizing out-of-state validly performed marriages which could not have been performed here in the first instance. For this reason, the county's appeal borders on frivolous."

[.]

[jw]

Commentary: New Math--Civil Unions, Marriages and Parochial Reports

Link: Telling Secrets
by Elizabeth Kaeton

Excerpt:

Over at our church offices, we're just finishing up our Parochial Reports, due to the National Episcopal Church Center by March 1st. That's been made much easier in the past few years because we can fill out the forms online and send them in electronically.

For those of you who may not know, Parochial Reports are due annually, required by Canon Law.

We are busy filling in numbers on the prescribed lines and were doing fine until we got to Marriages.
Well, we had 4 Civil Unions and 2 Marriages. Does that mean we had 6 Marriages or 2?

[…]

Here's another thing: The reason we, in The Episcopal Church at least, can perform Civil Unions is precisely because they are NOT Marriage, which would be against our canons which clearly state that "marriage is between one man and one woman."

And yet, Civil Unions are a clear example of the completely legal, civil and ecclesiastical clergy function in the dual (some might say 'schizophrenic') capacity as an agent of the Church and an agent of the State.

Civil Unions are recorded and recognized in the municipality where they are performed as well the State. Why not the church?
Are we having fun yet? Um, I don't know about you, but for me? Not so much.

So, I called our Diocesan Administrator to ask him. His first answer to the question was "Two." Okay, fair enough, but how do I record the Civil Unions? There's no line for it and the computer form does not allow us to alter the entries. If Civil Union = Marriage, why can't my answer be "Six"?
"Right!" He said, himself a gay man in a partnered relationship of over 30 years and in a Civil Union. "See?" he said, his frustration and anger rising to the surface of his normally very calm exterior, "this is just more evidence of the inequality of this law and the injustice of the church."
That was a far better answer than I got from a national official whose answer to the New Math question was also "Two." When I protested that in New Jersey we are told that "Civil Union = Marriage" he said, "Well, you can call a cat a dog, but at the end of the day, the cat won't fetch your slippers and your paper."

Of course, he's right but can't you just see the Milk of Human Kindness dripping from his lips? Is he completely insensitive to the fact that LGBT people are forced, by this computer form, to being invisible in the institutional reality, yet again? Does he not want to acknowledge the reality of the world, hiding behind the Great Cloud of Unknowing, or, at least, the rigidity of a computer form?

Wait a minute. Hang on. Don't bother. I think I know the answer.

It will be interesting to know what clergy in the Diocese of Massachusetts are doing. Marriage is legal there, but clergy can't perform them because it's against the canons of the church. Except, some of them have and have received a 'godly admonition' from their bishop. They've done it again and received yet another 'godly admonition.' And so it goes in the ecclesiastical version of 'Ring around a rosey'. You may remember that this childhood song ends with "We all fall down."

[…]

The writer asks for comments from others on how they're handling the disparity , especially from clergy in dioceses where civil unions or full marriages are available.   

 

[jw]