« March 2008 | Main | May 2008 »

Posts from April 2008

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Australia: Gay reforms 'will help'

Link: Sunshine Coast Daily

image

Kristen Turley and Holly Kercheval with their little boy Indi are pleased the government is proposing changes to legislation regarding same sex couples.
Photo: Michaela O'Neill

 

Indi, soon to turn six, could not ask for better parents than his two Eumundi mums, Kristen Turley and Holly Kercheval.

And the couple hopes that more people will come to realise that, as the federal government propose law changes to effectively recognise same-sex relationships.

Holly has been in Indi’s life since he was 25 weeks old, and despite many obstacles the trio has become a tight family unit, one they are considering adding to sometime in the future – which is why they are excited about the proposed legislation changes.

“It’s very much welcomed and it’s been a long time coming,” Kristen said. “I think it could really help with the discrimination we face in our everyday lives, even just down at the playground.

“They could really help to widen the community’s perspective on families and what constitutes a family.

“This issue also faces the youth of today and this will hopefully promote more positive changes for the future. So I think it could help teenagers feel more comfortable and accepting of one another.’’

While Kirsten feels the government’s recognition is a step in the right direction, she cannot understand why it has stopped at legalising same-sex unions.

“We just want equality on all levels,” she said. “I just can’t see how they acknowledge all of this and not marriage.’’

[jw]

Exploring the Impact of the Marriage Amendments: Can Public Employers Offer Domestic Partner Benefits to Their Gay and Lesbian Employees?

Link: SSRN

Graham, Tiffany C. , "Exploring the Impact of the Marriage Amendments: Can Public Employers Offer Domestic Partner Benefits to Their Gay and Lesbian Employees?" (April 2008). Villanova Law/Public Policy Research Paper No. 2008-14 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1126733

Abstract:

The article focuses on an issue that is shaping up to be the new front in the same-sex marriage wars: whether applying the terms of the more broadly-constructed amendments to public employers will bar them from offering domestic partner benefits to their gay and lesbian employees. The first part of the article offers an overview of domestic partner benefits plans and discusses the manner in which they are currently being threatened by the more broadly-constructed marriage amendments. The second part takes a close look at the litigation in National Pride at Work v. Michigan. This case represents the first time that a state court of last resort has agreed to consider the scope of a public employer's authority to offer domestic partner benefits to its gay and lesbian employees when the marriage amendment in the state may preclude the employer from doing so. The litigation in National Pride at Work illustrates the interpretive difficulties that may arise when public employers in these states condition the receipt of partner benefits on the existence of the gay or lesbian relationship.

In the last part of the article, I identify the primary concepts that are at stake in the relevant sections of these amendments - "recognition," "status," and "similarity to marriage" - and offer an analysis of these terms that will help courts in the event that they are called upon to interpret them. In the course of the analysis, I find that a public employer's decision to premise the dispensation of partner benefits on the existence of the employee's relationship violates the prohibition against recognizing a status for unmarried individuals. This fact notwithstanding, the crux of my analysis focuses on the similarity provision: if the status recognized by the state does not fall within the scope of the similarity prohibition laid out by the amendment, then the domestic partner benefits plan should be upheld.

Keywords: employee benefits, same-sex marriage, same-sex marriage amendment

[jw]

Australia: Clock ticking on same-sex laws

Link: The Canberra Times

Excerpt:

The ACT [Australian Capital Territory] is on an imminent collision course with the Federal Government over same-sex unions.

The Rudd Government is set to emulate the Howard government and override or disallow ACT legislation, unless talks in the next 48 hours reach a compromise.

The Federal Government yesterday unveiled plans to fulfil election commitments to amend about 100 laws to ensure superannuation, taxation and social-security rights for same-sex partners.

However, it remained intransigent on ACT plans to institute ceremonies formally recognising same-sex unions, declaring they "mimicked marriage". It also maintained opposition to gay and lesbian couples having access to IVF and adoption.

ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell announced yesterday a substantial compromise, offering to remove a state-sanctioned official from the ceremonies, to be replaced by authorised witnesses.

This is expected to be a critical bargaining chip in his discussions today or tomorrow with his federal counterpart, Robert McClelland.

It is understood that the Federal Government has not wanted any mention of any ceremony in the legislation, mirroring the previous government's position, and virtually gutting the legislation.

Former Attorney-General Philip Ruddock and former Territories Minister Jim Lloyd advised the Governor-General to disallow the ACT Civil Unions Bill, provoking the ACT's Gary Humphries to become the only Liberal senator to cross the floor and vote against the Howard government.

Mr Corbell made clear yesterday that he intended to re-introduce the legislation - with or without federal agreement - before October's ACT election.

[...]

[jw]

CA: Gay Dems working to re-elect San Diego’s GOP mayor

Link: Washington Blade

Excerpt:

It’s not often you find gay Democrats working to re-elect a straight Republican politician, but then again, 2008 is turning out to be an exceptional year in politics.

Stampp Corbin, a prominent Barack Obama supporter, and San Diego City Commissioner Nicole Murray-Ramirez are gay Democrats, but they're organizing gay support for the re-election campaign of San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders. Corbin and Murray-Ramirez. The organization run by Corbin is called 2008 GLBT Vote San Diego.

Sanders, a Republican, made national headlines — and YouTube infamy — in September when he wept while publicly announcing his support for same-sex marriage during a news conference.

He pledged his support for a resolution that the City Council passed directing the city attorney to file a brief in support of a California gay marriage bill.

Though the mayor had previously said he would veto the resolution, he had a change of heart when the measure hit his desk.

"The arrival of the resolution to sign or veto in my office late last night forced me to reflect and search my soul for the right thing to do. I've decided to lead with my heart, to do what I think is right and to take a stand on behalf of equality and social justice. The right thing for me to do is sign this resolution," he said during the news conference.

[...]

When Sanders pledged his support for gay marriage, he also revealed that his daughter, Lisa, is a lesbian. Many have attributed Sanders' marriage views to his daughter’s sexual orientation, but Corbin and Murray-Ramirez said that having gay appointees to advise him also contributed to his support.

The 2008 mayoral race pits Sanders against Republican opponent Steve Francis.

"All of the polling shows that this is clearly a race between the two Republicans," Murray-Ramirez said. If no candidate receives 50 percent of the vote in the June election, a runoff will be held in November between the top two finishers.

Francis has said he would have vetoed the amicus brief measure in support of gay marriage.

Vince Vasquez, policy director for Francis' campaign, said that Francis is a supporter of gay rights, including domestic partnerships and considers himself a friend to the gay community.

"Our campaign and its message are inclusive," Vasquez said.

Fred Sainz, press secretary for Sanders, said he doesn't see the gay marriage issue playing a big part in the re-election campaign.

"Whether people supported gay marriage or not, it really demonstrated that [people] believe that the mayor is a man of justice and compassion," Sainz said, who is gay.

"I think that people felt for him, both as a human being and as a father, and that's what they take away from it more than having changed their mind on gay marriage," he said.

But Francis is less than friendly when it comes to gay issues, Sainz said.

"When Jerry made his decision on gay marriage, [Francis] openly lobbied the local Republican Party to withdraw their endorsement of Jerry. It didn't work, so he turned tail on them and now the most conservative guy in town is running as an 'independent.' He changes positions more often than most of us change clothes," he said.

An article in the San Diego Union-Tribune published last September said Francis supported domestic partnerships, but quoted him as saying that gay marriage is "disruptive to our family structure as a culture and a society."

[...]

Corbin and Murray-Ramirez are working to rally gay support for Sanders as part of an effort to "thank" the mayor for his support.

"You will not find one Republican mayor who has come out for marriage equality," Murray-Ramirez said. "I know that his daughter Lisa did not lobby him or push him on this issue one bit."

Since the announcement, Lisa has become involved in the San Diego gay community, Murray-Ramirez said.

"Now she is openly gay with her longtime partner and they are involved in the community and social service fundraising," he said. "And the mayor's very proud of her."

[jw]

The Gay Moralist: After dialogue, what?

Link: PrideSource
by John Corvino

Excerpt:

Back in the old days, there were those who supported gay rights and those who opposed them - vocally. There was also a third group whose opposition was so deep that they objected even to discussing the issue. For them, to debate gay rights would be to dignify depravity, and depravity merits chilly silence, not invitations to dialogue.

In the last decade or so, a fourth group has appeared mirroring the third. This group's support for gay rights runs so deep that they object even to discussing the issue. For them, to debate gay rights would be to dignify bigotry, and bigotry merits chilly silence, not invitations to dialogue.

While the above sketch is somewhat simplistic, I think it captures an important shift in the gay-rights debate. Increasingly, one finds people on both sides who object not merely to their opponents' position but even to engaging that position. Why debate the obvious, they ask. Surely anyone who holds THAT position must be too stubborn, brainwashed or dumb to reason with.

The upshot is that supporters and opponents of gay rights are talking to each other less and less. This fact distresses me.

It distresses me for several reasons. First, it lulls gay-rights advocates into a complacency where we mistake others' silence for acquiescence. Then we are shocked--shocked!--when, for example, an Oklahoma state representative says that gays pose a greater threat than terrorism - and her constituents rally around her. Think Sally Kern will have a hard time getting re-elected? Think again.

It distresses me, too, because dialogue works. Not always, and not easily, but it makes a difference. Indeed, ironically enough, healthy dialogue about our issues helped move many people from the "supportive-but-open-to-discussion" camp to the "so-supportive-I-can't-believe-we're-discussing-this" camp.

[...]

There are those who find my emphasis on dialogue naive. As someone who has spent sixteen years traveling the country speaking and debating about homosexuality and ethics, I'm well aware of dialogue's limitations.

Yet I'm also frequently reminded of its power. Recently Aquinas College, a Catholic school in Grand Rapids, cancelled a lecture I was scheduled to give because of concerns about my opposition to Catholic teaching on homosexuality. Students angered by the cancellation arranged to have me speak off-campus. The event drew hundreds of audience members, including some who had been critical of my initial invitation. The next day I learned that one of those critics, after hearing my talk, had begun advocating bringing me to campus next year. Over time, such conversions can have a huge impact.

Then there are those who wonder whether the silence I'm lamenting really is a problem at all. My Aquinas cancellation suggests that it is: intentionally or not, the cancellation sent students the message that this topic is literally unspeakable. But the problem is by no means limited to one side. Last year I did a same-sex marriage debate (with Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family) at another Catholic college. A week before the event, my host told me that a student was trying to organize a protest. "Because he doesn't want a gay-rights speaker on a Catholic campus?" I asked.

"No, because he doesn't want your opponent here," she answered. The student thought that opposition to same-sex marriage should not be dignified with a hearing. On a Catholic campus!

That student, like the rest of us, would do well to recall the words of John Stuart Mill. In his 1859 classic On Liberty Mill argued that those who silence opinions - even false ones - rob the world of great gifts:

"If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."

The moral of the story? Let's keep talking.

 

John Corvino, Ph.D. teaches philosophy at Wayne State University in Detroit. Read more of his work at www.johncorvino.com

[jw]

Australia: Opinion--Same sex must mean same rights

Link: The Age
by Rodney Croome

Excerpt:

Imagine risking your life for your country in the armed services, only to discover that if you die your partner will receive no compensation or pension? Imagine not being able to fully provide for your partner after your death because you are not permitted to name him or her as the beneficiary of your superannuation?

Imagine needing to place your partner in aged care only to discover that because you're not officially a couple, and your home isn't exempt from the assets test, you'll have to sell the place where you live to pay the fees? This is the world of financial disadvantage and insecurity that Australia's same-sex couples inhabit.

Not all of us suffer this level of trauma, but the extent of discrimination across tax, health care, workplace entitlements and social security means none of us escape it.

Take the Medicare rebate: same-sex partners and their children must outlay much more on medical fees to qualify for it because they are not considered a family unit. This is also the case with workplace entitlements such as carer's leave and maternity leave. In more than 100 areas of federal law, imposts like this add up to what is effectively a tax on loving someone of the same sex. This discrimination also adversely affects the many thousands of Australian children cared for by same-sex couples. Their families are not only worse off financially but are treated by the law as if they do not exist. But thanks to yesterday's pledge by the Federal Government to a timetable for removing discrimination against same-sex de facto couples in federal law, this financial disadvantage and legal invisibility will soon be just a memory.

[...]

Naturally the recognition of same-sex de facto couples raises the issue of same-sex marriage, a reform both major parties oppose. Six countries, including Catholic Spain, allow same-sex couples to marry. Many more allow civil unions, including our neighbour New Zealand and several Eastern European and South American countries. Australians are already entering civil unions in Tasmania, and will do so in Victoria later this year.

Yet the Federal Government refuses to recognise overseas unions, enact a national scheme or allow the ACT to have its own civil partnerships scheme. Same-sex couples who have solemnised their unions overseas, or want to do the same here, are left wondering why an official declaration of love and commitment is so hard for the Federal Government to countenance.

They are rightly exasperated by the Government's failure to justify continued discrimination in marriage beyond declaring "that's the way it's always been". Slavery and denying women the vote were also hallowed traditions until fairness prevailed. Indeed, in centuries past the second-class status of blacks and women was sealed by laws that denied them the right to marry the partner of their choice in much the same way same-sex partners are denied that right today.

But debate on equal marriage should not be allowed to overshadow the changes now being proposed. This is because there are important details yet to be resolved. For example, will same-sex couples involved in property or custody disputes have access to the federal Family Court? This has been opposed by some religious groups. But it is preferable to the current situation, with same-sex partners and their children relegated to more expensive and less user-friendly state Supreme Courts. Will the Federal Government give full and equal recognition to partners who are in Tasmanian and Victorian civil unions? Tasmanian registered partners are automatically granted the same rights as married couples in state law, and civil union status when they travel to countries such as Britain, yet they have no standing in Australian national law.

[...]

The urgency of this reform is too great to be jeopardised by quibbling and mean-spiritedness. Unqualified bipartisanship will send out an important anti-discrimination message, a message that Australians are desperate to hear because it will echo what they already feel.

A decade ago I was a criminal in my home state of Tasmania because I was in a same-sex relationship. Now my same-sex relationship is about to have near-equal entitlements at a state and national level. For all that remains undone and unresolved, that is an important achievement of which all Australians can be proud.

 

Rodney Croome is a spokesman for the Australian Coalition for Equality.

[jw]

Australia: Same-sex couples may risk fraud charges

Link: Melbourne Herald Sun

Excerpt:

Same-sex couples will soon risk fraud charges if they keep their relationships secret from welfare authorities.

Under new laws to deliver equal rights, they will face the same disclosure rules as heterosexuals when dealing with Centrelink.

Same-sex couples who receive any welfare benefit will have to notify the agency of their relationship, their partner's income, and any changes in their circumstances.

Those found breaking the rules will have to repay benefits, while serious offenders will face prosecution.

"Equality in social welfare means equality in all circumstances, including how Centrelink investigates and deals with suspected fraud," Human Services Minister Joe Ludwig said.

The Rudd Government will remove discriminatory clauses in more than 100 Commonwealth laws progressively from next month, starting with superannuation laws.

But same-sex couples will not be allowed to marry, have adoption rights or receive IVF treatment. The changes, which are yet to be costed, will also ensure children are not disadvantaged because of the structure of their family.

[...]

[jw]

IL: Group pushing anti-gay referendum

Link: Windy City Times

Excerpt:

Proponents of an Illinois constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage are almost done with their push to collect enough signatures needed to place an anti-same-sex marriage referendum on November election ballots.

The right-wing organization Protect Marriage Illinois ( PMI ) is preparing to submit its signatures to the State Board of Elections. PMI—which failed to collect enough valid signatures in 2006 for a similar effort—extended its deadline to turn in petitions that call for the Illinois General Assembly to propose an anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution. If they are successful, a non-binding referendum will be placed on the Nov. 4 ballot.

PMI wants state lawmakers to amend the Illinois Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The organization set an April 30 deadline to submit signatures. Signatures need to be submitted to the State Board of Election by May 5.

The Illinois Constitution already prohibits same-sex marriage. The PMI push, if successful, would only place an advisory referendum on the ballot, and would not change the state constitution. However, the group's ultimate goal is to place a binding referendum on election ballots in the future.

[...]

[jw]

The sex inspector; Gay sex guru Michael Alvear helped save the marriages of several straight couples, then lost the love of his own life

Link: Creative Loafing Atlanta

Excerpt:

image With a million television viewers in the United Kingdom watching, Michael and Katie sit down on a bed.

Katie is in her mid-20s. But her face is marked by the physical and emotional exhaustion of a long-term relationship with Mark that has grown tense and largely sexless since the birth of their child.

Katie wants her partner to be more assertive in the bedroom, but has to modify her own behavior if it's going to happen. That's why she's with Michael.

Michael is the co-host of "The Sex Inspectors," a reality show that helps struggling straight couples reinvent their sex lives. The show debuted in the U.K. in 2004 and on HBO in the United States in 2005. Cameras in Katie's and Mark's bedroom allowed Michael to study how the couple interacts. Viewing the footage, he easily spotted one of the reasons Katie's partner had become less assertive and affectionate, and he's ready to talk to her about it.

"Can I show you what you do?" Michael asks, after they sit down on the bed.

He invites her to put her arm around him. But as her arm touches his back, he slaps it and turns away.

"I'm not that bad, am I?" she asks, laughing nervously.

"How did that feel?" Michael asks.

"It's just blatantly 'don't touch me' isn't it?"

"What else do you feel?" he asks.

"Rejected, which is kind of sad. It's not a nice feeling."

"It makes you feel hurt, rejected, abandoned and not very loved. Fair?"

"Definitely," she says.

"Can I tell you a secret?"

She nods and Michael leans in to whisper in her ear: "Men have feelings, too."

After spending much of his professional writing career in Atlanta on the fringe as a gay relationship columnist and author, Michael Alvear didn't decide one day to go mainstream. The mainstream came to him.

Alvear, 49, is no longer merely a gay sex and relationships guru. He's a sex and relationships guru who happens to be gay.

He is proud, he says, to be part of a cultural movement that shifted the common perception of gay people away from malicious, hateful stereotypes.

"Queer Eye For The Straight Guy" was a great leap forward, Alvear says, precisely because its central premise became passé so quickly. Gay people advising straight people is now so OK that it's almost dull.

Alvear, however, has just relearned the painful lesson that even though he may be a mainstream figure whose work appeals to both straights and gays, he's still ostracized in many essential ways from the straight world.

While in London, Alvear met the man he considers the love of his life. They want to build a life together in Atlanta. The only way Alvear's boyfriend can get a visa to stay in the United States is through marriage. But because they're in a same-sex relationship, they can't legally marry.

The striking difference between the two worlds hit home recently when Alvear was in a dressing room preparing for a television appearance. He overheard a woman talking about falling in love with a Brit. "I met the most wonderful British guy," she said. "I married him and now he can work here."

It was a wrenching conversation for Alvear to hear. "Isn't it rich?" he asks. "I've helped so many straight people improve their love lives and yet it's straight policy that has ruined mine."

[...]

Even though it was popular, "The Sex Inspectors" stopped airing after its third season. When Alvear returned home to Atlanta for good, Robert came with him.

Alvear immersed himself in his next project, a relationship advice website called Blabbermash.

His most talked-about columns, he says, have always been the ones with the best questions. Blabbermash features user-generated videos of sex and relationship questions. The answers are secondary.

While Alvear put Blabbermash together last year, Robert looked for work as a financial analyst and tried to find a way to stay in the United States permanently.

He had two ways of obtaining a long-term visa: Marriage or an employer willing to sponsor him to get a coveted H-1B visa, which allows skilled workers to stay in the United States for three years.

Marriage was out of the question because gay and lesbian marriages aren't legally recognized in the United States, or under U.S. immigration law.

Robert also couldn't obtain an H-1B visa. Post-9/11 security concerns, and more recently, anti-immigrant sentiment in Congress, have conspired to cut the number of H-1Bs available annually from 132,000 in 2004 to just 65,000 last year. With so many high-tech firms desperate for overseas talent, the State Department gave out all of 2007's H-1Bs in just two months.

Robert couldn't stay without a visa. Alvear couldn't leave behind his life in Atlanta to move to England and start all over again.

So when Robert's visa expired seven months ago, he moved back to London and left their relationship in limbo.

"I've never really experienced that kind of blatant discrimination before – that you're nothing, you mean nothing, you are nothing, you are worthless," Alvear says.

Several years ago, he was with a friend walking to a gay nightclub when they narrowly escaped being attacked by a group of kids carrying baseball bats and pipes.

"This is the same feeling I had when those four guys came out with bats and pipes," Alvear says. "One is physical assault and one is psychological. After this, it's hard for me to sit here and say we're living in the golden age of gay acceptance. Life for gays is so much better than it was, but sometimes it's still glaring."

[...]

[jw]

Elderly Spinster Sisters Lose Bid For Inclusion In UK Gay Partner Law

Link: 365Gay.com

Excerpt:

image Two elderly sisters who live together have lost their final appeal in a discrimination case that claimed they were victims of discrimination under Britain's civil partner law.

Joyce Burden, 90, and her 82-year-old sister Sybil (pictured) claimed that the partner law should have included any two people living in an interdependent relationship.

By not being included in the law they claim they could lose the their family home if either of them dies because the other could not afford to keep the home and pay Britain's death duty tax.

The women fought their case all the way to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

On Tuesday the court in 15-2 ruling rejected their claim.

[...]

[jw]

Browse Categories

October 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

Google


  • WWW
    samesexmarriage

Sponsors

  • Although all work in designing this blog and posting excerpts to it is done by volunteers, there are costs involved in the running and monitoring of the site.

    Two organizations have been particularly generous in this regard--The Freedom to Marry and The Legal Marriage Alliance of Washington.

    Please check out their sites and become a member so they can continue to support other efforts such as this one.

Freedom to Marry

  • All across the country, in every state, in many families, citizens are talking honestly and thoughtfully about whether and how to recognize a life commitment made by two women or two men in love. Americans are trying to find their way to understanding that our nation is currently a quilt of many different types of families, each of them working hard to live their lives, raise their children and contribute to the growth and security of their communities.

    At Freedom to Marry, you will find a library of information to help you engage in this national conversation. Make yourself at home and understand why we must fight to end discrimination in marriage and why marriage should be legal for same-sex couples. Also, find out how you can Get Informed, Get Involved and Carry the Conversation Forward by sharing what you learn with your own family and community.

    How can you add your voice to this conversation? Click Here

The Legal Marriage Alliance of Washington

  • The Legal Marriage Alliance of Washington (LMA) was created in October 1995 to advocate for legal marriages for same-sex couples in the State of Washington. We have been very much involved in the history of the marriage equality issue in our state and continue to participate openly and actively in the public arena wherever this issue is raised. LMA's function is primarily educational, although we work closely with other community groups on political and other activities associated with our cause. LMA is well versed in the issues and can be a good resource for reporters and others who are researching marriage equality issues in depth.

Copyright notice

  • Copyright Notice
    © 2008, To Form a More Perfect Union: Marriage Equality News

Site Meter

Google Analytics

  • Google Analytics