To Form a More Perfect Union: Marriage Equality News

FL: Editorial--How far, really, would 'marriage protection' go?

Link: Palm Beach Post

Excerpt:

You've heard Florida and Michigan mentioned together when the issue is Democratic presidential delegates. They are being mentioned again when the issue is bans on same-sex marriage.

Last week, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the state's 2004 man/woman-only marriage amendment means that counties and cities cannot offer domestic partner benefits. Opponents of the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment, which goes before Florida voters in November, have argued that by placing in the constitution what state law already forbids, the amendment also would jeopardize those benefits for Floridians.

Obviously, a Michigan court ruling has no power in Florida. Supporters of the Marriage Protection Amendment also note the differences between the two proposals.

The Michigan amendment read this way: "To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose." The Florida amendment reads this way: "Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."

[...]

Still, like the Michigan amendment, Florida's same-sex ban contains the word "recognized." In the Michigan case, a key portion of the majority opinion stated, "When public employers provide domestic partners health-insurance benefits on the basis of the domestic partnership, they are without a doubt recognizing the partnership."

The Florida advisory opinion was unanimous, but it's still just advisory. The court always notes that allowing an amendment on the ballot doesn't indicate an opinion about the amendment. In Michigan, a trial court judge ruled that the same-sex marriage ban did not apply to domestic partnerships, but was overturned. And, of course, there was disagreement among members of the supreme court.

As all lawyers know, there's no certainty with any jury or any court. There's also no certainty about the possible reach of the Marriage Protection Amendment.

[jw]

AZ: Editorial--Constitutional marriage rule isn't necessary

Link: Yuma Sun

Excerpt:

Opponents of gay marriage took another step toward putting a measure on the November ballot to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman in the Arizona Constitution.

The Arizona House approved the plan Monday, which now goes to the Arizona Senate for its consideration. If the ballot measure is eventually approved, it will be the second time Arizona voters have taken up the issue.

A similar measure was rejected by Arizona voters in 2006. That version, however, also had a provision which was interpreted as an attack on civil unions between couples and on domestic partnerships.

Supporters of the marriage definition believe it is essential to have it as part of the state's constitution despite the fact that it is already defined in exactly the same way in state law, preventing same sex partners from marrying. That law was approved in 1996 and has since been upheld by an appeals court.

That, of course, raises the question of why this election measure is even necessary, a question that was also raised in 2006.

[...]

Society's view of relationships - if not necessarily marriage itself - is undergoing change, something which traditionalists fear. The idea of same sex couples and unmarried couples is increasingly being accepted, especially by younger people.

Many private companies, and indeed the state government, have chosen to view these unmarried partnerships and equivalent to marriage when deciding to provide employment benefits to families.

There is also a growing recognition that these couples need to have certain contractual and legal rights under the law so that they can function as a family unit.

Traditionalists like those supporting the ballot measure view this as an attack on traditional marriage, but we disagree.

In a free society, individuals should be allowed to live their lives as they choose as long as they don't harm others and do not intrude on the right of others to live their lives as they choose. Two people voluntarily sharing their lives, married or not, don't do either of these things.

Arizona voters recognized that fact in 2006 and will likely do the same again this year if the marriage amendment should make it to the ballot.

[jw]

MI: Editorial--Same-sex benefits: right ruling, wrong message

Link: Grand Rapids Press

Excerpt:

Wednesday's ruling from the Michigan Supreme Court striking down benefits for domestic partners at public institutions verifies a fairly obvious, straight-forward reading of the state constitution.

The ruling exposes, too, the obvious deceit of some who sold the 2004 marriage amendment to the public as merely an attempt to ban gay marriage in Michigan. In fact, it did much more. The result is detrimental to the reputation of a state that should be open and inclusive of all, including gay and lesbian people. The decision certainly hurts those who will lose their health care, or be unable to obtain any, because of it.

Too, it hamstrings universities and other public employers in recruiting world-class thinkers and researchers. The unfortunate truth is that a majority on the court, and probably the state, don't seem to care.

[...]

The marriage amendment, enacted by a solid voter majority, reads: "To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."

That final phrase -- "or similar union for any purpose" -- was central to this case. Benefits for same-sex partners function much as benefits for married individuals. The institutions that offer them thereby recognize domestic partnerships as "similar" unions, the court held.

During the 2004 campaign, a brochure distributed by amendment backers, "Citizens for the Protection of Marriage," meant to persuade voters that such benefits would not be affected. "This is not about rights or benefits or how people choose to live their life," the brochure read.

But the amendment's architects added the six decisive word, ". . .or similar union for any purpose" for some reason. Clearly, they wanted to do more than just ban gay marriage. In fact, the phrase likely rules out civil unions, too, another lamentable consequence of this sweeping prohibition.

Justice Stephen Markman, who wrote for the majority, noted that the sales pitch of supporters -- however inaccurate -- can't be the basis for the court's opinion. "Such extrinsic evidence can hardly be used to contradict the unambiguous language of the constitution," he wrote. He noted, too, that plenty of people warned at the time that the wording of the amendment could cut off domestic partner benefits. This newspaper was among those raising the alarm.

Regardless, the court should not be expected to correct campaign misrepresentations or look magically into voters' minds to decide what citizens did or did not understand. The straightforward meaning of the constitution's language should carry the day.

The sad result of that clear language will be limits on health care for Michigan residents, and further limits on public employer efforts to recruit qualified candidates. The message to voters who may not have been aware of, or desired, this draconian effect: buyer beware. The message to some people considering Michigan as a place to live and work may be more forbidding yet: keep out.

[jw]

NY: Editorial--"N.Y. lawmakers must resolve same-sex marriage question"

Link: Rochester Democrat and Chronicle

The state Court of Appeals has tossed the volatile issue of same-sex marriage back to the lower courts and, consequently, to Monroe County, which now must decide whether to continue an increasingly costly legal fight.

Until the state's highest court decides, there will be no definitive clarity on the question whether local governments, under existing law, must recognize same-sex marriages, which are only allowed in a few states or countries.

But the real battleground for this issue should be the state Legislature, which eventually must decide not only how to deal with same-sex unions but also whether to accept what other governments have done on the issue. Until that happens, the onus will fall on local governments and aggrieved citizens to interpret conflicting law and practice.

In this instance, the county declined to grant spousal benefits to the female partner of a woman employed at Monroe Community College. The county has reasonably argued that it followed state law, which doesn't recognize same-sex marriages. The couple said that position abandons a long-standing practice in New York to accept valid marriages conducted in other states or countries.

Lawmakers who temporize on an issue usually don't get much sympathy from this page. But this obviously is a difficult matter involving religion and morality as well as fairness and tolerance.

Other states wanting either to ban or allow same-sex marriages have sought a public vote, and that may well be the path for New York.
But it's important for Gov. Paterson and the Legislature to forge their own course and not wait for the courts to dictate play.

As often happens, indecision at the top causes grief down the line. Monroe County and the two plaintiffs in this case are carrying a weight that the Legislature thus far has declined to lift.

[jw]

Editorial: The polygamists and us

Link: Bay Windows
by Sue O’Connell

Excerpt:

I’ve been waiting. The media flavor of the month is the Texas polygamist compound. We’ve seen the children, shielded by sheets, removed from the compound.

We’ve seen the women of the compound plead for the return of their children. We’ve seen people who have escaped the compound recount their experience.

The media has generally focused on the report of abuse within the compound and the marriages of girls as young as 14 to men in their 50s.

I’ve been waiting for the same-sex marriage shoe to drop. Michael Graham of Boston’s WTKK dropped it today.

Michael was inquiring why Massachusetts’ liberals were not supporting the polygamists. After all, Massachusetts is the home to same-sex marriage, so why wouldn’t we support the polygamists of Texas?

[...]

I’m sure Michael was pitching for calls. At least I hope it was a show biz trick and not an indication of how his mind works. Maybe he really wanted to discuss the impact of marriage, both good and bad, on society. Or the idea of religious freedom in the US and how it relates to our laws. Or the merits of our two-person marriage model versus the polygamist model.

Or maybe he really wanted to talk about the plight of girls and women trapped in this fundamentalist environment. Or the boys...what must it be like for the boys who become men who wed children?

Probably not. Michael bills himself as a radio host for "normal people". Unfortunately for us, he clearly thinks his normal people are not bright enough to have an intelligent and nuanced conversation. I happen to think more of citizens of Massachusetts. We are way smarter than Michael thinks we are.

[km]

Editorial - Maine: Civic League Strikes First

Link: www.bangornews.com

Excerpt:

The Christian Civic League of Maine has launched what amounts to a pre-emptive strike in the war it has declared over the relative rights of homosexuals in this state. Despite the league’s actions, this battle is largely over and this campaign is a step backward.

The league has submitted a proposed referendum question which, if approved by the Secretary of State and then supported by the signatures of 55,000 residents, would appear on the November 2009 ballot.

The referendum intends to remove the category of sexual orientation from the Maine human rights law, define marriage as an act of one man and one woman, prohibit civil unions, ban same-sex couples from adopting, and eliminate funding from the state attorney general’s school civil rights team program.

[...]

Christians who try to insist on dictating how those outside the church should live is like Burger King insisting McDonald’s use its recipes. Mind your own business, McDonald’s would correctly respond.

Civil rights are not limited to those who hold certain values. The U.S. Constitution, and indeed the very social contract implicit in our civilization, protects against those who would deny rights to minorities, whether they be Taoists, the left-handed, crossword puzzle enthusiasts, redheads, Yankee fans, those who like Simon Cowell, people who put ketchup on hot dogs, and, yes, those who fall in love with people of the same sex.

[km]

NY: Town of Ithaca now registering same-sex domestic partnerships; UPDATE: Editorial lauds registry, urges marriage equality

Link: The Ithaca Journal

Excerpt:

The Town of Ithaca is the second municipality in the county to establish a domestic partnership registry for same- and opposite-sex unmarried partners.

“Our neighbor, the city, has it and the town is so much more accessible in some ways to people who live in this general region and it's not just open to residents of the town, it's open to people in the area,” said Town Clerk Karen Billings.

The registry has been available for less than a month and though no couples have registered yet, Billings said that in the two days after an announcement of the registry ran in the town newsletter, the town clerk's office fielded “at least four calls.” 

When the City of Ithaca established its domestic partnership registry almost 18 years ago, it was only the eighth municipality in the nation to do so, said City Clerk Julie Conley Holcomb.

[...]

Both the city and the Town of Ithaca make benefits like health and dental insurance available to married and unmarried partners of their employees.

Both registries require proof of identity from each partner and proof of co-dependency, such as a utility bill, lease or mortgage in both names, or proof that partners are designated as beneficiaries on each other's life insurance.

The fee to register in the town of Ithaca is $20. In the city it's $25.

Marriage licenses in both municipalities cost $40.

“We want it to reflect that it's still not a marriage license,” Holcomb said. “And we're still in favor of same-sex marriages, so you do get a small break.”

UPDATE: Ithaca Journal Editorial--Town's new registry another step

Excerpt:

As the county continues to move into post-”Ithaca 50” times, more efforts are needed to legitimize the relationships of same-sex couples.

The Town of Ithaca is the latest municipality in Tompkins County to create a domestic partnership registry for same-sex couples. The town joins the city in allowing couples to register so they can have their partnership recognized by government.

[...]

Of course, if New York would legalize gay marriage, governments wouldn't have to continually find ways to work around the state's archaic laws concerning marriage. The local group that was dubbed the “Ithaca 50” sued the city in 2004 after being denied marriage licenses by the city clerk's office. The group, which consisted of 25 same-sex couples, pursued the case to the New York State Court of Appeals, which said in 2006 that the state's constitution does not require the legalization of same-sex marriages. The Court of Appeals decision sent the controversial issue back to the state legislature. No laws have passed to legalize gay marriage since the court ruling.

While the registry will not correct the unfortunate reality in New York that same-sex couples can't marry, it is another step to ultimately amending laws that clearly discriminate against a section of citizenry. Hopefully the city and town can scrap those registries once the state legislature does the right thing and legalizes gay marriage.

 

[jw]

PA: Editorial--"New Senate measure against gay marriage is a waste of Harrisburg's time"

Link: Allentown Morning Call

A state Senate committee on March 18 approved an amendment to Pennsylvania's state constitution that would ban marriage between people of the same sex. But gay marriage is already prohibited by a 1996 law, so this proposal was mainly an opportunity for speeches and demagoguery.

The committee's hasty decision also was a waste of time. Regardless of the personal feelings or religious training of Judiciary Committee members, the Senate has more pressing issues before it. There are unfunded repair and maintenance needs for the state's roads and bridges, the unresolved pursuit of a more equitable way to adequately fund the public schools and a series of problems with the law regulating casino gambling that ought to have higher priority, to mention just a few. But the Judiciary Committee would move gay marriage to the top of the list.

Some members of the Judiciary Committee tried to at least slow their colleagues down, urging that a vote be postponed so further hearings could take place. Only one public hearing was held on Senate Bill 1250, hardly enough for a bill that could strike at individual rights and hobble Pennsylvania businesses.

Additionally, a key bit of language in the potential amendment is problematic. The resolution says that nothing but a marriage between one man and one woman is valid as marriage or ''the functional equivalent of marriage.'' Even Sen. Jane Clare Orie, R-Allegheny, who agreed with the purpose of the resolution, expressed concern about this part of it. Ostensibly, adding that phrase would block future Legislatures from legalizing civil unions, as other states have done.

The legitimate concern is that if this vague language is kept intact, health benefits and legal rights -- among other things -- could be threatened for partners of people who work for Pennsylvania employers. Many employers already offer benefits to employees' partners, including partners of the same sex. It's a benefit that helps companies to attract good employees, and the state should not insert itself into that business decision.

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act already prohibits gay marriage. Creating different standards for same-sex couples is one thing, but robbing them of their rights as citizens and life-partners of citizens is something else completely.

A constitutional amendment must travel a process of nearly three years in Pennsylvania, including approval in a statewide referendum, a regimen that serves the useful purpose of winnowing out frivolous or ill-conceived changes. But, just getting such a hot-button issue on the ballot serves the purpose of getting out the conservative vote, and that may ultimately be what is behind the effort for this un-needed measure.

You could write it off as just another episode of political mischief, but it is insulting to all those Pennsylvanians who happen to be gay.

[jw]

WA: Editorial--Fair play gets its due with civil right bill for same-sex couples

Link: Yakima Herald Republic

Excerpt:

Fair play is having its day in the state Legislature, one step at a time.

Lawmakers have approved and sent to the governor House Bill 3104, which expands the state's domestic partnership law by granting same-sex couples more than 170 of the benefits and responsibilities given to married couples, including property and guardianship rights.

[...]

"Marriage" has long clouded the civil rights debate as it relates to same-sex couples, largely because it is both a legal contract and a union with religious and moral overtones that assume heterosexuality. But for gay relationships, the former is denied because of laws written to appease the latter. That is wrong in a nation whose foundation of laws is built on the rights of individuals.

And with same-sex marriage still banned in this state, the Legislature is now addressing the civil rights part of the equation as it relates to domestic partnerships.

The issue in HB 3104 is legal rights for couples who cannot marry. The way was cleared on this rights issue last year when the Legislature approved legislation that established a domestic partnership registry. Since then, more than 3,500 couples have registered as domestic partners.

[...]

To us, it appears that this legislation is aimed at government-sanctioned favoritism provided to married couples in a creative and equitable manner by extending legal protections to same-sex couples who don't now have the option of marrying to get them.

That's what we mean by fair play in a civil rights issue long overdue for corrective action in the Legislature.

[jw]

IA/Editorial: Don't inscribe moral values in Constitution

Link: The Des Moines Register

Excerpt:

Last week, Republicans in the Iowa Legislature tried a parliamentary maneuver to force a floor debate on amending the Iowa Constitution to outlaw gay marriage.

The effort fell five votes short, but it gave House Minority Leader Christopher Rants what he wanted: a campaign issue for the fall.

It's too bad Democrats didn't allow the debate to happen. Now, besides having to defend their positions on gay marriage, they appear to be afraid of having a formal debate on the issue. It is a debate that should be had - and disposed of. We believe fair-minded Iowans would see it as wrong to use the state's founding document as a forum to condemn any group of people on moral grounds.

There is no place in a state constitution for purely moral declarations that are not somehow anchored in a fundamental state interest. There is no state interest in using the state's constitution to take sides on the question of marriage between same-sex couples. That is a question of religious doctrine, or personal preference. 

Saying in the constitution that marriage is only between a man and a woman is akin to saying marriage is only between two persons of the same religion. Or between a man and a woman only once. Or only between a white man and a white woman.

[...]

The very first of Iowa's "Rights of persons" begins, "All men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights ...." It is no small irony that the proposed marriage amendment would be appended to these sweeping declarations of liberty. In other words, some persons would not be equal. Thus, for the first time since Iowa voters extended full rights to blacks in 1868 and to women in 1926, the Iowa Constitution would be amended to scale back the fundamental rights of one class of Iowa citizens.

This would be a historic change. And a shameful one.

This is clearly a question of equal rights. The institution of marriage comes with certain benefits, both legal and financial, conferred by state laws that give married couples distinct advantages over unmarried couples. Iowa's Bill of Rights also says the General Assembly "shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens."

There is no other way to read those words than to reach the same conclusion Polk County District Judge Robert Hanson reached last August in striking down the General Assembly's effort to deny equal rights with a law saying only a man and a woman may marry.

Those who are pushing the constitutional amendment obviously understand that Hanson's conclusion was inescapable, that he was not creating a new right but recognizing the Iowa Constitution's mandate that all laws be applied equally "to all citizens." They think the only solution is to amend the constitution to eliminate the rights of some citizens.

There is another way. Advocates of the marriage amendment oppose the state sanctifying a union of same-sex couples within the institution of marriage, which is a religious sacrament. They may not necessarily oppose granting equal legal protections to gays and lesbians. The solution is to disentangle state government from the church on the question of marriage.

The state should recognize civil unions, whether between a man and a woman or two men or two women, and leave it to religious institutions to say whether those unions are blessed by a higher spiritual power. Some clergy will approve these marriages. Some will not. That decision is no business of the state's. Certainly not in the constitution.

[km]

CA: Editorial--Civil unions aren't marriage

Link: Los Angeles Times

Excerpt:

In a 3½-hour session that sounded sometimes like a law school seminar and sometimes like a radio talk show, the California Supreme Court this week wrestled with the question of whether the state Constitution's guarantee of "equal protection of the laws" requires the recognition of same-sex marriages.

The justices delved into whether sexual orientation is immutable, whether gays and lesbians constitute a "suspect classification" deserving of special protection by the courts, and whether a 1948 ruling against a ban on interracial marriage was a precedent for invalidating a state law that describes marriage as "a civil contract between a man and a woman." But the central issue in the case was identified by Justice Carlos R. Moreno. Referring to the fact that California grants same-sex couples the benefits of marriage under the term "domestic partnerships," Moreno asked: "Doesn't this just boil down to the use of the M-word -- marriage?"

The best response came from the lawyer for the city of San Francisco, which briefly granted marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004. "Words matter," Deputy City Atty. Therese Stewart said. "Names matter."

[...]

It may be, as Justice Carol Corrigan suggested at this week's arguments, that evolving public attitudes will eventually lead to same-sex marriage -- M-word and all -- without intervention by the judiciary. As we have said before, we don't think same-sex couples should have to wait. In 1948, the court was accused of thwarting the will of the people when it struck down the ban on interracial marriage; it would face similar condemnation if it ruled that "equal protection of the laws" requires the same treatment for heterosexual and same-sex couples. But, as in 1948, the result would be the just one.

[km]

Opinion: Networks Ignore California Case on Marriage

Link: CNSNews.com
by Robert Knight

[Editor's note: It is our policy to include opposition voices when doing so helps us understand their strategies and perspectives. Knight is one of the most influential media spokespeople for the opposition.]

Excerpt:

A landmark marriage case opened Tuesday in the California Supreme Court that could have profound legal and social consequences for the entire nation.

Yet the major news networks completely ignored the story on their evening newscasts and even on the Wednesday morning shows. 

[...]

That's big news all right. But, surely, the networks could have squeezed in a minute to let Americans know that a court case threatening to tear apart the nation's social fabric got underway in San Francisco. They even could have used great footage of the surging crowds of demonstrators from both sides outside the courthouse.

The California case would have far greater national impact than former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's decision to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004.

While the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared in 2003 that the state's traditional marriage law was unconstitutional, another Massachusetts law prohibits out-of-state couples from marrying in the Bay State if their own state's law does not recognize such a marriage. Thus, "gay marriage" remained a Bay State oddity.

But California, the nation's largest state, has no such restriction. If California's Supreme Court allows them to marry, homosexual activists plan to flock to the Golden State, get hitched, then go home and flood their home state courts with challenges to their marriage laws.

They also plan to go after the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which was enacted by Congress and signed by former President Bill Clinton in 1996. Since 1993, 46 states have moved to strengthen their marriage laws by enacting constitutional amendments or tighter statutes. Many political observers have said that the marriage issue played a major role in the 2004 presidential election.

But it's not a story now? Apart from primary election coverage, CBS gave time only to Brett Favre. ABC had brief stories on Favre, the mortgage crisis, and problems women face from hormone therapy replacement.

[...]

The print press did better, with major stories in USA Today, The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. All suffered from bias, however, with photos of happy lesbian couples, lots of quotes from gay activists about the inevitability of it all, and no rationale from the marriage law's defenders as to why marriage is uniquely the union of male and female.

If America wakes up one day and finds that marriage has been redefined away from its original, intrinsic meaning as the union of a man and a woman, people might ask, "When did this happen and how come we didn't know about it?"

Or they'll still be talking about the Empire State Building guy or perhaps Dan Rather.

(Robert Knight is director of the Culture and Media Institute, a division of the Media Research Center, the parent company of Cybercast News Service.)

[km]

WA: Editorial--Human Rights: Nearer to equality

Link: Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Thanks to a bill passed by the Legislature, same-sex couples will be treated with substantially more fairness. That step is almost as noteworthy as last year's recognition of domestic partnerships.

The measure adds dozens of legal rights and responsibilities for domestic partners under state law. The bill adds same-sex couples to many areas of law affected by marriage, including probate, trusts, guardianship and powers of attorney. It also specifies mechanisms for ending domestic partnerships.

Even after Gov. Chris Gregoire signs the bill into law, there will still be perhaps 300 areas of state law where inequities ought to be addressed to give gays and lesbians equal treatment. But this is still very impressive progress for a state where it took years of often-nasty debate to even recognize the healthful aspects of committed relationships for everyone.

We suspect the rapid maturation of thinking here isn't unique. Knock on wood, but we will hope Sen. John McCain can avoid the blatant demagoguery on the issue employed in recent Republican campaigns. Barring a McBush re-creation of manufactured fervor for a U.S. constitutional amendment, marriage and domestic partnerships remain issues for the states. We're happy about this state's steps toward full equality of marriage and look forward to more gains in the near future.

[jw]

Editorial: N.J. Civil Unions--Still second class [but . . .]

Link: Philadelphia Inquirer

Excerpt:

When New Jersey passed a much-heralded civil union law in 2006, it was supposed to give the equivalent of marriage to same-sex couples. A year later, too often that has not been the case, according to a troubling report released by the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission.

"Civil union status is not clear to the general public, which creates a second-class status," the report said.

Steven Goldstein, chairman of Garden State Equality, which advocates same-sex marriage, says the law "may be the biggest failure in civil rights experimentation in the history of New Jersey."

Serious flaws cited in the report must be addressed immediately to ensure that specific rights are also available to same-sex couples.

But with poll after poll showing that New Jersey residents are not ready to accept gay marriage, it would be more destructive to that movement were it to attempt to force the issue at this time.

[…]

The law says couples in civil unions cannot be discriminated against in adoption, hospital visits, inheritance, property rights, insurance and questions of keeping a partner on life support.

But Goldstein said there have been more than 600 complaints from couples that their civil-union rights are being violated.

State Attorney General Anne Milgram must aggressively prosecute anyone who violates the law. At the same time, New Jersey must better educate the public and urge all employers to voluntarily comply with the law.

When United Parcel Service refused last year to offer gay employees benefits for partners, Gov. Corzine helped persuade the company to change its policies. More companies should follow suit.

Institutions have a responsibility to learn what a civil union means and the rights it extends to same-sex couples. That includes revising forms to include a marital status checkoff box for civil union.

Civil union may not be perfect, but it is a step toward what same-sex couples ultimately want: "marriage." That day may come. New Jerseyans are increasingly dropping their objections. But for now, the state must work harder to guarantee gay couples virtually all of the legal protections and benefits enjoyed by married pairs. It's the law.

[jw]

NY: Editorial--Appealing same-sex marriage ruling makes sense

Link: Rochester Democrat & Chronicle

Excerpt:

It makes sense for Monroe County to appeal a lower-court ruling requiring Monroe Community College to recognize, for health benefit purposes, a same-sex marriage performed in Canada.

This issue needs a clarifying decision from the Court of Appeals, the state's highest. Such a ruling may motivate a stalemated Legislature to make a call on this emotional issue. It's time for lawmakers to take on this problem rather than leave it to the courts to deal with piecemeal.

New York is one of only a handful of states that have yet either to ban or explicitly validate same-sex marriages. Democratic Gov. Eliot Spitzer and the Democrat-controlled Assembly support legalizing such marriages, while the Republican Senate is largely opposed. There the issue sits, along with many other questions a divided Legislature can't resolve.

Spitzer and lawmakers have to do the hard work of assessing the public will on this and writing a law that reflects that finding.

This goes for Congress, too, whose decade-old Defense of Marriage Act is being criticized by employers who take a tax hit because they recognize same-sex unions.

[…]

The reality is that the private sector has been way ahead of government on this matter.

Most companies either accept same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, or domestic partnerships of unmarried couples.

Government has been slow on this partly because the private sector's farsightedness has relieved some of the pressure to act.

But the need to act, and decide, remains. The Court of Appeals should take up the appeal in the MCC case quickly, and the governor and Legislature should stop hoping this issue resolves itself.

[jw]

WA: Editorial—Domestic partner law should pass without a hitch through Senate

Link: The Daily News Online

Excerpt:

The state House of Representatives approved legislation a week ago Friday to greatly expand Washington's domestic partnership law, which went into effect just seven months ago. The vote, 62-32, was taken after very little debate, according to Associated Press writer Rachel La Corte. The measure now is in the Senate, where a public hearing as been scheduled for Monday in the Committee on Government Operations and Elections.

It would surprise us if this once hot-button issue produces many fireworks during Monday's Senate hearing. There's still some resistance to extending the legal benefits married couples enjoy to same-sex couples, to be sure. But no one can dispute that same-sex relationships exist, and that many of those relationships involve children. There is a growing consensus that both the adults and children involved in these relationships deserve the law's protection and benefits.

[...]

A primary sponsor of this legislation, Rep. Jaime Pederson, D-Seattle, said it represents the "next step" to provide financial security for all families in the state. He's right, and taking that step clearly is the right thing to do.

Many in the private sector recognized a need to take this step long before elected officials could muster the political courage to follow. At least 100 of the Fortune 500 companies have been offering employment benefits to same-sex couples for almost a decade. These companies had a practical incentive not to discriminate in their policies. They wanted the best employees available, many of whom might be in unmarried heterosexual or homosexual partnerships.

For the state government, of course, there are both practical and moral reasons to grant all couples the same legal benefits enjoyed by married couples.

[km]

Opinion: NJ—Elusive Equality

Link: New York Times

Excerpt:

In 2006, New Jersey’s Supreme Court declared that same-sex couples must be guaranteed all the rights and benefits that come with marriage, but left it to the State Legislature to figure out how. Instead of simply granting gay people the right to marry, the Legislature joined Vermont and Connecticut in creating a lesser category, civil unions. Predictably, civil unions are proving to be an inadequate remedy. 

A report issued last week by the 12-member state commission charged with monitoring the new law’s effectiveness found that it has created “a second-class status” for same-sex couples and is not fulfilling the court’s mandate of equality. 

[...]

Poor couples — many of whom are African-American — are hurt the most by being relegated to the inferior zone of civil unions, Sylvia Rhue, director of religious affairs for the National Black Justice Coalition, told the commission. They “cannot afford thousands of dollars to hire fancy lawyers to draft documents like wills, health care proxies and powers of attorney,” she explained.

Gov. Jon Corzine has acknowledged that the report raises “significant concerns.” He has also said he would sign a bill ending gay couples’ exclusion from marriage, but not in an election year. We appreciate his candor. But to achieve real marital equality will take political courage, not more dawdling.

[km]

MD: Editorial--Bravo, Mr. Gansler!

Link: Washington Blade

Excerpt:

Caption: Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler's support for same-sex marriage comes in stark contrast to other senior Democrats like Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller. (Photo by Kathleen Lange/AP)

 

THERE WAS A welcome breakthrough in the fight for marriage rights last week in Maryland.

Attorney General Douglas Gansler, considered a rising star of the Democratic Party in the state, publicly announced his support for same-sex marriage at a hearing in Annapolis.

“Dismantling this final barrier to full citizenship for gay and lesbian citizens is a moral imperative and a logical, historical inevitability,” he said. “This is a basic matter of fairness to thousands of Maryland families who are discriminated against in terms of the hundreds of benefits of marriage.”

Gansler’s honest, brave stance comes in stark contrast to other Democratic leaders in the state, most notably Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller (D-Calvert), who has said he not only opposes marriage rights for same-sex couples, but civil unions too. ...

[…]

Well now the state’s attorney general has explained it to Miller.

“I have a lot of friends who are gay who have partners,” Gansler said. “And to see what they go through and sort of the second-class status they’re subjected to because they’re not allowed to be married, that’s certainly something that affected me.”

Bravo, Mr. Gansler!

The state’s top law enforcement official believes legalized same-sex marriage is an “inevitability.” Let’s hope Gov. Martin O’Malley is paying attention, too, as his position on the subject has changed in recent years. To his credit, O’Malley has said he is open to signing a marriage bill but that he prefers civil unions.

But Gansler has words of wisdom for civil unions advocates, too.

“Is civil unions a great first step?” Gansler said. “Yes. Does it still make people like [gay state Sen.] Rich Madaleno a second-class citizen in their marriage life? Yes.”

Civil unions fall short of equality under the law and create more problems than they solve, as the people of New Jersey are now learning.

Gansler joins a growing, bipartisan list of elected officials who support same-sex marriage rights, including New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D), Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) and San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders (R). Welcome to the club.

[jw]

VA: Editorial--Inching toward equality

Link: Roanoke.com

Excerpt:

Virginia dealt a tremendous setback to its gay and lesbian citizens a couple of years ago when voters amended the constitution to forbid same-sex marriage. There is a long road to equality now, and lawmakers seem willing to take it only one baby step at a time.

That is better than nothing, but in the meantime, people suffer because a self-appointed moral majority rejects the diversity of human sexuality.

The General Assembly saw a number of bills this session that would have brought gay Virginians closer to equity with their heterosexual neighbors. Under the leadership of Salem's Morgan Griffith, the Republican-controlled House of Delegates killed most of them.

[...]

Only two bills remain in play. SB 51 would allow local governments to extend health insurance to same-sex partners of employees. It would have no effect on private business and would be strictly optional. It passed the Senate and awaits House action.

The other one actually made it out of the House. HB 805 would create a medical registry for living wills and advanced medical directives. Anyone could designate a partner as the person to make medical decisions on her behalf. Married couples get that by default, but it will take legislative action to empower gay couples to look out for each other in emergencies.

Both bills deserve passage. Neither is a major change, but each is an incremental improvement.

Last year, the assembly allowed same-sex partners to set up hospital visitation rights. This year those couples might gain a couple of more rights. At this rate, the commonwealth could offer true equality in another 100 years.

[km]

UT: Editorial--It's not marriage: Legislature shouldn't ban domestic partnership registries

Link: Salt Lake Tribune

Excerpt:

The gay marriage war is raging once again on Utah's Capitol Hill. This time the battle is being waged over Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker's new Domestic Partnership Registry.

Sen. Chris Buttars doesn't like the registry because it recognizes domestic partnerships other than marriage. His Senate Bill 267 would prohibit city and county officials from creating such registries.

You can hear echoes of earlier fights over gay rights in the language of the bill. For example, it would exempt local laws that extend health-care benefits to a financially dependent adult designee of a public employee so long as the law does not "violate public policy" or "define or establish a separate and distinct category of citizens or domestic relationships other than marriage or recognized family associations involving blood relatives."

[…]

Marriage, in our view, entails much more than health-care benefits or being able to visit your spouse in the hospital. We see no reason why the Legislature should prohibit Salt Lake City, or any other city or county, from creating a process that would allow people to declare that they are unmarried, monogamous domestic partners, whether of the same sex or not, and in turn receive health-care benefits from employers willing to extend them.

It seems to us like the right thing to do.

[jw]

Israel: Editorial--Family in every respect

Link: Ha'aretz

Excerpt:

The attorney general did well in not passing along the hot potato of same-sex couple adoption to the High Court of Justice again. Had he chosen this familiar and safe method, he would have spared himself a great deal of criticism from religious circles. But then the issue would have been on hold for years at the expense of homosexual and lesbian couples as well as children who are candidates for adoption.

The modern secular family exists in many forms - including single-parent families and same-sex couples - and their rights are equal to those of any other family. It is good that this is obvious to the attorney general.

[…]

However, it has emerged that the ruling on marriage registration has benefitted gay male couples. Lesbians earn less than men, on average, and therefore it is more difficult for them to travel to Canada to get married. Sooner or later Israel will have to deal with the demand of same-sex couples to hold commitment ceremonies in their own country, just as it will have to deal with a similar demand by 300,000 citizens of no religion.

[…]

[jw]

FL: Editorial:: Our view: Reject the bigotry

Link: floridatoday.com

Excerpt:

Proposed gay marriage ban would harm Florida families and promote discrimination

Don't fall for the hoax.

Backers of a proposed constitutional amendment now on the November ballot say the sanctity of traditional marriage is at stake if voters don't pass a ban on gay marriage.

That's baloney.

Same-sex marriage is already illegal in Florida, and there is no threat of legislative action in Tallahassee to change that.

If anything threatens traditional marriage it's a high divorce rate and disappearing social taboos against bearing children out of wedlock -- problems a gay-marriage ban won't affect.

Worse, the gay-marriage ban attempts to slip bigotry into the state constitution under the guise of Christian values. But its intent is to harm and punish, solely on the basis of whom an individual chooses to love or live with.

Worse again, it puts at risk all unmarried Floridians' guarantee of equal protection under the law.

[...]

The Declaration of Independence's assurance everyone is created equal and the U.S. Constitution's guarantee all will be treated equally under the law.

Despite those violations of historic American principles, White House advisor Karl Rove successfully used gay-marriage bans as a wedge issue to draw hard-core conservatives to the polls in some states in 2004, helping to give President Bush an edge.

The same low-road strategy is at work behind this ballot amendment. The Florida GOP has supported it to the tune of $300,000.

Voters should look beyond the deceptive packaging of the "Florida Marriage Protection Amendment" and see it for what it is:

A harmful political stunt that would sully the Florida Constitution with anti-gay prejudice, which is the last socially acceptable form of bigotry in America.

[km]

Florida: Editorial--Same ol' same-sex ban

Link: Palm Beach Post

Excerpt:

[…]

All that restrictive language should be enough to reassure even the most skittish Floridian that gays and lesbians won't be exchanging vows or trying to transfer a marriage. But no. Last week, the Department of Elections confirmed that a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Florida will go on the November ballot. To Article I, the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment would add: "Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."

So there. Same-sex marriage wouldn't just be illegal; it would be unconstitutional, beyond the power of some future namby-pamby Legislature or court that might want to turn parts of Florida into Cape Cod or San Francisco. Of course, it also would be the first part of the constitution to restrict rights, not grant them. It would make the Florida Constitution a document that protects pregnant pigs but not human beings who want to be part of what people who will vote for this amendment describe as the foundation of society. It could make things tougher for Florida companies trying to recruit employees. It won't deal with insurance costs, the tax system or the real-estate market, which are the state's real priorities.

Instead, it will create a noisy, well-financed distraction as Floridians vote for president. The state's future depends on many things. This amendment isn't one of them.

[jw]

Editorial: New York marriage decision "common-sensical and profound"

Link: New York Times

Excerpt:

In a decision at once common-sensical and profound, a New York State appeals court ruled Friday that same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions are entitled to recognition in New York. It was common sense because it simply accorded same-sex marriages the same legal status as other marriages. It was profound because of the way it could transform the lives of gay people.

[…]

The new decision still leaves considerable work to be done. New York’s ban on performing same-sex marriage remains in force. And there is a chance that the marriage-recognition decision will now be appealed. 

Still, the ruling marks important progress toward changing laws and attitudes that deprive gay people of equal rights and deny the dignity of New York’s many gay families. They should be able to live, marry and raise children with the same respect and the same rights as anyone else.

[jw]

Washington state: Editorial--Sustain all families through thick and thin

Link: Seattle Times

Excerpt:

A PRACTICAL, complementary addition to the state's domestic-partnership law is worthy of a serious look by the state Legislature. The bill is almost 200-pages long, and the devil is in the details, not unlike life as a couple.

Same-sex households are not yet recognized as married under state law, but their lives take on the same legal complexities as any other family. No good reason exists to deny them the pathways and clarity afforded in the law when that bond unravels or is severed by death. Domestic partners face all the emotional questions and economic traumas that come with separating lives built as a couple. The state's year-old law was a breakthrough, with its recognition of hospital-visitation rights and inheritance in the absence of a will. The law prevented discrimination based on sexual orientation in a broad swath of daily life.

[…]

The law rightfully recognizes domestic partners. Some wonder if the legislation is an incremental, too-clever-by-half attempt to inch closer, right by right, toward full marital status. The conspiracy theory — conspicuous for the impatience it imputes — is not compelling.

Real families across the state have basic issues of financial security and family support to work through. Make existing laws an ally for these households at a difficult time in their lives.

[jw]

Utah: Editorial--Outdated law: Utah should allow same-sex couples to adopt

Link: Salt Lake Tribune

Excerpt:

Utah's law banning adoptions by gay and lesbian couples and unmarried straight couples was a deplorable codification of bigotry in 2000 when it was passed. That hasn't changed. But after eight years the law has become an illogical anachronism, considering the results of new studies, and it should be changed.

The number of same-sex couples who are raising children increased by a third from 2000 to 2005, and the body of research showing that children raised by homosexual couples have no more problems than those from homes with a mother and a father has also grown.

[…]

Growing up with two lesbian mothers or two gay fathers may require some explanation, but evidence shows such children are at no more risk than those from traditional homes. The American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have all stated their support for same-sex couples adopting.

Only two other states - Florida and Mississippi - block homosexual couples from adopting. It's time Utah joined the majority that allow it.

[jw]

Wash. state editorial: Domestic Partnerships--Only a first step

Link: Seattle Post-Intelligencer

The state's 2007 enactment of the domestic partnership law was a historic step for Washington. It was, however, very much a first step. There's a lot more to do to ensure equal rights for domestic partners. Equal responsibilities must also be a priority, as sponsors of two new bills recognize.

Sen. Ed Murray and Rep. Jamie Pedersen are sponsoring bills that would expand the state's gay rights legislation to some of the broad range of law that governs marital relationships. Among other things, the proposals would cover estates, veterans benefits, nursing homes, disability guardianships and divorce. When one member of a partnership is a public official, the domestic partner's finances would be subjected to the same disclosure requirements as in a marriage.

Embarrassingly, state House Republicans apparently want to resist. The legislation is simply another step toward the principle of equal rights for gays and lesbians already enacted. Murray told The Associated Press, "It's a significant piece of legislation, but it still leaves hundreds of rights and benefits and responsibilities of marriage out."

Advocates are honest about their eventual goal: full marriage rights. While that debate can wait, there's no reason to hold back on updating our laws toward greater equality. The 2008 Legislature should take its own significant steps forward.

[jw]

IA: Editorial:: Judges need independence to protect everyone's rights

Link: The Des Moines Register

Excerpt:

Opponents of same-sex marriage who gathered at the Iowa Statehouse Wednesday marched, prayed and handed out stickers saying "Let Us Vote" on a constitutional amendment that would limit marriage to a man and a woman. That's a classic exercise of the First Amendment rights of speech and assembly.

But they did something else that wasn't so admirable: By marching to the Judicial Branch Building and packing the House galleries for Chief Justice Marsha Ternus' State of the Judiciary address, they delivered a subtle but menacing suggestion that judges who stray from popularly accepted rulings might face consequences.

[...]

In the marriage case, an Iowa judge ruled that the rights secured by the Constitution extend to all people, regardless of whether some people disapprove of the behavior of other people. What the marriage-amendment advocates are saying is they want the ability to vote to eliminate the rights of some people they disapprove of.

It's hard to see where that ends. Some might want to eliminate the First Amendment rights of same-sex marriage opponents to march through the Statehouse. Ultimately, it becomes a battle of majority rule over constitutional rights. Then the most powerful thing about the Constitution - that it guards against a tyranny of the majority - is lost. And then, everybody loses.

[km]

Detroit Free Press: The candidates' views on gay rights; Editorial position favors marriage equality

Link: Detroit Free Press

The Detroit Free Press has this brief synopsis of Democratic and Republican presidential candidates' positions on marriage equality and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". [See full article.] They close with a reiteration of the editorial board's position favoring marriage equality:

Excerpt:

OUR VIEW: The editorial board's position

Gay Americans are no different than other Americans and are entitled to equal legal protection. So we opposed the amendment to the Michigan Constitution that limits the legal definition of marriage to unions between a man and a woman. That forecloses gay couples from marriage and complicates efforts to gain proper health benefits and legal rights for gay partnerships. We also believe sexual orientation ought to be included in anti-discrimination and hate-crime legislation.

[jw]

MD: Opinion:: Marriage opponents already lost

Link: HometownAnnapolis.com
by Eric Hartley

Excerpt:

Here's how inevitable gay marriage is in Maryland, in one form or another.

There was a debate on the issue last week in Annapolis, and the supporters didn't even bother speaking.

True, it wasn't actually a debate over a marriage or civil union bill; it was a General Assembly committee hearing about insurance regulations, not ordinarily one of the more scintillating shows in town.

But make no mistake, this was about gay marriage. By a 12-4 vote, a joint Senate-House committee approved inserting a definition of "domestic partner" into state insurance rules.

And give them credit: The self-appointed defenders of "family values" can see the writing on the wall. Heck, Del. Don Dwyer, R-Glen Burnie, showed up to complain, and he's not even on the committee.

Is this, as the moralists fear, an end-run around the legislature and the courts, which so far have declined to bring civil unions or gay marriage to Maryland? Are administrative rules like this a way to do piecemeal what lawmakers won't do in one fell swoop?

Absolutely, and it's going to work.

[...]

[km]

Politics:: Belling on boomers: Tax relief for same-sex couples

Link: The News-Press, news-press.com
by Elaine Belling

Excerpt:

[...]

The only political discussion I've heard recently that I found interesting took place on Larry King's show the other night.

He was interviewing celebrity financial adviser/author Suze Orman (baby boomer, same age as I), and he asked her who she liked among the candidates.

I honestly don't remember which Democrat she liked best, but she made it clear that she was voting for a Democrat for one important reason: estate taxes.

I'm embarrassed to tell you that hidden in this reason is a little bit of celebrity trivia that had completely escaped this columnist. And I call myself a pop culture expert.

You see, Suze has had a same-sex partner for 7 years. She and her partner are millionaires, but because they can't marry, whichever one of them survives the other will lose 50 percent of everything inherited to estate taxes.

If they were a regular old married heterosexual couple, there would be no inheritance taxes — their wealth would be mutually owned.

Now this is a campaign issue that had never occurred to me, but it harkened back to a time in my single life.

When I was a commercial flight attendant I had pass privileges to fly anywhere Northwest went for a pittance. If I had a husband and minor children, they could go with me. Alas, I was single and had no one to bestow this gift upon. I remember thinking how unfair this rule was to single people and gay people who would never have a spouse.

So, here we are more than 20 years later and the inequity persists. Suze said that she really liked Rudy Giuliani, but she knew that no Republican would dare come out for tax relief for same-sex couples.

[...]

Elaine Belling is a Cape Coral resident and baby boomer who writes about her generation every other week in Cape Life.

[km]

FL: Solving Nonexistent Problem

Link: TheLedger.com.

Florida voters will get the chance next November to incorporate a ban on same-sex marriages into the state Constitution.Florida4Marriage.org, the group pushing the amendment, recently expressed confidence that it has cleared the last hurdle, gathering the required 611,009 petition signatures, to put the issue on the ballot.

Thus, Florida stands to become the 28th state to enact such an amendment, which, as its language says, defines marriage as the "legal union of only one man and one woman" with "no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof" able to be recognized or validated within the state.

The proposal has a solid chance of passing, despite requiring the approval of 60 percent of the voters. In 2004, for example, 11 states had proposed similar amendments, and all passed, on average,by ratios of about 2-1. Even liberal Oregon had 57 percent of voters opposed to same-sex marriages.

Last year, eight states raised the question. Although Arizona narrowly rejected the idea, opponents of the amendments were able to only muster 37 percent of the vote nationally. A same-sex marriage ban in Florida is superfluous and divisive, and the ambiguity of its language threatens to strip whole classes of Florida citizens - and not just homosexuals - of their rights.

Proponents say they are worried about society's moral decline - and apparently allowing gay marriage would put that slide on the fast track. They also express concern about how children would be affected by allowing wholesale gay marriage.

The surest way to stop that, as they see it, is to build a bulwark against the risk in the Constitution.

The idea that children blossom more fully in homes where both parents are present and involved in their children's lives is reasonable.

However, Florida4Marriage's logic is flawed.

First, gay marriage is already banned in Florida, under both state and federal law enacted a decade ago. An amendment is an unnecessary layer of government intrusion into people's lives.

Supporters of the ban argue current laws could be eradicated in a moment with a single judge's ruling. But state and the U.S. Constitution are challenged every day in this nation and surely a ban on same-sex marriage, just like a law permitting it, would only invite endless litigation.

Moreover, gay advocates looked at Arizona as a success that can be built on. If they're right - and there's reason to question their optimism - that fear of and opposition to gay marriage is declining, nothing prevents same-sex marriage supporters from eventually drafting an amendment to repeal the ban. Just look to Florida's bullet train amendment for an example.

Secondly, ban opponents maintain that the wording of the amendment could be used to deny couples, including heterosexual ones, andamong them senior citizens who choose not to marry in order to keep their individual perks, of domestic partner benefits now protected by law. Gainesville is just one Florida city that allows couples, either heterosexual or gay, to register for that.

John Stemberger, who heads upFlorida4Marriage, has blasted such arguments as "scare tactics." He even told the Tallahassee Democrat recently that his group wouldn't challenge laws protecting domestic-partner benefits.

That's an odd stance for a group dedicated to saving so called traditional marriage: It is fighting tooth and nail to keep same-sex couples from sharing in the benefits - and trials - of marriage, but it is OK with heterosexual couples who openly choose to "live in sin." That speaks volumes about the group's real motives.

Stemberger told the Northwest Florida Daily News on Dec. 26, "Same-sex marriage inflicts a vast untested social experiment on children, and that's an experiment that we're not willing to take," adding that, "(c)hildren flourish better when there's a mother and father in the home."

If Florida4Marriage truly believed that, perhaps it should put as much energy and resources into slowing our state's outrageous rates of divorce, single parenthood and teen pregnancy - and not just target homosexuals.

If so, we might find their efforts to rescue our state and culture, which now are focused on demolishing straw men in the form of gay couples, more palatable and worthwhile.

OR: Editorial:: A signature isn’t a vote

Link: The Register-Guard, Eugene, Ore.

Excerpt:

A federal judge’s last-minute injunction kept Oregon’s domestic partnership law from taking effect, leaving hundreds of couples feeling as though they had been stood up at the altar. The law, approved by the 2007 Legislature, would have allowed same-sex couples to enter agreements providing rights and responsibilities similar to but lesser than those of a marriage contract.

The civil rights of gays and lesbians, however, were not at issue in District Judge Michael Mosman’s Portland courtroom on Dec. 28. At issue was the question of whether voters’ petition rights are equivalent to their voting rights. This question needs to be settled once and for all, but it’s plain that voting rights are both different and superior.

Opponents of the domestic partnership law attempted to gather enough petition signatures to refer it to a vote later this year. They fell 96 short of the 55,179 valid signatures needed. Led by the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, opponents sued 12 county elections officers, claiming that verification techniques prescribed by Secretary of State Bill Bradbury’s office are unfair.

[...]

The right to place a political question on the ballot by petition is a precious one in Oregon. It needs to be defended, and rigorous enforcement of the rules helps ensure the integrity of the process. But petition signatures aren’t votes, and a court decision requiring them to be treated alike would be in error.

[km]

Editorial: Ho-hum civil union rights

Link: The Boston Globe

Excerpt:

WHEN VERMONT legislators legalized civil unions for gay couples in 2000, there was a bitter backlash against the reform. But on New Year's Day, New Hampshire joined Vermont, Connecticut, and New Jersey in extending civil union rights to gay and lesbian couples, and the event was met with a collective yawn. There are several reasons for this change, but the most important is that residents of New Hampshire have had a chance to observe Vermont and Connecticut's civil unions and Massachusetts' same-sex marriage, and realized that extending rights to a minority is no threat to the majority - or to the institution of marriage.

[…]

This page finds civil unions to be an inadequate substitute for true marriage equality. Still, there likely would have been more opposition had New Hampshire legalized gay marriage and not just civil unions, which are seen as a compromise measure. Also, the fact that New Hampshire's elected legislators initiated the change, as opposed to an "unelected" court, as was the case in both Vermont and Massachusetts, may have made the reform more acceptable to voters.

But the strongest factor making civil unions such a non-issue in New Hampshire has to be the opportunity the state has had to look elsewhere in New England, where experience shows that legal recognition of same sex couples has stabilized and strengthened those relationships without doing anything to weaken heterosexual marriage. Like other civil union laws, New Hampshire's grants gays property rights, shared wills, and hospital visitation privileges. Several other states have created varying levels of rights in domestic partnership laws.

As beneficial as these protections are, they still confer a separate status, as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made clear in 2003 when it ruled that the state's constitution prohibited the Commonwealth from denying full marriage rights to gays. So far, no other state has joined Massachusetts, but it is still gratifying to see that in New England, the region with the most experience in granting rights to same-sex couples, another state has recognized the profound unfairness in withholding those rights.

[jw]

South Africa: Profile of Jacob Zuma

Link: Times Online

Excerpt:

Jacob Zuma has been accused of corruption, acquitted of rape, sings “Bring me my machinegun”, wears T-shirts proclaiming “100% Zulu boy”, and is a polygamist who believes that taking a shower after sex will prevent AIDS.

He has also just been elected president of the African National Congress, which should make him a shoo-in as South Africa’s next president, even though critics say he will turn the country into a basket case that could drag down half of Africa.

[...]

He also admitted that despite knowing the woman was HIV positive he had not bothered to use a condom. “I had a shower afterwards,” he said with a smile. The jury acquitted him but the trial led to a flood of satirical cartoons. One, captioned “Jacob Zuma’s 101 uses for a condom”, included: “Keeping spectacles used to see short skirts better, court summons holder, to keep your lost marbles (if ever found)” and “as a shower cap for having an AIDS prevention shower”. Zuma responded by suing the newspapers and a radio station, alleging, “my person has been subjected to all sorts of allegations and innuendo”. The South African media have accused him of threatening freedom of speech.

There are reasons to be wary of Zuma’s shoot-from-the-hip attitude if he were in power. He has advocated tackling crime by reintroducing the death penalty and forbidding legal aid to those accused of serious crimes. South Africa’s gays would also be disturbed by a president who describes same sex marriages as “a disgrace to the nation and to God”, adding: “When I was growing up, an ungqingili (a rude Zulu word for homosexual) would not have stood in front of me. I would have knocked him out.” Archbishop Desmond Tutu claims “the country would be ashamed” of a President Zuma.

[...]

[km]

FL: Editorial--Proposed marriage ban unneeded, insulting

Link: South Florida Sun-Sentinel

Excerpt:

[…]

Who are they kidding?

This is one of the oldest political ploys going — get a good red meat issue on the ballot to bring out ultra conservatives who might otherwise sit at home on election day. Maybe scare some people and get a little fear out there. The only thing surprising about this is there isn't a group — yet — that's trying to get an amendment banning flag burning onto the November ballot in Florida.

You have to wonder what Florida4Marriage and other such groups are afraid of. And what are they trying to protect us from? If they really are concerned about the sanctity of marriage, let these groups do something about the divorce rate — that's a much bigger threat to marriage than two gay people in love.

The Florida Constitution should not be the place for zealots to turn to when they want to advance their cause.

The folks promoting the constitutional gay marriage ban are insulting not only gays, but voters of all political ilk who can tell a real issue from a ruse.

Unfortunately, it will take up valuable time, and space on a ballot. It never should have gotten that far.

[jw]

FL: Editorial - Embedding prejudices in constitution wrong

Link: Daytona Beach News Journal

Excerpt:

[…]

As an electoral strategy, however, slamming a gay-marriage ban on ballots is effective strategy, as voters found out in 2004 when 11 states passed such bans with a combined margin of 67 percent. Florida4Marriage tried putting the ban on the 2006 general-election ballot but didn't get the required 600,000-some signatures in time. It got the signatures last week. There is still a major hurdle -- to pass as a constitutional amendment the proposal must get at least 60 percent of the vote.

And the proposal's supporters are not persuasive when they claim that the amendment does not harm couples who aren't married but choose to live together as families. The language of the amendment ("that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized") opens the door to widespread discrimination. It also raises questions that could affect Florida businesses that offer benefits to same-sex couples.

One strong argument against the measure is that it's unnecess