Wednesday, May 14, 2008

NZ: Right to civil union paramount, despite slow uptake

Link: Massey University

Excerpt:

Same-sex couples may not be flocking to tie the civil union knot just yet. But that is no reflection of how highly they value the right to do so if they choose, says a Massey researcher and author of a new paper on civil unions.

Dr Mark Henrickson, a senior lecturer in social work at the Auckland campus, says the recently-publicised slow uptake among both heterosexual and same-sex couples formalising their relationship since civil unions became legal three years ago is irrelevant.

“It is the right to legal recognition of same-sex relationships, rather than recognition of relationships per se, that forms the foundation of lesbian, bisexual and gay support for government recognition of same-sex relationship,” he says in a new paper titled Civilised Unions, Civilised Rights: Same-Sex Relationships in Aotearoa New Zealand. The paper is the latest to be published from a major on-going survey into the lives of lesbians, gays and bisexual people, titled Lavender Islands: Portrait of the Whole Family, launched in March 2004.

His survey, conducted during the period of robust public debate on civil unions prior to the Civil Union Act being passed in 2005, found that the majority of the 2,269 respondents strongly supported civil union legislation. An overwhelming 95 percent of those in relationships and 93 percent of singles supported government recognition of same-sex couples.

But despite 66 per cent of partnered respondents and 63 per cent of single respondents saying they would undertake legal recognition of a relationship at some point in the future, “the actual uptake of civil unions has been somewhat less than survey data would suggest,” says Dr Henrickson.

[...] 

While more same-sex couples may get hitched via civil union in the future, Dr Henrickson says one implication of his study is that public officials reduced the demand for same-sex marriage simply by legalising it.

[...]

[jw]

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Cayman Islands: Gay kissers raise doubt

Link: Cay Compass News Online

Excerpt:

A Sister Islands’ MLA said last week that Cayman’s now infamous gay kissing incident has raised doubts in voters’ minds about the country’s proposed bill of rights.

“I must say that the news headlines of this past week…certainly have caused the conservative voters…to be a little bit leery,” said Julianna O’Connor–Connolly during her budget debate in the Legislative Assembly. “Assurances were given that these things wouldn’t happen…now we have this test case.”

One of the major concerns expressed in the ongoing constitutional review process has been that, if Cayman placed a bill of rights in the country’s new constitution, it would be forced to accept same sex marriages or same sex unions similar to marriage.

[...]

The Cayman Brac MLA was one of many last week who said they were upset over an e–mailed apology sent from the Department of Tourism director to the man who was detained by police following the 30 April kissing incident at Royal Palms.

“Sorry for what, Madam Speaker (addressing Speaker of the House Edna Moyle)?” Mrs. O’Connor–Connolly asked. “Sorry for what?”

There are differing legal opinions as to whether the actions of 23–year–old Aaron Chandler and his partner violated either the Cayman Islands Penal Code or the Towns and Communities Law.

Mrs. O’Connor–Connolly said it was Mr. Chandler and his partner who owed the Cayman Islands an apology, and that legislators should determine if local law contained a loophole that would allow for similar public displays of affection.

“Are we just inches away from telling our pastors that they can’t preach about this lifestyle?” Mrs. O’Connor–Connolly asked. “Or that they have to marry (same sex couples)?”

“Once doubt enters in the equation that we have to pander to these people…then we are diminishing our faith in God,” she said. “Each time, I get more and more concerned as I see a lack of commitment to these values.” 

[jw]

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Sweden: High court to rule on marriage dispute

Link: The Local

Excerpt:

A homosexual couple has taken the Swedish tax authority (Skatteverket) to court for registering their marriage in Canada as a partnership.

Lars Gårdfeldt and Lars Arnell, who are both priests in the Swedish church, allege discrimination.

"The tax authorities can make an exception for a marriage where one party is under-age but not for homosexuals," said Lars Gårdfeldt to Svenska Dagbladet.

Skatteverket confirms that it does make exceptions to Swedish law with regard to under-age couples legally married overseas. But only for marriages involving a man and woman.

The Supreme Administrative Court decided on Friday to try the case and rule on whether the Gothenburg couple should be registered as married.

[...]

[jw]

Thursday, May 08, 2008

Watered down same-sex laws pass in Australian Capital Territory

Link: Australian Associated Press via Sydney Morning Herald

Excerpt:

Laws granting same-sex couples legal recognition passed the ACT Legislative Assembly Thursday night, but the territory government is still furious it was forced to water down its legislation.

"This is not the outcome the ACT government wanted," Chief Minister Jon Stanhope said during the late night debate.

The government had wanted to recognise gay marriage through same-sex civil union ceremonies but abandoned the plan after the federal Labor government said it would veto the move.

"It is a matter of embarrassment to me that my party did not stand up for this fundamental principle," Mr Stanhope said.

[...]

Attorney-General Simon Corbell said he was very proud the legislation was passed by the assembly.

"Gay and lesbian couples in the ACT will now be able to affirm their relationship before friends and families and gain legal recognition of their partnership," he said.

Legal legitimacy would give same-sex couples increased access to superannuation, taxation and social security law reforms that heterosexual couples took for granted, Mr Corbell said.

"Although we have been unable to provide gay and lesbian couples the opportunity to affirm their relationship in a legally-recognised public ceremony, this is a historic moment on the inevitable path towards removing discrimination."

[jw]

Monday, May 05, 2008

Israel: Court turns down restraining order against gay partner

Link: Ha'aretz

Excerpt:

A Family Court judge in Ramat Gan turned down a request by a man for a restraining order against a former male partner on the grounds that Israel's family and domestic violence laws do not apply to homosexual partnerships.

The complainant told the court that the former lover, a younger man who had lived in his Ramat Gan home with him for two years, was abusing him psychologically. 

He argued that as common-law partner he was entitled to the protection of the family court. 

His former partner, however, refused to acknowledge the common-law status, arguing that he had never changed his permanent address nor did he contribute financially to the upkeep of the household.

[...]

The complainant claimed that his former lover's behavior constituted harassment and abuse because it undermined his social status and his workplace status as well as harming his children and current partner.

But the judge, Dr. Gershon German, ruled that the request does not meet the criteria of the law because the parties do not meet the requirements for family members or for common-law spouses.

[jw]

Sunday, May 04, 2008

Australia: ACT [Australian Capital Territory] plan for marriages thwarted

Link: Sydney Morning Herald

Excerpt:

IN DECEMBER, Kevin Rudd gave hope to gay and lesbian couples by indicating he would not use Commonwealth powers to override same-sex marriage laws passed by states and territories, as the Howard government did.

"On these matters, state and territories are answerable to their own jurisdictions. State and territory governments are elected to govern, they are accountable to their constituents," Mr Rudd said then.

Yesterday those hopes were snuffed out when the ACT Labor Government abandoned plans that amounted to gay marriage after the Rudd Government said they would be overridden.

The ACT Attorney-General, Simon Corbell, said the territory had been going to legally recognise same-sex civil union ceremonies but had been advised by the Commonwealth that this resembled gay marriage and would be overturned.

The laws were to be similar to those the territory passed in its 2006 Civil Partnerships Bill that were disallowed by the Howard government.

"Given the stubborn refusal of the Federal Government to consider any compromise, the territory has decided to amend its legislation to provide for a form of civil partnerships without ceremony," Mr Corbell said.

"This will allow gay and lesbian couples in Canberra to legally formalise their relationships and unequivocally demonstrate their legal status so as to access Commonwealth superannuation, taxation and social security law reforms."

[...]

[jw]

Friday, May 02, 2008

UK: Gay ex-top cop loses London Mayoral race

Link: GayNZ.com

Excerpt:

image

caption: Brian Paddick

 

Formerly the highest-ranking openly gay police officer in the world, Brian Paddick has lost his bid to become Mayor of London.

Paddick ran for the Liberal Democrats and mounted a law and order campaign, but came in second.

Boris Johnson, a Conservative, defeated Labour incumbent Ken Livingstone in a race that became more about Prime Minister Brown's sagging popularity than Johnson's platform.

The election of Johnson now has gays in the capital worried. The new mayor is opposed to same-sex unions and has attacked attempts in his own party to reach out to gays.

[...]

More, from the AP, about the new Conservative mayor of London:

[...]

Uncombed and often awkward, Johnson is known both his wit and for remarks that are have offended minority communities and others.

He labeled members of the Commonwealth "piccaninnies" — a derogatory term for black people, referred to Africans as having "watermelon smiles," and likened his party's internal conflicts "to Papua New Guinea-style orgies of cannibalism and chief-killing."

Johnson's scorn has also been directed at gay marriage, which became legal in Britain in 2005. In his book "Friends, Voters, Countrymen," he said that if homosexuals could marry then why not "three men, as well as two men; or indeed three men and a dog."

[...]

[jw]

France/Netherlands: "Gay Marriage Costs Him Citizenship"

Link: TIME

Excerpt:

Frenchman Frederic Minvielle has been a productive, happy resident of the Netherlands for the past six years, and even married a Dutch national in 2003. But his placid existence took on Kafkaesque twist earlier this year, when French authorities informed Minvielle that his expatriate idyll had cost him his French citizenship. The main reason, according to Minvielle and his supporters: because his spouse was another man.

The Netherlands recognizes official gay unions, but France does not. That, in essence, is what led to the revocation of Minvielle's French citizenship, though the bilateral Franco-Dutch immigration accords pertaining to the case are complex.

The trouble began when Minvielle adopted his Dutch husband's citizenship in 2006 — a right extended to foreign spouses of officially wed couples in the Netherlands, whether gay or heterosexual. Indeed, Minvielle says the main motivation for his naturalization was to show gratitude to a Dutch society that makes no distinction between gay and heterosexual marriages. Although the Franco-Dutch immigration treaty pertaining to his situation generally forces nationals from one country to surrender their original citizenship when naturalized in the other, there is a key exception that allows dual citizenship accorded through marriage. Minvielle figured that would work for him.

"France does not recognize marriage between people of the same sex as the Netherlands does, and therefore considers Mr. Minvielle an unwed man living with another man," explains Minvielle's French lawyer, Caroline Mecary. Because of that, she says, France has applied the bilateral accord the way it would to any single French national adopting Dutch nationality: by revoking French citizenship. "It marks French exportation of marriage laws discriminatory to same-sex couples to its citizens abroad," Mecary continues. "In this case, that means applying French laws to a citizen with the result of stripping him of that very citizenship. That has proven to be a staggering loss to Mr. Minvielle."

[...]

Ironically, it was his effort to exercise his rights and duties as a citizen that led to Minvielle's troubles. Following his visit to the French embassy in Amsterdam in late 2006 to register for France's then approaching presidential elections, consular officials forwarded Minvielle's dossier to justice authorities for examination. When the review ruled that he had surrendered his French citizenship according to terms of the bilateral accord — and in light of France's refusal to recognize gay marriage — Minvielle was ordered to surrender his passport and French papers last December.

Despite the summons, Minvielle has held on to his French documents, and is fighting to have his citizenship restored. There may be hope of that happening. Mecary says she has been told by French and European authorities that France has applied to revise the terms of its bilateral accords with the Netherlands to take into account social and legal changes that have taken place in both countries since its last update in 1996. Though Mecary says she's still awaiting official confirmation of that move, she notes it would only be the first hurdle. "When it comes to decisions of citizenship, especially revocations based on legal grounds, the state is entirely free to do as it chooses," she warns.

Still, Mecary hopes France will do right by native son Minvielle, if for no other reason than to avoid more bad publicity over gay rights. Last January, Mecary notes, the European Court of Justice overturned French court rulings barring a single lesbian from adopting a child, judging French regulations blocking the adoption to be discriminatory. Meanwhile, France's history of social enlightenment and pride as the birthplace of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been overshadowed as nations like Spain, Belgium, and the Netherlands have passed progressive laws on gay rights while the French have lagged behind. Given that, critics argue the real solution to resolving Minvielle's case isn't tinkering with bilateral treaties, but modernizing marriage laws in France.

[...]

[jw]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Australia: Government excludes marriage from law changes

Link: ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Excerpt:

image

The Australian Coalition for Equality says discrimination will not be eliminated until same-sex couples are allowed to marry.
(File photo) (AAP: Sam Mooy)

 

The Federal Government says it will begin introducing legislation next month to remove same-sex discrimination from 100 Commonwealth laws.

The Government says the amendments to end discrimination against same-sex couples will make practical differences, but will not sanction changes to marriage laws.

The move will cover areas like superannuation, tax, health, employment entitlements and aged care.

But Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland says it will not extend to marriage.

"The government believes that marriage is between a man and a woman so it won't amend the marriage act," he said.

"But in all other areas that we've identified the issue of discrimination against same-sex couples will be removed."

"We anticipate that the reforms will be all introduced by the middle of 2009."

But Rodney Croome from the Australian Coalition for Equality says discrimination will not be eliminated until same-sex couples are allowed to marry.

"While this is a very important reform in itself and it'll certainly remove many of the more severe disadvantages faced by same sex couples in Australian today, it's not the end of the matter," he said.

"Until there's full equality in Australian law, for same and opposite sex couples, discrimination continues, prejudice continues and we can't allow that as a nation."

"Gay and lesbian Australians will not be fully equal until we are allowed the right to marry the partner of our choice."

[...]

[jw]

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Australia: Big business joins push for marriage

Link: The Sydney Morning Herald

Excerpt:

A GAY rights lobby group is bringing big business on board in a renewed push for the legalisation of same-sex marriages.

The Australian Marriage Equality website is naming businesses that recognise same-sex marriages of their employees and customers. Big names that have come on board include job website SEEK Limited and the Commonwealth Bank.

"What we're really hoping is that the Government can see this as a really good sign of [the] extent of the acceptance out there," said Alex Greenwich, from AME.

Mr Greenwich said other businesses on the list included Air Canada, Qantas and IBM.

"These businesses choose to treat all their employees and customers with the same dignity and respect, regardless of their sexuality or gender," he said. "As the number of countries which provide same-sex marriage grows, along with the number of Australians entering same-sex marriages, such recognition becomes a valuable tool in attracting employees."

Mr Greenwich said at least five other big organisations were expected to get on board soon.

"We were really happy with the positive response," he said.

[...]

[km]

Saturday, April 26, 2008

Australia: Gay Couple Awarded Damages in Foster Care Discrimination Case

Link: EDGE Boston

Excerpt:

An Australian gay couple were awarded damages following religiously-based discriminatory treatment by a welfare agency.

The organization, which has ties to Uniting Church, refused the application of the couple to become foster parents [...]

The couple, who were not identified in the article, took the case to the New South Wales Administrative Decisions Tribunal.

The organization that had rejected the couple’s application claimed that although the Anti-Discrimination Act bars prejudicial treatment of gays and lesbians, it was exempt from the law on the basis that its decision to snub the couple was based on religious doctrine.

The Tribun[al] did not agree, and awarded each member of the same-sex couple a sum just short of $4,700 on the basis that they had been "unlawfully discriminated against on the ground of homosexuality," reported News.com.au.

The Tribunal found that, "The evidence makes it clear that a heterosexual person in the same position as each applicant would have been provided with the services necessary to allow an application to become a foster carer to be processed and assessed on its merits."

The Tribunal’s decision continued, "We find the refusal to provide those services constitutes less favorable treatment."

The Tribunal also noted that the couple had been "deeply hurt, insulted and embarrassed," and instructed the agency to "take all necessary steps to eliminate unlawful discrimination on the ground of homosexuality in the facilitation and provision of its foster care services," the article said.

[...]

[km]

Friday, April 25, 2008

Israeli Adoption Tantamount to Marriage Equality, Says Lawyer

Link: EDGE Boston

Excerpt:

In a case that some say legitimizes marriage between couples of the same gender, Israel has given the extended citizenship to the adopted son of two men.

The decision follows an earlier decision by Israel’s Attorney General, Menahem Mazuz, in which Mazuz declared that, "in the proper circumstances and when it is in the best interest of the child," gay couples may adopt.

That decision, in turn, followed a High Court ruling that found that adoptions by same-sex couples granted in other countries would also be honored in Israel.

[...]

Now, the Israeli government has given the boy citizenship and recognition as the son of the male couple.

According to the UPI article, the mens’ lawyer said that the decision is effectively grants the couple marriage equality.

Said Irit Rosenblum, the attorney, "The meaning of the decision is clear."

Continued Rosenblum, "The state directly and fully recognizes same-sex couples as parents, akin to heterosexual couples, who can adopt a child overseas and register without constraints as his parents."

[jw]

Norway: Poll shows support for full marriage

Link: Aftenposten.no

Excerpt:

The new poll carried out by Norstat for the newspaper Vårt Land found that 58 percent of those surveyed said they supported the new Marriage Act, and 31 percent were against it. The remainder either were uncertain or had no opinion.

"We in the LLH (The Norwegian National Association of Lesbian and Gay Liberation) are very happy that such a large majority of the population wish to put an end to the discrimination of homosexuals and our children," said LLH leader Jon Reidar Øyan.

[...]

The new Marriage Act will receive its parliamentary hearing on June 11.

[jw]

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Israel recognizes overseas adoption by gay couple, grants child citizenship

Link: Haaretz - Israel News

Excerpt:

The State of Israel has agreed for the first time to register an overseas adoption by a gay couple and to grant the child Israeli citizenship.

The landmark case involves a Cambodia-born boy, now eight years old, who was adopted in 2000 in the United States by two men who hold American and Israeli citizenship. Following his adoption, the boy received American citizenship and was also converted to Judaism. The parents returned to Israel shortly after the adoption, but their applications to the Interior Ministry to recognize the adoption and grant their child citizenship were unsuccessful. Since 2001, the child has lived in Israel on a temporary residence visa that is extended annually.

In 2002, the parents, represented by the New Family organization, filed a High Court of Justice petition against the interior minister. The ruling on that petition has been delayed pending the court's decision in an earlier case involving a lesbian woman's U.S. adoption of her partner's biological child. A few months ago, the male couple wrote a personal letter to Attorney General Menachem Mazuz, asking him to put an end to the state's cruel treatment of them and their son.

In a letter two weeks ago to New Family's director, attorney Irit Rosenblum, the senior deputy state prosecutor, Einat Golomb, wrote that the male couple's case had been discussed again and it was decided to register the adoption in the Interior Ministry's population registry and grant Israeli citizenship to the child "in view of the special circumstances of the case in question and the long time the minor has resided in Israel legally."

Rosenblum said in response that the decision is significant in that it constitutes recognition of overseas adoption by same-sex couples, and effectively recognition of same-sex families.

"The meaning of the decision is clear: The state directly and fully recognizes same-sex couples as parents, akin to heterosexual couples, who can adopt a child overseas and register without constraints as his parents," she said.

One of the boy's parents, who prefers to remain anonymous, told Haaretz yesterday that over their years in Israel they had appealed to every interior, justice, and social affairs minister in office to meet with them, but were turned down.

"We had a problem entering and leaving the country, registering for school, at the dental clinic," he said. "They always ask what our relation is to the boy because he is not listed on our identity cards.

Everywhere I had to say that we have a High Court petition and we are waiting for a ruling. Everywhere I had to fight and provide explanations and try to persuade.

[...]

[jw]

Canada: Retired female priests tie knot

Link: The Province

 

Excerpt:

image

Retired priests Ruth Pogson, 83, and Beth Aime, 79, exchanged vows at Island View Nursing Home yesterday. Though both served the Anglican faith their whole careers, the church did not sanction or bless their union.
Photograph by : Darren Stone, Times Colonist

 

With popping corks and tinkling glasses, with laughter and with tears, Ruth Pogson, 83, and Beth Aime, 79, exchanged simple, loving vows in Island View nursing home yesterday.

The two retired Anglican priests, committed to each other since 1995, wanted to make their relationship legal, said Pogson.

"What we're here for is about justice and it's about bringing a community into an inclusive community rather than being shut out all the time," Aime told their guests. "We're here to hopefully bring this world somewhere where we're all equal.

The Anglican Church of Canada, to whom they have devoted decades of their lives, was not there to marry them or to bless them. Pogson and Aime were married in a civil ceremony in front of a small group of family and friends.

The same-sex marriage issue has created a major schism in the Anglican Church. Last June, the general synod of the Anglican Church of Canada voted narrowly not to bless same-sex unions. Still, the dioceses of Ottawa, Montreal and Niagara later decided to do so. Since November, 15 parishes -- including Metchosin's St. Mary of the Incarnation -- have broken away, dismayed by what they see as the church's liberal drift.

In 2002, the Vancouver-area Diocese of New Westminster became the first to bless same sex relationships. The Diocese of British Columbia, which includes Vancouver Island, does not. In fact, Pogson and Aime have not been allowed to preach and practice since they moved to Vancouver Island in 2002.

On Friday, Pogson, who is in a wheelchair and requires care, will move to St. Jude's Anglican Nursing Home in Vancouver, where Aime is already renting an apartment. Like many older couples, they will live apart and visit often. They hope their union will eventually be blessed in the Diocese of New Westminster when their new parish St. Clare-in-the-Cove has permission to bless same sex couples, said Aime.

"I'm happy they're getting married. I'm happy they found happiness with each other. Isn't this what life is all about," said Peter Elliott, dean of Christ Church Cathedral in the Diocese of New Westminster.

"There's nothing new about gay and lesbian people living in committed partnerships. The difference in Canada, and I thank God for it, is that we can live openly and we can receive the support of our community and church and that makes a huge difference in the quality of life."

[...]

[jw]

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Australia: Stanhope pressures PM on gay unions

Link: The Australian

Excerpt:

Kevi Rudd has been presented with his first major challenge on gay law reform from within his own party, with ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope challenging him to allow gay and lesbian civil unions in the territory.

Mr Stanhope said the Prime Minister - a self-described social conservative - should allow the move, arguing that if Mr Rudd could demand China respect the human rights of Tibetans he should defend the rights of his own citizens at home.

It is the first time Mr Stanhope has spoken publicly about the federal Government's intervention to see the ACT laws blocked.

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

In a speech to lawyers, Mr Stanhope said a national bill of rights could protect Australian citizens against such interventions. The Rudd Government has committed itself to an inquiry on a charter of rights, but has ruled out any model that would undermine the authority of parliament.

"I have hopes that a Prime Minister and a Government capable of advocating for the basic rights of the Tibetans will - must - comprehend the justice of formally extending each of those same basic rights to folk back home," Mr Stanhope said.

"I have hopes that this Prime Minister ... will respect the right of the component parts of our federation to legislate as they are constitutionally empowered to do and as they have received a mandate to do."

He said legislating for civil partnerships was within the powers of the states and territories. "We know that what the ACT is attempting to do is no more than to extend to same-sex couples equality with other Canberrans, under ACT laws," he said. "Not commonwealth laws: that would require a national bill of rights. Just ACT laws ... in the community to which they contribute, and to which they belong."

But Mr Stanhope said that unfortunately for the men and women in the ACT who desire recognition of and respect for their long-term "enduring primary relationships, efforts by the ACT Government to deliver these things have been thwarted".

"The evidence suggests the rights of a significant number of Canberra's men and women cannot be guaranteed by my Government, because of church disapproval," he said. "This in a nation that has committed ... to a separation of church and state."

[...]

[jw]

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Australia: Government puts same-sex couples on hold?

Link: Melbourne Community Voice

Excerpt:

The Rudd Government is blaming economics for a possible delay in law reform recognising same-sex couples.

According to The Australian, the government remains undecided about whether to include reforms to discriminatory laws identified in last year’s Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) report in the May budget; even though the cost of removing discriminatory legislation against same-sex couples is substantially less than the $1 billion projected by the Howard Government.

The estimated cost of such reforms currently stands at some $400 million.

Although senior government insiders report the delay was not driven by cost savings, Human Rights Commissioner Graeme Innes told The Australian, “The issue here is a basic right and that is the right to equality, and we don’t judge those in financial terms. The budget is the absolutely right time to send that message that couples shouldn’t be treated differently because of who they love.”

Stephen Jones, co-convener of the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, echoed Innes’ statements.
"Looking at citing economics as an excuse for perpetrating delay is definitely a novel position,” he told MCV, “and one we find deeply problematic and offensive, because I don’t believe that economics has been used as the sole basis for denying equal rights to any other marginalized group.

“This is an ongoing issue for all the members of the GLIBT community.”

Jones accepted that, as the government’s stance on the issue is yet to be confirmed, the delay in reforms remains a rumour; however he said the VGLRL remained concerned.

“This is about the government making good on promises, especially when in the election campaign the GLIBT community put their faith and votes towards them; so for them to turn around now that they are in power and to ignore those promises is not acceptable,” he concluded.

[...]

[jw]

Australia: Lesbian parents to receive increased rights

Link: ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

The New South Wales Government is moving to give children of same-sex female couples the same rights as those born to heterosexual parents.

Attorney-General John Hatzistergos says legislation will be introduced to cover children conceived by artificial fertilisation.

He says the current laws do not recognise the relationship a child might have with the female partner of their birth mother.

"So that they are unable for example to take on inheritance, they are unable to access benefits of compensation which may be due to them otherwise following a death or following an injury," he said.

"Also those children would be unable to exercise responsibilities that children would normally have in relation to parents."

But Mr Hatzistergos says the new laws will not cover children with gay male parents.

"That raises complex issues, particularly in relation to issues of adoption and the extinguishing of the rights of the existing birth mother and also issues relating to surrogacy," he said.

"It's not appropriate for us to move in that direction before that national discussion is able to proceed and is able to resolve issues as far as possible."

[jw]

Saturday, April 19, 2008

Australia: Law changes can't wait until 2020, gay advocates say

Link: www.abc.net.au

Excerpt:

Two of the participants at this weekend's 2020 summit will represent gays and lesbians at the Communities and Families forum.

The Labor Government has pledged to remove 58 laws that discriminate against same-sex couples in tax, superannuation and family rights among other things.

But gay and lesbian groups say they're alarmed by reports that the Government will not include these reforms in the May Budget.

Among the 1,000 participants heading to Canberra this weekend is Shelly Argent, the national spokeswoman for Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.

She says a future Australia must include legal recognition of same sex couples.

"My issue is that I have two sons, one's straight and one's gay, they both contribute equally to society and yet the government and society is very quick to say that one is better than the other," she said.

"Now I just totally disagree with that. I want my son to be seen equal in the eyes of the law and society."

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has identified 58 laws that discriminate against gays and lesbians covering tax, superannuation, health, workplace benefits and family law.

"I mean having same-sex parents being recognised with their children," Ms Argent says.

"At the moment only the biological mother is recognised and the non-biological mother or other parent has absolutely no rights whatsoever.

"That non-biological parent cannot legally take that child to the doctor and be given information, or cannot take the child to school or necessarily pick the child up from school, and especially if the child is sick, because that person has no legal right over the child."

Labor has promised to scrap these laws and has uncovered 40 extra pieces of legislation that also discriminate.

Human Rights Commissioner Graeme Innes says the Government simply needs to alter the definition of de-facto to include same-sex couples.

And he doesn't think the issue of law reform needs to be on the 2020 agenda.

"Because it's a commitment the Government has made, it just needs to be on the Budget agenda, so that all Australian couples no matter what their sexual orientation, are treated in the same way," he said.

[...]

[km]

Friday, April 18, 2008

Australia: Employers asked to recognize equal marriage rights

Link: SX News

Excerpt:

Australian Marriage Equality (AME) began contacting businesses in January, inviting employers to publicly affirm their support.

The list of organisations currently includes the Commonwealth Bank, IBM, Air Canada, Qantas, Seek Limited, and Wood and Stone Pizza Restaurants. Others will be added to AME’s website: www.australianmarriageequality.com/employers.htm

AME national secretary Alex Greenwich told SX the response has been favourable.

“No one has said no yet. There are a lot of organisations who have agreed in principle with us, but they’re still getting back to us. In Australia, many companies also have an existing policy – as is the case with Qantas and Air Canada. This is a good opportunity to highlight that.”

Greenwich said supporting GLBT marriage rights, rather than just recognising de facto or domestic partnerships, sends out an affirmative message about the employer’s dedication to equal opportunity and diversity in the workplace.

“As a member of the GLBT community, I’d like to know that the people I spend my money with support me,” he said.

AME hope that this initiative will pre-empt the Australian federal and state governments to follow suit. “If high-level decision makers and large organisations are prepared to recognise it, the government should see this as a form of encouragement for them to recognise it."

[...]

[jw]

Big gay immigration news from Brazil

Link: Citizen Crain

Excerpt:

image Some potentially great news out of Brazil this week. The center-left government of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva -- known here as Presidente Lula --  has announced a legislative proposal that would extend to gay Brazilians the same right straight Brazilians have to sponsor foreign partners for temporary or permanent resident visas. It's a Brazilian UAFA (Uniting American Families Act), if you will.

The proposed law would simply remove any distinction of sex from existing provisions that allow Brazilians to sponsor foreign partners. In reality, Brazil is already one of two-dozen countries that already allow gay citizens to sponsor foreign partners for residence, but that right is based entirely on vulnerable judge-made law.

As a result, the process is long, cumbersome and expensive. Presumably this new legislative right would streamline the process and reduce the cost, although it would still require review of each request on a case by case basis.

My partner and I have thus far chosen not to follow that route, partly due to the expense and partly because our goal is to live together in the U.S. But if this proposal becomes law, and it should given Lula's backing, we could at least have a stable life here until we find a way back home to the States.

[...]

[jw]

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Cayman Islands: Confusion over civil unions

Link: Cay Compass News Online

Excerpt:

Cayman Islands lawmakers and UK officials have both assured the public that neither same sex marriages nor any union similar to them will be legally allowed under the country’s constitutional reform plans.

Education Minister Alden McLaughlin said during a press conference last week that one of the reasons to change the current constitution was to allow elected leaders more control over legislation.

“So that we don’t have to live in fear or concern about the input of EU directives or specific UK legislation relating to things like civil unions,” Mr. McLaughlin said.

UK Parliamentary Under–Secretary of State Meg Munn previously said Britain has no intention of forcing Cayman to accept civil unions or civil partnerships, even though she is personally in favour of allowing such arrangements to exist.  

However, despite claims from both sides on the issue, the phrases “civil partner” and “civil partnership” actually do appear in legislation that has recently been gazetted in the Cayman Islands.

The British Nationality (British Overseas Territories) Regulations, 2007 set out certain guidelines for how a person applies to be registered as a British Overseas Territories citizen. It essentially advises governments in overseas territories on how those matters should be handled in accordance with the British Nationality Act of 1981.

[...]

The effects of the regulations and whether they would actually pave the way to allow the formation of civil partnerships in the Cayman Islands are unclear. Both political parties have voiced their intention to disallow such unions here.

However, some citizens groups have expressed concern about the regulations.

“As far as I can tell, (the British Nationality Regulations) applies to all overseas territories,” said People for Referendum group President Dennie Warren. “We don’t want the language in there. Once we put the language into one piece of legislation, it seeps into the legal system.”

[...]

The government intends to prohibit same sex marriages by amending the Cayman Islands Marriage Law to reflect that marriage here will be considered solely the union of one man and one woman.

However, it’s not known whether such an amendment would legally prohibit the formation of civil unions, or any other legal arrangement similar to marriage.

There has also been some confusion over whether government would attempt to ban same sex marriage in a bill of rights. Mr. McLaughlin said that would be handled under the Marriage Law, not in any human rights section of the constitution.

“One wouldn’t put that (language outlawing same sex marriage) in a bill of rights,” he said. “A bill of rights is about affording people rights, not ––– making prohibitions about various things.”

Precisely what language might be placed in the constitution regarding marriage isn’t certain. The first summary of constitutional proposals released by government said “the right to marriage between members of the opposite sex” would be considered.  

[jw]

Uruguay: Gay couple become the first to be granted civil union license

Link: Blabbeando
by Andrés Duque

Full text by permission.

Back in December, Uruguay made history when it became the first country in Latin America to adopt a national civil union law that included heterosexual as well as same-sex partners (civil unions and same-sex partnership rights have been recognized in cities and regions of other Latin American countries but - until Uruguay - not on a national scale).

In what is turning out to be a tremendous day for same-sex partnership rights in the region (see previous post), AFP is reporting that 68-year old theater director Juan Carlos Moretti and his partner of fourteen years, 38-year old Adrián Figuera, became the first Uruguayan couple to be granted a civil union license.

The civil court ceremony, presided earlier today by Judge Estrella Pérez Azziz, was said to be small in attendance and limited to close friends and relatives. It also came three months after the law was officially adopted.

The law grants same-sex couples and unmarried heterosexual couples certain rights pertaining to joint patrimony, the right to inherit each others belongings, access to pension payments in the case of the death of one of the partners and access to social security benefits. To apply, couples must demonstrate that they have had an uninterrupted relationship for at least five years.

[jw]

Colombia: Same-sex partners get pension rights

Link: Blabbeando
by Andrés Duque

Full text by permission.

First came a Constitutional Court ruling allowing same-sex couples in long-term relationships to shared assets similar to rights already enjoyed by married heterosexual couples (February 2007).

Then came a second ruling by the same court granting social security rights to same-sex couples, including health benefits (October 2007).

Today comes word that the court has determined that same-sex partners in Colombia should also be granted the right to enroll in pension rights similar to those of married straight couples ("Same-sex couples do have the right to pensions, ruled the Constitutional Court," El Tiempo).

The Procurator General's Office had previously submitted a statement on behalf of pension rights for same-sex couples stating that last year's rulings and the creation of the common law partnership registries "opened the possibility to interpret the notion of permanent partners in the sense that they include same-sex couples for all the judicial regulations that use that notion to confer benefits to unmarried couples."

The Human Rights Committee of the United Nations had already declared that Colombia had erred in not recognizing the right of a man whose same-sex partner had died access to his pension benefits and ordered the country to pay the man $150 million pesos (approx. U$72,000 at that time).

This is yet another incredible victory by the Colombian LGBT rights organization, Colombia Diversa which worked with the Public Interest Group at the University of Los Andes in Bogota to bring the issue to the Court and emerge victorious.

Interestingly, while the judicial branch has been taking huge steps in the recognition of same-sex partnerships in Colombia, a bill establishing some of the same rights now granted by the country's top court has been blocked legislatively by a small number of conservative legislators in the Colombian congress.

[jw]

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Italy: Gay Rights To Suffer With Berlusconi Victory

Link: 365Gay.com

Excerpt:

image Italy has tilted to right with Silvio Berlusconi triumphing in parliamentary election.

Bolstered by right-wing allies - an anti-immigrant party and a former neo-fascist grouping - the 71-year-old media magnate emerged from the election with a generous majority in both the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate.

[...]

The election is expected to result in a hard line with Italy's LGBT community.

The gay-friendly government of Romano Prodi was defeated in January and Prodi was replaced as leader of the left-of-center coalition by Walter Veltroni.

Prodi was sunk when the Senate voted 161-156 to defeat his coalition. The crisis began when the small but key Christian Democrat party which is aligned with the Vatican pulled out of the coalition - in large part due to Prodi's support for same-sex civil partnerships.

The Senate vote ended a fiery session which was rife with homophobic epithets from conservatives. One senator was spat on, fainted and was carried out on a stretcher. 

Last fall a proposed bill to grant civil partnerships for gay couples was shelved in a last ditch effort to keep the support of the Christian Democrats but the small party split anyway when some coalition members said they would introduce the partnership measure anyway.

With the defeat of the government the bill died, but Veltroni had indicated if he were elected he would bring back the bill.

The civil partnership legislation would have allowed same-sex couples to sign a civil registry and then share pensions, health insurance, enter into contracts, and permit them to be considered the same as married couples for public housing.

Berlusconi, who lost to Prodi in 2006, is a frequent guest at the Vatican and is a staunch opponent of LGBT rights.

In 2004, during his last stint as Prime Minister Berlusconi's handpicked man to be the European Union's human rights chief was rejected by an EU committee after Rocco Buttiglione called homosexuality "a sin" and that marriage existed ``to allow women to have children and to have the protection of a male.''

Reacting to the EU move, Berlusconi cabinet minister launched into a homophobic tirade. "Poor Europe: the faggots are in the majority," Mirko Tremaglia declared.

[jw]

The Netherlands: 'Marriage Registrars Must Perform Same-Sex Marriages'

Link: NIS News

Excerpt:

Marriage registrars who refuse to perform same-sex marriages must also be denied from performing marriages between men and women, the Equal Treatment Commission (CGB) ruled yesterday.

In October 2007, the municipality of Langedijk placed an ad for two marriage registrars. The municipality demanded that applicants be prepared to conduct both heterosexual and same-sex marriages.

The CGB judged yesterday that municipalities may indeed make this requirement. A local authority is "not violating the equal treatment law if it refuses to appoint a marriage registrar who does not wish to marry persons of the same sex on grounds of religion".

CGB simultaneously released a new guideline. This instructs municipalities and other interested parties how to act in similar cases.

The CGB is an advisory court. Its rulings can be used in real court cases. The courts usually uphold CGB verdicts.

[...]

CGB also passed judgement yesterday on a case concerning the personnel policy of feminist magazine Opzij. The magazine may not exclude men from editorial positions, according to CGB. By exclusively reserving the position of editor for women, Opzij is making a forbidden distinction on grounds of gender.

[jw]

Monday, April 14, 2008

Norway: Opponents marched against marriage law

Link: Aftenposten

Excerpt:

image Hundreds of demonstrators from all over Norway descended on downtown Oslo over the weekend to protest the government's proposed law allowing same-sex marriages.

The protesters included immigrants and native Norwegians, and they came from the villages and the cities. All were firmly against marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples.

Former Bishop Per Lønning was among those speaking in the public square called Youngstorget in downtown Oslo. Supporters have called the proposed "sex-neutral" marriage rights "a victory for romance and reason." Lønning equated that to nonsense "typical of our times."

[...]

[jw]

Sunday, April 13, 2008

Australia: Parliament Member defends gay vote

Link: Wimmera Mail Times

Excerpt:

MEMBER for Lowan Hugh Delahunty has defended his vote against legislation allowing same-sex couples to formally declare their love.

Mr Delahunty said he was disappointed a newspaper had insinuated that western Victoria was a `no-gay zone'.

Warrnambool newspaper The Standard featured a page 1 story on Thursday about south-west politicians voting against relationship register legislation.

The State Government approved the legislation allowing same-sex couples to formally declare relationships.

Mr Delahunty was pictured on the front page because he voted against the legislation.

But he said his vote was not `having a crack at gays'.

[...]

Mr Delahunty said he voted against relationship register legislation to protect the grounds of marriage between men and women.

Politicians could conscience vote on the legislation; they did not have to toe a party line vote.

"I don't believe anyone said they didn't want gays to live in their community," he said.

"It would be against discrimination laws. You can't discriminate against people on their race, sexual nature or their religion."

[km]

Italy: Two main parties in Italian general elections

Link: news.xinhuanet.com

Excerpt:

Italy will hold general elections Sunday and Monday, with 32 candidates running for prime minister.

Two-time premier Silvio Berlusconi, who heads the center-right People of Freedom party (PDL), and former Rome mayor Walter Veltroni, leader of the center-left Democratic Party (PD), are the two main contenders for the post.

[...]

The PD was created in October 2007 by the merging of the two biggest parties on the center-left: the Democratic Left, the main heir of the Italian Communist Party; and the Daisy, a party of centrists and left-leaning Catholics.

The party promises incentives to boost competitiveness particularly for small-to-medium sized firms.

The PD is also committed to "promoting" the legal recognition of the rights of unmarried and same-sex couples and introducing living wills.

[...]

[km]

Friday, April 11, 2008

Colombia: Should gay couples be exempt from mandatory military service?

Link: Blabbeando
by Andrés Duqueimage

 

 

Full text by permission.

Considering that in Colombia 1.) Military service is mandatory, 2.) Gays are allowed to serve in the military and 3.) Married heterosexual couples are exempt from mandatory military service, common sense would say that same-sex couples would also be exempt from mandatory service - if only they were recognized as a family unit.

Well, according to an article from today's El Espectador, the nation's Procurator General's Office (or, translated differently, Inspector General's Office) sent a "concept paper" to Colombia's Constitutional Court arguing just as much and calling it discriminatory to deny the privilege to same-sex couples who can demonstrate that they are in a conjugal partnership.

"If social security benefits are already granted to homosexual couples, the same criteria should be extended to the Obligatory Military Service," is the way that El Espectador paraphrases the statement.image

The Constitutional Court can accept or reject the recommendation but it's yet another small example on how things are changing in Latin America when it comes to recognition of LGBT rights in the continent.

[jw]

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Support numbers improve for same-sex unions in Brazil; government to host summit on same-sex couples

Link: Angus Reid Global Monitor

Excerpt:

image Many people in Brazil believe gay and lesbian couples should not be allowed to form civil unions, according to a poll by Datafolha published in Folha de Sao Paulo. 45 per cent of respondents share this opinion, down four points since August 2006.

In March 2004, judge Clademir Missaggia ruled that the Rio Grande do Sul state government must recognize same-sex unions, and allow gay and lesbian couples to jointly own property, and claim pensions and possessions if either partner dies. The remaining Brazilian states do not offer legal recognition to same-sex partners.

[...]

In 1994, current president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of the Worker’s Party (PT) supported the introduction of a bill that sought to establish same-sex civil unions in Brazil. The bill has never been put to a vote.

Next month, the Brazilian government will host a summit to discuss topics related to same-sex couples. Lula has invited leaders from several associations working to advance gay and lesbian rights in order to put together the "Brazil Without Homophobia" legislation, which he says will feature a bill to allow civil unions of people of the same sex "with full rights."