LEGAL GROUPS CALL FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY (Australia)

by Harley Dennett for sso net


The peak national and NSW professional bodies for the legal profession have joined the call for same-sex marriage as a human rights obligation.

Law Council of Australia president Ross Ray QC welcomed the equality reforms announced by the Rudd Government last week as bringing Australia a step closer to meeting its international obligations. However, he said the job would not be complete until the 2004 Marriage Amendment Act was repealed.

“As long as the Government remains intent on preserving a special class of state-sanctioned relationship which is closed to same-sex couples, discrimination will persist,” Ray said in a statement.

“And it will persist regardless of whether or not any Government entitlements are exclusively available to couples within that limited class.

“In the end, it’s simple – all people are equal before the law and should be entitled to the same fundamental rights.”

NSW Law Society president Hugh Macken shared the view and hoped this round of equality reforms would help improve social attitudes to same-sex couples.

“Broadening the acceptance of same-sex couples will probably lead to a change in the Marriage Act, which is the final step,” Macken said last week.

“The reality is that changes to the Marriage Act are probably not as significant as the changes the government has announced.”

NSW Young Lawyers (NSWYL) has also been active in highlighting the discriminatory nature of the current marriage definition. Its Human Rights Committee held a Same Sex Marriage Rights forum in Martin Place in February, inviting both advocates and opponents, but the organisation itself supports the removal of discrimination in law, administration and the community as a whole, according to NSWYL president Joshua Knackstredt.

“The relevant provisions in the international instruments creating the international human rights regime that currently exists (in particular, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) are ambiguous at best,” Knackstredt told SSO this week.

It could reasonably be argued either way that allowing people of the same sex to marry was an internationally recognised human rights obligation, he said, but if the body of nations were to ever resolve the matter, it would likely fail.

“Given the current position of many Western nations, it is questionable whether such an addition would even be supported by a majority of those nations.”

Gay marriage ban stalled PA.

By BERNARD HARRIS and TOM MURSE at lancaster online

State Sen. Mike Brubaker pulled the plug on his controversial proposal to constitutionally ban gay marriages and civil unions on Tuesday after learning it would have little chance of passage in the state House.

Yet, the Warwick Township Republican this morning stopped short of saying the proposal is dead.

Brubaker asked Senate leaders to table the measure Tuesday afternoon after learning it was headed to the House State Government Committee if it passed the Senate.

Rep. Babette Josephs, the Philadelphia Democrat who chairs that committee, has denounced the proposal as "lousy public policy."

"There is no point in going forward unless the House changes it's position," Brubaker said this morning.

He held out hope the proposal could still go to another committee. He also would not speculate on whether he will reintroduce the measure in the next legislative session.

Michael Geer, president of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, also declined to predict the future of the bill but said he hoped supporters would pressure leaders in the Democratic-controlled House to act on it.

"We're hoping for action because the people of Pennsylvania deserve a vote," he said. "There's no question there's a challenge to get this done to be on the 2009 ballot, which was our hope.

"What House Speaker Denny O'Brien and Democratic leadership indicated yesterday was that they are willing to consign this bill to an untimely death and not let the people decide," Geer said.

The abrupt shelving of the bill came after a boisterous rally Monday calling for its rejection, and after a day of discussions between House and Senate leaders about the proposal's fate in the House.

Erik Arneson, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, said leaders of the Republican-controlled Senate decided to back off its planned vote because the "knowledge that the committee chairwoman is opposed and has no plans of moving the bill" effectively killed it.

Even if the Senate had approved the amendment Tuesday, and the House then approved it, both chambers would have to approve it again in the next legislative session before it could reach the voters in the form of a referendum question. The earliest a voter referendum could happen is 2009.

Brubaker said the proposal had bipartisan support in the Senate and the language in the bill is the same language approved by House members in the last session.

He said is does not change the state's existing 12-year-old law limiting marriage to the union of a man and woman. With a referendum vote it would embed that language in the state Constitution.

Brubaker said he believes it is important to give the people the power to do that.

"There are three other states that by court order have changed the definition of marriage," he said. "If you change our definition of marriage, then it should be done by the voters, not by a judge."

More than 1,200 state laws refer to marriage. Altering the state's definition of marriage would call into question the legality of all of those statutes, he said.

Brubaker maintained that the proposal has been the subject of healthy, civil debate in the Senate. He said he'll know within the next two weeks whether there is any chance the proposal can be revived and debated in the House this year.

Forty-one states have laws restricting marriage to heterosexual couples. But only 27 of them have constitutional language imposing such limits. Five states have no laws barring same-sex unions.

NY High Court Refuses Gay Marriage Case

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 6, 2008 - 5:00 pm ET

(New York City) The Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York State, Tuesday declined to hear a case challenging an appeals court ruling that found the marriages of same-sex couples married in jurisdictions where they are legal must be recognized in New York.

The decision not to accept the case means the lower court ruling will stand.

On February 1 the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court reversed a judge's ruling in 2006 that Monroe Community College did not have to extend health benefits to an employee's lesbian partner.

Patricia Martinez, a word processing supervisor, sued the school in 2005, arguing that it granted benefits to heterosexual married couples but denied them to Martinez and her partner, Lisa Ann Golden.

The couple formalized their relationship in a civil union ceremony in Vermont in 2001 and were married in Canada in 2004.

The college refused to add Golden to the health care benefits because its contract with the Civil Service Employees Association did not address benefits for same-sex partners. Since then, the contract has been enhanced to extend benefits to an employee's domestic partner.

State Supreme Court Justice Harold Galloway dismissed Martinez's lawsuit in August 2006, saying that the state does not recognize same-sex marriages. The state legislature ``currently defines marriage as limited to the union of one man and one woman,'' he wrote.

The appellate judges disagreed, determining that there is no legal impediment in New York to the recognition of a same-sex marriage.

The state legislature ``may decide to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages solemnized abroad,'' the ruling said. ``Until it does so, however, such marriages are entitled to recognition in New York.''

Monroe County asked the high court to overturn the appellate court ruling.

Empire State Pride Agenda, the largest LGBT rights group in New York State welcomed the decision not to reopen the case, and prodded the legislature to pass marriage equality legislation for all New Yorkers.

"Despite today's good news, the state of marriage for same-sex couples in New York is still unsettled," said Empire State Pride Agenda Executive Director Alan Van Capelle.

"Until a law is passed by the New York State Legislature, there will always be the possibility that another court decision could undo Martinez v. County of Monroe and strip away from otherwise legally married same-sex couples all of the 1324 state-based rights and responsibilities that come with a marriage license in New York."

In 2006 the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, ruled that same-sex couples do not have an automatic constitutional right to marry in the state. It said that the issue, however, could be taken up by the Legislature.

Last June the Democratically-controlled New York State Assembly passed same-sex marriage legislation but the GOP-controlled Senate has refused to take up the bill.

A article in The New York Times Magazine about the growing trend of marriage for young gay men

Young Gay Rites
By BENOIT DENIZET-LEWIS

LAST NOVEMBER IN BOSTON, Joshua Janson, a slender and boyish 25-year-old, invited me to an impromptu gathering at the apartment he shares with Benjamin McGuire, his considerably more staid husband of the same age. It was a cozy, festive affair, complete with some 20 guests and a large sushi spread where you might have expected the chips and salsa to be.

I beg of you — please eat a tuna roll!” Joshua barked, circulating around the spacious apartment in a blue blazer, slim-fitting corduroys and a pair of royal blue house slippers with his initials. “The fish is not going to eat itself!”

Spotting me alone by a window seat decorated with Tibetan pillows, Joshua, who by that point had a few drinks in him, grabbed my arm and led me toward a handful of young men huddled around an antique Asian “lion’s head” chair. “Are you single? Have you met the gays?” Joshua asked, depositing me among them before embarking on a halfhearted search for the couple’s dog, Bernard, who, last I saw him, was eyeing an eel roll left carelessly at dog level. (At the other end of the living room, past a marble fireplace, the straights — in this case, young associates from the Boston law firm Benjamin had recently joined — were debating the best local restaurants.)

The rest can be found here at
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/magazine/27young-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=magazine

Long Island Gay Couple Charged With Trespassing In Marriage License Protest

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: April 29, 2008 - 11:00 am ET

(Oyster Bay, New York) A middle-aged gay couple was charged with trespassing when they refused to leave the town clerk's office after being refused a marriage license.

Dan Pinello, 58, and Lee Nissensohn, 50, entered the building about 3:30 Monday afternoon.

Town Clerk Steven L. Labriola told the couple he was "precluded by law" from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

"We're not trying to make statements here, we're trying to do our jobs," he later told Newsday.

Pinello and Nissensohn have been together for 15 years but say New York's ban on same-sex marriage treats them like strangers.

When they refused to budge police were called.

Outside the building a small group of supporters held signs supporting gay marriage. The demonstrators chanted, "Let Dan and Lee Marry."

Two hours later Pinello and Nissensohn emerged without their marriage license but with tickets for trespassing.

"We are law-abiding citizens," Pinello, a government professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, told Newsday. "We pay our taxes. We have no other choice left."

In 2006 the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, ruled that same-sex couples do not have a constitutional right to marry. It said that the issue, however, could be taken up by the Legislature.

Last year, then-Gov. Eliot Spitzer became the first governor in the country to introduce same-sex marriage legislation.

The bill passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly in June but Republicans who control the Senate have refused to consider the legislation.

Pinello and Nissensohn said they hoped their protest would pressure Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno (R) to bring the marriage bill to a vote on the Senate floor.

A spokesperson for Bruno said Tuesday that the Majority Leader has not changed his mind on opposing same-sex marriage.

Anti-Gay Amendment Advances In Arizona

y 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: April 23, 2008 - 11:00 am ET

(Phoenix, Arizona) A proposed amendment that would prevent same-sex couples in Arizona from marrying has passed the House and if approved in the state Senate will appear on the ballot in November.

The measure gained preliminary passage Tuesday in the House and following the technicality of a roll-call vote will be sent to the Senate.

The proposed amendment defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

The measure has had a roller coaster ride in House.

Earlier this month, just before the House was to vote Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D) added a clause to the bill that would grant unmarried couples, both same and opposite-sex, many of the rights of marriage but without the name. (story)

With the additional clause in place the House voted 28-27 to give the measure preliminary approval. The bill's chief sponsor in the House, Jim Weiers (R), angrily denounced the maneuver and dropped the bill from a final vote saying the change in the bill made the ban on gay marriage meaningless.

Last week Weiers re-introduced his original bill. The House approved it Tuesday on a voice vote without discussion.

This time Sinema did not add the additional clause.

The proposed amendment is narrower that one defeated by voters in 2006.

That attempt, in addition to nixing gay marriage, would have barred civil unions and blocked all three levels of government from offering domestic partner benefits.

Public opinion polls have showed that while most people in the state oppose same-sex marriage they do not want to enshrine that in the constitution.

Gay Couples Face Problems Divorcing

by The Associated Press

Posted: April 15, 2008 - 5:00 pm ET

(Providence, Rhode Island) Gay couples had to struggle mightily to win the right to marry or form civil unions. Now, some are finding that breaking up is hard to do, too.

In Rhode Island, for example, the state's top court ruled in December that gays married in neighboring Massachusetts can't get divorced here because lawmakers have never defined marriage as anything but a union between a man and woman. In Missouri, a judge is deciding whether a lesbian married in Massachusetts can get an annulment.

"We all know people who have gone through divorces. At the end of that long and unhappy period, they have been able to breathe a sigh of relief," said Cassandra Ormiston of Rhode Island, who is splitting from her wife, Margaret Chambers. But "I do not see that on my horizon, that sigh of relief that it's over."

Over the past four years, Massachusetts has been the only state where gay marriage is legal, while nine other states allow gay couples to enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships that offer many of the rights and privileges of marriage. The vast majority of these unions require court action to dissolve.

Gay couples who still live in the state where they got hitched can split up with little difficulty; the laws in those states include divorce or dissolution procedures for same-sex couples. But gay couples who have moved to another state are running into trouble.

Massachusetts, at least early on, let out-of-state gay couples get married there practically for the asking. But the rules governing divorce are stricter. Out-of-state couples could go back to Massachusetts to get divorced, but they would have to live there for a year to establish residency first.

"I find that an unbelievably unfair burden. I own a home here, my friends are here, my life is here," said Ormiston, who is resigned to moving to Massachusetts for a year.

It's not clear how many gay couples have sought a divorce.

In Massachusetts, where more than 10,000 same-sex couples have married since 2004, the courts don't keep a breakdown of gay and heterosexual divorces. But Joyce Kauffman, a member of the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association, said probably more than 100 gay divorces have been granted in Massachusetts, and possibly many more.

She said she suspects the divorce rate among gays is lower than that among heterosexual couples, because many of the same-sex couples who got married in Massachusetts had probably been together for years.

Vermont has dissolved 2 percent of the 8,666 civil unions performed there since they became legal in 2000. Those numbers do not include couples who split up in another state.

Chambers and Ormiston wed in Massachusetts in 2004 and filed for divorce in 2006. But the Rhode Island Supreme Court last winter refused to recognize their marriage. That means at least 90 other gay couples from the state who got married in Massachusetts would not be able to divorce in Rhode Island if they wanted to.

Getting a divorce could prove toughest in some of the 40 states that have explicitly banned or limited same-sex unions, lawyers say.

In Missouri, which banned gay marriage in 2001, a conservative lawmaker has urged a judge not to grant an annulment to a lesbian married in Massachusetts.

Oregon started allowing gay couples to form domestic partnerships this year. But to prevent problems similar to those in Massachusetts, lawmakers added a provision that allows couples to dissolve their partnerships in Oregon even if they have moved out of state.

The measure is modeled on California's domestic partnership system and represents a major change in the usual rules governing jurisdiction.

"It's a novel concept in the family law area," said Oregon lawyer Beth Allen, who works with Basic Rights Oregon, a gay rights group.

Same-sex couples can form civil unions in Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire. They can enter into domestic partnerships or receive similar benefits in California, Oregon, Maine, Washington, Hawaii and the District of Columbia.

New York does not permit gay marriage, but a judge there has allowed a lesbian married in Canada to seek a divorce. In 2005, Iowa's Supreme Court upheld the breakup of a lesbian couple who entered into a civil union in Vermont.

Some Rhode Island lawmakers are pushing to legalize gay divorce. But Gov. Don Carcieri, a Republican who opposes gay marriage, is against the idea. So are church leaders in the heavily Roman Catholic state.

"Whatever name they want to give to it, it is a recognition of same-sex unions," said the Rev. Bernard Healey, a lobbyist for Catholic Diocese of Providence.

California governor not partisan when it comes to marriage

Governator To Fight Anti-Gay Amendment
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: April 11, 2008 - 8:00 pm ET

(San Diego, California) California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says that if an initiative to ban gay marriage qualifies for the November ballot, he's prepared to fight it.

California's governor spoke Friday in San Diego at the convention of the Log Cabin Republicans, the nation's largest gay Republican group.

He has previously vetoed bills that would have legalized gay marriage. Both times Schwarzenegger said that the courts or the people through a plebiscite should decide the issue.

The California Supreme Court took up same-sex marriage earlier this year. A decision by the court is expected by June 5th.

Conservative groups, supported by many California Republicans, are working to gather signatures to put a same-sex marriage constitutional ban on the November ballot.

Schwarzenegger said he was confident a ban would never pass in California and called the effort "a waste of time."

Schwarzenegger's remarks came during a public discussion with Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon about the future of the Republican Party.

Sammon asked the Governor whether he would oppose the effort to ban same-sex marriage.

Schwarzenegger replied: "First of all, I think that it [the marriage ban] will never happen in California. I think that California people are much further along on that issue. And, number two, I will always be there to fight against that. It will never happen."

The Governor's commitment to fight the proposed amendment drew cheers from Log Cabin members who gave him a standing ovation..

"His opposition to any anti-marriage amendment is great news," said Sammon. "He will be an important voice against this effort."

The commitment also drew praise from California's largest LGBT civil rights organization.

"[W]e are thrilled that he will be there with us to ‘fight against’ it should it qualify for the ballot," said Equality Cal;ifornia Executive Director Geoff Kors.

"Equality is not a partisan issue, and the governor demonstrated that with his statement today. His opposition to the constitutional amendment now in circulation adds to his record of supporting many LGBT issues, including signing at least 20 bills during his time in office."

Arizona Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment Appears Dead

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: April 4, 2008 - 3:00 pm ET

(Phoenix, Arizona) It looks as though a proposed amendment to the Arizona state Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage will not make it onto the ballot this November following a testy session in the legislature.

Bills that constitutionally limit would limit marriage to opposite-sex couples were filed earlier this year in both the House and Senate by Republican lawmakers and appeared to have enough support for passage.

But just before the House was to vote Rep. Kyrsten Sinema added a clause to the bill that would grant unmarried couples, both same and opposite-sex, many of the rights of marriage but without the name.

With the amendment in place the House voted 28-27 to give the measure preliminary approval. If it won final approval in both houses with the clause intact it would have gone to voters.

The bill's chief sponsor in the House, Jim Weiers (R), angrily denounced the maneuver saying it made the ban on gay marriage meaningless.

Weirs, through a spokesperson said the Phoenix Republican will drop the whole bill before it goes to a final vote.

The sponsor of the Senate version, Senate President Tim Bee (R) said he now sees no point in a vote in that chamber. Bee said that if the Senate version, which does not have the unmarried couples clause, were to pass there is no indication it would get through the House.

Opponents of same-sex marriage tried but failed in 2006 to get voters to approve a constitutional amendment.

The latest setback for gay-foes angered socially conservative Christian groups.

"We're looking at all options," Ron Johnson, a spokesperson for the Catholic bishops told the Arizona Star. The conservative Center for Arizona Policy said it believes that there could still be a way to resurrect the measure.

But LGBT rights organization Equality Arizona told the paper it believes the issue is now dead.

Survey shows increased support for gay marriage, (Ireland)

by www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk
Monday, March 31, 2008

The campaign group MarriagEquality says its latest survey shows increased public support for gay marriage in Ireland.
Eighty-four per cent of respondents to an opinion poll conducted this month by Lansdowne Market Research said they supported civil marriage or civil partnerships for gay and lesbian couples.

This is the same figure as a similar survey carried out in November 2006.

However, 58% said gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to marry in registry offices, compared to 51% in the previous survey.

Meanwhile, the number who said such couples should only be allowed to form civil partnerships was down from 33% to 26%.

Connecticut Gay Couples: Civil Unions Not Working

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: March 17, 2008 - 5:00 pm ET

(Hartford, Connecticut) Gay and lesbian couples told state lawmakers Monday that civil unions are not working and they provided evidence that the indentations of the law are not being followed.

Civil unions became legal in Connecticut in 2005. The accords same-sex couples most of the rights and obligations Connecticut gives married couples. But after more than two years since the law was passed many businesses, hospitals and government agencies still do not recognize them.

A bill introduced by Sen. Andrew McDonald (D) is intended to "clean up" technicalities and loopholes in the law.

Monday the legislature's Judiciary Committee held hearings and was told bluntly that the only thing that would work is to amend the law to provide for full marriage.

The issue of same-sex marriage is before the state Supreme Court. The Court heard arguments last May and has yet to rule.

McDonald, who is co-chair of the Judiciary Committee, attempted to bring in legislation last year to legalize same-sex marriage, but later he and co-chair Michael Lawlor (D) pulled it when it became apparent there were not enough votes for passage. Both McDonald and Lawlor are openly gay.

McDonald's "clean-up" bill would require commissioners of consumer protection, insurance, public health and revenue services, and the chief court and probate court administrators to study the problems encountered by civil union partners when seeking benefits. It then requires those agencies to correct the problems.

Many agencies, McDonald said, still offer only "single," "married," or "divorced" check-off options.

As an example he cited the case of a Hartford woman who was not allowed to have her partner cremated after she died of cancer.

"The funeral home said only the next of kin could sign" the paperwork, McDonald said.

Testifying Monday, Holly Robinson said nurses refused to put her name on her son's birth certificate last year after her partner delivered the infant. She says it took hours to find someone at the state public health department to clear up the matter.

Similar problems with civil unions occur in New Jersey and Vermont. Lawmakers in those states are considering whether to abandon civil unions in favor of marriage.

I great article by Andy Humm

Same-Sex Marriages, Death and Taxes
by Andy Humm
14 Mar 2008

"In this world, nothing is certain but death and taxes," Benjamin Franklin famously said. But for committed same-sex couples in New York, these are two areas of law, along with many others, remain far from settled. Here's a rundown of some key recent developments.

What Happens in Canada Doesn't Stay in Canada

In a ruling that could prove pivotal, a state appeals court last month decided that legal same-sex marriages established elsewhere must be respected by all public and private entities here, even though New York State does not license the marriages of gay couples (unless one is a gay man and the other is a lesbian woman).

The mid-level Appellate Division's 4th Department, a relatively conservative court, ruled unanimously on February 1 that a New York lesbian couple married in Canada could not be denied marital benefits from Monroe County Community College where one of the women works. The decision "rests on a century's old law--the marriage recognition rule," said Matt Faiella, a staff attorney with the http://www.nyclu.org New York Civil Liberties Union, which represented the women.

Even though the Court of Appeals, the state's highest, ruled in 2006 that the state did not have to grant same-sex couples the right to marry, the decision did not say that it could not do so. New York is one of a handful of states that has not passed a law forbidding recognition of gay marriages. And since same-sex marriage is not "abhorrent" to New York's public policy (as, say, a marriage between brother and sister would be), the upstate appellate court concluded that legal marriages of same-sex couples who wed in Canada must be given the same recognition as mixed gender Canadian marriages. It falls under the principle of "comity" whereby states and nations give effect to legal agreements from elsewhere.

While there are several other cases at the Appellate Court level involving recognition of same-sex marriages licensed elsewhere, the upstate decision applies to the entire state unless another division of the Appellate Court makes a contradictory ruling. And while Monroe County is trying to appeal the decision that they must recognize the marriage of two women, the state's high court does not have to hear its appeal and probably will not. (The New York Times did a good survey article on these cases and on a ruling that two women married in Canada but living here can dissolve their marriage only through divorce proceedings that one of the spouses is resisting.)

Thus, we have the somewhat wacky situation in New York in which a gay couple can go to Toronto to get married and come back to our state and be legally married under New York law, but they cannot go down to their local city hall and wed.

This is not the first time that New York has given legal recognition to out-of-state same-sex marriages. In 2004, then-Attorney General Eliot Spitzer unofficially opined, "Under state court precedent, same sex marriages and civil unions lawfully entered in other jurisdictions outside the state should be recognized in New York."

Also in 2004, then-State Comptroller Alan Hevesi began treating these couples as married under the State Retirement System. His move survived a lawsuit challenge by the conservative Alliance Defense Fund.

After he became governor, Spitzer ordered the Civil Service Department to recognize legally married same-sex couples in 2007, compelling any municipality linked to the state benefits system to do so as well. None of this is likely to be undone by new Gov. David Paterson since he has a longer and stronger record on gay rights, including marriage equality, than the man he replaces.

Legal Misrepresentation

Attorney General Andrew Cuomo filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Monroe County couple, but his office did not return calls on how his office will make sure all state departments comply with the court's decision. For now, at least, the state Department of Taxation and Finance is at odds with it.

In 2006, the department issued an advisory opinion in 2006 insisting that state law requires married couples to use the same filing status as they use on their federal tax forms. Since the federal government bans federal recognition of same-sex marriages under the Defense of Marriage Act, legally married same-sex couples -- even in Massachusetts, which license such marriages -- must file as single on their federal returns. On their state returns, gay married couples in Massachusetts must file as married. Since their state tax is based on the federal system, they then have to do two federal returns: one a "dummy" return to figure out what their state taxes would be as a married couple and the other, the real one for federal purposes, as single. New York is not allowing that.

Thomas Bergin, a spokesperson for the state tax department, said, "The law would have to be changed or revised" for gay married couples to be able to file as married in New York, but he conceded that their counsel had not reviewed how the Monroe County case might chnge that.

"We have asked the governor to take another look at that," Susan Sommer, senior counsel at Lambda Legal Defense, a gay advocacy group, said.

"State law requires allowing same-sex couples who are married to file as married," Sommer added. She would not go so far as to say that these couples should file as married in New York, but suggested they consult with their tax advisers and note on their state tax forms that they are married and are filing as single "under protest." "People should not have to swear under penalty of perjury that they are something that they're not," she said.

Mark Munroe, a certified public accountant in Manhattan who has many gay clients (including this reporter), said that he would advise people in same-sex marriages to file as unmarried per the official advisory opinion of the tax department. "If my clients felt strongly about it, I will file a joint return for them if they indemnify me for penalties," he said. As a practical matter, he said the only couples who would be significantly helped by filing jointly are those in which one of the spouses does not work.

New York City grants legal recognition to out-of-state same-sex marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships. The city Department of Finance was not immediately able to say whether the city's personal income tax takes these arrangements into consideration. Sam Miller, a spokesperson for the department, said that city income taxes are based entirely on state taxes, which, the state insists, are based on federal taxes.

'Til Death Do Us Part

The legal status of one's relationship plays a critical role in determining who gets to dispose of a person's remains and inherit their property. In a legal marriage, the spouse inherits the property tax free. If a married person dies without a will, his or her spouse automatically inherits the estate.

New York State does not marry gay couples, nor does it have registration for domestic partners or civil unions as New Jersey does. One of the only rights that domestic partners have from New York State is to control the remains of their dead partners. A bill establishing this slipped through with almost no objection in 2006.

Despite this law, death certificates in the state, including the city, do not list "domestic partner," under marital statuses that include "married, married but separated, widowed, divorced, never married and unknown." There is room for the name of a "surviving spouse," but not for a surviving domestic partner. Domestic partners in New York City -- same-sex and mixed sex -- have been able to register their partnerships since 1993 under an executive order by Mayor David Dinkins. The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, which issues death certificates, indicated that they are "aware of the issue" involving the partnerships and are "working to find a solution."

"We are working with them [the health department] on the fastest and most effective way for domestic partners to be listed on death certificates," said Anthony Hogrebe, a spokesperson for City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, herself an out lesbian

Brendan Fay, who married his husband, Thomas Moulton, in Toronto in 2003 and lives with him in Astoria, Queens, remembers the Canadian judge telling them that from that day forward, they were obligated to hold themselves out to the world as the married couple they are. They have -- even though the U.S. government won't recognize the marriage for immigration purposes (Fay is an Irish national.) Moulton has gotten marital benefits for Fay at his hospital job. Together, they help other same-sex couples travel to Canada to marry through their organization Civil Marriage Trail

"It's a pity gay couples have to go to all this expense to go to Canada to marry and be legally recognized in New York," Fay said. "I'm working for the day when they can marry right here in their home state and when the United States will give us marriage equality as well."

Andy Humm, a former member of the City Commission on Human Rights, has been in charge of the civil rights topic page since its inception in 2001. He is co-host of the weekly "Gay USA" on Manhattan Neighborhood Network (34 on Time-Warner; 107 on RCN) on Thursdays at 11 PM.

California Gay Couples Await Ruling

(San Francisco, California) Sometime within the next three months same-sex couples in California will learn if they will be allowed to marry. For most the wait will be excruciating.

For over three hours Tuesday the state Supreme Court heard arguments on both sides of the issue with justices peppering attorneys on both sides of the issue with tough questions.

The case dates back to 2004 when San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Some 8,000 couples exchanged vows before the state Supreme Court ruled Newsom had acted illegally.

The court nullified the marriages but said its ruling dealt only with Newsom's actions. The justices said at the time the question of whether barring same-sex couples from marrying violated the state's equal protection clause of its constitution was a separate matter.

Legal challenges on the constitutional question were begun almost immediately. Three separate suits ultimately were wrapped together into a single case.

In March 2005 a Superior Court judge in San Francisco ruled that the law denying same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said in a written ruling.

In striking down the state ban on same-sex marriage Kramer wrote that the state's historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians.

Kramer stayed his ruling while the state appealed.

In October, 2006, the California Court of Appeal in a split decision overturned Kramer's ruling.

The Supreme Court wrapped together three cases filed by nearly two dozen same-sex couples and a fourth by the city of San Francisco.

Large crowds began gathering in front of the courthouse at dawn. But noticeably absent were Del Martin, 87, and Phyllis Lyon, 84, the first pair to marry in San Francisco on Feb. 12, 2004.

At the time, they had been together for 51 years. They are one of 23 couples suing the state, but poor health kept them at home today.

"We have been in love for 31 years and are finally getting our day in court," said Myra Beals, who came from Mendocino, California to watch the arguments with her partner Ida Matson.

"It was encouraging to hear explained what we know so well from our years together - it is unfair and hurtful to be barred from the legal protections and universal societal recognition of marriage."

"I think I speak for everybody when I say that this has been a long time coming and a day that has been eagerly anticipated," said San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, as he entered the court.

The same-sex couples were represented by Lambda Legal, the ACLU and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

On the other side were Deputy Attorney General Christopher Krueger who represented the state of California and attorneys for two conservative social action groups opposed to same-sex marriage.

NCLR attorney Shannon Minter argued that denying gay and lesbian couples to marry violates the state constitution. Opponents argued that same-sex couples have domestic partnership law that is tantamount to marriage.

"We're very hopeful that California history will stay true today and we'll see the constitution vindicated for the thousands of families in California who depend on our equal place under law," said Lambda attorney Jennifer Pizer.

The justices have 90 days to issue a ruling.

In Sacramento openly gay Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) expressed cautious optimism.

Leno twice introduced bills in the legislature that would have allowed same-sex marriage. Both bills passed only to be vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"I am hopeful," said Leno, " that the California Supreme Court will reaffirm its position from 1948 when it historically ended its ban on interracial marriage, saying that, 'marriage is a fundamental right of free men... any legislation infringing such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws.'

"Those words are as true today as they were 60 years ago."

Gay Marriage Attracting Skilled Workers To Mass.

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: March 3, 2008 - 5:00 pm ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) Massachusetts is reaping huge financial gains as a result of same-sex marriage.

The Boston Business Journal reports that the only state in the country to allow gays to marry is become " a powerful lure for same-sex couples who want to live in a place where they can get married, gain legal rights and have access to spousal health benefits."

For decades the state has seen a brain drain despite having some of the most prestigious universities in the nation.

From 2003 to 2005, the population actually fell to 6,429,137 from 6,438,510, according to estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau obtained by the publican.

"Since the marriage law passed, we see a lot more (gay) professionals moving into the Boston area," Henry Hoey, a member of the Greater Boston Business Council, a chamber of commerce for gay professionals told the Journal.

Hoey said that the organization's membership has increased 5 percent to 1,100 members since last year. "The effects of this law are starting to take hold."

Recruitment agencies and other business groups also say they have seen an influx of same-sex couples - mostly professionals.

Attorney Jeffrey Webb and his partner Mark Schuster moved from Los Angeles to Massachusetts in December order to marry.

"That was something that was really important to us," Webb told the Journal.

He is now a partner and practices trial law with a well known Boston-area firm. Schuster is now the chief of general pediatrics and vice chair for health policy research at Children's Hospital Boston.

In 2003 the Supreme Judicial Court, the highest court in Massachusetts, struck down laws banning same-sex marriage and in 2004 the first gay couples began to wed. Since then more than 10,000 gay and lesbian couples have married in the state.

Calif. Supreme Court Hears Gay Marriage Case Next Week

Article by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: February 26, 2008 - 5:00 pm ET

(San Francisco, California) With one week to go until the California Supreme Court hears arguments for and against same-sex marriage gay and lesbian couples throughout the state are making plans to attend the landmark hearing.
The court has scheduled three hours for oral arguments on March 4. The justices then have 90 days to issue a ruling. If the case is successful it would make California the second state in the nation to allow same-sex couples to legally marry and likely lead to a rush for June weddings.

The case dates back to 2004 when San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Some 8,000 couples exchanged vows before the state Supreme Court ruled Newsom had acted illegally.

The court nullified the marriages but said its ruling dealt only with Newsom's actions. The justices said at the time the question of whether barring same-sex couples from marrying violated the state's equal protection clause of its constitution was a separate matter.

Legal challenges on the constitutional question were begun almost immediately. Three separate suits ultimately were wrapped together into a single case.

In March 2005 a Superior Court judge in San Francisco ruled that the law denying same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said in a written ruling.

In striking down the state ban on same-sex marriage Kramer wrote that the state's historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians.

Kramer stayed his ruling while the state appealed.

In October, 2006, the California Court of Appeal in a split decision overturned Kramer's ruling.

"The time may come when California chooses to expand the definition of marriage to encompass same-sex unions. That change must come from democratic processes, however, not by judicial fiat," the Appeals Court ruling said.

In a dissent, Justice Anthony Kline wrote, "[T]he inescapable effect of the analysis the majority adopts is to diminish the humanity of the lesbian and gay men whose rights are defeated. The right to marry is of fundamental important for all individuals."

The California legislature twice passed legislation that would permit same-sex couples to marry but both times Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bills.