MENY Marriage News

Wisconsin Gay Couples Could Face Jail For Marrying In California

noreply@blogger.com (Oxcy) — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 05:10:00 +0000

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: July 2, 2008 - 3:00 pm ET

(Madison, Wisconsin) Same-sex couples from Wisconsin who go to California to marry could find themselves facing criminal charges when they return home.

A little known Wisconsin law makes it a criminal offense to enter into a marriage outside the state if that marriage were illegal in Wisconsin.

While the law was passed decades ago to prevent underage couples from crossing state lines to marry it could be used against same-sex couples the Madison Capital Times reported Wednesday.

The penalty is a fine of up to $10,000, nine months in prison, or both.

Wisconsin law limits marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Same-sex marriage became legal in California following a state Supreme Court ruling that went into effect June 17. Unlike Massachusetts which limits gay marriage only to out-of-state couples whose marriages would be legal at home the California ruling opened up marriage to anyone.

LGBT civil rights group Fair Wisconsin is warning couples they could face arrest if they marry in California.

It is not known how many gay and lesbian couples from the state have wed in California. One couple from Madison who are preparing to marry say they are willing to take the chance.

"It would be interesting to be prosecuted," Bob Klebba who is planning to marry longtime partner David Waugh told the Capital Times. "It would really bring up a reaction in the public sentiment."

In 2006, Wisconsin voters approved a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Fair Wisconsin said it is now focusing its efforts on seeking passage of bills granting recognition of domestic partnerships.

Spokesperson Glenn Carlson said he is hopeful of getting a bill passed in the next session of the legislature.

THE OPPOSITION: Conservatives wrong to fight gay marriage

noreply@blogger.com (Joe) — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:03:00 +0000

By Terry L. Garlock
For the Journal-Constitution
Published on: 06/20/08

Conservatives in California are working furiously to stop the avalanche of same-sex marriages following the recent state Supreme Court ruling.

Personally, I am repulsed by public displays of romantic affection between two men, or two women. Those who would call me names like homophobe, as if I fear homosexuality, diminish themselves in my eyes. It's just that same-sex pairs are instinctively unnatural to me. The mental image of a wedding ceremony joining two men who seal the bargain with a deep kiss makes me squirm.

But here's where I think my fellow conservatives have it wrong.

That wedding ceremony wouldn't be about me or my personal discomfort. It would be about those two people who love each other and decided to publicly announce their permanent mutual commitment. Should my personal attitudes prevent them from doing that? Should my religious beliefs keep them legally unrelated even if they remain committed to each other for life?

While I am free to have my personal disquiet about homosexuality, am I also free to interfere with their desire to be recognized as a family unit? If they are a permanent couple, should my aversion withhold from a lifelong pair the same rights as family for hospital visitation, for consultation with doctors when one is ill and maybe even dying?

Is it right that we tell a committed lesbian couple they cannot marry, and at the same time tell them they cannot inherit from each other tax-free at the first death, like a married couple, because they are not married, that they must pay estate taxes that quickly climb to 50 percent and cannot take spousal advantage of income tax, Social Security and other benefits of a married couple?

I appreciate strong religious beliefs against same-sex marriage, and a church has every right to prohibit the practice for its members. Marriage is a legal status to which we are free to choose to add religious covenants, but those religious covenants should not govern the legal status of marriage, especially since we are free to choose our religion and even free to reject religion entirely. We shouldn't codify religious beliefs into law.

What about the extremes of the gay and lesbian lifestyle, in-your-face promiscuity, unsavory public displays of drag queens and preying on the young and vulnerable? I don't want my kids or yours exposed to any of that. But I don't want them exposed to extremes on the heterosexual side either, like pedophiles, strip bars, sex clubs or just promiscuous people.

I object to extreme or public sexual behavior, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Is it right to penalize a same-sex couple because we somehow presume them to be extreme and inappropriate in their public behavior when we make no such presumption about straight couples?

Would a married gay couple moving next door create some discomfort for me as I explain it to my children? Darn right it would. I would undoubtedly squirm in that discussion. But life doesn't guarantee my comfort, and whether they keep their yard looking nice is my business, whereas their personal relationship is not.

I've given this a lot of thought, and I think my prior stand against same-sex marriage was based on my personal thoughts about homosexuality rather than individual liberty. Those are two separate issues. My uneasiness may never go away, no matter how many names the enlightened ones call me, but the freedom of same-sex couples does not depend on my endorsement of their lifestyle.

As a conservative, I believe the state should stay out of the business of judging which unrelated adults may and may not make a marriage commitment to each other, that when a same-sex couple chooses to marry, we conservatives should value their liberty far more than any personal or religious disagreement with homosexuality. Conservatives should welcome the contribution of same-sex marriage to the virtues of commitment and family stability we hold so dear.

Please don't think me a liberal for these ideas. I can't help but think Democrats are out of their mind. I'll vote for Sen. John McCain because, unlike Sen. Barack Obama, he is only half out of his mind.

But I do believe my Republican Party is dead wrong on same-sex marriage and should re-examine it deeply and seriously through the lens of individual liberty and freedom rather than disagreement with homosexuality.

We citizens should judge each other on how we behave, not who we love.

> Terry L. Garlock lives in Peachtree City.

Powerful Gay Marriage Opponent Bruno Won't Seek Re-Election To NYS Senate

noreply@blogger.com (Oxcy) — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:03:00 +0000

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: June 24, 2008 - 5:00 pm ET

(Albany, New York) The top Republican in New York State and its most vocal opponent of LGBT civil rights, Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, has confirmed he will not seek re-election.

The 79-year-old state Senate Majority Leader has used his power to consistently block pro-gay legislation.

Last year the NYS Assembly passed legislation that would allow same-sex couples to marry. The measure had the approval of then Gov. Elliott Spitzer and most recently current Gov. David Paterson.

Bruno has refused to allow the bill to be considered in the Senate.

For seven years in a row the Assembly passed the Dignity For All Students Act. Bruno opposed the anti-bullying bill in the Senate over its inclusion of gender identity.

Bruno also opposed the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act, or GENDA, which bans discrimination against transgender people in housing, employment, credit, public accommodations, and other areas of everyday life.

Considered the oldest serving state legislative leader in the country, has run the Senate for more than a dozen years and has been the state's top Republican since 2006.

He was known as a formidable opponent who crippled the administration of Democratic Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who resigned amid a prostitution scandal in March.

Bruno turned a story about his own use of state aircraft against Spitzer, accusing the governor's aides of political espionage and misuse of state police. Several investigations followed and although no charges resulted, Bruno used them to erode Spitzer's once historic popularity.

Bruno has had his own problems. He has been under an FBI investigation for more than a year in a prove which appears to be looking at his business associates outside of state government.

The investigation stems from an ongoing inquiry begun in late 2005 by the state Lobbying Commission into the relationship between the Senate leader and an Albany-area businessman, Jared Abbruzzese.

Democrats control the Assembly with a healthy lead but with the GOP holding a slim majority in the Senate Republicans are searching for a new leader who will maintain control of the upper house.

Cali, the first week.

noreply@blogger.com (Oxcy) — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:55:00 +0000

Calif. City Halls Swamped With Gay Couples Seeking Marriage Licenses

by The Associated Press

Posted: June 17, 2008 - 12:45 pm ET
Updated 3:00 pm ET, 5:00 pm ET

(San Francisco, California) County clerk offices across California were busy Tuesday coping with crowds on the first full day of same-sex marriages.

A gay men's chorus was singing on the front steps of San Francisco City Hall, brightened up by rainbow flags and supporters handing out cupcakes to happy couples.

Helen Zia and Lia Shigemura sang "The Chapel of Love" as they walked to the city attorney's office to get married. The couple, clad in beige jackets and slacks, exchanged vows with Zia's mother by their side.

"This is the most meaningful day of my life. I've always wanted to get married," Shigemura said. "I just never thought it'd be possible."

From San Diego to Eureka, couples readied their formal wear, local licensing clerks expanded their staffs and conservative groups warned of a backlash as the nation's most populous state joined Massachusetts in sanctioning gay unions.

Some couples were from out of state. Unlike Massachusetts, which legalized same-sex marriage in 2004, California has no residency requirement for marriage licenses.

The May 15 California Supreme Court ruling that overturned the state's bans on same-sex marriage became final at 5:01 p.m. Monday, and clerks in at least five counties extended their hours to mark the occasion.

Already, dozens of same-sex couples have seized the opportunity to make their relationships official in the eyes of the law.

In West Hollywood, more than 100 people, wearing everything from T-shirts to tuxedoes, were in line Tuesday morning in front of an auditorium that was turned into a licensing center in the city's main park. Six white cabanas with chandeliers and silk flowers were ready for weddings.

Among those getting marriage licenses were actor and gay rights activist George Takei and his longtime partner, Brad Altman; they are planning a September wedding.

"Today we are all here to give flesh and blood reality to that ruling. We are going to make history," said Takei, who played Sulu in the "Star Trek" television series and movies. "Congratulations to all of us and may equality live long and prosper."

Every county was required to start issuing new gender-neutral marriage licenses Tuesday with spaces for "Party A" and "Party B" where "bride" and "groom" used to be.

"Am I Party A or Party B?" Contra Costa County Clerk Stephen Weir jokingly asked his partner of 18 years, John Hemm.

They were the first to marry at Weir's office Tuesday morning. Outside, three opponents of gay marriage from the Westboro Baptist Church picketed, carrying signs with sayings such as "God is your enemy."

Members of the sect are most often seen at military funerals in demonstrations claiming U.S. combat deaths are God's punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.

The protesters were easily outnumbered by about three dozen supporters of gay marriage, who held signs that read "Hate is not a family value" and "My marriage is not threatened by theirs, why is yours?" Police vehicles lined up near the demonstrators.

On Monday, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who helped start the series of lawsuits that led the court to strike down California's one-man-one-woman marriage laws, presided at the wedding of Del Martin, 87, and Phyllis Lyon, 83.

Newsom picked the couple for the only ceremony Monday in City Hall to recognize their 55-year relationship and their status as pioneers of the gay rights movement. More than 650 same-sex couples have made appointments to get marriage licenses in San Francisco before the end of the month.

Newsom called officiating the wedding "this extraordinary and humbling gift." After the mayor pronounced Martin and Lyon "spouses for life," the couple kissed, then emerged to a crowd of well-wishers who showered them with rose petals.

Calif. Supreme Court Asked To Kill Anti-Gay Proposed Amendment

by The Associated Press

Posted: June 23, 2008 - 6:00 am ET

(San Francisco, California) Gay rights advocates have asked California's highest court to keep off the November ballot a citizens' initiative that would again ban same-sex marriage.

Lawyers for Equality California filed a petition Friday arguing that the proposed amendment to the California Constitution should be invalidated because its impact was not made clear to the millions of voters who signed petitions to qualify the measure before the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions.

"This court has recognized that gay and lesbian couples have a fundamental right to marry and, as of June 16, such couples have been getting married across the state," the petition states.

"Rather than effecting 'no change' in existing California law, the proposed initiative would dramatically change existing law by taking that fundamental right away and inscribing discrimination based on a suspect classification into our state Constitution."

The petition also claims the so-called California Marriage Protection Act should be disqualified because it would revise, rather than amend, the state Constitution by altering its fundamental guarantee of equality for all - in essence writing a law the state high court has already found unconstitutional into the constitution.

"If enacted, it would alter the underlying principles on which the California Constitution is based and make far-reaching changes in the nature of our basic government plan, by severely compromising the core constitutional principle of equal citizenship (and) ... by destroying the courts' quintessential power and role of protecting minorities," it states.

Unlike a constitutional amendment that can be approved by voters, a constitutional revision requires convening a Constitutional convention or the appointment of a commission to recommend changes to the Legislature and voters, according to the petition submitted by same-sex marriage supporters.

"For good reason, there's a strict process for making revisions to our Constitution, and it's more involved than simply collecting petition signatures," said attorney Stephen Bomse in a statement posted on the Web site of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, another petitioner in the case.

"That process is in place to safeguard our basic form of government, especially the most basic principle of equal protection of the laws."

The petition names Secretary of State Debra Bowen and the measure's sponsors, a coalition of religious and social conservative groups called ProtectMarriage.com, as defendants.

Since Bowen's office already has certified the amendment for the fall election, a spokeswoman says she can remove it only through a court order.

"She has a ministerial duty to certify any initiative when they qualify through the petition process, and she can't remove an initiative without a judge's order," said Kate Folmar, a spokeswoman for the secretary of state.

The last time the state Supreme Court was asked to decide if a proposition should remain on the ballot was 2005, when it did so twice. In both decisions, the propositions were allowed to stay on the special election ballot.

In both 2005 cases, the state Supreme Court overturned lower courts who had taken the propositions off the ballot. The propositions were a redistricting initiative backed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and another that would have re-regulated the state's electricity market.

The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, which represents the measure's sponsors, called the petition a desperate move it would fight.

"This is just another attempt to force a radical political agenda upon the people of California," said Defense Fund senior counsel Glen Lavy. "The opponents of marriage are willing to use any means necessary to impose their will."

New Yorkers Support Recognition Of Gay Marriages

noreply@blogger.com (Oxcy) — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:44:00 +0000

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: June 12, 2008 - 3:00 pm ET

(New York City) A majority of New Yorkers say they support Gov. David Paterson�s executive order recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples who were married in areas where they are legal according to new survey of likely voters.

The Quinnipiac University poll found that 53 percent agree with Paterson's order last month to state agencies. Forty percent were opposed.

But at the same time, voters said by 55 to 30 percent that that it should been decided by the legislature not the governor.

Paterson issued the ruling last month after a court in Monroe County ruled that gay marriages in other jurisdictions must be upheld in New York.

Even though New York State recognizes same-sex marriages performed in areas where they are legal, gay and lesbian couples cannot marry in New York.

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 last June but Republicans who control the Senate have refused to consider the legislation.

Republicans and conservative social action groups have filed a lawsuit against Paterson over his executive order.

Thursday's Quinnipiac also asked New Yorkers if same-sex couples should be allowed to marry or form civil unions in the state.

Forty-two percent said same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry; 31 percent favored civil unions, but not marriage; and 21 percent said there should be no legal recognition of same-sex unions in any form.

Conservative Groups Mount New Challenge To Calif. Gay Marriage

noreply@blogger.com (Oxcy) — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:43:00 +0000

by The Associated Press

Posted: June 12, 2008

(San Francisco, California) A conservative Christian legal group on Thursday made a last-ditch effort to stop gay marriage from becoming legal in California by asking a midlevel appeals court to temporarily prohibit county clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The Virginia-based Liberty Counsel, in a petition with the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco, argued that the wording of the California Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriages allows the lower court to set the terms and schedule for implementing the decision.

Liberty Counsel argued that the high court's May 15 ruling put dozens of state laws addressing marriage into conflict and that the Legislature needs time to address those issues.

Barring any further legal intervention, gay couples will be able to start marrying in California at 5:01 p.m. Monday, when the Supreme Court's decision becomes final. The ruling to legalize gay marriage overturned a decision by the Court of Appeal, which is therefore required to issue an order consistent with the high court's 4-3 opinion.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera called Liberty Counsel's filing "absurd."

"I am not aware of a process in American law that enables parties to effectively appeal a higher court ruling to a lower court," Herrera said.

The fight around the world: Update.

noreply@blogger.com (Oxcy) — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:38:00 +0000

Norway adopts gay marriage law
June 12th OSLO (AFP) �

Norway's parliament on Wednesday adopted a new marriage law that allows homosexuals to marry and adopt children and permits lesbians to be artificially inseminated.

After a heated debate, the members of parliament adopted the text by a vote of 84 to 41.
The three centre-left coalition parties in power and two opposition parties, the Conservatives and the Liberals, voted largely in favour of the law, while the Christian Democrats and the far-right Progress Party voted against it.
Norway thus became the sixth country in the world to grant homosexuals the right to marry on an equal footing with heterosexuals, according to Norwegian television TV2.

"This decision is of an importance comparable to universal suffrage and our law on parity," Labour Party rapporteur Gunn Karin Gjul said during the debate.
The most controversial part of the law is that which gives lesbians the right to be artificially inseminated. The sperm donor must be identified so that the child can seek out his or her biological father at the age of 18.
"We are now creating a system where the father is reduced to a sperm sample," lamented Ulf Erik Knudsen, a member of the far-right.

Outside the parliament, a handful of opponents protested with posters reading "Have fathers become superfluous?" and "Parliament has no mandate to change the laws of nature."
Among other things, the new legislation replaces a so-called "partnership law" adopted in 1993 which gave Norwegian homosexuals the right to civil unions.

Health care workers who do not want to perform artificial inseminations on lesbians because of their personal convictions will not be under any obligation to carry out the procedure.
The new law is expected to enter into force at the end of this year or early next year.
Homosexuality was illegal until 1972 in Norway, a country which has since become one of the most liberal in the world in the field.

In local news.

noreply@blogger.com (Oxcy) — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:37:00 +0000

No charges for gay couple seeking marriage license

BY APRIL WARREN | april.warren@newsday.com
June 10, 2008

Charges against a gay couple from Roslyn who refused to leave Oyster Bay Town Hall when their request for a marriage license was denied were dismissed yesterday. Judge Fred Hirsh said the couple posed no threat to the community and had cooperated with authorities. [CORRECTION: The name of the judge who dismissed trespass charges against a gay couple seeking a marriage license in Oyster Bay was incorrect in a story yesterday. The judge was Stanley A. Smolkin. (A17 ALL 6/11/2008)]

The two men, Dan Pinello, 58, a political science professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and Lee Nissensohn, 50, a dentist, applied for a marriage license April 28. When they remained at Town Hall after it closed at 4:45 p.m., they were issued summonses for trespassing.

Yesterday, Pinello and Nissensohn bounded into the Fourth District Court in Hempstead for their arraignment, with close to a dozen supporters holding signs of support.

"We don't want special rights, we just want equal rights," said Nissensohn outside the courthouse before the charges were dropped.

Pointing to a heterosexual couple who were supporting them, Pinello said, "They have been together for less than one year and have more rights in New York State than Lee and I."

The couple had reached out to local politicians for support.

"I don't know why an issue so important as this is not allowed to be debated and voted upon," said State Assemb. Chuck Lavine (D-Glen Cove), who voted in favor of a bill last year that would legalize gay marriage.

The bill passed the Democratic-controlled Assembly. The Republican-controlled Senate has yet to vote on the measure.

The couple met through a personal ad in The Village Voice and have been together for 13 years.

"I want him to be happy," said Lee's mother, Sydell Nissensohn, 75, from Brooklyn. "You always want your children to be happy."

If they had been convicted, they would have been ordered to pay a fine ranging from $250 to $500, said the couple's attorney, E. Christopher Murray, president of the Nassau County chapter of the New York Civil Liberties Union.

"They did the cause for marriage equality a great service," said Murray.

Another supporter, Melinda Smith, 34, of Syosset, said the arrest of the couple "put a local face on the cause."

"It made it personal," she said.

Same-sex marriage FAQ Cali

noreply@blogger.com (Oxcy) — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:35:00 +0000

Here are some frequently asked questions about same-sex marriages, which are scheduled to begin in California later this month.

-Mary Anne Ostrom, Mercury News

Q What will happen to marriages that occur before the November election if voters approve an amendment to the state constitution that restores a ban on gay marriage?

A Those marriages are likely to be the subject of another legal challenge. Gay-marriage opponents argue the ballot measure would render the marriage licenses invalid, but civil rights lawyers say those legal rights cannot be taken away retroactively. Legal experts say courts generally do not reach back in time and take away legal rights that were already in place.
Q When do the weddings start?

A Same-sex marriages will begin Tuesday, June 17. Santa Clara County is highly recommending appointments for couples of any sexual orientation. To make one, call (408) 299-5664. The cost of a license is $79, and it's $80 for the ceremony, if you choose the Civic Center as the venue. The Clerk-Recorders Office is on the first floor at 70 W. Hedding St. A chapel, which fits 22, is in the lower level.
Q What will be different?

A The words "Bride" and "Groom" have been replaced with "Party A" and "Party B" on all marriage license applications.
Q Who will perform the marriage ceremonies?

A If you choose the civic center for your ceremony, the
Advertisement

county will provide a deputized marriage commissioner. Any adult county resident can apply to be a marriage commissioner, but applicants must complete an orientation class. For more information, call (408) 299-5664.
Q Who can get married?

A Any two unmarried adults 18 or older, regardless of residency or citizenship. (Juvenile courts rule on younger marriages). Registered domestic partners in California, however, can only marry that partner, unless the most recent domestic partnership has been terminated or a final judgment of dissolution or nullity has been entered, or the domestic partnership terminated due to death.

For more information, go to www.clerkrecorder.org.

Cali.... we are down to the last days

noreply@blogger.com (Oxcy) — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:28:00 +0000

Lawsuits in defense of gay marriage can backfire, activist groups warn
Legal actions to make the U.S. or other states recognize California unions could lead to 'bad' rulings and setbacks in the movement, activists say.
By Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
June 11, 2008
SAN FRANCISCO -- -- With only a few days left before gays can marry in California, nine major gay rights groups asked couples Tuesday not to sue the federal government or other states to have their California nuptials recognized, saying that legal action could harm the marriage equality movement.

In an unusual six-page memorandum, written for same-sex couples, groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to Lambda Legal warned that lawsuits would invite "bad" court rulings that could take years to overturn. Read on!!

Will Gay Marriage Save Cash-Strapped Calif?
by The Associated Press

Posted: June 11, 2008 - 8:00 am ET

(San Francisco, California) The flowers have been selected, the Veterans' Memorial Center has been booked, and the three-piece band has been chosen. The e-invitations have gone out and relatives are flying in. The brides - and there will be two of them - might not have time to buy something new to wear, but that's OK.

Shelly Bailes and Ellen Pontac, who have been together for 34 years, do not want to wait a day longer than necessary to tie the knot now that California's Supreme Court has legalized gay marriage. They had five weeks to plan a June 21 reception for 250 people. the rest

Longtime lesbian couple to kick off gay marriage in S.F.

The Associated Press
Article Launched: 06/10/2008 10:14:17 AM PDT

SAN FRANCISCO�Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon's nuptials at City Hall ignited the gay wedding spree that thrust San Francisco into the national spotlight in 2004.
Now the city plans to stage a repeat of the ceremony, this time as the first one held once gay marriage is legal in California at 5 p.m. on June 16.
Mayor Gavin Newsom, who officiated at the 2004 ceremony and plans to do the same next week, said Monday that Martin and Lyon's will be the only gay wedding held at City Hall on June 16. The clerk's office will issue licenses for other couples beginning June 17. the rest

Wedding Plans Underway In Calif. As Foes Rally Offensive

noreply@blogger.com (Oxcy) — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:40:00 +0000

by The Associated Press

Posted: June 5, 2008 - 7:00 am ET

(San Francisco, California) Gay and lesbian couples around California are planning their nuptials following a refusal by the state's highest court to delay its decision legalizing same-sex marriage.

The California Supreme Court's announcement Wednesday cleared the final hurdle for same-sex couples in the nation's most populous state to wed beginning June 17, when state officials have said counties must start issuing new gender-neutral marriage licenses.

Judy Appel, executive director of Our Family Coalition, a San Francisco-based group that advocates for same-sex couples with children, said she was thrilled by the court's refusal to stay the ruling.

"Today is a great day for not only for every lesbian and gay couple who wants to get married, but for every Californian who believes in fairness and equal opportunity for all," said Appel, a mother of two who plans to marry her partner of 16 years in coming months.

Conservative religious and legal groups had asked the justices to stop its May 15 order requiring state and local officials to sanction same-sex unions from becoming effective until voters have the chance to consider the issue in November. The justices' decisions typically become final after 30 days.

An initiative to ban gay marriage has qualified for the Nov. 4 ballot. Its passage would overrule the court's decision by amending the state constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman.

In arguing for a delay, the amendment's sponsors predicted chaos if couples married in the next few months, only to have the practice halted - or nullified - at the ballot box.

The attorneys general from 11 states had submitted briefs backing that claim. California does not have a residency requirement or waiting period for obtaining marriage licenses, forcing other states to consider whether it would recognize California gay marriages.

The four justices who denied the stay request - three of them appointed by Republican governors - were the same judges who joined in the majority opinion that found withholding marriage from same-sex couples constituted discrimination. The three dissenting justices said they thought a hearing on whether the stay should be granted was warranted.

Ronald Prentice, executive director of the coalition sponsoring the November measure, predicted the court's refusal to put the brakes on its historic ruling would motivate gay marriage opponents to vote for the ban.

"Certainly it was our hope that one or more members of the majority decision would recognize that they had overstepped their bounds, and would allow the November vote to speak on behalf of the state's citizens," Prentice said. "We are obviously disappointed by their continued arrogance to overrule the will of the people."

Glen Lavy, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, which filed the leading stay request and is part of a coalition backing the fall ballot measure, said taking the issue to the federal courts was not an option because the Supreme Court did not give his group legal standing in the case.

"This was a 4-3 vote for legal chaos," Lavy said. "This refusal to wait until the constitutional process is played out confirms that this is kind of agenda-driven."

Gay rights advocates had urged the court to let same-sex marriages begin as quickly as possible, arguing there was no legal basis for continuing to subject gay couples to unequal treatment.

"It would be unprecedented to postpone constitutional rights based on a speculation of how a political scenario may or may not have played out," said San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, whose office represented the city in successfully suing to overturn California's one man-one woman marriage laws.

California has an estimated 108,734 same-sex households, according to 2006 U.S. Census figures. The state already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners many of the legal rights and responsibilities afforded to married couples, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.

In its May 15 ruling, the high court struck down state laws against same-sex marriage and said domestic partnerships are not enough.

Backers of the fall initiative now hope to add California to the list of 26 states that have approved constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. It is unclear whether marriages performed before the fall election would be nullified if the amendment passes. Some legal scholars have said the Supreme Court might get called on again to settle that question.

Despite the uncertainty, hundreds of couples already have scheduled appointments to obtain marriage licenses at San Francisco City Hall on June 17 and in the weeks after.

Mayor Gavin Newsom said the city planned to have extended hours to avoid "a mass wedding," and has asked the state for permission to begin issuing the licenses on June 16.

"We want to allow for hundreds, if not thousands, of people to come to San Francisco to start their lives together," Newsom said.

Suit Seeks To Stop Recognitions Of Gay Marriages In NY

noreply@blogger.com (Oxcy) — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:03:00 +0000

by The Associated Press

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

(New York City)A Christian legal organization says it has sued to stop New York from recognizing same-sex marriages legally performed in other states.

The Alliance Defense Fund says it filed its lawsuit Tuesday in a court in the Bronx. Several Republican state senators are named as party to the suit.

Gay marriage is unconstitutional in New York. Gov. David Paterson however told state agencies on May 14 that New York must recognize same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts, Canada and other places where they are legal.

The Arizona-based legal group filing the lawsuit has intervened elsewhere in gay marriage and religious freedom cases including those involving abortion and what it calls traditional family values.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
here is the list of elected Petitioner

Martin J. Golden Senator for New York�s 22nd Senate District.
946 Legislative Office Building Albany, NY 12247 (518) 455-2730

District Office
7408-5th Avenue Brooklyn, New York 11209 (718) 238-6044 (718) 238-6170 (fax)

District Office 3610 Quentin Road Brooklyn, New York 11234 (718) 627-3659 (718) 627-3820 (fax)

Serphin R. Maltese Senator for New York�s 15th Senate District.

Albany Office Room 413 Capitol Albany, NY 12247 518-455-3281 FAX: 518-426-6951

District Office 71-04 Myrtle Avenue Glendale, New York, NY 11385 718-497-1800 FAX: 718-386-7803

District Office 157-02 Cross Bay Boulevard Howard Beach, New York, NY 11414 718-738-0049 FAX: 718-738-8560

James N. Tedisco is Assemblyman for New York�s 110th Assembly District.

District Office 12 Jay Street Schenectady, NY 12305 518-370-2812

Albany Office LOB 933 Albany, NY 12248 518-455-3751

Daniel J. Burling Assemblyman for New York�s 147th Assembly District.

District Office 2371 North Main Street Warsaw, NY 14569 585-786-0180

Albany Office LOB 635 Albany, NY 12248 518-455-5314

Brian M. Kolb Assemblyman for New York�s 129th Assembly District.

District Office 607 West Washington St. Suite 2 Geneva, NY 14456 315-781-2030

Albany Office LOB 446 Albany, NY 12248 518-455-5772

a copy of the suit

Gay Marriage Ban Qualifies For Calif. Ballot

noreply@blogger.com (Oxcy) — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:03:00 +0000

by The Associated Press

Posted: June 3, 2008 - 6:30 am ET

(San Francisco, California) An initiative that would again outlaw gay marriage in California has qualified for the November ballot, the Secretary of State announced Monday.

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen said a random check of signatures submitted by the measure's sponsors showed that they had gathered enough names for it to be put to voters.

The measure would amend the state constitution to "provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

If approved by a majority of voters on Nov. 4, the amendment would overturn the recent California Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state. It is similar to gay marriage bans that have been adopted in 26 other states.

"This signifies the fact that California voters really do favor and will come out to vote for the protection of historic marriage," said Ron Prentice, executive director of ProtectMarriage.com, a coalition of religious and social conservative groups behind the initiative.

In response to the court's May 15 ruling, California public health officials already have amended marriage license applications to read "Party A" and "Party B" instead of bride and groom. Local officials have been told to start issuing the revised licenses to same-sex couples on June 17.

Gay men and lesbians would still be able to get married between then and the election, even with the initiative pending, unless the court agrees to stay its decision until after Nov. 4, as the amendment's sponsors have requested.

If the marriages proceed during the next five months, it is unclear whether they would be nullified if the amendment passes. Some legal scholars have said the state Supreme Court might get called on again to settle that question.

Kate Kendell, executive director of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights, said gay marriage advocates have already launched a campaign to defeat the measure.

"There is just so much at stake, now, in terms of what kind of state we are going to live in and what values we are going to uphold," Kendell said.

To qualify for the ballot, the measure needed 694,354 petition signatures, an amount equal to 8 percent of the votes cast during the last governor's race.

Proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures in late April, and county clerks determined the measure qualified by verifying the validity of 3 percent of the signatures they received, according to Bowen.

Recent polls have found California voters are about evenly split on whether gay couples should be allowed to marry.

NY: challenge to civil marriage rights already underway

noreply@blogger.com (Oxcy) — Sat, 31 May 2008 02:09:00 +0000

Here are a few articles for you to read to get you up to speed about what we are facing as a community considering the new rights in California. Let this news energize you to take the time out from your day to donate, volunteer, and help be a part of winning this right for all New Yorkers. Our opportunity is right around the corner but it's up to all of us to make it happen.

Legal challenge to NY gay marriage rights expected

by michael gormley / associated press writer... Metro NY
MAY 30, 2008 7:00 PM EDT
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP)

A Christian legal organization said Friday it will sue to stop New York Gov. David Paterson's directive to provide rights and benefits to gay couples legally married elsewhere that are now provided to heterosexual married couples.

The group, the Alliance Defense Fund based in Arizona, is working with New York legislators on the case that in part will accuse Paterson of violating the separation of powers in his directive this week.

The group of lawyers intervene in gay marriage and religious freedom cases including those involving abortion and what it calls traditional family values. The group already has pending lawsuits against New York state government over earlier attempts to extend marriage rights to gay couples. story continues

Gay Marriage Opponents Consider Ways to Fight New Policy

By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE....The New York Times
Published: May 30, 2008

Opponents of same-sex unions were pondering a range of legal and legislative challenges to Gov. David A. Paterson�s new policy of having state agencies honor same-sex marriages that have been performed outside New York.

Though the directive was issued by Mr. Paterson�s counsel two weeks ago and was soon made known to gay-rights advocates and some lawmakers, the decision became broadly publicized only on Wednesday evening and apparently caught almost everyone else in Albany � Republicans and Democrats alike � by surprise.

At a news conference on Thursday, the Senate majority leader, Joseph L. Bruno, a Republican who is opposed to same-sex marriage, said he had received no advance word of Mr. Paterson�s proposal. Senate Republicans are not scheduled to meet as a group until next week, but Mr. Bruno said he would be consulting with lawyers to study constitutional questions raised by Mr. Paterson�s directive, suggesting that legal action was a possibility.story continues

Lawmaker may challenge New York governor's order on gay marriage
By James T. Madore - Newsday

ALBANY, N.Y. _ Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno signaled Thursday that he might challenge New York Gov. David A. Paterson's directive to state agencies requiring them to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

Bruno, the state's top Republican, said Democrat Paterson might have violated the state constitution's separation of powers clause. Bruno said he would consult with attorneys and possibly challenge the governor's order.

Bruno also compared Paterson's action to that of his predecessor, then-Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who tried to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. "We went through that with the illegal aliens being licensed ... the executive branch is separate from the legislative and judiciary _ and that's the question and if necessary we will test it," Bruno said after speaking at Albany's Rockefeller Institute of Government. story continues

Gay rights revolution comes to New York

noreply@blogger.com (Oxcy) — Sat, 31 May 2008 02:00:00 +0000

May 30 Metro

MANHATTAN. For the last nine years, Cathy and Sheila Marino-Thomas have spent Valentine�s Day at the City Clerk�s office.
Each year, they go and ask for a marriage license. Each year, they are turned away. The annual protest by same-sex couples has been especially cutting for them since 2004, because they were legally wed that year in Massachusetts. Now, New York will honor their marriage, after Gov. David Paterson this month directed state agencies to recognize same-sex unions legally performed in other jurisdictions, such as Massachusetts, California and Canada.

The directive, issued May 14, should provide gay couples with as many as 1,300 rights afforded to married heterosexuals, including the ability to collect health and pension benefits, being admitted as �close family� in a hospital room and transferring a business license. Paterson downplayed the significance of his action yesterday. �I am taking the same approach that this state always has with respect to out-of-state or marriages conducted in foreign governments being recognized here in the state of New York,� he said. �I am following the law as it has always existed.�

Others viewed it as an assault on the family and a big step toward legalizing gay marriage in New York. �The definition of history,� said Richard Barnes, executive director of the New York State Catholic Conference. �No single politician or court or legislature should attempt to redefine the very building block of our society.�

Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno, an opponent of gay marriage, was surprised by Paterson�s directive, but told reporters yesterday he hadn�t decided whether to challenge it. �Our work isn�t done, but we�re almost there,� said Cathy Marino-Thomas, executive director of Marriage Equality New York. �It puts us in a prime position to get a law passed so that New Yorkers can marry in their own state.� Seymour Reisman, a matrimonial attorney in Garden City, believed the issue will end up before the state�s Court of Appeals, but it may not make a difference. �The courts are not immune to where the public is going,� Reisman said, �and I think the governor has laid out certainly where he thinks the public should be going.�

COUPLES CALL DAVE'S MOVE A VICTORY FOR EQUAL RIGHTS

noreply@blogger.com (Oxcy) — Sat, 31 May 2008 01:52:00 +0000

By SAMUEL GOLDSMITH: New York Post

May 30, 2008 -- Married lesbians Cathy and Sheila Marino-Thomas said yesterday that Gov. Paterson's directive forcing state agencies to recognize same-sex unions is a "big win" for them.
Honoring marriages from other states lets couples like Cathy and Sheila - who live in Manhattan but were legally married in Massachusetts five years ago - to file joint tax returns and provides other benefits under state laws that heterosexuals receive.
But tax advantages are just part of the benefits for same-sex couples, Cathy Marino-Thomas said. More importantly, the decision is a step toward equal rights for same-sex couples.
"This is a glorious day for equality," said Marino-Thomas, director of Marriage Equality New York. "This opens the door that has been closed to same-sex couples.
"Hopefully this will mean that in time more than just state employees can receive benefits," she said.
The Marino-Thomases believe the governor's move will force the private sector in New York to update its benefits for same-sex couples.
"It will urge our state to step away from the unequal and move to the table of equality," she said. "We will begin to be recognized as families. That's a big win."
Other same-sex couples in the city agreed.
"In day-to-day life, maybe this won't benefit us," said Robert Voorheis. "But it makes us feel better that the law is now protecting us."

New York to Back Same-Sex Unions From Elsewhere

noreply@blogger.com (Oxcy) — Thu, 29 May 2008 03:22:00 +0000

By JEREMY W. PETERS: NY Times

ALBANY � Gov. David A. Paterson has directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada.
In a directive issued on May 14, the governor�s legal counsel, David Nocenti, instructed the agencies that gay couples married elsewhere �should be afforded the same recognition as any other legally performed union.�
The revisions are most likely to involve as many as 1,300 statutes and regulations in New York governing everything from joint filing of income tax returns to transferring fishing licenses between spouses.
In a videotaped message given to gay community leaders at a dinner on May 17, Mr. Paterson described the move as �a strong step toward marriage equality.� And people on both sides of the issue said it moved the state closer to fully legalizing same-sex unions in this state.
�Very shortly, there will be hundreds and hundreds and hundreds, and probably thousands and thousands and thousands of gay people who have their marriages recognized by the state,� said Assemblyman Daniel O�Donnell, a Democrat who represents the Upper West Side and has pushed for legalization of gay unions.
Massachusetts and California are the only states that have legalized gay marriage, while others, including New Jersey and Vermont, allow civil unions. Forty-one states have laws limiting marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Legal experts said Mr. Paterson�s decision would make New York the only state that did not itself allow gay marriage but fully recognized same-sex unions entered into elsewhere.
The directive is the strongest signal yet that Mr. Paterson, who developed strong ties to the gay community as a legislator, plans to push aggressively to legalize same-sex unions as governor. His predecessor, Eliot Spitzer, introduced a bill last year that would have legalized gay marriage, but even as he submitted it, doubted that it would pass. The Democratic-dominated Assembly passed the measure, but the Republican-led Senate has refused to call a vote on it.
Short of an act by the Legislature, the directive ordered by Mr. Paterson is the one of the strongest statements a state can make in favor of gay unions.
�Basically we�ve done everything we can do on marriage legislatively at this point,� said Sean Patrick Maloney, a senior adviser to Mr. Paterson. �But there are tools in our tool kit on the executive side, and this is one.�
The directive cited a Feb. 1 ruling by a State Appellate Court in Rochester that Patricia Martinez, who works at Monroe Community College and who married her partner in Canada, could not be denied health benefits by the college because of New York�s longstanding policy of recognizing marriages performed elsewhere, even if they are not explicitly allowed under New York law. The appeals court said that New York must recognize marriages performed in other states that allow the practice and in countries that permit it, like Canada and Spain.
Monroe County filed an appeal with the state�s highest court, the Court of Appeals, but it was rejected on technical grounds. The county has not decided whether to file another appeal, a county spokesman said on Wednesday. The Court of Appeals has previously ruled that the state�s Constitution did not compel the recognition of same-sex marriages and that it was up to the Legislature to decide whether do so.
Groups that oppose gay marriage said the governor was essentially trying to circumvent the Legislature.
�It�s a perfect example of a governor overstepping his authority and sidestepping the democratic process,� said Brian Raum, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a national organization opposed to same-sex marriage. �It�s an issue of public policy that should be decided by the voters.�
Gay rights advocates, however, applauded Mr. Paterson, saying the broad directive would make it clear that gay couples wed in other states were entitled to all of the benefits of marriage in New York and relieve them of the burden of challenging or suing individual agencies.
�He saw no reason to stand in the way of making sure these couples benefit from the rights and protections that come with marriage,� said Susan Sommer, senior counsel for Lambda Legal, a group that advocates for gay rights. �It shouldn�t be the burden of each lesbian or gay couple to have to advocate before an agency every time a new issue comes up.�
In the directive, Mr. Nocenti wrote that state agencies should review all rules and regulations to determine whether they conflict with recognition of same-sex marriages and report back to him by June 30. Mr. Nocenti said that state agencies that did not provide �full faith and credit to same-sex marriages� could be subject to liability.
He said that many changes could be made through internal memos or policy statements, but that regulatory changes might be needed in some cases.
Mr. Nocenti directed agency heads to a list of state regulations and statutes that were likely to need overhaul, including measures affecting a spouse�s ability to collect a deceased spouse�s pension and to continue to use public housing.
In addition to conferring more rights on gay couples, the changes might also require more responsibilities. For example, the order that required certain employees of the executive branch to file financial disclosure documents for their spouses would also apply to gay spouses.
It is less clear what the directive means for state policies that are not enforced by state agencies but by the courts, like those that govern child custody or protect a husband and wife from having to testify against one another about statements they made to each other while married.
Coincidentally, Mr. Nocenti�s directive was dated one day before the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Gay marriage proponents said they expected that ruling, which will take effect in mid-June unless the court grants a stay, will lead some gay couples in New York to marry in California so they can take advantage of the protections under New York law.
Of course, many gay New Yorkers might find Canada to be a more convenient option, some gay rights supporters pointed out. Mr. Nocenti also said that marriages performed in Massachusetts should be recognized in New York, though Massachusetts, unlike California, does not permit gay residents from other states to be married there if their home state prohibits same-sex unions.
While gay rights advocates widely praised the spirit of Mr. Paterson�s policy, some saw more than a little irony in the fact that New York has yet to allow gays to marry.
�If you�re going to treat us as equals, why don�t you just give us the marriage license?� said Alan Van Capelle, executive director of Empire State Pride Agenda. �So this is a temporary but necessary fix for a longer-term problem, which is marriage equality in New York State.�
Danny Hakim contributed reporting.

Cali. new poll shows people are in some way by the judgment of the high court.

noreply@blogger.com (Oxcy) — Wed, 28 May 2008 16:52:00 +0000

New poll says Majority of Calif. Backs Gay Marriage
by The Associated Press

Posted: May 28, 2008 - 11:00 am ET

(San Francisco) More California voters now support allowing same-sex marriage than oppose it, according to a new poll released Wednesday.

The results mark the first time in over three decades of polling that more California voters have approved of extending marriage to gay couples than have disapproved, said Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo. The survey of 1,052 registered voters was conducted over the phone.

"I would say this is a historic turning point or milestone," DiCamillo said. "We have speculated in the past there would be some time in the future when a majority would support same-sex marriage. Well, the lines have crossed."

The poll found that 51 percent of respondents backed legalizing same-sex marriage and 42 percent opposed it, DiCamillo said.

In 2006, when participants were asked, "Do you approve or disapprove of California allowing homosexuals to marry members of their own sex?" 44 percent said they approved and 50 percent objected. In 1977, the first year Field posted the question to voters, 28 percent approved and 59 percent were opposed.

The poll was conducted from May 17 to May 26 in the days after the California Supreme Court handed down its historic ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in the nation's most populous state. A smaller percentage of respondants- 48 percent - said they agreed with the court's decision and 46 percent disagreed.

DiCamillo said the jump in support for same-sex marriage indicates that voters were "influenced in some way by the judgment of the high court."

"I am left to surmise that had some impact on voters who might have been on the fence or marginally opposed," he said.

Voters were similarly divided on the subject of a proposed ballot initiative that would overturn the court's ruling by putting a gay marriage ban in the state constitution. Field asked respondents about it two ways - once referencing the specific measure a group is seeking to get on the November ballot and once talking about a marriage amendment more generally.

Fifty-four percent opposed the amendment when presented with the issue generally, a figure that dropped to 51 percent when respondents were told they might have the chance to vote on a specific measure in November. Support for the amendment stood at 40 percent and 43 percent.

DiCamillo said the numbers could change once the amendment qualifies for the ballot, but the early results indicate "the concept itself is not widely embraced."

The Field Poll's finding conflicts with a Los Angeles Times/KTLA poll of 705 voters released last week that found 54 percent backed the proposed gay marriage ban and 35 percent opposed it. The Field survey had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points on the general amendment question, and plus or minus five percentage points on the more specific question.

Andrew Pugno, legal adviser for the coalition of religious and social conservative groups sponsoring the measure, said the Times poll is more consistent with his group's internal polling.

"We could acknowledge there has been increasing acceptance of the idea of gay relationships over the last 10 or 20 years, but we think when it comes to marriage there is still a solid majority who want to see it reserved for a man and a woman, and that is all this initiative is about," Pugno said.

cali. Official: Gay Weddings a Go

noreply@blogger.com (Oxcy) — Tue, 27 May 2008 16:40:00 +0000

by Lisa Leff, Associated Press

Posted: May 27, 2008 - 7:30 a.m. ET

Same-sex couples in some California counties will be able to marry as soon as June 14, the president of the California's county clerks association said.

Stephen Weir, who heads the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, said Monday he was told by the Office of Vital Records that clerks would be authorized to hand out marriage licenses as soon as that date, which is a Saturday and exactly 30 days after the California Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage should be legal.

The court's decisions typically take effect after 30 days, barring further legal action.

"They are shooting for the 14th," said Weir, adding that the state planned to give California's 58 counties advice this week for implementing the historic change so local officials can start planning.

Suanne Buggy, a spokeswoman for the California Department of Public Health, which oversees the vital records office, would not confirm Monday that state officials have settled the matter of when counties can or must start extending marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

"We will be getting guidance out to the counties soon," Buggy said.

According to Weir, it would be up to each county clerk to decide whether to open their offices to gay and lesbian couples on that Saturday or to wait until the following Monday.

Some clerks have said they would try to accommodate couples at the earliest possible date, depending on their staffing and anticipated demand, he said.

If the court's decision does take effect on June 14, couples could, in theory, plan to obtain their licenses and take their vows at 12:01 a.m. that day, he said.

As it happens, Weir's office in Martinez already holds open hours on the second Saturday of each month, so serving couples who want to get hitched as soon as possible won't be a problem, he said. He and his partner of 18 years hope to be the first ones to tie the knot.

"Just because we have been so close to it, and so far, I would really like to be first," Weir said.

An effort, however, is under way to stay the Supreme Court's decision until voters can decide the issue with an initiative planned for the November ballot. The measure would overrule the justices' decision and amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

Justices have until the ruling's effective date to weigh the request, but could give themselves longer to consider it, attorneys have said. Another complicating factor is that the Supreme Court also directed a midlevel appeals court that upheld the state's one man-one woman marriage laws a year ago to issue a new order legalizing same-sex marriage, and it's not clear when the appeals court would comply.

Massachusetts is the only other state to legalize gay marriage, something it did in 2004. More than 9,500 same-sex couples in that state have wed.

Poll: Majority In Calif Would Ban Gay Marriage

noreply@blogger.com (Oxcy) — Sat, 24 May 2008 05:30:00 +0000

by The Associated Press

Posted: May 23, 2008 - 8:30 pm ET

(San Francisco, California) More than half of California residents would support amending the state constitution to outlaw gay marriage, according to a poll published Friday.

The Los Angeles Times/KTLA poll of 834 Californians, 705 of them registered voters, found that 54 percent of the voters surveyed backed a gay marriage ban proposed for the November ballot and 35 percent opposed it.

The ballot initiative follows a May 15 ruling by the state Supreme Court legalizing same-sex nuptials.

But with so many months to go before the election and the court's decision only a week old, the survey results suggest the initiative supporters' edge could evaporate, said the newspaper's poll director, Susan Pinkus.

"Although the amendment to reinstate the ban on same-sex marriage is winning by a small majority, this may not bode well for the measure," Pinkus said.

If the amendment qualifies for the ballot and passes in November, it would overturn the Supreme Court's decision and set the stage for further legal wrangling that would leave the validity of same-sex marriage performed between now and then in doubt.

The poll, conducted by telephone on Tuesday and Wednesday, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points for all respondents, and 4 points for registered voters.

cali. the impact so far

noreply@blogger.com (Oxcy) — Fri, 23 May 2008 21:18:00 +0000

Federal Anti-Gay Amendment Returns In Wake Of Calif. Ruling
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 21, 2008 - 11:30 am ET

(Washington) Republican Congressman Paul Broun (pictured) has announced plans to reintroduce an amendment to the US Constitution to bar same-sex marriage.

Broun (R-Ga) said the California Supreme Court ruling recognizing same-sex marriage has made it an imperative to reign in what he called "activist judges".
the rest here

Gay Servicemembers Warned About Calif. Same-Sex Marriages
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 21, 2008 - 11:30 am ET

(Washington) An organization that advocates for gays in the military is warning servicemembers that if they take advantage same-sex marriage in California they risk being drummed out of the armed services.

Last week the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have the same fundamental right to marry as heterosexual couples under the California State Constitution. read on by clicking

cali the impact so far

noreply@blogger.com (Oxcy) — Thu, 22 May 2008 17:09:00 +0000

Calif.. the impact so far

noreply@blogger.com (Oxcy) — Thu, 22 May 2008 02:13:00 +0000

Marriage Equality NY applauds the CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT DECISION

noreply@blogger.com (Oxcy) — Thu, 15 May 2008 19:02:00 +0000

Community celebrations in California are planned, including a 5:30pm press conference and gathering at San Francisco�s LGBT Center at 1800 Market (Corner of Market and Octavia)

Media Contacts:
Ron Zacchi, Deputy Executive Director- MENY, 646-660-1906, info@marriageequalityny.org
Cathy Marino-Thomas, Executive Director - MENY, 516-302-5198, cathy@marriageequalityny.org

Media Contacts:
Molly McKay, Media Director- MEUSA, 510-332-0872, media@marriageequality.org
Pamela Brown, Policy Director- MEUSA, 510-384-3655, policydirector@marriageequality.org

New York, NY: �Today is a day I will remember forever. We applaud coast to coast the two states that have been brave enough to stand by the GLBT Community and support our rights to Marriage Equality,� said Ron Zacchi, Marriage Equality NY (MENY) Deputy Executive Director. �We hope that this sends a clear message to the New York State Senators that they can be on the right side of history by protecting a community that is discriminated against!�

Cathy Marino-Thomas, Executive Director of MENY, says �MENY has been working for 10 years to bring about gender neutral marriage equality in New York State. We have seen bills sit in the chambers for many years, but in the recent past we have seen governors who support our efforts and an assembly that passed legislation just last year giving the GLBT community Marriage Equality. This progress has been outstanding and we hope to be the next to join California in celebrating marriage equality.�

San Francisco, California: �The California Supreme Court was the first in the nation to end a ban on interracial marriage. Today, the Court once again stood up � at a point in time when it really matters -- in support of our Constitution�s guarantees of equality and justice,� noted Pamela Brown, MEUSA Policy Director, who will marry her partner of 12 years, Shauna Rajkowski. �Today�s decision shows how carefully and sincerely the Court reflected upon this case, and after thorough consideration, they affirmed the principle they articulated 60 years ago: every Californian has the freedom and right to marry the person of their choice.�

Two MEUSA leaders, Stuart Gaffney and John Lewis, are named plaintiffs in the historic lawsuit. �We are thrilled by today�s decision. We�ve been a loving, committed couple for over 21 years, and we are overjoyed that we will finally be able to marry. We look forward to celebrating with all our friends and family,� said Gaffney. �We are also grateful for the amazing work of our talented legal advocates, especially our attorneys at the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal, and the numerous pro bono attorneys who submitted a record number amicus briefs on behalf of our families,� said Lewis.

�In California, we value our diversity and recognize that despite our differences, our lives are interwoven, and we share common hopes and dreams for our future,� stated Brown. �Today�s decision recognizes that the time has come for lesbian and gay couples to be woven into the fabric of California families and to have the freedom to enter into the civil institution of marriage. We, as lesbian and gay people, are your neighbors, co-workers, friends and family members. This decision means the world to Shauna and me. We hope that all Californians stand together to support this decision and recognize our society is stronger when we are all treated fairly.�

Calif. Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

noreply@blogger.com (Oxcy) — Thu, 15 May 2008 17:45:00 +0000

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 15, 2008 - 1:10 pm ET,
Updated 1:23 pm ET, 1:38 pm ET

(San Francisco, California) The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Prop 22, the voter approved initiative used to block same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

The court also said that California's domestic partnership law is not a good enough substitute for marriage.

The 4-3 ruling. written by Chief Justice Ron George paves the way for gay and lesbian couples to marry once the ruling is officially published by the court - in about 30 days.

Once that is done same-sex couples in California will be able to obtain civil marriage licenses.

"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation - like a person's race or gender - does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights," George wrote for the majority on the mostly Republican appointed court.

The ruling said that churches and other religious institutions will not have to recognize or perform ceremonies for these civil marriages.

The ruling does not extend to federal rights and benefits extended to married couples.

Large crowds began gathering outside the court early Thursday morning.

A wild cheer went up as the ruling was announced, drowning out gasps from opponents of same-sex marriage who also gathered in front of the court.

"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody - not just in the state of California, but throughout the country - will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.

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 and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.

Thursday's ruling sets the stage for a battle over a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that is likely to appear on the November ballot.

A coalition of conservative groups, under the banner 'Protect Marriage' , have submitted more than required 694,354 signatures to qualify. The signatures are being verified.

Last month, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said that if an initiative to ban gay marriage qualifies for the November ballot, he's prepared to fight it.

He made the commitment at a convention of Log Cabin Republicans, the nation's largest gay Republican group.

Schwarzenegger 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.