Same-sex couples fear losing domestic benefits

Posted on March 30, 2007
Filed Under Indiana | Leave a Comment

Ball State University interior designer Dan Stephenson said when his mother died four years ago, his partner had to use vacation days to attend the funeral, a benefit automatically given to married couples.

Since then, the university passed a regulation letting same-sex domestic partners take time off for a death in the family. This, and other employee benefits for same-sex partners, could be lost if Indiana passes an amendment banning same-sex marriage, Stephenson said.

State senators will vote on whether to place Senate Joint Resolution No. 7 on the ballot in 2008. According to the bill, a legal marriage is “only the union of one man and one woman.”

Stephenson said the amendment will ostracize the gay community if it passes. “My partner and I have been together for almost 20 years, and we’ve paid the same taxes as everybody else,” he said, “but we’re being treated as second-class citizens. I would consider moving to a state where they wouldn’t treat me that way.”

Advance America Founder Eric Miller said his organization is working to pass SJR 7 and protect traditional marriages. “I believe it is in the best interest for the children and the moral foundation of our state and nation to have marriage only between one man and one woman,” he said. “We believe this will benefit the state of Indiana by continuing to define marriage as it has historically been defined, and this is best for society.”
Advance America is also against same-sex civil unions, Miller said. “Civil union is nothing more than marriage with a different name,” he said.

Those speaking out against the bill are worried about potential side effects it could have on the state’s society and economy.

Indiana Equality spokesperson Jerame Davis said if the amendment is passed it will be almost impossible to overturn. “The way the amendment is written, even if the legislators somewhere down the road wanted to pass a law that is positive toward same-sex couples, this would prevent that,” he said. “Imagine how hard it would be to pass another amendment to change this amendment.” Read more….

Source: DN Online

Transgender, gay marriage, divorce, oh my!

Posted on March 29, 2007
Filed Under Washington | Leave a Comment

Once upon a time, marriage and gender were permanent things. While those days may be long gone, some people still pine for that simpler time and in response try to make laws that preserve those “traditional” institutions. But as the following case illustrates, when such nostalgia laws are released onto contemporary society, the legal results can be something akin to the chaos of bringing dinosaurs back to life in Jurassic Park.

For example, when Lawrence Roach divorced his wife Julia in 2004, he agreed to pay her $1,250 a month in alimony. However, since then Julia has had a sex change operation and has legally become Julio Roberto Silverwolf. As a result, Roach sued to stop payment because, in his opinion, “[w]hen she changed to man, I believe she terminated that alimony.” Silverwolf’s lawyers counter, saying that “Roach agreed to pay alimony until his ex-wife dies or remarries,” and since neither has happened, he is still expected to pay.

Of course, the real stickler is that in the great state of Florida, same-sex marriage is not legal. Therefore, Roach would now be responsible for paying alimony to a person who he technically cannot marry. Clearly, as Circuit Judge Jack R. St. Arnold pointed out, this “case delves into relatively unchartered legal territory.” Roach’s lawyers were quoted as saying “the case falls into a legal void.”

The one and only previous case of this nature came out of Ohio, and it seems to imply that changing gender is not reason enough to cancel alimony — though gay marriage was not banned in the Buckeye State at the time. Further, a Florida appellate court has declined to legally recognize a sex change for the purpose of marriage, stating that “you are what you are when you are born.” Read more….

Source: Washington Post

Same-sex marriage developments in a number of States

Posted on March 29, 2007
Filed Under USA | Leave a Comment

It was a small story, but one that illustrated a big reality about same-sex marriage. A trial-level judge recently ruled that one county in New York State could recognize same-sex marriages licensed elsewhere.

The March 12 ruling upheld an executive order issued last year by the Westchester County Executive that the county would recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other jurisdictions. A conservative organization led a lawsuit challenging the order, arguing that the County Executive had exceeded his authority.

The decision emerged in the state that only last year heard its highest court rule the New York Constitution does not require gay couples be able to obtain marriage licenses the same as heterosexual couples.

It happened as support grows in the State Legislature to change state law to allow same-sex marriages—and this in a state whose Governor supports the idea.

And it happens as the Legislature also considers a bill to make “absolutely void” any same-sex marriage or civil union “regardless of whether such marriage or union is recognized or solemnized in another jurisdiction.”

In other words, New York illustrates that, when it comes to same-sex marriage, Newton’s third law applies: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Witness recent developments in other states.

In New Jersey, the Supreme Court ruled last October the state constitution’s promise of equal protection requires that same-sex couples have the same benefits of marriage as heterosexual couples. But the high court held it was up to the Legislature to decide whether those benefits are delivered through marriage licenses or some “parallel” structure called something else. That was a step forward for gay-civil-rights activists.

Two months later, the New Jersey Legislature passed legislation providing the benefits be made available through civil unions, not marriage. A step forward, but a resistance to full equality.

Then, just three days before the civil unions law went into effect on February 19, the state Attorney General issued a letter to the State Registrar of Vital Statistics that same-sex couples who obtained marriage licenses in Massachusetts and other jurisdictions would have those licenses honored as “valid in New Jersey,” but they would be “treated as civil unions in our state.”

In Vermont, the State Legislature was considered unlikely to pass a law upgrading its civil unions to marriages for same-sex couples. But, a state university agreed to recognize a same-sex marriage licensed in Canada for one of its employees. Read more….

Source: Lavender GLBT Magazine

 

Drugmaker: bill would hurt worker recruitment

Posted on March 28, 2007
Filed Under Indiana | Leave a Comment

Indianapolis-based drugmaker Eli Lilly and Co. is telling lawmakers that it opposes a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in Indiana, saying it could negatively impact employee recruitment.

In a letter to state House Speaker Pat Bauer, D-South Bend, Lilly said the proposal sends an unwelcoming signal to current and future employees by making Indiana appear intolerant. He also said employees are concerned that the plan might endanger current domestic partner benefits. 

The measure’s sponsors responded by saying that Lilly doesn’t know what it is talking about, 6News’ Norman Cox reported.

State Rep. Eric Turner, R-Gas City, said that when companies testified against the bill during an earlier legislative committee meeting, he asked them whether they could identify any state that had to eliminate domestic partnership benefits after passing a constitutional same-sex marriage ban. “They could not identify one. In fact, they said there were none,” Turner said. Read more….

Source: The Indy Channel

Same-sex marriage perfectly fine

Posted on March 26, 2007
Filed Under USA | Leave a Comment

In America’s past, racial inequalities were rampant including miscegenation laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

The rhetoric proposing such laws is mirrored today in opposition to gay marriage.
Strong supporters of banning interracial marriage argued that these marriages were contrary to God’s will and lacked the purity needed for a holy union. Today, interracial marriage is common place, many steps were taken by legislatures to ensure that these “sinful” couples could not mate.

Miscegenation laws were in place for almost three centuries from 1664 to 1967 when the Supreme Court finally ruled that they were unconstitutional.

The Confederates used four key arguments against interracial marriage: they claimed that marriage laws should be left up to the states, they began to name all interracial relationships as “illicit sex” rather than marriage, they argued that interracial marriage was contrary to God’s will and they claimed that interracial marriage was unnatural according to the History News Network.

These are the exact same arguments used today in support of banning same-sex marriage. Many legislators who oppose gay marriage want the decision to be left up to the states so that getting the rhetoric passed becomes much simpler than at the national level.

Those against gay marriage have been defining such unions as “civil” to ensure that the sanctity of marriage is not compromised. The most common argument is that same-sex marriage is against God’s will and is not part of the natural order of life.
People who oppose same-sex marriage have adopted arguments against interracial marriage in modern times.

The question is, who is right? Were those who wanted miscegenation laws right in their assumptions? Does interracial marriage infringe on the sanctity of marriage? No.
In fact, interracial marriages are very common place, according to the History News Network. One out of every 15 marriages is interracial. Gay marriage should be legalized just as interracial marriage was in the 1960s.

The arguments against gay marriage are completely outdated. I hope someday we as a society can look back on this gay marriage debate as just ridiculous as we do so many other traditions in our history.

It’s about time we throw this civil union tradition out the window along with the others and allow same-sex couples the same rights to marry whomever they choose.

Source: The Daily O’Collegian

Connecticut pro-family activists ask lawmakers to protect traditional marriage

Posted on March 26, 2007
Filed Under Connecticut | Leave a Comment

Pro-family activists in Connecticut have an opportunity today to personally ask lawmakers in that state to protect traditional marriage. A legislative committee hearing is taking place at the state capitol focusing on a proposed bill that would legalize same-sex  marriage.

Concerned Christians are being encouraged to attend the hearing in Hartford and speak out on the issue. The Family Institute of Connecticut says pro-family activists in the state must be vocal and encourage lawmakers to protect traditional marriage.

Executive director Brian Brown says the legalization of same-sex marriage would impact all aspects of society. “This changes everything as far as what our society teaches about the importance of marriage, the importance of mothers and fathers.” He explains that he and other family advocates in Connecticut have been fighting this battle for a long time.  “When this issue first came up, proponents of same-sex marriage said that it is all about rights and benefits. Well, they got civil unions in Connecticut, and it’s no longer about rights and benefits. It is all about redefining marriage for everyone.”

Source: Journal Chrétien

The Institute spokesman says the issue must be resolved by the people — not by the politicians or the courts. Lawmakers could vote on the bill within the next two weeks.

 

Posted on March 25, 2007
Filed Under Netherlands | Leave a Comment

 

The real gay agenda

Posted on March 25, 2007
Filed Under Pennsylvania | Leave a Comment

John and Chris have been together for three decades. They’ve raised two healthy and well-adjusted children, who have themselves grown up, gotten married, and provided John and Chris with two beautiful grandchildren so far.

When they were in their twenties, Chris worked two jobs to put John through medical school. They’ve stayed together through good times and bad. Their love and their devotion to each other have remained strong even as most other residents of their suburban Philadelphia neighborhood have divorced, remarried, and in some cases divorced again.

Sound like the ideal marriage? Yes, it might, if only John and Chris could get married. But, you see, John and Chris are both men, and Pennsylvania does not recognize same-sex marriages.

Some might suggest that they move to nearby New Jersey, where marriage-like civil unions recently became legal. But it’s not so easy to uproot a family. There are homes and careers involved. Besides, telling John and Chris to move to Jersey to find equality is like telling someone to move out of the country if they don’t like the way their tax dollars are being spent. Moving to Jersey would mean giving up on Pennsylvania. Better to stay and fight for equality at home in the Keystone State.

And equality is really all they want. That’s really all there is to the so-called “gay agenda”. Simple equality. No special privileges, just the same privileges as everyone else.

Those who oppose same-sex marriage say that it would undermine the institution of marriage. But isn’t heterosexual infidelity already doing that?

I fail to see how legalizing same-sex marriage would have any effect on heterosexual marriages. No, anyone who feels that his own heterosexual marriage would be threatened if gays could marry obviously has some very deep issues that can’t be fixed through legislation. Read more….

Source: opednews

Gay, Catholic and parents of three

Posted on March 23, 2007
Filed Under New Jersey | Leave a Comment

The challenges of raising three children in the Maguire-Newman home are much the same as those faced in suburban America across the country. The Catholic household, two parents with three school-age children, springs to life at 7 a.m. on most days. While one parent makes breakfast and packs lunches, the other makes beds and monitors homework assignments.

“My observation is that children are a lot more receptive to work and instruction in the first 90 minutes before they have enough energy to be resistant,” says Gregory Maguire, a celebrated author of children’s literature. He is best known for the widely popular novel Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West, a bestseller written for adults that has been adapted into a Tony Award-winning hit musical.

Maguire is quick to explain, “It’s not because we want them to be superstars” nor do they have “serious learning problems.” Rather, he said, it’s a matter of “keeping up in a highly functioning school system in which we find ourselves.”

All three children — two boys and a girl, ages 5, 6 and 9 — were adopted from countries in Latin America and Southeast Asia. They are by Maguire’s account “noisy, smart and obedient within a range,” having settled comfortably into an all-American way of life, with interests varying from ballet and piano to soccer and computer games. They are well-liked by their friends, Maguire said, adding, “We have yet to hear or face in nine years living in Concord any resistance to us as a gay couple with a family.”

Maguire and his partner, artist Andy Newman, are not only a gay couple raising children, but they are legally married under a new law in Massachusetts, the only state with equal marriage rights for lesbians and gay men.

[Maguire was scheduled speak about his story as a gay parent and a sacramental church at New Ways Ministry’s Sixth National Symposium on Catholicism and Homosexuality March 16-18 in Minneapolis. New Ways Ministry describes itself as “a gay-positive ministry of advocacy and justice for lesbian and gay Catholics.”]

The Maguire and Newman clan is part of a changing landscape of contemporary American family life. More than 8,500 same-sex couples have married in Massachusetts since May 2004, including many with children. Nationwide, estimates of lesbian and gay parents range from 2 million to 8 million.

But a political battle to roll back civil-marriage rights for gays looms. Massachusetts state lawmakers have voted to send a proposed constitutional same-sex marriage ban to voters. If the legislature approves the measure again, this year or next, voters would have the final say in November 2008. Read more….

Source: National Catholic Reporter

Dungy affirms opposition to same-sex ‘marriage’

Posted on March 21, 2007
Filed Under Indiana | Leave a Comment

Tony DungyTony Dungy, the Christian coach of this year’s Super Bowl champions, clearly laid out his position against same-sex “marriage” Tuesday night.

At the Indiana Family Institute (IFI)’s banquet, the Indianapolis Colts coach agreed with IFI’s position of defining a marriage as being between a man and a woman. “I appreciate the stance they’re taking,” he said, according to the Indianapolis Star, “and I embrace that stance.”

Before the awards dinner, several pro-homosexual and gay rights groups had criticized Dungy for attending the event. IFI, which has affiliations with Focus on the Family, has been a major voice in supporting a marriage amendment that is currently in the Indiana House, legally defining marriage as one man and one woman. The gay rights groups felt the professional football coach should stay away from all politics.

“We’re not anti-anything else,” explained Dungy, according to USA Today. “We’re not trying to downgrade anyone else. But we’re trying to promote the family – family values the Lord’s way.”

During his speech, the night’s honoree said he was not ashamed to be at the event.
“IFI is saying what the Lord says,” explained Dungy, according to USA Today. “You can take that and make your decision on which way you want to be. I’m on the Lord’s side.”

“It is unfortunate that coach Dungy has chosen to align himself with the Indiana Family Institute,” expressed Bil Browning, managing editor of a blog that focuses on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues in Indiana, according to the Indianapolis Star. “The Colts were supported this season by all of their fans – gay and straight.”

The coach’s football franchise had expressed their neutrality on the issue before the awards ceremony. “Coach Dungy’s feelings on the importance of marriage and family are well known,” a Colts’ statement said. “He, of course, is free to speak to any group he wishes. The club does not take positions in political issues in which it is not directly involved. The Colts do not endorse any political or religious position taken by any group that any Colts employee decides to speak or lend his or her name to.”

Dungy has received numerous accolades over the past years. Among them, he was notably the first black person to win a Super Bowl this past February. He testified the victory as having been achieved “the Lord’s way.”

Source: Christian Post

— keep looking »

Recently


Categories


Archives

free hit counter script