|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Top 6 News - August 6, 2003 1-NEWS: Anxious gay couples await ruling: Court decision today on S.F. weddings _________________________________________ 1-NEWS: Anxious gay couples await ruling: Court decision today on S.F. weddings Anxious gay couples await ruling Court decision today on S.F. weddings After they married at San Francisco City Hall, Cissie Bonini and Lora Pertle hung their matching wedding gowns on the wall in their bedroom. Six months later, the long, white -- and unwashed -- dresses are still there. "We don't want to pay huge amounts of money to clean our wedding dresses, " Bonini, 38, said. "We may have to put them on again. ... We'll be married as many times as we need to for it to be legal." They'll find out more about the legal status of their marriage today when the California Supreme Courts issues its decision on whether San Francisco officials had the authority to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Most legal experts expect the court to find that Mayor Gavin Newsom's actions violated state laws, but it's unclear whether the seven justices will invalidate the 3,955 marriages that took place between Feb. 12 and March 11. The court will not resolve the question of whether same-sex couples have the right to marry under the state constitution. As the gay newlyweds anxiously await the decision -- which will be released online at 10 a.m., six months to the day after the first licenses were issued -- many are looking forward to the benefits they'll secure if their marriages are allowed to stand. At the same time, they're bracing for the worst, trying to figure out exactly what it would mean if their marriages were snuffed out by the court. Needless to say, emotions were running high Wednesday. "I think to a certain extent, I've been in denial. ... Now that I know it's being announced tomorrow, it's an undercurrent to my whole day," said Leslie Bulbuk, 41, who married her partner, Marta Donayre. "It's kind of stressful. I have some fear that they're going to choose to invalidate the marriages. Certainly, if that's the case, it's going to hurt a lot." Stuart Gaffney and John Lewis, who have been together 17 years, were married exactly six months ago today. "We're going to be relying on those vows we made to each other, vows to love and comfort each other for better or worse," Lewis said. "If the decision is favorable to us, we will be celebrating. If it's unfavorable, we'll be fulfilling our vows to each other, being there to support each other. That's really what marriage is about." Pressed by state Attorney General Bill Lockyer and organizations opposing same-sex marriage, the California Supreme Court ordered an immediate halt to the city's same-sex weddings March 11. A lobbyist for a group that has opposed same-sex marriages said he hoped the justices would strike down the weddings. "I'm hoping the justices side with the majority of Californians who believe in the law and wish to protect marriage for one man and one woman,'' said Benjamin Lopez, state lobbyist for the Traditional Values Coalition, which opposed same-sex marriages. "If the court rules otherwise, they've thumbed their nose at over 60 percent of Californians." Lopez was referring to Prop. 22, a measure banning same-sex marriages, which California voters passed in 2000. For many gay couples, the marriages at San Francisco City Hall brought on an array of changes despite the legal uncertainties. Some couples immediately demanded a few of the benefits that come with marriage, such as lower rates for health insurance and car insurance. Others turned, overnight, into activists or took tiny but significant steps -- like using the word "wife'' or "husband'' when introducing their partners. "We've been together for 14 years ... I should be able to go to a party and say 'This is my wife,' " said Bonini. "After the San Francisco weddings, it was such a relief. ... Legally, she's my wife. There's a lot of dignity in that. You don't have to apologize." But while some couples won some benefits, big and small, others have been in a six-month state of limbo. Many newlyweds were told by their insurance companies that they are waiting for the Supreme Court ruling before deciding whether to grant benefits. The couples can't file their state taxes jointly and have not been able to take advantage of any federal benefits -- from survivor's rights to social security benefits. Even if today's decision is in their favor, federally recognized marriage and the rights that come with it are still a long way away. Linton Johnson, who works for a public transit agency, said he would like to take advantage of the free transit pass and the generous health plan his employer provides to spouses. But unlike heterosexual couples, he and his partner still have to pay federal tax on the value of the benefit. It just wasn't worth it, he said. "Is it real, or is it not real?" he said. "The only thing we know that's real is our love. They'll never be able to change that regardless of the decision. One thing the decision could do is ease some financial pressures." Gaffney said he and Lewis spent their honeymoon in the offices of the American Civil Liberties Union. If the decision is in their favor today, they might consider organizing a reception. "We really have been waiting because it wouldn't feel right to have a reception and then have our marriage taken away, " he said. Whatever happens, activists say they will be out in the streets today. Rallies are planned around the state. In San Francisco, married couples and their allies will gather in Harvey Milk Plaza in the Castro at 5 p.m., then march to San Francisco City Hall for a second rally at 7 p.m. "We want to make sure that no matter what, the city of San Francisco knows we stand in support of their decision and their action to challenge unjust laws," said Molly McKay, associate executive director of Equality California. "It was the step that initiated a national revolution that we hope will continue." At a glance The issue: The California Supreme Court will determine whether San Francisco officials had the legal authority to grant marriage licenses to same- sex couples. What's at stake: The court is expected to address two issues: whether the city violated state law and whether to invalidate the 3,955 same-sex marriages that took place before the city was ordered to stop approving licenses. The decision: The ruling will be released online today at 10 a.m. The court's Web site is http://courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions E-mail Rona Marech at rmarech@sfchronicle.com *********************************************** From the Los Angeles Times Court voids San Francisco gay marriages By Lee Romney http://www.latimes.com/ Copyright © 2004, The Los Angeles Times _______________________________________________ 2- NEWS: Calif. court voids S.F. same-sex marriages/Court voids S.F. gay marriages (two articles) Calif. court voids S.F. same-sex marriages by David Kravets, Associated Press SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The California Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that San Francisco's mayor overstepped his authority by issuing same-sex marriage licenses this spring. The court also voided all the marriages of gay and lesbian couples sanctioned by the city. The court said the city violated the law when it issued the certificates and performed the marriage ceremonies in a monthlong wedding march that began Feb. 12, since both legislation and a voter-approved measure defined marriage as a union between a man and woman. The court, however, did not resolve whether the California Constitution would permit a same-sex marriage, ruling instead on the narrow issue of whether local officials could bypass California's judicial and legislative branches. Chief Justice Ronald George noted that Thursday's ruling doesn't address "the substantive legal rights of same sex couples. In actuality, the legal issue before us implicates the interest of all individuals in ensuring that public officials execute their official duties in a manner that respects the limits of the authorities granted to them as officeholders." The justices also decided with a 5-2 vote to nullify the nearly 4,000 marriages peformed before the court halted the weddings on March 11. Their legality, Justice Joyce Kennard wrote, must wait until "the constitutionality of California laws restricting marriages to opposite-sex couples has been authoritatively resolved through judicial proceedings now pending in the courts of California." The same-sex marriages had virtually no legal value, but powerful symbolic value. Their nullification by the high court dismayed Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, the first same-sex couple to receive a marriage license in San Francisco. "Del is 83-years-old and I am 79," Lyon said. "After being together for more than 50 years, it is a terrible blow to have the rights and protections of marriage taken away from us. At our age, we do not have the luxury of time." The justices agreed to resolve the legality of the weddings sanctioned by Mayor Gavin Newsom after emergency petitions were filed by a conservative group and the state's top law enforcement official, Attorney General Bill Lockyer. San Francisco's gay weddings, which followed a landmark ruling by Massachusetts' top court allowing gay marriage — prompted President Bush to push for changing the federal constitution to ban same-sex marriage, an effort that has become campaign fodder this election year. The California court sided with Lockyer's arguments, ruling that Newsom's actions would foment legal anarchy and sanction local officials to legislate state law from city halls or county government centers. When the justices agreed in March to hear the case, they said they would decide only whether Newsom overstepped his mayoral powers for now, but would entertain a constitutional challenge_ that gays should be treated the same as heterosexual couples under the California Constitution — if such a lawsuit worked its way to the justices through the lower courts. Gay and lesbian couples immediately acted on that invitation, suing in San Francisco County Superior Court alleging laws barring them from marrying were discriminatory. Mayor Newsom filed a similar lawsuit. The now-consolidated cases are unlikely to reach the California Supreme Court for at least a year or more, leaving California's most significant gay rights challenge on the back burner as that litigation percolates in pretrial proceedings. California lawmakers have refused to take a position on the matter, and have left the politically volatile issue to its Supreme Court. Voters have also sat idle, awaiting a definitive ruling on the merits of whether the state constitution allows gay marriage, and have not used the voter initiative process to force the issue. Newsom argued to the justices in May that the ability of same-sex couples to marry was a "fundamental right" that compelled him to act. Newsom authorized the marriages by citing the California Constitution's ban against discrimination, and claimed he was duty-bound to follow this higher authority rather than state laws banning gay marriage. The Arizona-based Christian law firm Alliance Defense Fund, a plaintiff in one of two cases the justices decided Thursday, had told the justices that Newsom's "act of disobedience" could lead other local officials to sanction "polygamists." Newsom's defiance of state law created huge lines at City Hall by gays and lesbians waiting to be married, and ignited a firestorm engulfing statehouses and ballot boxes nationwide. Missouri voters this month endorsed a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage — a move designed to prevent that state's judiciary from agreeing with the arguments Newsom is making in California. A state constitutional challenge by gays in Massachusetts prompted that state's highest court to endorse the gay marriages that began there in May. A judge in Washington state this month also ruled in favor of gay marriage, pending a resolution from that state's top court. Louisiana residents are to vote on the same issue Sept. 18. Then Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah are to vote Nov. 2. Initiatives are pending in Michigan, North Dakota and Ohio. Four states — Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada — already have similar amendments in their constitutions. The cases decided Thursday are Lockyer v. San Francisco, S122923; Lewis v. Alfaro, S122865. •__ Editors: David Kravets has been covering state and federal courts for more than a decade. ________________________________________ 3-NEWS: Tears followed by stealy resolve in S.F. gay marriage ruling by Mary Ellen Peterson Posted: August 12, 2004 2:16 pm ET (San Francisco, California) More than 4,000 same-sex couples and their families are directly affected by the California Supreme Court's decision to nullify their marriages. The high court ruled this morning that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom didn't have the authority to issue wedding licenses to same-sex couples and voided more than 4,000 gay marriages the city performed earlier this year. (story) Court’s decision today, depriving these families of equal dignity as well as of the many legal protections granted to married couples under California law. Among the families are Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, (pictured) the first same-sex couple to receive a marriage license in San Francisco on February 12, 2004. " Del is eighty-three years old and I am seventy-nine," said Lyon, . "After being together for more than fifty years, it is a terrible blow to have the rights and protections of marriage taken away from us. At our age, we do not have the luxury of time." One very real consequence of the Court's action is that if one of the women were to die before the other, the surviving partner would have no right to social security or pension benefits and no protection against losing their family home. "This is a painful and difficult day for the thousands of couples whose love, commitment and desire to protect their families was placed on hold," said Kate Kendell, Executive Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "While their families are not yet treated equally, their courageous public declarations have shown the world the harm caused by marriage discrimination and will result in our ultimately obtaining the freedom to marry." Lambda Legal called the invalidation of the licenses already granted "shockingly disrespectful." "It is an extreme step to take away people's marriages and rob them of critical protections without even allowing them to have their day in court." said Jon Davidson, Lambda Legal Senior Counsel. "Most Californians can't even imagine a court taking away their marriages without hearing from them at all. We're more committed than ever to resolving this issue so these marriages can be restored and couples statewide can have the protections and security marriage provides. The ruling does not address whether same-sex couples must be allowed to marry under the California Constitution. That issue is being litigated in a separate lawsuit brought by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal and the ACLU. Legal briefs are being filed in that lawsuit in the next few weeks, and the case is expected to move quickly in state court. "It is important to remember that today's decision says nothing about whether California can continue to discriminate against our families," said Davidson. ACLU of Northern California Associate Director Bob Kearney added: "In 1948, the California Supreme Court was the first in the country to end race discrimination in marriage. We are confident that the court will live up to its own history and bring a swift end to marriage discrimination in California." "This is not the end of the fight to make same-sex couples safer and more secure. California families will still have their day in court to challenge their exclusion from marriage," said Human Rights Campaign President Cheryl Jacques. "While we are disappointed that the Supreme Court ruled the city lacked authority to issue the licenses, this case does not speak to the issue of whether California's discriminatory marriage ban for same-sex couples is unconstitutional. As those cases move forward, we are hopeful that every California family will be able to access the over 1,000 rights and responsibilities that are only conferred by marriage." People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas issued a statement saying, “The weddings performed in San Francisco earlier this year put a human face – thousands of loving faces – on the issue. Americans saw real people with real families that need and deserve the stability and legal protections that only marriage provides.” Neas pointed out, however, that today’s ruling did not affect the legal protections that gay couples in California can access through the state’s domestic partnership laws, but noted that those rights and protections still fall far short of those provided by legal marriage. While the challenge to the present law governing the issuance of marriage licenses moves forward in the courts, a simultaneous effort to change that law legislatively is also moving forward. The Marriage License Non-Discrimination Act, legislation, which is being carried by San Francisco Assemblyman Mark Leno and officially sponsored by Equality California, became the first marriage equality bill to pass a legislative body when it was passed by both the Assembly Rules and Judiciary Committees earlier this year. "Denying one group of people a government issued license for the sole purpose of discriminating against them and their children flies in the face of everything that has made California great," said Geoffrey Kors, Executive Director of Equality California, sponsor of the legislation and party to the litigation on behalf of its members. "These 4000 families, and hundreds of thousands of other families headed by same-sex couples, deserve nothing less than equality and we are confident that the courts and the legislature will remedy this injustice.” ©365Gay.com® 2004 _____________________________________________ 4-NEWS: An early test for same-sex 'marriage' By Amy Fagan http://www.washingtontimes.com/ One activist lawyer in Florida is pushing ahead on his own to force states to recognize same-sex "marriages" in Massachusetts and elsewhere by challenging federal law, contrary to the wishes of the nation's largest groups supporting homosexual rights. ________________________________________ 5-NEWS: Two Utah groups form to fight same-sex marriage Two groups have formed to support a Utah state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The Constitution Defense of Marriage Alliance registered Monday with the state Elections Commission, and Yes for Marriage formed late last month. The two campaigns have the same goal but slightly different philosophies. ___________________________________________ 6-OP-ED: Denying marriage rights to gays would be immoral Posted on Tue, Aug. 10, 2004 (KRT) - I'm straight. The female of the species sets off my bells and whistles. Being straight, I don't understand the gay and lesbian experience. I can't relate to feeling a physical attraction to someone of my own sex. But being white, I don't understand the experiences of persons of color, either. I haven't a clue what it's like to be a minority in a nation dominated by another race. And being male, I don't understand the female experience. Man, do I not understand the female experience. But even with my lack of understanding, I do know a few things about these folks who are different from me in one way or another. I know that, like me, they didn't choose the pigmentation of their skin. I know that, like me, they didn't choose their sex. (OK, some folks are choosing their sex these days, but not right out of the womb.) I know that, like me, they didn't choose their sexual orientation. Gays and lesbians can no more change that part of their being than I can change the gene that relocated most of the hair from my head to parts of my body where it's unwelcome. So, here I am, a straight, white, male American. And all around me are other Americans, many of whom are not male, some of whom are not white and some of whom are not straight. Does that make them less American than me? Does that make them less deserving of the rights, privileges and legal protections that come with the name? Of course not. There was a time in this country when people of color were denied those rights, privileges and protections. But we, as a society, recognized the wrongness of that situation. We changed our laws and most of our attitudes. There was also a time in this country when women were denied some of those rights, privileges and protections. But we, as a society, recognized the wrongness of that situation, too. We changed our laws and most of our attitudes. But we, as a society, continue to deny gays and lesbians some of the rights, privileges and protections that come with being Americans. In Kentucky and most other parts of the country, gay and lesbian couples cannot marry. And even in those few islands of enlightened tolerance where such marriages are being performed, gay and lesbian couples cannot avail themselves of the benefits of marriage under federal law. According to the General Accounting Office, there are more than 1,100 federal statutory provisions that make marriage a factor in receiving benefits, rights and privileges. All are denied to gay and lesbian couples. Because the federal government and most states don't recognize the marriages of gays and lesbians, they don't enjoy the inheritance rights, insurance benefits, tax advantages and hundreds of other privileges that are virtually automatic for married couples. We justify this discrimination against our fellow Americans by quoting chapter and verse from the Bible. Perhaps the verse we cite is Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." If we base our laws solely on the words of the Bible, our course is clear. We must kill all gays and lesbians. But we cannot stop there, because the verses surrounding Leviticus 20:13 tell us that we must also "put to death" many others as well - those who curse their mother or father, those who commit adultery, those who curse or blaspheme the Lord and those guilty of assorted other crimes. Some must be stoned. Some must be burned. We can be creative about how we slay the rest. If we copied and pasted Leviticus directly into our statutes, our noncapital crimes would include shaving our heads or trimming our beards; marrying a divorced woman; eating pork, shellfish or rabbit; and working on Sunday, presumably even for the clergy. But while our laws share certain principals with biblical teachings, our laws as a whole are secular. And rightly so, since this is a nation of many religions, not one, a nation that cherishes its religious freedom and diversity. In this land of secular laws, marriage is a legal institution, not a religious one. Churches may sanctify marriages. And they may choose not to sanctify same-sex marriages if they believe homosexuality is a sin. That is their right, and it should never be denied them. But only government sanctions marriage. You can get married without a church, a minister or any reference to religion. You can't get married and enjoy the legal benefits of marriage without a government-issued license. When you accept the fact that marriage is a legal institution rather than a religious one, all the arguments against same-sex marriage melt away, because all of them ultimately are rooted in religious beliefs. All that is left, then, is one simple question. It's the question put before Kentucky voters this fall in the form of an amendment that would embed in constitutional concrete the state's existing law prohibiting same-sex marriages. Should we deprive gays and lesbians of the rights, privileges and protections enjoyed by other Americans? In "Death in the Afternoon," Ernest Hemingway wrote, "I know only that what is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral is what you feel bad after." I know that if I cast a vote for this amendment, I would feel bad afterward. I would feel immoral. I would feel immoral because the folks who will suffer the consequences of this amendment are our co-workers, friends, family members. I cannot and will not tell any of them they are less deserving than me simply because they were born gay or lesbian while I was born straight. --- ABOUT THE WRITER Larry Dale Keeling is an editorial writer and columnist for the Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader. Reach him by e-mail at lkeeling@herald-leader.com. --- © 2004, Lexington Herald-Leader (Lexington, Ky.). Visit the World Wide Web site of the Herald-Leader at http://www.kentucky.com Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.
|
|
|
|||||
 |
||||||||
| Copyright © 2001 - 2009 The Catholic University of America. | ||||||||
 |
||||||||
