|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
TOP6NEWS - September 23, 2004 1-NEWS: Manitoba asks m commissioners to resign if won't perform ssm 2-NEWS: Judge denies GA lawmakers motion to intervene 3-NEWS: Oral arguments on m amendment in AR high court today 4-NEWS: TX lesbian arguing 2nd parent adoption not legal because not m 5-NEWS: Would LA m amendment eliminate partner benefits? 6-OP-ED: Canadian worried about being forced into 'straight morality' of m ________________________________________________________ 1-NEWS: Manitoba asks m commissioners to resign if won't perform ssm Marriage commissioners resign over same-sex weddings Last week, a Manitoba judge ruled the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional, opening the door for homosexual couples to wed. A letter from the Vital Statistics office has gone out Manitoba's 600 marriage commissioners ordering them to return their Certificates of Registration if they have a problem performing same-sex marriages. Gil Dube runs a trucking company, and is also an authorized marriage commissioner in Manitoba. He says he'll quit rather than preside over same-sex unions. "I will not perform a same-sex marriage, so based on that, I am left with no choice but to resign, back out or whatever," he says. ... • Religious officials need not resign • "I'm not sure that I agree with returning your certificate if you're not comfortable doing a same-sex marriage for the simple reason that any priest or minister has the right not to do it," he says. The letter did not go out to religious officials who perform marriages. Caroline Kaus of Vital Statistics says the law has to apply to all civil commissioners equally and they will have to decide for themselves if they wish to continue the service. "When we appoint you, we assure all Manitobans will be treated in an equitable manner," she says. "As such, we want to make sure you're aware of that immediately." ... ________________________________________________________ 2-NEWS: Judge denies GA lawmakers motion to intervene Judge won't let lawmakers enter gay marriage ban suit Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance Russell denied a motion Tuesday by state Sen. Mike Crotts (R-Conyers) and five other lawmakers to step in as defendants in a lawsuit filed last week by the Georgia ACLU, Lambda Legal and the law firm of Alston and Bird. The suit seeks to remove from the ballot the question defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. ... ________________________________________________________ 3-NEWS: Oral arguments on m amendment in AR high court today Court to hear arguments in marriage amendment today Oral arguments are set for 9 a.m. The Arkansas Marriage Amendment Committee gathered more than 200,000 signatures by the July 2 deadline to get the proposal on the ballot. Just 80,570 were needed. ... ________________________________________________________ 4-NEWS: TX lesbian arguing 2nd parent adoption not legal because not m Posted on Thu, Sep. 23, 2004 Julie Anne Hobbs and Janet Kathleen Van Stavern were together for eight years until March. Hobbs conceived the child by artificial insemination, and Van Stavern legally adopted her in 2001. Van Stavern pays $400 a month in child support and visits the girl. Hobbs is arguing that the Texas Family Code requires that before adoption, a child's relationship with biological parents has to be terminated or the parent whose rights were not terminated must be married to the person seeking custody. Same-sex marriages are not recognized in Texas. "The granting of this adoption was directly contrary to and in violation of Texas law and, therefore, void as a matter of law," Hobbs' attorneys argued in a legal brief. "The court had no authority to grant the adoption as Janet Kathleen Van Stavern could not be the 'spouse' of Julie Anne Hobbs nor the 'stepparent' to the child." Van Stavern's attorney responded that Hobbs could have challenged the adoption for six months after it was approved, but now it is too late ....
________________________________________________________ 5-NEWS: Would LA m amendment eliminate partner benefits? Attorney: marriage amendment will wipe out N.O. partner benefits9/22/2004, 4:18 p.m. CT By JANET McCONNAUGHEY The Associated Press http://www.nola.com/newsflash/louisiana/index.ssf?/base/news-11/109588614891320.xml&storylist=louisiana NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The marriage amendment approved Saturday will wipe out New Orleans' benefits for partners of city workers who sign onto a domestic partner registry, say attorneys challenging the amendment. The only immediate direct effect of this amendment is to abolish the New Orleans Domestic Partner registry ordinance. That is exactly what the people behind this amendment wanted," attorney John Rawls said. "They sued to abolish it and lost in court. So they stuck it in a craftily worded amendment." City attorneys have said they don't think the amendment will affect the city ordinance. Mayoral spokeswoman Tanzie Jones reiterated that Wednesday, but said she did not know the legal basis for the contention and city attorneys were busy with another matter. Michael Johnson, a Shreveport attorney who has argued in favor of the amendment, said it adds a new argument to his challenge of New Orleans' domestic partnership ordinance. "I think and would argue that a domestic partnership is, quote-unquote, substantially similar to marriage," said Johnson, who is affiliated with the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian group. That suit was thrown out on grounds that the ADF plaintiffs had sued as taxpayers, but the policy did not cost taxpayers additional money. Johnson has appealed that decision. ... ________________________________________________________ 6-OP-ED: Canadian worried about being forced into 'straight morality' of m Judicial Copouts ... So marriage, under het rules, is being implemented. A well-known law professor has recently called for gay men and lesbians to be included properly in Canadian divorce laws, specifically mentioning that adultery should be a ground for gay divorce. Imagine how that fits into the way we structure our relationships. It reminds me of the 1960s, when divorce was almost impossible in our moralistic nation, and straights would lie under oath to get one. A political science professor once mentioned in class that one divorce lawyer's female secretary would routinely pose in a slightly compromising position with male clients. The photo (taken by a "private investigator") would then be sent in, along with a petition for divorce. Straight rules don't even work for straights. But this is where we're going: being forced into straight morality despite our gay lifestyles.
|
|
|
|||||
 |
||||||||
| Copyright © 2001 - 2009 The Catholic University of America. | ||||||||
 |
||||||||
