The Marriage Law Project at The Catholic University of America

TOP6NEWS - Date 3.18.05

1-NEWS: M amendment introduced in House
2-NEWS: M amendment on TN ballot next year

3-NEWS: MI AG: m amendment covers state dp benefits

4-NEWS: KY appeals court won't divide gay partner's assets

5-NEWS: SSM a debate on Indian reservations too

6-NEWS: So what happens next at Harvard?

________________________________________________________

1-NEWS: M amendment introduced in House
Lungren measure aims to halt gay marriage Constitutional change would block courts.
By David Whitney
WASHINGTON - Rep. Dan Lungren on Thursday introduced a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in a move that irritated gay activists but didn't soothe marriage protectionists, either.
The action by the Gold River Republican and former state attorney general comes just three days after a San Francisco judge ruled that state laws banning gay marriage violate the California Constitution.
Lungren's measure flatly declares that marriage "is a legal union of one man and one woman," and it removes the authority of all state and federal courts from saying otherwise.

Full Article

________________________________________________________

2-NEWS: M amendment on TN ballot next year

Gay marriage amendment goes before voters in 2006

By IAN DEMSKY Tennessean Staff Writer
All sides in the debate of whether to amend the Tennessee Constitution to forbid gay marriage will have the next 20 months to publicly argue their positions before the issue is turned over to voters.
Randy Cox, who supports gay marriage, watched yesterday as the House voted 88-7 in favor of the resolution, which says marriage will be defined as being between one man and one woman. The Senate approved the measure, 29-3, last month.
''Obviously, it was expected, but it was still disappointing to watch it happen,'' the 44-year-old civil rights activist said. ''I also know that we have to look forward and plan for how we're going to work on the ballot initiative.''
If the measure ultimately succeeds, Tennessee will join 11 states that passed anti-gay marriage amendments in November, according to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Gay marriage opponents have taken steps to push basically the same amendment in another 17 states.

Full Article

________________________________________________________

3-NEWS: MI AG: m amendment covers state dp benefits Attorney General Opinion:
Ruling goes against same-sex benefits
Proposal 2 is found to limit options for public employees March 17, 2005

BY DAWSON BELL FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
Defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, as Michigan voters did with Proposal 2 in November, also signals the end of health care and other benefits for the same-sex partners of public employees in the state, according to an opinion issued Wednesday by Attorney General Mike Cox.
The opinion came in response to a question about benefits for employees of the City of Kalamazoo. The same legal theories would apply to public schools and universities which offer same-sex benefits, said an official in the Attorney General's Office who asked not to be identified.
In the absence of a contrary opinion from a court, the attorney general's interpretation of the law is generally binding on state agencies.
"The bottom line is that the law is what the law is," Cox said. "This is the logical outcome of what the voters approved."
The attorney general's opinion was immediately denounced as disappointing and wrong by Jeffrey Montgomery, executive director of the Triangle Foundation, a Detroit-area gay rights organization.

Full Article

________________________________________________________

4-NEWS: KY appeals court won't divide gay partner's assets

Kentucky Court Won’t Divide Assets Gay man fails to win state assistance in settling dispute with his ex-lover

By ARTHUR S. LEONARD Gay City News

In a case that shows the difficulty same-sex couples who can’t marry have in getting courts to help them divide their assets, the Court of Appeals of Kentucky has upheld a lower court’s finding that it lacked jurisdiction over claims filed by Kevin J. Strong concerning property jointly acquired with his former partner, Robert S. Strong.
According to the March 11 opinion by Judge Jeff Taylor, Kevin and Robert were domestic partners for about five years while living together in Indiana. During that time, they purchased property together, maintained a joint bank account and made joint investments, which included acquiring a joint burial plot in a cemetery in Louisville, Kentucky. Their relationship ended in February, 2000, and Kevin moved to Kentucky.
Kevin and Robert could not agree about how to divide up their property. In 2003, Kevin filed a lawsuit in the Jefferson County, Kentucky, Circuit Court, asking the court to use its equitable powers to divide up the property. In addition to being a resident of Jefferson County, Kevin pointed out that the burial plot the men owned jointly was also in Jefferson County. Kevin’s lawsuit also claimed that Robert “engaged in tortious conduct in Kentucky that constituted an invasion of his privacy.” Taylor’s opinion does not specify what that alleged conduct was.

Full Article

________________________________________________________

5-NEWS: SSM a debate on Indian reservations too

On the Reservation, U.S. Indians Debate Gay Unions

By Adam Tanner

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - On American Indian reservations, some tribes are debating whether they should embrace gay marriage or shun such unions as an affront to family values.
The controversy in these often-ignored sovereign territories within the United States comes as Americans in general are divided, often bitterly, over same-sex weddings. The controversy made headlines again this week as a judge ruled that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.
"What goes on in Indian nations now is a microcosm of what is going on across the country," said David Cornsilk, a Cherokee representing two lesbians in the most prominent case before an American Indian court.

Full Article

________________________________________________________

6-NEWS: So what happens next at Harvard?
Summers vote roils Harvard
By Marcella Bombardieri, Globe Staff

The high drama of Tuesday's no-confidence vote in Harvard University president Lawrence H. Summers has left the faculty bewildered. The move was not only a surprise to almost everyone on campus, but virtually unprecedented at a major research university, so there is no blueprint for what happens next.
''Many of us are confused at this point," said historian Charles S. Maier. ''It's not a parliamentary system," in which a vote of no confidence would bring down the government, so ''you don't know what consequences arise from the vote."
The regular administrative business of the university has slowed as professors ponder what the 218 members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences really meant when they voted to say ''the faculty lacks confidence" in Summers. Did most of those 218 want to push Summers to step down? Or did they want to influence the governing corporation, which alone has the power to fire him? Or simply to send a clear warning?

Full Article