Top 6 News - April 6, 2004

---

1-NEWS: MA split on DOMA amendment
2-NEWS: Briefs filed in OR
3-NEWS: SF licenses aren't getting all benefits yet
4-NEWS: J. Dobson speaks to 2,000 OR church leaders
5-NEWS: OR GOP calls for DOMA amendment
6-NEWS: OK backs down, issues birth certificate
________________________
1-NEWS: MA split on DOMA amendment
Poll:
http://www.mccormack.umb.edu/umasspoll/data/pdf/2004_Mar29_Apr5.pdf
Question No. 5-7, 10,
Poll finds split over marriage amendment
By Frank Phillips, Globe Staff, 4/6/2004
http://www.boston.com/News/news/local/articles/2004/04/06/poll_finds_split_over_marriage_amendment/
Massachusetts residents were evenly divided over the Legislature's
compromise proposal that bans gay marriage but also provides civil
unions for same sex couples, according to a University of Massachusetts
poll conducted over the past week.
In the first test of public opinion since the lawmakers' historic vote
on March 29, the proposed amendment to the state constitution fell short
of getting majority support in the poll, with 47 percent backing the
measure and 47 opposing it.
The poll, which was taken March 30 through April 4, also found that
given specific choices, 40 percent of those surveyed supported gay
marriage while 28 percent supported a ban on gay marriage that would
also provide for civil unions.
The people who strongly opposed both legalizing gay marriage and
authorizing same-sex civil unions represented 17 percent of the poll
sample. The sample was made up of 463 residents, 400 of whom are
registered voters. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 5
percent.
The pollsters began surveying residents a day after the Legislature,
meeting as a Constitutional Convention, ended its prolonged wrangling
over proposals to ban gay marriages. The lawmakers voted 105-92 for a
proposed constitutional amendment that would define marriage solely as
between a man and a woman and also permit same-sex civil unions that
offer gay couples the same state rights and benefits as marriage. The
amendment needs another vote of approval in the next legislative session
before it can be placed on the 2006 ballot.
Lou DiNatale, senior fellow at the McCormack School at UMass-Boston,
said the poll results indicated how divided and confused the
Massachusetts public is over gay marriage, which went to the top of the
public agenda last fall with a Supreme Judicial Court ruling legalizing
gay marriage. DiNatale said the findings suggest a tougher-than-expected
battle to win passage of a constitutional ban.
"The legislative split we saw last week reflects the split we see in the
general population," DiNatale said. "I would argue that these poll
findings show that any amendment that gets to the ballot is going to
have some difficulty getting a majority of voters behind it."
DiNatale said the poll also found that 11 percent of the sample said
that the issue didn't matter to them, indicating that a small but
significant bloc of voters could be the key for gay marriage supporters
to defeat the proposed amendment at the ballot box.
"This seems to show some sentiment in the electorate that simply wants
to get the issue off the public agenda," said DiNatale.
The poll also found that 52 percent of people surveyed supported
Romney's efforts to ask the "Supreme Court" [sic] to stay its ruling
legalizing gay marriage. Forty-two percent opposed the governor's plan.
(The court is known formally as the Supreme Judicial Court.)
Because gay marriages will be legal May 17 under the SJC ruling, Romney
and other opponents argue that there will be legal complications and
confusion if the voters ban same-sex marriage in 2006. But Attorney
General Thomas F. Reilly refused to seek the stay on Romney's behalf.
Romney says he is weighing other legal options.
Romney's decision to take a high-profile role in the gay marriage debate
appeared not to have damaged his standing. Of those surveyed, 62 percent
gave him a favorable rating and 36 percent an unfavorable rating,
indicating little change from UMass polls taken last summer and fall.
Romney's general job performance rating among voters did not seem to
have suffered, either, with 58 percent rating his performance as
excellent or good, and 40 percent not so good or poor. Those numbers
were also consistent with UMass poll results over the last six months.
But Massachusetts lawmakers emerged from their often emotional and
heated deliberations over gay marriage with poor marks. The poll found
that only 35 percent rated the Legislature's job on the gay marriage
issue as excellent or good and 59 saying it was not so good or poor.
(c) Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.
_______________________________
2-NEWS: Briefs filed in OR
Legal arguments on gay marriage filed
The filing of motions sets the stage for a hearing on April 16.
PETER WONG Statesman Journal
April 6, 2004
http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=78196
All sides in Oregon's debate about same-sex marriage outlined their
legal arguments in a test case Monday.
State lawyers said same-sex couples have no constitutional right to
obtain a marriage license, though courts could allow the Legislature to
create a legal equivalent for them.
Lawyers for same-sex couples argued that only marriage, under licenses
that Multnomah County started issuing March 3, offers them the same
legal protections and benefits as opposite-sex couples.
Other lawyers asserted that marriage is historically a union of a man
and a woman, that it is not a constitutional right - and that gays and
lesbians who seek to marry are not protected by the Oregon Constitution
in the same way that race and national origin are.
The filings of motions and supporting statements set the stage for a
hearing by Judge Frank Bearden in Multnomah County Circuit Court,
tentatively on April 16, although legal wrangling could delay it. All
sides have a week to respond to Monday's filings.
Nine same-sex couples, four of them from Multnomah County, sued the
state on March 24 in a legal test of Oregon's marriage law. The American
Civil Liberties Union of Oregon represents the couples and Basic Rights
Oregon, and state officials are obligated to defend the law.
Multnomah County and the Defense of Marriage Coalition, organized by the
Oregon Family Council, are participants.
"Although the issue of same-sex marriage stirs powerful and competing
political currents, that issue in the first instance is one of law,"
said Assistant Attorney General Stephen Bushong, who will defend the law
in court.
Once Judge Bearden issues a decision, it will be up to the Court of
Appeals and Supreme Court to decide whether to bypass an intermediate
review and put the dispute directly into the high court.
Oregon's marriage law dates to 1862, and back to pre-statehood days.
Attorney General Hardy Myers has said Oregon's 36 counties cannot issue
licenses to same-sex couples, but that denying them also might run afoul
of the equal-protection guarantee of the Oregon Constitution.
Bushong argued Monday that same-sex couples may be entitled to the same
legal benefits, "but they do not have a constitutional right to a
marriage license."
Bushong said that legal alternatives, such as the civil-union concept
favored by Gov. Ted Kulongoski and enacted in Vermont, should be
fashioned by the Oregon Legislature, not by the courts or county
officials.
Dave Fidanque, ACLU Oregon executive director, said he thinks it is
curious reasoning.
"What they are saying is that the court should order Multnomah County to
violate the Oregon Constitution, while the governor begs the Legislature
to pass a civil-union statute," Fidanque said.
"It's one thing to say the statute is constitutional, as some of our
opponents do. It's another to say that the court should ignore the fact
that the statute is unconstitutional and let legislators craft something
else."
In 1998, when the Court of Appeals overturned a denial of insurance
benefits by Oregon Health & Science University to same-sex domestic
partners, the court found that gays and lesbians were covered against
discrimination by the equal-protection guarantee of the Oregon
Constitution.
Still, Bushong said, that decision "does not make it indisputably clear
that Oregon's marriage licensing statute is unconstitutional."
The Court of Appeals remained silent in that 1998 decision about whether
same-sex couples can marry. The Supreme Court never reviewed it.
The Defense of Marriage Coalition argued that same-sex couples are
asking something they are not entitled to under the constitutional
guarantee of equal protection.
"They are asking for treatment not 'upon the same terms,' but on unique
terms redefined only for their particular group," said the arguments
filed by Portland lawyer Kelly Clark and others.
They said that the Legislature made a distinct choice about marriage -
and that equal protection applies to race and national origin but not in
this context gays and lesbians.
The coalition said that the framers of the Oregon Constitution back in
1857 made it clear in references that marriage was between a man and a
woman, even though a specific definition was left to the law.
"It must be concluded that the marriage statutes in Oregon law were, and
are, historical exceptions to any provision in the Constitution which
would tend to call them into question," Clark wrote.
But Fidanque said that years ago, Oregon law also restricted public
accommodations for people of color and barred Chinese and Japanese
immigrants from owning land. The Legislature passed a civil-rights law
in 1953, and repealed the land-ownership restrictions four years
earlier.
"If this issue did not involve same-sex marriage, I think that the
state's position would get laughed out of court," he said. "Oregon does
not have a proud history when it comes to discrimination based on race
or national origin. I hope Oregon will do better this time around."
Peter Wong pwong@StatesmanJournal.com can be reached at (503) 399-6745.
__________________________
3-NEWS: SF licenses aren't getting all benefits yet
THE BATTLE OVER SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
Gays find marriage a mixed bag
License doesn't guarantee benefits granted heterosexual couples
Rona Marech, Chronicle Staff Writer <mailto:rmarech@sfchronicle.com>
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/04/06/BAGBG610IJ1.DTL
When Kory O'Rourke called her car insurance company and asked that her
spouse be added to her plan, the representative on the other end of the
phone "didn't blink" -- even when it became clear that O'Rourke meant
her same-sex partner, whom she had just married in San Francisco.
"Oh, congratulations," the representative at the Progressive Group of
Insurance Companies said. "I'm going to issue you a $78 credit, so you
guys be sure to go out and have a nice dinner on us."
O'Rourke was thrilled -- but it turns out the exchange should never have
taken place. In changing O'Rourke's coverage, the representative
apparently violated company policy. Progressive is not officially
recognizing marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples, although it is
investigating whether to change its policy, said spokesperson Todd
Morgano.
Confusion and discrepancy are all too common, as gay newlyweds have
returned home from San Francisco and other wedding-positive cities and
started to demand a few of the benefits that come with marriage. The
federal government has compiled a list of 1,049 rights and
responsibilities contingent on marriage -- from survivor's rights to
Social Security benefits. Many gay couples have begun with simple steps:
asking their employers and insurers to offer them the same health care
and car insurance coverage extended to married heterosexuals. The
results have been decidedly mixed.
The conversation David Greer of Chicago held with a human resources
employee at Dean Foods, the dairy processing and distribution company
where he works, is typical of the conversations that have played out in
personnel offices nationwide.
According to Greer, he explained he had married his same-sex partner in
San Francisco and wanted to change his official marital status and add
his new husband to his health care plan. The addition would mean Greer's
partner -- who is self-employed -- would be required to pay only a
fraction of the $500 monthly health insurance premium he now pays, Greer
said.
The officer responded that the company doesn't offer domestic partner
benefits.
"But this isn't a domestic partnership," Greer said. "This is marriage."

Acting on orders from Mayor Gavin Newsom, San Francisco began issuing
marriage licenses to same-sex couples in February. A month later, the
state Supreme Court ruled that the city had to cease issuing the
licenses. The court will decide this summer whether Newsom had the
authority to defy Proposition 22, the voter-approved ballot measure that
defines marriage as only between a man and woman.
"The courts have not declared the license illegal, so until they do, we
consider the license a legal document," Greer said.
Between Feb. 12 and March 11, 4,037 same-sex couples obtained marriage
licenses in San Francisco.
After some back and forth, Dean Foods told Greer they would not
recognize his partner.
Greer bridled when a personnel representative told him to be patient. "I
had asked two years ago about domestic partner benefits, and I was told
at that time they wouldn't be extended," he said "I felt I had been
patient enough. ... I just wanted to be treated fairly."
Dean Foods responded in a statement that "the California attorney
general has stated that the marriage licenses in question 'are not
recognized by the State of California' and were issued 'in violation of
state law.' " The company will abide by the California Supreme Court's
decision, it said.
O'Rourke, an English teacher at South San Francisco High School, says
she's never been an activist, but marrying her girlfriend in San
Francisco changed that. "Something about standing there for five minutes
and having them tell me I'm the same as everyone else," she said.
Though her spouse has health insurance coverage through her own job,
O'Rourke approached the South San Francisco Unified School District's
Personnel Department and asked to add her partner, Kate Sheppard, to her
health plan.
She didn't hear back for almost a month, but last week -- after several
calls from a reporter -- the assistant superintendent of personnel
services said the district would extend equal benefits to all married
employees, whether they are in a heterosexual or gay relationship.
Married spouses are entitled to dental and vision coverage, benefits
domestic partners do not have under the district's current plan.
"It's such a feeling of more than acceptance," O'Rourke said. "Not only
do they tolerate me, they embrace me. ... It's such a gesture of good
faith."
In the legal chaos the same-sex marriages have produced, some major
health and car insurance companies have taken positions as follows:
Kaiser Permanente, the health care provider, and AAA of Northern
California, which provides auto insurance, are recognizing same-sex
spouses and will continue to do so unless the state Supreme Court rules
that the licenses are invalid, spokes- people said.
But State Farm Insurance, which offers car, home, health insurance, is
taking the opposite tact -- the company is waiting for the court ruling
this summer before changing its spousal policies, according to
spokesperson Bill Sirola.
San Francisco resident Annye Bone, who works at an adult materials
wholesaler in the city, said that after a bit of dogged pushing, her
employers -- she did not name them for fear of upsetting supervisors --
had given her a change of status form to add her spouse to her health
plan.
The company doesn't cover any part of a spouse's premium -- in this
case, $283 -- but the switch is important, because Bone's provider,
Health Net, pays for allergy and antidepressant medication, and her
partner doesn't get that coverage on her current plan.
Bone is waiting for the paperwork to get processed. But Brad Kieffer, a
spokesperson at Health Net, said the company didn't recognize same-sex
marriages. California employers can opt to offer workers domestic
partner coverage, he said, but a marriage license cannot be substituted
for proof of domestic partnership.
It has been much less complicated for Michael Coburn, 39, of
Albuquerque. He married Randy Elliott in Sandoval County in New Mexico
on Feb. 20, and soon after, he asked his employer, Honeywell
International, to add his spouse to his health plan. The company
immediately complied with his request.
Honeywell International did not comment on their benefits policy.
The change doesn't affect Coburn financially, he said, because the
company already offers domestic partner health care benefits. And every
employer must treat same-sex spouses as domestic partners for tax
purposes under IRS regulations. That means that unlike married
heterosexuals, married gay workers must pay income tax on the value of
the benefit. This is true even in cities such as San Francisco and San
Jose, which both recognize the marriages of gay city employees.
But money wasn't the point for Coburn.
When he recently checked his online benefits page, he was "tickled" to
find his partner listed as "spouse."
"It was essentially that simple," he said.
E-mail Rona Marech at rmarech@sfchronicle.com
___________________________________
4-NEWS: J. Dobson speaks to 2,000 OR church leaders
Evangelist rallies Oregon pastors to fight against same-sex marriage
In a talk at a Clackamas church, James Dobson says the debate is a key
battle in a war of values
04/06/04
TOM QUINN, Oregonian
http://www.oregonlive.com/News/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/News/news/1081253216257210.xml
CLACKAMAS -- About 2,000 Oregon pastors and church leaders who oppose
same-sex marriage jammed into New Hope Community Church on Monday for a
meeting that was half pep rally, half war council.
Featured speaker James Dobson, an evangelist and popular radio talk show
host, called the current debate on marriage the climactic battle in a
war of values that has been waged for 20 years.
"This is the Waterloo, this is the Gettysburg," he said. "If lost, it
will be like a mirror shattered. Once it's broken, it will not be able
to be repaired."
Dobson said the church was the key in "pulling us back from the
precipice" and that responsibility for the next move in the battle is up
to the pastors.
Monday's gathering was organized by the Defense of Marriage Coalition, a
group of pastors and community leaders that formed hours after Multnomah
County decided in March to grant marriage licenses to gay and lesbian
couples. Tim Nashif, who helped organize the coalition, said the meeting
of pastors was designed to pull together everyone who cares deeply about
preserving traditional ideas of marriage and to enlist their help in the
legal and legislative battles that are ahead.
He said the participants came from 34 Oregon counties and 150 towns and
cities.
"This isn't something we wanted to do," Ray Cotton, pastor of the New
Hope Community Church, said about his reasons for hosting the meeting.
"This is something we had to do."
Nashif and other speakers talked about the coalition's plan to use an
initiative to amend the Oregon Constitution. Under draft wording, only
unions between men and women would be recognized as valid and legal.
The group has until July 2 to gather 100,000 signatures to refer the
measure to the November ballot, though the attorney general must approve
the wording.
During the meeting, pastors also learned about the do's and don'ts of
taking political action so they won't threaten their church's nonprofit
status.
House Speaker Karen Minnis, R-Wood Village, told the crowd "You have
friends, you have allies, in the Oregon Legislature." But she held out
little hope that June's special session on tax reform would result in
any legislation on the same-sex issue.
David Fidanque, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union
of Oregon, said he wasn't surprised by the large turnout of pastors. He
noted that the coalition's parent organization, the Oregon Family
Council, is well-organized politically.
He thinks an initiative on the issue will make it to voters, but "I
don't think there is a majority of Oregonians who will support writing
discrimination into the Oregon Constitution," he said.
The large crowd responded to speakers with "amens" and "hallelujahs,"
and gave Multnomah County Commissioner Lonnie Roberts a huge ovation for
standing alone on the issue. The other four commissioners support
same-sex marriage.
Kevin Mannix, Oregon Republican Party chairman, and Lon Mabon, sponsor
of several initiatives that would have restricted gay rights, also were
in the crowd.
In a folksy speech peppered with anecdotes, Dobson laid out 10 reasons
for objecting to same-sex marriage, including its negative effects on
children and spreading homosexuality worldwide.
He laid the blame for same-sex marriage on a "tyrannical judiciary" that
was "trying to eliminate morality as a basis for law."
While Dobson used war rhetoric, many pastors said it was important to
show compassion during the struggle.
"I wish we could be seen in the light we want to be seen -- we love
homosexuals as we love everyone -- but we don't condone what they do,"
said Rod Vermillion, pastor at Glenfair Evangelical Church.
His fellow pastor, Larry Whittlesey, surveyed the crowd and said
Multnomah County has awakened a sleeping giant. He predicted the
coalition would have no problem gathering enough signatures for the
measure.
"Think about it: One person here represents 100 people back at their
church," Whittlesey said.
Tom Quinn: 503-294-5918; thomasquinn@news.oregonian.com
____________________________
6-NEWS: OK backs down, issues birth certificate
Oklahoma Backs Down, Issues Birth Certificate To Baby With Two Dads
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 5, 2004 2:09 pm. ET Updated: April 5, 2004 8:01 p.m. ET  
http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/04/040504adopt.htm
(Oklahoma City, Oklahoma) Two-year-old Vivian is like most kids her age,
curious, active and loving. That love is directed at her two dads. The
tot has lived with her parents, Gregory Hampel and Edmund Swaya, in
Seattle, Washington since shortly after she was born in Oklahoma.
To ensure Vivian is cared for properly should anything happen to either
of her dads, Hampel and Swaya requested a vital birth record showing the
couple as joint parents.
Despite a legal direction which permits co-adoption the Oklahoma Health
Department refused.
After nearly two years in a legal tug of war, Hampel and Swaya turned to
Lambda Legal which today released a letter to the department urging it
to follow the law.
"The Health Department does not have authority to decide who gets a
birth certificate or who is a legal parent," said Brian Chase, Staff
Attorney for Lambda Legal.
Within hours the department said it had begun issuing the birth
certificates to same-gender couples in other states who adopt children
in Oklahoma.
"Because same-sex adoption is illegal in Oklahoma, we were uncertain how
to address an out-of-state adoption," said Timothy Tardibono, assistant
general counsel for the Health Department.
But, that is disputed by Lambda Legal which points to an advisory issued
by Oklahoma State Attorney General, W.A. Drew Edmonson, at the request
of the former health commissioner.
The advisory states that under the federal Constitution and Oklahoma
laws, the state is required to issue accurate birth certificates for
children legally adopted outside of Oklahoma including to children
adopted by same-sex couples.
Tardibono said because the format used for birth certificates has not
been changed, the document will list Hampel as the father and Swaya as
the mother.
But the decision has upset some Republican lawmakers. Rep. Thad Balkman
(R-Norman) said he is working on legislation to block same-sex couples
from jointly adopting.
(c)365Gay.com(r) 2004