GLOBE ALERT NOTICE

From Califonia's Attorney General

July 2005

The Attorney General of California has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure:
 
 
MARRIAGE., ELIMINATION OF DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP RIGHTS.
 
         CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
 
Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between one man  and one woman is valid or recognized in California, whether contracted in this state or elsewhere.

Voids and restricts registered domestic partner rights and obligations, for certain same-sex and heterosexual couples in areas such as: ownership and transfer of property, inheritance, adoption, medical decisions, child custody and child support, health and death benefits, insurance benefits, hospital visitation, employment benefits and recovery for wrongful death and other tort remedies.

Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Unknown, but probably not significant, fiscal effect on state and local governments. The impact would depend in large part on future court interpretations.
 

GLOBE brings a message from, EQUALITY CALIFORNIA AND THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS


****JUST RELEASED****December 15, 2005


New Publication Demystifies New Domestic Partner Law AB 205

- What it Means for Couples -

What it Means for Our Community


The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and Equality California (EQCA) today released a new publication designed to help California domestic partners understand the legal implications of AB 205

California's broad new domestic partner law that takes full effect on January 1, 2005.

Titled The New California Domestic Partnership Law (AB 205):

What it Means for You and Your Family,

The document explains who can register as domestic partners, how to register, how to dissolve a partnership, and what rights, benefits, protections and responsibilities will be provided under AB 205.


Starting on January 1, 2005, registered domestic partners in California will be granted most of the rights and responsibilities of married couples under California law. Major changes include community property and financial obligations, parental rights and responsibilities, public benefits, and health care and end-of-life issues. However, registered domestic partners will still be denied the 1,138 rights and responsibilities conferred to married couples under federal law, and they still will have less security than married couples when they travel or move outside California.


Several anti-gay groups have challenged the validity of AB 205 in court. NCLR, along with the Law Office of David C. Codell, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU, intervened in the lawsuit on behalf of twelve same-sex couples and Equality California. In September, a Sacramento Superior Court judge ruled that the law was valid. That decision is now on appeal. In a last-ditch effort, despite having lost in the trial court, the anti-gay groups also filed an emergency request asking the appellate court to prevent the law from going into effect as planned on January 1, 2005. A ruling on this request will be issued shortly.


To view the new NCLR/EQCA AB 205 Publication go t0: (NOTE from GLOBE this link does not work, I will check with EQCA to try to correct)

http://www.eqca.org/atf/cf/{687DF34F-6480-4BCD-9C2B-1F33FD8E1294}/AB205%20Q%20%20A.Final.FINAL.FINAL1.pdf


Give the Gift of Equality for the Holidays
Support our efforts to win equality in California! Shop at our on-line catalog and order your holiday cards, 2005 Calendars, shoulder bags, caps, mugs and "Love Warrior" hooded sweatshirts. Order today and they'll make it in time for December 25th. To shop till you drop or until we win the right to marry whichever comes first go to http://www.cafepress.com/mecasd.

ALAMEDA COUNTY SAME-SEX MARRIAGE RESOLUTIONl


Alameda County Human Relations Commission
Resolution on Same Sex Marriage.


Passed on May 19, 2004.


WHEAREAS: Alameda County Human Relations Commission


Resolution on Same Sex Marriage.<>
Passed on May 19, 2004.


WHEREAS:


Equal rights for all citizens is the fundamental principle of a democratic society and
according to the 14th U.S. Constitutional Amendment: laws must operate alike upon all and not subject the individual to the arbitrary exercise of governmental power.


WHEREAS:


There has never been an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that perpetuated
discrimination against any group of individuals.


WHEREAS:


The Supreme Court decision Brown vs. The Board of Education of Topeka dispelled the
"Separate but Equal" concept as inherently unequal.


WHEREAS:


In the Loving vs. Virginia decision in 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all
interracial marriage laws, declaring that the "freedom to marry" belongs to all Americans; that
marriage is one of our "vital personal rights" and the right to marry is "essential to the orderly
pursuit of happiness of a free [people]."


WHEREAS:


The institution of civil marriage has undergone enormous change in recent times. Within
the last century, states could still ban interracial marriage, subjugate the rights of married
women to their husbands and place extensive restrictions on obtaining a divorce.
Miscegenation laws have been determined to be unconstitutional, wives and husbands are now
equal under the law, and no-fault divorce is the general rule.



WHEREAS:


The struggle to secure the right to marry the partner of one's choice, regardless of sex or
sexual orientation, has clear parallels to the struggle to end discrimination in interracial
marriage.


THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:


That the Alameda County Human Relations Commission strongly opposes any law or
Constitutional Amendment that will abridge the rights of gays and lesbians, including ones that
perpetuate unequal marriage treatment.


THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:


That the Alameda County Human Relations Commission supports the adoption of local
laws and policies that provide equal rights and protections to gays and lesbians, and further
recommends to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors that they support the aforementioned stance.


  *    *   *   * 

 
On May 19, 2004, the above resolution was narrowly passed by the Alameda County Human Relations Commission.  Since that time, the approved resolution has been sitting on the desk of Alameda County Supervisor Gail Steele's desk and NOT moved forward before   the entire Alameda County Supervisor Board.
Normal progress would have put the resolution before the entire board of supervisors within 2 weeks, and certainly before the July 27th Board meeting. 

SUPERVISOR GAIL STEELE NEEDS YOU TO PROMPT HER AS TO THE IMPORTANCE OF MOVING THIS RESOLUTION OFF HER DESK AND ONTO THE AGENDA OF THE ENTIRE ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERVISOR BOARD.


GLOBE  is asking the GLBTQ community to contact Supervisor Gail Steele at  272-6692 (Phone) , Snail mail Alameda County Board of Supervisors, 1221 Oak StreetSte 536, Oakland, CA 94612, and tell the President of the Board to move this resolution forward.  You can also contact other Board members to put pressure on Supervisor Steele to move this resolution forward.

  Their phone numbers are:


Scott Haggerty, District 1 272-6691;

Keith Carson District 5 - 272-6695;

Alice Lai-Bitker District 3 - 272-6693

and Nate Miley District 4 - 272-6694. 

Call the Clerk of the office of the Alameda County Board of Supervisor's at 272-647and fax number 208-9960
  


ALAMEDA County is one of the largest counties in California…..we should have this resolution approved now.

  Thanks.  
GLOBE (Gays and Lesbians Organized for Betterment and Equality) Your local grassroots GLBTQ organization.


Contact Charlene Shores, President @ 510/548-9722
#####

gays and lesbians organized for betterment and equality of alameda county

This ALERT page has changed somewhat .. more of current items of conversations since ALERTS has slowed down recently.

The FACE of those who married in San Francisco


Numbers put face on a phenomenon Most who married are middle-aged, have college degrees


Chronicle Staff Writers: Suzanne Herel, Rona Marech, Ilene Lelchuk, Thursday, March 18, 2004
There were doctors, lawyers and -- yes -- even an Indian "tribal chairwoman."


The 4,037 same-sex couples who obtained marriage licenses in San Francisco hail from 46 states and eight other countries, are highly educated, range in age from 18 to 83 but generally are middle-aged, and represent hundreds of occupations.


That's the picture painted by demographic information released Wednesday by the San Francisco assessor-recorder's office that tracked the licenses issued between Feb. 12, when Mayor Gavin Newsom gave the go-ahead to same-sex
nuptials, and March 11, when the state Supreme Court ordered them stopped.


"It really did represent, in its final composition, people from everywhere,"
said Carole Migden, the lesbian chairwoman of the state Board of Equalization who got married at San Francisco City Hall to her longtime partner and officiated at more than 100 other same-sex weddings. She said she wasn't surprised to find that the majority of the couples were between the ages of 36 and 50, and that 68.8 percent held at least a college degree.


"Many of the couples were parents. Many of the couples were older. Who's apt to say, 'Let's throw everything down and go get married?' -- perhaps people with a little more financial ability," Migden said.


"Amazing," said Thom Lynch, executive director of the San Francisco Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Community Center. "I think it talks about how deeply this reaches people. ... That just shows the whole cliche that we are everywhere. Well, we really are."


Couples came to San Francisco to marry for political reasons and also because
of the iconic meaning the city has, he said. Indeed, of the 17 foreign couples,
some came from Canada and the Netherlands, where same-sex marriage is legal.


"For many, many people, this is the heart of the gay and lesbian movement," Lynch said. "Even throughout the world. Even in progressive countries."


That was the case for people like John Humber, 33, who flew from Nashville to marry Michael McBlane, 27.


"We got really, really excited when we started reading stories of people getting married there, especially people who have been together so long," he said.


"We decided it was something special and something historical, and we wanted
to get involved. Plus, it's a beautiful city."
Ellen Pontac, 62, who married her partner of 30 years in February, said the lengths people went reflects the depth of feeling about the right of same- sex couples to marry.


"It just shows how much people want to get married. It was the only place in
the United States at the time where someone could get married," Pontac said.


Opponents of the same-sex unions, however, point to opinion polls and the passage of a state ballot measure that defines marriage as solely between a man and a woman as evidence that the majority of Californians feel differently
and believe that what took place in San Francisco was wrong.


"When you compare the little over 4,000 couples that sought to obtain a marriage license, that winds up being .000087 percent of 4.6 million people of California who voted in favor of preserving the institution of marriage," said
Robert Tyler, head of the California office of the Alliance Defense Fund, which asked the state Supreme Court to stop the marriages.


Of the couples who obtained marriage licenses, 91.4 percent live in California.

Significant numbers also traveled from Washington, Oregon, Nevada, New York and Florida.


The bulk of the couples came from San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley, but many also were from Sacramento, San Jose, Alameda, Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz.

A large number were from San Diego and Los Angeles and some Southern California Republican enclaves like Anaheim in Orange County.


They came from Kalamazoo, Mich., from the marriage capitals of Las Vegas and
Reno, from Paris, France, and Paris, Tenn.
The couples work as attorneys, artists, teachers, doctors and in other traditional careers. But there were also the tribal chairwoman from Ukiah, the airline pilot from Michigan, the self-defined cowboy from California and a
strawberry breeder from Florida.


More women than men tied the knot. Said Lynch, "I think that gays and lesbians are not exactly the same people. Relationships and the ways they're formed are different."


Ethnicity was not part of the demographic data released by the city, but many
people involved in the 29 days of same-sex weddings agreed that the majority
of the newlyweds were white, some were Latino and a few were African American
or Asian American.


Bill Jones, who officiated at 457 same-sex marriages, recalled a lesbian couple from Germany, several deaf couples, two cops from New York and a couple of farmboys from Nebraska.


Most of the couples said they had been together for between two and 37 years,
according to Jones.


Benjamin Lopez, legislative director and lobbyist for the Traditional Values
Coalition, which opposes same-sex marriage, said he wasn't surprised by the demographic profile of newlyweds or the great distances they came.


"The fact that gay couples from 46 other states came to California to marry plays into the strategy and the plans of Gavin Newsom," Lopez said. "By showing flagrant disrespect for the law he said, 'Come here. We will marry you if
your state will not. Then you can go to courts in your home states and challenge
the validity of your licenses at home."


Maryann Martindale, who flew to San Francisco from Salt Lake City to marry her partner of three years, said she didn't know what to expect when she returned home. But she said the response has been overwhelming supportive. That's been
true even at her job at a time management company -- started by a descendent
of the founder of the conservative Mormon church.


"It's encouraged great dialogue," Martindale said. "That surprised me. I didn't think anyone would be rude. I just thought I'd be ignored."

Click Back or go to GLOBE's main page


Powered by MSN TV