News items in and for the LGBTQ Community

©

Please refresh for latest updates ...

This is the Gay Couples Pride Flag and is dedicated to the Domestic Partners in California and the new Massachusetts and Canadian Marriage Laws.

DateLine: June 6, 2005 Sacramento CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY DID NOT PASS MARRIAGE EQUALITY BILL Sacramento, CA - Assembly Bill 19, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, authored by Assemblymember Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez (D-Los Angeles), and 30 co-authors did not pass the California Assembly with a 37-36 vote.   If passed, EQCA-sponsored AB 19 would grant same-sex couples the right to marry and guarantee religious freedom. "Today, we saw the true colors of a handful of Democrats and all Republican members who have deserted the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community and voted for discrimination," said Executive Director Geoffrey Kors of Equality California.  "This is a bittersweet moment to see so many families coming together for equality and very disappointing to see some legislators turning their backs on our families. The vote was extremely close, and while disappointing, this is a giant step forward that will only build momentum to pass this bill in the near future.  This is the farthest any marriage equality legislation has been heard in a state legislature without a court-ordered action.  We should be proud of this accomplishment and move forward."   "The history of civil rights in this country and in the great state of California show that there are often many steps forward and back, but in the end equality and justice shines through the gray areas," Kors added.  "Equality has no borders, and deserving same-sex couples should have the opportunity to secure and safeguard their families." "In refusing to support AB 19, there are legislators who are openly telling me and a nation of children like me, that my family is less valued than others - that we simply do not matter, and that they do not lead for all of us," said Marina Gatto, 16, daughter of Ramona and Arzu Gatto. "My family cannot wait another day, another month, another year for equality.  The future and the fate of my family and many other families rest in the hands of political leaders who must not be allowed to lead with discrimination and bigotry.  How long will we allow our children and our families to be devalued, treated unequally and to be torn apart?  There is never a right time to demand equality - the only wrong time is never!"   "The mere fact that this dialogue went to the legislature is historic in and of itself.  Still, it is sad that there are still some people who will not take a stand for civil rights," said Jim Smith from Los Angeles.  "When I married my partner of eight years, Frank Reifsnyder, in San Francisco on Feb 14, it was the best thing that happened to our relationship and our family life because it was the seminal event that allowed us to promise to love each other for life and that needed to be said." ,p .  "I am saddened by the results but I remain hopeful," said Hyde Revilla, who met her partner Dawn 5 years ago this August.  "Getting this close to marriage equality is something that neither my partner and I could have hoped for in our lifetimes.I know this isn't the end and we will do what we can to make sure we can make it pass next time."   "I know it sounds cliché, but I really do believe that love conquers all," said B.J. Hawk who has been with her wife Alma for 9 years. "This is about being truly supported by the state.  If it did not happen now, it will happen soon.  It is just the way it has to be."   "We are temporarily heartbroken," said Christine Allen, a mother, grandmother, wife of 20 years, and resident of Nevada County. "We've been telling our grandchildren that the fight for civil rights has its ups and downs but eventually - fairness and equality always wins out in America. The hardest thing is keeping the little ones' hopes up." "The bill would have provided not only a measure of humanity and dignity to gay couples in California, it would have provided justice and equality, while preserving the freedom of religion," said Rabbi Denise Eger from Koi Ami Congregation.  "My religion: Reform Judaism - the largest denomination of Judaism in North America - supports marriage for gay men and lesbians and we look forward to the day when we can celebrate the marriage rites and rights of gay men and lesbians with the same equality and legality that we do for heterosexual couples." "In a country with a proud tradition of liberty and justice for all, as well as the separation of church and state, it is almost unbelievable that AB19 did not pass with an overwhelming majority," said Reverend Neil Thomas, Senior Pastor of the Metropolitan Community Church in Los Angeles.  "What God has joined together let no state Assembly put asunder." "What I liked most about this bill is that it guarantees religious freedom," said Rev. Rick Schlosser of the California Council of Churches. "This bill was about people not being able to impose their religious beliefs on others.  This legislation would have enabled me to perform my ministry freely, how God wants me to."   "This month, we celebrate six wonderful years together," said Linton Johnson talking about his partner Jeff Winkler.  "We want to thank those legislators who stood on the right side of civil rights and voted for AB 19. During times like these, I, as a gay Black man, gives me great hope that while today's vote was a setback, it was by no means a defeat on our civil rights as a loving committed couple."   Founded in 1998, Equality California is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, grassroots-based, statewide advocacy organization whose mission is to ensure the dignity, safety, equality and civil rights of all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Californians. Equality California is one of the largest and fastest growing statewide LGBT organizations in the country. We can be contacted through our website at www.eqca.org.

DateLine: May 25,2005

Oakland

Alameda County Board of Supervisors Resolution

THEY PASSED THE RESOLUTION!!!

A big thank you to Supervisors Miley, Steele, and Lai-Bitker for their 3-0 vote in favor of marriage equality.

The other supervisors were not present.

The Alameda County Chapter of Equality California has been working to get the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to pass a resolution in support of marriage equality (specifically Mark Leno's AB 19 – Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act).

Many in the community stood and spoke in favor of the resolution. Thanks to all those who participated.

DateLine: April 19, 2005 WashingtonD.C. National Gay and Lesbian Task Force On the Election of Joseph Ratzinger as Pope "Today, the princes of the Roman Catholic Church elected as Pope a man whose record has been one of unrelenting, venomous hatred for gay people, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. In fact, during the reign of John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger was the driving force behind a long string of pronouncements using the term 'evil' to describe gay people, homosexuality, and marriage equality. As a long-time Catholic from a staunchly Catholic family, I know that the history of the church is full of shameful, centuries-long chapters involving vilification, persecution, and violence against others. Someday, the church will apologize to gay people as it has to others it has oppressed in the past. I very much doubt that this day will come during this Pope's reign. In fact, it seems inevitable that this Pope will cause even more pain and give his successors even more for which to seek atonement." - Matt Foreman   Executive Director National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

DateLine:March 15, 2005 Hayward and the SF East Bay Gay couples overjoyed with ruling Some who married last year in S.F. react with tears of joy By Josh Richman, Michelle Meyers and Shannon Burkey STAFF WRITERS AND CORRESPONDENT From the ANG Newspapers, The Daily Review,Oakland Tribune etc. A judge's ruling that California's same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional came seven days too late for a Hayward couple together for 51 years. High school sweethearts Marvin Burrows and Bill Swenor were married in February 2004 at San Francisco City Hall; their marriage, along with about 4,000 others, was voided in August by the state Supreme Court. Swenor, 67, died of an apparent heart attack March 7. A week later, a grief-stricken Burrows turned on his car radio and heard about the ruling. "It may be too late for Bill and I, but I am thrilled at the latest turn of events," he said later Monday. "It is what Bill and I prayed for, and I am sure Bill is saying he had something to do with it by putting a human face on the issue. "I know this is only a small step into the future, and there will be many, more steps, but my tears today are tears of joy." Berkeley's Karen Shain and Jody Sokolower — both 56 and partners for 33 years — are among plaintiffs who sued to overturn the ban. Shain, administrative director of a San   Francisco nonprofit, said she's "totally thrilled, very excited" by the ruling but added she'd been "completely confident. ... I never had a doubt we would win — somewhat because we had the best lawyers, but a lot because what we were saying just made the most sense." Sokolower teaches at Berkeley High School; their daughter, Ericka Sokolower-Shain, 15, is a student there. Shain said arguments about same-sex couples' inability to naturally bear or properly raise kids hit home with Ericka, so she was elated by Monday's ruling. "This is a vindication for her, not just for us." In an Equality California news release, Ericka said her parents "have been together so long they can practically read each others' minds. It is only right they should be able to get married." Jonathon Calenzani, 17, of Oklahoma City is in San Francisco this week on spring break; he said he's the only openly gay person in his high school. He was taking in City Hall's architecture Monday when he heard about the ruling, and he wept with happiness as city officials addressed the media. John Lewis, 47, and Stuart Gaffney, 43, of San Francisco got married   Feb. 12, 2004, at City Hall but said Monday was their 18th anniversary together; they cried and held each other during a news conference Monday. "I can't imagine a better way to mark our anniversary," Gaffney said. "We believe California is a better place today than it was yesterday." Randy Thomasson, whose conservative Campaign for California Families sued to maintain the ban, issued a statement decrying "a crazy ruling by an arrogant San Francisco judge who apparently hates marriage and the voters." He said Judge Richard Kramer both "trashed the people's vote" and "violated   his oath to uphold the law instead of making new laws out of his own head. This is the worst type of judge." "This outrageous ruling will inspire average citizens to rise up and fight to protect marriage as it naturally is — for a man and a woman, a husband and wife."

DateLine: March 15, 2005 San Francisco CA Tuesday, March 15, 2005 (SF Chronicle) Judge strikes down ban on same-sex marriage COUPLES REACT: 'One step in a long road to equality' Rona Marech, Chronicle Staff Writer       Champagne was chilled, celebratory e-mails went out, and same-sex marriage advocates were all grins Monday.       Even though a San Francisco judge's ruling that gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to marry is far from the last word on the subject, supporters counted it as an unadulterated triumph after a year of turmoil.       "I'm elated, I'm grateful, I'm honored that California is taking the stance behind all Americans' civil rights," said Beverly Senkowski, who married her partner, Jacqueline Frank, at San Francisco City Hall last winter. "I know this is one step in a long road to equality, but it's a good step, it's a proud step, and I'm just really excited today that our judicial system is standing up for the rights that our government seems to have forgotten."       All around the state -- at a Liberty Bell replica in Bakersfield, at the courthouse in Ukiah (Mendocino County), in Modesto, Palm Springs and Stockton -- supporters of same-sex marriage held impromptu rallies Monday night. In San Francisco, several hundred people gathered in the Castro and marched down Market Street to City Hall to cheer Mayor Gavin Newsom, who set in motion the events that led to Monday's ruling when he told the city in February 2004 to issue same-sex marriage licenses.       There's going to be a political battle ahead, City Attorney Dennis Herrera told the crowd, but "we have to educate people that they have absolutely nothing to fear when it comes to protecting civil rights for all Californians."       Jeanne Rizzo, 58, a plaintiff in the case, was hiking with her 25-year- old son in Marin when she heard that Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer had struck down the state law banning same-sex marriage. They changed and rushed to City Hall for a news conference, then headed to the Breast Cancer Fund, where Rizzo is the executive director. They arrived to cheers and hugs. The office assistant, Myrtle Pearson, burst into tears.       "I know what discrimination is firsthand," said Pearson, 65, who is African American and grew up in the segregated South. "I'm so happy for them."       Many of Rizzo's colleagues, including Pearson, were with her in City Hall on March 11, 2004, the day the marriages were halted and she and her partner, Pali Cooper, were turned away.        "This is fabulous. It just allows us to stand in this place of our dignity," Rizzo said. "(Kramer's ruling) was done in such a simple, direct way, to just say it's unconstitutional, period. Simple as that. You can't discriminate. That feels extremely validating for all of us."       Some of those celebrating the decision said they had hoped and prayed the decision would go their way, but the ruling still had taken them by surprise.       "I thought we would lose, actually," said Donna Douglas-Weddell, who married her partner, Whitney Douglas-Weddell, in February. "I'm 58 years old, and I've been on the front lines for so many years. We've lost so many battles that I'm pessimistic at times. But things are looking better."       The phone, she said, was ringing all day. Some people wanted to know if it meant she was married again (it doesn't); others just wanted to gush.       Douglas-Weddell lives in Bakersfield -- a place she describes as the Bible Belt of California. She expected to hear some nasty comments at the hospital where she works as a nurse, but colleagues mostly offered encouragement and support.       "I think their eyes are opening some," she said. "I like that."   The ruling was also a hot topic outside the state.   "It's exciting to watch the government catch up to the trend state by state," said Maryann Martindale, who traveled from Utah last year to marry her partner at City Hall. If California legalizes same-sex marriage, she would head right back, she said.       "Absolutely, I'd go again, even if there's very little chance of it being recognized here in Utah," she said.       The ruling didn't come fast enough for Marvin Burrows. His partner of 50 years, William Swenor, died last week. He cannot collect Swenor's Social Security payments, a federal benefit that is extended only to the survivors in married, heterosexual couples. Burrows said he had also been denied the right to Swenor's pension.       "With Bill passing, I've been crying a lot," Burrows said. "But today the tears are tears of joy. It's too late for Bill and me, but it's not too late for the rest of the world." -------------       Chronicle staff writer Steve Rubenstein contributed to this report.E-mail Rona Marech at rmarech@sfchronicle.com. Copyright 2005 SF Chronicle

DateLine: March 14, 2005 San Francisco CA "Marriage, Anything Less Is Less Than Equal" News Item from EQCA via GLOBE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 14, 2005 Contact: Eddie Gutiérrez, EQCA Communications Director (English and Spanish-language Interviews) Phone: (323) 217-8875 Email: eddie@eqca.org Karen Boyd, NCLR Communications Director Phone: (415) 577-4498 Email: boyd@nclrights.org (NCLR Spanish-language interviews, call: Lena Ayoub, Staff Attorney (415) 392-6257 x326) California Court Rules Same-Sex Couples Must Be Allowed To Marry EQCA & NCLR Hail Decision as a Victory for Fairness and Equality San Francisco, CA—A California state court ruled today that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry, a decision that NCLR called a victory for fairness and equality. NCLR filed the lawsuit last year on behalf of 12 same-sex couples, Equality California and Our Family Coalition. Here is the link to Download the Complete Ruling in PDF: http://www.eqca.org/atf/cf/%7b687DF34F-6480-4BCD-9C2B-1F33FD8E1294%7d/Kramer%20Decision%203-14-05.pdf The court ruled in the plaintiffs' favor on two central arguments: denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry is impermissible gender discrimination and violates the fundamental right to marry. "I am so happy that my parents can finally get married," said Ericka Sokolower-Shain, the fifteen-year-old daughter of plaintiffs Karen Shain and Jody Sokolower. "My parents have been together for over 30 years. They have been together so long they can practically read each others' minds. It is only right they should be able to get married." "Couples who have made a commitment in life deserve the legal commitment to match," said Shannon Minter, NCLR's Legal Director. "This historic ruling affirms the state constitution's promise of equality and fairness for all people. The court recognized that when the government denies lesbians and gay men the right to marry, it is treating them unequally." "We are overjoyed by today's ruling," said Stuart Gaffney and John Lewis, two other plaintiffs in the lawsuit. "Fifty years ago, the California courts paved the way for my mom and dad to get married when they struck down the state law barring interracial couples from marriage," said Stuart. "Today, the court ruled that the California Constitution protects my right to marry my partner John. We've been a loving and committed couple for over 17 years. We've waited long enough to be able to marry." "Today we are one giant step closer to true equality for all California families," said Geoffrey Kors, Executive Director of Equality California. "The court recognized that the government has no business putting obstacles in the path of people who are seeking to care for their loved ones. Today's ruling affirms that lesbian and gay couples have the same need for the legal protections of marriage, and the same right to equal protection and dignity under the law. This is a landmark ruling, and we call on Governor Arnold Schwartzanegger and California legislators to enact AB 19, The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act." Plaintiffs Corey Davis and Andre Lejeune were elated by news of the decision. "As African American gay men, we joined this lawsuit to lift the mantle of discrimination and inequality perpetuated by the state of California through its outmoded marriage laws," Corey stated. "Years from now, when marriage for gays and lesbians is legal nationwide, our children will study this issue in school and wonder—just as the white kids in my generation did about those so violently opposed to the co-mingling of the races and ending legal segregation—they'll wonder and secretly pray that their relatives weren't any of those people perpetuating discrimination against gays and lesbians." Shannon Minter, NCLR's Legal Director, is NCLR's lead attorney on the case. NCLR was joined by co-counsel Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the Law Office of David C. Codell, and the law firms of Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe and Steefel, Levitt & Weiss. San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera also filed an action challenging the constitutionality of excluding same-sex couples from the right to marry. The two actions—Woo v. Lockyer and CCSF v. Lockyer—were consolidated last year. California is the only state in which a municipality has joined with same-sex couples in seeking marriage equality. , Judge Richard Kramer was appointed by former Republican Governor Pete Wilson in 1996 and took the bench in January 1997. During his eight-year tenure as a San Francisco Superior Court judge, Kramer has handled both civil and criminal cases. Prior to becoming a jurist, Judge Kramer specialized in bank litigation for 25 years. He was born in Massachusetts and raised in California. Legal briefs and other information about NCLR's case are available at www.nclrights.org.

DateLine: March 8, 2005 Hayward CA WILLIAM DUANE SWENOR Life partner and spouse of 51 years, passed away suddenly on Monday, March 7, 2005. Bill was 67 when he died. He was born in Flint, Michigan, on July 6, 1938. Bill has lived in Hayward since 1968. Bill is survived by his life partner and spouse, Marvin Burrows; family members, Tina Thompson and family, Dan and Danny Burrows, and Al and Jan Burrows; and his many pets. On February 15, 2004, Bill and Marvin were married in San Francisco City Hall by California Assemblyman Mark Leno. The California Supreme Court invalidated that marriage six months later. Bill was employed by Owens Illinois Warehouse in Oakland for 38 years, working the graveyard shift as a warehouseman. Bill was an avid golfer as well as a cigar and coffee connoisseur. Bill made many golf buddies over the years, especially his favorite, Tina Conboy. Bill was a successful long-distance bicycle rider who did several coast to coast Canadian rides in addition to several Canada to Mexico rides via the Coast Highway. Bill was a professional motorcycle racer for many years, winning over 40 trophies. Bill was a supporter or member of the Democratic Party, ACLU, Hayward DEMOS, and Lavender Seniors of the East Bay, GLOBE, the Lighthouse Community Center, EQCA, MECA, Gay & Lesbian Task Force and the Human Rights Campaign. A Memorial Celebration of Bill's Life will be held at the Lavender Seniors' monthly potluck at the San Leandro Community Church, 1395 Bancroft in San Leandro, at noon on Saturday, March 12, 2005. In lieu of flowers, donations may be made to the Tides/Lavender Seniors of the East Bay, The Lighthouse Community Center or SOS Meals on Wheels, Hayward.

DateLine: February 12, 2005 San Francisco CA U.S. National - Reuters San Francisco Mayor Vows to Press for Gay Marriages Sat Feb 12, 4:47 PM ET  U.S. National - Reuters By Jim Christie SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Celebrating the first anniversary of his decision to issue marriage licenses to gays, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom vowed on Saturday to stay at the forefront of fights to make same-sex marriages legal.  The licenses sparked a nationwide debate over gay marriage that along with a sympathetic court decision in Massachusetts prompted President Bush (news - web sites) to call for a constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman. "Don't listen to the president," Newsom told hundreds of same-sex couples at a rally in San Francisco's City Hall. Newsom's decision is tied up in California courts, which must decide if a state ban on same-sex marriages is constitutional. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state's Democratic attorney general have said Newsom overstepped his authority. Newsom told reporters he expects gay marriage to be the subject of lawsuits and appeals all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. "We're going to chip away in the courts," he added, acknowledging popular opinion has not rallied to his cause. Voters in 11 states in November backed measures against gay marriage and some 21 states are considering changes to their constitutions to ban it. Some of those amendments also would bar civil unions and domestic partnerships for gay couples. EMOTIONS RUNNING HIGH Newsom received a hero's welcome by the crowd at city hall, which waited for him under its rotunda while listening to traditional wedding music. Isobel and Angela White of Berkeley, California, were present to celebrate their marriage ceremony by a judge on February 13 of last year. The couple had a wedding ritual in 2000 but had wanted legal recognition for their relationship. "It was incredibly moving," Angela White said. "If there were any chance it could give us some civil rights, that would be awesome." Emotions ran high in the crowd. A preview of a film about the year since Newsom approved marriage licenses drew cheers during scenes of couples, including celebrity Rosie O'Donnell and her partner, celebrating their wedding vows. Footage of Bush prompted loud boos. Newsom told reporters Bush's calls for a constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriage are "sad." "I've never felt his heart was behind it," Newsom said, describing the president's stance as "payback" to conservative voters. Newsom also sharply criticized Republican New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg for deciding to fight a court ruling allowing gays to marry in New York. Bloomberg has said he favors same-sex marriage but believes state law does not allow it. "I hope he sees the light," Newsom said. Newsom also criticized fellow Democrats. During his speech he denounced politicians who seek support from San Francisco's gay voters, who overwhelmingly vote for Democrats, and then steer clear of the issue of same-sex marriage. Many Democrats blame Newsom's vocal backing of gay marriage for mobilizing conservative voters on behalf of Republicans in the November election. Newsom said he would not be deterred from championing such marriages. "I have no regrets," he said.

DateLine: Chicago IL Jan.14,2005 Gays win in Lutheran church policy debate Chicago, IL, Jan. 14 (UPI) -- A task force of the largest U.S. Lutheran denomination wants it to stop enforcing the church's official ban on ordaining homosexuals. The 14-member panel of the 4.9-million member Evangelical Lutheran Church in America urged the denomination not to censure churches that violate church policy by ordaining homosexuals, the Washington Times reported Friday. By some counts, there are at least 14 openly homosexual seminarians or clergy working in ELCA churches. The panel also urged congregations that do ordain homosexuals to avoid doing so "with the presumption of being prophetic." Its recommendations will be voted on in August when ELCA leaders gather in Orlando, Fla. The action resembles that of once-growing Protestant denominations to embrace homosexuality. The Episcopal Church, for example, consecrated a practicing homosexual as bishop and allows same-sex ceremonies, and the Presbyterian Church USA is deferring a final decision on such issues until 2006. Those two churches have lost more than 1.5 million members combined in recent decades. The ELCA has lost 300,000 members since 1999.

DateLine: December 21,2004 California State Appeals Court Clears the Way for Comprehensive California Domestic Partnership Law to Take Full Effect on Jan 1st. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 21, 2004 A California appeals court today denied a request by antigay activists to prevent California's comprehensive domestic partnership law from becoming operative on January 1, 2005. Today's decision clears the way for the domestic partnership law, AB 205, to go into full effect on January 1, 2005.  The Court of Appeal also ordered an expedited briefing schedule on the validity of AB 205. Under the Court's briefing schedule, the briefing will be complete in January 2005. "We registered as domestic partners and are looking forward to the new law taking full effect in January, so our family will have more of the protections we badly need," said Rich Llewellyn.  "While we hope to marry legally one day, AB 205 will protect us in important ways until we are treated equally under the state's Constitution."  Los Angeles resident Llewellyn and his domestic partner of more than twenty-five years, Chris Caldwell, are raising teenage twins, and are participating in the litigation to help defend the domestic partner law.  When it goes into full effect on January 1, 2005, AB 205 will provide critical protections and impose significant responsibilities on registered domestic partners in California.  The new law's protections for families headed by same-sex couples include: community property, mutual responsibility for debt, parenting rights including obligations for custody and support, and the ability to claim a partner's body after death.  The law does not allow for joint filing for state taxes and certain other protections under state law.  AB 205 also does not provide access to over 1,000 federal protections that heterosexual married couples enjoy.   A trial court, on September 8, 2004 rejected claims by antigay groups that the new domestic partnership protections guaranteed under AB 205 were in violation of Proposition 22 (the state law prohibiting California from honoring marriage between same-sex couples entered into in other states), drawing a distinction between these protections for same-sex couples and marriage.     Equality California and 12 California couples who are registered domestic partners intervened in the lawsuit to defend AB 205. Equality California and the couples are represented by the Law Office of David C. Codell, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU affiliates in Northern California, Southern California and San Diego, and Lambda Legal. "We're grateful that the law will go fully into effect on January 1, 2005 and tens of thousands of California families will begin to enjoy the protections provided by AB 205," said Geoffrey Kors, Executive Director of Equality California. "A.B. 205 is a big step in the right direction, but lesbian and gay Californians will only have true equality once the state allows same-sex couples to marry."

DateLine: San Francisco December 7, 2004 FOR IMMEDIATE REALEASE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION PROMOTES RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, ENSURES CIVIL MARRIAGE FOR GAY AND LESBIAN COUPLES  New Legislation is Co-Authored by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Assemblymember Mark Leno and Sponsored by Equality California.   SAN FRANCISCO  - Yesterday, legislation that would protect religious freedom and ensure equal treatment under the law for same-sex couples was introduced in the California Legislature. The bill is titled the "Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act", or Assembly Bill (AB) 19 joint authored by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Assemblyman Mark Leno and sponsored by Equality California.   Like the Marriage License Non-Discrimination Act (MLNDA) introduced in the prior legislative session, AB 19 changes California's definition of marriage to gender-neutral terms, as it was previously defined under state law from 1850-1977, and removes the restrictions prohibiting same-sex couples from obtaining civil marriage licenses. AB 19 also adds specific provisions to underscore that every religious institution remains free to determine for which couples it will perform religious marriage ceremonies based on its own particular religious tenets.   "This legislation respects religious freedom and prohibits discrimination by our government," said Geoffrey Kors, EQCA Executive Director. "We firmly believe that each and every religion should be free to determine for itself what marriages it wishes to perform without government interference, while the government should be prohibited from discriminating in the issuance of civil marriage licenses. We will stand up to protect religious freedom and all Californian families by enacting this important legislation that will make relationships and families stronger."   "America was founded on the concept of separation of church and state, with the guarantee that religious freedom will be respected and the state will treat all people equally in the eyes of the law," stated Leno. "At long last, this bill puts that fundamental right into practice - allowing loving, committed same-sex couples who want to devote their lives to one another, raise families, and protect themselves and their children the same rights and responsibilities as different-sex couples with the same goals and dreams."   Leno is joined by 25 of his fellow Assemblymembers and Senators as co-authors of the bill, including Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez as a joint author. "I believe in equal rights for all Californians," said Núñez. "This is, no doubt, a civil rights issue."   The bill's unveiling was held this morning at Glide Memorial United Methodist Church in San Francisco, which is headed by civil rights pioneer Reverend Cecil  Williams. "I strongly support and continue to commit myself to the reality of marriage equality," Williams said. "It is time for us to discover our humanity and courage for all people and especially at this time for the lesbian and gay community."   Presently, California couples can register with the State of California as domestic partners. Registered couples in California currently are granted approximately sixteen rights and responsibilities under state law. On January 1, 2005, when AB 205, the Domestic Partner Rights & Responsibilities Act of 2003 (Goldberg, D-Los Angeles), takes effect, registered domestic couples will be entitled to hundreds of additional protections.   AB 205 does not, however, grant all of the rights of marriage under state law, and it does not make couples and their children eligible for over a thousand federal protections offered married couples and their children.   "Unlike domestic partnerships, marriage is universally recognized. Marriage also comes with a wide array of state and federal benefits that are not available to domestic partners," said Kors. "California has traditionally led the nation in furthering civil rights. As Californians, we celebrate the fact that we come from all different walks of life and cultures. Lesbian and gay families are a vital part of the California community, and should be afforded the same rights and responsibilities of their heterosexual counterparts.  A separate and unequal - or even a separate but 'equal' - government license is still government-sanctioned discrimination and is simply unacceptable."   This News Release is brought to you by GLOBE in ALAMEDA COUNTY To read AB 19 or for more information on this legislation, please visit our website at www.eqca.org.   Founded in 1998, Equality California is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, grassroots-based, statewide advocacy organization whose mission is to  ensure the dignity, safety, equality and civil rights of all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Californians. Equality California is one of the largest and fastest growing statewide LGBT organizations in the country.

DateLine: December 6, 2004 California Traditional Values Coalition Introduced Legislation Today in the State Assembly and Senate Amending the California Constitution To Eliminate Domestic Partnerships and Exclude Same-Sex Couples from Civil Marriage This afternoon, the Traditional Values Coalition introduced legislation in both the State Assembly and Senate to amend California's Constitution and undo domestic partnerships as well as enshrine a discriminatory definition of marriage excluding same-sex couples from equal protection under the law. MECA will post Talking Points and answers to Frequently Asked Questions on our website shortly. But there are three things you can do right now to ensure we are prepared to defeat this hateful effort: (1) Send an email through EQCA's California Advocacy Center to your elected representatives urging them to immediately and publicly oppose any attempt to write discrimination into the California Constitution. (www.eqca.org) (2) Make a donation to support our work to defeat this--and all--efforts to deny equality to LGBT Californians. If you have made a donation recently, thank you! (3) Forward this email to everyone you know who opposes discrimination. Together, we will defeat this effort and achieve equality for all Californians. Thank you for all you do. Geoffrey Kors and Molly McKay Executive Director and Assoc. Executive Director Marriage Equality California

DateLine: San Francisco & Sacramento CA September 8, 2004 State domestic partner law stands up in court Judge opens way for same-sex couples' rights effective Jan. 1 By Lisa Leff, Associated Press SAN FRANCISCO -- A Superior Court judge in Sacramento upheld a new state law Wednesday that is poised to give gay couples who register as domestic partners nearly all the legal benefits and responsibilities as married spouses. Dismissing the arguments of two groups that sued to have the law struck down before it takes effect Jan. 1, Judge Loren McMaster ruled that assigning spousal privileges, such as alimony and parental status, to same-sex couples does not violate a voter-approved measure under which California defines marriage as between a man and a woman. "The parties' obvious fundamental dispute is whether a domestic partnership under the new statute constitutes a marriage. The court concludes that it does not," McMaster wrote. "In the end, although the two relationships now share many, if not most, of the same functional attributes they are inherently distinct." The judge, in a move that underscored how far the debate over gay marriage rights has shifted since Gov. Gray Davis signed AB 205 last year, also offered his unsolicited opinion that if the purpose of the California Defense of Marriage Act was to prohibit gay couples from enjoying those legal fruits, it was likely unconstitutional. Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California Families, said his group would appeal Wednesday's ruling. "McMaster has trashed the vote of the people who said they want everything about marriage to stay for a man and a woman," Thomasson said. "The clear and plain reading of these marriage-attacking bills was to create homosexual marriage by another name." Gay rights advocates applauded the ruling, saying the statute's implementation would herald a new era of legal protection and participation for gay couples who beginning next year will have access to family courts for dividing their assets if they split up and be able to take extended leave from work to care for a partner. The law, in fact, gives same-sex couples all the duties and privileges of marriage available under state law except the ability to file joint income taxes. "Domestic partnership is a really important step forward for the gay community, but it is not equal treatment because what is being denied is access to the institution of marriage," said Jon Davidson of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, which helped defend the law. "Once AB 205 comes into effect it will become clear to people that if you allow same-sex couples to have all these rights and responsibilities, why won't you let them have marriage?" In upholding the new law, McMaster largely adopted the reasoning put forth by the state attorney general and lawyers for Equality California, the state's largest gay rights lobbying group, that the institution of marriage is much more than a collection of state-sanctioned duties and rights. As such, it can't be undermined when those legal accouterments are changed or expanded to other groups, he said. "A marriage is no less or more a marriage when government adds or subtracts yet another restriction, duty or benefit exclusive to the marital relationship," he said. "The relationship remains a marriage,' in name and nature, nonetheless." Meanwhile, the city of San Francisco and a coalition of gay rights groups have sued the state to have California's one man, one woman marriage laws overturned on grounds that they violate the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians. Although his opinion is not binding in those cases, McMaster seemed to hint that it won't be long before California follows Massachusetts in legalizing marriage for same-sex partners. "It is questionable, in light of recent statutes and court decisions, whether the state may articulate a rational basis to deny rights to same-sex couples that are granted to persons who are married," he said.

DateLine: April 21, 2004 Hayward CA Alameda County Human Relations Commission Unwilling to Support Civil Marriage Equality On Wednesday, April 21, 2004, from 5:30 pm to 8:00 pm Alameda County residents had a chance to voice their opinions to the Alameda County Human Relations Commission on whether the commission should recommend its support of civil marriage for same-sex couples to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. Given the large number of same-sex couples living in Alameda County, residents assumed the supportive resolution would sail through this committee. To their dismay, 4 of the 8 commissioners present: Mike Wallace of District 4, Joan Van Brasch of District 4, Lalit Mathur of District 1 and David Melander of District 1 claimed that they lacked sufficient information to vote in support of marriage equality. Commissioner Wallace and Van Brasch stated that they wanted to hear from the "other side" before they would feel sufficiently "informed" on this issue. Commissioners Irfran Shahab of District 1, Karen Norell of District 2, and Jerrold Castleberry of District 2 voted in support of marriage equality. Commissioner Johnnie Porter of District 5, abstained from the vote, but has recently indicated his support when the issue is reconsidered next month. The nine constituents who attended the meeting included gay and straight religious leaders, gay and straight constituents, some gay newlyweds, and a gay couple together for 50 years. All nine constituents were in favor of civil marriage for same-sex couples. Commissioner Castleberry (District 2) submitted a resolution supporting civil marriage for same-sex couples and moved for vote. Commissioners Melander, Wallace and Mathur requested more information on the 1138 federal statutes that are determined by marital status. Commissioners Van Brasch and Melander stated they knew gay and lesbian people and considered some of them "very good friends," yet they could not yet support granting them civil marriage. Commissioner Van Brasch presented research dating back to 1996 and polling data from November 2003 that supported her opposition to marriage equality. Commissioner Mathur asked "how do gays and lesbians have children?" Mathur then commented that he supported giving all the rights but not the name "marriage", and suggested that the LGBT community was a "creative brunch" and should come up with another name for the same rights. The most upsetting aspect of the evening was the statement that this evening's discussion was one-sided, because all the constituents who attended the hearing supported civil marriage for same-sex couples. Several commissioners requested to hear from opposition before they could feel the discussion was balanced. When questioned more specifically about whom the board wanted to hear from in opposition, one commissioner stated "I want to hear from a homosexual who is against marriage." "I was shocked that the Alameda County Human Relations Commission was so undereducated on an issue that negatively impacts so many of its constituents, especially in light of the media attention this issue has gotten locally and nationally," said Molly McKay, Associate Executive Director of Equality California. The Commission voted to dedicate its next Alameda County Human Relations Commission Meeting on Wednesday May 19, 2004 starting at 5:30 pm located at Eden Area Multi Service Center 24100 Amador St at Winton Ave to the discussion of Civil Marriage for Same Sex couples. Clearly we have education to do in our own backyard. Please attend this next meeting and let the Commission know why civil marriage matters to you and your family. In the interim, please contact your Alameda County Supervisor and let them know how you feel about their appointed designee's vote on this issue. District 1 Scott Haggerty: 272-6691 (covers Fremont, Pleasanton, Livermore, Sunol) District 2 Gail Steele: 272-6692 (covers Hayward, Newark, Union City, Fremont) District 3 Alice Lai-Bitker: 272-6693 (covers San Leandro, San Lorenzo, Fruitvale) District 4 Nate Miley: 272-6694 (covers Oakland, Castro Valley) District 5 Keith Carson: 272-6695 (Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, Piedmont, Rockridge) Written by Rev. Kara Korbel Chinula, Marriage Equality CA-Alameda County Chapter Contact: kara@marriageequalityca.org 510-282-2161

DateLine: April 20, 2004 Sacramento CA<.font> BREAKING NEWS! ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE PASSES EQUALITY CALIFORNIA'S HISTORIC MARRIAGE BILL April 20, 2004 IN AN HISTORIC VOTE, CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE VOTES,  8 TO 3, IN FAVOR OF EQUALITY CALIFORNIA'S GROUNDBREAKING MARRIAGE LICENSE NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT (AB 1967 - LENO) For the first time in our nation's history, a state legislative body has voted in favor of issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.   Just moments ago, the Judiciary Committee of the California State Assembly voted 8 to 3 for Equality California's historic legislation, the Marriage License Non-Discrimination Act (AB 1967), by Assemblyman Mark Leno.  The legislation now moves on to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. While this is an important victory, we have several hurdles to overcome before this bill becomes law.  And we will need each and every one of you to help bring us closer to our dream of marriage equality. Stay tuned for further updates and ways to get involved.  Thank you! Geoffrey Kors Executive Director, Equality California

DateLine: April 6, 2004 Oakland CA Oakland City Council Resolutions On the evening of April 6, 2004, the Oakland City Council, at 10:00 pm, passed two resolutions which greatly affects the LGBT Community in Oakland CA. Sponsored by openly gay Council Member Danny Wan and District 4 Council Member Jean Quan, and assistance by Marriage Equality California's Alameda County Chapter, a resolution was passed in support of California's AB 1967, CA Marriage License Non Discrimination Act which was introduced on February 12, 2004 by Assembly Member Mark Leno. A second resolution was passed opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment bills: H.J.Res 56 and S.J.Res 26 and the state of California's own bill introduced to support the FMA A.J.Res. 67. Marriage Equality CA Alameda County Chapter, The First Unitarian Church of Oakland and Immigration Equality showed up in force to speak in support of the two resolutions. A total of 15 speakers were scheduled to speak, all were in favor of the two resolutions. There were numerous "We All Deserve the Freedom to Marry" signs visible throughout meeting. Both resolutions passed with 7 ayes and 2 abstentions. Thanks to all who showed up in support and to speak!!! : Next Steps: the other 15 cities in Alameda County and the Board of Supervisors, stayed tuned for a "CALL TO ACTION" Sincerely Kara Korbel Chinula Chapter Head MECA Alameda County

OPINION on Gay Marriage From Texas For the self-righteous: vow to quit meddling By Beth Quinn Times Herald-Record I was going to leave the gay marriage issue alone just to save myself some grief. But then I thought, what fun would that be? Somebody's got to irritate the self-righteous folks who tell the rest of us how to live, and it might as well be me. You know who you are, so get your writing implements ready because you'll want to damn me to hell by the time we're done here. For me, there is one central question in the whole gay marriage controversy: What do you care? What difference does it make in your own life if two gays or lesbians get married? It simply mystifies me that you feel threatened by this. What possible harm could it do in your personal, little life whether the two guys living at the end of your block say "I do"? I keep hearing the same pat answer from your prophets of doom - that allowing homosexuals to marry will "destroy the institution of marriage." Well I gotta' tell you, a lot of gays and lesbians have been getting married in San Francisco lately, and so far my own institution of marriage is doing just fine. I checked. When I heard they were lining up for licenses, I asked my husband if he felt our marriage was going downhill on account of it. He just ignored the question and wanted to know what kind of perennials I thought we should put in this spring. I took that as a good sign. Perennials are an investment in the future, so I figure he's sticking around despite what those homosexuals are doing. So, self-righteous folks, I guess I'm wondering what's wrong with your own marriages that you feel so threatened by another couple's happiness. Are you unable to sustain a good sexual relationship knowing that two gay guys are sleeping together in wedded bliss? Are you unable to have an intimate conversation with your spouse because you're distracted by the notion of two women going off on a honeymoon? Because if your marriage is that unstable, you should stop worrying about what others are doing and tend to your own problems before your divorce contributes to the decline of the institution of marriage. I've given this a lot of thought, and I've completely failed to come up with ways that gay marriage will have an impact on your life. It won't raise your taxes. It won't cause the kid who shovels your driveway to quit. It won't make your laundry dingy. It won't alter the weather. It won't cause your dog to start passing gas. It won't affect your relationship with God. It won't cause you to develop a tumor on your head. Those of you who would talk about grand concepts like society and institutions and pillars and guideposts and moral fibers and whatnot, I say this is just your excuse for meddling. And history has shown us that nothing good ever comes of meddling in other people's affairs. Every time Christians showed up to mess with heathens, for example, we just ended up with a lot of unhappy heathens with syphilis and smallpox. Those of you who would point out that the dictionary definition of the word "marriage" involves a man and a woman, let me point out that the dictionary is a living, breathing document that changes as word usage changes. If you doubt it, look up the word "dot" in a current edition. ,P. We the people get to decide what's in the dictionary. The dictionary doesn't get to dictate our societal conventions. Your hair isn't going to catch on fire if the definition of marriage is eventually changed to read, "two consenting adults" instead of "man and woman." As for the Bible, which is always the last refuge for those of you who want to impose your will on us savages, we're not all reading out of the same book. More fundamentally, the Bible is not a legal document. If it were, those who fail to love one another would be rounded up and thrown in jail. The prison budget would go through the roof what with all the new cells we'd be needing for the neighbor haters. I have only this advice to offer those of you who oppose gay marriage: Don't marry a homosexual. If you're a man and you don't want to marry another man, for crying out loud, stick to your guns! That would be a terrible idea. You'd be miserable! Same for women. Marry someone of the opposite sex if that's your personal preference. After all, no one's got the right to meddle in your private affairs. ----------------------

DateLine: February 25, 2004 Washington D. C. At 10:45 a.m., George W. Bush did something no other president in U.S. history has ever done: he demanded a constitutional amendment to require discrimination in America. With this endorsement, President Bush struck a cruel blow against equality and liberty in our country; he escalated the fight for marriage equality to a dangerous and divisive new level.

DateLine: February 12, 2004 San Francisco CA By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer SAN FRANCISCO - In an open challenge to California law, city authorities performed at least 15 same-sex weddings Thursday and issued about a dozen more marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.   By midafternoon, jubilant gay couples were lining up under City Hall's ornate gold dome and exchanging vows in two-minute ceremonies that followed one after another. "Today a barrier to true justice has been removed," said Gavin Newsom, newly elected mayor of the city considered the capital of gay America. No state legally sanctions gay marriage, and it remains unclear what practical value the marriage licenses will have. The weddings violate a ballot measure California voters approved in 2000 that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The move by San Francisco's mayor came as lawmakers in Massachusetts continued to debate a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in that state, where the nation's first legally recognized same-sex weddings are set to take place this spring under a ruling from the Massachusetts high court. The assembly-line nuptials began with longtime lesbian activists Phyllis Lyon, 79, and Del Martin, 83, who were hurriedly issued a married license and were wedded just before noon by City Assessor Mabel Teng in a closed-door civil ceremony at City Hall. The two have been a couple for 51 years. About 30 couples crowded outside the San Francisco County Clerk's office awaiting licenses, many arm in arm. One of the women, wearing a white wedding dress and veil, encouraged couples to shout out their names and how long they had been together. "I understand there are wrinkles that need to be worked out, but as far as I'm concerned, we will be married," said Molly McKay as she and her partner of eight years, Davina Kotulski, stood at the clerk's counter. During one of the weddings, performed before TV cameras, the vows were rewritten so that "husband and wife" became "spouse for life." A conservative group called the Campaign for California Families called the marriages a sham. "These unlawful certificates are not worth the paper they are printed on. The renegade mayor of San Francisco has no authority to do this," said Randy Thomasson, executive director. "This is nothing more than a publicity stunt that disrespects our state law and system of government itself." San Francisco officials insisted the licenses are legally binding and would immediately confer new benefits in everything from health coverage to funeral arrangements. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer had no comment. The gay marriages were timed by city officials to outmaneuver the conservative group. The grouphad planned to go to court on Friday to stop the mayor's announced plans to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. But city officials struck first. Lyon and Martin said after their brief ceremony that they were going home to rest and did not plan anything to celebrate. The couple seemed proud of what they had done. "Why shouldn't we" be able to marry? The mayor was not present at the morning ceremony but later presented Martin and Lyon with a signed copy of the state constitution with sections related to equal rights highlighted.   The two official witnesses were Kate Kendell, director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and former city official Roberta Achtenberg. The conservative group fighting gay marriage has also sued to try to block California's domestic partner law, which then-Gov. Gray Davis (news - web sites) signed in September. That law expands the rights of gay couples in areas ranging from health coverage and parental status to property ownership and funeral arrangements.

DateLine: February 11, 2004 Washington D.C. From The Washington Post, 2/11/04: Bush to endorse the Anti-Gay Marriage Amendent The President is playing politics with the Constitution for political gain in an election year - on the backs of our families.   "Republican officials said Bush's decision to proceed now was driven partly by his desire to start the general election campaign on a fresh issue, at a time when his credibility has been battered by questions about prewar warnings of unconventional weapons in Iraq, as well as doubts raised by Democrats about his National Guard service."

DateLine: February 10,2004 San Francisco CA SF mayor moves to grant marriage licenses to gay couples By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer Last Updated 6:32 p.m. PST Tuesday, February 10, 2004 SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Mayor Gavin Newsom told the county clerk Tuesday to investigate what San Francisco needs to do to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, an act that would contravene California law. The newly elected Democrat said he wants all "forms and documents used to apply for and issue marriage licenses" to be revised by County Clerk Nancy Alfaro so they can be provided "on a nondiscriminatory basis, without regard to gender or sexual orientation."    "Less than a month ago I took the oath of office here at City Hall and swore to uphold California's Constitution, which clearly outlaws all forms of discrimination," Newsom said in a statement. "Denying basic rights to members of our community will not be tolerated." If Newsom's request is honored and implemented within the short time he hopes, San Francisco would become, at least symbolically, the first place in the nation where gay and lesbian couples could wed. The Massachusetts Supreme Court has cleared the way for the state to start sanctioning marriages between same-sex couples as early as mid-May. A spokesman for Newsom acknowledged that the mayor's request was an act of protest as well as public policy. State law explicitly defines marriage as an act between a man and a woman, a prerequisite Newsom considers "codified discrimination," said Peter Ragone, Newsom's spokesman. "What the mayor is doing is asking the county clerk to make the necessary changes so same-sex couples will no longer be discriminated against," Ragone said, adding that Newsom hopes to personally officiate at a wedding between two grooms or two brides within a week. At this point, however, it remains unclear whether the couples' marriage licenses would be worth the paper they're printed on, since marriage is a matter of state law. Alfaro, the county clerk, said she supports the mayor's aims but thinks it might be hard to pull off that quickly. She said she plans to consult with the city attorney on Wednesday to see what repercussions the city would face if it proceeds with Newsom's idea. "I don't know what options we have or if we can do this," Alfaro said. "We have always treated (the granting of marriage licenses) as astate-mandated function." The California attorney general has not issued an opinion on whether there is any wiggle room for city or county governments to set marriage requirements that differ from the state's, said Hallye Jordan, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer."This is a very controversial issue that has been subject to different court interpretations," Jordan said. "I'm sure at some point we will be asked to weigh in." Ragone said the 36-year-old mayor wanted to weigh into the roiling national debate over legalizing marriage for gay and lesbian couples because of San Francisco's historical role as a haven of tolerance for gay people. San Francisco's 8,902 same-sex couples make up 2.7 percent of the city's households, the highest percentage of anywhere in the country, according to the 2000 Census. California Assemblyman Mark Leno, who plans to introduce legislation this week that would make marriage for gay and lesbian couples legal statewide, applauded Newsom's move as a "another statement of civil disobedience" that could ultimately form the basis for a successful legal challenge of the state's ban on gay marriages. In addition to the language contained in its family code, California is one of 38 states with specific laws barring marriage between people of the same sex. In 2000, 61 percent of voters approved a ballot measure that prohibits California from granting marital rights to same-sex couples who are legally married in another state. Nevertheless, California is widely considered by gay rights activists to have the nation's second most gay-friendly laws after Vermont. Last year, the legislature approved, and then-Gov. Gray Davis signed, a measure granting same-sexcouples who register as domestic partners all the legal rights andresponsibilities of married spouses, save the exception to file joint income taxes.

DateLine: January 12, 2003 California News Release     BREAKING NEWS January 12, 2004     Equality California to Sponsor Assembly Member Leno's Marriage Equality Bill EQCA Launches Equality California Marriage Project to Support Historic Bill   Assembly Member Mark Leno announced today that he will be introducing EQCA-sponsored legislation in the current session designed to put an end to California's discriminatory marriage laws.    To support this historic bill, Equality California is launching The Equality California Marriage Project.  The State of California currently discriminates against lesbian and gay couples in the issuance of marriage licenses.  As a result, these couples and their families are denied the more than one thousand rights and responsibilities available to opposite-sex married couples.

DateLine: Thursday, October 23, 2003 Washington D.C. Scalia Ridicules Court's Gay Sex Ruling By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ridiculed his court's recent ruling legalizing gay sex, telling an audience of conservative activists Thursday that the ruling ignores the Constitution in favor of a modern, liberal sensibility. The ruling, Scalia said, "held to be a constitutional right what had been a criminal offense at the time of the founding and for nearly 200 years thereafter." Scalia adopted a mocking tone to read from the court's June ruling that struck down state antisodomy laws in Texas and elsewhere. Scalia wrote a bitter dissent in the gay sex case that was longer than the ruling itself. On Thursday, Scalia said judges, including his colleagues on the Supreme Court, throw over the original meaning of the Constitution when it suits them. "Most of today's experts on the Constitution think the document written in Philadelphia in 1787 was simply an early attempt at the construction of what is called a liberal political order," Scalia told a gathering of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. "All that the person interpreting or applying that document has to do is to read up on the latest academic understanding of liberal political theory and interpolate these constitutional understandings into the constitutional text." Scalia is a hero of conservatives who favor a strict adherence to the actual text of the Constitution. The 50-year-old Intercollegiate Studies Institute is a private conservative education organization that sponsors lectures and conferences and scholarships. The group says its mission is to, "enhance the rising generation's knowledge of our nation's founding principles _ limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, free enterprise and Judeo-Christian moral standards." ISI draws much of its funding from conservative foundations, including three controlled by or associated with billionaire philanthropist Richard Mellon Scaife, a vehement critic of former President Clinton. Scalia spoke after standing with some 800 others to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The Supreme Court announced last week that it will hear a case testing the constitutionality of the current version of the pledge as it is recited in public schools and that Scalia will not take part. Scalia apparently sidelined himself because of remarks he made earlier this year critical of a lower court ruling in the case. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had found the pledge was unconstitutional in public school classroom because of the phrase, "one nation, under God." The Supreme Court could decide to strip the words "under God" from the patriotic oath or rule that the mention of God does not violate the notion of separation of church and state.

DateLine: June 26, 2003 US SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS TEXAS SODOMY LAW The United States Supreme Court today overturned Texas' sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas, a case brought by two men who were arrested in the home of one of the men for engaging in private and consensual sex. This historic decision is the first recognition from the nation's highest court that lesbians and gay men -- like all other Americans -- are entitled to a fundamental right of privacy under the Constitution's due process clause. The ruling reverses Bowers v. Hardwick, the Court's 1986 decision denying homosexuals the right of privacy. Today's decision is a huge victory for the LGBT community, as sodomy laws can no longer be used to justify a multitude of discriminatory laws and legal decisions that deny LGBT people our civil rights. Click here to read EQCA's Press Release about this historic legal decision: http://www.eqca.org/pressreleases/

DateLine: January, 2001 CALIFORNIA California is the only state in the country to have set up a domestic partner registry at the state level. At the present time, it is open to same-sex couples of any age, and mixed-sex couples at least one of whom is older than 62. Effective January 2, 2002, registration with the state secures the following rights under California law:                 -       to visit each other in the hospital as marital spouses can;                 -       to make medical decisions for each other if either is incapacitated;                 -       to use sick leave to care for one's domestic partner or partner's children;                 -       to be exempt from state income tax on health benefits one's employer provides for one's partner;                 -       to collect unemployment insurance if one has to give up one's job to relocate with one's domestic partner, as marital spouses can;                 -       to file for disability benefits on behalf of one's incapacitated partner;                 -       to receive notice of conservatorship proceedings about one's domestic partner, to participate in the proceedings, and to have preference in being designated as conservator for one's partner;                 -       to be able to sue for the wrongful death of one's partner,or for emotional distress for witnessing a serious injury inflicted upon one's partner;                 -       to use a newly-designed statutory will form, which will have a box to indicate intent to leave property to one's partner;                 -       to be the administrator of one's partner's estate if no one has been designated specifically;                 -       to health insurance benefits if one's partner is a public employee, which benefits can continue after the partner's death; and                 -       to use the step-parent adoption procedure to adopt each other's children.                 Although domestic partnership benefit plans and registries can offer protections that are immensely important in a crisis (health insurance, for example, or the right to visit one's partner in the hospital), they are a far cry from marriage. Even with the expansion of domestic partner protections created by AB25, same-sex couples still do not have inheritance or community property rights, access to the family courts if a relationship breaks up, or scores of other protections under California law. And they do not have any protection under federal law, such as social security or veteran's benefits, immigration rights, or income and estate tax recognition.

	Powered by MSN TV