ST: California bans gay marriage (Nov 6)

LOS ANGELES - THOUSANDS of gay rights supporters took to the streets of Hollywood late on Wednesday outraged that California had voted to ban same-sex marriages.

The historic presidential win of Mr Barack Obama, who promises to be far more socially liberal than his predecessor, was therefore a bitter-sweet moment for California's gay community as a simultaneous referendum went against them.

Voters approved the constitutional amendment by a margin of 52.5 to 47.5 per cent, according to near complete results.

Known as 'Proposition 8,' the proposal was trumpeted by conservative groups as the people's way of overturning the legalization of gay marriage back in May.

For the gay community, however, it was a bitter pill to swallow.

Angry crowds thronged the streets in central West Hollywood, the heart of Los Angeles' gay community, chanting slogans and waving signs.

'Stop the hate in 2008!' went one chant. 'Keep religion out of my Constitution!' was another.

Protestor Jason Louis wrote the words 'I am a victim of H-8' (H for Hate) on his bare chest.

The referendum circumvents a California Supreme Court ruling in May that legalizes gay marriage by amending the state constitution to add the phrase, 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognised in California.'

The court's May ruling overturned an earlier plebiscite in 2000, when 61 per cent of voters agreed marriage should be defined as only being between a man and a woman.

Fearing that Proposition 8 could be approved, thousands of same-sex couples rushed to tie the knot since Jun, and especially in the last days.

The ruling now leaves thousands of gay couples in a legal limbo.

Those couples include some celebrity marriages such as comedienne Ellen DeGeneres who wed her long-time girlfriend Portia de Rossi in Aug.

'I feel anger, I feel frustration,' Mr Louis, 34, told AFP. 'I just got married last Sunday, we did it two days before the Election Day because I knew that Yes on Prop 8 it could win. Now we don't know what is going to happen, but for sure it will be a long, long legal battle.'

Police said at least 2,000 people gathered for the march, but the crowd continued to swell after that estimate. Protestors included families with children and clerics from progressive churches.

A lesbian couple planned to file a new suit to prevent Proposition 8 from being implemented.

'The new lawsuit will contain a new and controversial legal argument as to why Prop 8 is unconstitutional,' said their attorney Gloria Allred said.

Japanese-American actor George Takei, who played Mr Sulu in the long-running series 'Star Trek' and who married his longtime partner Brad Altman in Sept, said his marriage would remain valid no matter what.

'There's nothing in the language of Proposition 8 that says it's retroactive, so our marriage is going to be valid,' he told a local TV channel.

'But what we're concerned about is the young people of the future.

'Proposition 8 will eliminate in the constitution of the state their options of really being who they want to be.'

Takei and Altman were the first couple to receive a marriage license in West Hollywood when California began issuing them to gay couples on Jun 17.

Hollywood stars including Brad Pitt and Steven Spielberg as well as multinational companies such as Apple campaigned against the ban, with donations of up to US$100,000 (S$148,343).

But supporters unleashed a flood of hard-hitting ads especially targeting the Hispanic community and its traditional Christian and family values.

The Los Angeles Times reported some 18,000 same-sex couples married in the past four and a half months.

Arizona and Florida also passed similar referendums by large margins on Tuesday, stating that marriage was the legal union between a man and a woman.

The largest was in Florida where 62 per cent of voters approved the measure compared to 38 per cent against.

In Arkansas, voters approved a ban on couples who live together without being married, whether gay or straight, from adopting or fostering children. -- AFP

Boston Globe: Connecticut Supreme Court legalises same-sex marriage (Oct 10)

The Boston Globe
10 October 2008

Connecticut Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage

By Michael Levenson and Andrew Ryan, Globe Staff

Connecticut became the third state to legalize same-sex marriage today
in a 4-3 decision by the state Supreme Court.

In an 85-page decision issued at 11:30 a.m., the court struck down a
law barring same-sex marriage, ruling that the state had "failed to
establish adequate reason to justify the statutory ban."

The justices noted in the majority opinion that they recognized "as
the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did in Goodridge v. Dept. of
Public Health … that 'our decision marks a change in the history of
our marriage law.' "

The case, Kerrigan v. the state Commissioner of Public Health, was
brought by eight same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses by
the Madison town clerk. They argued that the state's civil union law
was discriminatory and unconstitutional because it established a
separate and therefore inherently unequal institution for a minority
group. Citing equal protection under the law, the state Supreme Court
agreed.

"In accordance with these state constitutional requirements, same sex
couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry," said the majority
opinion, which was written by Justice Richard N. Palmer.

State Senator Andrew J. McDonald, cochairman of the state Assembly's
Judiciary Committee, said he believes that gay couples will be allowed
to marry in 20 days, barring attempts by opponents to delay the ruling
with procedural maneuvers. He said he expects the Assembly to update
the state's marriage laws when members reconvene in January, without
much opposition.

"I continue to expect a bipartisan effort to eradicate any remaining
vestiges of discrimination," McDonald said, hailing the ruling as a
"dramatic reaffirmation of Connecticut's commitment to civil rights
and equality for all of her citizens."

"The court has seen through many of the diversionary arguments of our
opponents," McDonald said, "and has firmly established that
discrimination in any context and in any form is unacceptable and
unconstitutional."

Peter J. Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of
Connecticut, which opposes same-sex marriage, blasted the ruling.

"The decision is an outrage," Wolfgang said in a telephone interview.
"It is essentially a handful of judges acting as if they were rogue
masters usurping the democratic process in Connecticut and radically
redefining marriage by judicial fiat."

Wolfgang said that "our only shot" to stop same-sex marriage is to
push for passage of a ballot question that will appear before
Connecticut voters next month.

Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell said in a statement that she would
abide by the decision even though she disagreed with the court because
of her belief that "marriage is the union of a man and a woman."

"The Supreme Court has spoken," Rell said. "I do not believe their
voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I
am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision --
either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution – will not
meet with success."

Connecticut joins California and Massachusetts, which became the first
state to allow same-sex marriage in 2004.

In a scathing 25-page dissenting opinion today, Justice Peter T.
Zarella wrote that "there is no fundamental right to same sex marriage."

"The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one
woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry," Zarella wrote. "If the
state no longer has an interest in the regulation of procreation, then
that is a decision for the legislature or the people of the state and
not this court."

In a dissenting opinion written by Justice David M. Borden and signed
by Justice Christine S. Vertefeuille, the judges wrote that, contrary
to arguments made by the plaintiffs, Connecticut's civil union law is
not discriminatory.

"The development of the law in this state dealing with sexual
orientation demonstrates that the legislature had no intention, in
passing the civil union statute, to encourage discrimination against
or to stigmatize homosexuals," the judges wrote. "On the contrary,
that history supports the conclusion that the legislature has been
working toward the eventual passage of a gay marriage bill, and that
the civil union statute was an important step in that process."

In 2005, Connecticut became the first state to establish civil unions
without a court order, but that measure did not end the same-sex
marriage debate. The eight gay couples who were denied licenses sued
the state Department of Public Health, which oversees marriage
registrations.

Following the governor's lead, there appeared to be little appetite in
the Assembly to fight the ruling.

State Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, a Republican of Fairfield,
issued a statement today saying: "While I believe these decisions are
better left to elected representatives, it is ultimately the province
of the State Supreme Court to interpret our constitution. The Court
carried out that responsibility today and ruled that the institution
of marriage in Connecticut must include same-sex couples. Whether
people agree or disagree, we all need to respect the Court's decision
and abide by the ruling."

At the Family Institute of Connecticut, Wolfgang said that next
month's ballot question asked voters whether the state should hold its
first constitutional convention in 40 years. If the measure passes,
Wolfgang said, activists opposed to gay marriage will press the
Legislature to pass a constitutional amendment that would define
marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The measure would then
need approval from the voters, and the soonest it could be ratified
would be two years, he said.

"Our only shot is to get a yes vote on Election Day," Wolfgang said.
"That is our one opportunity to let people have the same remedy here
in Connecticut as they have out in California," where voters are also
scheduled to take up a ballot amendment next month that would ban
same-sex marriage.

latimes.com: California's top Episcopal bishops oppose gay marriage ban

California's top Episcopal bishops oppose gay marriage ban

The state's six highest bishops go on the record against Prop. 8, the fall ballot measure that would reverse the California Supreme Court's decision to allow same-sex couples to marry.
By Duke Helfand, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

September 11, 2008

California's six most senior Episcopal bishops Wednesday unanimously declared their opposition to a constitutional amendment on the statewide November ballot that would ban same-sex marriage.

The bishops argued that preserving the right of gays and lesbians to marry would enhance the "Christian values" of monogamy, love and commitment

"We believe that continued access to civil marriage for all, regardless of sexual orientation, is consistent with the best principles of our constitutional rights," said the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles.

Bruno, flanked at a news conference by fellow clergy members and gay and straight couples, added: "We do not believe that marriage of heterosexuals is threatened by same-sex marriage."

By going on the record against Proposition 8, which would reverse the California Supreme Court's decision in May to legalize same-sex marriage, the bishops waded into a volatile political and religious controversy.

Gay marriage has strained the Episcopalians' international body, the Anglican Communion, with hundreds of bishops from Africa and elsewhere threatening to break away over attempts to change church doctrine and practice.

The issue has created theological fissures in other Protestant denominations, including Presbyterians and United Methodists, with some Methodist ministers in California pledging to perform wedding ceremonies in defiance of their national church.

Proposition 8 supporters, intent on protecting what they call a 5,000-year-old tradition codified in the Bible, are mobilizing forces across several religious groups.

The Protect Marriage Coalition announced plans last month for 1 million Catholics, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, evangelical Christians, Sikhs and Hindus to plant 1 million "Yes on Proposition 8" lawn signs in their frontyards. In addition, the coalition is sending volunteers door to door to speak with voters and planning an advertising campaign, to begin as early as the end of this month.

"Marriage is an institution for a man and a woman," said Jeff Flint, the campaign's co-chairman. "The institution of marriage around which society is constructed means less when it's not the traditional definition."

But in a joint statement, issued Wednesday at the diocesan headquarters in Echo Park, the six bishops said that "society is strengthened when two people who love each other choose to enter into marriage, engaged in a lifetime of disciplined relationship building that serves as a witness to the importance of love and commitment."

The statement was signed by Bruno and Bishops Marc Handley Andrus, Barry L. Beisner, Mary Gray-Reeves, Jerry A. Lamb and James R. Mathes. (Three assistant bishops -- Chester L. Talton, Sergio Carranza and Steven Charleston -- also signed.)

The bishops concluded: "We believe that this continued access [to marriage] promotes Jesus' ethic of love, giving and hope."

While the Episcopal leaders agreed on the need to preserve the right of gay and lesbian couples to wed, they disagreed over how, and if, to conduct weddings, in light of the church's Book of Common Prayer, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

According to the joint statement, some of the six bishops believe it is appropriate to allow priests to officiate at marriage ceremonies and pronounce blessings, while others want to wait to hear from the Episcopal Church's governing body, the General Convention. It meets next in Anaheim in July 2009. (At its 2006 meeting, the General Convention passed a resolution opposing state or federal constitutional amendments that prohibit same-sex civil marriage.)

Mathes, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of San Diego, said the Episcopal Church must alter language on same-sex marriage before priests begin officiating.

"I just don't believe we have been authorized to do them," Mathes said. "I am not keen on unilateral action."

Andrus, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of California, said he encourages couples -- straight or gay -- to marry in civil ceremonies and then receive a blessing in church. The compromise stops short of priests performing the rites of marriage for same-sex couples.

Andrus, whose diocese covers the Bay Area, said this practice allows him to honor the rights of gay and lesbian couples while keeping his diocese tethered to the Anglican fold. "We have recognized that we as a global body need each other," he said. "This diocese, by its faithfulness to the larger body, could serve as a catalyst for change."

The conflict over Proposition 8 is unfolding amid a wrenching dispute over homosexuality in the Anglican Communion, which has 80 million members worldwide.

Conservative bishops from Africa and other regions have balked at reform efforts by more liberal leaders, primarily from North America. The election of an openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson, to the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire in 2003 intensified the conflict.

Several hundred conservative bishops and archbishops boycotted the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference of Anglicans, held in July.

A month before that meeting in England, the conservatives met in Jerusalem. They decided to remain within the global communion but proposed a new council with the authority to create alternative provinces in places where church authorities failed, in the conservatives' opinion, to follow the Gospel.

Episcopal leaders in California believe that acknowledging the rights of homosexuals to marry does follow the Gospel.

"We're talking about our friends, our neighbors," Abel Lopez, a priest with All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, said at the news conference with Bruno. "These are people in our own families . . . people who deserve the [same] rights as anyone else."

duke.helfand@

latimes.com

TodayOnline.com: What's Next? Same Sex Marriage? (Sept 9)

What's next? Same sex marriages?

Tuesday • September 9, 2008

Letter from Anton Chan

MR HO Kwon Ping is wrong to propose the acceptance of gays into
Singapore society because accepting a gay lifestyle would have a
tremendous impact on society as a whole in terms of religious beliefs,
social well-being and families.

As a Christian, I oppose legalising a gay lifestyle in Singapore
because it's against my beliefs. As a father of three teenagers, I
care because I don't want my children to be affected by such a lifestyle.

Imagine if we allow the acceptance of such a lifestyle in Singapore.
What next? Legalise same sex marriages? Legalise adoption of children
for gays?

Where are we as a socially-conservative society heading towards?

Soon gays will claim the right for social acceptance in all areas
including education, welfare et cetera. What effect will this have on
the next generation of children and parents who wish that their
children will grow up normally and produce children in the normal
course of their being?

The only strong contention in Mr Ho's proposal is the so-called gay
leading edge in the "creative class". Doesn't our society have many
other people to develop and nurture? Why are we so eager to promote
creative class talent in Singapore? So that we can become a more
tolerant society to accept whatever lifestyle these bring? Definitely no.

I would like to borrow a similar argument by Attorney-General Walter
Woon regarding the Human Organ Transplant Act (Hota). In "None above
the law" (Sept 8), he said: "If Dr Lee (Wei Ling) disagrees with Hota,
she is at perfect liberty to campaign to have it amended ... But until
Parliament amends or repeals the Hota and the Oaths and Declarations
Act, they remain the law of Singapore."

If anyone disagrees with the law for gays as enacted by Parliament,
he/she is at perfect liberty to campaign to have it amended ... But
until Parliament amends or repeals the law of Singapore for gays, it
remains the law of Singapore.

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/274854print.asp

AFP: Campaigingin lesbian couple to tie knot in Los Angeles (June 15)

Campaigning lesbian couple to tie knot in Los Angeles

Jun 15, 2008

LOS ANGELES (AFP) — Robin Tyler and Diane Olson's four-year battle for the right to marry will end where it began on Monday, when the women exchange vows on the steps of Beverly Hills Courthouse to become the first same-sex couple to tie the knot in Los Angeles County.

Tyler, 66, and Olson, 54, were two of the lead plaintiffs of the lawsuit that led to California's highest court overturning the state's ban on same-sex marriage last month, and will wed at 5:01 pm Monday (0001 GMT Tuesday), moments after the court ruling takes effect.

The couple will exchange vows four years after being refused a marriage license at the same courthouse on Valentine's Day 2004, a decision that prompted their ultimately historic legal action.

"We wanted to have the wedding outside the courthouse because it was where we'd been turned down so many times," Tyler told AFP. "It will be nice to be able to stand there and get married and say 'We won.'"

While opponents of same-sex marriage argued that California law already entitled gay and lesbian couples to many of the rights enjoyed by their heterosexual counterparts, Tyler and Olson were never remotely inclined to settle for the glass ceiling of "domestic partnerships."

"If you deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, it's segregation," says Tyler, a producer, writer and entertainer who has campaigned relentlessly for gay and lesbian rights since the 1970s.

"If you apply the argument used against us to race, it doesn't stand up. If you each have a water fountain -- blacks and whites -- you're drinking the same water, so why do you need a fountain together? Because to do otherwise means that one is considered less than the other.

"And where marriage is concerned, 'domestic partnerships' mean that our love is considered as being worth less than heterosexual love. Equality is not giving us another name for our relationships, equality is giving us the name 'marriage'."

"We held out for the word 'marriage'," Olson added. "Because marriage is a universally understood word."

Despite the legal saga and bitter opposition from conservative groups, Olson and Tyler say they were always confident of victory.

"There was never a doubt in my mind," Olson said.

Tyler added: "If you kick the door long enough, the door is going to come down. So we just kept kicking the door."

Tyler and Olson admit, however, that planning for their wedding has been a steep learning curve. "We're kind of winging it," Tyler said.

"We were asked the other day, 'What's the budget for your wedding?' I said 'I've never had one, how would I know?'" Tyler laughed.

The happy couple, who first met in the 1970s and have been together for 15 years, will wear matching ivory linen suits that were tailor-made in Singapore last year. They have no immediate plans for a honeymoon.

Neither are children on the agenda -- the couple say they are quite happy with their two pugs, Mushu Pork and Wonton.

"They're children with fur as far as we are concerned, and they make our hearts tick," says Tyler.

"And we don't have to pay to send them to college," chimed Olson.

AP: Lesbian Couple of 55 Years Ready to Say "I Do" (June 14)

Lesbian Couple of 55 Years Ready to Say "I Do"

Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin fell in love at a time when lesbians risked being arrested, fired from their jobs and sent to electroshock treatment.

On Monday afternoon, more than a half-century after they became a couple, Lyon and Martin plan to become the first same-sex couples to legally exchange marriage vows in San Francisco and among the first in the state.

''It was something you wanted to know, 'Is it really going to happen?' And now it's happened, and maybe it can continue to happen,'' Lyon said.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom plans to officiate at the private ceremony in his City Hall office before 50 invited guests. He picked Martin, 87, and Lyon, 84, for the front of the line in recognition of their long relationship and their status as pioneers of the gay rights movement.

Along with six other women, they founded a San Francisco social club for lesbians in 1955 called the Daughters of Bilitis. Under their leadership, it evolved into the nation's first lesbian advocacy organization. They have the FBI files to prove it.

Their ceremony Monday will, in fact, be a marriage do-over.

In February 2004, San Francisco's new mayor decided to challenge California's marriage laws by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. His advisers and gay rights activists knew right away which couple would put the most compelling human face on the issue: Martin and Lyon.

Back then, the couple planned to celebrate their 51st anniversary as live-in lovers on Valentine's Day. Because of their work with the Daughters, they also were icons in the gay community.

''Four years ago, when they agreed to be married, it was in equal parts to support the mayor and to support the idea that lesbians and gay people formed committed relationships and should have those relationships respected,'' says Kate Kendell, a close friend and executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

Lyon and Martin vividly recall the excitement of being secretly swept into the clerk's office, saying ''I do'' in front of a tiny group of city staff members and friends, and then being rushed out of the building. There were no corsages, no bottles of champagne. Afterward they went to lunch, just the two of them, at a restaurant run as a job training program for participants in a substance abuse program.

''Of course, nobody down there knew, so we were left to be by ourselves like we wanted to be,'' said Martin, the less gregarious of the two. ''Then we came home.''

''And watched TV,'' added Lyon.

The privacy was short-lived. Their wedding portrait, showing the couple cradling each other in pastel-colored pantsuits with their foreheads tenderly touching, drew worldwide attention.

Same-sex marriage would become legal in Massachusetts in another three months, but San Francisco's calculated act of civil disobedience drove the debate.

In the month that followed, more than 4,000 other couples followed Martin and Lyon down the aisle before a judge acting on petitions brought by gay marriage opponents halted the city's spree.

The state Supreme Court ultimately voided the unions, but the women were among the two dozen couples who served as plaintiffs in the lawsuits that led the same court last month to overturn California's ban on gay marriage.

They were having their morning coffee when Lyon heard the news on the radio. She rushed across the house to embrace Martin. Not long after, Newsom called to offer congratulations and to ask if they would be willing to be at the forefront yet again.

''Sure,'' was the answer they gave.

The couple, who live in the same San Francisco house they bought in 1956, do not get out much now. Martin needs a wheelchair to get around. Although they plan to briefly greet well-wishers at City Hall after the ceremony, they are having a private reception for friends and family.

''It's so endearing because they do seem excited and a little bit nervous,'' Kendell said. ''It's like the classic feelings anyone has as their wedding day approaches.''

Because a few other clerk's offices agreed to stay open until the court's decision becomes final at 5 p.m. PDT, other couples planning late afternoon weddings may already have tied the knot before the mayor pronounces Lyon and Martin ''spouses for life.''

They don't mind. They know they already are.

''We get along well,'' Lyon said. ''And we love each other.''

''I love you, too,'' Martin said. (Lisa Leff, AP)