(Pretoria) A legal advisory board to the South African government is refusing to give its approval to legislation giving same-sex couples the right to marry and allowing gay and non gay couples who do not wish to marry the right to register their relationships.

The State Law Adviser, which the government usually submits bills to before they go to Parliament said the legislation may not meet all of the requirements of last year's Constitutional Court ruling that ordered the government to remove restrictions barring gay and lesbian couples from marrying.

The SLA declined to give an opinion on the constitutionality of the bill but said it had concerns that the legislation would be a separate act rather than amendments to existing laws. It also said it was worried about a provision in the bill allowing civil marriage officials the right to refuse to solemnize same-sex unions on the grounds of conscience. And it said that the partner registry also was a concern.

None of those aspects were contained in the original court ruling.

Some LGBT rights groups also expressed misgivings about the way the government intends to implement the court order calling the separate legislation "apartheid".

Speaking to a delegation of visiting Canadian bishops, Benedict once again showed his determination to interfere in the secular political process.

The Pope castigated the Canadian government for legalising gay marriage and abortion, saying that they are ignoring the “Creator’s divine plan.”

...

The Pope mocked the concept of tolerance in his address to the bishops, called the idea of gay marriage a folly, and attacked Roman Catholic politicians for following the wishes of their constituents.

...

The former member of the Hitler youth told bishops that, “democracy succeeds only to the extent that it is based on truth and a correct understanding of the human person. Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise on this principle,” according to Reuters.

"They are particularly damaging when Christian civic leaders sacrifice the unity of faith and sanction the disintegration of reason and the principles of natural ethics, by yielding to ephemeral social trends and the spurious demands of opinion polls," he said.

The social trends Benedict was referring to are the moves across the developed world to grant LGBT people equal rights.

(Richmond, Virginia) A group of 100 lawyers, including two former attorneys general, are calling for the rejection of a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would ban same-sex marriage, civil unions and possibly be used to void domestic partner benefits for both gay and unmarried opposite-sex couples.

The attorneys have signed a statement, released to the media by the group fighting against the proposed amendment, that says they agree with a legal analysis that the measure could be used to terminate all rights of unmarried couples who have entered into contracts on such things as wills and child custody.

The statement also says that the amendment could be used to exclude unmarried couples from the state's domestic violence laws.

...

The attorneys are the latest group to announce their opposition to the amendment.

In Norfolk, 17 companies and two business groups with a combined membership of about 750 have announced their opposition to the proposed amendment.

The Falls Church Chamber of Commerce has come out against the measure. It is the only chamber to formally oppose it, but no chamber has endorsed the amendment either.

For many business leaders the issue is one of competitiveness amid fears that if the amendment passes it could prevent some companies from doing business in the state. It could also mean talented prospective employees would not work in Virginia.

Religious leaders from a number of Protestant churches and several rabbis also have spoken out against the amendment. Most church leaders, however, support the amendment. Backers of the proposed ban have specifically targeted Black churches.

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) and former US Sen. John Edwards also have voiced their opposition to the amendment.

The most recent poll, taken in July, showed that 56 percent of likely voters said they would vote in favor of amending the state constitution, while 38 percent of voters said they would vote against it. Only six percent of those surveyed remain undecided.

Yep. Though I can not understand why the parliaments around the world make such a drama and waste of ressources around this simple issue. Everything they need to do is insert one single sentence: Marriage can be performed by two partners of the same or opposit gender.

The general secretary of the South African Council of Churches (SACC), Eddie Makue, has called for a single law governing all forms of marriage, including same-sex unions, rather than the dual legislation proposed by the government.

He made the call in an open letter, released on Thursday, to the chairpersons of Parliament's home affairs and justice portfolio committees.

"Our national history illustrates all too painfully the folly and injustice of creating multiple legal and administrative mechanisms to perform essentially the same functions for different categories of people," he said.

"Separate institutions are rarely, if ever, equal. Their chances of achieving equal impact are further reduced if they are embedded in a society that remains afflicted by prejudice and discrimination."

OTTAWA -- When MPs rise in the House of Commons this fall to cast votes on whether to revisit Canada's same-sex marriage law, they are widely expected to put the issue to rest with the majority voting no.

The Bloc and NDP have both decided to vote as parties against reopening debate, a strong majority of Liberals are expected to take the same position and even a sizeable number of Conservatives have either publicly stated their intentions to vote no or are musing they may do so because they think it's time to turn their attention to other issues.

...

With all 79 Bloc Quebecois and New Democrats vowing to vote against reviving the issue, along with at least 11 Conservatives thus far, the No forces need only 60 of 102 Liberals onside and the vast majority of that party is expected reject the government's motion.

In fact, there are approximately 27 undecideds or gay-marriage opponents in the 101-member Liberal caucus, and even if they all voted to reopen the issue it would still not be enough.

"At this moment, we're cautiously optimistic the majority would vote against reopening," said Gilles Marchildon, executive director of Egale Canada, a same-sex rights group that pushed hard for the marriage law.

"That's our math." In June 2005, the House of Commons voted 158-133 to legalize gay marriage. Marchildon predicted the outcome will be similar this time around, despite the fact that Parliament was reconfigured by the last election.

At the ANC caucus meeting this week, ruling party MPs made clear their opposition to the Civil Union Bill, which will legalise same-sex marriages and also resurrected the need for a "free vote".

ANC and government officials acknowledged that more ANC MPs were opposed to same-sex marriages than in favour and that the ruling party had a mountain to cross.

But those championing the country's constitutional democracy and who believe the rights of the country's gay minority must be protected, believe that once the prejudice and misconceptions are cleared up, the question of a free vote in the ANC will not be necessary.

Writing in his personal capacity in a daily newspaper this month, ANC MP Patekile Holomisa was the first to publicly call for a conscience vote for all parties, including his own, on the question of same-sex marriages.

He argued that the drafters of the constitution never contemplated that the equality clause would eventually be construed as endorsing same-sex marriages.

Holomisa said that last year's constitutional court judgment paving the way for gay couples to tie the knot was a classic case of "an undesirable and unintended consequence".

He argued that the drafters of the constitution never contemplated that the equality clause would eventually be construed as endorsing same-sex marriages.

Holomisa said that last year's constitutional court judgment paving the way for gay couples to tie the knot was a classic case of "an undesirable and unintended consequence".

(Madison, Wisconsin) With polls showing that Wisconsin could become the first state in the nation where voters reject a proposed amendment banning same-sex marriage Focus on the Family, one of the country's most anti-gay organizations, has entered that battleground.

The proposed amendment to the state constitution would bar same-sex marriage, civil unions and possibly be used to deny partner benefits.

The Colorado Springs-based FOF has filed papers with the state Elections Board last week to create a referendum committee. The filing will allow it to use the millions of dollars it collects nationally in the fight in Wisconsin.

FOF, founded by conservative James Dobson, also has been at the forefront of same-sex marriage bans in other states. In Colorado, where a proposed amendment also is on the ballot this November, the group has given half a million dollars to groups promoting the amendment - $500,000 of that - $250,000 directly from FOF and another $250,000 through its lobbying arm Focus on the Family Action.

Fair Wisconsin, which is leading the fight against the amendment, said it is not surprised that national groups like FOF are targeting the state. A public poll taken in July showed that voters were about equally divided on the amendment with 49 percent supporting the it and 48 percent opposed.

Fair Wisconsin spokesperson Josh Freker says that it has received about $90,000 from national LGBT groups but most of its funding has come from within the state and has a small army of volunteers on the ground.

The Diversity Movement, a gay rights group, held a press conference yesterday to announce that the bill is in the hands of legislators who support it, including Ana Helena Chacón, of the Social Christian Unity Party (PUSC), José Merino del Río, of the Broad Front Party and Alberto Salom, of the Citizen Action Party (PAC).

Diversity Movement president Abelardo Ayara said he hopes the legislators will “find the right moment” to submit the bill to the Legislative Assembly this week.

The bill would allow for civil union between members of the same sex, guaranteeing these couples all the rights heterosexual couples enjoy, including the right of a financially dependent partner to qualify for Social Security benefits through his or her partner's employer.

The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court (Sala IV) ruled gay marriage unconstitutional in May (TT, May 26), but it also stated the need for legislation concerning civil unions, Araya said.

Virginia's Republican Attorney General issued a legal opinion Thursday that a proposed amendment to the state constitutional banning same-sex marriage would not also bar private company domestic partner benefits, negate agreements between partners or affect non-married opposite-sex couples.   

The one-page opinion, by Bob McDonnell, was made at the behest of a group of conservative Republicans who support the amendment. Opponents of the proposed amendment, including Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine have suggested the measure could have far reaching consequences beyond preventing same-sex couples from marrying.

"The passage of the Marriage Amendment will not affect current legal rights and obligations of unmarried persons involving contracts, wills, advance medical directives, shared equity agreements, employer accident and sickness insurance policies or protection under domestic violence laws," McDonnell wrote.

McDonnell is a strong supporter of the amendment but his spokesperson said the opinion was based on legal research, not his personal views.

[...]

Following the release of McDonnell's opinion Gov. Kaine held a news conference to say he disagreed.

"The potential for unintended consequences is a very serious flaw," Kaine said, reminding reporters that the state already has legislation limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Some of the state's top lawyers also disagree with the Attorney General.

Last week 100 attorneys, including two former attorneys general, issued a statement saying they believe the measure could be used to terminate all rights of unmarried couples who have entered into contracts on such things as wills and child custody. They also said that the amendment could be used to exclude unmarried couples from the state's domestic violence laws.

Home affairs portfolio committee chairman Patrick Chauke says he will not allow his religious beliefs to interfere with the way he and his committee deal with draft legislation on gay marriages.

He was speaking outside parliament on Saturday, after receiving a memorandum from several thousand Christians who had marched through the city centre to protest against the Civil Unions Bill.
...
Chauke said the memo - which called for a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage - would be tabled in parliament, and the concerns it expressed taken on board.

He said he believed the bill, drawn up in a bid to meet the Constitutional Court's December 1 deadline for a law on homosexual marriages, "balanced" the need of those "who want to get into some kind of a union".

(Johannesburg, South Africa) The South African government began public hearings Wednesday on legislation that would allow same-sex couples for marry as opposition from gays and church groups grew.

At hearings in White City in Soweto the Lesbian, Gay Bisexual and Transgendered Community Organization told the parliamentary commission that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right but criticized the legislation because it gives the appearance of separate but equal.

The concerns were echoed by other LGBT organizations who says that rather than bringing in a separate law to deal with same-sex couples that would also give rights to non-married gay and straight couples the government is creating two classes.

The groups are calling for the bill, titled the Civil Union Act, which would govern civil marriage and cohabitation, to be dropped and that the existing Marriage Act which defines marriage as between a man and a woman to be amended to be gender neutral.

Conservative church groups are also opposed to the bill. They want the government to override a Constitutional Court ruling ordering the legalization of gay marriage to be overridden by amending the constitution to drop rights for gays and lesbians.

Cabinet warned on Wednesday against defying the Constitutional Court ruling on same-sex marriage.

Cabinet had noted the public discourse on the draft Civil Unions Bill, government communications head Themba Maseko told a media briefing after their weekly meeting.

"While every individual or group has the right to express their views openly on the matter of same-sex marriages, Cabinet emphasised the need for everyone to be reminded that there is a Constitutional Court ruling that the current definition of marriage in the Marriage Act was unconstitutional.

"Participants in the debate should not conduct themselves in a manner that suggests that they want to defy the decision of the Constitutional Court on this or any other matter," he said.

Asked about the possibility of approaching the court to extend the December 1 deadline for a law on same-sex marriages, Maseko said the issue had not arisen.

This week marked a sad, but important anniversary in the effort to secure equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples, but none of the major national gay groups called attention to it. Thursday, September 21 was the tenth anniversary of President Bill Clinton signing the Defense of Marriage Act into law. If memory serves, I believe he signed DOMA late at night, without any photographers or members of the public present.

One might think gay advocacy groups would mark a decade of this hateful antigay law, but a survey of such groups' web sites shows complete silence on this anniversary.

The Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Lambda Legal, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, the Freedom to Marry organization, the Log Cabin Republicans, the Marriage Equality group -- all were silent as the tenth anniversary of Clinton signing DOMA came and went.

A few questions need asking. Why didn't the gay groups use the anniversary date to educate the American public about the marriage discrimination gays and lesbians face? Would it have been so terrible for the advocates to hold town hall meetings or organizing a political lobbying day on DOMA? Do we gays not know how to use important anniversaries to advance our vital issues?

Mexico City lawmakers gave preliminary approval for homosexual civil unions on Monday and the measure could become law this week, allowing gay unions for the first time in the world's second-biggest Catholic nation.

The human rights commission of the capital's assembly approved giving gays a contract that grants them legal rights in the city.

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Mexico's northern border state of Coahuila is considering a law to allow homosexual civil unions, just days before Mexico City could legalize gay partnerships for the first time in the world's second-biggest Catholic nation.

While the measure has been discussed for five years in the leftist capital, it is surprising it is being seriously debated in Coahuila, a conservative ranching and mining region.

The bill was introduced on Tuesday by a member of the majority Institutional Revolutionary Party and has the support of the governor.

...

Some doubt the Coahuila bill will be approved in a state that voted overwhelmingly conservative in the July presidential election. A full vote in the local congress could take weeks.

The law would give gay couples pension, property and other rights but falls short of allowing them to adopt children.

MEXICO CITY -- Mexico City's assembly on Thursday voted for the first time in the country's history to legally recognize gay civil unions, a measure that will provide same-sex couples with benefits similar to those of married couples. The mayor was expected to sign the measure into law.

The bill, which does not approve gay marriage, allows same-sex couples to register their union with civil authorities, granting them inheritance and pension rights, as well as other social benefits. Lawmakers were still finalizing the details.

Heterosexual couples who are not legally married can also be registered under the legislation.

CAPE TOWN — In a major about turn, the African National Congress (ANC) in Parliament’s home affairs committee yesterday swept aside opposition objections to the same-sex marriages bill and used its 70% majority to force the use of the terms “civil union” and “marriage” equally.

The approved version of the bill makes the term “civil union” the same as a “marriage” and wherever the one appears, so too does the other. This approval is a direct rejection of the masses of submissions from religious groups objecting to giving homosexual couples the choice of using the term marriage. It is also a direct rejection of traditional leaders who wanted the constitution to be changed rather than the bill approved.

ANY two people who live together and present themselves as a couple will be covered under South Australia's proposed changes to partnership laws, state Attorney-General Michael Atkinson has said.

Mr Atkinson introduced the Domestic Partners Bill to parliament today and said he expected support from the majority of MPs.

Most importantly he has secured backing for the legislation from the Family First party, the Greens and the Australian Democrats, virtually ensuring its passage in the upper house, after redrafting the bill which stalled in parliament last year.

The new legislation will allow same-sex couples to share property and financial affairs and take carer's leave to look after each other during periods of illness.

The laws will dispense with the term "de facto'' and categorise couples as domestic partners.

As such they will also apply to any two people living together as a couple, such as two sisters, even though they have a non-sexual relationship.

MEXICO CITY: Mexico's ruling conservative party is considering filing a legal challenge to Mexico City's new law recognizing gay civil unions, saying it violates a clause in the country's constitution protecting the family, legislators said Friday.

...

Article 4 of Mexico's Constitution covers the rights of spouses, children and the family, and states that "men and women are equal before the law. This will protect the organization and development of the family." Errasti said the new Mexico City law is unconstitutional because the article mentions only men and women in relation to marriage.

City legal counsel Maria Estela Rios, however, called the argument "absurd" because the law guarantees legal rights for same-sex couples, but does not legalize gay marriage.

"There is no attack against the concept of the family," Rios said. The law "just involves recognizing that there are other forms of unions that have existed for many years."

Errasti did not say when his party would decide on whether to file the constitutional challenge — the only legal avenue to overturn the law.

The Irish Parliament has voted down a bill that would have given gay and lesbian couples all of the rights of marriage. The private members bill was introduced by Labor Party justice critic Brendan Howlin was modeled after Britain's civil unions law.

In voting against the measure the government of Prime Minister Bertie Ahern said it went too far.

The government is preparing its own legislation which it said would be brought in later this year. The bill is expected to provide some recognition of same-sex relationships in property and inheritance rights but deny gay couples adoption rights.

Justice Minister Michael McDowell said the Howlin bill would be unconstitutional because it equated civil partnerships with marriage. The constitution says the government is obligated to defend the institution of marriage, but it does not define it.

Howlin's bill was defeated by a wide margin among government and opposition backbenchers.

Hawaii lawmakers decided Tuesday night not to vote on a bill that would have created civil unions for same-sex couples, effectively killing the measure.

After five hours of testimony, the House Judiciary Committee wouldn't vote on the proposal -- a sign that it didn't have enough support to pass into law.

Civil unions were suggested as a way for the state to sidestep a controversy over gay marriage, but they proved to be nearly as contentious.

"This is essentially a re-examination of the same-sex marriage issue except with a different title," said Kelly Rosati, a spokeswoman for the Hawaii Catholic Church and executive director for the Hawaii Family Forum.

[...]

Representatives offered little explanation to the public as to why they didn't vote on the matter.

"There will be no vote tonight," said committee Chairman Tommy Waters, D-Lanikai-Waimanalo. "It's the chair's decision to defer this matter. Thank you."

Hawaii nearly legalized gay marriages more than a decade ago before stiff public opposition came from family advocacy groups, the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church.

[...]

Virginia Domligan, pastor for the Prayer Center of the Pacific in Pearl City, told lawmakers her community doesn't believe gay couples should receive the same rights.

"Full benefits are for traditional marriage between male and female," she said. "The heart of the majority has not changed, even though times have changed."

Thread consolidation time...

That's it. I've had it with these effing papists and that gawddamn Mormon cult, and all these precious little "family" groups. I say we start up a group called "The North American Coalition for the Family" -- open only to those who support, and advocate for equal marriage. And other ones, with a similar sort of membership, called stuff like "Focus on the Faith" (open only to pagans), "Mavens of Motherhood; Devotees of Dadhood" (advocating for adoption rights for queers), "Traditional Values Voters" (lobbying for the return of traditional roles such as burdaches, and the removal of churches from wedding rituals, which ought to be performed with pagan rites)... and even one called "The Alliance for Apple Pie" (open only to queers who advocate fervently for cherry pie) -- just to be whimsical and confusing.

And then we *flood* every damn elected official at every jurisdictional level, from Mexico to Ellesmere Island with letters, e-mails, postcards, petitions, phone calls, faxes... call all the papers, alert all the networks -- make it so that terms like "traditional" and "family" and "values" are seen as gayer than a picnic in the park in June... that ought to shut the bastards up (for awhile).

Done

that was a lotta work

Legislation will be presented in Argentina's Parliament this fall that would give same-sex couples all of the rights of marriage.  

Currently the law limits marriage to opposite-sex couples. However the country does afford gay and lesbian couples some rights including inheritance, adoption and survivor pensions.

Two regions of the country permit civil unions - the province of Río Negro and the federal district of Buenos Aires. 

In 2003 Rio Negro became the first area in South America to permit civil unions.

A poll released this week shows that three-quarters of those surveyed in the capital believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. Only 25 percent disagreed.

The national civil unions bill would give same-sex couples all of the rights of marriage without the name. It was written with the support of the country's largest LGBT civil rights group, the Argentinean Homosexual Community.

There ARE a few such 'coalitions' out there. Perhaps they will grow.

(New Rochelle, NY) A planned protest rally became a lunch of thanksgiving yesterday at a local Cosi sandwich shop, where advocates of same-sex marriage were allowed to keep their photos on display after all.

The fashionable chain restaurant had welcomed an exhibit of family snapshots collected by the Empire State Pride Agenda in lobbying for same-sex marriage rights. A day later, the group was asked to take the photos down. The local manager cited complaints from the public, and the corporate office blamed a glitch in company procedures.

That discrepancy didn't seem to matter yesterday as the photos -- a collection of smiling portraits matted on 35 rainbow-colored pages -- were being arranged on the walls again. Activists, clergy members and local residents held a news conference outside to explain their argument for giving gays and lesbians the right to legally marry in New York. When everyone had spoken, they went inside and had lunch.

"Marriage, to my family, means everything," said Carolina Cordero Dyer of White Plains, whose twin 2-year-old children were at her side in a stroller. "Just like everyone else, I worry about paying the bills, I worry about my kids' education, I worry about health care. Without marriage, all of those things that we all worry about are harder."

Dyer said she married Claudia Glaser in Canada and completed a second-parent adoption of their children, whom Glaser gave birth to. An entry in the photo display had pictures of the four of them with the words, "Marriage, Love, Commitment, Family."

[...]

Diana Wilkins of the Empire State Pride Agenda signed a liability and insurance agreement with Cosi to display the artwork from Feb. 24 to March 26. But Regional Vice President Robert Speirs said the approval did not go through the right channels, and that triggered the removal request. He said the company's aim is not to judge the artwork but to present it appropriately - in frames, for example. The photos were professionally matted but not framed.

[...]

At least one local customer said she'll be giving up Cosi's salads and other offerings until the exhibit comes down. "What offends me is that they're fighting for normalcy, they're fighting for approval, they're fighting for acceptance, and those of us who disagree with this issue of homosexuality -- that's never going to happen," Jeanne Sparks said.

"It's a political agenda. It may be legal, but I think it's not appropriate," she said. "It could be offensive and disrespectful to the people who are raising their children to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman."

"What offends me is that they're fighting for normalcy, they're fighting for approval, they're fighting for acceptance, and those of us who disagree with this issue of homosexuality -- that's never going to happen,"

"It's a political agenda. It may be legal, but I think it's not appropriate"

Two women have been charged with election fraud in connection with the collection last year of signatures on a referendum to repeal Cincinnati's LGBT rights ordinance.

Following a seven-month investigation indictments were handed down against Lois Mingo, 47 and Precilla Ward, 32. Both women had been hired by Equal Rights Not Special Rights, an organization formed to repeal the ordinance.

But the grand jury did not return indictments against two other people that local LGBT civil rights groups also accused of irregularities, including -- Rep. Tom Brinkman (R).

Citizens To Restore Fairness, a group formed to fight the referendum, and Equality Cincinnati, said they believed the alleged fraud was widespread. In a statement to the media Equality Cincinnati said investigators "ignored the real extent of the changes made while the petitions were in state Rep. Tom Brinkman's control."

[...]

Among the phony signatures were "Fidel Castro" and Cincinnati Reds owner "Bob Castellini."

Restore Fairness alleged that Equal Rights Not Special Rights was systematic in its use of fraud and tampering of petitions to push the issue onto the fall ballot. A probe was launched by the Hamilton County Prosecutor's Office.

Mingo and Ward worked for a temp agency - Labor Ready - that had been hired by the Equal Rights Not Special Rights campaign. They were paid by the hour and by the signature, and received bonuses based on the number of signatures collected. If convicted Mingo and Ward could be sentenced up to one year in prison for each phony name collected.

AMSTERDAM – The COC demonstration at the monument for homosexuals drew about 300 people on Amsterdam, a spokesperson for the COC said on Sunday.

The COC organised the demonstration in protest against the civil servants who refuse to conduct marriages for same-sex couples. It was exactly six years ago that same-sex marriages were legalised.

Seven Dutch municipalities continued to hire officials who refuse to perform same-sex marriages, even after gay marriage was legalised on 1 April 2001.

Gay rights organisation COC Nederland says their survey of 443 Dutch municipalities came to this conclusion. The results were presented at the gathering in Amsterdam on Sunday.

One in eight Dutch municipalities has officials in service who refuse to marry gay couples. Twenty municipalities said that they might continue in future to hire officials who object to performing such marriages.

Australia's opposition Labor Party on the weekend approved a campaign plank for the upcoming election calling for a national domestic partner registry for same-sex couples.

The policy was endorsed by the party at its national convention following a lengthy and divisive debate. It would allow same-sex couples to register and receive limited rights in areas such as inheritance, property and pensions. The scheme would be modeled on one already in existence in Tasmania.

[...]

Labor's legal critic, Sen. Joe Ludwig, was pummeled with accusations by party delegates to the convention that he was trying to undermine traditional marriage. Trade union leader, Joe de Bruyn, a delegate to the convention argued that the plan would destroy marriage as an institution. "It robs marriage of its unique and privileged status and it puts it on the same level as a radically different type of union," he said.

But Ludwig said: "The [proposal] specifically says no to gay marriage."

[...]

Howard's Liberals are expected to campaign on "family values." The governing party has a long history of opposing any recognition for same-sex relationships. It thwarted two attempts by the Australian Capital Territory to enact civil partnership legislation.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, the poster child for gay marriage? How about Sen. Mel Martinez, the Florida Republican who once accused an opponent of playing to the "radical homosexual lobby''?

A coalition of civil rights groups that back gay marriage is using photos of prominent couples like the former Republican governor and his Mexican-born wife, Columba, along with the Cuban-born Martinez and his American-born wife, Kitty, in an advertising campaign marking the 40th anniversary of Loving vs. Virginia, a U.S. Supreme Court decision that gave interracial couples the right to marry.

Neither of the politicians responded to requests for comment, but the groups say they hope to use the couples and the court case to bolster their contention that marriage is a civil right that should know no bounds -- even for those of the same sex.

''We're honoring and celebrating something that just over 40 years ago some Americans said was immoral and wrong and could not happen,'' said Jimmy Creech, executive director of Faith in America, a gay rights advocacy group that is bankrolling the ad campaign. ``We're celebrating the wisdom that prejudice and bigotry was removed from the law books and Americans were given the right to marry the person they loved, regardless of race.''

[...]

The ads note that 16 states still banned interracial marriages until the Supreme Court struck down a Virginia law in 1967, finding "the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

''Jeb and Columba Bush couldn't marry today if discrimination were still the law of the land,'' the ad that features the former Florida First Couple reads.

(New York City) A report released Tuesday by New York City Comptroller William C. Thompson, Jr. says that if the state legalized same-sex marriage it would boost the economy by $184 million statewide with $142 million going into the city.

The report, Love Counts: The Economic Benefits of Marriage Equality for New York, looked specifically at the economic impact over the first three years if the legislature approved Gov. Elliott Spitzer's same-sex marriage bill.

CUBA : Se propone legalizar derechos de minorías sexuales
Por Dalia Acosta
LA HABANA - Cuba puede convertirse en el primer país del Caribe en reconocer los derechos patrimoniales y civiles de las parejas de gays y lesbianas si se aprueba una propuesta de reforma al Código de Familia, presentada ante las máximas instancias del gobernante Partido Comunista (PCC).

CUBA: One sets out to legalize rights of sexual minorities By Dalia Acosta Havana - Cuba can become the first country of the Caribbean in recognizing the patrimonial and civil rights of the pairs of gays and lesbians if a proposal of reform to the Code of Family, presented/displayed is approved before the maximum instances of Partido governor Comunista (PCC).

Today, legislators were supposed to meet to hammer out a draft that would reconcile the versions approved earlier this year by the Senate and last week by Congress. It was then supposed to be sent President Alvaro Uribe to be signed into law within days.

Instead, allies of President Uribe from the consevative "La Ú" party, who had recently expressed support for the bill, today turned their back on Uribe and the bill and voted against reconciling both versions which means that the bill is now dead.

A small group of gay and lesbian activists and supporters gathered before Bogota's Congress yesterday after an evangelical lawmaker used a procedural vote to derail a proposed civil union bill that last week had been approved by a vote of 62-43.

The wily move was made when many of the bill's supporters were absent, and the bill was defeated by a vote of 34-29. According to the AP, "The call for individual votes was unusual, and some said unprecedented. Parties usually vote as blocs on the final, reconciled versions of bills in Colombia's legislature. Sen. Armando Benedetti, a sponsor of the bill, vowed to restart the legislative process when Congress reconvenes on July 20, and he criticized [President Alvaro] Uribe (who is a supporter of the bill) for not defending the initiative more forcefully."

The Government will pass laws as soon as possible to allow gay couples to marry, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern said today.

Mr Ahern insisted that the current Coalition was committed to providing full equality to same-sex couples in society.

The Taoiseach was speaking as he reopened the refurbished Outhouse community centre in central Dublin, which has survived two arson attacks.

“This Government is committed to providing a more supportive and secure legal environment for same-sex couples,” he said.

“Taking into account the Options Paper prepared by the Colley Group, and the pending Supreme Court case, we will legislate for Civil Partnerships at the earliest possible date in the lifetime of this Government,” he added.

Quote:
CUBA : Se propone legalizar derechos de minorías sexuales
Por Dalia Acosta
LA HABANA - Cuba puede convertirse en el primer país del Caribe en reconocer los derechos patrimoniales y civiles de las parejas de gays y lesbianas si se aprueba una propuesta de reforma al Código de Familia, presentada ante las máximas instancias del gobernante Partido Comunista (PCC).

Any improvements in benefits for same-sex couples appear to be a long way off in Australia following a raucous cabinet meeting this week in Canberra.

Conservatives within Prime Minister John Howard's Liberal government have managed to delay the introduction of a bill to provide limited rights to gay and lesbian couples until after the next federal election.

Cabinet moderates had been pressing to bring in the bill as soon as possible.

In the end the cabinet decided to leave it up to Howard when the bill would be presented to Parliament and just how far the reforms would go.

Putting the issue solely in Howard's hands will mean no possibility of either same-sex marriage or civil unions. The prime minister has consistently said he would not consider either.

If I were in a position to set up the legislation for the Gay homeland, I would suggest a simple notification procedure. The clerk in the office looks up whether the individuals in question are not already married to someone else, takes the administrative fee and makes a notice in the civil registry. A few additional rights might be granted to them (e.g. the right not to testify against the partner in a criminal suit etc). For anything else, the legislation shall make no difference between married and non-married partners. A single man living with his dependent mother shall be treated no different from a "double-income no kids" married couple - in both cases, the shared income should be submitted to the fiscus for joint taxation.

Anti-gay amendment resurfaces in Maryland

* * * * *

Pair indicted for fraudulent signatures in anti-gay ballot measure

The Court of Appeals in Ohio has told a state lawmaker he does not have a right to sue Miami University over the school's decision to provide health benefits to the same-sex partners of its employees.

The ruling upholds a lower court decision throwing out the lawsuit by state Rep. Tom Brinkman (R).

[...]

Brinkman was represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative law group which regularly fights LGBT issues nationwide. The suit argued that Ohio's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage nullifies such benefits from publicly funded institutions.

Miami University gets about ten percent of its income from the state of Ohio. The rest comes from tuition and endowments.

Brinkman has two children who are students at the university.

The suit said that he "desires that his tax dollars and tuition payments be utilized lawfully, and not applied by the University to finance the constitutional violation challenged herein."

Lambda Legal, representing two lesbian professors argued that Brinkman had no standing to sue, because the University pays for its domestic partner benefits with privately donated funds, not with tax dollars or tuition.

"We conclude that Brinkman's status as an Ohio taxpayer does not give him standing to challenge the university's policy of providing health insurance benefits to same-sex domestic partners of its employees," the Appeals Court said in its ruling Tuesday.

"Lesbian and gay employees and their families' health were at stake and today the court has granted them freedom from being a pawn in politically motivated lawsuits," said Lambda attorney James P. Madigan. "The court has affirmed that Mr. Brinkman's daily life is unaffected when the domestic partners of lesbian and gay university employees have health insurance and he therefore has no standing to bring a lawsuit."