(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.