Gay Rights Watch

For those who have ever pondered the "what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object" problem, California's gay marriage debate is about to show us in a big way.

Both sides are escalating their battles to have this issue finally settled forever, one way or another, in the state's constitution.

Monday's ruling by San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer that withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional threw gasoline on an already inflamed battle.

While Kramer ruled that "no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," his ruling far from settles the case.

This ruling, naturally, will be appealed.

So while Kramer's interesting piece of legal interpretation wends through the courts, larger forces are already at work.

Steaming in from the left flank are the pro-gay marriage forces, bolstered by Kramer's ruling but already hard at work in the Legislature. They hope to amend state law through Assembly Bill 19.

Introduced Jan. 5 by Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, this bill seeks a gender-neutral legal definition of marriage for California. It sits today in the Committee on Judiciary.

The bill reads, in part:

"Existing law provides that marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman. This bill would enact the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act,' which would instead provide that marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between two persons."

Of course, Leno heralded Kramer's ruling as a win for his side:

But let's not be so quick to declare victory for the pro-gay marriage side.

Steaming in from the right comes the Defend Marriage effort backed by the Moral Majority. This side has gathered forces to not only fight AB 19, but to continue to seek a ballot measure for a state constitutional marriage amendment.

In March 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22, an initiative statute which states: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The vote for the initiative was 61.4 percent to 38.6 percent.

The right also gained huge momentum last fall when all 13 states that had a "traditional marriage" constitutional amendment on the ballot approved them by high percentages: from 57 percent in Oregon to 86 percent in Mississippi.

Both sides recognize the importance of California in leading the nation on the gay marriage issue.

"When one out of eight Americans live in California, you know this is the biggest gorilla that influences everyone else," said Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families.

And already claiming victory in the "traditional marriage" campaign is Matthew Staver, vice president of the Liberty Council, a national organization that describes itself as "advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family."

"The 2004 election energized people of faith and social conservatives with an overwhelming mandate on traditional marriage and morality," Staver writes on the council's Web site. "Every politician must hear the message of the American people loud and clear: If you don't vote right on marriage, then you may want to look for another job."

Clearly, both sides are feeling immovable and irresistible and they are racing straight toward the same target.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom set a lot of this in motion with his February 2004, defiance of state law, personally declaring same-sex marriage prohibitions unconstitutional and allowing some 4,000 gay couples to wed at City Hall.

It was an irresponsible display of contempt for California law that ended in heartbreak for those couples. The state Supreme Court soon nullified their marriages, while chastising Newsom.

Public officials cannot dismiss state law at their whim, the judges wrote. To do so means "any semblance of uniform rule of law would quickly disappear."

It's that uniform rule of law we still seek today.

The high court ducked the elephant in the room during that hearing, limiting its opinion to Newsom's actions only. No ruling was given on the overall legality of same-sex marriage.

That's no surprise. Gay marriage is an incendiary issue few politicians and legal experts want to touch.

Today, though, whether they look to the left or the right, they cannot help but see the large, looming shadow of an issue that will no longer be ignored.

What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?

Some say the universe implodes.

If so, by this time next year, the issue should finally have been decided. One way or another, somebody's universe will fold.

365gay.com reports:

(Washington) An amendment to the US constitution to ban same-sex marriage has been reintroduced in the House.

The measure was put forward by Rep. Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) only days after a judge in San Francisco declared that barring gay marriage violated the California state constitution. (story)

Lungren, a former state attorney general, called the ruling by Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer "astonishing" and said that the US constitution needs to be amended to prevent courts throughout the country from ruling on gay marriage.

"The courts aren't democratic institutions," he said.

The proposed amendment amendment would bar same-sex marriage and prevent states from being forced to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere.

Lungren's proposed amendment reads: "Marriage in the United States Shall consist only of a legal union of a man and a woman.

"No court of the United States or of any State shall have jurisdiction to determine whether this Constitution or the constitution of any State requires that the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon any union other than a legal union between one man and one woman.

"No State shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State concerning a union between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage, or as having the legal incidents of marriage, under the laws of such other State."

If passed, it would mark the first time the Constitution was amended to single out a group of Americans for unequal treatment.

Earlier this week President Bush renewed his call for an amendment. (story)

"Americans don't want the Constitution turned into a tool for discrimination," said Human Rights Campaign spokesperson David M. Smith.

"Congress should be spending its time protecting families, not ensuring their vulnerability under law."

A Senate version of the proposed amendment was reintroduced in January. (story)

Attempts by Republicans in Congress to pass a proposed amendment failed last July. (story) At the time GOP leaders vowed they would keep bringing the measure back until it passes.

According to exit polling in November 2004, 60 percent of Americans support either civil unions or marriage equality for same-sex couple.

by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief

The owner of a popular local nightclub with a gay clientele can't have a funeral in the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego because the church has deemed his business "inconsistent with Catholic moral teaching."

None of the 98 Catholic churches in San Diego or Imperial counties will be allowed to provide services for Club Montage owner John McCusker as a result of the decision by San Diego Bishop Robert Brom.

McCusker, 31, died Sunday of congestive heart failure while vacationing in Mammoth, his family said. The bishop made the decision three days later after learning that McCusker's family planned to hold his funeral at the Immaculata Catholic Church on the campus of the University of San Diego, where McCusker went to school.

Brom's decision – which prompted the church to cancel the funeral – has provoked heated debate in local Catholic and gay communities. Several prominent gay leaders say they plan to file a formal protest with the diocese and demand that Brom apologize to McCusker's family.

Mike Portantino, a friend of McCusker's and publisher of the San Diego-based Gay & Lesbian Times, said McCusker's family members are devout Catholics and his mother has taught catechism. The family was unavailable for comment yesterday.

The decision, called highly unusual by several local Catholics, immediately drew comparisons to the actions of Brom's predecessor, the late Bishop Leo Maher. In 1989, Maher prohibited state Senate candidate Lucy Killea from taking Communion in local parishes because of her support for abortion rights. Maher's action drew national attention.

McCusker's family scrambled for another venue and settled on an Episcopal church, St. Paul's Cathedral near Balboa Park, which will hold the funeral at 11 a.m. today.

The diocese issued a statement yesterday, saying: "The facts regarding the business activities of John McCusker were not known by church officials when arrangements were requested for his funeral. However, when these facts became known, the bishop concluded that to avoid public scandal Mr. McCusker cannot be granted a funeral in a Catholic church in the chapel of the Diocese of San Diego."

Chancellor Rodrigo Valdivia, a diocese spokesman, said the bishop's order applies to all 98 parishes within the diocese's jurisdiction.

Valdivia wouldn't comment when asked to specify which of McCusker's business activities violated church doctrine. He emphasized that the church's decision had nothing to do with the sexual orientation of McCusker, who was gay. Instead, the decision was based on McCusker's "public activity" as a businessman, Valdivia said.

"We received information that the business he was involved with was inconsistent with Catholic teachings," Valdivia said.

McCusker's nightclub, Club Montage, near Lindbergh Field, is one of the city's most popular dance spots. On Friday nights, it tends to attract a heterosexual crowd, while Saturday night is considered gay night, according to patrons and friends of McCusker. He also owned a gay bar in North Park named ReBar.

Valdivia cited Canon 1184 of the Code of Canon Law, which provides a list of those who must be "deprived of ecclesiastical funeral rites." Among those on the list are "manifest sinners" for whom such funeral rites "cannot be granted without public scandal to the faithful." The church uses the term "manifest sinners" to describe those whom it considers obstinate and persistent sinners.

Valdivia was unable to say how often the diocese has invoked this canon to deny funeral rites to Catholics in past years. He couldn't recall any examples.

"Short of reviewing a lot of files, I don't know," he said.

Immaculata church officials declined to comment yesterday, referring inquiries to the diocese.

McCusker's friends, as well as many gay Catholics in San Diego, said they were appalled and outraged.

"I cannot think of a less compassionate thing for the bishop to have done," Portantino said. "Bishop Brom should be ashamed of himself."

Nicole Murray-Ramirez, a longtime San Diego gay activist and one of McCusker's friends, said McCusker was "a very spiritual Catholic. We had discussions of our faith many times."

Ramirez said various Catholic gays and other members of the gay community plan to meet Monday to discuss a response. The group would probably demand an apology from the diocese, among other things, he said.

"Everyone agrees we will do this in the most dignified manner," he said.

After finding out about the diocese's decision, McCusker's family called Councilwoman Toni Atkins, who is lesbian. She steered the family to St. Paul's Cathedral.

"Our basic philosophy at the cathedral is whoever you are and wherever you find yourself on the journey of faith, we welcome you," said the Very Rev. Scott Richardson, dean of the Episcopal church on Sixth Avenue.

Richardson said Atkins called him Wednesday night to tell him the McCusker family "needed some help. We were happy to offer that."

McCusker was active in a variety of local causes, recently serving as vice president of the San Diego Human Dignity Foundation, which offers help to gays and lesbians. He was a member of the Greater San Diego Business Association.

Although Club Montage is hugely popular, it has also had its share of problems over the years. Five years ago, the City Council threatened to revoke its after-hours permit, citing illegal drug use and disruptive behavior at the Hancock Street club.

The diocese said the club's past problems had nothing to do with the bishop's decision.

By Alex Roth
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Staff writer Sandi Dolbee contributed to this report.

The Washington Blade Reports: Solmonese groomed by ‘Massachusetts Gay Mafia’.

Most gay activists familiar with the Human Rights Campaign see Emily’s List CEO Joe Solmonese, the group’s newly designated leader, as a highly skilled political strategist who is well suited to take the helm of the nation’s largest gay civil rights group.

But Solmonese is also a longtime associate of a small group of HRC power brokers who have played a key role in determining the organization’s direction and tone for nearly 20 years.

At the top of the list of HRC movers and shakers, insiders say, is veteran Washington lobbyist Hilary Rosen, former CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America and current media industry consultant. Rosen led the HRC campaign against the Federal Marriage Amendment and has run the organization on an interim basis since January.

Also at the top of the list, say insiders, are Emily’s List founder and former CEO Ellen Malcolm and former labor union official and past HRC executive director Vic Basile, who led the search committee that handed the HRC and HRC Foundation boards an up or down vote on Solmonese.

Malcolm is longtime friends with Rosen and her domestic partner, longtime HRC executive director Elizabeth Birch, and are seen by activists as having collaborated on developing strategy and policy for HRC. Solmonese served as Malcolm’s top lieutenant until he replaced her in 2003 when Malcolm took on the role as head of the pro-Democratic Party political advocacy group America Coming Together.

The gay movement insiders interviewed for this story, who spoke only on condition that they not be identified, said they viewed Rosen, Malcolm, and Basile, along with a dozen or so others considered part of the HRC inner circle, as highly qualified political strategists who have been an asset to the organization.

But at the same time, the movement insiders had mixed views on whether what appears to be a self-perpetuating clique could present problems for HRC in the future.
“I don’t see this as a problem,” said one of the movement insiders. “It is what it is. They are all very influential, but I don’t see this as being bad.”

Another person interviewed said, “HRC does good work. But there is a mentality and a culture at HRC. While it is an open place, they do best with people who think the HRC way. A lot of people become alienated if they think differently.”

Board backs Solmonese
Steven Fisher, HRC’s vice president for communications, said the HRC board and the board of the HRC Foundation, which serves as the group’s educational arm, voted unanimously to appoint Solmonese because of his experience and skills both in Washington and in states across the country.

Fisher points to women candidates who are in favor of gay rights and abortion rights that Solmonese helped elect to Congress and state legislatures in his role as Emily’s List CEO. Fisher said any suggestion that Solmonese’s experience is limited to inside-the-Beltway politics would be wrong.

Others considered part of HRC’s inner circle of movers and shakers include Gwen Baba of Los Angeles, Terry Bean of Oregon, Tim Boggs of New York City, Mary Breslauer of Boston, Edie Cofrin of Atlanta, Curt Decker of Baltimore, Andrew Tobias of Miami, and Jeff Trammell of Washington, D.C.

“I would take any of those people on my home team in a minute,” Rosen said. “It’s true that they have been involved with HRC for a long time. But they are all excellent people.”

Rosen acknowledges that a good number of HRC insiders have also hailed from Boston or nearby communities in Massachusetts, a development that some have jokingly referred to as the gay “Massachusetts Mafia.”

Tim McFeeley, who served as the HRC executive director from 1989 to 1995, is from Boston. Birch, who served as executive director and president from 1995 to January 2004, came from Cupertino, Calif., where she served as legal counsel for the Apple Computer Company.

But her successor, Cheryl Jacques, who held the HRC president’s post for the brief period from January to December 2004, was a Massachusetts state senator prior to her tenure at HRC. Solmonese, a native of Attleboro, Mass., is set to begin his tenure as HRC president in April.

“Not another gay leader from Massachusetts,” wrote gay Republican activist Jim Driscoll in an e-mail to several fellow gay Republicans. “What do HRC, LCR, etc., have against the other 49 states?”

Driscoll, in addition to commenting on Solmonese, was referring to Log Cabin Republicans executive director Patrick Guerriero, who also hails from Massachusetts.

Officials credit Emily’s List
Abby Rubenfeld, a gay civil rights attorney in Nashville, Tenn., who just completed a 7-year term as an HRC board member, said she’s not bothered by either the Massachusetts connections nor the longtime involvement of leaders such as Rosen or Malcolm.

“I’m very committed to HRC,” she said, adding that she happily voted for Solmonese’s appointment as president. “I’m not a Washington insider. But it sounds like he is very well connected to the states and very knowledgeable on the issues.”

Oregon state Sen. Kate Brown, a bisexual Democrat who became majority leader this year, credited Solmonese with playing a key role in making that happen.

“Emily’s List is one reason the Democrats now control the state Senate,” she said, noting that gay rights legislation would have a better chance of advancing. “Joe is very smart, very strategic, very skilled. Under his leadership, they connected with the voters.”

The only open lesbian member of Congress, Democrat Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, credits Emily’s List for helping her first get elected in 1998. Solmonese took over at Emily’s List in 1998.

“I go fairly far back with Joe in his role at EMILY’s List. They were absolutely critical in shattering the glass ceiling by getting me elected to Congress as the first openly [gay] non-incumbent,” she said.

“Organizations grow and become very dynamic when they have different people with different ideas moving in and out,” said the movement insider. “I think it keeps them nimble, it keeps them on the edge, it keeps them very creative and it keeps them very open minded."

By LOU CHIBBARO JR.

Constitutional change would block courts.

The Sacramento Bee Reports: Rep. Dan Lungren (CA) on Thursday introduced a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in a move that irritated gay activists but didn't soothe marriage protectionists, either.

The action by the Gold River Republican and former state attorney general comes just three days after a San Francisco judge ruled that state laws banning gay marriage violate the California Constitution.

Lungren's measure flatly declares that marriage "is a legal union of one man and one woman," and it removes the authority of all state and federal courts from saying otherwise.

"Let's have this issue answered for once and for all," Lungren declared.

Christopher Labonte, legislative director of the Human Rights Campaign, a lobbying group for gay and lesbian issues, dismissed Lungren's bill as "being all about politics."

"We're strongly opposed to any efforts to write discrimination into the Constitution," he said.

On Monday, Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer in San Francisco overturned a 1977 state law barring same-sex marriages and a 2000 statewide initiative, Proposition 22, that prohibited California recognition of gay marriages in other states.

In his ruling, Kramer said the state cannot rely on its long history of recognizing only heterosexual marriages to justify the ban on gay unions, and that offering a domestic-partnership law for same-sex couples "smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal."

The legislation Lungren introduced, however, treks that path.

It would leave states open to establishing laws that Lungren described as "something short of marriage" to protect the civil interests of gay couples but limit the effects of such laws to the states that enact them.

That's not good enough, said Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families.

"Marriage is more than a word," he said. "This is similar to other proposals that allow states to create marriage by another name. It plugs some of the holes but leaves others open."

But state Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco, who married her longtime partner last year in San Francisco, said Lungren is trying to draw attention to himself by picking on others.

"The concept should be marriage equity, not gay marriage," she said. "It seems Mr. Lungren is seeking constitutional discrimination."

Another gay legislator, Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, called Lungren's bill "an assault on democracy" because of its elimination of judicial review of the issue.

"This is a significant departure from the way business has been in this country for a couple of hundred years," he said.

But Lungren said that amending the U.S. Constitution as he proposes is the only way to get state and federal courts out of the business of overruling what the public decides through ballot measures.

"The courts aren't democratic institutions," he said. By offering the legislation as a constitutional amendment requiring ratification by two-thirds of the states, he said, it would become in effect a "national referendum" on gay marriage that the courts cannot overturn.

"It's the only way the people retain the ability to make this decision," he said.

Lungren said that Kramer's ruling Monday played no role in the timing of his bill's introduction.

He said that he had pledged during his campaign for his 3rd District seat that a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage would be the first legislation he introduced after taking office, and the measure's introduction Thursday fulfills that pledge.

A constitutional provision limiting marriage to unions between a man and a woman is pending in the Senate, but Lungren's is the first in the House. It also goes further than the Senate bill by barring courts from any further consideration of the issue.

Lungren is a member of the House Judiciary Committee to which his legislation will be referred.

By David Whitney -- Bee Washington Bureau

The Big Story host John Gibson in his March 16 "My Word":

Gays can't have kids -- other than going to the abandoned kids store and getting one or two, or borrowing sperm from someone with more sperm than brains -- so by definition they're out of the marriage game.

Sean Hannity on the March 16 edition of Hannity & Colmes:

BOB BECKEL (guest co-host): Let me just say one thing about the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts, when they allow gay Boy Scouts in the Boy Scouts, then that won't be a problem for me. But they don't.

HANNITY: But they can have the Gay Scouts if they want, if they don't like the values of the Boy Scouts.

Bill O'Reilly on the March 15 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor:

O'REILLY:
"You know, the Founding Fathers didn't write anything into the Constitution about gay marriage. Because back then, if you were gay, they hung you.

So -- you couldn't get married 'cause they put you in the rack. You know, if you were runnin' around wearing a chartreuse hat, you were in lots of trouble. So, we didn't even have to worry about these people gettin' married because if they come out of their closet in the log cabin -- somebody'll shoot them in the head. So, there really wasn't an issue back in the Founding Fathers."

Legislation to include gays and lesbians in Montana's human rights law is discrimination against Christians foes of the measure have declared at a House committee hearing.

"It's an abomination in God's sight," Peter Merkes of Helena said of homosexuality at a House Judiciary Committee which was holding public hearings on the bill.

"You're asking Christian people to support with their tax money something that is diametrically opposed to God's word," he told the committee. "We cannot go there. God's going to hold you accountable."

Another citizen appearing before the committee complained of "drag queens," "French-kissing men" and those who march in gay pride parades dressed as priests and nuns.

Gene Williams said the bill is part of an effort by gay and lesbian activists to "eventually force total acceptance of homosexuality by citizens of this nation."

"The American people will not allow this cultural degradation to prevail," Williams said.

The legislation has already passed the Senate which for the first time in years is controlled by Democrats. In the past Republicans were able to kill gay rights bills.

The bill would add sexual orientation to the state's human rights laws against discrimination in employment, public accommodations, housing, financial transactions, education, job referrals, licensing, training programs, government services and funding, and public contracts.

"This bill is really about fair treatment," said Sen. Ken Toole (D- Helena) the bill's sponsor.

Among those speaking in favor of the bill was the Rev. F. Vernon Wright of the Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ.

Like gender or race, homosexuality is not a matter of preference and should not be treated as such, he said. "One's inborn characteristics, one's innate nature, being in the nature of God is not wrong."

Republicans on the Judiciary Committee tried to kill Toole's measure immediately after the hearing, but the move failed on 10-8 vote.

NASHVILLE (AP) -- The Tennessee House Thursday morning approved the resolution that would amend the state constitution and ban gay marriage.

The Senate had given its approval in February and Thursday's 88-7 House passage sends the issue to voters in next year's gubernatorial election.

Rep. Bill Dunn of Knoxville said he sponsored the bill because "It's proper for government to be involved and put a stamp of approval between a man and a woman."

According to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 11 states passed anti-gay marriage amendments in November 2004 and gay marriage opponents have taken steps to do the same in another 17 states.

Good old Alan Keyes still gay hating even after the eye opening event of his own daughter coming out - followed by him kicking her out and basically disowning her. Great family values huh!

The coming out of his own daughter has not softened former Ambassador Alan Keyes' position on gays and same-sex marriage.

The conservative broadcaster and failed senate candidate delivered a scathing attack gay marriage at a Christian rally in St Augustine, Florida.

"Marriage exists in order to respect, recognize and enforce obligations that arise from the fact of procreation," Keyes said in his keynote address at ProFamily Rally 2005.

He then declared that heterosexual couples who choose not to have children do not hurt the institution, but a gay union would annihilate it.

"It's like a wooden iron. It doesn't make any sense," he said.

To cheers and shouts of "Amen", Keyes attacked this week's ruling in San Francisco that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry. (story) Keyes told the crowd of nearly 1000 that "one lonely judge comes along and says 'No. That's not how its going to be.'"

He told the audience that allowing a judge to rule that same-sex couples can marry is a form of tyranny.

Keyes also said he does not see that there is a separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution, noting that laws incorporate biblical values.

A group of about a dozen LGBT demonstrators stood silently near the stage. One wore a shirt that read "Hatred is not a family value."

Keyes went down to a crushing defeat when he ran for the GOP against Barack Obama in Illinois last November.

The former conservative talk show host who was parachuted into Illinois to run for the GOP became a thorn in the side of Republicans because of his extreme anti-gay statements.

But, his most incendiary remarks came at the Republican National Convention when 365Gay.com commentator Michelangelo Signorile interviewed him for his Sirius radio show. (story)

Keyes said that homosexuality is "selfish hedonism." Signorile then asked Keyes, the GOP candidate for the US Senate in Illinois, whether he considered Mary Cheney, the daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, a "selfish hedonist."

"Of course she is," Keyes replied. "That goes by definition. Of course she is."

Following Tuesday's speech in St Augustine Keyes refused to discuss his relationship with his own daughter.

Keyes' daughter came out last month at a Valentines Day demonstration in support of gay marriage in Maryland. (story)

It was Maya Marcel-Keyes first public appearance as a gay activist. Marcel-Keyes said her parents have thrown her out of the house, stopped speaking to her and refuse to pay for college because she is a lesbian.

Governor Mitt Romney, who set off an uproar in Massachusetts with his recent remarks about gay marriage to out-of-state Republican activists, last night appeared to soften his tone, adding language to his stump speech about the need to respect modern families that come in many forms.

Still, speaking before nearly 600 people who attended a fund-raiser for Michigan's GOP state senators, Romney restated his view that ''every child deserves a mother and a father," and praised Michigan voters for their recent approval of a measure banning gay marriage.

Romney's remarks highlighted the careful line he is attempting to walk as he tests the waters for a potential 2008 run for president, aiming at conservative Republicans who vote in GOP presidential primaries.

Massachusetts gay-rights supporters complained that Romney was belittling gay parents last month when, in describing legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, he told a South Carolina GOP audience that, ''Some are actually having children born to them." Activists staged a protest at the State House.

Last night, as he has in recent speeches in Missouri, South Carolina, and Utah, Romney noted that gay marriage is legal in the Bay State, and bemoaned the fact that the state may have to replace ''mother" and ''father" on birth certificates with ''parent A" and ''parent B." But he also added an explanation that, ''I'm not saying this should be about discrimination."

''Americans respect all people. We also recognize that there are many settings where children are raised," he said, citing grandparents and same-sex couples as examples. ''But we choose to recognize one setting as the ideal."

Romney has previously said he opposes discrimination against gays, though his recent political speeches have focused on his opposition to gay marriage. In a Wall Street Journal column last year, he wrote:

''That benefits are given to married couples and not to singles or gay couples has nothing to do with discrimination; it has everything to do with building a stable new generation and nation."

Romney says he opposes gay marriage and civil unions for same-sex couples. Last year, however, he urged Republican lawmakers to support a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that would ban gay marriage and legalize civil unions because, he says, he believed it was the only way to stop gay marriage. The Legislature supported that amendment and would need to pass it once more in order to place it on the ballot in November 2006.

''If the choice is between marriage and civil unions, I support civil unions. But my preference is neither civil unions nor marriage," Romney told reporters last night.

Romney, who ran as a moderate Republican in Massachusetts, faces a difficult balancing act as he lays the groundwork for a possible presidential bid in 2008. This week, Michigan conservative activist Gary Glenn wrote a letter to the Michigan GOP state senators asserting that Romney's views on abortion and gay marriage are ''largely indistinguishable" from Massachusetts Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry.

Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom called Glenn's letter ''a blatant distortion of the governor's record." Yesterday, Fehrnstrom said that the governor is personally opposed to abortion, and supports parental consent laws and a ban on partial birth abortion. As governor, Romney has taken the position of not changing the status quo on abortion, Fehrnstrom said.

Michigan, which holds an early primary, could prove to be friendly territory for Romney if he does seek the presidency. The site of last night's $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser was not far from Bloomfield Hills, the tony Detroit suburb where Romney grew up. Romney's father, George, who served as governor of Michigan from 1963 to 1969, is fondly remembered here.

Like many of the Republicans who dined on filet mignon and chicken stuffed with wild rice at last night's event, 76-year-old Curtis Jacobson, an accountant for the city of Detroit, said he knew and admired George Romney. He said social issues aren't as important to him as economic ones.

''Cut the cost of government," said Jacobson, who has been involved in Republican party politics for 59 years. ''Abortion is between a woman and her doctor."

Social issues loom much larger for most of the current leaders of the Michigan GOP, however. Some of those who received Glenn's letter said Romney assuaged their concerns with last night's speech.

Richard K. Studley, a lobbyist for the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, described himself as ''a Christian and a conservative," and he said he listened very carefully to the ''values" portion of Romney's speech.

''I think he answered those questions and put those issues to rest," Studley said.

In remarks aimed squarely at an audience in America's industrial heartland, Romney said last night that government officials, businesses, and labor unions must work together to prevent China from displacing the United States as the world's leading economic power.

''We did not shed our blood on the battlefield of liberty to lose on the battlefield of jobs and the economy," Romney said. ''You can't have a tier-one military and a tier-two economy. The Russians tried that and Ronald Reagan called their bluff."

Without providing specifics, Romney said, ''It's time to get serious with our friends the Chinese."

He added that, ''Right now, they need our market. It's time for us to use our leverage while we still have it."

Following more than a year of waiting and rulings in several states on the issue of gay marriage, the House of Representatives in Indiana will finally get their turn this week to vote on a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Gay rights activists circled the Statehouse Monday morning carrying caskets in a symbolic mourning of what will happen if the amendment passes. The same morning, the House Judiciary Committee voted 9-3 to send Senate Joint Resolution 7, the first step in the amendment process, to the Full House.

A final vote could come as soon as this week.

"I believe the people of Indiana want to define marriage as one man and one woman, and I ask you to give them the chance," said Republican Rep. P. Eric Turner, who introduced the resolution at the committee hearing.

Opponents claimed the amendment is about politics and discrimination rather than strengthening traditional marriage and families.

"This legislation is totally unnecessary and is being forced down our throats for no other reason than to make hay for future political campaigns," said Linda Lawson, D-Hammond, who voted against the resolution. "Our constitution should be above politics -- period."

Defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, the amendment also states that neither the constitution nor any other Indiana law may be "construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

The pending vote comes just one day after a judge in San Francisco determined it was unconstitutional to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry and many in Indiana believe the shift of focus toward legalizing gay marriage in states like California and Connecticut may play a role in shaping how the Indiana vote pans out.

If it passes the House, the resolution must be approved again by both branches of a separately elected General Assembly and then put up for a public referendum. The next newly elected General Assembly will convene in 2007, and the earliest the amendment could go to voters is November 2008.

The Senate approved a similar resolution last year but Democrats, who then controlled the House, refused to call it for a vote. That prompted Republican legislators to walk out in a protest that brought the General Assembly to a standstill for more than a week.

Nearly one in every 12 Americans lives in California, which is by far the most populous state. So it was of special significance this week when San Francisco Superior Court judge Richard Kramer ruled that same-sex couples in California have a constitutional right to marry. The issue will likely be decided sometime in 2006 by the California Supreme Court, so gay and lesbian couples shouldn't start planning their weddings yet. But Kramer's ruling, coming a year after the stirring sight of gay marriages performed at San Francisco City Hall, was a welcome step forward.

Last November, voters in states across the country, and especially in Red America, approved measures denying same-sex couples the right to marry, and in some cases took away other rights as well. Yet the movement toward full marriage equality continues. State courts in New York, Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Maryland, and Connecticut are all considering the issue.

In Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage went into effect nearly a year ago, there is still a possibility that this basic civil right could be taken away. In 2004 the legislature gave preliminary approval to a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage and instead create civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. The legislature may take up the measure again sometime this fall. If it passes, it would be placed on the ballot in November 2006.

Such a move would be a mistake; if voters were actually to approve it, it would be a tragedy. Fortunately, further legislative action became less likely on Tuesday, when primary voters in two Boston legislative districts elected pro-gay-marriage Democrats Linda Dorcena Forry and Michael Moran to replace anti-marriage Democrats who'd left the House. Right-wing complaints about so-called 'activist judges' ignore the constitutional purpose of the judiciary, which is to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. One's humanity should not be subject to a referendum. Massachusetts voters have grown increasingly comfortable with the notion of gay marriage over the past year. Yet the passions that could be stirred by a well-funded hate group during an election campaign are not to be underestimated.

In Massachusetts, in California, and elsewhere, gay and lesbian couples are winning the right to live their lives just like everyone else. What the law gives, the ballot should not take away.

When is enough - enough? Pandering to his Evangelical Christian base, GWB attempts to use gays and lesbians yet again as his political weapon. Civil rights decisions should be left to the will of the people?? We all know that if that was the case then we'd be all be fucked - that is, unless you are straight, white and a male. Any time that a judge makes a ruling such as this, or anything for that matter that goes against the Bush administration's idealism, these judges are labeled 'activist judges'.

(Washington) In the wake of this week's California court ruling that declared that state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional President Bush on Wednesday renewed his call for an amendment to the US constitution to prevent gays from marrying.

At a White House news conference the president said that only with an amendment could judges be blocked from allowing gay marriage.

Bush denied that he has softened his position if favor of pursuing changes to Social Security.

"No, I haven't changed my position," the President said.

"And as a matter of fact, the court rulings are verifying why I took the position I took. And that is, I don't believe judges ought to be deciding this issue. I believe this is an issue of particular importance to the American people and should be decided by the people. And I think the best way to do so is through the constitutional process.

"I haven't changed my mind at all. As a matter of fact, court rulings such as this strengthen my position, it seems like to me. People now understand why I laid out the position I did.

The president was then asked what he intends to do to promote the amendment?

"Well, I-- you know, the courts are going to promote a lot of the action by their very rulings," he replied.

"And that no matter what your position is on the issue, this is an issue that should be decided by the people, not by judges. And the more the judges start deciding the issue, I'm confident the more the people will want to be involved in the issue" Bush said.

"Once again the President is pushing politics," Human Rights Campaign spokesperson Steven Fisher told 365Gay.com

"The California decision was about ensuring fairness and equality for every American family. That is the most basic value of all Americans."

An attempt by Republicans in Congress to move a proposed amendment along failed last July. (story) The measure was reintroduced in January. (story)

Thirteen Massachusetts city and town clerks are taking the historic step of asking the Supreme Judicial Court to allow them to challenge orders by Gov. Mitt Romney and Attorney General Tom Reilly that the clerks say would require them to illegally discriminate against same-sex couples who come to Massachusetts to marry, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
___________________________________________________

A federal appeals court ruled that a gay Lebanese man suffering from AIDS has enough reason to fear persecution in his homeland that he should not be deported while seeking asylum in the U.S., according to the Washington Post. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, reversing the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals in Washington, found Nassier Mustapha Karouni’s fear of being arrested, tortured, or killed in a country where homosexuality is considered a crime was based on fact.
___________________________________________________

In Indiana, state police had to separate pro- and anti-gay marriage demonstrators inside the Indiana Statehouse. Nearly 2,000 people on both sides of the same-sex marriage issue converged on the Capitol to lobby legislators over a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay weddings. The resolution has been approved by the Senate and is now pending before the House.
___________________________________________________

A $25 million lawsuit was filed against the conservative group USA Next and political consulting firm Mark Montini International for stealing a Oregon couple’s wedding photo and using it without permission in a high-profile gay-bashing ad designed to drum up support for Social Security privatization. Following an admission of photo theft by the creator, advertiser, and publisher of the ad, the couple whose image was stolen—Rick Raymen and Steve Hansen of Portland, Ore.—filed a four-count lawsuit in federal court in Washington, D.C.
___________________________________________________

The Gender Public Advocacy Coalition expressed support for Dawn Dawson, whose employment discrimination lawsuit against a New York City hair salon was dismissed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Dawson claimed discrimination on the basis of sex, sex stereotyping, and/or sexual orientation. Dawson, who is openly gay, stated in her suit that she was harassed for her masculine appearance, called “Donald,” and told that she looked so much like a male that she would scare away wealthy customers.
___________________________________________________

In Ohio, the village of Yellow Springs is challenging Ohio’s new gay marriage ban, the Associated Press reported. A resolution passed by the village council calls the constitutional amendment anti-family, saying it threatens not only gays, but a variety of heterosexual unmarried couples and unmarried women who seek maternity leave.
___________________________________________________

In Iowa, legislation that would help curb bullying and harassment in state schools died after a week of stonewalling by senators opposed to the inclusion of gays and lesbians, 365Gay.com reported. The issue was scheduled to be debated in the Senate Education Committee, but Sen. Paul McKinley, R-Chariton, struck it from the list of measures to be considered.
___________________________________________________

In Chapel Hill, N.C., the town council agreed to oppose a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would define marriage as being only the union of a man and a woman, the Durham Herald Sun reported. The 8-0 vote also backed the repeal of North Carolina’s “defense of marriage” act and sought passage of a bill to make sexual orientation a protected category under the state’s hate-crimes law.
___________________________________________________

However, a federal district court judge has issued a preliminary injunction against officials at the U. of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, forcing the college to recognize a fraternity on campus that has refused to admit gays, according to the Greensboro News-Record. The article said “the [ legal ruling ] put the Christian fraternity” on the same footing as non-religious groups that select their members on the basis of commitment.

When a San Francisco Superior Court judge struck down California's laws against same-sex marriage as unconstitutional on Monday, it showed the system is working as it should.

The ruling elated gay rights advocates even as the state government and conservative groups began preparing for the inevitable appeal.

If upheld by higher courts, the ruling would make the Golden State the nation's second — after Massachusetts — to authorize same-sex matrimony. And marriage is a state issue. It doesn't belong to federal government or to local officials.

Granted, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's move last year was a bold one that put the issue front and center in California; but cities and their officials shouldn't have the power to usurp state law. That is a recipe for chaos.

"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer, a Republican appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson, wrote in his 27-page ruling, finding the ban denies same-sex couples equal protection under the law.

Kramer's ruling does not reinstate almost 4,000 marriages performed in San Francisco last February and March and voided on Aug. 12 by the state Supreme Court, which found that city officials exceeded their authority by defying state laws. The court did not rule on the constitutional issue. It eventually could let those couples and many more wed legally.

But now the issue is in the proper venue, the courts. This is the first in many steps. Next the ruling will be appealed to the state Court of Appeal in San Francisco, and may be headed eventually to the state Supreme Court.

On Monday at Stanford University, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he had hoped that the court would uphold 2000's Proposition 22, which reaffirmed the state's definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman but did not change the state Constitution.

"I believe in what we have now, which is domestic partnership rights,"

Schwarzenegger said, adding he would accept the court's ultimate decision.

The Legislature had passed one of the most sweeping civil unions bills that Attorney General Bill Lockyer cited that as evidence that California does not discriminate against gays. But the judge rejected that argument, citing Brown v. Board of Education: "The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts — separate but equal."

Opponents are considering going to the ballot to make the same-sex marriage ban a constitutional amendment.

Advocates hailed the ruling as the first step toward a civil-rights milestone.

Conservatives called the ruling judicial activism.

But judicial activism is not a bad thing. We hope the U.S. judiciary is filled with activist judges when it comes to the Constitution, otherwise judges would be derelict in their duties. The Constitution has always been about extending rights, not restricting them.

Several lawsuits filed by the state and conservative organizations were consolidated before Kramer, a 57-year-old Roman Catholic.

In his ruling, Kramer wrote, "The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional. Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before."

The ban's defenders claimed marriage's main purpose is procreation. But Kramer noted "the obvious natural and social reality that one does not have to be married in order to procreate, nor does one have to procreate in order to be married."

State and national leaders of organizations advocating for LGBT equality met this week in Washington, DC to hear from their colleagues and outside experts about the lessons learned from the fall elections and how to better prepare for the upcoming ballot campaigns.

The meeting focused on how to turn the ongoing attacks against LGBT families into opportunities to move forward toward the goal of marriage equality for all Americans.

Twenty-one states are currently considering changes to their state constitutions that would single out same-sex couples to deny them and their children the security and protection of legal marriage. A few of these amendments are expected to be defeated in the state legislatures, but many will be sent to the voters for ratification in 2005 and 2006.

"Next year, Wisconsin citizens will likely need to decide whether all families, or only some families, will be protected by our state constitution," said Christopher Ott, executive director of Action Wisconsin, the state's LGBT advocacy organization. "This meeting allowed us to share some of our work to date in preparing for this fight and to hear from other states about what has and hasn't worked for them."

Participants at the meeting discussed best practices and strategies for combating the misinformation and prejudice that drives these ballot measures and techniques that effectively educate voters about their LGBT neighbors.

Topics of discussion at the meeting included: building existing state group capacity to move forward after a ballot fight, effective research and message development, new techniques for identifying and activating voters, best online and offline fund-raising practices

Despite the passage of anti-gay constitutional amendments in 13 states in 2004, leaders attending the meeting voiced a common belief that justice will ultimately prevail for LGBT Americans.

"This meeting has been a terrific opportunity to share our experiences from last year and talk about how we can all support each other moving forward," said Roey Thorpe, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon, where an anti-gay constitutional amendment was adopted by voters last November. "Tough as it was last November, we will ultimately change the hearts and minds of the American people by telling our stories about love, commitment and family."

The Washington meeting was organized and hosted by the Equality Federation, www.equalityfederation.org, Freedom to Marry, www.freedomtomarry.org, the Human Rights Campaign, www.hrc.org, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, www.thetaskforce.org

Opponents of same-sex marriage came out swinging in response to a California judge's ruling Monday that struck down state laws prohibiting gays and lesbians from marrying.

"This is a crazy ruling by an arrogant San Francisco judge who apparently hates marriage and the voters," said Randy Thomasson, the executive director of Campaign for California Families, one of the organizations fighting to keep California's existing marriage laws intact.

The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the anti-gay Traditional Values Coalition, called it "yet another example of judicial tyranny."

In his ruling Monday, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said that denying gay couples the right to marriage amounts to a form of gender discrimination, thus violating the state Constitution's equal protection clause.

Kramer's decision was stayed for 60 days to allow time for appeals. It has been a foregone conclusion all along that the case will ultimately be appealed all the way to the California Supreme Court.

From the moment the decision was announced, supporters of same-sex marriage have been rejoicing.

"I am so happy that my parents can finally get married," said Ericka Sokolower-Shain, the 15-year-old daughter of Karen Shain and Jody Sokolower, two of the co-plaintiffs in the case.

Leaders on both sides of the debate warned that the ruling would further radicalize anti-gay groups.

"Our opponents are trying to stampede people into making hasty, ill-informed decisions out of prejudice, ignorance, anxiety, discomfort or fear," said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, a national organization dedicated to marriage equality for lesbians and gays.

California Assemblyman Ray Haynes, a Republican from Southern California, predicted the ruling would fire up efforts to amend the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, as 13 other states did last year.

And Bruce Hausknecht, a legal analyst for Focus on the Family, said the ruling adds credence to his organization's call for amending the federal Constitution.

"Until the U.S. Constitution is amended to protect marriage, we will have to continue to fight to protect marriage from these kinds of challenges," he said.

Mathew Staver, president of the anti-gay Liberty Counsel, told the Associated Press that Judge Kramer's ruling "will be gasoline on the fire of the pro-marriage movement in California as well as the rest of the country."

The ruling is significant in part because California is the most populous state in the nation, with the largest number of same-sex couples, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

California already has one of the nation's most sweeping domestic partner laws. Currently, Massachusetts is the only state where same-sex marriage is legal.

Reactions to California's decision yesterday are widely varied. You have the fair minded and the 'all fags should burn in hell' minded. Here are just a few from public figures.

"My reaction is I'm astounded and I believe the decision is absolutely ludicrous. To conclude the state has no rational purpose to preserve marriage to one man and one woman is nonsense. I don't think marriage should be left to the stroke of a pen by a single judge. Marriage as one man and one woman has formed the basis of our society for millennia."

– Mathew Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel, which represented the Campaign for California Families.
___________________________________________________

"We will not be appealing this decision."

– A jovial Mayor Gavin Newsom, flanked by several same-sex couples and their supporters at City Hall shortly after the ruling was announced.
___________________________________________________

"Today's ruling is an important step toward a more fair and just California, that rejects discrimination and affirms family values for all California families."

– San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera.
___________________________________________________

"It's a foregone conclusion that it's going to go up on appeal."

– Therese Stewart, attorney for city and county of San Francisco.
___________________________________________________

"With plain but compelling logic, the judge has shown us all why – in a nation committed to fairness – gays and lesbians must not be shut out of marriage ... Our constitution promises liberty to all; this decision takes us closer to that promise."

– Christine Sun, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
___________________________________________________

"The practical effect is the disregard of close to two-thirds of the people of California who used the initiative process to ensure that marriage would remain between one man and one woman."

– Robert Tyler, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, reacting to the judge nullifying the voter-approved Proposition 22, which prevented California from recognizing same-sex marriages.

SAN FRANCISCO – California may have always defined marriage to be a union between a man and a woman, but tradition and time do not make those laws constitutional, a judge ruled in overturning the state's ban on gay marriage.

Opening the way for the nation's most populous state to follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer ruled Monday that while withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians has been the status quo, it constitutes discrimination the state can no longer justify.

"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote. "Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before."

Ushering out a social norm long considered sacred won't happen right away, however. Kramer's decision is stayed automatically for 60 days to allow time for appeals, and conservative groups that oppose same-sex marriages promised a vigorous fight to uphold California's one woman-one man marriage laws.

"For a single judge to rule there is no conceivable purpose for preserving marriage as one man and one woman is mind-boggling," said Liberty Counsel President Mathew Staver, whose group represents the Campaign for California Families, one of two organizations that joined the state's attorney general's office in defending California's existing laws.

"This decision will be gasoline on the fire of the pro-marriage movement in California as well as the rest of the country," Staver said.

Supporters of same-sex marriage said they are prepared for a lengthy appeal process, but described Kramer's ruling as an unqualified victory. They compared it to the 1948 state Supreme Court decision that made California the first state to legalize interracial marriage.

"Today's ruling is an important step toward a more fair and just California that rejects discrimination and affirms family values for all California families," San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said.

Kramer's decision came in a pair of lawsuits seeking to overturn California's statutory ban on gay marriage. They were brought by the city of San Francisco and a dozen same-sex couples last March, after the California Supreme Court halted the four-week marriage spree Mayor Gavin Newsom initiated when he directed city officials to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians in defiance of state law.

Jeanne Rizzo, 58, and Pali Cooper, 49, one of the first couples to be denied the chance to marry after the Supreme Court ruling last year, said they were "basking" in Monday's decision.

"We know we have many steps ahead of us, but we have the opportunity to go from here standing in dignity not defense. ... It is always better to do that," Rizzo said.

"The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts – separate but equal," the judge wrote.

Two groups opposed to gay marriage rights, The Campaign for California Families and the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, argued that the state has a legitimate interest in restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples as a way of encouraging procreation.

Kramer disagreed.

"One does not have to be married in order to procreate, nor does one have to procreate in order to be married," he wrote. "Thus, no legitimate state interest to justify the preclusion of same-sex marriage can be found."

Kramer struck down not only the state's one man-one woman marriage law but also a 2000 voter initiative that prevented California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Both laws violate the civil rights of gays and lesbians because they "implicate the basic human right to marry a person of one's choice," he wrote.

Gay marriage opponents were particularly upset by Kramer's decision to nullify Proposition 22, the ballot measure that was approved by 61 percent of voters. The measure declared that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

"The practical effect is the disregard of close to two-thirds of the people of California who used the initiative process to ensure that marriage would remain between one man and one woman," said Robert Tyler, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, which represented the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Monday's ruling is the latest development in a national debate on the legality and morality of same-sex marriage that has been raging since 2003, when the highest court in Massachusetts decided that denying gay couples the right to wed was unconstitutional in that state.

Kramer is the fourth trial court judge since August to decide that the right to marry and its attendant benefits must be extended to same-sex couples. Just as many judges have gone the other way recently, however, refusing to accept the argument that keeping gays and lesbians from marrying violates their civil rights. All the cases are on appeal.

Assemblyman Ray Haynes, R-Murietta, predicted the judge's ruling would spur efforts to amend the state Constitution to ban gay nuptials, as was done in 13 other states last year. Haynes has introduced a bill to place such a constitutional amendment on the November ballot, but if the Democrat-controlled Legislature defeats it, he said gay marriage opponents would accomplish the task themselves by petition.

"This ruling demonstrates absolutely what we have to do, which is to amend the Constitution so that we can take the question out of the hands of any judge anywhere at any time," he said.

The case is Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding, No. 4365, Marriage Cases.

(San Francisco, California) Supporters of same-sex marriage found an ally Monday in San Francisco Judge Richard Kramer a Catholic Republican appointed to the bench by a former GOP governor.

"We're certainly feeling the judge's decision is right," said San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, whose city's lawsuit prompted Kramer's ruling that gays and lesbians have the right to marry in California, despite a law and a voter-approved measure declaring marriage to be the exclusive realm of heterosexuals.

Opponents of same-sex marriage immediately declared that 57-year-old Kramer is a judicial activist whose decision was "ludicrous" and "nonsense."

"We knew Judge Kramer was under tremendous political pressure to redefine marriage, but we were hopeful he would recognize the limited role of the judiciary," said Robert Tyler, an Alliance Defense Fund attorney trying to uphold California's traditional marriage laws. "We do not believe it is appropriate for judges in this setting to overturn the will of the people."

With a 27-page stroke of the pen, Kramer did just that. (story)

"The parade of horrible social ills envisioned by the opponents of same-sex marriage is not a necessary result from recognizing that there is a fundamental right to choose who one wants to marry," he wrote in the decision, which won't be enforced for 60 days, to give opponents time to appeal.

Lawyers who have practiced before Kramer said the 1972 graduate of the University of Southern California Law Center is among the top judges in San Francisco, and is unswayed by public opinion.

"I think he does what he thinks is right," said Robert Stumpf Jr., who settled a class-action lawsuit for $6.7 million before Kramer last year while representing Wells Fargo.

The bank was accused of illegally selling customers' financial information. Stumpf said Kramer steered negotiations between the bank and plaintiffs attorneys for a year. "His proposal was legally sound and practical," he said.

Gov. Pete Wilson appointed Kramer in December 1996, when Kramer was specializing in bank litigation.

Kramer had made a name for himself in the legal world in 1992, when he successfully defended Bank of America in a class-action lawsuit in which the bank was accused of illegally freezing credit-card interest rates around 20 percent between 1982 and 1986. First Interstate and Wells Fargo, also plaintiffs in that case, had settled for a combined $55 million, but Kramer the lawyer took the case to trial and prevailed.

Nancy Hersh, a San Francisco-based class-action lawyer, said Judge Kramer "listens carefully to both sides. His reasoning is excellent and he has great attention to detail."

"He's not irrational or unreasonable," added Hersh, whose plaintiffs sued Imperial Premium Finance. The Sherman Oaks insurer agreed to provide 30,000 customers with $35 coupons to be used to pay their premiums after Kramer ruled the company was illegally holding onto customer refunds.

Kramer declined to be interviewed for this story. But he gave a sense of how dedicated he is as a jurist in a 1999 interview with the San Francisco Daily Journal, a legal trade publication.

While he said he sought out a judgeship so that he could spend more time with his wife and daughter, he said he spent his first months as a criminal court judge reading the Penal Code cover to cover and driving through crime-ridden neighborhoods in San Francisco to get a sense of what was happening in the community.

"It's all fascinating to me," he told the Daily Journal. "What you have to do is figure out what the person did and what to do about it. And most of these cases require common sense and humanity."

(San Francisco, California) Hundreds of cheering gays and lesbians marched through the Castro Monday night celebrating a court ruling that declared California's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

Some waved rainbow flags, others held up their marriage licenses. Couples held hands, others carried their small children.

In West Hollywood hundreds of people crammed into the Abby for a celebration party. A wedding cake was cut symbolizing what gays hope is the first step toward marriage.

Gays began arriving at San Francisco city hall shortly after the written ruling was handed down.

County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer in his ruling said that there is "no rational purpose" in denying gays and lesbians the right to marry. (story)

"The denial of marriage to same-sex couples appears impermissibly arbitrary," Kramer's ruling said. "Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so."

His judgment went on to say that California's domestic partner law without the ability to marry was insufficient likening it to segregation.

Kramer referred to the landmark 1952 Brown v. Board of Education civil rights decision. "The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal," he wrote.

He also cited a 1948 decision that struck down California's ban on interracial marriages.

Kramer then turned to the arguments made by two conservative groups that gays cannot marry because they cannot procreate.

“One does not have to be married in order to procreate, nor does one have to procreate in order to be married,” Kramer wrote. “Thus, no legitimate state interest to justify the preclusion of same-sex marriage can be found.”

Last February San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom began allowing marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples. (story)

More than 4,000 gay and lesbian couples were married before the California Supreme Court ruled that Newsom had exceeded his power in granting the licenses. (story) But, the court did not take up the issue of gay marriage itself, saying court cases challenging the constitutionality on the state law should work their way through the lower courts first.

At a hastily arranged news conference Newsom was surrounded by same-sex couples who had launched the suit.

"This is an important day but hardly is this effort complete," Newsom told reporters. "It is inevitable there will be an appeal."

Kramer was also prepared for an appeal. He stayed the execution of his judgment for 60 days to allow California Attorney General Bill Lockyer and lawyers for two conservative groups to file their appeal notices.

"This is just the first phase of a legal challenge." Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger told MSNBC. "This will probably go to the Supreme Court in California."

But, Monday night, in the streets of San Francisco there was hope that the long battle may be coming towards its conclusion.

Earlier this month the Washington state Supreme Court heard arguments in another constitutional challenge to barring same-sex marriage. (story)

In New York State the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, is about to take up the issue of gay marriage following last month's ruling by a judge in New York City that it is unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. (story)

PORTLAND, OR - Gay rights activists around the country are hailing the decision released today by a Superior Court judge in California. Richard Kramer ruled that a state law limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman is unconstitutional.

"Oregon Considered" host Allison Frost spoke today with Rebekah Kassell with the group Basic Rights Oregon and asked whether Kassell's group is celebrating the decision.

To listen please click here (mp3)

To read the opinion click here

San Francisco: A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, saying the state could no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

In the eagerly awaited opinion likely to be appealed to the state's highest court, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said that withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional.

"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," Kramer wrote.

The judge wrote that the state's historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians.

"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote.

Kramer ruled in lawsuits brought by the city of San Francisco and a dozen same-sex couples last March. The suits were brought after the California Supreme Court halted a four-week marriage spree that Mayor Gavin Newsom had initiated in February 2004 when he directed city officials to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians in defiance of state law.

The plaintiffs said withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians trespasses on the civil rights all citizens are guaranteed under the California Constitution.

Two legal groups representing religious conservatives joined with California Attorney General Bill Lockyer in defending the existing laws and had vowed to appeal if Kramer did not rule in their favor.

Lockyer's office has said it expects the matter eventually will have to be settled by the California Supreme Court.

A pair of bills pending before the California Legislature would put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the November ballot. If California voters approve such an amendment, as those in 13 other states did last year, that would put the issue out of the control of lawmakers and the courts.

(AP)

The Equal Rights Coalition played host to America's most notable homophobe on Sunday in Fort Wayne.

The Rev. Fred Phelps, who runs the God Hates fags website and whose followers regularly demonstrate against LGBT rights took part in a forum on gay rights sponsored by the Coalition.

About 150 turned out at Indiana University-Purdue University. The Phelps clan and LGBT supporters were separated by a wide aisle. On one side were about 130 gay supporters, on the other only about 15 people from Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. Police outnumbered the Phelps group, but there were no problems.

Phelps and his followers were in Fort Wayne to demonstrate at a production of "The Laramie Project" at the Lincoln Museum and at a half dozen churches and local papers.

Members of Phelps' clan gained national notoriety when they protested outside the 1998 funeral for Matthew Shepard, the gay college student beaten to death in Wyoming.

The murder led to the play "The Laramie Project" in which Phelps is depicted.

The Equal Rights Coalition organized the forum to avoid clashes with the Phelps' group on the picket line.

Phelps debated Kathy Sarris, president of Indiana Equality, and Dan Funk, a member of the Interfaith Coalition on Non-Discrimination.

Funk drew cheers from the gay side of the gym as he declare: “I am a gay man and I am a Christian and I am here to tell you God doesn’t hate fags.”

But, Phelps held his ground saying his "God hates fags" message is not based on hate, but on love.

The aging preacher said that he is required by the Bible to warn people about sin.

“If you love your neighbor as yourself, you will warn him his sin is taking him to hell,” Phelps said.

“We’re talking about a monstrous sin against God Almighty.”

He then said that Shepard is being punished for his sins and that “The Laramie Project,” is only "homosexual propaganda" taking advantage of Shepard’s “pitiful” life.

Asked about same-sex marriage, Phelps said America is going “to hell in a fornicator’s hand basket.”

Sarris, however, said government should be in the business of protecting rights, not defining marriage.

“How is damaging my family protecting yours?”

Pointing a finger at Sarris, Phelps said gays cannot be forgiven their sins because they won’t even admit they are sinning. Instead, he said, they hold pride parades.

Early, members of the Phelps' clan - about half of whom were teens - carried signs outside local churches reading "God Hates America” and “AIDS Cures Fags”.

Connecticut and Oregon appear to be vying to become the second U.S. state to create 'marriage like' civil unions for homosexual couples.

In Connecticut, the Joint Judiciary Committee recently approved a bill to create civil unions, a legal partnership that carries many state rights of marriage but is not called marriage. It is similar to the nation's first civil union law in Vermont, which went into effect in 2000.

The Connecticut bill still needs to go before the Democrat-led House and Senate, but many observers think it can pass. Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, has indicated "general" support for civil unions, although she has not said whether she will sign this particular bill.

Traditional-values groups, such as the Family Institute of Connecticut and Connecticut Catholic Conference, oppose civil unions as "same-sex marriage in everything but name." Last week, they released a poll showing that most Connecticut residents would like to vote on a constitutional amendment that reserves marriage for opposite-sex couples.

Meanwhile, in Oregon, the watch is on for a pivotal decision by the state Supreme Court.

Last year, Multnomah County officials "married" thousands of same-sex couples, prompting lawsuits. Traditional-values groups reacted with a petition drive for a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, which voters approved in November.

The amendment presumably blocks the Oregon high court from permitting same-sex "marriage," although the court still must decide on the legality of the 3,000 Multnomah unions.

Homosexual-rights groups generally oppose civil unions because they are not recognized outside the home state and are not viewed as marriages under federal law. Moreover, since the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized same-sex "marriage" in that state in November 2003, the goal has become full marriage rights in every state.

In Connecticut, the Love Makes a Family homosexual-rights group initially opposed the civil-union bill, but changed its position. "We will not stand in the way of expanding our rights," group leader Anne Stanback wrote in the Hartford (Conn.) Courant.

Americans are divided on legal recognition for same-sex unions.

Polls taken in 2004 show strong disapproval of same-sex "marriage," according to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which in December updated its report on public attitudes about homosexuality and same-sex "marriage."

However, in at least seven polls, people were given three options for homosexual couples: "marriage," "civil unions" or "nothing." In five of these polls, the most popular answer was "nothing," the AEI report said. But if supporters of "marriage" and "civil unions" were counted together, they outnumbered those who didn't want any legal recognition for homosexual couples.