Gay Rights Watch

More than 50 ministers across Kansas called upon voters Friday to vote against a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.

In a letter to the public, the ministers said the amendment violates a basic tenet of all faiths, which is to treat all people equally, with respect and love. Passage of the amendment, which is on the April 5 ballot, would hurt thousands of Kansans and make their lives harder, the letter said.

“For me, as a Christian, if I am taking the faith seriously, there's only one way I could vote and that's no,” said the Rev. Robert Meneilly, a letter signer who is the retired pastor of the Village Presbyterian Church in Prairie Village. “If we are all made by the same God in the same image, we should all have the same rights.”

The letter is posted at www.kansansforfairness.org, the home of Kansans for Fairness, a coalition of groups that support human rights. Among those signing it were the Rev. Larry Keller of St. Mark's United Methodist Church in Overland Park, the Rev. Holly McKissick of St. Andrew Christian Church in Olathe and the Rev. Tarris Rosell, associate professor at Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, Kan.

Bruce Ney, president of Kansans for Fairness, said the letter was put together by clergy members who “are somewhat taken aback by the idea that every Christian religion in the state of Kansas backs this amendment when, in fact, that is not true. This was their attempt to make that clear and get the word out.”

In the letter, the clergy say that “it is not the state government's role to codify one religious interpretation of the Bible, or one religion over another in the Kansas Constitution. To the contrary, the great contribution of our Constitution is to protect the rights of all faiths.”

The Rev. Jerry Johnston , pastor of First Family Church in Overland Park and a leader in the effort to pass the amendment, said the views of the “small group” of ministers do not reflect the views of the majority.

“Religious liberty is to set people free by the power of the gospel, and the aim of all the vast majority who believe in this amendment is to protect marriage,” Johnston said.

If homosexuals receive rights, he said, what's to stop defenders of group marriages from asking for their rights, he said. All of the states that have had an opportunity to vote on a ban on gay marriage have approved it, Johnston said, adding he thinks it will pass in Kansas also.

The campaign in favor of the amendment is led by One Voice of Kansas Inc., a (hateful) nonprofit group.

Besides defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman, the amendment would prohibit the state from granting marriage in other relationships.

Bishop's careful apology fails to end dispute and shows even more hypocrisy in the church

The morning after San Diego's Roman Catholic bishop apologized to a family after canceling their gay son's funeral Mass, he left two voice-mail messages for an evangelical Christian activist who crusades against homosexuality.

"James, please take my call," Bishop Robert Brom said Tuesday into the answering machine of James Hartline, a Hillcrest man who supported canceling the funeral Mass. "I have to explain how it's all wrong and how I was done in. We need to talk and we need to meet. Please call me back immediately."

In a second message, the bishop sounded more urgent: "This is Bishop Brom begging you to call me back. I did not cave in. I stood for our position and I still do, but I need to explain, and I need your help."

Hartline said he never returned Brom's calls. Instead, he played the messages for a reporter, saying he was outraged by the bishop's "totally spineless" apology to the family of John McCusker, a nightclub owner who died this month. The bishop had banned a Catholic service for McCusker, citing what the diocese considered his sinful business activities.

In the days after Brom released his three-sentence statement, many are trying to decipher what the leader of nearly 1 million Catholics in San Diego and Imperial counties meant by his words of consolation.

Was he expressing regret for canceling the funeral?

Or was he simply expressing sympathy for the family's turmoil?

From talk shows to e-mails, the nuanced words of the statement have been parsed and debated:

"I deeply regret that denying a Catholic funeral for John McCusker at the Immaculata has resulted in his unjust condemnation and I apologize to the family for the anguish this has caused them. To help rectify this situation, insofar as it can be, I will preside at a Mass for the family, in memory of John, at the Immaculata. In consideration for the family, I will not be available for any further public statements on this matter," Brom wrote Monday.

Adding to the speculation is a cover letter that accompanied the statement when it was sent Tuesday to Catholic clergy.

"The enclosed statement . . . should be read carefully," wrote Monsignor Steven Callahan, a top official with the diocese. "Note the extent and nature of the apology that Bishop Brom offered, free of media interpretations."

Callahan followed up with a notice to clergy on Wednesday that the Mass would be for the family only and closed to the public.

Yesterday Brom, 66, wouldn't answer questions about why he banned the funeral, the first such cancellation in his 15-year tenure, or discuss why he was so concerned about Hartline's opinion.

Brom did, however, indicate that he felt besieged by dual forces as he tried to navigate the controversy: "Throughout this whole ordeal I have struggled with my obligation to clearly define moral principles and at the same time to be properly compassionate."

Meanwhile, the diocese issued another statement yesterday afternoon acknowledging that the apology "has met with a variety of interpretations. The covenant with the McCusker family, found within the statement itself, precludes any comment in this regard." The McCusker family could not be reached.

Mark Brumley, president of San Francisco-based Ignatius Press, a Catholic publishing company, said the bishop's statement was unclear.

"It would serve the community of San Diego well to have some clarification," said Brumley, a former spokesman for the San Diego diocese. "There are people on many sides of this issue who will look to the statement to see where the bishop comes down on the issue and will be unable to do so."

Janet Mansfield, a member of the liberal reform group Call to Action, still regards the apology as important. "For a bishop to actually apologize is something," she said, adding, "I think he's walking a tightrope."

Dignity USA, a national independent advocacy group for gay Catholics, released a statement with its San Diego chapter yesterday praising Brom's apology. Pat McArron, former national president and a San Diego resident, said there is disagreement over what Brom meant by his statement.

"Dignity, quite frankly, has chosen not to pick it apart," McArron said.

But Mike Portantino, publisher of the San Diego-based Gay and Lesbian Times called Brom's statement a "shallow victory."

"Do I feel that the Catholic Church has changed its stance or opinion? No," Portantino said. "I think they felt a tidal wave of publicity coming their way and their public relations arm recognized that this was not only within the gay community but even within Catholic community."

The flap began last week after Brom canceled a funeral Mass scheduled at the Immaculata Catholic Church at the University of San Diego, where McCusker had been a student. McCusker, 31, died March 13 while vacationing in Mammoth.

The diocese said the funeral wasn't canceled because of McCusker's sexual orientation, but because his "business activities" – he owned a gay bar and a popular nightclub with a largely gay clientele – "were contrary to sacred Scripture and the moral teaching of the church."

The diocese said it had obtained information that a gay porn video had been recorded at McCusker's Club Montage, near Lindbergh Field, and that gay porn stars had appeared at his North Park bar, ReBar. But McCusker's friends said he often rented out the nightclub and had no involvement in making the video.

McCusker's family moved the funeral to an Episcopal church last Friday. Monday night, as the gay community and its supporters gathered to discuss a response, his family read Brom's apology and urged people to accept it "as an offering of peace."

But as Holy Week draws to a close and Christians prepare to celebrate Easter on Sunday, the issue doesn't appear to be over.

Yesterday, Sue Lopez of Bay Park was among a small group of protesters gathered outside the diocese headquarters. They were upset that Brom issued any apology at all.

Noting that the church teaches that homosexuality is a sin, Lopez said the bishop buckled "under tremendous pressure by the homosexual community."

She added: "We're praying for his leadership, that he'll be a shepherd, not a politician, and not come out with statements that you have to read carefully. Say what you mean, mean what you say, and let the chips fall where they may."

ELLENSBURG, Wash. (AP) — Central Washington University has became the third university in the state and one of 25 nationwide to bar discrimination against openly gay, bisexual and transsexual staff and students.

With little fanfare after more than a year of consideration, the Board of Trustees voted March 4 to add gender identity and expression to the school's non-discrimination policy, which already covered race, color, creed, religion and other group identifiers.

"We want to make Central a community where people feel welcome and are not intimidated," said Nancy Howard, the school's equal opportunity chief. "It also sends a clear message to our university community that individuals are not to be singled out and treated poorly because of these characteristics."

Other universities in the state that specifically bar discrimination against people who express themselves as gay, bisexual and transsexual are the University of Washington in Seattle and the University of Puget Sound in Tacoma.

"It's one of the most oppressed populations on college campuses across the state," said Leslie Webb, director of Central's diversity education center, which sought the change.

Next month Central hosts the first tri-state lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender conference, "The Power of One: LGBT Leadership Conference," which is expected to draw about 200 college and university students and staff from Washington, Oregon and Idaho.

Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was added to the Central's policy about 10 years ago, Howard said. The policy change allows those who feel they have been subjected to discrimination or harassment to turn to the university's informal and formal grievance processes.

"The idea is that we want Central to be a place where employees can pursue their careers and be successful, and students can come and study and have a social life without worry that these type of incidents occur," Howard said.

I just bought this book...

The debate surrounding same-sex marriages has reached a fever pitch, embroiling Americans in an emotionally charged argument that further reflects America's deep social and political divide. Scott Redmond offers a unique perspective on this homosexual plight in his new book Get Over the Rainbow: Why Everyone Should Join the Fight for Gay Rights (now available through AuthorHouse).

"While other books have been written about this issue, Get Over the Rainbow was written by a heterosexual male who had nothing personal to gain from legal, same sex marriage, other than living in a nation where everyone is treated equally," writes Redmond.

The book opens with an interesting theory on why 2004 was a defining year in America's battle over homosexual marriage. It explains how this became a campaign issue in the presidential election, even though both candidates were opposed to offering gays their day at the altar.

Redmond challenges numerous arguments against homosexual matrimony throughout the book. He details the hypocrisy in using the Bible as a tool for discrimination and reminds those who believe that Hollywood promotes the gay lifestyle that mainstream America decides which movies and television programs are popular.

Get Over the Rainbow sets the heated debate over gay marriage in context with earlier Supreme Court rulings, such as legalizing birth control in the '60s and abortion in the '70s. It explains why the majority in Colorado could not win a legal battle against the minority homosexual population, and offers an optimistic outlook, steeped in logical reasoning and historic legal evidence, for the future of homosexuals' right to marry.

A passionate discussion about equal treatment of gays from a straight perspective, Get Over the Rainbow also offers compelling arguments that cut to the chase and eliminate misconceptions.

Redmond was recently fired from his job as a radio talk show host because of his controversial views which, he says, were not accepted by the traditional conservative AM-talk radio audience. Born in New Orleans, he has spent most of his broadcasting career in that city. Known as "Scoot" on the air, Redmond has done radio shows throughout the country and has carefully studied media's effect on society. He also has produced, written and hosted several television talk shows and wrote a regular column, "Straight to the Point" for the gay publication, OUTFRONT. He attributes his close bond with the homosexual community to his struggles with obsessive compulsive disorder. Get Over the Rainbow is his first book.

For more information on this new book click here.

Here starts the backlash of adding unequal treatment into the constitution of many states across the US. First off I do not condone domestic violence in any way, shape or form - although I still find something about this very amusing. For all of you who voted Yes on Measure 36 here in Oregon this one goes out to you!

Just when you thought that passing constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and therefore not providing equal treatment under the law was a smart thing to do - this is what you get. These amendments are not only hurting hundreds of thousands of gays and lesbians - now it's hurting the straights. The first story comes from Ohio with many more to follow. I hope people can learn from this once it effects them and not just gays and lesbians. Here it goes...

CLEVELAND (AP) -- Domestic violence charges cannot be filed against unmarried people because of Ohio's new constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a judge ruled Wednesday.

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Stuart Friedman changed a felony domestic violence charge against Frederick Burk to a misdemeanor assault charge.

Prosecutors immediately appealed.

Judges and others across the country have been waiting for a ruling on how the gay marriage ban, among the nation's broadest, would affect Ohio's 25-year-old domestic violence law, which previously wasn't limited to married people.

Burk, 42, is accused of slapping and pushing his live-in girlfriend during a January argument over a pack of cigarettes.

His public defender, David Magee, had asked the judge to throw out the charge because of the new wording in Ohio's constitution that prohibits any state or local law that would "create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals."

Before the amendment, courts applied the domestic violence law by defining a family as including an unmarried couple living together as would a husband and wife, the judge said. The gay marriage amendment no longer allows that.

John Martin, who supervises appeals in the public defender's office, said the office was pleased with the ruling but would not comment further because of the appeal.

Because Burk had a prior domestic violence conviction, the latest charge was a felony that could have resulted in an 18-month jail term; a misdemeanor assault carries a maximum sentence of six months.

"This case is a good example of why we need a domestic violence law. A misdemeanor assault doesn't carry with it a significant enough penalty for repeat domestic violence abusers," said Matt Meyer, an assistant Cuyahoga County prosecutor.

Some opponents of the amendment have said they hope the conflict over the domestic violence law would result in the gay marriage ban being repealed.

Seventeen states have constitutional language defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Ohio's is regarded as the broadest marriage amendment of those passed by 11 states Nov. 2 because it bans civil unions and legal status to all unmarried couples and gay marriages.

By CONNIE MABIN Associated Press Writer

Rumors are still running rampant about when the Oregon State Supreme Court will make it's ruling on Li v. State of Oregon (the fate of the 3,021 same-sex marriages). Could be this week or next. My understanding is that the ruling must be before March 31st - or Multnomah County will be forced to begin issuing marriage licenses again. I know that sounds strange considering the passing of Constitutional Amendment 36. There was a 90 day stay issued by the lower court. Assumptions are that they would request another stay if the ruling were to be delayed past March 31st.

Opinions are released on Thursdays, although they post the "Notice of Forthcoming Opinion" on Wednesday. Here is a link to where they are posted: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/supremeWednesday.htm

For updates on this case you can visit the Basic Rights Oregon website @ www.basicrights.org

A California judge ruled last week that the state’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional—a legal milestone that, if upheld on appeal, would open the door for the most populous state to follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed.

San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer’s decision raises a more daunting question for America’s African American community as it relates to the marriage debate:

“If the KKK was opposing gay marriage, I would ride with them.” When black Chicago Baptist minister, the Rev. Gregory Daniels took that provocative stance on same-sex marriage last fall he roiled liberals, moderates and conservatives alike. A day after Daniels shocked even the most conservative Christians, 10,000 black marchers, including Bernice King, the slain civil rights leader’s youngest daughter, called same-sex marriage black America’s “most pressing demon.”

One year after the world witnessed 29 days of San Francisco weddings new data suggests that Daniels, King and other black church leaders are on the wrong page.

“This is not our agenda,” says 27-year-old Megan Stack. Stack an Indiana University medical student who is black and lesbian points to images celebrating the first anniversary of the event. “These folks don’t look like me,” she said.

In fact that’s the picture painted by demographic data released by San Francisco officials who tracked the 4,037 licenses issued between February 12, 2004 when Mayor Gavin Newsom gave the go ahead to same-sex nuptials, and March 11 when the state Supreme Court ordered them stopped.

According to Carole Midgen, the lesbian chairwoman of the State Board of Equalization who got married, the weddings represented people from everywhere.

“The majority of the over 4,000 newlyweds were 30 to 60 year old, white collar Caucasians,” she said.

Thom Lynch, executive director of the San Francisco Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Community Center agreed.

“We saw attorneys, artists, teachers, and couples from New York to Oregon, from Paris, France to Paris, Tennessee. Most couples were white, some were Latino and a few were African America or Asian-American,” Lynch said.

University of Pennsylvania professor, Eric Dyson questions the new black agenda that calls for among other things, privatization of Social Security and a ban on same-sex marriage. Dyson’s upcoming book is titled “Is Bill Cosby Right? Or Has The Black Middle Class Lost Its Mind?” He said, “Many black church leaders have turned a blind eye to official data that states most gays and lesbians heading to the altar are non-black, middle aged, and have college degrees.”

The sparring over same-sex marriage personifies the deep divisions between black ministers and the black gay community. Raymond Dre Mayes is openly gay. The Fort Wayne short order cook says gay marriage is not a black agenda.

“Most black gays and lesbians are in the closet or so-called DL (down low). Most of us can’t afford to come out. Imagine an openly gay teacher, police officer or city councilman. We’ve got bigger fish to fry.” Mayes said.

Bestselling author J.L. King whose explosive book “On The Down Low” explores sex between closeted black men argues, “Shouldn’t black America be discussing the HIV/AIDS crisis, youth gangs and unprecedented unemployment among black males? Are we ignoring the real issues affecting black families?”

The author joins a growing number of black intellectuals who want the spotlight put on issues critical to black survival. Stack says, the headlines are screaming about the black HIV/AIDS crisis, joblessness, and health disparity.

“Have we allowed right wing conservatives to distract the back community from its real priorities?” asked Stack.

The California ruling striking down the ban on same-sex marriage is sure to turn up the volume on the marriage debate.

“It’s ironic that some black ministers would make these issues a national priority given the black church’s historical role in fighting for economic empowerment and a more just society,” said Dr. Martinl Luther King’s widow Coretta Scott King.

By Chris Levister

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- A gay civil rights bill is one or two votes shy of a majority in the Senate, Sen. Darlene Fairley said Tuesday after a hearing on the measure.

"I am very optimistic," said Fairley, D-Lake Forest Park. "It's the right thing to do."

The state House has already approved the bill, and Gov. Christine Gregoire has said she will sign it into law if the Legislature passes it.

Public opinion at Fairley's committee hearing ran six-to-one in favor of the bill, though some opponents warned of deep-seated opposition across the state.

The bill, which would ban discrimination against gays and lesbians in jobs, housing and insurance, has been introduced - and rejected - annually for nearly 30 years in the state Legislature.

Rep. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, the bill's sponsor, said he believes this is the year it will pass.

"Some have asked, is this a necessity? Let me assure you, from the school yard to the boardrooms, discrimination is real for gays and lesbians in Washington state," Murray told the Senate panel. "I appeal to you as a gay man, as a native son of this state, as your colleague, to pass this bill."

Opponents included the Christian Coalition, Washington Evangelicals for Responsible Government and private citizens.

"Tens of thousands if not millions of Christians hold that homosexuality is a reprehensible lifestyle," said Randy Leskovar, senior pastor of Calvary Chapel in West Seattle. "So when we're saying it is a lifestyle that must be accepted ... you're going to have to allow something you think is reprehensible to be looked on as being OK."

Several opponents said they believe homosexuality is a choice, subject to change, and thus should not get the same protections as race and ethnicity.

Supporters of the bill pointed out that religion and creed, which are subject to change, are protected under existing law. And some legislators flatly rejected the idea that sexual orientation is a matter of choice.

"This is not a lifestyle. There's no more choice than I have a choice to be five feet tall," said Sen. Margarita Prentice, D-Renton.

"I have seen gay children abused, humiliated, spit on, called 'fag' and 'sissy,' beaten up - I don't know anyone who would choose that lifestyle," said Sen. Brian Weinstein, D-Mercer Island.

"Maybe you don't represent all the people," said Ken Hutcherson, pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond, after noting that most of the committee members seemed to support the bill.

"When the homosexual community tried to make this a civil rights issue, I have a real problem with that," said Hutcherson, who is black. "Homosexuals have not had to go through what I had to go through growing up in Alabama."

Vernon Johnson, a Western Washington University professor who is also black, said he supports the bill because he opposes discrimination in all forms.

"I have experienced discrimination and I know firsthand the pain it causes," said Johnson. "I think what we are talking about is the pain of discrimination."

Carol Waymack, a Seattle doctor, told senators she simply wants her lesbian daughter to have the same opportunities as her straight son.

Several businesses wrote letters supporting the bill, including Washington Mutual, Hewlett-Packard, Nike and Coors Brewing Co.

"I'm looking at how I'm going to invest $75 million," said Clayton Lewis, chief operating officer of HouseValues, an Internet real estate company that went public last December. As a gay man, Lewis said, "knowing I have the same chance, the same opportunity to succeed, is critical to me."

Fifteen states have anti-discrimination laws that protect gays and lesbians.

Fairley said she plans to pass the bill out of the Finanical Institutions, Housing and Consumer Protection Committee on Thursday. There's no word yet on when it might come to the Senate floor.

By REBECCA COOK
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

Gay marriage ban completes first step.

The Indiana House today finalized a first step toward a state constitutional ban on gay marriage, approving the proposal with bipartisan support today.

Proponents hailed the 76-23 vote as a move toward protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage from activist judges, while opponents decried it as singling out gays and lesbians for discrimination.

"The basic unit of our society is the family, and the cornerstone of the family is marriage, and marriage is the union of one man and one woman," said Rep. Eric Turner, R-Gas City. "A strong consensus has emerged in our country and our state that marriage must be strengthened."

All 52 Republicans voted in favor of the proposal, while all 23 who voted against it, including Rep. Craig Fry of Mishawaka, were Democrats.

"I'm offended we would pick on a certain group in our society who are not bothering me, who are not bothering you, who are not bothering anybody," Fry said. "I believe it is a tragedy, and I am embarrassed for this chamber."

The same proposal passed the Republican-controlled Senate 42-8 earlier this session.

However, amending the constitution requires a resolution to pass consecutive, separately elected General Assemblies and then approved in a statewide vote. That means if the proposal passes again in 2007 or 2008, it could be on the November ballot in 2008.

Indiana, as do at least 42 other states, already has a law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Seventeen states have constitutional language defining marriage.

A similar resolution passed the Republican-controlled Senate with bipartisan support last year, but Democrats who controlled the House then refused GOP attempts to advance or even debate it. Democrats controlled the chamber 51-49 then, and all 49 Republicans had pledged to support the amendment.

Republicans now have a 52-48 majority in the House, and House Speaker Brian Bosma had pledged efforts to pass it this session. Although debate today was sometimes emotional, Bosma later commended the chamber for debating the issue openly and calmly.

Catholic leader vows to hold Mass in memory of gay nightclub owner

The head of the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego apologized yesterday to the family of gay nightclub owner John McCusker, less than a week after denying McCusker a Catholic funeral because of his "business activities," according to a statement released by McCusker's family.

In a stunning twist to a controversy that has created an uproar in San Diego's gay and Catholic communities, Bishop Robert Brom also promised to preside at a Mass in memory of McCusker at Immaculata Catholic Church at the University of San Diego, according to the statement.

McCusker, 31, died March 13 while vacationing in Mammoth.

In the statement released by McCusker's family, Brom said, "I deeply regret that denying a Catholic funeral for John McCusker at the Immaculata has resulted in his unjust condemnation, and I apologize to the family for the anguish this has caused them. To help rectify this situation, insofar as it can be, I will preside at a Mass for the family, in memory of John, at the Immaculata. In consideration for the family, I will not be available for any further public statements on this matter."

Earlier in the day, a woman who answered the phone at the diocese said neither the bishop nor his spokesman would have any further comment.

Last week, Brom forced the Immaculata to cancel McCusker's funeral, declaring that no parish within the diocese, which includes San Diego and Imperial counties, could hold a Catholic service for him.

At the time, the diocese said McCusker's "business activities" – he owned a gay bar and a popular nightclub with a largely gay clientele – "were contrary to Sacred Scripture and the moral teaching of the Church."

In defending its decision at the time, the diocese said it had obtained information that a gay porn video had been recorded at McCusker's Club Montage, near Lindbergh Field, and that gay porn stars had appeared at his North Park bar, ReBar.

McCusker's friends said McCusker often rented out Club Montage and had no involvement in making the video.

Last week's decision forced McCusker's family to scramble for an alternate venue for his funeral, which was held Friday at St. Paul's Cathedral, an Episcopal church near Balboa Park.

Last night McCusker's mother, Christine McCusker, read the bishop's latest statement to a packed crowd at the San Diego Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Community Center in Hillcrest. The crowd of at least 300 people, who showed up expecting to discuss ways to respond to the diocese's actions, was stunned and delighted by the unexpected news.

Christine McCusker told the crowd that when her family met with the bishop yesterday, Brom "regretfully acknowledged his hasty decision."

She urged the crowd to accept the bishop's apology "as an offering of peace and an offering to do what John would have done, as he is a great advocate of reconciliation and forgiveness."

The controversy over McCusker's funeral became a popular topic on the Internet and came at an awkward time for the Catholic church, which has been dealing for several years with fallout from disclosures of widespread sexual abuse by Catholic priests in the United States.

Those who showed up last night to support McCusker's family said the bishop probably didn't expect the backlash that his actions received.

"I think he saw the response from our community as well as our straight allies," said Ken Riley, 50, a physician and member of Ebony Pride of San Diego.

Some conservatives expressed grave disappointment at the bishop's about-face. Ernie Grimm, who edits the monthly Catholic newspaper San Diego News Notes, said he felt "betrayed."

"He had showed a lot of courage in making his original decision and encouraged a lot of us lay Catholics who had been looking for stronger leadership from our bishops," Grimm said. "He caved in the face of opposition."

James Hartline, a Christian conservative activist from Hillcrest, said he alerted the bishop to McCusker's gay business interests.

Hartline said he spoke with Brom at least four times about the McCusker case, including a meeting yesterday that lasted an hour. At no time did the bishop indicate he would reverse his position, Hartline said last night.

"He emphatically stated to me he would not budge one bit," Hartline said. "It's very, very strange. He was preparing a document that was going to include the fact that he was not going to reverse course at all."

Rebecca Moore, a professor of religious studies at San Diego State University, said Brom acted with grace and compassion in owning up to what she and many others said was a mistake.

"A funeral does not make a statement about the morality of the deceased, but rather it makes a statement about the mercy of God," Moore said. "Bishop Brom had second thoughts about his original decision and had the guts to publicly change his mind. That takes courage."

By Alex Roth and Jeff McDonald
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Union-Tribune researcher Dick Harrington contributed to this report.

A joke at a weekend political roast has raised the ire of some gay advocates in Massachusetts.

"I have to admit, that as a Mormon, I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman... and a woman and a woman," he told an audience at a St Patrick's Day breakfast attended by members of the legislature.

The Republican governor has been a longtime foe of same-sex marriage. Recently he has been traveling around the country speaking to GOP groups in what many believe to be a test for a possible presidential run in 2008.

House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, a liberal Democrat, lit into Romney for his travels, asking if he'd had trouble finding his way from the airport.

"Are those tickets in your pocket?" he asked. "I don't want to keep you too long. You can leave any time you want."

In a speech last month to Republican Party members in Spartanburg, South Carolina, Romney lambasted Massachusetts's highest court, which paved the way for gay marriage, accusing the justices of striking "a blow against the family.'' (story)

Several days later, in Utah, he declared ''America cannot continue to lead the family of nations around the world if we suffer the collapse of the family here at home."

When same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts last May, Romney invoked a 1913 law prevented town clerks from issuing licenses to couples who do not reside in Massachusetts.

The law says that the state cannot marry an out-of-state couple if that marriage would be "void" in the couple's home state. It had been created to prevent interracial marriages. The law is now under appeal. (story)

But, despite his opposition to same-sex marriage, Romney is still "too pro gay" for some conservatives.

Following a speech in Michigan, that state's chapter of the American Family Association sent a letter to state senators warning of what it called Romney's liberal record on abortion and gay rights.

"While it is certainly the prerogative of the GOP caucus to provide a forum for speakers who hold a diversity of public policy positions ... we also hope you will not allow your event or your hospitality to be used in any way to validate or legitimize Governor Mitt Romney's support of legal abortion-on-demand or his endorsement of homosexual activists' political agenda," wrote AFAM President Gary Glenn.

by Margo Williams 365Gay.com Boston Bureau365gay.com

DETROIT (AP) -- A lawsuit challenging a recent attorney general's opinion that bans public employers from offering benefits to same-sex couples in future contracts was filed Monday by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan.

The lawsuit, filed in Ingham County Circuit Court, asks the court to rule that Proposal 2 does not bar government employers from providing health insurance and other benefits to employees' same-sex partners and their children.

Those bringing the suit include a Washington-based AFL-CIO group called National Pride at Work that backs gay rights; Kalamazoo city employees; workers at state universities; and employees at various state agencies and departments.

Proposal 2, which Michigan voters approved 59 percent to 41 percent in November, said a union between one man and one woman "shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."

The ACLU says in the lawsuit that U.S. courts have held that providing health insurance to same-sex domestic partners does not constitute recognition of a marriage or a similar union and is necessary for employers to attract qualified workers.

The ACLU also argues in the suit that the intent of voters was not to deny the families of gays and lesbians health insurance or other benefits. The suit says the ballot committee that sponsored Proposal 2 "consistently and repeatedly" assured voters that the initiative was only about protecting marriage.

Last week, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox issued his first legal interpretation of the amendment, saying that Kalamazoo's policy of offering health and retirement benefits to same-sex partners violates the amendment.

Cox, a Republican, said his opinion does not apply to existing contracts.

Kalamazoo's policy gives domestic partnerships a "marriage-like" status, Cox said. Given the constitutional amendment's broad language, conferring benefits recognizes the validity of same-sex relationships, he ruled.

Cox said Proposal 2 also prohibits recognition of unmarried opposite-sex relationships.

In the absence of a ruling from a court, the attorney general's interpretation of the law generally is binding, Cox spokeswoman Allison Pierce said.

However, the Michigan Court of Appeals could hear a Proposal 2-based challenge to same-sex benefits early next month.

Cox said giving benefits itself does not violate Proposal 2. Governments could offer benefits to people designated by employees. But they couldn't be based on a union similar to marriage, he said.

It is unclear how Cox's opinion might affect universities that offer same-sex benefits. The schools have argued the constitution gives them autonomy to make those sorts of decisions.

Cox's decision could affect state employees.

In early December, the Granholm administration decided to not offer benefits to same-sex couples -- which were included in new labor contracts -- until a court rules on their legality.