Gay Rights Watch

LINCOLN, Neb. -- A federal judge Thursday struck down Nebraska's ban on gay marriage, saying the measure interferes not only with the rights of gay couples but also with those of foster parents, adopted children and people in a host of other living arrangements.

The constitutional amendment, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, was passed overwhelmingly by the voters in November 2000.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon said the ban "imposes significant burdens on both the expressive and intimate associational rights" of gays "and creates a significant barrier to the plaintiffs' right to petition or to participate in the political process."

Bataillon said the ban beyond "goes far beyond merely defining marriage as between a man and a woman."

The judge said the "broad proscriptions could also interfere with or prevent arrangements between potential adoptive or foster parents and children, related persons living together, and people sharing custody of children as well as gay individuals."

Forty states have laws barring same-sex marriages, but Nebraska's ban is the only one that prevented homosexuals who work for the state or its university system from sharing health insurance and other benefits with their partners.

Nebraska has no state law against gay marriage, but state Attorney General Jon Bruning said same-sex marriages were not allowed before the ban and would not be permitted now.

Bruning said he will appeal the ruling.

"Seventy percent of Nebraskans voted for the amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and I believe that the citizens of this state have a right to structure their constitution as they see fit," Bruning said.

The challenge was filed by the gay rights organization Lambda Legal and the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Project.

Lamba Legal attorney David Buckel has called the ban "the most extreme anti-gay family law in the entire nation."

Carla Petersen, a member of Metropolitan Community Church in Omaha, which advocates for gay rights, hailed the ruling.

"Every step is a good step," Petersen said. "It really will get the ball rolling again."

The ruling did not surprise the executive director of the Nebraska Family Council, which led the petition drive to get the ban on the ballot. Al Riskowski said the decision will renew the call to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Massachusetts has allowed gay marriage since last May. Vermont has offered civil unions to gays since 2000; Connecticut will begin offering civil unions in October.

Source: AP

Conservative groups vowed Tuesday they would immediately begin gathering names to force a vote on amending the California Constitution to bar same-sex marriage.

The move followed a broad rebuff this afternoon in two committees at the Legislature.

The Assembly Judiciary Committee voted 6 to 3 Tuesday to reject a proposed amendment sponsored by Assemblyman Ray Haynes (R-Riverside).

The defeat was not unexpected despite supporters' claims the proposal would reinforce voters' intentions when they approved Proposition 22 five years ago.

That ballot measure was designed to prevent California from recognizing gay marriages performed elsewhere. Other laws bar the state from approving same-sex marriages that take place in California.

The proposed amendment was supported by the Traditional Values Coalition, a conservative group fighting same-sex marriage in the California courts.

The proposed amendment in addition to banning gay marriage would have repealed any legal protections and responsibilities for LGBT people and their families, including California’s comprehensive domestic partnership law.

The Senate Judiciary Committee later in the day voted 5 to 2 against a similar amendment.

The only recourse for opponents of same-sex marriage is to get enough signatures to get the proposed amendment on the ballot to let voters decide.

“This is a major defeat for the proponents of this immoral, anti-family measure,” said Geoffrey Kors, Executive Director of Equality California.

“This is a classic bait-and-switch where anti-gay extremists want to repeal California’s domestic partnership law and prevent the legislature, the courts and the voters from passing laws to provide any legal rights and protections to lesbian and gay couples and their families."

Meanwhile, a bill to allow same-sex couples to marry is moving forward.

The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act passed a key committee late last month, (story). The legislation, sponsored by openly gay Assemblyman Mark Leno ( D-San Francisco) would allow gays to marry but also allow churches opposed to same-sex unions to refuse to perform the marriages.

It has the support of Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and other key Democrats. Earlier this month the California Democratic Party passed a resolution supporting same-sex marriage. (story)

The marriage issue is also before the courts. A San Francisco judge ruled in March that law banning same-sex marriage violate the state Constitution. The issue could reach the California Supreme Court later this year.

Source: 365gay.com

Gay Men Respond Differently to Pheromones... research points to biological involvement in sexual orientation.

Gay men's brains respond differently from those of heterosexual males when exposed to a sexual stimulus, researchers have found. The homosexual men's brains responded more like those of women when the men sniffed a chemical from the male hormone testosterone.

"It is one more piece of evidence ... that is showing that sexual orientation is not all learned," said Sandra Witelson, an expert on brain anatomy and sexual orientation at the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada.

Witelson, who was not part of the research team, said the findings clearly show a biological involvement in sexual orientation.

The study, published in Tuesday's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, was done by researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden.

They exposed heterosexual men and women and homosexual men to chemicals derived from male and female sex hormones.

These chemicals are thought to be pheromones _ molecules known to trigger responses such as defense and sex in many animals.

Whether humans respond to pheromones has been debated, although in 2000 American researchers reported finding a gene that they believe directs a human pheromone receptor in the nose.

The Swedish study was one of a series looking at whether parts of the brain involved in reproduction differ in response to odors and pheromones, lead researcher Ivanka Savic said.

The brains of different groups responded similarly to ordinary odors such as lavender, but differed in their response to the chemicals thought to be pheromones, Savic said.

The Swedish researchers divided 36 subjects into three groups _ heterosexual men, heterosexual women and homosexual men. They studied the brain response to sniffing the chemicals, using PET scans. All the subjects were healthy, unmedicated, right-handed and HIV negative.

When they sniffed smells like cedar or lavender, all of the subjects' brains reacted only in the olfactory region that handles smells.

But when confronted by a chemical from testosterone, the male hormone, portions of the brains active in sexual activity were activated in straight women and in gay men, but not in straight men, the researchers found.

The response in gay men and straight women was concentrated in the hypothalamus with a maximum in the preoptic area that is active in hormonal and sensory responses necessary for sexual behavior, the researchers said.

And when estrogen, the female hormone was used, there was only a response in the olfactory portion of the brains of straight women. Homosexual men had their primary response also in the olfactory area, with a very small reaction in the hypothalamus, while heterosexual men responded strongly in the reproductive region of the brain.

Savic said the group is also doing a study involving homosexual women but those results are not yet complete.

In a separate study looking at people's response to the body odors of others, researchers in Philadelphia found sharp differences between gay and straight men and women.

"Our findings support the contention that gender preference has a biological component that is reflected in both the production of different body odors and in the perception of and response to body odors," said neuroscientist Charles Wysocki, who led the study.

In particular, he said, finding differences in body odors between gay and straight individuals indicates a physical difference.

It's hard to see how a simple choice to be gay or lesbian would influence the production of body odor, he said.

Wysocki's team at the Monell Chemical Senses Center studied the response of 82 heterosexual and homosexual men and heterosexual and homosexual women to the odors of underarm sweat collected from 24 donors of varied gender and sexual orientation.

They found that gay men differed from heterosexual men and women and from lesbian women, both in terms of which body odors gay men preferred and how their own body odors were regarded by the other groups.

Gay men preferred odors from gay men, while odors from gay men were the least preferred by heterosexual men and women and by lesbian women in the study. Their findings, released Monday, are to be published in the journal Psychological Science in September.

The Swedish research was funded by the Swedish Medical Research Council, the Karolinska Institute and the Magnus Bergvall Foundation. Wysocki's research was supported by the Monell Center.

Reported by:
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID
The Associated Press

More BS from the so-called "Defense of Marriage Coalition".

Opponents of same-sex marriage are calling on Multnomah County to reimburse their legal fees.

To win its lawsuit last month, the Defense of Marriage Coalition spent a total of $399,023.25, according to official records. [rumor has it that the Alliance Defense Fund paid for these legal fees not the DOMC]

In a petition filed Thursday with the Oregon Supreme Court, the anti-gay marriage coalition claims its four experienced attorneys billed 2,477.68 hours during a yearlong legal battle over Multnomah County's March 2004 decision to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

"This is a reasonable amount given the difficulties on this case, the experience of the litigation team, and the successful outcome," Kelly Clark, the lead attorney [and accused "rapist"] in the case, wrote in the petition.

The Oregon Supreme Court in April ruled that Multnomah County had no authority to issue licenses against state law, which allows only heterosexual marriage. [Although at the time they were issued Constitutional Amendment 36 was not even in the picture - why did the supreme court mention Measure 36 in the ruling if you cannot use newly enacted laws retroactively?]

In Oregon under certain circumstances, parties that prevail in a lawsuit can get attorney fees from the losers. It is unclear whether the Defense of Marriage Coalition will meet the test to get the fees in this case.

Multnomah County Attorney Agnes Sowle said Friday she could not comment because she had not seen the request for attorney fees.

Sowle concluded in a legal opinion last year that state marriage law violated the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians — refusing to give the couples marriage licenses would put the county on the losing end of a lawsuit.

The American Civil Liberties Union and Basic Rights Oregon, the states leading gay-rights group, eventually sued the state, which had refused to accept the county-issued marriage licenses.

Multnomah County intervened to defend its actions, as did the Defense of Marriage Coalition, which countersued, claiming the county had no authority to issue the licenses. [So this is where I think they will have trouble. The DOMC was not sued. Basic Rights oregon sued the State - therefore the DOMC chose to intervene in this case and therefore should not receive a penny for the money they spent on attorneys]

In April, the Oregon Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit and ruled that the 3,000-plus same-sex marriage licenses issued by Multnomah County were invalid.

From the Statesman Journal... I am the mother of three children, one of whom is gay. I am a community volunteer and churchgoer. Constitutional Amendment 36 has me gravely concerned about the direction in which Oregon is headed. I wish to urge legislators to vote in favor of Senate Bill 1000.

Opponents of same-sex marriage argue that allowing such civil rights would destroy the institution of marriage, confuse the children involved, and lead to the condoning of polygamy. The same arguments were used 40 years ago when the issue of mixed-race couples came into legislation. All one needs to do is exchange terms like "same-sex" with terms like "mixed-race" and they are the same sentiments.

As is obvious, allowing mixed-race couples to legally marry has not caused any of these troubles. People still marry and start families, and the idea that mixed-race couples are the first step toward the destruction of family values is viewed by most as ludicrous.

I implore legislators to please consider the fact that preventing same-sex couples from, at the very least, having legally recognized civil unions will only serve to inflict harm upon Oregon families. SB 1000 is a compromise to protect families, and deserves your support.

Please vote in favor of the bill.

-- Kim Willaman, Independence