Gay Rights Watch

Direct from HRC as they officially oppose John Roberts as a Supreme Court Justice...

Today, HRC announced our opposition to the nomination of John Roberts to fill the vacancy left by moderate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court following a decision by our Board of Directors. I wanted to make sure that you, as one of our valued members and supporters, were informed right away about this decision.

Our decision is based on a variety of factors, including John Roberts' extremely skeptical view of the constitutional right to privacy—a view that could seriously endanger our rights as defined in Lawrence v. Texas; his hostility towards enforcement of civil rights; his severely limited view of the role of the courts to protect individual rights and liberties and his views about the separation of church and state.

As you may know, HRC has been involved in judicial nominations throughout the Bush Administration. Taking a moderate stance based upon clearly articulated criteria, we have opposed only those nominees whose records indicated a clear hostility to the enforcement of civil rights. In all, we opposed only seven of the more than 200 nominees named by President Bush. Given what we have seen of his record, we now feel strongly that John Roberts rises to this level and opposing his nomination is the right thing to do - not only for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community, but in order to protect the civil rights of all Americans. Materials regarding our position can be found on our website at www.hrc.org/supremecourt.

You should also know that we have considered his noteworthy participation in Romer v. Evans - the landmark Supreme Court case protecting people from discrimination based on sexual orientation. Although his participation might indicate that he is not personally hostile to GLBT people, other aspects of his record lead us to believe that had he been on the Court, he would have voted with the three dissenters in Romer—Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas. The fact that he has been tapped to replace a moderate justice who stood with us in this case is a cause for great concern.

Our action is well coordinated with and appreciated by the larger civil rights coalition, working on this nomination in Washington, DC, led by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the Alliance for Justice. We are joined in our opposition by key GLBT allies, such as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), and have released a joint statement of opposition with our colleague organizations.

Over the coming days, the GLBT community will be joined by other communities – the African American community, the Hispanic community and other civil rights communities. We recognize that a threat to the civil rights of one community is a threat to the civil rights of all communities. I hope that we can count on you in the days and weeks ahead to stand with us and raise your voices to challenge and oppose a nominee who could seriously threaten the rights and liberties of so many Americans.

Posted by Bryan Harding

The Human Rights Campaign has formally thanked Rev. Jerry Falwell for apparently speaking out in favor of gay rights for the first time publicly.

Falwell, the high profile televangelist, founder of the Moral Majority and of the Liberty University, recently discussed potential Supreme Court nominees with President Bush before a pick was named.

On Aug. 5, during an appearance on MSNBC's "The Situation with Tucker Carlson," Falwell raised eyebrowns when he said he was not troubled by reports that nominee John Roberts had done volunteer legal work for gay rights activists on the case Romer vs. Evans.

In that case, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the state of Colorado could not create laws with the sole intention of discriminating against gay men and lesbians. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - the judges that President Bush has said best represent his preferred judicial philosophy - along with Chief Justice William Rehnquist, dissented from the majority opinion.

Falwell, who in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, blamed the terrorist attacks on "the pagans, the abortionists, and the feminists and the gays and lesbians," and who describes himself as "very conservative," told Carlson that if he were a lawyer, he too would argue for civil rights for gays.

"I may not agree with the lifestyle," Falwell said. "But that has nothing to do with the civil rights of that... part of our constituency."

"Judge Roberts would probably have been not a good very good lawyer if he had not been willing, when asked by his partners in the law firm to assist in guaranteeing the civil rights of employment and housing to any and all Americans."

When Carlson countered that conservatives, "are always arguing against 'special rights' for gays," Falwell said that equal access to housing and employment are basic rights, not special rights.

"Civil rights for all Americans, black, white, red, yellow, the rich, poor, young, old, gay, straight, et cetera, is not a liberal or conservative value," Falwell went on to say. "It's an American value that I would think that we pretty much all agree on."

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said his group welcomed the apparent softening of Falwell's position on at least some gay rights.

"Like most Americans, it seems Rev. Falwell has reached the conclusion that everyone deserves basic rights," said Solmonese. "I hope he also supports legislation that would deliver on these values."

Soulforce lobbying pays off?
Falwell was not available this week to discuss his views on gay issues. His office said that he was deluged with requests for comment on fellow televangelist Pat Robertson's call for the assassination of the Venezuelan president.

Earlier this summer, Falwell spoke at an "ex-gay" conference organized by the Christian group Exodus International. During his sermon he spoke warmly about the efforts of the activist group Soulforce, which seeks to free gays from religious oppression and is based in Lynchburg, Va., near Falwell's church. Soulforce has done extensive outreach to Falwell.

Falwell also spoke at length about a major heart operation he had had earlier that week.

Soulforce was founded by Mel White, a gay man who had worked closely with Falwell (even ghostwriting his autobiography) and his partner Gary Nixon.

White and Nixon founded Soulforce and moved into a rented house across the street from Falwell's church in 2001, after they realized that Falwell was not going to change his views and accept gays without long-term persuasion.

"I think last month when he dealt with his heart condition, he got closer to his maker," Nixon said. "And I think he knows in his heart that what he was doing is wrong."

To read more, including the transcript of Tucker Carlson and Falwell - click here.

Posted by Bryan Harding

Top of the list is New College of Florida, which provides a campus community most accepting of gay students. It also ranks number one for the most politically active tertiary institution, but ranks worst for a near absence of intercollegiate sports.

The top five gay-friendly Colleges are in order: New College of Florida; Macalester College of St. Paul, Minnesota; Wellesley College in Massachusetts; Eugene Lang College/New School University in New York City; and Mount Holyoke College in Massachusetts.

The top College ranked by Princeton Review for academic experience is Reed College in Portland, Oregon; which ranks 18th on the list for being gay-friendly.

The least gay-friendly Universities in America according to this study are Hampden-Sydney College, Virginia; the University of Notre Dame; and Baylor University in Waco, Texas.

Here is the complete list of the Top 20 Gay Friendly Colleges compiled by the Princeton Review:

1.) New College of Florida
2.) Macalester College
3.) Wellesley College
4.) Eugene Lang College/New School University
5.) Mount Holyoke College
6.) St. John's College (MD)
7.) Bryn Mawr College
8.) Lawrence University
9.) Emerson College
10.) Harvey Mudd College
11.) St. John's College (NM)
12.) Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering
13.) Wesleyan University
14.) Marlboro College
15.) Carleton College
16.) Smith College
17.) Haverford College
18.) Reed College
19.) Bard College
20.) Oberlin College

Posted by Bryan Harding

Legislation designed to prevent discrimination against LGBT individuals in political campaigns is one critical step away from becoming law -- a signature by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The State Senate approved Assembly Bill 866 Monday, authored by Speaker pro Tem Leland Yee (D-San Francisco/Daly City) on a 21-12 vote. The governor now has 12 days to sign or veto AB 866.

The legislation, sponsored by Equality California, would prohibit the use of any negative appeal based on prejudice against LGBT people by candidates or campaign committees who sign the voluntary pledge provided for in the Code of Fair Campaign Practices.

"I urge the governor to immediately sign this bill into law so we can move one step closer to ending anti-gay rhetoric in political campaigns," said Speaker pro Tem Yee. "Candidates should not discriminate and victimize the LGBT community for political purposes. Fostering campaigns that create fear and intimidation only incite a potentially dangerous situation for the LGBT community."

Currently, existing law establishes a Code of Fair Campaign Practices to which a candidate may voluntarily subscribe and provides a pledge by which the candidate declares that he or she will not use or permit any appeal to negative prejudice based on race, sex, religion, national origin, physical health status, or age. This Code of Fair Campaign Practices and a copy of the Elections Code provisions are required to be provided to candidates by the Registrar of Voters at the of a declaration of candidacy, nomination papers, or any other paper evidencing an intention to be a candidate for public office are issued.

Anti-gay rhetoric, which often comes in the form of political hate messages, has been directly connected to violence against gay and lesbian individuals. Incidents of violence against LGBT people have peaked in national elections years, such as in 2004 during the presidential campaign, in which lesbian and gay issues played an unprecedented role at both the national and local levels.

In 2003, when San Francisco became ground zero in the struggle over same-sex marriage rights, incidents of violence rose over 14 percent in the city.

"Sidelining ethics and integrity to garner votes is simply bad politics," said EQCA executive director Geoffrey Kors. "We cannot allow a few bad apples to hijack political campaigns and really cheapen the voting process with homophobia and anti-gay prejudice. Candidates must live up to a higher standard willing to represent all constituencies and communities."

In 1996, then Assemblymember Shelia Kuehl introduced nearly identical legislation (AB 2283), which failed in its first hearing on a 3-4 vote. This year's AB 866 has received far greater support; in fact, two Republicans joined 45 Democrats when the bill passed the Assembly in April.

"When I run for office, I want to be sure that I am judged on my knowledge, experience and integrity, and not viewed on stereotypes or hate," said Marina Gatto, a 16-year-old LGBT rights activist. "AB 866 is a common sense measure; it is an important and vital step towards equality, and it deserves the support of every legislator as well as everyone in our community."

via: Out in America

via SF Chronicle

San Francisco -- Lesbian and gay couples who plan for a family and raise a child together can be considered legal parents after a breakup, with all the rights and responsibilities of heterosexual parents, the California Supreme Court ruled today.

In three decisions that a gay-rights advocate described as historic, the court upheld the claims of motherhood by estranged lesbian partners who had been involved in relationships that resulted in children born by artificial insemination. The court noted that the three women had cooperated in conceiving and rearing the children in a family setting and, thus, had the right of parenthood under the law - from the privilege of visitation to the responsibility of child support payments.

"We perceive no reason why both parents of a child cannot be women," said Justice Carlos Moreno, author of all three rulings. He said the court's statement in a 1993 surrogate-parent case, that a child can have only one natural mother, was limited to situations in which fatherhood was established and two women - the surrogate mother and the father's wife who signed the surrogacy contract - had competing claims for motherhood.

Courts in other states have granted visitation and other parental rights to same-sex partners who had bonded with their child, ruling that such a nurturing adult may be considered a "psychological parent" even if not biologically related to the child. But today's rulings are the first in the nation to grant full parental status to both members of same-sex couples who participate in planning and rearing a child, said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights , which took part in all three cases.

"This is one of those moments of legal history in the making," Minter said. "The decisions are going to be important not just in California but across the country."

The rulings were issued three weeks after another gay-rights decision by the same court, prohibiting California businesses from discriminating against registered domestic partners as couples - for example, by granting memberships or discounts only to married couples.

Another case heading for the state's high court is a constitutional challenge to California laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, in suits filed by gay and lesbian couples and the city of San Francisco. That case would be derailed, however, if voters approve either of two proposed initiatives to lock the ban on same-sex marriage into the state Constitution and repeal newly established benefits for domestic partners.

Today's rulings apply to couples who never registered as domestic partners or who had broken up before this year, when a new law took effect that granted domestic partners most of the same rights as spouses. Those rights included the same parental status as opposite-sex couples in similar circumstances - rights that the court extended beyond domestic partners today.

In one case, partners Elisa Maria B. and Emily B. had children in 1997 and 1998, respectively, using the same sperm donor, and raised them together before separating in 1999. Elisa agreed to provide financial support whenever she could for her stay-at-home partner's twins - one of them seriously ill - but stopped making payments 18 months after the couple separated.

Reversing a lower-court ruling, the Supreme Court said Elisa was a legal parent of the children she had helped to plan and raise, and must reimburse El Dorado County for the welfare her partner was paid after she stopped receiving child support.

"We were doing everything we possibly could to form a family," Emily B. said at a news conference after the ruling. Noting that children of an opposite-sex couple would clearly have been entitled to support in the same situation, she said the court recognized the needs of "children who were invisible."

In a second case, the court said a Los Angeles woman, Kristine H., was bound by a pre-birth agreement she signed with her partner, Lisa Ann R., saying both would be parents of the child Kristine was carrying. Kristine opposed Lisa's request for visitation and custody after the couple separated two years later, but the court said Kristine had taken the benefits of the agreement and must accept the burdens.

Both those rulings were unanimous, but the court split 4-2 in a third case. A Marin County woman, K.M., donated eggs to her partner that were fertilized by an anonymous donor and resulted in the birth of twin girls in December 1995. The couple raised the children together for more than five years before separating, and the birth mother, E.G., took the twins to Massachusetts.

A state appeals court ruled last year that E.G. was the girls' sole parent, noting that K.M. had signed a prenatal agreement waiving parental rights. But the Supreme Court majority said the agreement - which K.M. claimed she signed under pressure - was not binding because K.M. was a biological parent and because the partners had intended to raise the children together.

In dissent, Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar said the ruling disregards the partners' intentions, violates E.G.'s right to choose to be a single parent, and calls into question the validity of many pre-birth agreements. One member of a couple who donates eggs to her partner may now be regarded as a parent in the future regardless of her intentions, Werdegar said.

The cases are Elisa B. vs. Superior Court, S125912; Kristine H. vs. Lisa R., S126945; and K.M. vs. E.G., S125643.