Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:29:34 -0800 From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [PEN-L] [Fwd: Join me in supporting marriage equality!]
while I was working out, it was a pleasure to watch Comedy Central's "Daily Show" with John Stewart. "Senior Moral Authority" Stephen Colbert said he opposed gay marriages. In fact, he and his current wife "got married because it was something that gays couldn't do." Now that gays were getting married, it takes the meaning out of his marriage and his two previous ones. When asked if this meant he was in favor of a constitutional amendment banning adultery, he said "get your jack-boots out of my bedrooms!"
How about a constitutional amendment banning divorce and Cole Porter? :->
***** Iowa judge takes heat for granting gay divorce Conservatives file legal challenge to dissolution of civil union By JOE CREA Friday, December 26, 2003
Socially conservative state lawmakers and religious officials are challenging an Iowa judge's decision to dissolve a lesbian couple's civil union by appealing to the state's Supreme Court.
The divorce, between Kimberly Brown, 31, and Jennifer Perez, 26, has caught the attention of gay rights opponents who say the ruling could open the door to Iowa recognizing same-sex marriages. Gay groups assert the ruling will not pose a challenge to the state's existing laws that have banned gay marriage since 1997.
"The extremist right would like to portray this as the back door to marriage - it is not," said David Buckel, an attorney with Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund. "We are going through the front door, with our heads held high, insisting on equality.
"A dissolution does not equal recognition," said Buckel.
Paul Cates, director of public education for the American Civil Liberties Union, agreed, saying that the divorce was not a challenge to the state's Defense of Marriage Act "but merely "recognizing a need for a court to get a gay couple out of a relationship."
Brown and Perez, both of Sioux City, entered into a civil union in Vermont in March 2002. Their divorce was granted Nov. 14 in Woodbury County District Court. Their attorney, Dennis Ringgenberg, did not return Blade calls seeking comment.
Chuck Hurley, president of the Iowa Family Policy Center, questioned whether Judge Jeffrey Neary "fulfilled his duty" by granting the divorce. . . .
"I'm not out here crusading for anything or anybody. I'm dealing with the legal problem," Neary said. "I don't make decisions about social agendas or morality issues; it just wouldn't be fair to the multitude of people I serve."
Neary did not return Blade calls.
The Iowa Liberty & Justice Center, the legal arm of the Iowa Family Policy Center, filed an appeal on behalf of six Iowa legislators, two state religious leaders and U.S. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). The parties are arguing "couples who are civilly united are not married under Iowa law" and that Vermont law defines "marriage as the legally recognized union of one man and one woman."
Dwight Dinkla, executive director of the Iowa Bar Association, said his organization does not comment on pending legislation but said he was unaware if the writ had been served.
Calls to the Iowa Supreme Court were not returned.
Civil unions vs. gay marriage
Hurley said that he felt "fairly confident" about the appeal citing the case of Susan Freer, a Georgia lesbian who lost custody of her children in January 2001 when her ex-husband accused her of violating a consent decree signed during their 1998 divorce as a legal precedent. Under the voluntary decree, both husband and wife agreed not to visit their children "during any time where [one] cohabits with or has overnight stays with any adult" to whom they are not legally married. Freer thought she was legally protected through her Vermont civil union with her female partner. Both a Floyd County Superior Court and the Georgia Court of Appeals disagreed.
A few other states are also seeing similar legal challenges to civil unions performed out of state. An Indiana lesbian couple is facing the end of their Vermont-based civil union. And similar cases are cropping up in Connecticut, Texas and West Virginia.
Activists say that because of the legal ambiguities that come with civil unions, such a case underscores the need for gay men and lesbians to fight for marriage rights.
"Civil unions don't come close to being what marriage is," Buckel said. "If we are going to have integrity as citizens of this country, we must proceed with clarity that we must have the options that heterosexuals have. Civil unions, domestic partnerships - they all should be on the table. Marriage does not knock the others out." . . .
<http://www.washblade.com/2003/12-26/news/national/iowajudge.cfm> *****
***** Gay Divorce Under DOMA by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff Posted: October 16, 2003 11:18 a.m. ET
(Spokane, Washington) Can a state that has legislation barring the recognition of same-sex couples impose 'community property' rules on gay couples when they break up? That is the question a Washington state appeals court will have to determine.
When the 10-year relationship between Julia Robertson and Linda Gormley ended last year Gormley went to court seeking a division of assets. In November Superior Court Judge Heather Van Nuys ruled that the couple's relationship was "sufficiently marriagelike to provide equitable relief."
In her ruling Van Nuys called the couple's relationship an "intimate domestic partnership," allowing both women the same property rights given to a husband and wife in a divorce.
Van Nuys said the women must divide their assets equally -- a decision that amounted to a divorce in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage. Washington has a Defense of Marriage Act in place that also prevents recognition of domestic partners.
Robertson, a physician, is asking the Washington State Court of Appeals to overturn the ruling based on DOMA. Her lawyer, Bryan Myre, argued that Robertson made significantly more money than Gormley who is a nurse, and "contributed the majority of income and assets to this relationship."
"Miss Gormley requested not what she put into the relationship, but one half of everything."
But, Howard Schwartz, who represents Gormley, argued that Van Nuys had ruled correctly.
"The trial court did what was just and equitable," he said. "The trial court did what was fair."
Schwartz points to a state Supreme Court decision last May which said that a Seattle man's 30-year same-sex relationship was enough like a marriage to grant him a share of his deceased partner's estate.
<http://www.365gay.com/newscontent/101603divorceCourt.htm> *****
***** Split decision A Texas judge grants a "gay divorce," giving the first legal recognition to civil unions outside Vermont From The Advocate, April 15, 2003
Divorce is seldom a cause for celebration, but a case in Beaumont, Tex., has turned out to be about much more than a breakup. The divorce, which was granted March 3 by district court judge Tom Mulvaney, is very likely the first legal recognition of civil unions outside Vermont.
Mulvaney's decree dissolved the Vermont civil union between Russell Smith, 26, and John Anthony, 34, which was granted in February 2002. Smith, who filed the petition, said getting the divorce in Texas was strenuous. But getting the union dissolved in Vermont would have required that either he or Anthony live in that state for at least a year.
Smith's case is not the first to test the civil unions law. In 2001 a Georgia woman asked that her union be recognized so she could regain custody of her children. And the following year a Connecticut man asked to have his union dissolved. But courts in both those cases turned down the requests on the grounds that same-sex civil unions were not valid outside of Vermont.
Smith's attorney, Ronnie Cohee, said her legal justification in the Beaumont case relied on the U.S. Constitution's "full faith and credit clause," which requires states to recognize marriages and other contracts from other states. Circumventing that clause was in part the right-wing motivation for the "defense of marriage" acts enacted by the U.S. government and a majority of states, which prohibit recognition of marriages between same-sex couples. Texas, however, is not one of those states. Although state law refers to "husband" and "wife" when talking about marriage, it refers to "parties" when discussing dissolution, Cohee said. . . .
<http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/887/887_gaydivorce.asp> ***** -- Yoshie
* Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>
