Australian lawmakers have approved legislation giving homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexuals but have ruled out legalizing same-sex marriages.
The Senate passed amendments late Monday to around 100 family, health and taxation laws that give homosexual couples access to the same services as opposite-sex couples living together in “de facto,” or common-law, relationships.
Among the major changes, the reforms allow homosexuals family benefits under the state-run health care program, and to leave their retirement benefits to their partners if they die. They also confer parental rights on gay and lesbian couples with children.
The legislation now goes to House of Representatives where it is expected to pass….
Read the full story by Meraiah Foley in the New York Times.
The first in a series of gay-rights bills being pushed for the 2009 legislative session cleared a committee Wednesday, but not without drawing staunch opposition from conservative activists….
Sen. Scott McCoy, D-Salt Lake City, wants to amend state law so that financial dependents — besides spouses, parents and children — could sue if a breadwinner suffers a wrongful death. The measure could be used by same-sex couples and other nontraditional households, such as one in which a grandmother relies on a grandson for financial support. Unlike spouses, parents and children, a wrongful-death designee would have to prove a financially dependent relationship with the victim to go to court….
But five foes of gay marriage, including Eagle Forum President Gayle Ruzicka, lined up to urge the committee to thwart the bill….
Read the full story by Rosemary Winters in The Salt Lake Tribune.
…Today, the first of a series of six bills — proposed by Democratic lawmakers and endorsed by gay-rights groups — faces the Senate Judiciary Interim Committee. The leadoff legislation would allow someone to name an unmarried partner as a designee in the case of a wrongful death.
Together, the bills make up the so-called Common Ground Initiative, which also includes proposals for a statewide domestic-partner registry, health benefits for gay couples and partial repeal of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. The initiative marks a bold move in a state where the Republican-dominated Legislature has fought gay student clubs, stopped gay couples from adopting children and barred any domestic unions that would give same-sex couples rights traditionally granted to married couples….
Read the full story by Rosemary Winters in the Salt Lake Tribune.
…What happened in California reflects the kind of backlash that can occur when the courts get too far out ahead of public opinion on an issue, particularly one fraught with cultural and religious connotations. In May, the state Supreme Court opened the door to same-sex marriage. Last Tuesday, California voters approved a constitutional amendment (Proposition 8) slamming it shut.
Proposition 8 passed with the help of a costly, fear-mongering campaign mounted by fundamentalist churches, which hold that homosexuality is a sin as defined in the Bible. A high turnout of African Americans who were for Obama but against gay marriage helped put the ban over the top….
The election results in California and elsewhere provide valuable insights into where the nation stands and on how best to proceed. For now, that points toward civil unions, which grant the same state benefits, civil rights and protections to same-sex couples as to married couples….
Read the entire editorial in USA Today.
…Leaders of Equality Utah said statements made by Mormon leaders in defense of their actions in California — that the church was not antigay and had no problem with legal protections for gay men and lesbians already on the books in California — were going to be taken as an endorsement to expand legal rights that gay and lesbian couples have never remotely had in Utah, where the church is based….
State Senator Scott McCoy, an openly gay Democrat who said he would sponsor the legislation with two openly lesbian members of the House of Representatives, said part of the goal was to find a positive outlet for the tensions that arose here as the fight raged over the California measure….
No attempt will be made, he and other Equality Utah members said, to overturn Utah’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, passed in 2004. The group will propose, however, striking out language in the amendment that prohibits legal protections for domestic unions.
The proposed laws would also expand protections for same-sex couples in health care and hospitalization decisions, housing and employment and in inheritance issues in probate court.
Read the full story by Kirk Johnson in the New York Times.
…[G]iven that the federal government views same-sex married couples as perfect strangers, ineligible for the many federal rights given to opposite-sex married couples, the question for gay couples is this: Is it worth it to tie the knot?
For many couples, the answer is a resounding yes: the word “married” itself instantly conveys something that civil unions and domestic partnerships do not.
Yet purely from a financial perspective, it’s hard to come to any sweeping conclusions. For couples living in states that offer marriage or civil unions — which provide many of the same rights as marriage — it definitely makes sense for them to be married if they have children, according to financial planners and estate planning lawyers. Those who make their relationship official may pay significantly less in state estate taxes. They will also gain important privileges, including hospital visitation rights and the ability to make medical decisions for a partner in emergencies.
Still, the many rights that marriage confers vaporize the moment couples step into a state that does not recognize their unions….
Read the full story by Tara Siegel Bernard in the New York Times.
When Californians vote on Proposition 8, they’ll decide whether same-sex partners’ right to marry will still exist as of 12:01 a.m. Wednesday. What’s less clear is the impact on as many as 16,000 gay and lesbian couples who have wed since June.
Some legal commentators say Prop. 8, if passed Tuesday, would retroactively invalidate all same-sex marriages performed in the state since a state Supreme Court ruling legalizing such weddings took effect. Others say the court established rights that can’t be taken away, even if the law changes….
Read the full story by Bob Egelko at the San Francisco Chronicle.
If California voters take a stand in favor of same-sex marriage Nov. 4, it could ignite a fresh debate over another hard-won gay right — domestic partnerships.
The question would be: Should gay and lesbian couples retain the domestic partnership option when that’s not available to most heterosexual couples?
“It’s a very significant and compelling legal issue,” said Brad Sears, executive director of the Williams Institute, which focuses on sexual orientation law and public policy at UCLA….
Read the full story by Michael Gardner at the San Diego Union-Tribune.
For years, Beth Kerrigan tried to talk herself out of being gay….
But over time, acceptance found its way into Kerrigan’s life. She found a soul mate. Her family eventually came around, accepting Kerrigan’s longtime partner, Jody Mock, and their 6-year-old twin boys.
And now, with its historic ruling Friday legalizing same-sex marriage, the state Supreme Court says they can marry….
Read the full story by Alaine Griffin in The Hartford Courant.
The Connecticut Supreme Court finally ended a protracted period of suspense that began on May 14, 2007, when the case was argued, announcing on October 10, 2008, that it had voted 4-3 in favor of the claim that same-sex couples have the same right to marry under the state’s constitution as different-sex couples. Justice Richard N. Palmer, writing for the court, found that the state’s 2005 Civil Union Act, which provides same-sex couples with access to all the state-law rights of married different-sex couples, failed the state constitution’s requirement of equal protection of the laws….
In the California marriage cases, the court decided that the marriage law’s exclusion of same-sex couples discriminated regarding a fundamental right - the right to marry - and involved a suspect classification - sexual orientation. As a result, it fell under strict scrutiny and the state’s arguments in support of the law were unavailing.
The Connecticut court was not willing to go that far, but the majority concluded that the law does discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and that gay people should be regarded as a “quasi-suspect class” under the state’s constitution, thus putting the burden on the state to justify excluding them from the right to marry….
The court’s decision concludes with an order to send the case back to the trial court, with directions to grant summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The court’s opinion did not expressly state when and how the ruling would be implemented, so we await word from experts on Connecticut procedure. However, Connecticut has the practice of releasing opinions long in advance of their official effective date. As this opinion is designated as officially released on October 28, the remand to the trial court does not go into effect until then.
Read the entire blog entry by Prof. Arthur Leonard at Leonard Link.
Which party runs the state legislature? Watching the Republican state chairman debate his Democratic counterpart on gay issues last week, you could’ve been confused.
GOP Chairman Chris Healy got socked with hardball questions from a frustrated crowd at the New Haven Gay & Lesbian Community Center. Why won’t you legalize gay marriage, the crowd demanded? Why won’t you force employers to extend benefits to same-sex partners?
Healy let out heavy sighs. He slumped in his chair. My party’s not in charge, he reminded the crowd repeatedly. The Democrats are the ones with the veto-proof majorities in the House and Senate. You got a problem? Take it up with them….
Read the entire column by Andy Bromage in the Fairfield Weekly.
Orlando is moving ahead with a plan to extend health benefits to city workers with a same-sex partner.
On Monday, the city council approved the change, which extends benefits if a couple signs an affidavit swearing they are committed and other paperwork….
Read the full story at Central Florida News 13.
Citing the Adam Sandler film, “I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry,” Howard Weizmann of the Office of Personnel Management, stated that the Bush Administration opposes legislation to extend benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees because it “could lead to fraud and abuse.”
According to the Washington Post, Weizmann’s opening statement at the Senate’s Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee hearing “took no position on the bill, though it certainly had nothing good to say about it. When Lieberman, the committee chairman, asked if the OPM had a position, Weizmann said no. After getting a note from a colleague, he reversed himself 10 minutes later, stating the administration’s opposition.”
“Maybe it changed during the course of this hearing, I’m not sure,” Weizmann said.
Read the full story by Joe Davidson in the Washington Post.
Groups traditionally opposed to gay and lesbian rights Thursday criticized the state commission assigned to monitor New Jersey civil unions, saying the overseers are using their position to push for gay marriages.
A commission member dismissed the complaints.
“It is not a commission but an advocacy group,” said Patrick Brannigan, executive director of the New Jersey Catholic Conference, speaking of the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission….
“Marriage is for one man and one woman,” said Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council….
Read the full story by Tom Baldwin at the Daily Record.
Shadow attorney-general George Brandis has moved to distance the Coalition from the conservative social policies of the Howard era and pledged support for Labor reforms to eliminate discrimination against same-sex couples.
The Government wants to alter 85 pieces of federal law to remove discrimination against same-sex and de facto couples in superannuation, health, social security and tax.
While the Coalition has previously expressed general support for the changes, Liberals have taken issue with the wording of the legislation, and suggested the reforms could undermine marriage and legitimise polygamy.
The Coalition has also called for the changes to be broadened to include interdependent partnerships — non-sexual relationships such as two elderly sisters — a group Labor said should be dealt with separately.
But in an interview published this week in the gay newspaper Sydney Star Observer, Senator Brandis said the Coalition would support the changes — including a bill that passed the House of Representatives this week, that would alter 68 pieces of Commonwealth law — even if its amendments were defeated….
Read the full story by Dan Harrison in The Age.