Gay sex ruling: HC judge accused of judicial impropriety in India
NEW DELHI: A Supreme Court advocate has raised the issue of “judicial impropriety” on the part of Justice S Murlidhar, who had sat on the bench that delivered the judgment in the ‘gay sex’ case.
In two separate letters written to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court Justice A P Shah and Members of Parliament, the advocate Janak Raj Jai contended that Justice Murlidhar had himself filed a writ petition in 1994 as a lawyer in the high court seeking quashing of Section 377 of the IPC.
When contacted, Justice Murlidhar’s secretary said the judge was aware of the letter (of the advocate) but had no comments to make.
Jai said Justice Murlidhar had appeared as intervenor in the original writ petition on behalf of an organisation “AIDS Bedhav Virodhi Andolan.”
“Propriety demands that a judge who had been an advocate in a similar case, should not have heard the present petition (Naz Foundation) challenging parts of Section 377 IPC,” the letter, written by Jai to the Chief Justice three days before the judgment was delivered, stated.
In his letter, Jai had sought deferring of the judgment and pleaded that the matter be posted before another bench. See Gay sex ruling: HC judge accused of judicial impropriety
Times of India
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/gay-sex-rulin…
Law Extends Parental Rights for Gays
Lesbians in the District no longer will need the written consent of their partners to adopt children born to their partners through artificial insemination, under a new law that took effect Saturday.
The name of a consenting spouse or unmarried partner will appear on the child’s birth certificate as the legal parent, a status that previously had to be obtained by same-sex parents through a complicated adoption process.
The Domestic Partnership Judicial Determination Parentage Act of 2009 puts the city out front when it comes to children born of same-sex parents, according to the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington (GLAA) and American University law professor Nancy Polikoff.
See Law Extends Parental Rights for Gays
Washington Post
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/law-extends-p…
Religious groups in India have warned they will…
Religious groups in India have warned they will oppose any move to legalize homosexuality as the federal government prepares to hold talks on a law that classifies same-sex acts as crimes.
India’s Hindu nationalist main opposition has in the meantime called for a national debate on the legislation that law minister M. Veerappa Moily last week said would come up for a discussion within the government.
“This is a sensitive issue and warrants a debate within the Indian society at large before arriving at any decision,” said Sidharth Nath Singh, spokesman for the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party.
An Indian court is due to give its judgment on a petition filed by a nonprofit group that has challenged the anti-gay provision of the penal code.
In a news conference last week, Moily refused to spell out his government’s stand on it because it awaits judicial determination. But his comments that the federal home minister was “contemplating” a meeting with his Cabinet colleagues on the law drew widespread coverage in the largely conservative country.
“Hope floats at rainbow parades,” read a caption on a front-page picture from a gay parade in New Delhi in Monday’s Times of India newspaper.
Participants in that march demanded repeal of Section 377 of the penal code, which criminalizes private consensual sex between adults of the same gender in the country. 
Watch a New Delhi march in support of gay rights »
Religious leaders, however, oppose any suggestion to scrap 377, describing homosexuality as “unnatural.”
“We are against calling homosexuality a criminal activity, but we are certainly in principle against legalizing it, because that would mean the state endorsing same-sex relationships,” said Babu Joseph, spokesman for the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India.
Homosexuality “violates fundamental norms of a family,” he said.
See India faith leaders: Anti-gay law must stay CNN International
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/religious-gro…
The cost of gay marriage – in dollars and cents
Provincetown, Mass. – Maghi Geary might have some peculiar advice for Californians: Gay marriage is good for business. The co-owner of Provincetown Florist has 20 to 30 weddings booked this summer, and the reason for that decent return is evident in the next customer who walks through the door – a lesbian couple from Kansas desperately in need of some carnations for their wedding.
Tuesday, the California Supreme Court made the most recent in a series of legislative and judicial decisions on gay marriage nationwide: It upheld Proposition 8, a measure that bans gay marriage in the state. But here in Massachusetts, gay marriage has been legal since 2003, and in Provincetown, more than 2,000 same-sex couples have tied the knot since then.
In some ways, this farthest fingernail of Cape Cod is emblematic of the economics of gay marriage: a big impact, but only at the margins.
Massachusetts estimates that gay marriage has added money to its coffers – but only about $37 million a year, or less than 1 percent of the annual state budget.
In the private sector, the wedding industry could grow by more than $16 billion if gay marriage were expanded to all 50 states, according to a 2004 study by Forbes magazine.
But Massachusetts’ experience suggests that money would be concentrated in cities with a significant gay population, like Provincetown. See The cost of gay marriage – in dollars and cents Christian Science Monitor
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/cost-of-gay-m…
LA Times Editorial: A court battle California doesn’t need
The Supreme Court’s ruling last week in the case of a grandiosely unethical West Virginia justice opened a new field of constitutional review — the high court may now consider when an elected state court jurist has been so tainted by politics that due process requires him to recuse himself from a case.
In West Virginia, a coal executive spent more than $3 million to unseat a sitting state Supreme Court justice; it was money well spent, as the justice was defeated by voters and replaced by Brent Benjamin. Benjamin then did what was expected of him and cast a deciding vote in overturning a $50-million jury award against the executive’s coal company.
Indeed, California has wrestled with this problem before — and quite possibly could again.
California’s system for selecting Supreme Court justices is much better than West Virginia’s. Candidates for the court here are nominated by the governor, confirmed by a state commission and then placed on the bench. They must periodically stand for retention, but they are not, as they are in West Virginia, subject to direct challenge by rival candidates. A retention election can cost a justice his or her seat, but it does not let voters kick out one justice and install their own replacement.
California’s rules have helped balance the judiciary’s independence with the public’s fair insistence on accountability, but even this state’s reasonable retention process has been subject to tilt. Most notable was the 1986 retention election that removed Chief Justice Rose Bird and two associate justices, Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin. Much reflection has gone into that race in the decades since, and opinions differ on its merits. Two truths, however, stand the test of deep inquiry: The forces arrayed against Bird were not motivated solely by her opposition to the death penalty — that was cover for a second complaint, which was her defense of consumer rights against corporate power — and Reynoso and Grodin were victims of a special-interest crusade against a vulnerable chief.
Would that we could relegate that episode to California’s history. In fact, the state rumbles with discontent over its high court and chief, and those stirrings contain alarming echoes of the battle of 1986.
At issue are the court’s rulings on same-sex marriage and Proposition 8, and its chief justice, Ronald M. George. In May 2008, the court overturned the state’s ban on gay marriage, striking a victory for civil rights in the grandest tradition of constitutional protection of minorities. A few months later, after voters approved Proposition 8 and amended the state Constitution to ban the same institution that the court had upheld, George and his colleagues upheld the amendment. Both times, George wrote for the majority. He thus angered opponents of gay marriage in 2008 and supporters of it in 2009.
By California’s rules, George faces a retention election in 2010, and some predict that he could face challenges from either side — or even both — in this polarizing debate.
That would be a shame for the state’s judiciary, an unfortunate attack on judicial independence and an unfair castigation of one of this state’s most principled and admirable public officials. In the gay-marriage cases, George’s votes demonstrated conscience, professionalismand restraint. He voted to uphold same-sex unions out of the strong conviction — which this page shares — that the Constitution does not allow society to deny the protection of marriage to gay couples any more than it once denied it to those united across race. The ruling was right on the law, and will certainly be validated over the long march of history.
Months later, voters tacked in the other direction, narrowly rejecting gay marriage and amending the Constitution to allow California to recognize only the unions of heterosexual couples. That was challenged, naturally, and the lawsuit offered the court the opportunity to extend its earlier ruling, though on shaky constitutional grounds — advocates for same-sex marriage argued that Proposition 8 was such an affront to the rights of Californians that it revised the Constitution rather than merely amending it. Scholars split on the merits of that argument, and although the strong consensus of legal opinion rejectedit, an opportunistic justice might have seized the chance to solidify his legacy.
Instead, George subordinated his politics — as evidenced by his writing — to the weight of constitutional opinion. He voted to uphold the proposition, even though it undid his own work. Permitted latitude within the strictures of the Constitution in the first case, George was able to vote his conscience; bound by the Constitution in the second case, he yielded.
Such is the lot of a principled judicial officer, but those concerned only with results already have signaled their unhappiness with George. The moneyed interests that supported Proposition 8 last fall are considering whether to finance a campaign against George next year. Supporters of gay marriage, who championed his heroism in 2008, were bitterly disappointed when the court upheld the hateful initiative.
This is not West Virginia. Corporate interests are not knocking off justices who disagree with them and seating more accommodating replacements. But intimidation has no place in our judicial life any more than it does in Appalachia. The 1986 campaign against Bird and her colleagues now stands for many as a reminder that well-intentioned systems of accountability may be hijacked by special interests, a lesson learned too often and at great cost in California. It was misguided in its first iteration; it would be regrettable in its second.
See A court battle California doesn’t need
Los Angeles Times -
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/la-times-edit…
In RI, some wary as tide of gay marriage rises
PROVIDENCE – From a cramped office in the middle of the smallest state in the nation, Christopher Plante is determined to prove that Rhode Island has not been cornered by the advance of same-sex marriage across the rest of New England.
“When I look at a real map of the United States, we’re actually not alone here,” said Plante, executive director of the Rhode Island chapter of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex unions. “This is not the United States of New England.”
But supporters and even some opponents expect that Rhode Island will legalize same-sex marriage, although they say that legalization is two or three years away.
Massachusetts and Connecticut legalized same-sex marriage as a result of judicial decisions in 2003 and 2008, while Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire followed this spring by legislative action.
The slower pace in Rhode Island, where the state Senate voted last week to allow same-sex partners to make funeral arrangements, has frustrated some local activists, many of whom rallied outside the State House in Providence last weekend to call for immediate equality.
But others say that legalization by 2012, a goal advocates set last year for securing same-sex marriage in all New England states, would put Rhode Island at the front of the pack nationally. In the rest of the country, only Iowa allows same-sex couples to marry.
“They still have a chance to be part of the vanguard,” said attorney Karen L. Loewy, the Rhode Island point person for GLAD, which won the lawsuits in Massachusetts and Connecticut that legalized same-sex marriage in those states. “Rhode Island is well on its way.”
See In RI, some wary as tide of gay marriage rises
Boston Globe
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/in-ri-some-wa…
Sen. Jeff Sessions Irked By Lesbian Mom’s Crying Child: “Enough With The Histrionics” (VIDEO)
Yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee had a hearing on the Uniting American Families Act, a bill that will “amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate discrimination in the immigration laws by permitting permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status in the same manner as spouses of citizens and lawful permanent residents and to penalize immigration fraud in connection with permanent partnerships.” Of course, some of the discrimination that the bill would eliminate would benefit same-sex couples, so, CONTROVERSY!
One of the people who testified in support of the bill was a woman named Shirley Tan, who is in a same-sex relationship and thus caught in the crosshairs of existing law. The New Republic‘s James Kirchick documents her circumstances thusly:
Testifying was Shirley Tan, a Fillipino woman who has been with her American partner for 23 years. Together, they are raising twelve-year-old twin boys. She originally left the Phillipines after suffering a violent attack from a man who murdered her mother and sister (one of the reasons why Tan does not want to return to her native country, aside from the fact that her partner and children live in the U.S., is that the man who brutalized her has since been released from prison.) Tan was originally scheduled to be deported on April 3rd, but won a reprieve after Senator Diane Feinstein introduced a private bill allowing her to stay in the country temporarily.
Almost right from the start of Tan’s testimony, one of Tan’s young children started crying. The committee chairman, Pat Leahy, paused the testimony and offered the child some measure of comfort. According to Kirchick, these kindly sentiments were not shared by everyone on the committee:
For most people, the sight of a 12-year-old boy in tears at the prospect of his mother being deported halfway around the world would invoke some sympathy. Unmoved, however, was Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions, ranking minority member of the Committee and the only Republican to bother to attend the hearing. At the sight of the weeping boy, according to a Senate staffer who was at the hearing, Sessions leaned towards one of his aides and sighed, “Enough with the histrionics.” Sessions’s press secretary did not return a call seeking comment.
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/jeff-sessions…
Wisconsin Trial Court Dismisses ACLU Lawsuit Seeking Domestic Partner Benefits For Lesbian and Gay State Employees
The Court’s opinion states: “The plaintiffs have offered a strong showing that the employment benefits in issue have been provided on a discriminatory basis. The defendants’ explanations offered for the continuing discrimination against these plaintiffs are unpersuasive and inadequate.”
“Losing doesn’t get any better than this,” said Larry Dupuis, Litigation Director of the ACLU. “We knew we had an uphill battle in the trial court because of the earlier case. But the court agreed with us that discrimination based on sexual orientation should be subject to strict judicial review and that it is unconstitutional for the state to deny equal benefits.”
The Court also found that providing the benefits would not be barred by the anti-gay marriage amendment that passed in 2006. After the amendment passed, the state had argued that the amendment barred the state from providing the benefits.
The ACLU filed the lawsuit in April 2005 on behalf of six lesbian state employees and their partners. The lawsuit charges that it is a violation of the state’s equal protection guarantees to deny lesbian and gay state employees access to the same health insurance and family leave protections that it provides to straight employees who are able to cover their spouses. The lawsuit was stalled for years because a number of Wisconsin municipalities tried to inject themselves into the lawsuit. The issue ultimately went up to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which ruled that they were not entitled to become a party to the litigation.
“While we are heartened by the court’s decision, we urge the legislature to pass the domestic partner bill so there will be no need to appeal,” added Chris Ahmuty, Executive Director of the ACLU of Wisconsin. “Our clients are forced to pay expensive prices for inferior health coverage and sometimes even to forego necessary care. They suffer every day this issue goes unresolved.”
Wisconsin Department of Corrections employee Jayne Dunnum and her partner, Robin Timm, pay nearly $450 a month for private insurance for Timm who works on the couple’s organic farm and food store in Platteville. “We don’t care if it happens through the courts or the legislature. We just really need the health insurance coverage,” said Dunnum. “It’s a matter of basic fairness. I work just as hard has my straight colleagues and shouldn’t be denied the equal employment benefits.”
The case is Dunnum v. Department of Employee Trust Funds. The couples are represented by John Knight and Rose Saxe of the ACLU’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project, Larry Dupuis of the ACLU of Wisconsin, and cooperating attorneys Linda Roberson and Christopher Krimmer of the Madison law firm Balisle & Roberson.
Biographical information for all of the couples, today’s decision, the complaint, and additional information are available at http://www.aclu.org/getequal/caseprofiles.htm.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/wisconsin-tri…
Senate to Hold First-Ever Hearing Addressing Anti-Gay Discrimination in U.S. Immigration Law
June 3rd Judiciary Hearing Will Debate Uniting American Families Act
The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold its first-ever hearing on The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), a bill to end discrimination against lesbian and gay Americans in U.S. immigration law and allow lesbian and gay citizens to sponsor their partners for residency in the United States.
The hearing was scheduled by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the lead Senate sponsor of UAFA. Witnesses will include binational couples who have been separated, or face separation, because of discriminatory U.S. immigration law.
An estimated 36,000 binational couples are affected by U.S. laws prohibiting gay and lesbian Americans from sponsoring their partners for residency. Countless lesbian and gay families, including many with children, are torn apart by U.S. immigration law, or are forced to leave the United States to remain together. While 19 other nations allow lesbian and gay citizens to sponsor their partners, the United States continues to discriminate against tens of thousands of families. As the nation prepares to consider immigration reform, the Judiciary Committee hearing will provide an important opportunity for lawmakers to hear from some of those families.
The session is set for Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 10:00 a.m. in Room 226 – Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/senate-to-hol…
California court upholds marriage ban; existing unions still legal
The California Supreme Court today upheld a ballot measure that amended the state Constitution to deny marriage rights to lesbians and gays. But the ruling did confirm the legality of 18,000 California marriages that were conducted between the time of a previous judicial order and the November election. Los Angeles Times (5/26) , ABC News (5/26) , San Jose Mercury News (Calif.)
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/california-co…
