Citing law, city reluctantly argues for release of gay employees’ names

Anti--rights wants of city-sponsored club

As for all sides prepare to square off in court, the City of and a self-described “ leader” seeking the release of the of and city workers involved in a city-sponsored club have lined up on the same side of the issue.

In separate , the city and the City Light employee requesting the records argue that the state public-records requires that the city release the records. City of employees associated with the department’s , , , , Questioning and Club have asked the court to order the city not to release their .

Reiterating statements made by Seattle City Attorney Tom Carr shortly after the suit was filed, for the city now assert, reluctantly, that the records requested by City Light employee Philip Irvin.

“The city sympathizes with the concerns that have expressed,” Gary T. Smith said in . “Nonetheless, the city believes that the Public Records obligates it to disclose the records at issue.”

Irvin, who claims he’s been barred from attending LGBTQF because he is and opposed to rights, has requested that the city release the of employees belonging to or attending the Public Utilities-sponsored group.

According to the city’s filing, the department sponsors eight such “affinity” for employees “with similar concerns.” Included in the array are for employees of different ages or , including European. Each group is provided with up to $1,000 annually for , and are allowed to spend two work hours a month toward .

In arguing that the records should be released, for the city assert that earlier appeals- have shown that employee information must be released even if it could result in . The city cites a 2002 case in which King County was ordered by the state to release a list of sheriff’s .

for the assert that the employees’ identities are not releasable under the law, in part because they are of no legitimate public interest.

See Citing law, city reluctantly argues for release of gay employees

Post Intelligencer

* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual

Published by&; Published by xFruits

: http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/citing-law-ci…

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In DC, Judge Asked to Block GAY MARRIAGE Decision

of filed a lawsuit in D.C. yesterday hoping to force a on whether to recognize same- marriages performed in other .

The against the District’ of and asks Judge Judith E. Retchin to overturn an ruling Monday that blocked a to put the issue before the voters. Citing a District prohibiting votes on matters covered under the 1977 , which against men, and other minority , the board said that a would “authorize .”

The asked for an expedited hearing. If the court or does not intervene, recognition of same- marriages performed elsewhere will become law early next month, at the end of the required congressional review period.

See GAY MARRIAGE Judge Asked to Block Decision

* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual

Published by&; Published by xFruits

: http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/in-dc-judge-a…

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Christian group sues for right to burn gay teen novel

n a scene which appears to have been lifted straight out of ’s , a group of in Wisconsin has launched a demanding the right to publicly burn a copy of a book for which they deem to be “explicitly vulgar, racial [], and anti-Christian”.

The offending book is ’s Baby Be-Bop, a young in which a boy, struggling with his , is beaten up by a gang. The complaint, which according to the also demands $120,000 (£72,000) in compensatory for being to the book in a display at , was lodged by from the Christian .

Their suit says that “the , all of whom are , claim their mental and emotional well-being was damaged by this book at the library,” and that it contains that could “put one’s life in possible , and children alike.”

“The word ‘’ is very derogatory and slanderous to all males,” the suit continues. “Using the word ‘’ is dangerously offensive, disrespectful to all . These words can permeate .” The suit also claims that the book “constitutes a , and that it degrades the community”.

“They’ve filed a claim against the and the city has to decide if it is valid,” said Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director of the ALA’s office for intellectual . “Their company is evaluating the claim, but I would be very surprised if they found any merit in it … Should they find any merit in this claim, we would certainly support the library in fighting it.”

The follows a by some West Bend residents to restrict access to they deemed sexually explicit from , which was eventually thrown out at the start of June.

“Obviously we were really pleased with the outcome to that – there was a unanimous to keep the books in the library and we thought the matter should be over,” said Larry Siems, director of the to Write programme at PEN America.

Siems said there was clearly “a bit of theatre” in the lawsuit which followed. “They’ve filed a lawsuit which has little possibility of going forward legally, and they’re asking for which include the right to burn a book. It does seem more to gain publicity than a real serious challenge.” But, he said, PEN remained very concerned about the impulse behind the claim. “This is a group of trying aggressively to rid the library of these books and that’s very serious - it needs to be fought.”

The claimants, he said, “have a right to continue to their views, and this in a way is a creative to those views”. But it’s “also a dangerous when you’re talking about something like book burning, calling on the law to burn books. It’s certainly completely un-American, and if they paused, I think they would agree.”

It was not possible to reach the Christian for comment.

See Christian group sues for right to burn gay teen novel .co.uk

* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual

Published by&; Published by xFruits

: http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/christian-gro…

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

CA Supreme Court Upholds Student Civil Rights Act

(Sacramento, June 1, 2009) –Today, a Sacramento dismissed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate SB 777, the , which prohibits against students on the basis of race, , , gender, and . The lawsuit was brought by a right-wing group that specifically objected to protections for , , and students. The court held that the had failed to show any way in which the statute was even allegedly unlawful.

“We are pleased the court rejected this attack on the Student ,” said Carolyn Laub, -Straight . “School should be for all children, including those who are—or are perceived to be—, , , or .”

The lawsuit was filed on November 5, 2008. State Jack O’Connell, represented by California , filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on January 8, 2009. On March 19, 2009, the National Center for Rights, , the Law Center, California, and -Straight filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the motion to dismiss.

777 into law on October 12, 2007. SB 777 reinforced existing anti- protections in publicly-funded schools and updated the Code so that teachers and administrators do not have to cross-reference other parts of state law to understand their obligations to protect students from and in all school activities. The bill was sponsored by California, the state’s legislative , and authored by former Senator Kuehl.

According to the 2001 California Healthy Kids , nearly 30 percent of in grades 7 to 11 report experiencing or based on their actual or perceived race, ethnicity, , , gender, or .

California () is the largest statewide , , , -rights advocacy in California. In the past , has strategically moved California from a state with extremely limited for individuals to a state with some of the most comprehensive civil-rights protections in the nation. has passed over of and continues to advance through legislative advocacy, public and . www.eqca.org

Published by&; Published by xFruits

: http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/ca-supreme-co…

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wisconsin Trial Court Dismisses ACLU Lawsuit Seeking Domestic Partner Benefits For Lesbian and Gay State Employees

But Issues Lengthy Decision Reasoning That It Is Unconstitutional For the State To Deny The Benefits
 
MADISON, WI – On Friday, a Wisconsin dismissed a lawsuit brought by the American on behalf of and their partners seeking domestic and protections. In a 46 page opinion, the court notes that although it believes it is unconstitutional for the state to continue to deny the employees equal coverage and protection, it is by a prior decision from the Wisconsin from 1992.
The Court’s opinion states: “The have offered a strong showing that the benefits in issue have been provided on a . The defendants’ explanations offered for the continuing against these are unpersuasive and inadequate.”
“Losing doesn’t get any better than this,” said Larry Dupuis, of the . “We knew we had an in the because of the earlier case. But the court agreed with us that based on should be subject to strict 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- amendment that passed in 2006. After the amendment passed, the state had argued that the amendment barred the state from providing the benefits.

The filed the lawsuit in 2005 on behalf of six and their partners. The that it is a violation of the state’s equal to deny and access to the same and 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 , which ruled that they were not entitled to become a party to the litigation.

 
Governor has repeatedly stated that he would like to provide and with equal coverage and included in his budget a for domestic coverage.

“While we are heartened by the court’s decision, we the legislature to pass the domestic bill so there will be no need to appeal,” added Chris Ahmuty, of the of Wisconsin. “Our clients are forced to pay expensive prices for inferior 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 , Robin Timm, pay nearly $450 a month for private 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 coverage,” said Dunnum. “It’s a matter of basic . I work just as hard has my straight and shouldn’t be denied the equal benefits.”

The case is Dunnum v. Department of Employee Trust Funds. The are represented by John Knight and Saxe of the ’s Project, Larry Dupuis of the of Wisconsin, and cooperating Linda Roberson and Christopher Krimmer of the Madison law firm Balisle &; Roberson.
Biographical information for all of the , today’s decision, the complaint, and additional information are available at http://www.aclu.org/getequal/caseprofiles.htm.

Published by&; Published by xFruits

: http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/wisconsin-tri…

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

ACLU Sues To Stop Tennessee Schools From Censoring Gay Educational Web Sites; Filtering Software Allows Anti-Gay Sites

NASHVILLE, TN – The American and the of Tennessee sued two districts in federal court today, charging the schools are unconstitutionally blocking students from accessing online information about , , and issues. Metropolitan Schools, and as many as 105 other school districts in Tennessee use to block Web sites containing pro- speech, but not Web sites touting so-called “reparative therapy” and “ex-” ministries. The “” filter is not used to block sites containing pornography, which are filtered under a different category, but it does block the sites of many well-known organizations including , Families, And of and (), the Straight Network () and Campaign ().

“Allowing access to Web sites that present one side of an issue while blocking sites that present the other side is illegal viewpoint ,” said Catherine Crump, a with the and attorney on the case. “This discriminatory does nothing to make students safe from material that may actually be harmful, but only hurts them by making it impossible to access important educational material.”

The school districts block the Internet filtering category designated “,” which includes sites that “provide information regarding, support, promote, or cater to one’s or .” They do not, however, block sites that condemn or promote “reparative therapy,” a practice purporting to “cure” that is denounced as dangerous and harmful to young by such as the American and the .

The filed the case in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against Metropolitan Schools and on behalf of two students in Nashville, one student in Knoxville and a librarian in Knoxville who is also the advisor of the school’s -Straight Alliance ().

“Students need to be able to access information about their legal rights or what to do if they’re being harassed at school,” said Keila Franks, a 17-year-old student at Hume-Fogg in Nashville and a on the case. “It’s completely unfair for schools to keep students in the dark about such important issues and treat Web sites that just offer information like they’re something dirty.”

The that blocking sites violates students’ rights by only allowing access to sites that present an anti- point of view on the rights of persons on issues such as anti- , , and the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy while blocking access to sites that support rights. Further, the filtering hinders the ability of GSAs and their to facilitate club activities and keeps students from accessing important information about for students or doing research for school-related assignments.

The first learned about the discriminatory filtering from Andrew Emitt, a Knoxville student who discovered the problem while trying to search for . is mandated in public schools by , which requires schools to implement software to restrict information that is obscene or harmful to minors. However, the “” filter category does not include material which is sexually gratuitous and already included in the “pornography” filtering category.

“While schools may have an interest in using filters to block material that could be harmful to minors, blocking access to information about issues while allowing anti- information is unlawful and potentially dangerous,” said Tricia Herzfeld, a with the of Tennessee. “There is no place for this kind of unconstitutional in our public schools.”

In addition to Crump and Herzfeld, on the case are Chris of the and Christine Sun of the Project.

The are Nashville students Keila Franks and Emily Logan, Knoxville student Bryanna Shelton, and Karyn Storts-Brinks, a Knoxville librarian and faculty sponsor for her school’s .

More information about the case, including the ’s complaint and a video featuring one of the student , is available online at: www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/39346res20090413.html.

Published by&; Published by xFruits

: http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/aclu-sues-to-…

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Mass. couples cheer gay marriage, 5 years later

- Every year, the who the fight for in Massachusetts get together privately to celebrate both their own and the marriages of thousands more who followed them.

But this year, the feels a sweeter for the six who will gather Sunday to mark the of becoming the first state to legalize same- . This year, they will also be celebrating the legalization of in four other states.

“We’ve been very happy that it’s started to be accepted in other places,” said Maureen Brodoff, one of the in the lawsuit that to a Supreme Judicial legalizing .

“It’s important to us that same- get recognition outside of our home state, and I think that that is happening slowly as look to the example and see that, you know, the sky didn’t fall, that it’s strengthened families, that it’s brought joy to a of families,” Brodoff said. See Mass. couples cheer gay marriage, 5 years later * Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual

Published by&; Published by xFruits

: http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/mass-couples-…

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ellen Goodman: Gay couples in 4 states have strange dual citizenship D

They are not the only in America who talk about taxes and ulcers in the same sentence. Nor are they the only couple who believe they are paying more than they should. On that ground they are part of a noisy majority.

But they are a couple for whom tax season also entails an identity crisis. and Hernandez file as what they are — a legally married couple. But under federal law, they have to file as what they aren’t — two single women.

In the last four years, the government’s refusal to consider them a has cost the writer and the CFO of a about $5,000 a year. As puts it, “We don’t know anyone for whom $20,000 and counting isn’t significant.”

This is one reason they joined seven other married and three surviving spouses last month in bringing a against , the law that deliberately denies federal benefits to same- marriages. The other include a who can’t get care coverage for her spouse, a ineligible for higher benefits, and a couple who can’t get a passport under their married name.

We have just doubled the in which same- can be legally married. First, Iowa joined and . Then followed with the first . And a bill was just introduced in New York, where cringe to find themselves lagging behind Iowa.

This is all part of a careful state-by-state strategy. But as a side effect, it’s producing more Americans with a strange : Married in the eyes of Iowa, single in the eyes of Washington. Eligible for a pension, care, in the eyes of the state; ineligible in the eyes of the feds.

Ellen Goodman: Gay couples in 4 states have strange dual citizenship Dayton

Published by&; Published by xFruits

: http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/ellen-goodman…

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tax laws discriminate against gay couples

— They are not the only in America who talk about taxes and ulcers in the same sentence. Nor are they the only couple who believe they are paying more than they should. On that ground they are part of a noisy majority. But they are a couple for whom tax season also entails an identity crisis. You see, and Hernandez file as what they are — a legally married couple. But under federal law, they have to file as what they aren’t — two single women.

This identity crisis is not just some psychological on the cheerful landscape of their family life. In the last four years, the government’s refusal to consider them a has cost the writer and the CFO of a about $5,000 a year. As puts it, “We don’t know anyone for whom $20,000 and counting isn’t significant.”

This is one reason they joined seven other married and three surviving spouses last month in bringing a against , the law that deliberately denies federal benefits to same- marriages. The other include a who can’t get care coverage for her spouse, a ineligible for higher benefits, and a couple who can’t get a passport under their married name.

The suit is not just timely because we all share a certain post-tax . But we have just doubled the in which same- can be legally married. First, Iowa joined and . Then followed with the first . And a bill was just introduced in New York, where cringe to find themselves lagging behind Iowa.

This is all part of a careful state-by-state strategy. But as a side effect, it’s producing more Americans with a strange : Married in the eyes of Iowa, single in the eyes of Washington. Eligible for a pension, care, in the eyes of the state; ineligible in the eyes of the feds. See Tax laws discriminate against gay couples Statesman Journal

Published by&; Published by xFruits

: http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/04/tax-laws-disc…

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Same-sex spouses challenge US curbs

Fifteen and residents from who wed after this state legalized same- marriages filed a suit today, challenging a federal law that defines as a union between a man and a .

Six same- and whose husbands have died — one of the deceased was retired Gerry E. — said in the suit that the 1996 Defense of treats them like second-class and is unconstitutional. The 92- was filed in US District Court in .

The suit, which described as the first serious challenge to the federal law signed by Bill Clinton, contends that the statute has deprived the of benefits enjoyed by married .

Those benefits include for spouses of , for who jointly file federal returns, and the ability to use a spouse’s last name on a passport.

 See Same-sex spouses challenge US curbs

Published by&; Published by xFruits

: http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/same-sex-spou…

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Next Page →

Gay Blogads

website stats