Domestic partners to get state benefits – KRQE
 |
Domestic partners to get state benefits
KRQE, NM According to an ACLU news release, the organization filed the lawsuit in February 2007 on behalf of gay and lesbian state employees and their domestic partners, saying the state constitution requires the state treat gay and lesbian employees the same … |
New Mexico Agrees To Provide Retirement Health Insurance To Domestic Partners Of State Employees
“We are very pleased that the state has agreed to settle this litigation and provide the insurance. It wasn’t fair that the state forced lesbian and gay employees to pay the high cost of health care for often inferior health insurance for their families when they worked just as hard as their straight colleagues,” said Peter Simonson of the ACLU of New Mexico. “I’m sure this will be welcome news to all lesbian and gay state employees, but especially to those who have retired or are planning to do so soon.”
The ACLU brought the lawsuit on February 5, 2007 on behalf lesbian and gay state employees and their domestic partners. The lawsuit charged that it was a violation of the state constitution’s equal protection guarantees for the state to treat lesbian and gay employees differently from its straight employees. The settlement will reached with the state will cover both gay and straight employees and their domestic partners. The ACLU brought the lawsuit on February 5, 2007 on behalf lesbian and gay state employees and their domestic partners. The lawsuit charged that it was a violation of the state constitution’s equal protection guarantees for the state to treat lesbian and gay employees differently from its straight employees. The settlement will reached with the state will cover both gay and straight employees and their domestic partners.
“This is fantastic news. We can finally start planning our retirement,” said Havens Levitt who has been a teacher for the Albuquerque public school for 25 years. “Until now, our only option was for me to keep working because my partner’s employment doesn’t provide insurance for her and private insurance was just too expensive. It means a lot that the state has acknowledged I should be treated the same as my straight colleagues.” Levitt and her partner, Rebecca Dakota, have been partners for 13 years. Dakota is a self-employed consultant to non-profits and an independent filmmaker.
Pursuant to the settlement, the state has agreed to develop a process for enrolling those interested during the next open enrollment period, which comes this fall.
The legal team for the ACLU in Levitt and Dakota v. New Mexico is George Bach, staff attorney with the ACLU of New Mexico, Ken Choe, a senior staff attorney with the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project of the ACLU, and cooperating attorney Maureen Sanders of Sanders & Westbrook, P.C.
Additional information about the case including a Q&A and the legal papers is available at http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/28241res20070205.html.
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/04/new-mexico-ag…
Gay marriage advocate downplays opposition to issue
The Chicago based group that orchestrated the move toward gay marriage in Iowa says it will have observers in 25% of the county recorders’ offices Monday when same-sex couples can first seek licenses to marry — but the group is dismissing the idea there is any opposition to the marriages.
Camilla Taylor is the Lambda Legal attorney who led the Iowa lawsuit which resulted in the Iowa Supreme Court ruling that Iowa’s law saying marriage is between a man and a woman is unconstitutional.
Taylor was asked during a conference call with reporters Thursday if there was confusion among state officials over how they should handle gay marriage issues. Taylor says she hasn’t heard any particular difficulties in working out what the decision means. She says Iowa isn’t the first state to rule that marriage licenses must be issued to same-sex couples, so there is a lot of help available if Iowa officials have questions.
Lambda officials say Iowa has “embraced” the gay marriage ruling, and Taylor dismissed recent attempts in the legislature to bring up a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Taylor says the state legislature “has made it very clear that the state legislature is not interested in putting discrimination into the constitution and that there are a lot of other issues that Iowans care about. She says there are budget issues and the state is recovering from natural disasters, “so I don’t think there is any will to amend the state constitution.”
Democratic leaders have blocked several attempts to bring up the vote on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Taylor was asked if her confidence would change if Republicans won back control or the legislature or if Iowa voters decided to call for a constitutional convention in 2010.
See Gay marriage advocate downplays opposition to issue
Radio Iowa – Des Moines,IA,USA
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/04/gay-marriage-…
Iowa governor cool to anti-gay marriage amendment
(Des Moines, Iowa) Gov. Chet Culver has ended days of silence on the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision allowing same-sex marriage, saying he disagrees with the ruling but is “reluctant to support” amending the state constitution to reverse it.
Culver said in a lengthy statement that he hadn’t changed his mind that …
Ruling could mean civil unions for all in Calif.
he California Supreme Court could decide that there are two kinds of same-sex couples: those who can’t get married, and those who already did.
A ruling that upholds both voters’ November decision to ban gay marriage and the 18,000 same-sex marriages conducted earlier in California could come off as a safe compromise. But it also promises to keep alive an issue that has split the state as few others have.
Such a decision would give same-sex marriage advocates an avenue to pursue a federal appeal, and an argument for compelling the state to, as Associate Justice Ming Chin put it, “get out of the marriage business.”
Justices on the high court appear hesitant to overturn Proposition 8, while also reluctant to invalidate same-sex marriages performed before it passed, legal observers agreed Friday.
During Thursday’s oral arguments on a trio of lawsuits seeking to overturn the ban, Chin and Chief Justice Ronald George seemed to anticipate the difficulty in reconciling the state constitution’s promise of equality with its commitment to giving voters wide discretion to pass laws.
See Ruling could mean civil unions for all in Calif.
The Associated Press
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/ruling-could-…
NC leaders remain steady avoiding marriage vote
RALEIGH, N.C. — There’s little doubt lawmakers heard the voices of thousands of Christian conservatives outside the Legislative Building seeking a statewide vote on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
There’s also little doubt the rally participants won’t get what they want.
While voters in all other Southeastern states have approved state constitutional amendments restricting marriage between one man and one woman since 2004, North Carolina has declined to follow along. A combination of partisan strategy, steady opposition from gay rights groups and a lack of court challenges to current state law has kept the issue off the ballot.
And it’s likely to stay off as long as Democrats run the Legislature. See NC leaders remain steady avoiding marriage vote
Dallas Voice
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/nc-leaders-re…
Attorneys Urge California Supreme Court To Invalidate Prop 8
(San Francisco, CA, March 5, 2009) Attorneys for same-sex couples, civil rights organizations and the state Attorney General’s office appeared before the California Supreme Court today to urge the court to strike down Proposition 8, which took away the right of same-sex couples the right to marry. At issue in the case is whether the ballot initiative process can be used to take away a fundamental right only for one group of Californians based on a trait – in this case sexual orientation – that has no relevance to the group’s ability to participate in or contribute to society. Because the case has serious implications for the constitutional rights of all Californians, it has generated unprecedented support from many national and state civil rights groups as well as California legislators, local governments, bar associations, business interests, labor unions, and religious groups. The California Supreme Court, which has struck down several other initiatives in the past, is expected to issue a decision within 90 days.
“Proposition 8 jeopardizes not just the right of same-sex couples to marry, but the rights of all Californians to be treated as free and equal citizens of this state,” said Shannon P. Minter, Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), who argued the case before the Court. “Our Constitution is based on the principle that majorities must respect minority rights. But if a majority can change the Constitution to take away a fundamental right from one group, then it can take away fundamental rights from any group. Our government will have changed from one that respects minority rights to one in which the power of the majority is unlimited.”
NCLR, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU filed the legal challenge on November 5, after Proposition 8 was approved by just 52 percent of the voters on Election Day. In court today, the groups argued that it was improper for the proponents of Proposition 8 to use the ballot initiative process to strip same-sex couples of the fundamental right to marry. The groups contend that changes to the Constitution that alter its core requirement of equal protection by selectively depriving minorities of fundamental constitutional rights cannot be accomplished through a simple majority vote. Such major changes of core structural principles are revisions to the Constitution that can only be put on the ballot by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the legislature.
“It is simply wrong—legally and socially—to short-circuit the California Constitution and its equal protection guarantees,” said Jennifer C. Pizer, Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal and co-counsel in the legal challenge to Proposition 8. “Proposition 8 is no ‘garden variety’ amendment that changes a tax or zoning or safety rule in a way that affects everyone equally. This is a radical attempt to strip a cherished constitutional right from just one targeted minority group and then to stop the courts from doing their most basic job of upholding the constitutional promise of ‘liberty and justice for all’.”
The case before the court is unprecedented because no other initiative-amendment has successfully taken away a fundamental right only for a particular minority. Because Proposition 8 would, for the first time, change the Constitution in a way that strips a minority group of its constitutional right to equal treatment under the law, California Attorney General Jerry Brown agrees that Proposition 8 should be struck down. The Attorney General’s office argued that the right to marry is an “inalienable right” that can not be selectively eliminated from one group without compelling reasons.
“The Court has a solemn responsibility to enforce our state constitution and to protect the rights of all people, regardless of popular opinion,” said Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California. “This case isn’t just about marriage, and it’s certainly not just about gay and lesbian couples. If the Court strikes down Proposition 8, it will be protecting the civil rights of all Californians.”
An unprecedented 43 friend-of-the-court briefs, representing hundreds of religious organizations, civil rights groups, and labor unions, and numerous California municipal governments, bar associations, and leading legal scholars, were filed in the case, urging the court to strike down the initiative. Because the issues at stake have such important implications for other minority groups, Raymond Marshall of Bingham McCutchen, who represents the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, the California State Conference of the NAACP, the Equal Justice Society, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, asked and was given permission to appear in court today. He argued that allowing Proposition 8 to stand could be detrimental to other minority groups who could easily become the targets of initiative campaigns seeking to take away their rights.
“Our state Constitution was created to ensure equal treatment under the law for every Californian,” said Geoff Kors, Executive Director of Equality California. “Prop 8 changes that fact by taking away a fundamental freedom from one particular group and mandating government discrimination against a minority. We hope the court upholds the Constitution’s promise of equality.”
The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU are representing Equality California, whose members include many same-sex couples who married between June 16 and November 4, 2008, and six same-sex couples who want to marry in California. The arguments today also included two other challenges filed on the same day: one filed by the City and County of San Francisco (joined by Santa Clara County and the City of Los Angeles, and subsequently by Los Angeles County and other local governments); and another filed by a private attorney.
Serving as co-counsel on the case with NCLR, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU are the Law Office of David C. Codell, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.
The case is Strauss et al. v. Horton et al. (#S168047). For more information, go to: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm
The California Supreme Court must issue its decisions within 90 days of oral argument.
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/attorneys-urg…
California Court Weighing Gay Marriage Ban
SAN FRANCISCO — Under intense pressure from both sides in the debate over same-sex marriage, the California Supreme Court began hearing arguments Thursday morning on the future of a ballot initiative passed by voters last November that outlawed such unions.
Supporters and opponents of the measure, Proposition 8, began lining up in front of the courthouse in San Francisco before dawn, bringing with them signs, banners and a sense of tense anticipation.
“We knew we had to be here to see it with our own eyes,” said Katherine Stoner, 61, who had traveled from Monterey, with her partner of 34 years, Michelle Welsh.
Several ardent — and outnumbered — opponents of same-sex marriage also held signs with messages like “Gay = Pervert” and “A Moral Wrong Can’t be a Civil Right.”
Don J. Grundmann, a member of the American Warrior Ministry in San Leandro, Calif., said he believed that homosexuality was a “emotional pathology” that he feared would be taught to children.
“That’s the real objective,” Mr. Grundmann said.
Mr. Grundmann said he wanted to support traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which Proposition 8 affirmed in the November election, passing with 52 percent of the vote. Opponents have sued, saying the ballot measure violates the state constitution, setting up Thursday’s hearing.
The three-hour hearing is a critical legal test for both sides. But opponents of Proposition 8 also used Thursday’s hearing as a prime moment to rally their forces and demonstrate resilience after a stinging election loss that many among them believe could have been avoided. See California Court Weighing Gay Marriage Ban
New York Times – United States * Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/california-co…
Crowds line up to get into Prop. 8 hearing
SAN FRANCISCO — Scores of people lined up this morning outside the California Supreme Court building in San Francisco, hoping for a seat in the chambers as the justices hear arguments on whether the voter-approved state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages should be overturned.
Some people arrived outside the building on McAllister Street at the Civic Center at 4:50 a.m., more than four hours before the arguments began at 9 a.m. The crowd grew as the hearing approached.
Motorists honked their horns, mostly in support of those who want the marriage ban overturned.
First in line was Sara Taylor of Novato, 54, an attorney who married her lesbian partner last June after the court ruled that same-sex marriages were constitutional – a decision that voters overturned five months later in approving Proposition 8.
“This court made the bold decision in the first place declaring that homosexuals have the right to marry,” Taylor said. “For me, it’s a gift to be sitting in front of them.”
On the other side of the issue was Jack Warner, a 60-year-old printer who traveled from Los Angeles for the arguments.
Holding a banner that read, “The Bible says the wages of sin is death,” Warner said he was standing outside the court because, “I want to give our side, God’s side.”
Another Prop. 8 supporter, Thomas Koors, a 63-year-old self-employed window and gutter cleaner from Novato, said he had spent the night in his Subaru near the courthouse and was there to “uphold democracy.”
“If we’re going to have democracy, we have to abide by the will of the majority of the voters, whether we like it or not,” said Koors, who waved an American flag and held a sign that read, “In God we trust.”
The Rev. Amy Morgenstern, 40, who is in a same-sex marriage and is a Unitarian Universalist minister at a Palo Alto church, countered, “It’s just crazy to think that majority rule should be able to take away a fundamental right.”
By 8:15, the line waiting to get into the courthouse took up two-thirds of the block. Others were gathering in Civic Center Plaza, where the three hours of arguments on the legality of Prop. 8 were being televised on a JumboTron set up directly across from City Hall. See
Crowds line up to get into Prop. 8 hearing * Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/crowds-line-u…
California gay rights timeline
As gays and lesbians have fought for rights and won elected office, public opinion has shifted. Back in 1977, singer Anita Bryant of Florida was leading a Bible-based campaign against homosexuals, claiming they were sinners and a threat to children and family life. When pollsters asked more than 1,000 Californians – face to face, in their homes – whether they agreed with her, 45 percent said yes. Emotions still run high on the issue, but more Californians now say they know gays and lesbians, and approve of same-sex marriage. The shift is particularly pronounced among residents ages 18 to 29. Following are notable twists and turns in the history of California’s gay rights movement.
1951: The Mattachine Society, one of the first gay advocacy organizations in the United States, is incorporated in Los Angeles to combat oppression of homosexuals.
1955: The Daughters of Bilitis, a national lesbian organization, is founded in San Francisco.
1961: José Sarria runs for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, becoming what is believed to be the nation’s first openly gay candidate for public office.
1975: Assembly Bill 489, by Assemblyman Willie Brown, decriminalizes sexual acts performed in private by consenting adults in California.
1977: The state Legislature overwhelmingly votes to define civil marriage as a contract between a man and a woman. Harvey Milk later becomes the first openly gay person to be elected to public office in California, winning a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
1978: Voters defeat Proposition 6, the Briggs initiative, named for Sen. John Briggs, which would have barred gays, lesbians and their supporters from teaching in public schools.
1979: Gov. Jerry Brown issues an executive order barring discrimination against state employees based on sexual orientation.
1984: Gov. George Deukmejian vetoes Assembly Bill 1, the first bill that would have banned job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
1989: Senate Bill 202, by Sen. Diane Watson, requires law enforcement agencies to report hate crimes, including those in which a motivating factor is the victim’s sexual orientation.
1991: Gov. Pete Wilson vetoes Assembly Bill 101, by Assemblyman Terry Friedman, prohibiting discrimination against gays in the workplace.
1992: Wilson signs Friedman’s narrower measure, Assembly Bill 2601, which adds sexual orientation protections to the Labor Code.
1994: Sheila Kuehl is elected to the Assembly, becoming the state Legislature’s first openly lesbian or gay member.
1999: Assembly Bill 26, by Assemblywoman Carole Migden, creates the first statewide domestic partnership registry, allowing the partners of gay state employees to receive health benefits.
1999: Assembly Bill 1001, by Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa, adds sexual orientation to anti-discrimination provisions of the state Fair Employment and Housing Act.
1999: Assembly Bill 537, by Assemblywoman Sheila Kuehl, makes it illegal to harass students in public schools because of sexual orientation.
2000: Voters pass Proposition 22, which banned same-sex marriage.
2001: Migden’s Assembly Bill 25 greatly expands the rights of domestic partners to include health benefits through private group insurance, death benefits, sick leave, tax deductions and adoption of stepchildren.
2002: The nation’s first legislative Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Caucus is formed in the Legislature. It comprises Assembly members Kuehl, Migden, Jackie Goldberg and Christine Kehoe.
2002: John Laird and Mark Leno are elected to the Assembly, becoming the first openly gay men in the Legislature and members of the LGBT Caucus.
2003: Assembly Bill 205 by Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg extends to registered domestic partners nearly all the same rights and responsibilities provided to opposite-sex spouses in California.
2004: San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom orders city officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. More than 4,000 couples receive licenses and are married before the California Supreme Court orders a halt to the process until its constitutionality can be determined.
2004: Assembly Bill 2208, by Assemblywoman Christine Kehoe, bars insurance providers from discriminating against domestic partners.
2005: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes Assembly Bill 849, by Assemblyman Mark Leno, which would have legalized same-sex marriage. Schwarzenegger urged gay rights advocates to wait for court rulings on Proposition 22 or ask the voters to repeal the ban.
2008: In a 4-3 decision May 16, the California Supreme Court rules that the state constitution gives gays and lesbians the right to marry. On Nov. 4, voters approve Proposition 8, the ban that’s now being challenged.
Sources: Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life; the American Civil Liberties Union; Encyclopedia Britannica; World Book Encyclopedia; Bee news archives.
Bee research/Aurelio Rojas, Pete Basofin and Micaela Massimino.
See California gay rights timeline
Sacramento Bee – CA, USA
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/california-ga…
