History Is on My Side, Says Calif. Justice Who Voted Against Gay-Marriage Ban
Carlos Moreno stood alone in May when he dissented from the decision upholding Proposition 8. But the California Supreme Court justice says history will prove him right — that denying gays and lesbians the right to marry is illegal discrimination.
“Someday at some point my dissent will be the majority view in California,” he said during an interview in his San Francisco chambers late Wednesday. “I think that’s where the law is headed.”
“Equal protection is either equal or it’s not,” he added. “It’s not the kind of thing you can chip away at.”
Moreno, one of four justices to back same-sex marriage last year and the sole vote against Prop 8 this year, took time to talk to The Recorder about his votes, his brief moment on the Obama administration’s short list for the nation’s highest court, and U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s controversial “wise Latina” comment.
Moreno’s dissent in Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal.4th 364, came at a touchy time for him. He had been contacted by the Obama administration a week earlier as a possible replacement for retiring U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter. Since President Obama has officially stated his opposition to same-sex marriage, it could be assumed Moreno’s position on marriage and Prop 8 might be troublesome.
But, Moreno said, Obama’s vetters didn’t ask him how his Prop 8 vote — which wasn’t yet public — would go.
“They just asked if there were any high-profile cases — past or present, including on the trial court — that would be the kind of case that would draw attention.”
See History Is on My Side, Says Calif. Justice Who Voted Against Gay …
Law.com
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/history-is-on…
Ga. Supreme Court rules against ban against allowing kids around father’s gay friends
The Georgia Supreme Court tossed out part of a Fayette County court’s decision that kept a divorced gay father from allowing his children to interact with his gay friends, according to a ruling today from the state Supreme Court.
In the ruling, Justice Robert Benham wrote the high court acknowledges that trial courts have the discretion to “limit a parent’s exposure of the children to certain people, if it can be shown that the children would be adversely affected.”
In this case, the Supreme Court justices rejected Fayette County Superior Court Judge Christopher Edwards’ ban on having the gay father bring his gay friends around his children. Edwards has been nominated to fill the a seat on the state Supreme Court after Chief Justice Leah Sears steps down at the end of June.
“The blanket prohibition against exposure of the children to members of the gay and lesbian community who are acquainted with husband is another matter,” says today’s opinion. “There is no evidence in the record before us that any member of the excluded community has engaged in inappropriate conduct in the presence of the children or that the children would be adversely affected by exposure to any member of that community.”
See Ga. Supreme Court rules against ban against allowing kids around … Sovo.com
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/ga-supreme-co…
California appellate court rules La Crescenta property belongs to Los Angeles diocese
A California appellate court’s June 9 ruling was the latest in a series of recent developments that return disputed church properties to three California Episcopal dioceses.
On June 9, the San Diego-based Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled unanimously that the Diocese of Los Angeles is legal owner of property currently occupied by St. Luke’s Anglican Church. The congregation had cited theological differences when severing ties to the Episcopal Church (TEC) in 2006 and realigning with an Anglican diocese in Uganda.
In unrelated agreements, displaced Episcopalians will return July 1 to two other disputed properties, St. John’s Church in Petaluma, in the Diocese of Northern California and St. Paul’s Church in Modesto in the Diocese of San Joaquin.
“The long history of the Episcopal Church in La Crescenta will continue with new leadership and the potential for sustained growth, and as an open source of full inclusion for all humanity,” Bishop Jon Bruno of Los Angeles said June 9 after learning of the court’s decision.
“It is important that we preserve the essence of St. Luke the healer and the ongoing maintenance of the historic church building. It is a jewel in the crown of La Crescenta, and a blessing to the people of the Diocese of Los Angeles.”
Los Angeles: ‘property held in trust’ for wider church
The appellate court ruling affirmed a 2007 trial court decision that the church, located about 15 miles north of Los Angeles, was held in trust for the mission of both the local diocese and the wider church. In issuing the ruling, the ten-member panel cited a January 5, 2009 California Supreme Court decision, which returned St. James Anglican Church in Newport Beach to the diocese. Attorneys in that case, New v. Kroeger, have appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
John Shiner, chancellor for the Diocese of Los Angeles, said a timeline for transition will advance in accordance with court procedures.
The Rev. Rob Holmann, rector of St. Luke’s Anglican Church, declined to comment June 10. “I know the general direction of the ruling, but I am withholding all comment until I see it” and until he could speak with attorneys, he told the Episcopal News Service.
A few days earlier, Holmann had told the Glendale News Press that he and the 200-member congregation “would very much like to stay” in the 83-year-old river-rock building, considered a cultural, architectural and historic local landmark.
Bruno said the future mission of St. Luke’s, now under his direct pastoral control, will be to focus on “deepening our understanding of what it means to be reconciled, welcoming and healthy people of God.”
Petaluma and Modesto: Episcopal congregations set to return July 1
After a bitter split and three years of “homelessness,” members of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Petaluma are returning July 1 to the 118-year-old church, the Rev. Norman Cram said in a telephone interview June 10.
“We are jubilant, overwhelmingly jubilant,” said Cram, priest-in-charge. “We celebrated our homelessness and we overlooked the inconveniences of living and worshipping out of a laundry basket but now that these things are almost behind us, it’s almost overwhelming.”
Citing disagreement over the ordination of a gay bishop, a majority of the 250-member congregation in December 2006 had voted to sever ties with the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Northern California but declined to vacate church property. They formed St. John’s Anglican Church, displacing about 55 continuing Episcopalians who initially met in homes.
The Rev. David Miller, rector of the Anglican congregation, had sought a transfer of his canonical residence to the Argentina-based Anglican Province of the Southern Cone and was eventually deposed by the Rt. Rev. Jerry Lamb, then bishop of the Diocese of Northern California.
Miller did not return ENS telephone calls June 10. Mike McIntosh, parish administrator for the disaffiliated group, said a news release would be issued eventually, but declined further comment. The congregation’s last service in the church will be Sunday, June 28.
The continuing Episcopal congregation eventually began meeting on Sunday evenings at the Elim Lutheran Church in Petaluma who “magnificently sheltered us,” said Cram. He added that he hopes: “to present a healthy Christian perspective of love, compassion and kindness to our community, to be the yeast for the values of unity and inclusiveness in Petaluma.”
Meanwhile, Bishop Jerry Lamb of San Joaquin told ENS that discussions are underway with St. Paul’s Church in Modesto for return of that property by July 1, which several years ago affiliated with the Anglican Mission in America.
The Rev. Michael McClenaghan, rector, did not return ENS calls.
Lamb was already planning an organizational meeting, seeking lay leaders to begin the work of transition. “I have been making calls this week to laity who are or have been members of St. Paul’s and have signaled their desire to remain in the Episcopal Church,” he said in a statement posted on the diocesan website.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/california-ap…
Lambda Legal Applauds West Virginia Court Order Restoring Custody of Foster Child to Lesbian Mothers
“The West Virginia high court has done the right thing in ruling in the best interests of this child. We applaud them for rejecting the prejudice that would have removed her from the only home she ever knew,” said Greg Nevins, Supervising Senior Staff Attorney in Lambda Legal’s Southern Regional Office in Atlanta. “Children in West Virginia need parents to love and care for them and that’s what the state should want, too.”
Lambda Legal filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the court on February 19, 2009, on behalf of Foster Children Alumni Association, CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocates) of the Eastern Panhandle, COLAGE (Children of Lesbian and Gays Everywhere), and Fairness West Virginia to urge the reversal of a trial court order removing the then year-old girl from the home of Kathryn Kutil and Cheryl Hess. The removal was ordered after the couple indicated that they wished to adopt the child. The trial judge accepted the view of the guardian ad litem that the Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) should only pursue an adoption placement for the child in a “traditional family,” consisting of both a mother and a father. The GAL also sought a statewide injunction barring foster children from being placed in gay homes. Friday’s ruling reverses this lower court finding, allows the child to remain with her foster parents, and permits the possibility that this home where the child has thrived eventually will be the adoption placement for the child.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/lambda-legal-…
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…
Court: Fla. must recognize states’ gay adoptions
Florida must recognize gay couples’ adoptions that were granted in other states even though its laws bar granting such adoptions, a state appeals court ruled Wednesday.
A trial court erred when it wouldn’t recognize a former lesbian couple’s adoptions that had been completed when the women lived in Washington state, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled unanimously. Florida is the only state that prohibits all gays from adopting, but the judges said the U.S. Constitution requires it to give “full faith and credit” to the actions of other states.
See Court: Fla. must recognize states’ gay adoptions
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/court-fla-mus…
Court lets private schools expel lesbians
The state Supreme Court left intact Wednesday a lower-court ruling that said a private religious high school wasn’t covered by California civil rights law and could expel students it believed were lesbians.
Over Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar’s dissent, the court denied review of an appeal by parents of two girls who were expelled from a high school in Riverside County. A lawyer for the parents said the ruling, which is binding on trial courts statewide, would allow private schools to discriminate against students on any basis they chose, including sex and religion.
The girls were juniors at California Lutheran High School in the town of Wildomar when the principal, Gregory Bork, called them to his office in September 2005 and questioned them separately about their sexual orientation, after another student reported postings on their MySpace pages.
Bork suspended the girls based on their answers, and the school’s directors expelled them a month later. The girls, who later graduated from another high school, have not been identified and have not discussed their sexual orientation, said their parents’ attorney, Kirk Hanson.
The parents sued under the Unruh Act, a 1959 state law that forbids discrimination by businesses. It was amended in 2005 to include bias based on sexual orientation and someone else’s perception of sexual orientation. State education law also prohibits anti-gay bias, but that applies only to public schools.
In January, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in San Bernardino said the school is not a business but instead a social organization entitled to follow its principles.
Although California courts have defined such organizations as a Boys Club and the Rotary Club as businesses covered by the Unruh Act, the appeals court cited a 1998 state Supreme Court ruling that allowed the Boy Scouts to exclude gays and atheists. Like the Boy Scouts, the appellate panel said, a private religious school exists mainly to instill its values in young people.
See Court lets private schools expel lesbians
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/04/court-lets-pr…
A Family in Jeopardy
Lambda Legal is representing Rita Goodman, a nonbiological mother who was awarded shared custody of the two boys she parented from birth with her former partner. Goodman’s ex–partner and the boys’ biological mother, Siobhan LaPiana, appealed the trial court order that awarded Goodman custody. Goodman and LaPiana planned the boys’ births together during their ten–year committed relationship. LaPiana gave birth but both women equally parented the children. After the couple split, LaPiana began restricting Goodman’s interaction with the boys, despite the parenting agreement they had drafted and signed before the birth of their first child. We argue that Ohio’s antigay constitutional amendment has no bearing on the court’s authority to order shared custody between former same–sex partners — the same conclusion reached by the Ohio Supreme Court in a similar case last year.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/family-in-jeo…
Recognition of Out- of- State Marriages for Same-Sex Couples in Lambda Legal’s Case
“Once an out-of-state same-sex marriage is recognized in New York,…each of its parties would be ‘a party to a marriage,’ and, thus, a ‘legal spouse’ who would be entitled to the benefits, rights and obligations of that status,” the three-judge majority opinion held. The other two panel judges filed a concurring opinion.
“Today the Appellate Court confirmed that New York’s state government follows the law by respecting out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples,” said Susan Sommer, Senior Counsel at Lambda Legal. “The Court has upheld important spousal health coverage for government employees in the process.”
In May 2007, DCS issued a memo recognizing, as spouses, same-sex couples married in other states or jurisdictions for purposes of extending spousal health insurance coverage to public employees in participating government insurance plans. The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), on behalf of four New York taxpayer plaintiffs, challenged DCS’s authority to respect valid out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples and to treat those couples fairly in administering state benefits. In March of 2008, the Supreme Court, Albany County, issued a decision that the DCS was following the law in applying New York’s marriage recognition rule to these marriages. ADF opposed the decision in an appeal filed in 2008.
Lambda Legal argued before the court in October 2008 on behalf of Defendant-Intervenors-Respondents Peri Rainbow and Tamela Sloan, long-time public employees who are raising a special needs child adopted from foster care. The couple depends on the government protections that come from respect for their marriage, and today’s decision validated the lower court ruling that marriages such as theirs are lawfully respected in New York state.
Today’s decision is consistent with other marriage recognition victories in New York courts, as well as Governor Paterson’s May 2008 directive instructing all state agencies to respect out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples. In September 2008, the New York Supreme Court (Bronx trial court) dismissed a lawsuit against Governor Paterson challenging this directive and again granted Lambda Legal’s motion to intervene in the case on behalf of Rainbow and Sloan.
In February 2008, in Martinez v. County of Monroe, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department in Rochester, also upheld application of the marriage recognition rule to valid out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples. The decision, issued in response to a challenge brought by the NYCLU on behalf of a lesbian couple, is consistent with longstanding marriage recognition in New York.
In early 2009, Lambda Legal applauded a similar decision from the New York Appellate Division, Second Department affirming dismissal of a case brought by the ADF. The court confirmed that Westchester County Executive Spano lawfully recognized out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples, ruling as well in favor of Westchester County couple Michael Sabatino and Robert Voorheis, who had married in Canada and were permitted to intervene as defendants in the case with Lambda Legal as counsel.
Susan Sommer, Senior Counsel, is handling the case for Lambda Legal. She is joined by co-counsel
Kramer Levin Naftails & Frankel LLP.
The case is Lewis v. New York State Department of Civil Service, et al.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/01/recognition-o…
Lambda Legal Defends Lesbian Mother in Ohio Custody Matter - ‘These children have a right to the love and support of both parents.’
(Cleveland, Ohio, January 21, 2009) — In court papers submitted in the Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals, Lambda Legal defended a lesbian mother in her fight to continue to parent her 11 and 8 year old sons.
“These children have a right to the love and support of both of their parents,” said Camilla Taylor Senior Staff Attorney in Lambda Legal’s Midwest Regional Office in Chicago. “The Ohio Supreme Court already has said that Ohio’s antigay constitutional amendment does not prevent a same-sex couple from sharing custody of the children they are rearing together. We shouldn’t have to address this hurtful and discriminatory argument any longer. The trial court below in this case did the right thing by focusing on the needs of the children, and awarding shared custody to these women based on more than a century of Ohio case law allowing such orders.”
Lambda Legal represents Rita Goodman in her pursuit to continue to parent her two sons. Goodman and her former partner Siobhan LaPiana were in a committed relationship for 10 years. During that time the women planned and had two children. LaPiana gave birth to the children but both women equally parented the boys, who love and rely on both of them as their mothers. Before the birth of the first child, Goodman and LaPiana drafted and signed a parenting agreement detailing their intent to share all responsibilities of parenthood. After the couple split, LaPiana began restricting Goodman’s time with the boys. In February 2007, Goodman filed a lawsuit, and in August, 2008, the trial court ordered visitation for Goodman. LaPiana appealed, arguing, among other things, that Ohio’s antigay constitutional amendment prevents courts from entering orders permitting former lesbian partners to share custody, and that the court’s order unconstitutionally infringed on her right to autonomy as a parent.
Lambda Legal argues that Ohio’s antigay constitutional amendment has no impact on Ohio courts’ authority to order shared custody between former same-sex partners. Additionally, Lambda Legal argues that because LaPiana agreed to co-parent her children from birth with Goodman, it is constitutional for courts to step in to protect the children’s bonded relationship to Goodman.
On December 31, 2008, in the Lambda Legal case, In re J.D.F., the Ohio Supreme Court rejected a similar effort by a woman in a custody dispute with her former partner to use Ohio’s antigay constitutional amendment as a weapon to sever the parental relationship between her child and her former partner.
“This has always been about my sons and making sure they can rely on both of their parents. I made a promise to take care of them always — and I’m just trying to make good on that promise,” said Lambda Legal client Rita Goodman.
Lambda Legal represents Rita Goodman along with cooperating attorney Pamela J. MacAdams, of
Camilla Taylor, Senior Staff Attorney is handling the case for Lambda Legal. She is joined by co-counsel
Pamela J. MacAdams of Morganstern, MacAdams & DeVito Co., LPA, in Cleveland, Ohio.
The case is In re S.J.L. and J.K.L.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/01/lambda-legal-…
