California gay marriage ban vote to proceed
Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 07:18 PM - Alternative
California voters will have the chance to vote in November on whether to end gay marriage after the state's top court declined on Wednesday to remove an initiative on the issue from the ballot.

California, the U.S.'s most populous state, started marrying same-sex couples a month ago after the California Supreme Court ruled that limiting marriage to a man and a woman violated the state's constitution.

Opponents of gay marriage then placed an initiative to amend the constitution on the November ballot. "Proposition 8" declares that marriage will be limited to one man with one woman.

In the latest phase of a bitter legal battle, supporters of homosexual marriage asked the California Supreme Court to remove the issue from the ballot. The court unanimously denied the petition without detailed comment. - See California gay marriage ban vote to proceed for the full report.
2 comments 2 comments ( 2864 views )   |  permalink

Massachusetts Senate passes repeal of 1913 marriage law
Tuesday, July 15, 2008, 07:21 PM - Alternative
The Massachusetts Senate today passed a bill that would repeal a 1913 state law that prevents gay and lesbian couples from most other states from marrying in Massachusetts.

The bill, which had the support of Senate President Therese Murray, passed with no objections on a voice vote. Proponents of the repeal called the 1913 law archaic and discriminatory.

"There are very few laws on the books that I can say that I'm ashamed that they're on the books," said State Senator Mark Montigny, a New Bedford Democrat. He said he opposed the law because of the "immorality of discrimination."

"This is a very simple law, contrived in shame, and it exists in shame and we ought to wipe it off the books," he said.

"The 1913 law is a shadow, a terrible shadow. It represents a segregationist past that is best put to rest and put to rest quickly," said Senator Harriette Chandler, a Worcester Democrat.

The law originated when lawmakers in many states were trying to prevent interracial couples from crossing state lines to marry. It fell into obscurity for decades. But it received new attention in 2004, when Republican Governor Mitt Romney invoked it after gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts to prevent out-of-state gay and lesbian couples from marrying here and forcing their home states to consider recognizing Massachusetts marriage law. - See Senate passes repeal of 1913 marriage law for the full report.

Request for hold on California gay marriage ruling could postpone weddings
Thursday, May 22, 2008, 06:01 PM - Alternative
Gay couples who were eager to tie the knot as soon as mid-June may want to hold off on ordering that cake or etching a date on their wedding invitations.
A conservative organization on Thursday asked the California Supreme Court to put a hold on last week's ruling striking down the state's ban on same-sex nuptials. The maneuver is virtually certain to push the first gay weddings into at least mid-July and possibly August because of routine procedural delays.

The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund is asking the Supreme Court to rehear the case on a single issue. The group argues that the ruling should be stayed until after the November elections, when voters are likely to consider a ballot initiative that would amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

The Supreme Court seldom agrees to reconsider its rulings. But in a 21-page legal brief, the defense fund argues that freezing the ruling would avoid chaos around the state as couples move to capitalize on their newfound legal right to marry by rushing to clerk's offices to get marriage licenses between now and November.

"What we're doing essentially is asking the court to maintain the status quo," said Glen Lavy, a lawyer for the defense fund.

Civil rights lawyers immediately vowed to oppose the stay.

"Every day that goes by hurts these families," said Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

Several gay couples planning to marry as soon as legally possible said that while they are disappointed in the delay, it won't change their ultimate plans. - See Request for hold on California gay marriage ruling could postpone weddings for the full report.

State Supreme Court says same-sex couples have right to marry
Thursday, May 15, 2008, 02:56 PM - Alternative
Gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry in California, the state Supreme Court said today in a historic ruling that could be repudiated by the voters in November.

In a 4-3 decision, the justices said the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the "fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship." The ruling is likely to flood county courthouses with applications from couples newly eligible to marry when the decision takes effect in 30 days.

"The California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote in the majority opinion.

Allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry "will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage," George said.

In addition, he said, the current state law, enacted in 1977 and reaffirmed by the voters in 2000, discriminates against same-sex couples on the basis of their sexual orientation - discrimination that the court, for the first time, put in the same legal category as racial or gender bias.

Massachusetts is the only other state whose high court has ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. Federal law denies federal benefits, such as joint income tax filing and Social Security survivors' rights, to same-sex couples who can legally marry in their states, and allows other states to deny recognition to those marriages. - See State Supreme Court says same-sex couples have right to marry for the full report.

Jay Sorry for Gayest Look Crack
Tuesday, April 1, 2008, 06:56 PM - Alternative
Jay Leno's used to riffing on the headlines, not making them. But after days of being battered for a comedy routine gone awry, the late-night kingpin has issued a mea culpa.

The Tonight Show host issued a statement Tuesday saying he was sorry for making a series of gay jokes at the expense of guest Ryan Phillippe last week.

"In talking about Ryan's first role, I realize that what I said came out wrong. I certainly didn't mean any malice. I agree it was a dumb thing to say and I apologize."

Leno drew the ire of the gay community for his interview with Phillippe on Thursday's Tonight Show. The actor, attempting to plug his latest film, Stop-Loss, wound up getting grilled by Leno about his first role on the soap One Life to Live, playing a gay teenager.

"Say that camera is your gay lover," Leno prompted: "Can you give me your gayest look? Say that camera is Billy Bob [Thornton]—Billy Bob has just ridden in shirtless from Wyoming."

The remarks made Phillippe visibly uncomfortable.

"Wow," the 33-year-old actor replied. "That is so something I don't want to do. Are you just going to embarrass me tonight?"

"No," said Leno. "I got more stuff. This is the least of it."

The backlash was immediate.

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation blasted the remarks as "a misguided use of adolescent humor." - See Jay Sorry for "Gayest Look" Crack for the complete article.

Gay-marriage foes face tough questions from California high court
Tuesday, March 4, 2008, 03:29 PM - Alternative
The California Supreme Court heard three hours of legal arguments today over a constitutional challenge to the state's ban on same-sex marriage. Here's the latest update from the courthouse.

12:45 p.m.: Justices probe opponents' tradition, purpose-of-marriage arguments

A group of lawyers arguing to continue the current system received some tough questioning from the justices, particularly Moreno, George and Kennard.

Christopher E. Krueger, of the state attorney general's office, argued that the state has a rational basis to reserve marriage for heterosexual couples, in part because it has an interest in preserving that traditional definition.

"This is a definition of marriage that has proven durable for the state," Krueger told the justices. "It's not just any line that was drawn here."

Krueger's argument, however, immediately ran into pointed questioning from Justice Joyce Kennard, who wanted to know why earlier "traditional definitions of marriage that prohibited people of different races from marrying, or defined a wife as the property of her husband" shouldn't similarly be allowed to stand, simply because they were traditional.

Krueger countered that California's law prohibiting interracial marriage, struck down by the California Supreme Court in 1946, "was specifically only for the invidious purpose of racial discrimination. Here, yes it is a distinction that same-sex couples aren't allowed to marry under our laws, but that is not the same kind of exclusional statute." - See Gay-marriage foes face tough questions from California high court for the full report.


Next> Last>>