National

I came out of a three hour surgery, the attending nurses kept asking where my family was. Well my family is my partner, there are no blood relatives alive except a brother and a sister all that have nothing to do with one another after an inheritance battle (Why siblings cant share is beyond me split it three ways, oh I forgot I don’t count) So I had to dress myself and was wheeled out to the hall to wait .Numerous calls for a family member was sent out, there was a nurse who didn’t see my partner as family. We need a change, I better die first or who will bury me? Not a great feeling as we grow older.

November 9, 2009, 3:16 pm
Dutch Views on Same-Sex Marriage
By Lisa Belkin

When I wrote about same sex parenting in the Times Magazine this weekend, one of the people I interviewed was M. V. Lee Badgett, who is both the director of the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law & Public Policy at the UCLA School of Law and a professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. She is also the author of “When Gay People Get Married: What Happens When Societies Legalize Same-Sex Marriage,” which focuses mostly on data from the Netherlands, where same-sex marriage has been legal for nearly a decade.

My magazine article focused primarily on the effects of same-sex marriage on children. But Badgett has more to say — about the effects of same-sex couples on marriage, and also about the effects of marriage on same-sex couples.

She shared her thoughts in a follow-up email interview:
Q.

Why study how gay marriage works in the Netherlands?
A.

The Netherlands let same-sex couples marry in 2001, so they have the longest experience for us to see what effects it might have. And like some states here, the Netherlands also had a civil union-like status (“registered partnerships”) before same-sex marriage rights, starting in 1998. So the Dutch have had a long time for things to change — the cultural meaning of marriage, choices about marriage by different-sex couples, and the impact on gay and lesbian people, in particular. Also, Dutch couples have lots of choices for organizing their relationships, so we can see which legal institutions appeal most to couples, whether gay or heterosexual couples.

Q.

Did legalizing same-sex marriage face the same objections there as here?
A.

The Dutch gay activists worked on the issue for about 15 years, so things clearly moved faster there. (We’re already past 15 years of serious effort here in the U.S.) A majority of their public supported equal rights for same-sex partners and marriage rights fairly early in that process. The most powerful opponents were in the Christian Democratic Party and other religious parties. (Even now some civic officials who have religious objections to gay marriage refuse to marry same-sex couples.) The two biggest issues would be very familiar to people in the U.S.: whether there should be a separate status for same-sex couples and how to deal with children — whether adoption rights would be included and what the status of children born into same-sex couples would be. That’s why the Netherlands ended up with two legal statuses for both same-sex and different-sex couples. And married same-sex couples still don’t have the same parental rights as different-sex married couples. Same-sex married couples can’t adopt children internationally, and a non-biological lesbian parent only gets “parental authority” for a child born to her female spouse, not automatic parental rights. To get full parental rights, the non-biological parent must still formally adopt the child.
Q.

Did marriage change the individuals who entered into it? If so, how?
A.

On a personal level, many people said that getting married made them feel more committed to or responsible for their partners, or that they felt some larger emotional or spiritual effects, even though most of these couples had already been together for many years before they could marry. Many same-sex couples were surprised to find that marriage changes how other people see them. Marriage triggers expectations of friends and family members, who support married couples and remind them that they’re part of a larger social institution.
Q.

How did people who did not marry feel about having the right to marry?
A.

The right to marry even changed people who chose not to marry. Everyone I interviewed noted that they were glad the law had changed — they felt “invited to the party” in the words of one person — and they said that they felt more a part of society as a result. The long-standing anger and resignation that many lesbians and gay men felt as the result of being excluded from such an important institution as marriage is not healthy, psychologically or physically. I believe that the sense of increased social inclusion that I saw in the Netherlands has the potential to profoundly change all lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in positive ways in the U.S., too.
Q.

Did the legalization of same-sex marriage somehow change marriage in the Netherlands?
A.

I looked hard for evidence of changes in the cultural idea of marriage and for evidence that heterosexuals and gay and lesbian couples have different ideas and behavior related to marriage — but I couldn’t find any. The trends in marriage and divorce didn’t change. The ideas about marriage expressed by lesbian and gay couples lined up with the ideas of their heterosexual peers: marriage is about the love and commitment of two people who work together as equals to weather life’s ups and downs, become members of each other’s extended families, and often (but not always) raise children together. Couples who formalize their relationships — gay or straight — are more likely to choose marriage than a civil union.
Q.

What is the “take away” for those who are debating these questions in the U.S.?
A.

The big point is that all of the evidence suggests that same-sex couples will fit right into our current understanding of marriage in the U.S. Marriage itself will not be affected. Dutch heterosexuals appear to have adapted to the legal change by changing how they see same-sex couples, not how they see marriage. Now they see gay couples as people who should get married, and they are happy to remind their gay and lesbian family members of that fact!

We also see why the word “marriage” matters. The Dutch same-sex couples I interviewed saw their civil union-like status as “a bit of nothing,” as one person called it, or as a political compromise that an accountant might invent. Only marriage has the social understanding to back up the legal status, and the social meaning is as important as the legal rights. Civil unions just don’t have that social meaning. One woman I interviewed put it this way: “Two-year-olds understand marriage. It’s a context, and everyone knows what it means.”

Finally, as in Europe, in the U.S. we see the most liberal states — the most tolerant of homosexuality, the least religious, and the ones with more family diversity — taking the earliest action through courts and legislatures to legally recognize same-sex couples. That’s not surprising, of course, but it suggests that we’re going at about the right pace for social change.

The Entire Article and Comments:
http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/how-the-dut...

Photog,
I do have to admit that I started this thread and 643 posts and 33 pages later it just seems to keep moving back up to the top. Most of the posts are mine but it has kept some posters interested in the subject of Equality and Justice for ALL Americans, which was my orignal goal with this one. PG

Marriage vote set for Dec. 1
D.C. Council committee votes 4-1 to kill broad religious exemption

By LOU CHIBBARO JR, Washington Blade
Nov 11 2009, 11:27 AM

A bill allowing same-sex marriages to be performed in D.C. cleared its first major hurdle Tuesday when a City Council committee voted 4-1 to approve it.

The vote by the Committee on Public Safety & Judiciary to pass the bill at a markup hearing came immediately after it voted 4-1 to defeat an amendment that would have allowed people, including private business owners, to refuse to provide goods and services related to a same-sex marriage.

The committee vote also came one day after Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), who chairs the committee, released a revised version of the bill that received full support from nearly all other Council members, including gay Council member David Catania (I-At Large), the bill’s author.

One of Mendelson’s changes removed from the bill language that would have ended city registration of new domestic partnerships after January 2011.

The other change broadened the bill’s exemption for churches and religious organizations to allow them to refuse to rent facilities or provide services for same-sex marriage ceremonies, even though such facilities and services are available to the general public.

The Entire Article:
http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=...

Los Angeles Times
Judge orders compensation for gay couple denied benefits
November 18, 2009
Carol J. Williams
A federal judge today ordered compensation for a Los Angeles couple denied spousal benefits by the federal government because they are gay men.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt deemed the denial of healthcare and other benefits to the spouse of federal public defender Brad Levenson to be a violation of the Constitution's guarantee of due process and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is prohibited by California state law.

Levenson married his longtime partner, Tony Sears, on July 12, 2008, during the five-month period when same-sex marriage was legal in California. A ballot measure, Proposition 8, was passed a year ago defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Reinhardt, who is the federal judge responsible for resolving employee disputes in the Federal Public Defenders office within the 9th Circuit, had earlier ordered the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to process Levenson's application for spousal benefits for Sears. The federal government's Office of Personnel Management stepped in to derail the enrollment, however, citing the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriage for the purpose of federal benefits or programs.

Levenson appealed, seeking either an independently contracted benefits package for his spouse or payment of the equivalent value of the coverage denied. Reinhardt ordered the latter, based on a "back pay" provision in the law covering federal defense lawyers' employment.

"Considering that the federal government won't give Tony the equal benefits package of other spouses, we are very pleased with this decision," said Levenson. "Is it equal treatment? No. Is it a good remedy? Yes. And we are appreciative of the judge's order."

Levenson said he and Sears have been keeping track of the costs of insuring Sears independently and estimate the back pay and future compensation will amount to thousands of dollars each year.

The judge's order is expected to resolve the injustice Reinhardt has cited in previous orders in Levenson's case. But it also recognizes the status quo of federal government rejection of gay marriage under the Defense of Marriage Act. Several other challenges by those denied federal benefits, like filing joint tax returns, are making their way slowly through the federal courts.

The Obama administration has spoken out against what it sees as a discriminatory policy toward gay spouses of federal employees but Atty. Gen. Eric Holder has also said his office is obliged to defend the practice as long as the Defense of Marriage Act remains law.

Just another reason that DOMA must be repealed. It is totally unconstitutional. Until it is overturned there will be no justice and equality for ALL Americans. PG

November 19, 2009, 9:46 am
Court Upholds Recognition of Gay Marriages in Narrow Ruling
By DANNY HAKIM
Jim McKnight/Associated Press Judge Eugene F. Pigott Jr. wrote the majority opinion.

New York State’s highest court rejected unanimously a challenge on Thursday by opponents of same-sex marriage to policies that recognize such unions performed in other states, though the decision gave gay advocates a small victory because it was narrowly written and applied to a relatively small number of people.

In their majority ruling, four of the seven members of the court said they were making their decision on narrow grounds involving the specifics of each case, and not settling the broader question of whether same-sex marriages performed in other states should be recognized. Judge Eugene F. Pigott Jr., writing for the majority, expressed “hope that the Legislature will address this controversy.”

But in a concurring decision, three of the justices said that the court should have addressed the wider issue because New York law already allows for the recognition of marriages that are considered legal elsewhere.

Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, who wrote the concurring decision, said “that the orders under review should be affirmed on the ground that same-sex marriages, valid where performed, are entitled to full legal recognition in New York under our state’s longstanding marriage recognition rule.”

The ruling leaves open the possibility that there could be future challenges on the issue in New York.

One of the cases involved the State Department of Civil Service, which in 2007 extended health insurance benefits to the partners of state and local workers who were married out of state.

Another case involves a similar policy in Westchester County. In 2006, the county executive, Andrew J. Spano, ordered county officials to recognize same-sex unions performed elsewhere.

Advocates on both sides were not immediately available for comment.

The two cases are narrower in scope than — but touch upon — a broader effort to have the state government recognize gay marriages.

Last year, Gov. David A. Paterson issued an executive order to extend state recognition to same-sex couples who are married in jurisdictions where such marriages are legal, like Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and Canada. (The order is more expansive than the 2007 policy adopted by the Department of Civil Service, which occurred under Mr. Paterson’s predecessor, Gov. Eliot Spitzer, and applied only to state and local employees.)

Mr. Paterson’s order, which affected as many as 1,300 statutes and regulations in New York governing everything from joint filing of income tax returns to transferring fishing licenses between spouses, was challenged by opponents of same-sex marriage, who argued that it was unconstitutional and that Mr. Paterson had unlawfully circumvented the Legislature’s role in defining marriage for the state.

Mr. Paterson has since pushed for legislation that would allow gay couples in New York to be married, a goal he cites as one of his top priorities. But though that legislation has already passed the State Assembly, it has not yet come up for a vote in the State Senate; it remains unclear whether the bill has enough support there to pass.

What a brave, bright, 10 yr. old kid, who truly understands what the pledge of allegiance really should mean to us all. His question is, why should he salute the flag and say the pledge of allegiance to that flag, that proclaims liberty and justice for all, when it really doesn't. PG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOcAWn7Rp9s