RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Canada to Allow Same-Sex Marriage

From the Boston Globe via blogger Lashawn Barber we've got a story of homosexuals trying to intimidate those who sign a petition banning gay marriage in the bay state:

Lang, 42, said the name, street address, hometown and ZIP code of everyone who signs the petition will be posted on the Web site KnowThyNeighbor.org.

"Everyone's scrambling to know who in their town would sign this," Lang told the Boston Herald. "And this Web site will give gay people the tools to know, to defend themselves and their families, to let them go neighbor-to-neighbor and say, 'I don't appreciate your signing this.'"

"I'm going to be aggressive personally," he said. "I want to know that the people I do business with are not against (gay marriage). This is going to be won by economics."

I'll be waiting for the liberal concern that was so present when pro-lifers posted names and addresses of abortionists, namely, when their houses were picketed that it might lead to violence.

Gay rights advocates said they were heartened after both candidates for governor of New Jersey stated they would oppose a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, but a day after those declarations, their campaigns declined to specify what either man would do if the state Supreme Court allows such unions.

In a debate Tuesday, gubernatorial candidates Doug Forrester and Jon Corzine found common ground on the issue. Both said they oppose same-sex marriage, but that they would oppose a constitutional amendment banning it.

Their positions could be tested next year, when the state Supreme Court is expected to rule on a lawsuit from several same-sex couples who claim the state Constitution gives them a right to marry. Arguments have not been scheduled in the case and are likely to be heard sometime after the Nov. 8 election.

In the debate, both candidates gave a nuanced and nearly identical view on gay marriage.

From Corzine, a Democrat: "I believe (that) the fundamental and traditional view of marriage is between a man and a woman. On the other hand, I don't believe constitutions are about taking away rights. That's why I wouldn't have supported an amendment in the federal government and I won't support one in New Jersey."

From Forrester, a Republican: "I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I believe that a constitutional amendment isn't the right tool to make that defense."

When pressed for clarifications on Wednesday, the campaigns had little to say.

Lower courts have twice held that gay couples do not have the right to marry in New Jersey, but court-watchers on both sides of the issue think there's a good chance the state Supreme Court will overturn those rulings.

Wednesday, Corzine spokeswoman Ivette Mendez said she would not answer questions about what Corzine would do in that case, saying they were "hypothetical"

Forrester spokeswoman Sherry Sylvester said Forrester believes the gay marriage decision should be made by elected lawmakers, not appointed judges. And if judges allowed same-sex matrimony, she said, he would "take any steps to return the debate to the Legislature, where he believes the decision should be made."

She would not specify those steps, though, and reiterated that Forrester opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

Anti-gay marriage activists say that such a ban is their best hope of preventing the unions in New Jersey, which is one of a handful of states to recognize domestic partnerships.

A Swedish man who donated his sperm to a lesbian couple must pay child support for the three boys he fathered, the Supreme Court has ruled.

The man, now 39, gave his sperm to the couple in the early 1990s. Three sons were born in the years 1992 to 1996.

He agreed he would play no role in the boys' upbringing, but signed a document saying he was the father. The women separated and the biological mother demanded that the man pay child support. The man went to the district and appeals courts, but lost. The Supreme Court upheld these rulings

Quote:

---

Jim Jackson said:
This isn't a gay issue.

This is a "women are bitches" issue.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Associated Press:

A Swedish man who donated his sperm to a lesbian couple must pay child support for the three boys he fathered, the Supreme Court has ruled.

The man, now 39, gave his sperm to the couple in the early 1990s. Three sons were born in the years 1992 to 1996.

He agreed he would play no role in the boys' upbringing, but signed a document saying he was the father. The women separated and the biological mother demanded that the man pay child support. The man went to the district and appeals courts, but lost. The Supreme Court upheld these rulings

---

Quote:

---

Captain Sammitch said:
Why the hell are all these weirdos in my state???

---

A gay man charged with helping his lover loot a wealthy school district has asked a judge to rule that state law protecting spouses from having to testify against each other also applies to same-sex partners.

Stephen Signorelli, fighting charges that he stole at least $219,000 from the Roslyn, N.Y., school district, is seeking to bar testimony by his longtime companion, Frank Tassone, the district's former superintendent.

Auditors say that in all, $11.2 million was taken from the Long Island district, and state Comptroller Alan Hevesi has called the case "the largest, most remarkable, most extraordinary theft" from a school system in American history.

Tassone pleaded guilty this year to stealing $1 million between 1996 and 2002. As part of his plea bargain, he agreed to testify against other defendants in the case, which meant he might have to take the stand in Signorelli's trial.

In a motion filed before a judge in Nassau County, Signorelli sought to bar such an appearance, saying he and Tassone deserved the same protection as a heterosexual couple.

"Mr. Tassone and I have been loving partners for 33 years," Signorelli said in an affidavit, adding that the two had participated in "a solemn religious ceremony" conducted while they were on a Caribbean cruise, "to memorialize our relationship and love for one another."

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
The original idea of the "spousal privilege" was also that marriage was a partnership built on trust. Not unlike the doctor-patient privilege or lawyer-client privilege, it was based on the idea that you should be able to trust your spouse with your secrets (within certain limiations).

Also, the privilege is for the defendant, not the witness, to claim. So the fact the guy copped a plea doesn't affect his "partner's" right to claim it as a defense.

It seems to me that, if allow gay marriage, you should allow the spousal privilege.

OTOH, if you don't apply the privilege to unmarried cohabitating hetero couples, you shouldn't apply it to unmarried cohabitating gay couples. To do so would be legislation from the bench and create a defense for gay criminals that doesn't exist for straight ones.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
The original idea of the "spousal privilege" was also that marriage was a partnership built on trust. Not unlike the doctor-patient privilege or lawyer-client privilege, it was based on the idea that you should be able to trust your spouse with your secrets (within certain limiations).

Also, the privilege is for the defendant, not the witness, to claim. So the fact the guy copped a plea doesn't affect his "partner's" right to claim it as a defense.

It seems to me that, if allow gay marriage, you should allow the spousal privilege.

OTOH, if you don't apply the privilege to unmarried cohabitating hetero couples, you shouldn't apply it to unmarried cohabitating gay couples. To do so would be legislation from the bench and create a defense for gay criminals that doesn't exist for straight ones.

---

Hundreds of gay couples are preparing to form civil partnerships in the coming weeks as the law changes after decades of campaigning. At least 1,200 ceremonies are confirmed as being scheduled already, according to figures from councils compiled by the BBC News website.

Councils are preparing for the first ceremonies, with couples permitted to register from Monday morning.

Campaigners says the law ends inequalities for same-sex couples.

The first ceremonies under the Civil Partnerships Act can take place in Northern Ireland on 19 December, followed by Scotland the next day and England and Wales on 21 December.

Under the law, couples who want to form a partnership must register their intentions with local councils. Unlike marriages, the signing of the legal partnership papers does not need to happen in public.

Gay marriage has come a step closer in the Czech Republic. The lower house of parliament has approved a bill legalizing civil partnerships for same-sex couples, despite strong opposition from Christian Democrats in the government. If the bill is rejected by the Senate, the lower house will have to hold a second vote, requiring an absolute majority for it to become law.

Quote:

---

batwoman's alt id said:
Don't they know the dangers of anal sex?

---

Quote:

---

magicjay38 said:

Quote:

---

batwoman's alt id said:
Don't they know the dangers of anal sex?

---

I'm more interested in the pleasures of anal sex.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
I think its an interesting ancillary issue to the gay marriage issue and how every "advancement" in legal rights creates corresponding legal "headaches."

---

Quote:

---

Steve T said:
i believe over heer if you go through the official channels to get a sperm donor, his resposibility is wavered.

---

Quote:

---

I didn't gett he impression these women relied on the donor for support as a couple once his donation was made. It was only after the couple split that the mother demanded money

---

Quote:

---

Pariah said:
It doesn't really make much difference. The point being that because her spouse is another woman who is not biologically related to the children, the man is left with their mess.

---

Quote:

---

Steve T said:
But is that a result of the way they didit rather than the homosexual nature of the relationship?

---

Quote:

---

Court Grants Equal Rights to Same Sex Parents

Bob Egelko, SF Chronicle Staff Writer

The California Supreme Court broke new legal ground for same-sex parents Monday by ruling that lesbian and gay partners who plan a family and raise a child together should be considered legal parents after a breakup, with the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual parents.

Three weeks after issuing a precedent-setting decision banning business discrimination against domestic partners, the justices took another step toward equal treatment for the tens of thousands of California households headed by same-sex couples. The court became the first in the nation to grant full parental status to same-sex partners regardless of their marital status or biological connection with their children.

"We perceive no reason why both parents of a child cannot be women,'' said Justice Carlos Moreno, writing for the majority in three related rulings issued Monday.

It was a bold statement by a normally cautious court -- although, as Moreno pointed out, the Legislature said essentially the same thing in a new law that gave domestic partners most of the same rights as spouses, including parental rights. Monday's rulings went a step further and granted parental status to members of couples who had separated before the law took effect in January.

In each of the three cases, the court said, lesbian partners had cooperated in conceiving and rearing children in a family setting and, thus, were both legal parents -- entitling them to visitation over an ex-partner's objections and requiring them to pay child support. The ruling would apply equally to gay men who agreed to raise a child together.

Quoting county government officials who argued for child support in one of the cases, the court said, "A person who actively participates in bringing children into the world, takes the children into her home and holds them out as her own, and receives and enjoys the benefits of parenthood, should be responsible for the support of those children -- regardless of gender or sexual orientation.''

Courts in other states have granted visitation and other parental rights to same-sex partners who had bonded with their child, ruling that such a nurturing adult may be considered a "psychological parent'' even if not biologically related to the child.

But those rulings did not establish full parent-child relationships, which include such rights as inheritance, Social Security and health insurance coverage for children as well as custody and visitation for parents.

Monday's rulings are the first in the nation to recognize complete parental status for same-sex partners who raise a child together, said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which took part in all three cases.

"This is one of those moments of legal history in the making,'' he said. "The decisions are going to be important not just in California but across the country.''

The court did not discuss same-sex marriage, an issue it may address next year in lawsuits by gay and lesbian couples and the city of San Francisco challenging the constitutionality of a state law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Those suits could be derailed, however, by initiatives now in circulation that would lock the ban on same-sex marriage into the state Constitution and also repeal the newly established domestic-partner rights. A lawyer who opposed the expansion of parental rights in the three cases called Monday's rulings "another stepping-stone for same-sex marriage'' that showed the need for action by the voters.

"By saying that children can have two moms, the court has undermined the family'' and has "underscored the importance of amending California's Constitution to preserve marriage as one man and one woman,'' said attorney Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel. He added, however, that the proposed initiatives probably wouldn't affect Monday's rulings, which focused on parent- child relationships rather than the couples' marital status or gender.

"These rulings recognize that these children have the same rights as the children of opposite-sex couples in maintaining ties to the people who helped raise them and presumably love them,'' said Tom Dresslar, spokesman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer, whose office argued for parental status in the case of a lesbian mother seeking child support. "The rulings also properly recognize the diverse nature of family relationships in today's world.''

The rulings represent a change of course for California courts, which have generally regarded only biological parents as legal parents, regularly citing the state Supreme Court's statement in 1993 that a child can have only one natural mother.

But Moreno, in one of Monday's rulings, said the 1993 observation in a surrogate-parent case was meant only to resolve claims between two women -- the surrogate parent and the childless wife who signed the surrogacy contract -- and did not preclude recognition of two lesbian parents.

Each of the cases in Monday's decisions identified the plaintiffs and defendants by their initials to protect their children's privacy.

In the case handled by Lockyer, partners Elisa B. and Emily B. had children in 1997 and 1998, respectively, using the same sperm donor, and raised them together before separating in 1999. Elisa agreed to provide financial support whenever she could for her stay-at-home partner's twins -- one of them seriously ill -- but stopped making payments 18 months after the couple separated.

Reversing a lower-court ruling, the Supreme Court said Elisa was a legal parent of the children she had helped to plan and raise, and must pay $1,815 a month in child support. El Dorado County sued Elisa for support after Emily applied for welfare.

"We were doing everything we possibly could to form a family,'' Emily B. said at a news conference after the ruling. Noting that children of an opposite-sex couple would clearly have been entitled to support in the same situation, she said the court recognized the needs of "children who were invisible.''

Elisa B.'s lawyer was unavailable for comment.

In a second case, the court said a Los Angeles woman, Kristine H., was bound by a pre-birth agreement she signed with her partner, Lisa R., saying both would be parents of the child Kristine was carrying. After their split nearly two years after the baby was born, Kristine opposed Lisa's request for visitation and custody, but the court said Kristine had taken the benefits of the agreement -- Lisa's initial help in raising the child -- and must accept the burdens.

---

Quote:

---

PJP said:
yes but they are named after women of the Greek Island of Lesbos (seriously) which had tons of gay women.

---