Weekly Political Roundup

A lengthy roundup this week, so I’ll put most of it after the jump. Read on for news about Alabama, Arizona, California, and Washington, as well as Australia, Canada, South Africa, and Sweden.

• A Democratic Party subcommittee ruled to overturn the runoff win of Patricia Todd, who was poised to become the first lesbian on the Alabama legislature. The subcommittee said she—as well as her opponent, Gaynell Hendricks—had violated a little-enforced election rule. The story is still playing out, however, as the full committee will meet tomorrow to decide whether to uphold the ruling and appoint a replacement candidate. (The New York Times says, without explanation, that Hendricks would still be eligible.) The situation is rife with allegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and race (Todd is white; Hendricks is black), as well as internal party politics. The Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, which supports Todd’s campaign, has vowed to fight on her behalf.
• The mayors of Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona spoke against a proposition to ban same-sex marriage, benefits, or marriage-like legal status for unmarried couples. Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon (D) said it would hinder city governments’ ability to attract unmarried employees. Tucson Mayor Bob Walkup (R) said it simply intruded on local governments’ affairs.
• The California state Assembly approved a bill allowing domestic partners to file joint state income tax returns. The Senate and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (who has not yet stated his position) will now have to approve it before it becomes law. The San Francisco Chronicle notes, however, that he signed two previous bills expanding the rights of domestic partners.
• In Washington state, an unmarried straight woman has filed a lawsuit claiming that the state’s new LGBT-rights law discriminates because it does not permit her to receive health insurance coverage for her opposite-sex partner.

And a few international items:

• In Alberta, Canada, Tory MP Ted Morton is trying to gain support for a bill to protect those who refuse to officiate at same-sex weddings or who speak out or “[exercise] their beliefs” against gay marriage. (Clergy may already refuse to officiate same-sex ceremonies.) The bill would also allow teachers and students to choose not to teach or learn about same-sex marriage, which Morton calls “a dangerous social experiment.” (Thanks, April!)
• South Africa’s Cabinet approved a bill permitting same-sex marriage. The bill will now go to Parliament. Even if Parliament rejects it, however, an earlier Constitutional Court ruling will automatically change the law, making South Africa the first country in Africa (and the fifth in the world) to allow same-sex marriage.
• The South Australian Liberals and Democrats will introduce a bill giving same-sex couples property, inheritance, next-of-kin, and other rights if the state government doesn’t reintroduce its own lapsed bill beforehand. Attorney-General Michael Atkinson says such a bill will be reintroduced soon, but will not include adoption rights, or access to IVF treatments for lesbian couples. If ABC News Online has the quote right, Premier Mike Rann shows his keen understanding by saying, “I do not support same-sex marriages but I don’t support any prejudices against people of same sex.” Atkinson clarifies “this bill is not about homosexual marriage, it’s not about allowing homosexual couples to adopt children … and it is not about extensive and scarce taxpayer-funded resources being spent on reproductive technology for homosexual couples.” Heaven forbid.

It’s interesting that South Australia is considering this limited approach. Same-sex-partnership rights in Scandinavia—the first in the world—began without adoption rights, and then included them as political climate and opinion changed (as detailed in Gay Marriage: for Better or for Worse?). This week, the Swedish Parliament took the next step, considering whether to replace the current civil partnership law with marriage rights. The new law would also allow same-sex couples to marry in churches.

Step by step or all at once? Marriage or something equal in all but name? A more flexible array of legal relationship types? No easy answers. Terrance, though, recently wrote a lengthy post further illuminating the questions. I encourage you all to read it. One thing is certain: The current situation is bad for our children. (Thanks, Steve.)