In the U. S.:
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of a gay couple in California who sought to challenge the state’s refusal to issue them a marriage license. As the Independent Gay Forum points out, though, this might not be a bad thing. Had the Supremes ruled against the plaintiffs, it could have negative effects in other areas. Had they ruled in favor, it would likely force passage of the anti-LGBT Federal Marriage Amendment.- A new, nationwide poll by the Human Rights Campaign shows that by a 2-to-1 margin, voters believe that Mark Foley’s behavior “is typical of politicians” rather than “typical of gay men.” The poll also showed support for either civil unions or same-sex marriage at 66 percent, consistent with other polls on the issue. (Heartening, although some would argue that “separate but equal” civil unions are still not full equality.)
- Condoleezza Rice swore in Mark Dybul as America’s new Global AIDS Coordinator, and referred to the mother of his partner as Dybul’s “mother-in-law.” Andy Towle uses this to ask “How does a party that can attribute much of its success in the last elections to an anti-gay agenda come to terms with the fact that many of its top politicians are gay? How does the public face of Republican leadership differ from its private face?”
- New York gubernatorial candidate Eliot Spitzer (D) affirmed that if elected, he would push to legalize same-sex marriage in the state. His opponent, John Faso (R), is opposed to it.
- The Philadelphia School District stood by its decision to note Gay and Lesbian History Month on its official calendars, despite heavy criticism at a board meeting this week.
Around the world:
- The Australian National Party, which has stood for traditional rural values, is slowly starting to show support for gay and lesbian rights, the Sydney Morning Herald reports. “The change in the Nationals is down to the consciences and experiences of members rather than pressures from the political left or the influence of lobby groups,” they say.
- The first-ever conference in Mozambique on lesbian and gay rights concluded with activists saying their movement would launch within a few weeks. The country’s Human Rights League (LDH), which organized the conference, has promised support, despite being hesitant in previous years.
- A lesbian couple from the U. K., whose Canadian marriage was declared invalid by the U. K. High Court’s Family Division, will not appeal, because the Family Division awarded costs against them, and they cannot afford to continue their fight.
Just to clarify a point on the couple in the UK who’s Canadian “same-sex” marriage was declared invalid. The couple’s Canadian marriage is recognised in the UK, but as a “Civil Partnership”, which virtually the same as a heterosexual Civil Marriage. The only difference is that a Civil Partnership does not have to be consumated, infidelity is not a groud for annulment and the name. While a few details regarding pension have still to be worked out, a same-sex couple that has registered a Civil Partnership enjoy all the benefits as a couple who are “traditionally” married (income tax arrangements, legal next of kin, inhertiiance etc). The UK recognises any same-sex couple who have gone through a legal prosess in any country that offers same-sex marriage/patnership/union etc as Civil Partners. It is thought that the Blair government decided to use the name “Civil Partnership” so as not to upset the religious community. Certainly, the legislation went through UK Parliament very easily, unlike some countries – notably the USA – where the word “gay marriage” has caused such a fuore from the religious community. Aldeady, the UK media, and therefore the vast majority of the pubic is calling Civil Partnerhips “marriages” and it could well be that in a few years Parliament will decide to merge the Civil Marriage Act and the Civil Partnership Act into one piece of legislation.