Where is LGBT Marriage Legal?
Updated 6/08

Nations that recognize LGBT Marriage and the year approved:
Netherlands	First in the World, 2001.
Belgium	2003
Canada	2005
Spain	2005
South Africa	2005
Norway	2008
States in the US that recognize LGBT Marriage, Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships etc:
California	May 15, 2008, California's Supreme Court ruled that banning same-sex marriage in the state was discriminatory. Same Sex Marraige began on June 17, 2008
Connecticut	Civil Unions with Same Rights as Married Heterosexuals, 2005.
Massachusetts	Same Sex Marriage Will also issue licenses to LGBT couples from New Mexico and Rhode Island since neither state explicitly prohibits same-sex marriage, 2004.
New Jersey	Civil Unions with Same Rights as Married Heterosexuals, 2007.
New Hampshire	Civil Unions, 2008.
Oregon	Domestic Partnership provides state-wide rights and benefits of marriage.
Vermont	Civil Unions with Same Rights as Married Heterosexuals, 2000.
Washington	Domestic Partnership with some of the rights of married heterosexuals, 2007.
Nations that Allow Same Sex Partnerships/Civil Unions:
Croatia	2003
Denmark	1989
Finland	2001
France	1999
Germany	Offers Life Partnerships--less benefits than heterosexual marriage.
Hungary	Common Law Marriage, 1995.
Iceland	Registered Partnerships, 1996.
Luxembourg	Civil Partnerships, 2004.
Mexico	Civil Unions, 2006.
New Zealand	Civil Unions, 2004.
Norway	Registered Partnerships, 1996.
Portugal	Common Law Marriage.
Sweden	Domestic Partnerships, 1995.
Switzerland	Civil Union with Limited Legal Benefits.
United Kingdom - England, Wales, Scotland Northern Ireland	Civil Partnership, 2005.

NEWS ARTICLES:

UNITED STATES:

October 25, 2006
HRC STATEMENT ON NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT DECISION RECOGNIZING SAME-SEX
COUPLES’ CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EQUAL BENEFITS AND PROTECTIONS

HRC STATEMENT ON NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT DECISION RECOGNIZING SAME-SEX COUPLES’ CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EQUAL BENEFITS AND PROTECTIONS
WASHINGTON — Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese made the following statement regarding today’s ruling in Lewis v. Harris — a court case in which the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to receive the same state benefits, protections and obligations as opposite-sex married couples. The court ruled that the Legislature must either amend its marriage law to include same-sex couples or provide these benefits, protections and obligations by some other means such as civil unions.

Said Solmonese: “Today, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples should have the same rights and obligations as heterosexual couples. This is, at its core, a pro-family, pro-equality decision. It is now in the hands of the Legislature to do the right thing, and recognize that all New Jersey families should have the protections that only marriage provides.
“We congratulate and commend the work of Lambda Legal and the plaintiff couples who had the courage and resolve to bring this case forward. 

“This decision recognizes that New Jersey's constitution protects all families. The Legislature should not go down the path of separate but equal, but rather should embrace marriage equality. We commend Garden State Equality and will work with them and other allies to make this a reality.

“The New Jersey decision only involves the protection and benefits of civil marriage — not religious ceremonies. This case does not affect religious institutions’ freedom to decide if they want to honor and recognize same-sex unions.

“Although this case is a major step forward in ending discrimination, a federal law, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, denies same-sex couples over 1,000 protections, and puts these couples at risk that they will not be recognized as families when they cross state lines.

“Our great country has a tradition of expanding legal protections, as was done for voting rights and other civil rights protections. Combating discrimination of all kinds is a fundamental American value. The Human Rights Campaign applauds this decision."

Lambda Legal filed this case in 2002 on behalf of seven same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses. In November 2003, the trial court ruled against the plaintiffs, and on June 14, 2005, the intermediate appellate court upheld the decision. On Feb. 15, 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case. Today, all seven justices concluded that same-sex couples were entitled to the equal benefits and protections of marriage. Three of those seven went further and concluded that the New Jersey Constitution requires full marriage equality.

Cases similar to New Jersey's are pending in California, Connecticut, Iowa and Maryland.
Conservatives watching the cases believe the best chance for gay marriage to be allowed would be in New Jersey, where the state Supreme Court has a history of extending civil rights protections.

Gay marriage supporters have had a two-year losing streak, striking out in state courts in New York and Washington state and in ballot boxes in 15 states where constitutions have been amended to ban same-sex unions.


July 26, 2006
Wash. Court Upholds Gay Marriage Bann sent to us by a member of our Support For Lesbians Coming Out Group:

The Washington Supreme Court upheld the state's ban on gay marriage Wednesday, dealing the gay rights movement its second major defeat in less than a month in another liberal-leaning state that had been regarded as a promising battleground.
Massachusetts is still the only state that allows same-sex couples to wed.

In a 5-4 decision, the court said lawmakers have the power to restrict marriage to a man and a woman, and it left intact the state's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act.

Earlier this month, New York's high court dealt gay couples a similar blow when it upheld a state law against gay marriage.

Wednesday's ruling surprised and delighted gay-marriage opponents, given Washington state's liberal politics, particularly in Seattle.

"This is more than we could have imagined. We are shocked, and pleasantly shocked. We were prepared for the other direction," said Jon Russell, field director for the conservative Faith and Freedom Network.

Disappointment was perhaps greatest in Seattle, home of the state's most visible gay community.

"There aren't words to describe how hurt people in the gay and lesbian community are. There's a lot of tears and a lot of anger right now. Emotion is raw," said state Rep. Ed Murray, a Seattle Democrat and one of four openly gay state lawmakers.

The state Supreme Court overruled two lower courts that had found the ban violated the Washington Constitution's "privileges and immunities" section.

The gay-marriage ban "is constitutional because the Legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival," Justice Barbara Madsen wrote in the controlling opinion.

However, Madsen and other members of the majority invited the Legislature to take another look at the "clear hardship" that the ban causes for same-sex couples.

In a dissent, Justice Mary Fairhurst said the majority improperly bowed to public opinion. "Unfortunately, the (majority) are willing to turn a blind eye to DOMA's discrimination because a popular majority still favors that discrimination," she wrote.

The 19 gay and lesbian couples who sued to overturn the law were dismayed by the ruling.
"I believe that our constitution should treat all of its citizens the same, and in this case the court was willing to treat my family differently than other families," said Brenda Bauer of Seattle, who sued along with her partner, Celia Castle. "Today's a pretty sad day for our family."

Leaders in the Legislature and Gov. Chris Gregoire - all Democrats - did not commit themselves to any course of action.

"Just as the public is divided over the issue, so is the Legislature," said Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown. Gregoire said: "The Supreme Court has ruled, and we must accept their decision whether we agree with it or not."

In Seattle, King County Executive Ron Sims, who backed the push to legalize marriage for same-sex couples, said his next step would be to press for civil unions. They give gay couples many of the rights that come with marriage and are allowed in Vermont and Connecticut.
"There's still hope in the long run," Sims said. "I still dream for a just society."

Forty-five states have laws banning marriage between same-sex couples or limiting marriage to between a man and a woman.

In other recent rulings on the issue, courts reinstated voter-approved bans on gay marriage in Nebraska and Georgia, and Tennessee's Supreme Court ruled that voters there should have a say on allowing marriage for same-sex couples.
---
Associated Press writers David Ammons in Olympia and Donna Gordon Blankinship in Seattle contributed to this report.

July 21, 2006
The ironic sanctity of marriage, sent to us by a member of our Support For Lesbians Coming Out Group:

Ronald Reagan - divorced the mother of two of his children to marry Nancy Reagan, who bore him a daughter only 7 months after the marriage.

Bob Dole - divorced the mother of his child, who had nursed him through the long recovery from his war wounds.

Newt Gingrich - divorced his wife who was dying of cancer.

Dick Armey - House Majority Leader - divorced

Senator Phil Gramm of Texas - divorced

Governor John Engler of Michigan - divorced

Governor Pete Wilson of California - divorced

George Will - divorced

Senator Lauch Faircloth - divorced

Rush Limbaugh - Rush and his current wife Marta have six marriages and four divorces between them.

Representative Bob Barr of Georgia - Barr, not yet 50 years old, has been married three times. Barr had the audacity to author and push the "Defense of Marriage Act." The current joke making the rounds on Capitol Hill is "Bob Barr...WHICH marriage are you defending?!?

Senator Alfonse D'Amato of New York - divorced

Senator John Warner of Virginia - divorced (once married to Liz Taylor.)

Governor George Allen of Virginia - divorced

Henry Kissinger - divorced

Representative Helen Chenoweth of Idaho - divorced

Senator John McCain of Arizonia - divorced

Representative John Kasich of Ohio - divorced

Representative Susan Molinari of New York - Republican National Convention Keynote Speaker - divorced

Strom Thurmond, at age 23, fathered an illegitimate daughter, with a fifteen year old household maid.

So ... LGBT people are going to destroy the institution of marriage? Wait a minute, it seems the Christian Heterosexual Republicans are doing a fine job without anyone's help

July 6, 2006
Marriage Equality USA Appalled at New York Court's Decision

San Francisco: "Today in New York we see the total wholesale abandonment of the historic role of the judiciary to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Instead of properly determining that all New Yorkers are entitled to equal protection under the State Constitution, the New York Appeals Court has taken the position that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender New Yorkers are only entitled to the civil rights that the popular opinion of the day permits," said Davina Kotulski, Ph.D. Executive Director of Marriage Equality, USA and Author of Why You Should Give A Damn About Gay Marriage. Kotulski and her partner, Molly McKay, have been working to secure the right to marry for almost ten years. "Without the courts protecting civil rights, we would not be the great nation that we are today - women would not have the right to vote, segregation would still be the law of the land in many states and interracial marriage would be illegal. Today, the Statue of Liberty's torch burns dimmer as the
promise of 'with liberty and justice for all' was denied her citizens."

Today in a 4-2 decision, the court ruled that "the New York Constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex. Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the Legislature."

Chief Judge Kaye's dissent said, "This State has a proud tradition of affording equal rights to all New Yorkers. Sadly, the Court today retreats from that proud tradition. I am confident that future generations will look back on today's decision as an unfortunate misstep."

"The U.S. Supreme Court has deemed civil marriage a 'fundamental right of citizenship.' Marriage Equality USA will not rest until all Americans are provided true equality under the law," said Kotulski.

"We fully expect California to join the growing number of states that recognize that marriage discrimination is both un-American and unconstitutional. Our country is a nation which guarantees the rights of all of its citizens to be treated equally under the law," said John Lewis, MEUSA's Northern California Director. "Just a generation ago, my partner Stuart's parents were only able to marry because the California Supreme Court overturned the state's law prohibiting interracial couples from marrying. Stuart's parents saw racial discrimination in marriage end nationwide in their lifetime. Stuart and I hope that, despite this set back in New York, marriage discrimination against same-sex couples will end. In California, we plan to eliminate marriage discrimination in the courts and the Legislature and hope that we'll be able to marry before our 20 year anniversary next year."

"We must remember that despite the handful of states providing some protections for same-sex couples, most state and federal law continue to deny same-sex couples access to any of the hundreds of state rights and 1,138 federal rights, benefits, and protections that come with civil marriage recognition, creating a second class citizenry in direct violation of the equal protection guarantees contained in the U.S. Constitution." stated Kotulski. "We will not rest until equality is the law of the land from sea to shining sea."

Marriage Equality USA is a national non-profit organization devoted to securing the freedom and right of same-sex couples to enter a legally recognized civil marriage with all the federal and state benefits and responsibilities with that entails.

June 7, 2006
Federal Marriage Amendment defeated in Senate vote

The Federal Marriage Amendment was defeated this morning when the United States Senate voted not to send the measure to a final vote. The proposal to ban same-sex marriage garnered only 49 votes, well short of the 60 needed to end debate before an official vote could happen—and one fewer than the 50 votes the amendment received the last time it was voted on in 2004.

The 49 votes were even fewer than the majority its Senate supporters expected the amendment to get, since there are five new Republican senators who were voting on the measure for the first time, the Associated Press reports. All five had replaced opponents of the measure.

But two veteran Republican senators—Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire—changed their votes from 2004, voting against the amendment this time. They were joined by five other Republican senators, including John McCain. Of the Senate Democrats, all but Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Ben Nelson of Nebraska voted against the amendment, with West Virginia's Jay Rockefeller and Connecticut's Chris Dodd abstaining.
"President Bush and the Republican leadership gambled their dwindling political capital on a discriminatory amendment and came up empty," Joe Solmonese, president of the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement. "With the addition of senators Specter and Gregg, not only did every senator who voted against discrimination in 2004 stand with us today, but momentum is on the side of equality. This is a resounding defeat against discrimination."

Said Log Cabin Republicans executive director Patrick Guerriero in a separate statement: "Supporters of this amendment couldn't even get 50 senators supporting the procedural vote. It's laughable to say this amendment is gaining support. It takes 67 votes to pass this amendment, and more than half of the Senate have said they couldn't support this on an up or down vote."

And Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean emphasized the legislative distraction the amendment has created, saying in a statement that "the time that Senate Republicans wasted debating a divisive federal marriage amendment is time that should have been used to find ways to reduce gas prices, help Americans find health insurance, make America energy independent, create jobs that stay in America, or come up with a plan for success in Iraq."

The next hurdle for the weakened amendment is a House vote, which Majority Leader John Boehner, a Ohio Republican, is planning for July, the AP reports. (The Advocate) ”

May 22, 2006
First Unitarian Church congregation condemns “discriminatory” Virginia marriage proposals, supports non-traditional relationships including gay/lesbian marriagesPlans to restrict marriage to “traditional” relationships are discriminatory and give comfort to those who would commit hate crimes, says the First Unitarian Church of Lynchburg.

The proposed Marriage Amendment (SJ337...JH586) undermines the rights of all Virginia residents by depriving some of the protection of the law, says the Church. It says some people may feel compelled to leave Virginia in a bid to live without fear of legalised discrimination.

And it adds that the proposed amendment flies in the face of Virginia’s two-century plus stated commitment to equality for all.

The Church’s opposition to the amendment was unanimously endorsed by a Congregational meeting yesterday (Sunday 21st May). Members pledged to “inform Virginians of the injustices and dangers” of the amendment and say they “will continue to welcome all persons and families without regard to sexual orientation”.

The Rev Dick Weston-Jones, minister of the Church, said: “I’m proud of the stand Lynchburg Unitarian Universalists have decided to take on this important issue. This attack on liberty is borne out of homophobic prejudice and must not be allowed to pass.”

He added: “I hope that Lynchburg’s gay and lesbian families and other non-traditional families can take heart from the fact that our congregation stands with them in their hour of need.”Church President Steven Glenn endorsed Mr Weston-Jones’ comments. He said: “Unitarian

Universalists have a proud record of liberalism, clearly expressed in the UU principle recognising the “inherent worth and dignity of every person.”

He added: “If you diminish the freedom of one person, you diminish the freedom of us all."

Asheville, NC Minister on gay marriage

Like many readers of the Citizen-Times, I was raised a devout Baptist. I thus grew up believing that the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality, and I held that view well into my adulthood. My experience may thus be helpful to those who wonder how a Christian pastor could condone homosexuality, and even go so far as to support the rights of gay and lesbian people to share in the blessings of legal marriage. The starting point in my journey on this issue was not a book or an idea, but a person. One of the men in my college dorm — I'll call him "Michael" was gay.

Michael usually remained sequestered in the closet, but he came out to me. And I discovered something that stunned me: he was just like me, only he was gay.

In Romans, the Apostle Paul appears to come down hard on homosexuals. They are "filled with ... all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, murder, haters of God" (Romans 1:29, 30). Seems crystal clear. And yet Michael was nothing like that. Nor are Larry and Lisa and Julie and the other gay friends I've made since college.

Quite the contrary. Most of them are faithful churchgoers. They love God. I know this because I see it in them. They're kind, loving and generous. They pray, they tithe, they sing in the choir. They are often better Christians than I am, an ordained minister.

How, then, could I reconcile my experience of these dear, faithful people with what I thought the Bible said about them?

I went back to Scripture and began to study the matter more seriously. I discovered that the Old Testament also seems clear on this issue: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination (Leviticus 20:13). But in that same, long section of Leviticus (known as the Holiness Code) one sees that it is also an "abomination" to touch pigskin, to eat shellfish and to have relations with a woman during her period.

Have you ever touched a football? Eaten shrimp? Made love to your spouse during menstruation? Then you, too, have engaged in an "abomination." And, yes, the Bible itself uses the same word to describe all of these activities.

What could be going on here? Historically, the ancient Hebrews were a small band of former slaves, surrounded by large, powerful enemies (the Egyptians and Babylonians, specifically). Some scholars thus believe the Holiness Code was developed to ensure the rapid proliferation of the Hebrew population. Eating shellfish in a hot desert climate could kill you. Sex during menstruation produced no offspring. Ditto for same-sex sexual activity. Thus, the priests deemed these practices to be an "abomination."

But what about Romans 1? First, who are these people Paul is talking about? Whoever they are, they worshiped "birds, four-footed beasts and creeping things" (Rom 1:23). Given that language, biblical scholars now believe Paul was referring to prostitutes whose trade was centered in Rome's many pagan temples. Paul, a lawyer and trained rhetoritician, cites this much-reviled group by way of inciting his readers, in much the same way a recent full-page add did in the Citizen-Times on this very  subject.

Having aroused the indignation of his readers, Paul then delivers a knockout punch, the point of this whole section: "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things" (Romans 2:1).

I remember when I saw that "You, therefore," as if for the first time. I felt like Paul was speaking directly to me. I realized this passage was not about my friend Michael. It was about me.  When I judge anyone, anyone, I am the guilty party, not them. And I realized, finally, this passage was not about my gay friends who live in faithful, loving, committed relationships. It was about prostitutes in pagan temples in ancient Rome.

So what, then, does the Bible teach? Well, many things, of course. But one of its main themes is covenant faithfulness — God's covenant faithfulness to humanity, and our call to be similarly faithful in our deepest relationships. That's why I believe, along with a growing number of other clergy (including rabbis and ministers from other traditions), that as people of faith, as people who believe the Bible, we need we need to stop trafficking in stereotypes and stop using the Bible as a weapon in support of causes that wound good people.

We need to stop judging people, for when we judge, we are the guilty party. And we need to affirm the sanctity of committed, long-term relationships, and to help make relationships characterized by love and faithfulness possible, legal and safe, regardless of gender.

Rev. Steve Runholt is the pastor of Warren Wilson Presbyterian
Church and College Chapel. He also serves on the board of Christians
for a United Community and is a founding member of People of Faith
for Just Relationships.


Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage

On March 1, 2006 at a Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of constitutional law at American University, was requested to testify. He did so. At the end of his testimony, a right-wing senator said:

"Mr Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man & a woman. What do you have to say about that?"

Raskin: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

The room erupted into applause.

Baltimore

On January 20, 2006, Judge M. Brooke Murdock of the Baltimore Circuit Court ruled that barring same-sex couples from the freedom to marry was in violation of the state constitution . In issuing the decision Murdock wrote, "Although tradition and societal values are important, they cannot be given so much weight that they alone will justify a discriminatory" law. The judge immediately stayed her order to give the state time to file an expected appeal in Maryland's highest court, the Court of Appeals.

After the decision was issued, the Rev. Keith Kron, director of the UUA's Office of Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Concerns, issued a statement to those UUs who had worked for the victory. Maryland, whose state courts have in recent years granted gay couples the right to adopt children, is also a state where the electorate passed a 2001 law protecting gay people from discrimination. These actions set the stage for the state to be viewed as fertile ground for future marriage equality action. No Defense of Marriage Act is in place, and a coalition of interfaith groups, including Unitarian Universalists, have worked to achieve the same rights as have been gained in Massachusetts. Kenneth Y. Choe, the ACLU attorney for the Lesbian & Gay Rights Project who argued the case, had predicted that the case would end in the Court of Appeals. Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran, whose office represents the county clerks who denied the licenses, said that while he would defend the law, he deemed it "appropriate that the issue, which has been framed as a matter of civil rights, be decided by the courts."

Sent from our MD Networking Group.
http://www.uua.org/news/2004/freedomtomarry/maryland.html.

Illinois becomes 16th state with gay rights law
Advocate.com
Posted: January 4, 2006
advocate.com

Tim Pierce hopes he never has to depend on a new Illinois antidiscriminatio law protecting gays and lesbians. But if he does, he's glad the protection is there. The 39-year-old university instructor and his partner live in Oswego—a town about 40 miles west of Chicago and one of several in the state that didn't have laws protecting gays and lesbians. That is, until now.

On Sunday a state law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity became a reality, nearly a year after Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed it into law and more than three decades since state lawmakers first debated it. "I'm hoping people won't need to rely on the law," said Pierce, who also is the president of a gay rights organization in Joliet. "But in instances where someone is denied housing or a job, they have an avenue to take that they couldn't before."

Illinois joins 15 other states that have laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. Of those 16, Illinois is one of only seven states where the law protects transgender
people, according to the Washington, D.C.–based National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

"Illinois is not a trendsetter, but it's not a right-winger," said Rick Garcia, political director for the gay rights group Equality Illinois.

"We're not Massachusetts or California, but we're certainly not Alabama or Tennessee. Illinoisans are reasonable people. We are cautious, but we want to do the right thing."

Some opponents worry that the law will put Illinois on the path to legalizing same-sex marriage, a concern activists dismiss. The battle to ban sexual orientation discrimination in Illinois began in the mid 1970s, when the first bills were introduced into the legislature.

Though bill after bill went by the wayside, communities across the state began amending their own antidiscrimination laws to include sexual orientation. Champaign was the first in 1977, followed by Urbana, Chicago, eight other cities, and Cook County.

Chicago-based Equality Illinois joined the fight in the early 1990s, making the antidiscrimination amendment its top priority. It took more than a dozen more years for the legislature to make it happen. In 2005 the Illinois house passed the antidiscrimination bill 65–51 on the last day before it would have died. The bill barely slid through the senate by a 30-27 vote, the minimum number required. Blagojevich signed it into law on January 21.

For Garcia, the battle has been a long and frustrating one, but he doesn't want to complain—too much. "It took 30 years for it [the legislature] to pass something as simple as protecting people on the basis of sexual orientation," Garcia said. "On one hand, the Illinois general assembly should be commended for recognizing all Illinoisans should be treated the same. But on the other hand, what the hell took so long?"

The law allows people to file complaints with the Illinois Department of Human Rights if they believe they were denied a job, housing, public accommodation, or credit. For many in Illinois, the Human Rights Act won't change their lives. Supporters have said about half of the state's population already lives in areas covered by local ordinances. But in Oswego or Danville or Belleville, the law marks the first time gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people can legally fight back.

"I think it's [the law] not going to have a lot of effect in places like Chicago and Cook County, but if you're in Pekin, Prairie du Rocher, Red Bud, or Zion, you'll be protected," Garcia said.

But not everyone believes adding sexual orientation to the Human Rights Act will benefit the state. Republican state senator Peter Roskam said he worries the law is not clear on its definition of sexual orientation and doesn't protect religious institutions from being forced to hire gays and lesbians. "I think it's going to lead to some unpleasant situations," said
Roskam, who voted against the bill.

Roskam, who is running for retiring U.S. representative Henry Hyde's seat in Congress, also fears the law is "a building block for gay marriage." State senate minority leader Frank Watson, a Republican who also voted against the bill, said the law will cause some politicians to push harder for laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. "The sexual orientation legislation has promulgated the push to pass the ban on same-sex marriage," he said.

Gay rights advocates say their opponents' fears are unfounded. Democratic state senator Carol Ronen, the chief sponsor of the antidiscrimination bill that Blagojevich signed, said she doesn't think the law will lead the state to legalize same-sex marriage. "That's a whole other area and another arena of discussion," Ronen said. "I think Illinois is far away from that."

Buff Carmichael, who publishes Prairie Flame, a monthly newspaper geared to gay Illinoisans outside Chicago, said Illinois's law lags behind public opinion. "The mood of the public has been more accepting in recent years than in times past," said Carmichael, who lives in Springfield. "We don't get kicked out of as many places as years ago."

Still, Carmichael said, it's about time gays received equal protection. "I would've hated to be the only gay person in some town in the Carbondale area and be looking for a job. But to have this law now, if you can prove it, they can't refuse to hire you anymore based on orientation," he said.

Gay Civil Rights Law Comes Into Force In Maine
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: December 28, 2005
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon05/12/122705maine.htm

(Augusta, Maine)
A law that provides human rights protections for Maine's LGBT community from discrimination in housing, employment and credit takes effect today. It makes Maine the last state in New England to ban discrimination against gays and lesbians and the first to specifically cover the transgendered.

LGBT civil rights advocates who fought for 30 years to get the law in place say they are not planning special events to mark the new law.

Under the civil rights law the Maine Human Rights Commission has the power to investigate bias complaints.

The legislature had approved the legislation and it was signed by Governor John Baldacci in March (story) but put on hold when the Christian Civic League of Maine began a repeal effort. The group gathered enough signatures to force the issue onto the ballot. The league has forced referenda on similar bills three times in the past decade and gays have seen the protections erased at the polls each time until this year.

The League also said it does not plan to mark the inauguration of the law today.

"We are deeply saddened this law passed and we will look for the first opportunity to repeal it," a spokesperson said. The group says it now will concentrate on getting a proposed amendment banning same-sex marriage put to voters.

The state's largest LGBT rights organization said it hopes the new law will encourage gays to remain in Maine.

"There are those who grew up here who would consider staying here, but didn't stay because there simply was no statewide law to protect them," said Betsy Smith of Equality Maine. .

U.S. battles over gay 'marriage' to continue into 2006
Posted: December 12, 2005 

WASHINGTON -- At least 16 states likely will wrestle with same-sex "marriage" in 2006 as the issue enters its third year at the forefront of national debate since Massachusetts' high court ordered the state to become the first in the country to "marry" homosexual couples.

As many as 10 states could see campaigns on amendments to uphold traditional marriage as the union of a man and a woman, while homosexual couples in seven states have filed lawsuits seeking the right to marry.

One state -- California -- already expects to see both lawsuits and amendment campaigns.

Homosexual-rights groups are eager to defeat California's marriage amendments because it would "blunt the momentum of these amendment battles," said Seth Kilbourn, leader of the Marriage Project for the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).

Also, "let's not forget that California lawmakers passed a [homosexual]-marriage bill this year," said Mr. Kilbourn, referring to legislation that Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed in September.

"If we can defeat the ballot measure, I think we can move forward again with that bill," he said.

Leaders of California's marriage-amendment campaigns, protectmarriage.com and VoteYesMarriage.com, have warned that their measures must go before voters so they can speak on marriage.

However, the VoteYesMarriage.com campaign is still in its fundraising stage and protectmarriage.com officials said late last week that they had not collected enough signatures to meet tomorrow's deadline.

Elsewhere, four states -- Alabama, South Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee -- are scheduled to hold votes on marriage amendments in 2006, although Tennessee's proposal has been challenged in court.

In addition, lawmakers in Wisconsin and Virginia are likely to approve marriage amendments while petition drives in Arizona, Florida and Illinois may put amendments before voters as well.

In the courts, homosexuals' lawsuits are under way in California, Connecticut, Iowa, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and \ Washington state.

The Washington decision is considered imminent.

Homosexual-rights supporters say a favorable decision would have even more impact than the 2003 Massachusetts ruling because Washington has no residency rules for marriage. In that event, homosexual couples from anywhere would be free to "marry" in that state.

Regardless of state activities, the issue eventually will come down to a federal definition of marriage, says Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage (AFM), which is promoting
a "marriage protection" amendment to the U.S. Constitution that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

"We're in a race" to see which happens first -- adoption of the AFM amendment or a court decision that strikes down that traditional definition and mandates same-sex "marriage," he said.

This race will accelerate in 2006, he added, and "we don't know who will win."

Dec 8, 2005
D.C. council approves domestic-partnership law

The Washington, D.C., city council on Tuesday passed a far-reaching domestic-partnership law extending rights and protections to the city's gay and lesbian couples. Now it's up to the mayor and Congress to bring the law to fruition.In a unanimous first-reading vote, the 13-member council voted to expand the current legal recognition of D.C. gay couples to include rights of inheritance as well as obligation to pay alimony and child support. At a second and final reading on December 20, the council and Democratic D.C. mayor Anthony Williams are expected to approvethe measure. Next the bill would go before Congress for a 30-day
review period and, if not vetoed, would become law.

The bill's advance was lauded by Jody M. Huckaby, executive director of Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. "Basic rights such as the ability to make medical decisions in emergencies and inheritance are key to the security and stability of same-sex families and we're pleased that the D.C. council recognizes this," said Huckaby. "But now it is the responsibility of Congress to follow the will of the residents of D.C. and allow this legislation to pass."

The proposed domestic-partnership law would provide some of the strongest legal protections for gay and unmarried couples in the nation, with only Vermont, Connecticut, and California surpassing its reach. (Advocate.com)

Majority Of Americans Support Rights For Gay Couples
by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief
Posted: August 3, 2005  5:00 pm ET
365Gay.com

WASHINGTON -- Support among American voters for same-sex marriage has rebounded to its highest point since July 2003 and for the first time, a majority favors giving gay and lesbian couples many of the same rights as married couples.

While 53% of those polled by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press oppose gay marriage, 35 percent said they favor gay marriage. That is the highest number of people supporting same-sex marriage since the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court took up the marriage issue in 2003, ultimately ruling in November that year that gay couples could wed.

Following the ruling support for gay unions plummeted and in last year's election 11 states banned same-sex unions in their constitutions. But, as the pollsters note, the bigger news is the growing support for civil unions and legal protections for gay couples.
Fifty-three percent, the same number as oppose gay marriage, would permit gays and lesbians to enter into legal arrangements that would give them many of the same rights as married couples.