HARTFORD -- A group called "Dignity," made up of gay Catholics sat down Monday with Church lobbyists from the Hartford Archdiocese.
They say it's time for the Vatican and the state to recognize gay marriages.
The Knights of Columbus and Connecticut's bishops are asking parishioners to sign a petition opposed to gay marriages. Monday night a group of gay Catholics got its chance to fight for equal time.
"We would like equal time during November for people to endorse gay marriages if that's what they chose to do," said Frank O'Gorman, spokesperson for Dignity/Hartford.
Gay marriage is legal in Vermont, and the Connecticut legislature may consider proposals to make it legal here too.
Connecticut's Catholic bishops, including Hartford's Archbishop Daniel Cronin strongly oppose any change to the law.
They are backing the petition and urging all Catholics to sign it. Many alreday have.
Canada's Gay Marriage Bill Could Be Ready By Spring Toronto Star
OTTAWA (CP) - Legislation on whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry could be considered by Parliament as early as the spring, Justice Minister Martin Cauchon said today.
Cauchon spoke after releasing a consultation paper on the subject which asks the Commons justice committee to conduct hearings with Canadians and gauge the appetite for allowing gay marriages.
The issue is sure to divide the Liberal caucus, which is fresh from a public schism over parliamentary reform. Many Liberal backbenchers, some of whom are opposed to allowing same-sex unions, say there are far more important issues to be discussed.
The question of whether to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples has been around for some time - Parliament voted to preserve the traditional definition of marriage as recently as 1999 - but it's not one that's officially
been put to Canadians.
Cauchon said it's time.
"Within the population, I feel that there is an increasing concern on that side," he told reporters. "It's an important social issue and I do believe that parliamentarians (should) have their say."
The paper provides four options to deal with the question:
- Changing the definition of marriage to allow same-sex couples.
- Creating civil unions.
- Leaving the definition of marriage solely in the hands of religious
institutions.
- Doing nothing.
Courts in Ontario and Quebec have ruled recently that the definition of marriage - an institution which joins a man with a woman - is discriminatory under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But they suspended the effect of their rulings
for two years so that Parliament can deal with the question.
Ottawa has appealed the rulings.
Cauchon said he wants quick action on the matter.
But some Liberal MPs questioned the timing of the discussion, saying there are other issues, including key justice-related matters, that require attention.
One example is a loophole that allows those who possess child pornography to escape punishment if the material is deemed to have "artistic merit."
Some Liberals also said the issue could divide caucus because many backbenchers would likely side with the Canadian Alliance on any substantial change of the definition of marriage.
Others said that the issue will be a hornets' net for the Liberals - especially as the leadership race begins.
If the justice committee recommends changes to the status quo, "There's going to be a major can of worms," said Scarborough Liberal MP Tom Wappel.
"It'll erupt at that point just around the time of the leadership decision ... and around the time that we're approaching the next election - all of which from my point of view politically is bad timing."
Some backbenchers noted the lecture they got from Prime Minister Jean Chrétien on Wednesday - following a divisive vote on parliamentary reform - pointing out how much work needs to be done on matters ranging from health care to
implementing the Kyoto accord to cut greenhouse gases.
"I didn't think that this would rate as one of the more important issues," said Ontario MP Dan McTeague, who opposes same-sex marriage.
"I challenge the minister to get his priorities right and to deal with issues that Canadians believe are fundamentally important and stop tinkering with things that frankly have worked quite well for a millennium."
Stephen Harper, leader of the Canadian Alliance, said the discussion paper was released to deflect attention away from their internal strife.
He said the Alliance staunchly supports the current definition of marriage, but added there appear to be some good things in the paper.
"There are several options in this paper that are ultimately consistent with our goal of preserving the traditional definition of marriage," he said outside the Commons.
"We'll discuss those options and hear the debate and decide which one is appropriate...
"Our members will have a free vote and be able to make their own decisions."
Angry Ohio Judge Denies a Marriage License Again Transsexual groom-to-be refuses to answer court questions about his genitalia
by Eric Resnick Gay People's Chronicle
Warren - Trumbull County Probate Judge Thomas A. Swift again denied a heterosexual couple a marriage license - this time because the groom-to-be,who is transsexual, would not answer questions about his surgery and physical attributes.
Swift made his oral ruling during a November 5 hearing, after a dramatic and lengthy exchange between the judge and attorney Deborah Smith, who represents the couple, Jacob Nash, 37, and Erin Barr, 30, of Howland.
The exchange was so contentious that Swift got up and walked out of the courtroom after he ruled, forgetting to adjourn court. Nash was left seated in the witness stand.
The hearing resulted from Nash and Barr submitting a second application for a marriage license October 2, less than 48 hours after Swift denied their first application because it contained errors, he said.
The two applications are separate cases with different numbers. The first case is still under appeal. But Swift's insistence that all the evidence presented in the first case become part of the second case drew the first objection from Smith.
The two were at odds over Nash's uncorrected Massachusetts birth certificate, which the court obtained in 2000 as part of Nash's name change.
That birth certificate was sealed under Massachusetts law when, following sex reassignment surgery, Nash was issued a new one with the sex marker corrected.
Smith admits that it was a mistake allowing the uncorrected birth certificate into evidence in the first case, noting that "the court already had it anyway."
But in this case, Smith argued that Ohio must honor the Massachusetts order according to the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Swift admitted it into evidence anyway, above Smith's objections.
Smith insisted that the judge "take judicial notice of the law of Massachusetts."
"I'm not familiar with taking notice of other states," said Swift. "If you want to file a brief, we can talk about it."
Smith said after the hearing that taking notice of other jurisdictions is one of the basic rules of evidence that govern all courts.
Smith called Barr to the stand first to answer questions about what happened when she and Nash presented their second application to clerk Rosemary Horvath.
The couple went through the procedure exactly as Horvath would handle any couple's application, by presenting a driver's license for identification and answering a few questions under oath.
Smith also put into evidence Barr's birth certificate from West Virginia, which does not have a sex designation, and her Ohio driver's license, which does.
"Do you believe that your fundamental right to marry under the U.S. Constitution has been obstructed?" asked Smith.
"Yes," said Barr.
"Do you believe you have received disparate treatment from this court that violates your right under the U.S. Constitution to equal protection under the law?" asked Smith.
Smith later asked the same questions of Nash.
Barr replied, "Yes."
"Why?" asked Smith.
"Because we have been required to produce an exponential amount of evidence to prove our gender in the state of Ohio," said Barr.
Prior to the September 5 hearing on the first application, Smith signaled to Swift that if he denies a marriage license to the couple, her clients would bring a federal civil rights suit against him.
Smith asked Nash questions nearly identical to those asked Barr.
However, Swift, who did not ask Barr anything, began questioning Nash about his Massachusetts divorce decree. His name on the document is Pamela Nash.
"When you filed your divorce petition, how did you sign your documents?" asked Swift.
"Pamela," replied Nash.
"How are you identified on your [uncorrected] birth certificate?" asked Swift.
"Objection!" said Smith, on the basis that Massachusetts has already settled the matter of Nash's corrected sex, and Swift has neither the authority to overrule it nor issue an Ohio birth certificate in its place.
Swift noted her objection, but pressed Nash anyway and ordered him to answer.
"Pamela Nash," said Nash.
Pointing to his right under Ohio law to determine matters of fact in marriage license applications, Swift inquired about the process of correcting a Massachusetts birth certificate.
Nash said it required a statement from a physician.
Then, Swift made what Smith called an "unfair surprise" by changing the controlling issues in the case. These had been previously agreed to in a journal entry made by Swift, and in Smith's pretrial report. Both outlined the issues to be addressed at trial.
Swift's journal entry indicated that the 1987 Stark County probate case In Re Ladrach would be the controlling case law here.
In that case, the court denied a male to female transsexual the right to marry on the basis that chromosomes at birth determine sex.
But during the hearing, Swift said that the standard for determining sex he was applying was last year's Kansas Supreme Court ruling In Re Estate of Marshall Gardiner, which lists eight areas that affect sex designation including hormones, gonads, chromosomes, phenotype, and sex assigned at birth.
"The court finds that the holdings in [Gardiner] are more contemporary than Ladrach," said Swift. "We are not going to rely on chromosomes."
If allowed to pursue that line of law, Swift would have been able to ask Nash about his surgeries and his current anatomical structures. Smith said later that had she known the judge was going to do that, she would have brought a medical expert to testify.
Smith objected again, telling Swift that Massachusetts has already settled the matter of Nash's sex and this case was about whether or not the judge was going to grant full faith and credit to it. She instructed Nash not to answer the judge's questions.
Swift argued that he has the right to make the inquiries according to Ohio law and that full faith and credit does not need to be given if doing so would violate a state's public policy - in this case, against what he perceives to be a same-sex marriage.
Smith shot back that the judge was invading Nash's privacy, and in doing so "causing harm you should not cause."
"All I attempt to do is look into those issues," said Swift. "Jacob is a post-operative female-to-male transsexual and this court has the opportunity to determine what has been completed and what has transpired."
Smith then charged that Swift was violating canons of legal ethics by "unnecessarily prying into a private matter."
At that, Swift said, "The court has no alternative but to deny the application." As he left the courtroom he told Smith, "You may submit a brief or you have the right to appeal."
Battle for Gay Marriage in New Jersey
By Ruth Padawer, Staff Writer North Jersey News
When Marcye and Karen Nicholson-McFadden sued New Jersey for the right to marry, they knew that half the battle would be fought outside the courthouse.
They and the six other couples in the three-month-old lawsuit will soon begin appearing in church basements, in union halls, and on college campuses to bring their case directly to the public. Their goal is to show how similar they are to other families - yet how far they fall outside the law's protective embrace.
The Nicholson-McFaddens have jointly owned their Monmouth County home for 11 years. They run errands for their neighbors, help organize the annual block party, serve on the local zoning board, and sprint after their 3-year-old.
"We're pretty Main Street America," said Marcye Nicholson-McFadden. "In every respect, we live a regular married life, but we get none of the recognition or benefits."
Although a ruling is not likely for months or even years, supporters of the lawsuit are unveiling a campaign to promote broader acceptance of marriage for same-sex couples. Opponents of gay marriage have, for now, remained relatively
quiet, but if recent history is any indication, gay-marriage supporters know that well-funded opposition will eventually become a force to contend with.
Same-sex marriages are not legal anywhere in the United States, but gay activists have filed lawsuits in several states hoping to win that right. The results have been mixed.
"We're building on the experience of other states," said Steven Goldstein, who is coordinating the education campaign in New Jersey for Lambda Legal Defense, the group that filed the suit in the Superior Court in Hudson County. "We're not just preaching to those who are already on our side. We're reaching out to everyone. There's virtually no door we won't knock on to get support."
Some may wonder why a fight before the court needs to be replicated in the court of public opinion.
Gay-rights supporters say skeptics need only look at what happened in Hawaii and Alaska, where lawsuits were filed in the 1990s. The Hawaiian judiciary ruled that same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marriage, but voters intervened, amending the Hawaii Constitution so state legislators could limit marriage to one man and one woman. The scenario was repeated in Alaska.
In Vermont, where a lawsuit was filed in 1997, gay-marriage supporters relentlessly countered talk of God and sex with talk of civil rights. Their efforts, begun even before the lawsuit was filed, bore fruit: The state Supreme Court ordered the Legislature to extend marriage benefits to same-sex couples, and two years ago lawmakers created "civil unions," a parallel track that falls short of marriage but offers gay couples far more than they had before.
Already, activists in New Jersey have connected with hundreds of pastors and rabbis around the state, collecting 145 signatures from Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Jewish clergy on a resolution of support. Several of those same clergy agreed to raise the issue from their pulpits, although there is division on the issue among Protestant sects and branches of Judaism.
The New Jersey chapter of the National Organization for Women is helping out as well. The group's president, Elizabeth Volz, sent a letter to Governor McGreevey this summer, asking him to stand by the court ruling, whatever it may be. In the next few months, NOW plans to hammer home the point in its newsletter, encouraging members to join the "public conversation" and familiarize their neighbors and co-workers with the issue.
"We start by educating our members, and then they educate their friends," Volz said.
Two weeks ago, local gay and lesbian groups and the national Human Rights Campaign hosted a "town meeting" at the Montclair Public Library, at which two of the couples from the lawsuit appeared. Later this month, two other plaintiffs will speak in New Brunswick, once again to make clear that the rights automatically bestowed upon newlyweds do not extend to same-sex couples.
After the November elections, Lambda will host five large town meetings around the state, joined by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, NOW New Jersey, and local labor groups, Goldstein said. The plan is to have plaintiffs tell their stories, putting a human face on a political - and deeply personal - issue.
Higher insurance costs
When it's Marcye and Karen Nicholson-McFadden's turn to talk, they will try to convince whoever will listen that because they are lesbians, they have been shortchanged. They will explain, for example, how they must pay for two parent-child health insurance plans because in the eyes of officialdom, they don't count as a family. They will describe how they must pay an extra $4,800 a year for health insurance premiums alone, plus $1,000 for the second deductible.
"We've been together longer than most of our peers, but our relationship is discounted and cheapened by not being recognized by the state," said Karen Nicholson-McFadden, who is expecting the family's second child in January. "A marriage license is more than a social nicety or a simple piece of paper. No matter how many wonderful lawyers, financial advisers, and accountants we hire, we simply cannot come close to getting the benefits and protections granted by a marriage license."
For now, longtime opponents of gay marriage - the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, and various traditional-values groups - are on the sidelines.
"It's not on my radar screen right now," said Bill Bolan, executive director of the New Jersey Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the state's Catholic bishops. "The Legislature's not doing anything, so I'm not doing anything. If you react too far in advance, people won't remember."
Len Deo, head of the New Jersey Family Policy Council in Parsippany, said his group intends to file a friend-of-the-court brief opposing marriage for same-sex couples, but added that there was no rush. And although Deo has talked with other groups about coordinating a broader effort, nothing has been planned so far.
"We haven't discussed leadership and we haven't discussed specific tactics - newspaper ads, fund-raising," he said.
Neither has the New Jersey Coalition for Traditional Marriage, formed in 1998 to push a bill limiting marriage to one man and one woman.
"What I do know is we will be working with insurance companies and businesspeople, who feel allowing homosexual marriage would be adverse to their interests," said Romney Biddulph, a prominent Mormon who is president of the coalition.
"These seven couples, by going to the courts, are doing an end run around the will of the people," Biddulph said. "They know that three-quarters of the people in New Jersey are opposed to homosexual marriage. Because once you allow that, where do you stop? Why couldn't a man marry his own daughter? Why couldn't a 60-year-old man marry a 13-year-old girl?"
Vermont campaigns
The arguments on each side of the issue in New Jersey echo those made in other states where similar lawsuits were filed, particularly Vermont. There, gay-rights supporters worked the public, reaching out not only to their own constituency but to the broader population as well.
Early on, they began distributing brochures and fact sheets wherever the public gathered: county fairs, church halls, Rotary clubs, and homemakers associations. They collected signatures on petitions favoring equal rights for same-sex couples. They toted bulletin boards, with photos of the clean-cut, all-American-looking plaintiffs, to keep the message personal and non-threatening. These are your neighbors, they said, the people you see at PTA meetings and in the grocery aisles.
By their estimate, they reached one third of the state's more than 600,000 residents through direct engagement, one Vermonter to another.
In the end, the lawsuit itself proved to be a central part of the educational campaign.
"It tells a story about individual couples, showing that their love and their commitment is not so different from the love and commitment of other people," said Mary Bonauto, a co-counsel in the Vermont case who is now arguing a similar lawsuit in Massachusetts. "The suits say that the law is a safety net, but not for these folks. In fact, for these folks, the law is a minefield."
Opponents of same-sex marriage in Vermont did not fire back with their own campaign until the court punted the issue to the Legislature. That's when Catholic and Mormon church leaders, as well as traditional-family groups, led rallies and prayer vigils outside the statehouse, circulated petitions declaring the sanctity of traditional marriage, and ran full-page newspaper ads
slamming legislators who indicated support for civil unions.
"Marriage is a sacrament," Vermont's Catholic bishop, Kenneth Angell, said at the time. "It is a holy state of life. It is something that we have to defend."
Court Treats Same-Sex Breakup As Divorce
By The Associated Press The Seattle Times
YAKIMA, Washington -- A Yakima County Superior Court judge has ruled that two women ending a 10-year relationship must divide their assets equally, a decision that amounts to a divorce in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage.
Judge Heather Van Nuys said the relationship between Yakima physician Julia Robertson and Seattle nurse Linda Gormley was "sufficiently marriagelike to provide equitable relief."
Gormley considered the ruling a personal victory and a major accomplishment for same-sex couples everywhere.
"Before, we had minimal legal protections," said Gormley, who sued Robertson after the couple ended their relationship in 1998. "Hopefully, now that changes."
Van Nuys, who issued the written ruling Friday, called the couple's relationship an "intimate domestic partnership," allowing both women the same property rights given to a husband and wife in a divorce.
While the women never entered into a marriage contract, "they did engage in activities directly affecting their careers, assets and debts, including pooling resources, commingling funds, (and) becoming jointly liable on debts ... ," Van Nuys wrote.
The two women shared a home titled in Robertson's name. Gormley was responsible for her share of debts owed on joint credit accounts but had no claim to the house.
Van Nuys said it would be unfair for Robertson "to retain all the property, the home, the equity and the improvements and be responsible for only half of the jointly held credit cards she maintained during the relationship."
Gormley received cash for her share of the house, and the two split common debts. Other property, including furniture and cars, was divided between them.
Robertson's lawyer, Bryan Myre, asked Van Nuys to reconsider the financial terms of the ruling at a hearing next Friday.
He said he was unsure whether Robertson would appeal. If an appellate court were to uphold the decision, it would set precedent in courts statewide.
In May, the state Supreme Court in the case of Vasquez v. Hawthorne ruled that a Seattle man's 30-year same-sex relationship was enough like a marriage to grant him a share of his deceased partner's estate.
But that precedent had never before been applied in the breakup of a same-sex couple, Myre said.
State Rep. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, an openly gay member of the Legislature, told the Yakima Herald-Republic that Van Nuys' ruling was "fairly enormous for Washington state."
Desert Lawmaker's Group Pushes Davis Over Same-Sex Union Panel
By Chris Rizo, Correspondent, San Bernardino Sun
SACRAMENTO, California – Gov. Gray Davis said almost eight months ago that he would form a task force to explore the feasibility of a Vermont-style law granting legal recognition to same-sex unions in California.
Since that highly publicized statement to the Bay Area Reporter, a San Francisco gay newspaper, and subsequent public proclamations, observers on both sides of the issue have wondered if the commission was formed.
State Sen. William "Pete" Knight, who wrote Proposition 22, the voter-approved initiative that two years ago affirmed that marriage in California should only be recognized between a man and a woman, perhaps wants to know more than most.
Knight, R-Victorville, said in a telephone interview Wednesday that Davis was either "pandering to the homosexual community" when he made the pledge and had no intention of convening the task force, or the commission is meeting in secret.
To find the answer, an organization of which Knight is the chairman, the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, filed a lawsuit against Davis on Sept. 5, seeking records relating to the makeup of the task force and its charter.
The lawsuit followed the group's May 10 formal request for the documents under the state's open-records statutes. The governor's office denied the request, saying the documents were "privileged" communication.
On Monday, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Trina Berger-Plavin ruled that while internal memos regarding whether a task force should be created were indeed privileged, all other documents generated after the decision relating to the commission must be released.
The order will be served on the governor this week, according to Andrew Pugno, attorney for Knight's group.
Russ Lopez, a spokesman for Davis, denied that a commission has ever been formed, affirming an affidavit to the Sacramento court filed by Eric C. Bauman, the governor's liaison to the gay community.
If no commission was formed, "it shows what we've known all along that you can't believe a word the governor says," Knight said.
Davis, a Democrat, signed legislation last year opposed by Knight that gave domestic partners registered with the state several protections previously enjoyed only by married couples, including the ability to make medical decisions on behalf of an ill or injured partner.
The California Alliance for Pride and Equality lauded the governor for his willingness to study the idea of civil unions, which, they say, would further gay couples' rights in California.
Ilona Turner, lobbyist for the organization, believes there is a "legitimate reason" that the commission has not been formed.
"The governor has been a great friend to the ... (gay) community," Turner said.
Besides, "this was not a promise to ... (begin) civil unions in California by any means," she said.
Nevada Marriage Measure Spurs Debate
By Andy Bourelle, Reno Gazette-Journal
Some opponents of an anti-gay marriage measure on the November ballot doubt they’ll be victorious in stopping a proposed change to the Nevada Constitution.
But they feel garnering as many “no” votes as possible on the state’s Question 2 still is important for the ongoing fight for gay residents’ rights.
“If we get 45 percent of the vote, that would show the increasing understanding and awareness of the people of Nevada,” said David Ward, a Reno resident and vocal opponent of the measure. “It would be a moral victory, of sorts, for human rights and civil rights.”
Some supporters said they want as many votes as possible to show the Legislature that gay people should not be granted additional concessions.
“It would give the Legislature a strong message that we really mean what we say,” said Christy Dyer, a board member for the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage.
If passed, the measure would amend the state constitution to say that “only marriages between a male and female should be recognized and given effect in this state.”
Nevada statute already states that same-sex couples cannot be married in the state. However, under current rules, the state is forced to recognize the same-sex marriage of a couple that moved from a state where such a union is lawful. Currently, only Vermont allows gay marriages.
In 2000, 70 percent of voters endorsed the “protect marriage” initiative, and 30 percent opposed it. Because the measure calls for a change in the Nevada Constitution, it must be voted on twice.
Winning more votes for this year’s question than the 2000 initiative won — even if it isn’t a majority — would be a symbolic victory for those who support more rights for gay people and send a message that Nevadans are changing their perspectives on the issue, opponents said.
“I don’t think we’re going to win in terms of defeating it, but I think a win will be if we hold them down to the 60-percent range this time,” said Bob Fulkerson, a gay man and executive director of Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, a civil rights-advocacy group.
Fulkerson said gay-rights groups plan to appeal to the Legislature next term to extend to domestic couples the same rights as those enjoyed by married couples when it comes to hospital visitation and health insurance.
“A ‘no’ vote would also take the wind out of the sails of the right wing when they go to the Legislature opposing basic protections for same-sex couples,” said Fulkerson, whose Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada has offices in Carson City, Reno and Las Vegas.
Dyer, a Reno resident, said that her side wants to win, but the focus is on not losing votes.
“It will pass again, but we hope we can hold the line at 70 percent as well,” she said.
Dyer said she has been going door-to-door to get the group’s message across. She said she found that most people support Question 2.
“The majority of the people I have met as I’ve walked and talked are definitely for keeping marriage between a man and a woman,” Dyer said.
In 1996, Congress passed and former President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The definition was to be binding on all agencies and programs of the federal government.
However, the act left it up to individual states to define marriage for their own agencies and programs.
Since then, 35 states have passed constitutional amendments such as Nevada is considering, said Richard Ziser, chairman of the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage.
The coalition formed in 1999 and collected about 120,000 signatures the following year to have the question placed on the ballot.
Ziser said treating same-sex relationships the same as male-female marriages will lead to schools teaching children that a homosexual lifestyle is a viable alternative to heterosexual marriage.
Ziser said also that the measure does not disallow any rights for gay people.
“It doesn’t take away any rights; it doesn’t give any rights,” Ziser said. “It just gives constitutional protection to Nevada marriage law.”
Opponent Ward, a heterosexual man who has been married 29 years, said that is precisely the problem with Question 2.
“It protects the status quo,” Ward said, “and the status quo is to treat people who have a different sexual orientation as second-class citizens.”
[Sidebar]
How the statewide question did when voters considered it in 2000
“Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to provide that: ‘Only a marriage between a male and female person shall be recognized and given effect in this state?’ ”
Couples Urged to Oppose Gay Marriages
By Art Babych, Canadian Catholic News, Cornwall, Ont.
The Canadian bishops are encouraging married Catholic couples to take part in the national discussions over same-sex marriages.
"I think we have to help our people understand that this debate is an important one," said Bishop Pierre Morissette of Baie Comeau, Que.
Morissette, along with Archbishop Terrence Prendergast of Halifax, represents the bishops on the Canadian Organization for Life and Family (COLF).
"Many people don't want to get involved in the debate because they could be perceived as being intolerant or as people who are not
compassionate," he said in a joint presentation to the bishops meeting in Cornwall.
The federal government is expected to hold public hearings shortly on the issue of same-sex marriages and COLF hopes to participate. But Morissette said the intervention of married couples would also be helpful.
In September, lawyers for the federal justice department argued in the Ontario Court of Appeal that same-sex couples don't meet the "core opposite-sex requirements" of marriage, which are based on "procreation, the raising of children from the marriage and companionship."
The department was appealing a July ruling by the Ontario Divisional Court stating that the ban against gay and lesbian marriages violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It gave the federal government two years to change the marriage laws.
Some bishops wanted to know how couples could make their voice heard politically on the issue of same-sex marriage.
Archbishop Adam Exner of Vancouver said his diocese's pro-life office is currently organizing a massive letter writing campaign. "It's one way in which we can make our voice heard."
As well, the Ontario bishops are to release a document soon asking Catholics to lobby members of Parliament and the provincial parliament to oppose expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions.
Forum Will Examine Marriage, Gay Unions
Author to discuss institution's history
By Emily Sweeney, Boston Globe Staff Correspondent
Gay unions have long been a topic of heated debate across the country. In Massachusetts, the issue has emerged as one of the focal points of tension between the leading Massachusetts gubernatorial candidates. And meanwhile seven gay couples are fighting before the state's highest court to legalize same-sex marriage, while a conservative group in Waltham aims to amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
A forum in Watertown tonight will examine why same-sex marriage is such a controversial and political issue.
E.J. Graff, author of ''What Is Marriage For? The Strange Social History of Our Most Intimate Institution,'' will speak about the history of marriage in the eyes of the law and the current legal situation for same-sex couples in Massachusetts.
Graff points to several developments in this country – the evolution of divorce laws, the legalization of contraception, and the onset of capitalism – as factors that changed the focus of civil marriage from money and reproduction to love, which in turn has introduced the issue of recognizing same-sex relationships.
''Once you make your own living, you can make your own bed,'' Graff said. ''Now marriage is for love more than money. It is a new public philosophy for civil marriage. That's why it seems possible to have not just 'boy plus girl equals baby,' but also 'girl plus girl equals love.' It's a different equation.''
Graff, who is a visiting scholar at the Brandeis Women's Studies Research Center and a contributing editor to ''The American Prospect'' and to Out magazine, researched her book while she was a visiting scholar at Radcliffe. Published in 1999, the book looks at how the parameters of marriage have changed.
''What I found was that marriage has been an amazingly flexible institution that has shifted its rules to fit every era, class, economy, and sector of society. That is a direct contradiction to the idea that there is one idea of marriage,'' said Graff, who lives in Watertown.
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Shannon O'Brien has given her support to gay unions and says that she would sign legislation for gay marriage, while Republican Mitt Romney opposes gay marriage but ''believes domestic partnership status should be recognized in a way that includes the potential for health benefits and rights of survivorship.''
Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage, a nonprofit located in Waltham, is seeking to amend the Massachusetts constitution to ban gay marriage. In July the group's petition to put the question on the ballot was killed in the Legislature. The group is lobbying Acting Governor Jane Swift to call the state Legislature back into session to address the issue.
Tonight's forum is sponsored by The World in Watertown, a private organization that aims to promote diversity and nondiscriminatory practices; it was organized by Alex Liazos, a former town councilor.
''Partnerships, Civil Unions, and Same-Sex Marriages'' will take place at 7:30 p.m. at the First Parish Church, 35 Church St., Watertown.
Belgium Moves Towards Gay Weddings
BRUSSELS, Belgium (Reuters) – Belgium moved a step closer towards becoming the second country to allow same-sex marriages after the Netherlands.
The Senate's Justice Commission voted 11-4 in favour of a bill that would effectively give gay couples the same legal status as heterosexual ones.
"This proposal will put right what many homosexuals view as discrimination – the ban on marriage until now," Green Senator Josy Dubie told RTBF radio on Wednesday.
The draft law has to be passed by the upper and lower chambers of parliament before it becomes law.
Three parties opposed the bill – the Francophone Liberals, the Vlaams Blok and the Francophone Christian Democrats.
Belgium, whose population of 10 million is 75 percent Roman Catholic, has increasingly broken from its conservative traditions.
The government legalised so-called mercy killings earlier this year and decriminalised the possession of cannabis for personal use in 2001.
Although the Netherlands has recognised registered gay partnerships since 1998, it only passed laws allowing same-sex couples to marry and adopt children in December 2000.
