SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: epicure who wrote (72197)8/11/2003 9:32:29 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
Except it isn't equal.

Equal or not, hypocritical or not, it's still better.

Here's something from a Christian site.

<<Some Vermont Officials Refuse To Perform "Civil Unions"
MONTPELIER, VT (CNSNews) -- Vermont's "civil union" law takes effect July 1, and as the date draws closer, a number of Vermont town clerks and justices of the peace insist they will not issue licenses or perform ceremonies for same-sex couples.

"I have resigned," said Tunbridge Town Clerk Helen O'Donnell in an exclusive interview with CNSNews.com.

"Under my moral beliefs, I feel I cannot issue the licenses. While the law allows me to appoint someone to act in my place, I didn't think that was right either, so I did what I had to do. I resigned."

The civil union legislation, signed into law by Democratic Governor Howard Dean in April, grants same-sex couples legal rights equivalent to those enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. Although the union is legally binding, it is not called marriage, but some critics see little difference.

Family groups fear the bill as passed will have a negative impact on the state and may be used to undermine marriage laws across the country.

O'Donnell, the Tunbridge town clerk, said she decided to resign after much thought, including discussions with her pastor. "He showed me relevant portions of scripture, but he didn't try to persuade me. He told me my actions should be based on my convictions."

O'Donnell said the town selectmen have asked her not to leave her post, but she said she decided to go now, rather than subject the town to any legal expense arising from potential lawsuits.

Tunbridge is a small town of 1,200 people located about 30 miles from White River Junction.

Asked for her estimate of how many people in town support the law, O'Donnell responded, "Most of the people in town are sad that it went through."

While declining to name other dissident clerks, ODonnell said, "Some of my colleagues told me they will stay in office and fight the law and take the consequences."

O'Donnell said only a minority of the state's 251 town clerks "have a problem with the law." Asked for a number, she responded, "between 30 and 40," adding that some may end up appointing other people to issue civil union licenses.

Susan Fortunati, town clerk of Corinth, Vermont, a town of 1,250 people, insisted, "I will not issue them."

Asked how she will avoid carrying out the law, the clerk responded, "I don't have an answer. I don't have an actual plan of action as yet. I would hope to have a plan by July 1st. It's now a day-to-day situation. I have a lot to think about."

Asked if she would appoint someone else to do the job, Fortunati said, "My feeling is, if I appoint someone, I am then an accomplice to the issuance of the license."

Fortunati had no comment on whether civil unions are guaranteed by the Vermont Constitution, but she did say, "It absolutely is a moral issue for me. I believe in God, and I believe God doesn't look favorably on this type of union. I have to live with myself. Once you sell your soul, you don't get it back. I have to live by what I believe to be right."

Asked if she has considered resignation, Fortunati responded, "I have not come to a full decision about what I will do."

Municipal officials who decline to perform the civil union ceremony face legal repercussions, according to Steven Jeffrey, executive director of the Vermont League of Cities and Towns.

"Those refusing to perform those duties imposed by law must understand the legal implications of their actions. They are subject to penalties and fines."

According to Jeffrey, the individual towns also are subject to legal sanctions and the cost of legal fees if the clerk's refusal results in civil litigation.

"Title IX of the Vermont Public Accommodations Act also prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, and town offices, where the licenses are issued, have been determined by our courts to be places of public accommodations," he said.

Those found guilty of violating the public accommodations law are subject to a fine of $1,000 for each violation.

Several justices of the peace - in the towns of Dover, Whitingham and Searsburg --insisted they would not perform the ceremonies. Two said they would resign rather than do so.

"They tell me I have to marry lesbians and gay men and I say 'no way'," said Helen Putnam of Searsburg. "What these people may do behind closed doors is fine, but I will not marry them."

According to Vermont Secretary of State Deborah Markowitz, while justices of the peace have the legal authority to perform marriages, they -- unlike town clerks -- are not mandated by law to carry out marriage ceremonies or civil unions.

The law creating civil unions grew out of a state Supreme Court decision handed down in December. The decision concluded that same-sex couples have been denied their right to the same benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples and that the denial was unconstitutional.

© 2000, www.CNSNews.com

(Post date: June 19, 2000)>>



To: epicure who wrote (72197)8/11/2003 9:36:48 AM
From: Lane3  Respond to of 82486
 
<<After civil union, why civil marriage?



by MICHAEL HENDRICKS

On June 24, 2002, the Province of Quebec’s new law on civil union came into effect. Like Vermont’s civil union, Quebec’s Bill 84 permits a same-sex couple to enter into a legally recognized conjugal relationship that permits access to all aspects of provincial family law including alimony, parental rights etc. In Quebec, same-sex couples may now register their unions and have access to all the responsibilities and benefits that accrue to legally married couples, except for marriage and divorce which are federal jurisdiction. And, of course, not to those federal statutes that offer specific protections for married spouses (for example, the bankruptcy law or the evidence act, which protects married spouses from being forced to testify against each other).

For the last four years, my “chum” of 29 years, René LeBoeuf, and I have been suing the federal and provincial governments for access to civil marriage. We are now awaiting the Quebec Superior Court’s decision in our case heard in November 2001. However, since civil union has become law, René and I are asked over and over why we insist on continuing to sue for access to civil marriage since we have “won.” In fact, Quebec has merely conceded defeat in practical terms so it appears that we have only won the first round. In court, our provincial government, together with the Canadian government and an assortment of fundamentalist religious groups, still opposes our request for civil marriage. Strategically, granting civil union strengthens their legal argument against our having access to civil marriage.

Going for the gold

On March 22 of this year, Superior Court Judge Louise Lemelin, who heard our case last November, called us back to court to determine if we intended to continue our pursuit of civil marriage and if we intended to be “united civilly.” Under oath, we answered yes to both questions.

As we explained to the judge, marriage is the “gold standard” of relationship recognition and we believe our relationship should be recognized as equal in every sense to heterosexual conjugal relationships. While we agree that civil union is a big advance for same-sex couples in Quebec, and we intend to take advantage of its provisions, we seek the dignity that comes with equality of choice and equal treatment under the law. For us, access to civil marriage means that gays and lesbians, and their families, will finally be seen as part of the social fabric and not as perpetual social delinquents. For us, access to civil marriage means complete civil equality.

Quite frankly, we seek full citizenship, equal status to heterosexual citizens, not second-class status in a legal ghetto created for same-sex couples (even though heterosexual couples can choose civil union over marriage if they wish, this freedom of choice is not available to us).

There are also practical reasons for our decision to continue our court challenge. Marriage is federal, but civil union is provincial, and thus, should we move to another province, our legal relationship would no longer exist. Moreover, marriage is recognized internationally while a local arrangement like civil union could never be. In addition, for our community, marriage is important because it is recognized by the federal government for immigration purposes: Canadian citizens can sponsor their married spouses for immigration but this is not automatically true for those in civil unions.

Nothing less than equal

However, beyond all these everyday practical questions, there is another issue that René and I see as profoundly important. Civil union is a provincial law and, like any law, it can be repealed should the winds of change blow in a different direction. Or it could be challenged by the present, or some future, federal government as being another form of marriage and thus outside provincial jurisdiction. While it is important that the National Assembly voted unanimously for granting same-sex couples access to provincial family law, this decision is still a political one. If we can convince the courts that we, as citizens, have an equal right to civil marriage under the Charter of Rights in the Canadian Constitution, then civil equality for gays and lesbians will be “carved in stone” and not vulnerable to electoral politics in the future. Never again would Canadian gay and lesbian youth be presented with the bleak picture of their futures that René and I grew up with. No longer could gays and lesbians be treated by society and by the law as social outcasts, a marginal and disposable fringe. Should we get a favourable decision from the Supreme Court, Canadian gays and lesbians would finally have full civil and legal recognition as human beings with full, equal citizenship.

Is that worth fighting for? We think so.

So, for the Supreme Court, we have a message: hang on to your robes, we’re coming. :

Michael Hendricks is a Montreal activist and a leader in the fight for legal recognition of same-sex marriages>>