A few victories ...

[Pookie]

Arkansas Anti-Gay Foster Care Ban Overturned

December 29, 2004

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

LITTLE ROCK - - Finding that children are not harmed by living with gay or lesbian parents, an Arkansas court today struck down a state regulation that banned gay people and anyone living in a household with a gay adult from being foster parents in the state. The American Civil Liberties Union brought the lawsuit against the state in 1999 on behalf of three prospective foster parents.

"Throughout this case, the state has relied on ugly stereotypes to deny children in the Arkansas foster care system the chance of having the widest possible pool of foster families available to them," said Rita Sklar, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arkansas. "We’re very pleased that the court saw through these arguments and has recognized that gay and lesbian people can provide homes just as loving and stable as anyone else’s."

In his findings, Circuit Court Judge Timothy Fox flatly rejected many of the claims the state had made about gay and lesbian people’s suitability as parents. In his decision, Fox wrote: "(Psychology pioneer) Jerome Bruner has suggested that one of the reasons people believe in our system of justice may be as simple as ‘our faith that confrontation is a good way to get to the bottom of things.’ The ‘confrontation’ in this case has presented us all with an excellent opportunity to replace ignorance with knowledge and to make an informed decision based on information as opposed to assumption."

Among Judge Fox’s findings of fact:

* Being raised by gay parents doesn’t increase the risk of psychological, behavioral, or academic problems for children.
* Children of lesbian and gay parents are just as well adjusted as children of straight parents.
* There is no factual basis for saying that heterosexual parents might be better able to guide children through adolescence than gay parents.
* There are no reasons that health, safety, or welfare of a foster child might be negatively impacted by living in a foster home where there is a gay person present.
* The blanket exclusion can hurt children by excluding a pool of effective foster parents.

"Throughout the trial we presented a variety of experts who proved that the state’s justifications for this ban were nothing but baseless myths about gay people," said Leslie Cooper, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project. "This is a victory not only for gay families, but for the many children in the Arkansas foster care system who now have a better shot at finding a good home."

After Arkansas’s Child Welfare Agency Review Board established a policy in 1999 that "no person may serve as a foster parent if any adult member of that person’s household is a homosexual," the ACLU filed a lawsuit in state court challenging the policy on behalf of three Arkansans who are challenging the ban:

* William Wagner of Waldron, who works in an optical laboratory. Wagner has been married for 31 years and has two adult children. Although he is a married heterosexual, he is disqualified from serving as a foster parent because his gay son sometimes lives at home. Wagner and his wife hope to serve as foster parents because they already provide emergency shelter to teens who have been physically abused and kicked out of their homes for being lesbian or gay and would like to be available to take care of teens in the foster care system.
* Matthew Lee Howard, a teacher, who lives with his partner Craig Stoopes, a librarian, in Little Rock. The couple has been in a committed relationship for 19 years, is currently raising two children, and hopes to serve as foster parents.
* Anne Shelley of Fayetteville is a community organizer for various non-profit organizations and would like to serve as a foster parent. She is prevented from doing so under Arkansas law because she is a lesbian.

Leslie Cooper and James Esseks of the ACLU’s Lesbian & Gay Rights Project, Grif Stockley of the ACLU of Arkansas, and cooperating attorneys David Ivers and Emily Sneddon represent the prospective foster parents.

The decision can be read online at: http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=17242&c=104

Source: http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=17243&c=100

 

[Pookie]

Montana High Court Says University System Must Provide Gay Employees with Domestic Partner Benefits

December 30, 2004

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MISSOULA, MT - In a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Montana Supreme Court ruled today that the state must provide lesbian and gay employees of the University of Montana System with the option of purchasing health insurance and other employee benefits for their domestic partners.

"This is an incredible victory for the lesbian and gay employees of the University of Montana System who need to protect their families just like their straight colleagues do," said Scott Crichton, Executive Director of the ACLU of Montana. "The court has said that same-sex couples who form committed relationships can no longer be denied the same protections and benefits that it affords different-sex couples."

The court, in a four-to-three decision, ruled that the University System's policy of excluding lesbian and gay employees from equal employment benefits violates the state constitution's equal protection guarantees.

In a concurring opinion, Judge James C. Nelson writes, "[T]he equal protection clause states that ‘No person' shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. The language is clear and unambiguous. ‘No person' means simply that - there is no language in this clause excepting out of this guarantee gay and lesbians. At least our society has not come to the position that homosexuals are not even to be considered as persons."

Carol Snetsinger and Nancy Siegel are two of the plaintiffs represented by the ACLU. They have been in a committed relationship for more than eight years. Snetsinger works in the biology department at the University of Montana, Missoula, and Siegel is a physical therapist. Due to the small size and limited purchasing power for health care of the place where Siegel works, she has no access to group insurance through her employer and has been forced to purchase private insurance that is inferior to and much more expensive than coverage that the married university employees are able to purchase for their spouses.

"We are ecstatic about this decision. It's been a long wait, and now we're thrilled that gay and lesbian employees of the University System will be able to insure their families," said Snetsinger. "I was moved to tears when I heard the decision. It's an incredible way to end this year."

The ACLU brought the lawsuit in February 2002 on behalf of two lesbian couples and PRIDE, Inc., a Montana based lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy organization whose members include employees and domestic partners of employees of the University of Montana System. The lawsuit charged that it was unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples access to health insurance, disability coverage and other benefits available to married employees and even to committed opposite-sex couples that signed an affidavit of common law marriage.

"This is truly a landmark decision," said Holly Jo Franz, one of the attorneys who argued the case. "The court has made it clear that same-sex couples must be respected."

Source: http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=17248&c=101

 

[Raimondin]

A few Great victories!

Let's hope this spreads thruout the land!

 

[Equinoxe]

Both are very good news, thank you for sharing those stories. Though I am slightly dismayed at the amount of time it took to resolve those issues (5 years for the case in Arkansas), but that is the just system I suppose...

 

[College_geek]

Among Judge Fox’s findings of fact:

* Being raised by gay parents doesn’t increase the risk of psychological, behavioral, or academic problems for children.
* Children of lesbian and gay parents are just as well adjusted as children of straight parents.
* There is no factual basis for saying that heterosexual parents might be better able to guide children through adolescence than gay parents.
* There are no reasons that health, safety, or welfare of a foster child might be negatively impacted by living in a foster home where there is a gay person present.
* The blanket exclusion can hurt children by excluding a pool of effective foster parents.

It could also possibly help raise a better child by allowing the child to grow up in a non-homophobic environment. Or at least that's what I invision.

Right about now, the only people in the government that I really like are judges because they seem to be the only ones making any good decisions nowadays. Go figure that many people hate the judges because of stuff like this and think that their power should be decreased.

Thanks for the wonderful articles, Pookie.

 

[Regis2001]

Woohoo!

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: soon the heterosexual hegemony will be displaced in favour of a new, tolerant, open, and above all other things GAY AS FUCK government!

But seriously, these are both great steps towards a more equal society. Have faith in the justice system, people - it will come through for us in the end.

 

[Pellias]

This is really great!

Thank you Pookie for the link. It´s an interesting site.

Regis2001 - are you a candidate for president? I would vote for your " new, tolerant, open, and above all other things GAY AS FUCK government ". I would be tempted to move to USA just to be able to.

I´ll start with the fundraising. Just say when .

 

[John Doe]

we should't concern ourselves with inconsequential types like gays. Instead we should worry about the really dangerous people adopting or foster parenting. the kinds that can REALLY fuck up a kid, like Jews or negroes.

And fat people.

 

[Regis2001]

Regis2001 - are you a candidate for president? I would vote for your " new, tolerant, open, and above all other things GAY AS FUCK government ". I would be tempted to move to USA just to be able to.

Sadly not. Too young and too English to run for President. I could be a Governor though, if I got famous.

we should't concern ourselves with inconsequential types like gays.

Here, here! I vote that all Monosexuals be banned from parenting! It is the only way forward!

 

[Tikee_Booming]

funny

The story was uplifting. What you do in the bedroom shouldn't affect how you raise your children.


Stuponfucious, you are the funniest. I think I cracked up for a good ten minutes.


Regis, you know people are rallying in the states to make it legal for foreigners (like the Governator) to be elected, right?
I'll help Pellias w/ getting a green card so we can fundraise for you.

 

[John Doe]

Here, here! I vote that all Monosexuals be banned from parenting! It is the only way forward!

Monosexuals?

 

[Regis2001]

Regis, you know people are rallying in the states to make it legal for foreigners (like the Governator) to be elected, right?

Aiee! President Scwarzenegger! When do they move him ino Der Vite Haus?

Monosexuals?

Those types only attracted to members of one sex. You know, the dull ones.

 

[Queersetti]

State House passes gay rights bill

January 12, 2005

BY DAVE MCKINNEY AND BEN FISCHER Sun-Times Springfield Bureau
Advertisement


SPRINGFIELD -- Gays and lesbians won a long, hard-fought victory Tuesday after the Illinois House passed and sent to Gov. Blagojevich anti-discrimination legislation that had languished at the Statehouse for more than a decade.

Blagojevich signaled plans to quickly sign the bill amid objections from religious groups concerned it might be interpreted in a way that would force them, for example, to hire gay or lesbian teachers in religious schools against church doctrine.

On their final day of business before a new lineup of lawmakers is sworn in today, the Democratic-led General Assembly also carved up part of suburbia to allow more women and minority judges to be elected and moved to put extra cash in the pockets of locked-out union members.

The day's biggest development, however, was passage of the gay-rights measure, which passed the House by a 66-51 count. Sixty votes were required to move the bill to the governor's desk.

'It's simple justice'

"I think this is, for me personally, one of my life's accomplishments that I put at the very top of the list," said Rep. Larry McKeon (D-Chicago), the Legislature's only openly gay member and the bill's chief House sponsor.

"It's simple justice, simple dignity, nothing about special rights and all those other issues. And I'm just grateful and I'm glad that I could play a small role in getting this legislation passed," McKeon said as he held back tears.

The measure will add the term "sexual orientation" to the state Human Rights Act, which explicitly will prohibit discrimination against gays, lesbians and bisexuals in the workplace, at banks, in the real estate market and anywhere else public accommodations are offered, such as restaurants and hotels.

No specific church exemption

Landlords of owner-occupied buildings with five or fewer units and small businesses employing fewer than 15 workers are exempt from the change. Religious institutions aren't given a pass, though current state law allows them to show preference to their own faith when making decisions on hiring or housing.

Zachary Wichmann, associate director of the Catholic Conference of Illinois, said his group is worried by the lack of a specific church exemption in the legislation pertaining to gays and lesbians.

"We were told as this went along we didn't have to worry, that we were protected under the Human Rights Act. But we thought we needed a specific protection in this bill. We're real worried about how this can be interpreted by the Human Rights Department and the courts," Wichmann said.

Sen. Carol Ronen (D-Chicago), one of the prime architects of the legislation, said churches and religious groups need to be held to the same anti-discrimination standards as the rest of society.

"If that is their goal, to discriminate against gay people, this law wouldn't allow them to do that. But I don't believe that's what the Catholic Church wants or stands for. I don't believe this law will impact their being able to carry out their mission and do the work they need to do," she said.

Even though Cook County and a host of Illinois municipalities have similar anti-discrimination ordinances, gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender individuals outside those areas lacked discrimination safeguards under state law and the state and federal constitutions, activists said.

"This truly is a landmark day in Illinois," Blagojevich said in a prepared statement. "This legislation sends a clear message that we will not allow our citizens to be discriminated against."

Despite assurances to the contrary, opponents worried the bill would open the door to gay marriages, which are outlawed in Illinois, or enable registered sex offenders to invoke the law to obtain housing. Critics also said it might allow cross-dressers to secure jobs as public schoolteachers.

"The problem with this legislation is ... it gives one segment of our society more say in housing and discrimination than the average citizen has, and that bothers me," said Rep. Terry Parke (R-Hoffman Estates), who voted against the bill.

 

[John Doe]

Those types only attracted to members of one sex. You know, the dull ones.

Ohh, that makes sense. I hadn't heard that term before. Still sounds a little odd, like someone who only has sex to catch mono, or likes porn in black and white.

 

[Pellias]

I do not know if this is a victory or not , but a swedish newpaper reports that a university had to change literature for a course in social studies. The book mentioned electric shock aversion therapy as a way of getting rid of unwanted homosexual behaviour, and replacing it with the wanted heterosexual one. Apperantly they show you pornpictures, and whenever the picture shows gayporn, you get a electric shock. So very clockwork orange.

Good thing it´s gone. But I always believed my country was openminded.
I did not think things like this was taught at university level.

(Sorry Regis - now I see your location is York, not NY. Doh.

Tikee_Booming - I´ll be waiting for that green card. )

 

[Regis2001]

Ohh, that makes sense. I hadn't heard that term before. Still sounds a little odd, like someone who only has sex to catch mono, or likes porn in black and white.

It's a useful term to know. Although Unisexual might also work.

Nah, that's best saved for people who have sex on Unicycles...

Despite assurances to the contrary, opponents worried the bill would open the door to gay marriages, which are outlawed in Illinois, or enable registered sex offenders to invoke the law to obtain housing. Critics also said it might allow cross-dressers to secure jobs as public schoolteachers.

Hmm. Gay marriage - old hat. Been there, done that.

Registered sex offenders - WTF? How exactly does 'rapist' or 'paedophile' count as a sexual orientation?

And what exactly is wrong with cross-dressers teaching our... well, someone else's children?

It's wierd, the only argument that homophobes use - phrased differently, couched sometimes in science, sometimes in religion, sometimes in sociology - is 'It's just wrong!' Which is mildly annoying.

 

[John Doe]

Re: funny

Stuponfucious, you are the funniest. I think I cracked up for a good ten minutes.

Awww, that's cute, you think I was joking.

 

[Pookie]

Virginia Supreme Court Strikes Down Fornication Law

January 14, 2005

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

RICHMOND, VA -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia applauded a state Supreme Court ruling today that strikes down a law banning sexual relations between unmarried persons.

"Common sense and the Constitution joined forces to give us this very right decision," said Kent Willis, Executive Director of the ACLU of Virginia, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, arguing that the law is an unconstitutional government intrusion into people’s private lives. "The Virginia Supreme Court has now stated emphatically that the government has no business regulating intimate relations between consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedrooms."

"Given the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas in which it struck down state anti-sodomy laws, the outcome of this case was predetermined," added Willis. "If banning sodomy violates the right of privacy, then banning fornication does too."

In the 2004 General Assembly, lawmakers agreed to repeal Virginia’s anti-sodomy law as it applied to private settings, but could not agree on the punishment for public sodomy. By the end of the session, the original sodomy law was still standing. In today’s ruling, the Virginia Supreme Court made it clear that its decision did not affect the state’s ability to pass laws governing sex in public.

Lawmakers still have time to introduce legislation repealing the fornication statute this year. The deadline for new bills is next Friday. "Today’s decision should send a clear message to Virginia’s legislators that they need to deal with the unfinished business of repealing Virginia’s sodomy law," Willis said.

The case decided today began when Muguet Martin filed a lawsuit seeking damages from her boyfriend, Kristopher Ziherl, for transmitting herpes to her during the relationship. According to Martin, Ziherl knew he was infected with herpes, knew the virus was contagious, and failed to inform Martin of his condition.

Richmond Circuit Court Judge Theodore J. Markow dismissed the case, holding that Martin could not sue for damages that she incurred while engaging in the illegal act of fornication. Martin’s lawyer, Neil Kuchinsky, argued that the state could not make fornication illegal. The case will now go back to the Richmond Circuit Court.

A copy of the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision in Martin v. Ziherl is available online at: http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1040804.pdf

 

[nihil0002]