Apparently, a homophobic professor is on the loose at Fresno City College. Worse, he is teaching anti-gay rhetoric to the students in his introductory health class. Thankfully, the ACLU has taken action.
Read: ACLU Tells Fresno City College That Anti-Gay Preaching By Health Professor Doesn’t Fly
Source: QueerFresno.com
The following is re-posted from “On Top Magazine“:
Pennsylvania Lawmakers To Mull Gay Marriage Ban
By Carlos Santoscoy
Published: January 27, 2010
Pennsylvania state Senator John H. Eichelberger Jr. has introduced a joint resolution to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage.
Eichelberger announced the effort last May during a press conference held on the steps of the Blair County Courthouse in Hollidaysburg. The freshman senator represents Pennsylvania’s 30th district, which includes Blair County. Introduction of the bill was postponed due to the economy, Eichelberger said.
“Pennsylvania voters have the opportunity to decide how they want marriage to be defined and not allow an activist judge to make that decision for them,” the Republican senator said in a statement. “Thirty one other states have already gone through a similar process and in each state, the definition of marriage was upheld.”
The joint resolution introduced Tuesday enjoys the support of 15 co-sponsors. It would insert the following language into the state constitution: “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid and recognized as a marriage in this Commonwealth.”
Amending Pennsylvania’s constitution requires the approval of two consecutive legislative sessions, followed by the approval of voters. The earliest voters could see the issue on the ballot is 2011.
Passage in the Republican-controlled Senate appears to be a given, but the proposal might encounter turbulence from Democratic leaders in the House, who control the chamber.
Pennsylvania voters – like much of the country – are clearly divided on the issue. According to a June, 2009 Franklin & Marshall statewide poll, 48% of respondents support defining marriage as a heterosexual union in the state constitution, while 46% said they were opposed. However, a majority of voters (58%) support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.
Currently, Pennsylvania bans gay marriage by law, which anti-gay marriage foes say leaves the law vulnerable to being overturned by a judge.
Last Wednesday, a stricter measure that seeks to ban gay marriage and civil unions won the endorsement of a key Senate committee in Indiana.
With tax season now beginning, I was reminded the other day by a client that same-sex partners need to carefully review their pay stubs. If your company provides medical insurance to your partner through your policy, those health insurance premiums must be deducted from your paycheck as post-tax and not pre-tax dollars. Even if you are legally married, health insurance benefits for your same-sex partner/spouse are taxable to you, the employee, as income. That is because same-sex marriages are not recognized by the federal government.
Mistakes do happen, so it is critically important for you to verify that your partner’s premiums are not deducted from your paycheck as pre-tax dollars – or you may find yourself owing the government what could amount to a heavy chunk of back taxes. Your own insurance premiums should be deducted from your paycheck as pre-tax dollars, however, because they are not taxable as income to the employee.
If you plan to prepare your income tax returns yourself, it is wise to consult with an accountant before doing so to be sure you understand the tax laws concerning same-sex couples.
[Disclaimer: This is NOT tax advice. I am NOT an accountant nor am I a tax attorney].
If you’ve been following the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial, which stemmed from the referendum that overturned gay marriage in California, you may be interested in reading the actual court transcripts from each day of the trial. They are available on the American Foundation for Equal Rights website.
Read the TRANSCRIPTS
Wednesday was quite the day for those anti-gay folk. Perhaps they don’t have much to do in the winter.
Opponents of New Hampshire’s recently enacted law allowing gay marriage wasted no time in asking lawmakers to reconsider their decision and let voters amend the constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Here we go again.
Read: Push for gay marriage repeal in New Hampshire
[Source: http://gaymarriagenews.org]
The hysteria and bigotry continues. On Wednesday morning, the Indiana State Senate Judiciary Committee passed SJR-13, the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions. The vote was 6-4.
Read: IN Marriage Amendment Moves Forward
[Source: Huffington Post]
Same-sex couples seeking to dissolve a marriage or civil union have three basic options: litigation (court-based action), mediation and collaborative divorce. In this post, I will discuss the latter. Collaborative divorce is a process whereby the spouses and their collaboratively-trained lawyers work together, often with the assistance of a neutral financial professional and a coach, to reach a fair divorce agreement.
Unlike traditional court-based divorce (litigation), the participants in a collaborative divorce are empowered to make their own decisions rather than to rely on a judge to do so. The divorcing spouses and their collaborative team work together to form an agreement based upon the individual needs and interests of the couple (and their children, if they have any).
The participants sign an agreement stating that they will not litigate the case in court. They agree to share all information required to facilitate the process and don’t hide information from anyone in the process. If one of the participants breaks the agreement and takes the case to court, the collaborative lawyers and other professionals are discharged from the case and will not participate in the litigation.
Collaborative divorce is usually less expensive than traditional divorce for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, because the process takes place outside the courtroom, the spouses do not incur fees for multiple court battles (which often require hours of waiting around in the hallway waiting for your case to be called). When assets need to be properly valued, the participants work with a neutral financial professional (who is also collaboratively trained). By sharing this professional resource, the participants pay a much lower fee and the process is often expedited.
There is an enormous emotional component to every divorce which can often cause one or both of the spouses to feel considerable anxiety. The collaborative approach recognizes this basic human element and factors it in to the process. When needed, a neutral coach works with the couple to help them with the emotional aspects of difficult issues and helps to promote productive communication.
The participants are represented by separate lawyers who are there to advise them about the complicated legal issues. However, unlike traditional divorce, a lawyer is not there to try to convince a judge to give his or her client exactly what that client wants – without regard for the needs and interests of the couple (and their children). The collaborative lawyer’s job is to refocus the participants on their common goals, which include being able to meet future financial needs, to have well-adjusted children, and to be able to move forward with as little disruption and trauma as possible.
Collaborative divorce may not be suitable for all couples. However, a candid discussion with a collaboratively-trained attorney will help you decide if the process is right for you.
For more information, visit Collaborative Divorce Professionals.
I
n Iowa, 18 Senate Republicans introduced a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. The resolution further proposes that opposite-sex marriages will be the only legal unions that are valid or recognized in that state.
Read: Iowa Republicans introduce marriage amendment
[Source: Sioux City Journal]
Pam’s House Blend is a fabulous blog subtitled “An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community”. Pam arranged an exclusive analysis of the California gay marriage trial with Shannon Minter of the National Center For Lesbian Rights (NCLR).
I found this section of the analysis particularly intriguing:
“Several of the judge’s questions today focused on whether the Constitution would allow California to decide that it wants to get out of the marriage business altogether – whether the state could decide to stop issuing marriage licenses and have only domestic partnership for all couples. It’s risky to read too much into a judge’s questions, especially so early in the trial. But the judge’s questions may indicate that he is thinking about what will happen if he declares Prop 8 unconstitutional. Will he have to order the state to issue marriage licenses to all couples, or could he leave it up to the state to decide whether it wants to let same-sex couples marry or just stop issuing marriage licenses to anyone?”
Read: Shannon Minter: Perry v. Schwarzenegger Proceedings, Day 1
[Thanks to Pam's House Blend]
I’ve long since grown tired of saying that there is yet another attack on gay marriage, but here goes … anti-gay folks in Iowa are on the move to take away gay marriage in that state.
The following appeared on change.org (in the Gay Rights section). It’s a wonderful and informative post. Be sure to following the links throughout the article for more information.
Saving Gay Marriage in Iowa
by Michael A. Jones
Published January 12, 2010 @ 07:29AM PT
Iowa made history last year by becoming the third state in the United States to legalize gay marriage — something the state’s highest court ruled was required under Iowa’s constitution. But opponents of gay marriage, never one to pass up an opportunity to put together an anti-gay ballot initiative, are now chanting “Let the People Vote!” as if they were the only words in their vocabulary. Iowa legislators will need to make the call as to whether gay marriage gets put up for a vote in the coming years.
Enter One Iowa, a well-organized statewide organization (with a really cool logo to boot) looking to protect the right of civil marriage for gay and lesbian couples in the Hawkeye State. They’re greeting lawmakers today, on the first day of the state’s 2010 legislative session, with 18,000 postcards from supporters of same-sex marriage. And they’re also launching a new campaign, Red Blue Purple, to keep discussions about marriage equality brewing, changing hearts and minds on the issue.
As one Iowa resident, Gary Swenson, told a local television affiliate, taking gay marriage rights away after the state has already made them legal would be barbaric and painful.
“To take that away from me once I have been given it would be a traumatic event and a very cruel thing for the people of Iowa to do,” Swenson said. And though he may be right about the cruelty of ballot initiatives that repeal gay marriage, that hasn’t stopped right-wing groups before. Exhibit 1 and 2: California and Maine.
For One Iowa, the issue is to get legislators thinking about issues that affect the common good, and not bogus attempts to scale back civil rights. Banning same-sex marriage won’t fix infrastructure, or won’t clean up the destruction of past national disasters.
“At a time when Iowans are losing their homes and still rebuilding after the devastating 2008 floods, we should be focusing on issues of common concern to all Iowa families such as the economy, health care, and education, rather than focusing on divisive issues and amending the constitution to hurt Iowa families,” read the text of the 18,000 postcards delivered to Iowa’s state legislature.
Simply put, there’s just no good reason that Iowa should become the next California or Maine. Iowa families deserve better than a big pile of discrimination waiting for them at the ballot box.
Photo credit: Alan Light
[Source: Change.org's Gay Rights section]
Attorney O’s Midnight Musings Twitter
