NewsWrap for the week ending March 13, 2004 (As broadcast on This Way Out program #833, distributed 3-15-04) [Written by Cindy Friedman, with thanks to Graham Underhill, Fenceberry, Rex Wockner, and Greg Gordon] Anchored this week by Cindy Friedman and Rick Watts The European Parliament this week approved a directive that enhances the international "portability" of legally recognized gay and lesbian relationships -- although not as much as activists and their allies had hoped. The measure still requires the agreement of the European Union member nations' governments before becoming effective in mid-2005. ILGA, the International Lesbian and Gay Association, calls it Europe's "first official acknowledgement of the existence of registered same-sex couples" even though the real substance of a draft the EP approved a year ago has been lost to political expediency. The gay-supportive EP Greens agree the final version is "a step back". But they and other allies wanted to ensure the controversial law was enacted before parliamentary elections in June and before the EU gains 10 new member nations in May. So what once was a guarantee of full free movement for non-traditional families across national borders within the EU is now a lawsuit waiting to happen, with key terms left deliberately vague. The directive generally refers to "spouse" without clearly indicating whether same-gender partners are included. When it does make reference to registered partnerships, it extends them free movement only into those nations which "{treat} registered partners equivalent to married couples". Those could be expected to include the Netherlands and Belgium, which have opened legal marriage to gay and lesbian couples, and might also include up to five other EU member nations that recognize same-gender couples -- probably Denmark, Finland, and Sweden, and possibly France and Germany. As for what will soon be 18 other EU member nations, the directive says they "shall facilitate" the entry and residence of unmarried partners, without clearly defining what that might entail. Portability is one key distinction between marriage and other forms of recognition for same-gender couples as U.S. states continue their debate -- that and more than 1,100 benefits now conferred exclusively on marriage by U.S. federal law. The debate was spotlighted this week in Massachusetts, where amidst hundreds of demonstrators from both sides state legislators reconvened their constitutional convention, or "ConCon". Massachusetts' highest court has already ruled that same-gender couples have equal marriage rights and that marriage licenses should be issued to them beginning mid-May. Many state lawmakers are hoping to trump that decision by amending the state constitution to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples, but many oppose that move, so that during last month's "ConCon" session no proposed amendment was able to advance. For this week's "ConCon" session a caucus of gay-supportive lawmakers chose a different strategy: to vote in favor of one proposed anti-gay amendment in order to fend off worse ones, and hope to defeat or at least modify it later. That strategy won three rounds for the so-called compromise put forward by state House Speaker Thomas Finneran and state Senate President Robert Travaglini, which says that, "only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts" -- but also creates civil unions for same-gender couples that "shall provide entirely the same benefits, protections, rights, and responsibilities that are afforded to couples under Massachusetts law." But thanks to hours of impassioned debate, the "ConCon" recessed without taking the fourth vote needed to complete its first stage. Next year's legislature must also approve it before it goes to voters. The current "ConCon" will reconvene March 29th with its outcome still in question -- and if that session doesn't approve a proposal, at least another year will be added to the minimum two-and-a-half years before any amendment could go into effect. In Wisconsin, though, both the House and Senate have given their initial approval to a state constitutional amendment to define marriage as exclusively heterosexual. They'll have to approve the same proposal again in the next session before it can go to the voters. Similar measures are being debated in many U.S. states. The California state Supreme Court this week ordered San Francisco to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-gender couples -- at least for now. The court directed its order to Mayor Gavin Newsom while it considers whether he has exceeded his authority by refusing to enforce the state's voter-passed ban on same-gender marriages. At his order San Francisco County has licensed more than 4,100 same-gender marriages. The state's highest court also said specifically that its order "does not preclude the filing of a separate legal action... raising a substantive constitutional challenge to the current marriage statutes." That challenge was quickly filed as a joint effort of the American Civil Liberties Unions of Northern and Southern California, the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights. Five of the couples they're representing had made appointments to obtain marriage licenses at San Francisco City Hall, only to see them cancelled because of the court order. Other plaintiffs in the action who wish to marry but can't include a sixth couple and members of the gay and lesbian groups Our Family Coalition and Equality California. It could easily be years before California courts actually decide whether same-gender couples have a constitutional right to marry there. More than 200 people joined a march to the state Supreme Court building to protest the court order. While New Paltz, New York Mayor Jason West was forced to stop "solemnizing" marriages of gays and lesbians -- by a court order, by misdemeanor charges brought by the Ulster County District Attorney, and by a threat from the state Attorney-General's office to remove him from office if he continues -- two Unitarian Universalist ministers took up where he left off. They performed more than a dozen ceremonies for couples on West's waiting list. Now they're under investigation as well, with the waters further muddied as to whether they were performing illegal marriages or constitutionally protected religious ceremonies. More clergy are expected to join in. Multnomah County, Oregon may or may not continue to issue marriages licenses to gay and lesbian couples in the coming week, as it's done for more than 2,100 couples so far. Until mid-day March 15th, the county will stop issuing licenses even to heterosexual couples while mulling the question. Oregon Attorney-General Hardy Myers this week issued an opinion that state law indeed prohibits clerks from issuing licenses for same gender marriages -- but also that that law is discriminatory and the state Supreme Court will probably find that it violates the state's constitution. He does believe that until there's a definitive court ruling, the licenses should not be issued. His opinion is more or less shared not only by Multnomah County's own attorney, but by the state legislature's counsel. Lawsuits pro and con are in process, and an attempt is being made to put a constitutional amendment barring same-gender marriage on the next ballot. Joining the marriage movement this week was Asbury Park, New Jersey, where city officials believe state law doesn't explicitly prohibit licensing same-gender couples. A half-dozen couples had applied for licenses after the city had quietly let it be known they'd accept those applications, and Deputy Mayor James Bruno solemnized a marriage for two men. New Jersey Attorney General Peter Harvey quickly warned the city to stop accepting applications -- or face prosecution. While Asbury Park did freeze all 16 applications in process, the City Council also voted to sue the state to legitimize the marriage already performed. A major lawsuit for equal marriage rights is currently on appeal in New Jersey. A similar lawsuit was filed this week in the state of Washington, as a half-dozen gay and lesbian couples are suing King County after being denied marriage licenses. They may have a friend in Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, who issued a mayoral order that any of the city's gay and lesbian employees who may have married elsewhere should receive spousal benefits. He was immediately sued by two national religious right groups. Marriage hoopla in the U.S. practically drowned out media coverage of the first openly partnered gay Anglican Bishop's official assumption of duties as the Episcopal Church's 9th Bishop of New Hampshire. Gene Robinson was ritually invested in that role as his predecessor handed him a ceremonial staff before a capacity crowd. His partner of 15 years Mark Andrew took part in the ceremony. Israel's parliament this week rejected by a 2-to-1 margin a proposal to create civil marriages -- even for heterosexuals. While marriages performed elsewhere are recognized in Israel, the only ones legally performed there are by rabbis in accordance with Orthodox Jewish law. And finally... what's believed to be South Korea's first public gay wedding was held this week in Seoul. Lee Sang-chul and Park Jong-geun tried to officially register their marriage, but their application was refused. They did affirm their relationship with a notarized document as well as a solemn traditional wedding ceremony, a sizable party, and a honeymoon including a visit to an amusement park.