NewsWrap for the week ending May 29, 2004 (As broadcast on This Way Out program #844, distributed 5-31-04) [Written by Cindy Friedman, with thanks to Graham Underhill, Fenceberry, Rex Wockner, and Greg Gordon] Anchored this week by Dean Elzinga and Cindy Friedman Australia's Coalition Government this week introduced legislation to explicitly deny legal recognition to marriages and adoptions by gay and lesbian couples -- but also to allow federal death benefits to be assigned to same-gender partners. Prime Minister John Howard said, "[T]he definition of a marriage is something that should rest in the hands ultimately of the parliament of the nation. [It should] not over time be subject to redefinition or change by the courts. It is something that ought to be expressed through the elected representatives of the country." Both Howard and Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock also expressed particular concern that Australian gays and lesbians would go to other countries to marry and adopt, and they want to ensure those international actions will not be recognized in Australia. In fact, one gay male couple has already begun legal proceedings for recognition of their Canadian marriage. A few members of Howard's own Liberal Party vigorously protested the proposed marriage restriction, warning that its appearance of anti-gay malice might lose the party as many as three seats in the Parliament in upcoming elections. Some specifically noted the apparent copying of U.S. President George W. Bush. But the Prime Minister is confident that the large majority of Coalition Members of Parliament support the move. The Opposition Australian Labor Party confirmed previous indications that it will not try to block the marriage ban. ALP spokesperson Nicola Roxon said, "We are not going to get hot under the collar about a piece of legislation which is just confirming the existing law." But there is some division on the issue among Labor MPs, many of whom support creating civil unions for same-gender couples. The smaller Australian Democratic Party demanded a Senate inquiry "to properly investigate" the Government's proposals. Openly gay ADP spokesperson Brian Greig said, "The human rights of gay and lesbian people and their children must not be used as a cynical election wedge." The few federal Greens are expected to oppose the marriage ban. Before the Government made its move, Green MP Michael Organ this week introduced a private member's bill to end discrimination based on sexual orientation in a number of Australian laws, including those regarding marriage, adoptions, and benefits. The Government's move to broaden the pension rules is a marked turnaround, as the Coalition has repeatedly blocked similar proposals over the last 8 years. As veteran gay activist Rodney Croome put it, that history "suggests that [the] current superannuation reform proposal is about sweetening a legislative agenda which is otherwise bitterly sour with prejudice." The pension reform bill would expand eligibility both for receiving death benefits and for waiving inheritance taxes, and gay and lesbian survivors would not have to prove their financial dependence on deceased partners. But Howard emphasized that the bill "will not specifically recognize same-sex relationships". Assistant Treasurer Helen Coonan pointed out that the benefits would be equally accessible to cohabiting siblings with shared finances or to live-in care-givers of disabled or elderly people. Same-gender marriages have come under the gun in France as well. This week the banns of marriage were officially posted for gay couple Jean-Luc Charpentier and Stephane Chapin at the city hall in Begles. That town's Mayor Noel Mamére -- who's also a Green MP -- had previously and very publicly vowed to marry the men on June 5th. Although France has for several years offered gays and lesbians the option of legal registered partnerships known as PACS -- Pacts of Civil Solidarity -- those are not entirely equivalent to marriage, and the planned marriage will be a first for France. The state prosecutor Bertrand de Loze responded to the banns with a fax to Mamére asserting that, "as a functionary of the civil state, you are forbidden to celebrate the marriage which has been announced. ... It is important that as a person in whom public authority is vested you abstain from any initiative that will lead to a breach of the law." The prosecutor also issued a formal statement that the marriage itself will be declared null and void. But neither the couple nor Mamére are deterred -- they had expected all along that the marriage would become a test case in the European courts. Meanwhile, their plans have made marriage equality a significant debate in national election campaigns, one that's dividing liberal opinion. Now the mayor of Marseille has also announced he'll marry a gay couple on June 19th, and a few other mayors may follow suit. A year has passed since Belgium opened legal marriage to gay and lesbian couples, following the Netherlands to become the second nation in the world to do so. Over the 12 months, 300 same-gender couples have married. That's 1.2% of all marriages recorded in the period. Four-fifths of the gay and lesbian marriages were in the Flanders region, more than ten times as many there as in the Brussels area. This week Brussels held its 9th annual Gay Pride parade with the motto "Freedom, equality and diversity". An estimated 15,000 people turned out to celebrate. Among their political concerns are the still-unequal parental rights of gays and lesbians. The U.S. state of Massachusetts began legally marrying gay and lesbian couples last week, but a struggle continues over those couples who come from other states. At the behest of Republican Governor Mitt Romney, Democratic Attorney-General Thomas Reilly ordered clerks throughout the state to stop issuing licenses to out-of-state same-gender couples. This action is based on a 1913 so-called "reverse evasion" statute that prevents Massachusetts from marrying non-resident couples whose marriages would not be recognized in their home states. Four Massachusetts cities had been vocal about their decisions to license non-resident gays and lesbians, on the grounds that they had always licensed non-resident heterosexual couples. In the wake of Reilly's order and the administration's review of the licenses they had issued, all four of those cities -- Somerville, Springfield, Provincetown, and Worcester -- have now backed down. At least one or two of them may take legal action towards resuming licensing non-residents. But two other cities -- Attleboro and Fall River -- had more quietly decided to license gay and lesbian couples from the 11 states that do not have laws that explicitly deny legal recognition to same-gender marriages performed outside their borders. An earlier statement by the Attorney-General himself had supported their understanding that this was within the bounds of the 1913 Massachusetts law, and they're seeking further clarification from him. The Governor prefers to interpret it based on the notion that since no other state marries same-gender couples, no non-resident gays and lesbians should be licensed. The administration is collecting for review the license applications those two towns have issued to non-resident same-gender couples. But at least the Norfolk County District Attorney, William Keating, has announced he won't prosecute clerks for violations of that law, since he believes it was effectively nullified by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down bans on interracial marriages. There's plenty of room for legal debate, and there's reason to expect a lawsuit in the near future by gay and lesbian couples from other states who want to marry in Massachusetts. In April, Romney had written to the governors and attorneys-general of the 49 other U.S. states asking if they would recognize Massachusetts marriages of gay and lesbian couples. Attorneys-general by and large did not believe it was appropriate for them to respond with legal opinions requested by another state's governor. But at least South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds did respond, with a letter saying emphatically, "South Dakota law does NOT allow same-sex marriages." Arizona is one of the majority of states which does explicitly deny legal recognition to same-gender marriages. This week Arizona's Supreme Court declined to take up a case that challenged that law as unconstitutionally discriminatory. The dismissal let stand an Arizona Court of Appeals ruling that upheld the 1996 law. The appellate court had found that gays and lesbians have no fundamental right to marriage, and that procreation and child-rearing concerns gave the state a rational basis for denying it to them. The U.S. Food & Drug Administration last week recommended that gay men should be barred from making anonymous sperm donations. The FDA specified men known to have had sex with another man within the previous 5 years. That's despite a requirement that all tissue donors -- including sperm donors -- must be tested for infections for a number of sexually transmitted diseases including HIV, as well as two types of hepatitis. What the FDA issued is apparently "guidance" rather than a regulation with the force of law. But the move was strongly protested by activists who believe it represents stereotyping rather than science. However it's handled, it will not have an impact on privately arranged sperm donations. Last week, Republican Governor John Rowland signed a bill to make Connecticut the 8th U.S. state to include transgenders in its hate crimes law. That law will now allow increased sentencing for those convicted criminals who selected victims based on their "actual or perceived gender identity". And finally... gay and lesbian marriage opponent U.S. President George W. Bush had another minor accident this week, this time getting some scrapes as he fell off a bicycle. His spokesperson Trent Duffy attributed the problem to loose topsoil from recent rains. But Duffy, not content to leave it at that, added, "You know the President. He likes to go all out. Suffice it to say he wasn't whistling show tunes."