NewsWrap
for the week ending September 18, 2004
(As broadcast on This Way Out program #860, distributed 9-20-04)
[Written by Cindy Friedman, with thanks to Graham Underhill, Rex Wockner, and 
Greg Gordon]


Reported this week by Rick Watts and Cindy Friedman 


  Lesbian and gay couples were legally married for the first time this week 
in the Canadian province of Manitoba.  Three same-gender couples filed a 
lawsuit there in August seeking to change the province's exclusively heterosexual 
definition of marriage.  Manitoba's Government chose not to oppose their move, 
and for the first time the federal government also neither opposed nor 
attempted to delay it.  As a result, just three weeks after the filing, Court of 
Queen's Bench Justice Douglas Yard decided in their favor this week, and the first 
marriage licenses were issued and the first marriages performed later the same 
day.
The first same-gender couple to have their marriage registered in Manitoba 
were long-time partners Michelle Ritchot and Stefphany Cholakis of Winnipeg, two 
of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.


  Justice Yard was much influenced by the court rulings which have already 
opened marriage to gay and lesbian couples in Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, 
and the Yukon Territory.  He called those decisions "eloquent, cogent, 
impressive, and compelling".  Noting that a dozen other Canadian judges have 
considered the issue, Yard wrote that, "The cumulative effect and the overwhelming 
effect of that judicial authority is to the effect that the traditional 
definition of marriage is no longer constitutionally valid in view of the provisions 
of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  The traditional definition of marriage 
in Manitoba is reformulated to mean a voluntary union for life of two persons 
at the exclusion of all others."
On October 6th, the Supreme Court of Canada will begin its review of 
questions posed by the federal government towards drafting national legislation for 
marriage equality.


  A Toronto lesbian couple this week became Canada's first same-gender couple 
to legally divorce.  The provincial court decisions that opened marriage to 
Ontario's gays and lesbians did not include consideration of the Divorce Act, 
which continues to define spouses as "a man and a woman".  This week Superior 
Court Justice Ruth Mesbur declared that in the Divorce Act, "The definition of 
a spouse is unconstitutional, inoperative and of no force and effect."  Mesbur 
did not immediately rewrite that definition, reserving her judgment on that.  
But she did grant a divorce to the couple identified as "JH" and "MM".  
Although they were among the earliest same-gender couples in Canada to marry, they 
ended their decade-long relationship just 5 days later.  
Some conservatives had charged that the couple had married only to create a 
test case for the divorce law.  But according to their attorney Martha 
McCarthy, the women had "believed marriage would solve their problems" -- only to 
discover, like so many heterosexual couples before them, that their differences 
were irreconcilable.
McCarthy also said she believed this might be the first lesbian or gay 
divorce in the world, but in fact there have been a number of divorces in the 
Netherlands since it opened marriage to same-gender couples in 2001.


  Another impending lesbian divorce in Canada is further complicating the 
already-thorny high-profile case in Quebec of a child who could end up with 3 
legal parents.  Both women are listed on the birth certificate of the daughter 
one bore by artificial insemination with sperm contributed by a gay male friend. 
 He's been suing to be listed on the birth certificate as well, in what's 
viewed as an important test of Quebec's 2002 law to recognize lesbian and gay 
non-biological co-parents.  As a pre-trial hearing was held on that issue this 
week, it was revealed that the women are breaking up.  Full proceedings in the 
main case are not expected before November.  The father has already won interim 
visitation rights.


  As U.S. gays and lesbians struggle for marriage equality, they've won a 
small victory in the New York village of New Paltz.  Inspired by the same-gender 
marriages licensed in San Francisco under the leadership of Mayor Gavin 
Newsom, New Paltz Mayor Jason West began "solemnizing" marriages for gay and lesbian 
couples without licenses earlier this year.  After a court order stopped West 
from performing those weddings, Unitarian Universalist ministers continued to 
hold them in New Paltz, and the Village Board appointed three of its other 
members to serve as "marriage officers" in West's stead.  The Florida-based 
religious right legal group Liberty Counsel, which has been opposing same-gender 
marriages around the country, has been leading the opposition in New Paltz.  
Their latest move was to ask a New York state judge both to permanently stop the 
village "marriage officers" from marrying unlicensed same-gender couples and 
to formally invalidate the more than 200 gay and lesbian marriages solemnized 
in New Paltz this year.  Justice Michael Kavanagh this week did neither, 
though he warned the Village Board not to try to circumvent his earlier temporary 
order against further solemnizations for same-gender couples.  But -- unlike 
the California Supreme Court, which in California's lawsuit against Newsom 
nullified all the San Francisco marriages with no representation for the gay and 
lesbian couples involved -- Justice Kavanagh declared that the New Paltz couples 
"are necessary parties to this proceeding and are entitled to be heard on the 
issue."  Liberty Counsel had failed even to name the couples involved, and 
Kavanagh called that "fatal" to their petition.  The group has vowed to collect 
the names and try again to invalidate the marriages.  But as Mayor West's 
attorney Joshua Rosenkranz said, "Whether other people could waltz into court and 
invalidate the marriages of scores of complete strangers, that's where the 
battleground was in this case.  So far the litigation against same-sex marriage 
is hitting the wall on every front."


  California's registered partnerships gained another endowment this week as 
Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law the first major gay 
and lesbian equality bill to reach his desk since he assumed office.  The 
measure sponsored by openly lesbian Democratic Assemblymember from San Diego 
Christine Kehoe requires insurance carriers to offer registered partners the same 
policies they offer legally married spouses for any form of coverage, including 
health, life, homeowners and auto, beginning in 2005.  That's a step up from 
the existing requirement that insurance carriers make dependent coverage 
available to registered partners.  But it may be even more significant that the 
bill was signed by Schwarzenegger, who's declared that he really doesn't care 
about the marriage issue but who's supported by a party that's taken an official 
stand against any form of legal recognition for same-gender couples.  His 
action brought hope to many gay and lesbian activists, and was particularly 
welcomed by the Log Cabin Republicans, the only gay and lesbian group to endorse 
Schwarzenegger's candidacy.


  Some have argued that California's registered partnerships discriminate 
against heterosexual couples, who can only contract them after age 62.  But at 
least with respect to surviving partner's standing to sue for wrongful death, a 
state appeals court rejected that argument this week.  A man claimed that his 
three-year live-in relationship with a woman met all the requirements of 
partnership except for the registration, and that denying him standing to seek 
damages for her death in a traffic accident constituted age and gender 
discrimination.  Instead the appellate court upheld a Los Angeles trial court's dismissal 
of his claim.  The decision said the discrimination was based instead on 
marital status.  That requires a lower standard of judicial scrutiny, and the 
ruling found there is a rational basis for the discrimination since the 
heterosexual couple -- unlike gays and lesbians -- could have chosen to marry.


  In Uruguay, a soccer coach was taken to task this week for saying he would 
never name a gay to the national team.  In the course of an interview with the 
"El Pais" newspaper, Jorge Fossati was quoted as saying, "I sincerely believe 
that a homosexual player should not be in a professional group.  There are 
certain norms that have to be safeguarded.  A gay player would be a disrupting 
influence among men.  He has very different habits from the other 25" on the 
team.  Uruguay's gay and lesbian civil rights groups denounced him as "ignorant 
and chauvinist" and said they were "deeply worried by [his] irresponsible and 
homophobic statements made in public."  Fossati was actually questioned by a 
judge and prosecutor in the matter.  He emerged from that session to announce, 
"I never intended to hurt anybody, but if some people were offended then I 
publicly apologize.  I simply gave my answer to a question I was asked."


  And finally... there was much ado this week in South Africa when a 
newspaper reported that Metro Police intended to arrest anyone appearing in drag at 
Johannesburg's upcoming 15th annual pride march.  "The Citizen" cited a police 
spokesperson as saying there would be enforcement of a law prohibiting all 
participants in any public gathering from obscuring their faces in a way that 
might prevent identification.  Vigorous criticism ensued, with many references to 
constitutional rights and threats of lawsuits.  The Lesbian and Gay Equality 
Project pointed out that police could use the same law to arrest rugby fans who 
paint their faces with team colors.  But soon pride organizers came forward 
to reassure everyone that drag participants would be welcome in the march.  And 
while that police spokesperson did not quite confirm that Metro had changed 
its position, he did announce there would be "an amicable solution so the march 
can go ahead."