NewsWrap for the week ending August 6, 2005 (As broadcast on This Way Out program #906, distributed 8-8-05) [Written by Cindy Friedman, with thanks to Graham Underhill, Rex Wockner, Jerry Trowbridge, and Greg Gordon] Reported this week by Cindy Friedman and Jon Beaupré The California Supreme Court ruled unanimously this week that businesses must treat the state's registered domestic partners the same as married couples. The decision said that the state legislature's upgrade of the benefits and responsibilities of domestic partnerships that went into effect on January 1st "made it abundantly clear that an important goal of the Domestic Partner Act is to create substantial legal equality between domestic partners and spouses. We interpret this language to mean that there shall be no discrimination in the treatment of registered domestic partners and spouses." With that reasoning, the court found that the Bernardo Heights Country Club had engaged in "impermissible marital status discrimination" when it denied spousal privileges to a lesbian member's registered partner. The club allowed not only members' marital partners but also their children and grandchildren to use its golf course without charge. But Birgit Koebke's partner Kendall French was treated only as her guest, limited to golfing six times per year and paying each time. The club's policy would also have denied French the right to inherit Koebke's membership. The club defended its policy as directed toward the "legitimate goal of creating a family-friendly environment." But the state high court's ruling asserted that the partnership law "seeks to promote and protect families as well as reduce discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation." The club must pay the state a fine of $4,000. While the court's decision may bode well for pending lawsuits for marriage equality, religious conservatives are trying to put initiatives before California voters next year that would bar same-gender couples from both marriage and partnerships. Two proposed initiatives were approved for signature gathering last week and a third is in process. One group, VoteYesMarriage, is suing the state Attorney-General even though he qualified their petition, in part because he changed its title from "Voters' Right to Protect Marriage" to "Elimination of Domestic Partnership Rights". The California Supreme Court ruling affects about 27,000 couples currently registered as domestic partners, but another ruling this week by the highest court of the Cherokee Nation is believed to affect just one. The Cherokee Judicial Appeals Tribunal dismissed a lawsuit that had blocked the tribe's registration of the marriage of Dawn McKinley and Kathy Reynolds, finding the plaintiff had no standing to sue since the marriage did not harm him. This clears the way for tribal certification of the marriage the Cherokee couple celebrated last year, even though the Cherokee Nation Tribal Council reacted to that wedding by unanimously voting to change the language of its law to restrict marriage to one man and one woman. Previously that law had used the Cherokee terms "cooker" and "companion" instead of wife and husband. Because of tribal sovereignty, the marriage would also have to be recognized by the U.S. state where the women reside -- Oklahoma -- despite its conflict with a state constitutional amendment voters approved by about 3-to-1 last year. Primarily to join legal briefs in lawsuits, the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association this week voted 14-to-1 to adopt a resolution supporting marriage equality for same-gender couples, and "opposes restrictions to those same rights, benefits and responsibilities." That's the final step to establish the official position of the organization, since the APA's annual conference had approved the resolution in May. The APA is believed to be the first medical group to formally take this stand, although the American Psychological Association had already done so. But the Oregon state legislature adjourned this week without a floor vote in the Republican-controlled House on a bill to establish both registered partnerships for same-gender couples and civil rights protections for lesbigays. That kills the bill despite Governor Ted Kulongoski's vocal support and almost two-to-one passage by the Democrat-controlled Senate. In large part to block the measure, the House Republicans had changed a long-standing procedure that had given individual Representatives a chance to try to bring stalled bills to the floor. Actually House Republicans had already drastically rewritten the measure, eliminating the civil rights protections and replacing the partnerships with much weaker "reciprocal benefits" open to any two adults. Spanish lawmakers enacted marriage equality for same-gender couples last month, but some judges are resisting the move. At least two judges have denied those marriages, referring them to the nation's constitutional court, while others have required binational couples to certify the marriage will be recognized in the foreigner's home country. Over the last two weeks, the Government has fired back. First, a panel of attorneys who advise the attorney-general affirmed that binational couples can marry in Spain regardless of the second nation's position on the matter. Then this week Director of the Civil Register Pilar Blanco-Morales discussed marriage as she spoke on family law at a university. On the binational issue, she pointed out that Spaniards have often been allowed to marry foreigners in defiance of other nations' prohibitions against divorce and interracial unions, and said that the same standard should apply for same-gender couples. Her department has distributed a memo to this effect. She also denounced the judges who raised constitutional questions, declaring they had made "fraudulent use" of their referral power and were acting in an "anti-democratic" fashion by countering the Parliament. She believes that when judges are called on to marry couples they are acting as civil servants and should be accountable to her department in this regard. British lawmakers last year enacted powerful "civil partnerships" for same-gender couples that are due to begin in December, but some registrars are expected to refuse to preside at their registration as a matter of conscience, and more than a third of traditional wedding venues have indicated they'll reject partnership celebrations. The Association of Registrars and Celebratory Services formally called on all registrars to officiate for partnerships, but the superintendent registrar said the partnership law lays responsibility for the contracts on the local authorities rather than the individual registrars. The national lesbigay advocacy group Stonewall admitted it might not be able to do much about individual registrars, but it's lobbying for legislation to specifically require that provision of goods and services make no distinction between marriage and civil partnership ceremonies. The current epicenter of this U.K.-wide controversy is London's Bromley Council, which is considering denying use of its municipal properties for partnership celebrations. That led about a hundred protesters to march on the Bromley Civic Center this week, where they delivered a petition with 2,000 signatures to a Council representative. And the U.K. civil partnerships are also creating headaches for the Church of England. Trying to walk the tightrope between the rules of church and state, church leaders agreed that priests could contract the partnerships and receive the attendant employee benefits, but only if those priests remained celibate. That outraged Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria, leader of the largest national group in the global Anglican Communion and the most vocal of its anti-gay conservatives. He is calling for disciplinary action against Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and for suspension of the Church of England from the global communion. This could lead to the long-feared schism in the world church, as the Archbishop of Canterbury is its so-called "first among equals" and the Church of England is the original Anglican church. The Presbyterian Church of East Africa this week adopted a resolution to refuse to work with any church or group it deems to support homosexuality, which it denounced as immoral behavior. The 400 clergymembers at their annual meeting in Mombasa believed this stand to be part of their commitment to strengthening marriage. But Jamaica's Government is finally ready to consider decriminalizing homosexual acts -- if it would help prevent the spread of HIV. Previously the administration of Percival Patterson had stifled any discussion of repealing the sodomy law. But Junior Education Minister Donald Rodd, who chairs the parliamentary committee on Human Resources and Social Development, last week proposed the debate as a matter of public health, along with possible legalization of prostitution. That came as the committee was developing its own report on AIDS and was reviewing a report from the New York-based group Human Rights Watch, which suggested that Jamaica's anti-gay climate interfered with AIDS prevention. J-FLAG, the Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays, welcomed the prospect of public discussion. But as one member remarked, "We can always change laws, but the real problem is behavior change" -- in a nation where entertainers and politicians are rewarded for anti-gay statements and violence against lesbigays is routine. And finally... it's a very different story from another Caribbean island this week -- St. Lucia -- even though homosexual acts are illegal there too, if rarely prosecuted. It was noted that the gender-neutral language of the marriage laws just might mean it's already legal for same-gender couples to marry, and that the Government should act quickly to review the situation. But that was not to start a mad dash to change the law, the constitution or anything else to stop gay and lesbian marriages. The remarks came from the Vice President of the St. Lucia Hotel and Tourism Association, Allen Chastanent, who hopes the island can lucratively tap what he considers a "huge market" of same-gender couples who might come to St. Lucia for weddings or honeymoons. --- over "NewsWrap" outro music: --- The saga of Zach, the 16-year-old Tennessee boy who told the world in his online "blog" about being forced to attend an "ex-gay ministry" by his father, appears to be ending. This Way Out's Jerry Trowbridge, who's continued to follow the story, tells us that Zach returned to the Internet this week, following his release from the so-called "conversion therapy" facility run by a group called "Love In Action", to delete several thousand messages from well-wishers, and post a new message trying to take himself out of the spotlight with some well-chosen neutral words. "I'm not going to allow myself to be pressured into a response of any kind," he wrote, adding, "I'm trying my best."