Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 22:48:49 -0400 From: Jim Fagelson Subject: Parents' Network July 27, 1997 GLPCI PARENTS' NETWORK July 27, 1997 MASSACHUSETTS Gay & Lesbian Family Week in Provincetown, MA August 2 - 9, 1997 Sponsored by GLPCI Schedule of Activities Saturday, August 2nd 4:30 p.m. Family Mixer at the Playground. Start your week by making some new friends! Corner of Nickerson and Bradford -- just a short walk from Herring Cove Beach Sunday, August 3rd 4-7 p.m. Opening, Love Makes a Family Photo-text Exhibit, Unitarian Universalist Meeting. Great Snacks! 5-6 p.m. Family Fair -- a mini-Celebration with juggling, face painting and (removable) tattoos! FUN! Both Sunday Events at Unitarian Universalist Meeting House, 236 Commercial Street. Free! Monday, August 4th 1-4 p.m. Self-Pleasuring for Lesbian & Gay Parents. Workshop facilitated by Jane Fleishman and Michael Cohen; co-sponsored by GLPCI and The Big Heart (Hartford, CT). We'll talk, listen, laugh. Location: Sirens at Gabriel's Guesthouse, 104 Bradford St. At press time, no child care available, so share a sitter. Free! 5-7 p.m. Picnic at Herring Cove Beach. Enjoy burgers and dogs, watermelon "smirks" and family fun! Near the Bathhouse -- Bring your own Blanket & Drinks! Tuesday, August 5th 2 p.m. Sandcastle competition at Herring Cove Beach. Every child gets a prize! Build your creation at the water's edge! 4:30 p.m. Kids Concert by The Flirtations! Rain or shine at Pilgrim Monument; Producer: Alternative Family Matters Benefit for COLAGE -- Children of Lesbians & Gays Everywhere Wednesday, August 6th 5 p.m. -- Board at 4:30 Go on a Whale Watch! Take the sunset cruise on the Prince of Whales with families like yours. The 5 p.m. Cruise boards at 4:30 at MacMillan Wharf. Buy tickets early (MON.) at any Portuguese Princess Ticket Booth. $15.50 with any coupon; Kids 6 and under Free! Thursday, August 7th 12 noon Picnic Lunch & Nature Walk at Beech Forest Picnic Area. Bring lunch & arrive early ; limited to first 50 people. 3:30 p.m. Sunset Cruise for Single Lesbian Moms--$25 includes Sitter Produced by Alternative Family Matters. Must reserve in advance, call Jennifer at 617-576-6788 or altfammat@aol.com Friday, August 8th 10-Noon Bagel Brunch overlooking the Harbor Beach. Host: Jon Arterton of the Flirts, 633 Commercial St., near Todd's Garage -- collect your Scavenger Hunt prizes! Saturday, August 9th All day Have fun at the Beach! No Activities Planned. ALL WEEK LONG Scavenger Hunt for the Kids! Prizes for all on Friday. PLUS... Swimming, Biking, Family Fun & More! A list of events/map is available at the Provincetown Chamber of Commerce Building near MacMillan Wharf. A GOOD LETTER USA Weekend (Letters to the Editor) July 22, 1997 I am writing in response to your Readers Poll regarding the Southern Baptist Convention boycott of Disney. I most assuredly do not support the Disney boycott and most definitely do not support the Southern Baptist's in their endeavor. Eighteen months ago I came out to my wife and family that I am gay. We had been married for 17 years, had three children and had a very good marriage based on mutual respect, fidelity and personal convictions to Jesus as Lord and Savior. The decision to come out to her and my family was a long and agonizing one, one that took years to come to. I did not choose to become "gay." I was born that way. I have felt this way as far back as I can remember and 41 years of church indoctrination, condemnation and ridicule, hours and hours of prayer, self hatred and guilt has not changed the way I feel. What I chose to do many years ago was to try to be someone I am not. I chose to be a straight man. And that choice has had a profound effect on myself and everyone I love. What I found out was that God did not hate me because I am gay. He will not condemn me to hell because I love another man. God cannot "cure" me because there is nothing to cure. He loves me, despite my faults, because He created me and wants me to be a whole and complete person. And being a complete person includes being the person He created me to be a gay man. The Church can commit no greater sin than to play God and decide who is "in" and who is "out". When the Church chose to brand Jews as "Christ Killers", then tortured and killed them, God grieved. When the Church chose to characterize interracial marriage as "unnatural", God grieved. When the Church endorsed and encouraged slavery, God grieved. When the Church practiced and preached racial segregation, God grieved. When the Church declares children and adults as abnormal and "an abomination" because they are gay, God grieves. When the Church turns its back on those with Aids because "they deserve it", God grieves. When a teenager commits suicide because he or she cannot reconcile being gay with what the Church tells them to be, God grieves. And He does not forget. Whether the boycott is successful or not, there will still be gay men and women in this world. They will still be born. They will still live and love. And they will still die. Whether the Southern Baptist like it or not, gay men and women will still be who they were created to be, despite incredible pressure to the contrary. Whether Pat Robertson or the State likes it or not, gay men and women will still fall in love, devote themselves to eachother and create families despite daily ridicule, ostracism and government sanctioned discrimination. And whether the Church likes it or not, no matter how much they rant and rave, God will still love and accept gay men and women. And nothing they ever say or do will ever change that. Mark A. Elliott ENGLAND (Wockner News Service) Gay British Member of Parliament Ben Bradshaw's lover, Neal Dagleish, has been recognized as his spouse for purposes of House of Commons fringe benefits. Dagleish's spouse pass gets him essentially unlimited access to Parliament, including use of its cafeterias, bars, parking garage, family room and gymnasium. Following a separate bureaucratic process, Dagleish likely also will be granted travel benefits -- 15 first-class rail tickets between Westminster and Bradshaw's district in England's West Country. "This is not a question of gay rights, it's a question of getting fair and equal treatment -- that's what I believe in, like most right-minded people," Bradshaw told the Daily Telegraph. Bradshaw's opponent in the recent election, Adrian Rogers, countered: "This is the first move in his [Bradshaw's] personal campaign at the highest level to seek recognition, equality and - - no doubt -- even domination by the homosexual lobby. I find the whole thing obnoxious." ENGLAND (Wockner News Service) The new leader of Britain's Conservative Party, William Hague, approves of gay marriage. "When they're not causing any harm to other people, why should we object?" Hague said. A protege of Margaret Thatcher, Hague, 36, succeeded former Prime Minister John Major. On most other issues, Hague is aligned with the party's right wing. VERMONT (Boston Globe July 22, 1997) [Deleted article. filemanager@qrd.org] CANADA In Canada, the constitutional provision on equality is found in section 15 (1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, added to the constitution in 1982. It reads: *Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.* In the case of Egan v. Canada, [1995] Supreme Court Reports 418, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously held that the equality clause applied to homosexuals. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was held to be an analogous ground of discrimination, similar in character to the grounds listed in section 15 (1). Five of the nine judges also held that the equality provision required the equal treatment of same-sex couples. However one of those five judges gave the national government time to make adjustments to the national *Canada Pension Plan*. He noted that same-sex benefit claims were still quite new and expressed concern with the financial implications of a ruling in favour of the couple. Professor Peter Hogg, Canada*s leading commentator on the Constitution, described this judge*s ruling as follows: *That ruling was based on a concern that Parliament should be permitted to proceed incrementally in recognizing same-sex relationships (*still generally regarded as a novel concept*), and a concern about the cost implication of the expansion on spending programmes. The ruling was expressed in tentative language, which suggested that, in due course, benefit programmes would have to equate same-sex couples with opposite-sex couples.* (Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, 4th edition, para 52.7(b)) What have been the consequences of equality arguments in Canada in the area of family law, an area where government spending programmes are not in issue? 1. In 1995 the Ontario Court (Provincial Division) upheld adoption rights for same-sex couples in the case Re. K, (1995) 23 Ontario Reports (3d) 679. Four lesbian couples applied for joint adoption of a total of seven children. In each case one of the partners was the birth mother of the children. Ontario law allowed individuals to adopt, but only allowed joint applications for adoption by *spouses*, defined as persons of the opposite sex. The Ontario law did not bar homosexuals from adopting as individuals, and did not require that a heterosexual couple be married in order to be considered *spouses.* The lesbian couples, in the case, had been living together for periods ranging from 6 to 13 years. All of the children had been conceived by alternative insemination and were born during the relationship. There were, therefore, no issues in the cases concerning the fathers of the children. Extensive expert evidence was given on same-sex couples and the children raised in such families. Judge Nevins ruled that the definition of *spouse* was unconstitutional because it denied gay or lesbian people the right to apply, as a couple, to adopt a child. The decision found that same-sex couples were in a *married-like* state. They were, therefore, analogous to heterosexual couples. They were not analogous to other kinds of couples, who did not share a sexual bond. The judge ruled that the Ontario legislation was aimed at promoting the best interests of children within family units. The judge found that there was *no evidence that families with heterosexual parents are better able to meet the physical, psychological, emotional or intellectual needs of children than families with homosexual parents.* [p. 708] The Judge found it relevant that Ontario had moved away from only allowing *traditional* married families to adopt by allowing unmarried heterosexual couples to adopt and by allowing individuals to adopt. The case was resolved by an order that words be *read in* to the definition of spouse, to make the definition include same-sex couples. Judge Nevins also commented that the non-biological parent would be liable to contribute financially to the support of the children because, under Ontario legislation, each of those individuals had *demonstrated a settled intention to treat the children involved as children of her family.* While the case involved *partner adoptions*, that is the adoption by a couple, one of which is a natural parent of the child, the reasoning in the case is not limited to *partner* situations. By the reasoning in the judgement, the ruling also applies to same-sex couples applying to adopt a child who is not biologically related to either partner. In practice in Ontario, orders have been granted in both situations since the decision in Re. K. The court involved in this case was a trial level court. The decision was not appealed. No Canadian court has given a conflicting decision since Re. K. 2. In 1995 the Province of British Columbia enacted a new Adoption Act. The legislation, which came into force in 1996, provides that *one or two persons* may apply to adopt a child. This wording was designed to permit same-sex couples, as couples, to adopt children. The normal criteria of the *best interests of the child* would have to be met in cases of same-sex couples, as they would have to be met in cases of heterosexual couples or in cases where individuals apply to adopt a child. 3. In M . H, (1996) 96 Ontario Appeal Cases, 173, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that a lesbian had to pay support or alimony to her former partner. Ontario legislation provided that a *spouse* was obliged to pay support to a dependent partner after the breakdown of a relationship. The term *spouse* included unmarried heterosexual couples (a) who had lived together for at least three years, or (b) who were living in a *relationship of some permanence, if they are the natural or adoptive parents of a child.* The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the definition of *spouse* was unconstitutional because it excluded same-sex couples. As in Re. K, the case was resolved by an order that the definition of *spouse* be corrected so that it would include same-sex couples. The court considered the argument that support obligations should be limited to heterosexual couples because of the procreative potential of heterosexual relationships. The court noted (1) that the statutory provisions on support were in no way dependent upon the couple having children, (2) that the child support provisions did not exclude same-sex couples, and (3) the argument was similar to biologically based arguments that had been used in the past against women*s claims to equality (arguments that had now been rejected in the Supreme Court of Canada). The court noted that the claim for support did not affect government spending programs. Rather, extending spousal support to same-sex couples would have the result of reducing government social assistance payments, by upholding the obligation of the same-sex partner. The court stressed that Ontario had already moved away from restricting support obligations to married couples. Ontario, the court said, had recognized *...that, insofar as spousal support obligations were concerned, it was neither fair nor effective to choose marriage as the exclusive marker for the identification of intimate relationships giving rise to economic inter-dependence which might require, upon breakdown, some access to the equitable dispute-resolution scheme created by the legislation.* (para 107) The court noted that if procreative potential were used to justify the exclusion of same-sex couples from the application of the law on support, then a characteristic of same-sex relationships (their non-procreative character) would be being used to justify discrimination against homosexuals. A characteristic of the category of homosexual would be being used to justify discrimination against homosexuals. This, the court said, would be the opposite of recognizing the claim to equality. The claimant would only be entitled to equality if he or she lost *the identity for which protection is claimed....* (para 109) The Government of Ontario has appealed the M v H case to the Supreme Court of Canada. 4. In June, 1997, the Canada Public Service Staff Relations Board in Boutilier v. Treasury Board, ordered that Ross Boutilier, an employee of the Canadian government, was entitled to five days leave for the purpose of getting married. Boutilier and his same-sex partner participated in a ceremony of *holy union* at the Metropolitan Community Church in Halifax, Nova Scotia. The marriage ceremony was not recognized as legally effective under the law of Nova Scotia. The collective agreement that governed the employment relationship provided for marriage leave and had a clause stating that there should be no discrimination on the basis of sex, without mentioning *sexual orientation*. The Board interpreted the words of the collective agreement in a manner consistent with the Canadian Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. (para 36) This upheld the ceremony as a *marriage* for the purposes of the collective agreement, though it had no effect on the legality of the marriage under the laws of Nova Scotia. 5. In July, 1997, an Ontario court, in the case Greaves v. Buist, applied normal family law rules on child support and on relocation of the custodial parent in the situation of a lesbian relationship. The lesbian couple had lived together for seven years. During the relationship, Greaves became pregnant by alternative insemination. The child was raised by the couple. When the relationship broke down, Greaves indicated her intention to move to another part of Canada, with the child, to take a new job. Buist sued for custody of the child. Greaves sued for child support. The court considered the issue of the relocation of the child in the manner in which such decisions are made for heterosexual couples. The court concluded that Greaves should be allowed to relocate with the child. The court ordered Buist to pay child-support (though Buist had never been involved in an adoption or joint custody proceeding in relation to the child). 5. In July, 1997, the Province of British Columbia passed amendments to the Family Relations Act which extended the provisions of the law equally to same-sex couples. The new act defines the term *spouse* to include an individual in a same-sex relationship. As a result same-sex couples have the same obligations as unmarried heterosexual couples (a) to pay support to a partner, (b) to pay child-support, (c) to have custody of or access to a child. WASHINGTON A new report says the cost of offering medical benefits to same-sex partners is less burdensome then many employers fear. In large part that is because two-thirds of those signing up for benefits are opposite-sex couples who have the potential costs of pregnancy, childbirth and expensive treatment for premature children. "Empolyers currently offering benefits to domestic partners have not experienced higher risks of costs in the health insurance coverage than they have with legally married spouses," said the report by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, published this month. Employers offering the benefits include more then 30 firms on the Fortune 500 list; nearly 70 cities, states and counties; about 80 colleges ane universities; and dozens of high-tech and entertainment companies. The Democratic National Committee offers them; so do El Al Isreal Airlines, tampon makers Tanbrands, the San Francisco 49ers and the Vermont Girl Scout Council. In Hawai`i, legislation that became law extends medical benefits even further--to reciprocal beneficiaries, relationships declared by any two people who cannot legally marry. The two people do not need to live together or even have a personal relationship. The law requireds prive companies to provide family health coverate to their employees in such relationships. Five large Hawai`i companies have sued the state to block enactment of that part of the law, saying they expect their health care costs to increase. Other reports have been even more specific about same-sex benefits than the new study. A survey of employers by the Society for Human Resource Management earlier this year found that 85 percent saw no increase in health care costs after instituting domestic partner benefits. KPMG Peat Marwick's annual bealth benefits survey found 13 percent of all firms offer domsetic partnership benefits, including as many as one in four employers with more than 5,000 workers. "The difference in cost between firms offering and denying this type of coverage appears slight," that report said. Research by the National Gay and Lesbian Journalists Association found that coverage for same-sex couples accounted for 0.5 percent of an average company's annual medical benefits budget; companies that cover opposite-sex partners as well find the coverage costs 1 percent to 3 percent of their medical benefits budget. LOVE MAKES A FAMILY PHOTO EXHIBIT LOVE MAKES A FAMILY: Living in Lesbian and Gay Families, the renowned photo-text may be coming to your neighborhood in the coming months. This traveling exhibit will be spending the summer months in placessuch as the North Carolina Film Festival in Durham, NC (July 28-August 5), the Provincetown, MA Unitarian Society during Family Week, sponsored by the Gay and Lesbian Parents Coaliton Internationa (GLPCI) (opens August 3 afternoon with a big reception open to the public and runs through the end of August), and touring through Maine (email: rossetti@biddeford.com for an up-to-date schedule). Family Diversity Projects has A FEW OPENINGS if you would like to bring the exhibit to your community in August/Sept. (at our special summer exhibit rental rates), and then more openings again as of December l997. If you would like more information or to book the exhibit for a showing at your community, school, workplace, library, church/synagogue, museum, email us at famphoto@aol.com ______________________________ To SUBSCRIBE, send an e-mail message to glpcinat@ix.netcom.com saying "subscribe Parents' Network", To UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message to glpcinat@ix.netcom.com saying "unsubscribe Parents' Network" and you will be removed from the list. --=====================_870072529==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" --=====================_870072529==_--