TV & Radio
中国出生率 男女比不均衡深刻 (NHK 2005/08/24)
The Boston Globe
August 24, 2005
LISTING SAME-SEX marriages and commitment ceremonies in the traditional ''Weddings" pages of newspapers was controversial when it began a few years ago. But anyone reading about the gay couples in the newspaper cannot help but see how utterly ordinary they are -- or should be.
Wedding announcements often include smiling pictures and mini-biographies: where the couple grew up, their professions and college degrees, sometimes a bit about their parents or where they plan to take their honeymoon. In the past few weeks, The Boston Globe and The New York Times wedding pages have included a handful of gay couples who have had their weddings performed in Massachusetts or Canada, two places where gay marriage is legal. Other than tending to be slightly older than the other couples featured, there is little to distinguish the same-sex announcements from the heterosexual ones. Here is a selection:
A senior lecturer at Harvard Business School weds a manager of a clothing store chain. One is the son of a postal worker from Salem, Mass. The other's mother is the retired organist at a Savannah, Ga., Episcopal church.
A manager of human resources who works at Travelers Insurance Co. marries an assistant professor of human development at the State University of New York. One has a master's degree in public administration, the other has a PhD in psychology. Their parents are from Alabama and Texas.
A Boston charter school administrator weds a recruitment specialist for Teach for America seven years after the two met at a training institute in Houston. One has a master's degree in special education. The other is the daughter of a special education teacher in Oregon.
These six brides and grooms are of different races, geographic regions, and economic classes. They are as representative of the population as any other group. When they are not making history by getting married, they are no doubt working, paying taxes, eating breakfast, and grumbling about the weather like everyone else.
Fifteen months after the first gay marriages were performed in Massachusetts, opponents still insist that they somehow undermine society. Not content with a proposed compromise constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage but approve civil unions -- which this page opposes as discriminatory -- they continue to roil emotions by pressing for government decrees that sharing a lifetime is something reserved for heterosexuals.
The stories of the gay marriages already happening are simply tales of commitment, hope, and love. They are not even a reason to stop the presses.
Same-sex parent rulings spark debate in California
By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
August 24, 2005
A trio of new California court rulings that say two women can be a child's parents have shocked traditional-values advocates and encouraged homosexual-rights groups.
"We perceive no reason why both parents of a child cannot be women," the California Supreme Court said in one of three cases involving lesbian parental rights.
Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families in California, protested the rulings. "Despite junk science and frustrating rulings like this, children still need a mother and a father," he said, urging support for a ballot initiative to define marriage in the California Constitution as the union of a man and a woman.
However, the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) called the rulings "a tremendous victory for children, parental responsibility and for common sense."
"[C]hildren born to same-sex couples must be treated equally to other children, and thus have a legally protected relationship to both partners," said Courtney Joslin, an NCLR lawyer who argued one of the cases.
The three cases involved questions of parental responsibility after lesbian couples broke up:
• In Elisa B. v. Superior Court, a lesbian argued that because she wasn't the parent of her ex-partner's twins, she shouldn't have to pay $1,815 a month in court-ordered child support.
The high court unanimously disagreed, saying: "A woman who agreed to raise children with her lesbian partner, supported her partner's artificial insemination using an anonymous donor, and received the resulting twin children into her home and held them out as her own, is the children's parent ... and has an obligation to support them."
• In K.M. v. E.G., a lesbian sought custody and visitation rights for twins born -- using her ova -- to an ex-partner. The court ruled, 4-2, in favor of the plaintiff, saying: "When partners in a lesbian relationship decide to produce children in this manner, both the woman who provides her ova and her partner who bears the children are the children's parents."
• In Kristine H. v. Lisa R., a lesbian mother argued that a judgment naming her ex-partner as a parent of the child she bore when they were partners be set aside. The court unanimously denied the request, saying that "it would be unfair" to the ex-partner and the child to invalidate a judgment that the couple had both wanted and "enjoyed" until they broke up.
Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese applauded the rulings, saying, "All parents should have the same responsibilities to children during a relationship and after one ends."
But Alliance Defense Fund lawyer Jordan Lorence said the court "devalued" the role of mothers and fathers by "saying anyone can be a child's parent."
Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, sees an "obvious implication" of the Monday rulings to same-sex "marriage."
Courts increasingly are treating homosexual relationships as identical to marriage, even in the absence of any law legalizing same-sex "marriage" in a state, he said. "This is an illustration of the problem we have with judicial activism -- with judges taking it upon themselves to redefine the law, rather than leaving that to the legislature, whose proper task it is."
It also raises "a real slippery-slope question," Mr. Sprigg said. "If we are detaching parenthood from biology altogether, then what is to prevent a child from having three parents?"
LA Times Editorial: A more legal union
The Los Angeles Times
August 24, 2005
A more legal union
AS THE POLITICS OF GAY MARRIAGE become increasingly contentious, the legalities of it are becoming increasingly mundane. While gays still do not have the right to marry in California, they have most of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. The question is whether — or when — the legal progress will lead to a political backlash.
On Monday, the California Supreme Court ruled in three separate cases that gays and lesbians who have children have the rights and obligations of parenthood. Each decision, which followed by a few weeks the court's ruling that businesses must give domestic partners the same privileges and services they extend to spouses, involved lesbian couples who had children and subsequently broke up. In each, the court ruled that both women were considered to be the children's parents. Thus, they could claim rights such as visitation, custody and so on.
The three decisions were full of references to such laws and doctrines as estoppel, subject matter jurisdiction and the Uniform Parentage Act. None of these, it goes without saying, are especially interesting, much less divisive. As a result, both sides of the gay-marriage debate have focused their attention on the first sentence of Page 10 of the decision in Elisa B. vs. Superior Court. "We perceive no reason," it reads, "why both parents of a child cannot be women."
In those 13 words is an almost perfect Rorschach test: Opponents of gay marriage find them condescending; supporters see them as courageous. But they are neither; they are simply the logical result of a legislative process that has been taking place in California for years. Just a few sentences later, in fact, the decision cites the relevant statute, which became effective Jan. 1: "The rights and obligations of registered domestic partners with respect to a child of either of them shall be the same as those of spouses."
This is not the last time the state Supreme Court will be called to rule on gay marriage; a case challenging the state law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman is expected to reach the court next year. Meanwhile, opponents of same-sex marriage have stated their intention to scale back benefits for registered domestic partners.
As this debate proceeds, the public should be skeptical of claims that the courts are usurping the role of the Legislature; in these cases, they are simply following it.
Statements on California High Court’s Positive Decisions - Lambda Legal, Human Rights Campaign
News/Publications >> Press Releases
Lambda Legal Statement Regarding California High Court’s Positive Decisions Concerning Children of Gay and Lesbian Parents
(Los Angeles, August 22, 2005) — Lambda Legal issued the following statement regarding the decision by the California Supreme Court in three cases involving lesbian parents.
Jennifer C. Pizer, Senior Counsel in Lambda Legal’s Western Regional Office in Los Angeles said:
“Today’s decisions build on a solid foundation of California statutory and common law intended to protect California’s children, regardless of the sexual orientation of their parents. These cases highlight the need for a Family Code that protects all families—all kids—equally.
“Though the court issued positive rulings, the rights of lesbian and gay parents in California are under attack. With today’s rulings, the Supreme Court has cast a bright light on why the proposed constitutional amendment initiatives to permanently withhold marriage from same-sex couples and to eliminate most legal protections for domestic partners are discriminatory, antifamily and entirely wrong-headed.
“The cases decided today are fully consistent with parenting decisions concerning gay people in parts of the country with fewer protections for same-sex couples. A court in Pennsylvania, for example, recently issued a strong ruling granting a lesbian mom visitation with her daughter that had been denied solely because her ex-partner (the child’s biological mother) had worked to alienate the child from her. And in Maryland, a court recently agreed that a gay father should be allowed to object to a custody restriction barring his partner from living with him and his son.”
The cases that were ruled on today (Elisa B. v. Superior Court, K. M. v. E. G. and Kristine H. v. Superior Court) all concern the rights and responsibilities of non-biological parents of children born to same-sex couples.
Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights argued in friend-of-the-court papers in these cases that the California Family Code protections for children with unmarried parents apply the same way to children whose lesbian or gay parents are not registered with the state as domestic partners. AB 205, California’s comprehensive domestic partnership law, took effect on January 1, 2005 and provides presumed parentage for couples who register and have children born into the relationship. Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights’ briefs explained there are many thousands of children whose same-sex parents are not registered, or who were born before AB 205 became effective. Constitutional amendment language being proposed now appears to target both the domestic partnership law and court rulings like today’s that protect children equally even if they have lesbian or gay parents.
Contact: Mark Roy at 212-809-8585 x267; Cell: 347-512-3358.
Lambda Legal is a national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those with HIV through impact litigation, education and public policy work.
For Immediate Release:
Tuesday, Aug. 23, 2005
CALIFORNIA RULINGS AN IMPORTANT STEP TO EQUAL PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES - Human Rights Campaign
‘All parents should have the same responsibilities to children during a relationship and after one ends,’ said HRC President Joe Solmonese.
WASHINGTON — In three decisions affirming that same-sex couples should have the same responsibilities to their children that other families have, the California Supreme Court ruled yesterday that gay and lesbian parents who choose to have children together have a legal relationship to those children, with the same rights and obligations as other parents, including in the event of a breakup. Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese released the following statement today:
“All parents should have the same responsibilities to children during a relationship and after one ends. These rulings affirm that not only do same-sex couples and their children need the same rights, but also the same responsibilities that come with creating a family.
“The U.S. Census tells us that same-sex couples are raising children in at least 96 percent of all counties in the nation and at least one out of three lesbian couples and one out of five gay male couples are raising children nationwide. Every one of these families deserves the same responsibilities and protections as their neighbors.
“We applaud the National Center for Lesbian Rights for their involvement in these cases that will protect children and families in California.”
The Human Rights Campaign is the largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender political organization with members throughout the country. It effectively lobbies Congress, provides campaign support and educates the public to ensure that LGBT Americans can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.
LGBT Parenting Issues
Your Community: California
同性カップル：異性間夫婦と同様親権認める 米加州最高裁 (毎日 2005/08/24)
衆院選：性同一性障害、難病… マイノリティー候補も続々 (毎日 2005/08/24)
毎日新聞 2005年8月24日 12時06分
同性カップル：異性間夫婦と同様親権認める 米加州最高裁 (毎日 2005/08/24)
毎日新聞 2005年8月24日 11時08分
California, US: Gay parents gain key custody rights - SJ Mercury News