DC council to vote on civil unions
Posted on Jan 02, 2006 at 11:10 am
365Gay.com
January 2, 2006
This week, the DC council will vote on allowing civil unions. The measure, authored by council member-at-large Phil Mendelson (D), has gained widespread support and would give unmarried couples some of the broadest domestic partner rights in the country. One councilor is considering a competing bill that would legalize marriage. The civil union bill is scheduled for vote on Wednesday. [Link]
January 2, 2006
This week, the DC council will vote on allowing civil unions. The measure, authored by council member-at-large Phil Mendelson (D), has gained widespread support and would give unmarried couples some of the broadest domestic partner rights in the country. One councilor is considering a competing bill that would legalize marriage. The civil union bill is scheduled for vote on Wednesday. [Link]
Court ruling stalled for resolution by governor, Legislature; city to comply
Posted on Jan 01, 2006 at 10:24 am
Anchorage Daily News
January 1, 2006
The nine couples who successfully won the lawsuit where the Alaska Supreme Court unanimously ruled it unconstitutional to discriminate against domestic partners in the workplace, still cannot enroll their partners in their health plans two months later. The ACLU has asked the court to give the city and legislature a deadline for compliance, while opponents stall and try to fight ways to challenge the ruling instead of executing it. (Link)
January 1, 2006
The nine couples who successfully won the lawsuit where the Alaska Supreme Court unanimously ruled it unconstitutional to discriminate against domestic partners in the workplace, still cannot enroll their partners in their health plans two months later. The ACLU has asked the court to give the city and legislature a deadline for compliance, while opponents stall and try to fight ways to challenge the ruling instead of executing it. (Link)
University regents discuss benefits change to include domestic partners
Posted on Dec 03, 2005 at 03:42 pm
Las Vegas Review-Journal
December 3, 2005
On Friday, NV regents discussed taking an unprecedented step to extend system benefits to domestic partners. The proposal came before a committee three years ago and never hit the full board's agenda until Friday's meeting. Regents said they wanted a chance to review a more detailed plan and would revisit for a possible vote in March 2006. Jim Richardson, NV Faculty Alliance says, "We believe faithful, monogamous partners deserve these benefits." Same-sex relationships must also be respected and recognized. [link]
December 3, 2005
On Friday, NV regents discussed taking an unprecedented step to extend system benefits to domestic partners. The proposal came before a committee three years ago and never hit the full board's agenda until Friday's meeting. Regents said they wanted a chance to review a more detailed plan and would revisit for a possible vote in March 2006. Jim Richardson, NV Faculty Alliance says, "We believe faithful, monogamous partners deserve these benefits." Same-sex relationships must also be respected and recognized. [link]
The family values sideshow
Posted on Nov 04, 2005 at 04:19 pm
Tom Paine
November 4, 2005
E.J. Graff asks, "When did lying become a family value?" She uncovers the lie family values folks say in support of anti-gay amendments: it won't harm gay and lesbian couples and their families by depriving them of job benefits or other protections through civil union or domestic partnership. Yet once the amendment passes, the same folks argue vehemently that any recognition of a same-sex couple's relationship is a "marriage in disguise" and attacks the sacred institution of marriage. Graff asks, "[H]ave they no shame?" and asks voters to be cautious at the polls. [Link]
November 4, 2005
E.J. Graff asks, "When did lying become a family value?" She uncovers the lie family values folks say in support of anti-gay amendments: it won't harm gay and lesbian couples and their families by depriving them of job benefits or other protections through civil union or domestic partnership. Yet once the amendment passes, the same folks argue vehemently that any recognition of a same-sex couple's relationship is a "marriage in disguise" and attacks the sacred institution of marriage. Graff asks, "[H]ave they no shame?" and asks voters to be cautious at the polls. [Link]
Domestic partner benefits delayed by legal confusion
Posted on Oct 12, 2005 at 12:48 pm
Yes Weekly
October 12, 2005
In Greensboro, NC officials must wait for guidance from the state attorney general to sort through conflicting legal opinions before moving forward with a proposal to extend domestic partner benefits to city employers. [link]
October 12, 2005
In Greensboro, NC officials must wait for guidance from the state attorney general to sort through conflicting legal opinions before moving forward with a proposal to extend domestic partner benefits to city employers. [link]
Majority in favor of Rocky’s proposal extending benefits to gays
Posted on Sep 12, 2005 at 11:34 am
Deseret News
September 12, 2005
Opponents of equality threaten to file suit under a violation of Utah's marriage ban if Mayor Rocky Anderson's vow to sign a proposal extending health-care benefits to domestic partners in Salt Lake City, UT is fulfilled. Anderson, a leader in the fight for equal rights, has the backing of the majority (54%) of his constituents and is prepared to take the case on in the courts. Utah's marriage ban (Amendment 3) does not prevent the denial of rights to domestic partners, only to those not married. [link]
State University System excludes couples from partner benefits
Posted on May 09, 2005 at 12:14 pm
365Gay.com
May 9, 2005
A court ruling stated Montana's University System must provide benefits to domestic partners of its employees. Unfortunately, stringent restrictions require the couples to provide proof of partnership that many say are unreasonable. [link]
May 9, 2005
A court ruling stated Montana's University System must provide benefits to domestic partners of its employees. Unfortunately, stringent restrictions require the couples to provide proof of partnership that many say are unreasonable. [link]
Ohio village stands against anti-gay State amendment
Posted on Mar 07, 2005 at 12:30 pm
Solidarity Ohio
March 7, 2005
The village of Yellow Springs passed a resolution opposing the Ohio State amendment banning marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships for gay couples. The resolution also encourages community members to recognize the equality of all families. [link]
March 7, 2005
The village of Yellow Springs passed a resolution opposing the Ohio State amendment banning marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships for gay couples. The resolution also encourages community members to recognize the equality of all families. [link]