http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping

Esse Blog está no Gayblogs.blogspot.com! Coloque o seu também! "GLBTI Weddings PLUS!"

"GLBTI Weddings PLUS!"

The Blog of the U.S.'s first GLBTI-specific Wedding and Events firm. Discussion spot for clients and visitors to interact with savvyplanners.com staff and experts, in an informal forum, regarding Gay Weddings or Same-Sex Marriage, LGBT weddings and Traditional weddings and other issues affecting the GLBTI.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Group asks Calif. court to ban gay marriage



3 hours ago

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A conservative Christian legal group on Thursday made a last-ditch effort to stop gay marriage from becoming legal in California by asking a midlevel appeals court to temporarily prohibit county clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The Virginia-based Liberty Counsel, in a petition with the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco, argued that the wording of the California Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriages allows the lower court to set the terms and schedule for implementing the decision.
Liberty Counsel argued that the high court's May 15 ruling put dozens of state laws addressing marriage into conflict and that the Legislature needs time to address those issues.
Barring any further legal intervention, gay couples will be able to start marrying in California at 5:01 p.m. Monday, when the Supreme Court's decision becomes final. The ruling to legalize gay marriage overturned a decision by the Court of Appeal, which is therefore required to issue an order consistent with the high court's 4-3 opinion.
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera called Liberty Counsel's filing "absurd."
"I am not aware of a process in American law that enables parties to effectively appeal a higher court ruling to a lower court," Herrera said.

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, June 05, 2008

Gay couples can set the date

By Howard Mintz and Mary Anne Ostrom Mercury News


The wait is over for everyone from wedding planners to local clerks - and thousands of gay and lesbian couples across California.

The California Supreme Court on Wednesday removed any lingering legal doubts about whether same-sex couples can marry in California beginning June 17, setting the stage for a rush of gay nuptials that morning.

Kristin and Jean Rivers, who'd planned to marry at a San Jose church June 18, have been wondering for weeks whether the court would spoil their big day.

"I've been riding a roller coaster," said Kristin Rivers, a schoolteacher. "Two weeks before I'm supposed to get married, I find out I can get married. On one hand, I'm totally relieved. On the other hand, I'm kind of freaking out."

Labels: , , , , ,

California Supreme Court refuses to delay gay marriage



The ruling, on a 4-3 vote, means same-sex couples could tie the knot later this month.

By Maura Dolan and Jessica Garrison, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers June 5, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO -- Gay couples in California rushed to set wedding dates Wednesday after the California Supreme Court's unusually quick rejection of challenges to its historic decision permitting same-sex couples to wed.By rejecting petitions asking for reconsideration of the May 15 ruling, the court, in a 4-3 vote, removed the final obstacle to same-sex marriages starting June 17.


Labels: , , ,

Thursday, May 29, 2008

New York to Back Same-Sex Unions From Elsewhere

By JEREMY W. PETERS
The New York Times
Published: May 29, 2008

ALBANY — Gov. David A. Paterson has directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada... [source]

ALSO: Gay rights advocates score wins in NY, Calif.
By MICHAEL GORMLEY – 6 hours ago from The AP (click here)

Thoughts?

Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, May 16, 2008

And the Sun Still Rose

An OP/ED by
savvyplanners.com™, LLC CEO
MW Savant

Everything today is as it was yesterday! Well almost.

Today is the day after the great State of California had the gravitas, intelligence and sense of fairness and justice, to make their citizens equal.

Today is the day when 100,000 or more same-sex couples in that state took their first breath as people who were no longer shunned or oppressed or denied in the quest for the rights and responsibilities previously enjoyed only by their heterosexual counterparts.

While some bitterly mourn the death of yesterday's inequity, it was a death that was overdue.

The quest for GLBTI rights (inherent ones--- not special ones) has been going on in California for the last fifty years. Congratulations California. You join Massachussetts in shining a light down the much-feared, and rhetoric-plagued, "dark tunnel" of GLBTI marriage equality. You have bravely and logically shown that there is NO gray area in Equality! You have proven that the tides, mountains and sunshine would not, as some would have had us believe, utterly cease to be.

Today, the voyage continues to the point where Californians, of every stripe, are nearing blissful equality. This day, GLBTI couples drink the elixer of fairness and feel counted. Today. As the naysayers and devout opponents decried the simple act of fairness and wisdom demonstrated by the bench and pledged that they would 'fight this to the death' going forward---they thumped through their newspapers and slammed through the TV channels, angrily and piously slurping their coffee and, alas, the sun still rose.

There is no gray area in equality. How can there be? Kudos California! Congratulations couples.

Mr. Takei, Mr. Altman, Ms. DeGeneres and Ms. DeRossi... We're here and ready to help! We were created for you!

Editor's Note: The opinion expressed above is entirely that of MW Savant and does not, necessarily, reflect the view(s) held by savvyplanners.com™, LLC, its principals, affiliates or subsidiaries. However, in this case it DOES.

Labels: ,

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Visit Our New Wedding and Event Forum!

Now people all over the world can interact with , assist and support other GLBTI couples in learning about our community's special weddings and events!

Join for free. Ask for help or advice and find support and guidance.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

NEW JERSEY FAVORS MARRIAGE EQUALITY 48 to 45 PERCENT


via Garden State Equality

RIGHT-WING ADS IN 2007 CAMPAIGN GO BUST: NEW JERSEY FAVORS MARRIAGE EQUALITY 48 to 45 PERCENT,

ESSENTIALLY UNCHANGED
FROM A YEAR AGO

Eagleton Poll does not test intensity of feelings on marriage equality -- by 63 to 31 percent in Summer 2007 Zogby poll, New Jerseyans say they'd be fine with legislature's changing civil unions to marriage equality. By 72 to 21 percent in that poll, New Jerseyans say "nothing would happen" to legislators who vote for marriage equality

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 -- Today the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers released an independent statewide poll that shows New Jerseyans favor marriage equality 48 to 45 percent, essentially unchanged from the last Eagleton Poll a year ago. 1,002 adults were surveyed in the new poll, which has a margin of error of 3.1 percent.

"That more New Jerseyans favor marriage equality than oppose it, said Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality, "is fantastic news it in the heat of this election campaign. The right-wing has spent significant resources to make marriage equality a wedge issue in several legislative races. Today's Eagleton Poll makes clear that the right-wing's effort has fallen flat on its face.

"Today's numbers show New Jersey is ready for marriage equality and it's coming to New Jersey, whether right-wing extremists out of touch with New Jersey like it or not."

The Eagleton Poll did not ask New Jerseyans about their intensity of feelings on marriage equality. In August 2007, a statewide Zogby Poll asked:

“If public officials in New Jersey come to the conclusion that civil unions for gay couples have not worked to provide equality under the law, and that the way to fix the law is to give gay couples the same right to marry as heterosexual couples, would you be fine with that or would you be upset by that?”

63% responded “fine with that,” while only 31% responded “upset by that.”

The same Zogby Poll also asked:

“Which of the following do you think is most likely to happen to legislators if they were to allow gay couples to marry? Those legislators would not be reelected, or nothing because people care about other issues more.”

72% said nothing would happen to legislators, while only 21% said legislators would not be reelected.

The complete Zogby Poll is online at www.GardenStateEquality.org

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, September 17, 2007

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection today denied the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association's request for continued tax breaks

Monday, September 17, 2007 -- The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection today denied the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association's request for continued tax breaks for the public boardwalk pavilion area on which the Association has banned gay civil unions.

On September 6, Garden State Equality and Ocean Grove United wrote a three-page legal letter to DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson requesting that the Department deny the Camp Meeting Association's request.
As Garden State Equality and Ocean Grove United wrote, state environmental regulations and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination specify that land receiving tax breaks must have open, nondiscriminatory access to the public. The ACLU of New Jersey wrote a subsequent letter to DEP underscoring these arguments.
"Though we're not home free yet, today's decision by the Corzine Administration is a significant victory for liberty and justice for all in Ocean Grove," said Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality. "The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association has only itself to blame for what will now be the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars. The question is, how much more hell will the Camp Meeting Association, and its national right-wing extremist backers, put the good people of Ocean Grove through?"
[If you'd like to support Garden State Equality's pathbreaking work, consider buying a ticket to their upcoming BLUE JEAN BALL and Barbecue Bonanza! on Sunday afternoon, October 14th. You may buy tickets online now at http://eqfed.org/gse/events/bluejeanball/details.tcl.]
In response to the Camp Meeting Association's ban, two couples seeking to get civil-unioned on the boardwalk have filed complaints with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The Camp Meeting Association has filed a lawsuit to allow it to continue the ban.
"We all know how this saga is going to wind up," Goldstein said. "The boardwalk will eventually be open once again to civil unions. Our side is going to win hands down because the law is overwhelmingly on our side. The boardwalk is public property by virtue of its use for decades by the public. It's time for the Camp Meeting Association to see the handwriting on the pavilion, and end its discriminatory ban now."

Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, August 06, 2007

The N.J. civil-union law, six months on

The N.J. civil-union law, six months on

via: To Form more Perfect Union: Marriage Equality News

Excerpt:

20070805_inq_jgay05-a

[photo caption: Heather Aurand and Gabriael "Nickie" Brazier (right), who entered into a civil union in February, with their three children. United Parcel Service, where Brazier is employed, agreed to spousal health-care benefits for Aurand.]

Last Monday, Gabriael "Nickie" Brazier and Heather Aurand of Toms River got the news they had been waiting months to hear.

Ever since the couple of seven years entered into a civil union in February, they had been trying to convince United Parcel Service, where Brazier works as a driver, that Aurand should get spousal health-care benefits.

Last week, the company agreed.

"We're obviously pleased with what UPS did," said Aurand, 36, a stay-at-home mom to the couple's three small children who had been paying $340 a month to buy basic medical insurance. "It's just unfortunate it took this long."

New Jersey's fledgling civil-union law was created to give same-sex couples the same rights - on the state level, at least - as their married counterparts. Since the law took effect Feb. 19, more than 1,300 couples have taken advantage of it.

But almost six months later, many of those couples say that getting others to recognize their new rights - without the label of "marriage" - remains a struggle.

"If the Legislature called it marriage to begin with, we wouldn't have had this issue and a lot of other people wouldn't still have it," Aurand said. "There are people here in New Jersey who don't even know what a civil union is."

[...]

But both state civil-rights officials and gay-rights activists say the majority of problems involve employers that have refused to provide health-care benefits to civil-union partners.

Some companies, they say, aren't familiar with the requirements of the law yet.

Others simply don't want to comply.

Still others - large companies that self-fund their insurance - are allowed, under federal law, not to extend benefits to same-sex partners.

But those companies, gay-rights activists say, are not prevented from following what they say is the spirit of the state law.

Atlanta-based UPS relied on its interpretation that civil-union partners in New Jersey were legally different from married spouses when it denied spousal benefits to same-sex hourly workers under their union contract.

The company, which already covers civil-union partners of nonunion employees, reversed itself after two employees, including Brazier, appealed - and Gov. Corzine got personally involved. In a July 20 letter to company chief executive Michael Eskew, Corzine said that in denying spousal benefits, UPS was contributing to "the inequitable treatment of committed, same-sex couples that the New Jersey law is intended to eradicate."

Some gay-rights activists say the very public reversal of such a large company could be a watershed moment. Others are doubtful.

"We're looking at going forward one family at a time, one company at a time, working very slowly and painfully over the next couple months and years," said David Buckel of Lambda Legal.

[...]

Moskovitz's experience and those of other gay couples will be reviewed by a special commission created by legislators to gauge the law's success. The panel is scheduled to deliver its first report to the Legislature in December.

"What we're trying to do is explore: Are civil unions working? Are there deficiencies?" said Vespa-Papaleo, the panel's chairman.

The vice chairman, Steven Goldstein, chairman of Garden State Equality, already has answered those questions.

"The failure of this law is astounding," he said. "Civil unions in New Jersey are an invitation to discriminate. . . . The only way to give gay couples equality is to give them marriage."

It doesn't look like that will be happening any time soon.

Forced by an October state Supreme Court ruling to grant same-sex couples the same rights as married couples, the Legislature consciously opted not to call the union "marriage." Legislative leaders said there wasn't enough public support.

Senate President Richard J. Codey (D., Essex) said there still isn't.

"I think we're still a ways away with that debate," he said. "All rights don't happen overnight, but in New Jersey, we've made great strides."

[...] Link: The Philadelphia Inquirer

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Civil union isn't enough



Civil union isn't enough

NJ Star-Ledger EditorialTuesday, July 10, 2007

"During the debate in the New Jersey Legislature last fall over granting gay and lesbian couples the same benefits as heterosexual couples, much was made about what to call a partnership of two men or two women. Should it be labeled a marriage, a civil union or something else?

Lawmakers, hoping to avoid controversy, took the easy way out by concluding that the language really didn't matter. In sum, they decided to vote for gay marriage but call it by some other name. But it turns out that this other name, civil union, is a problem -- and will continue to be.

In a society of laws, definitions matter, and New Jersey's civil union law -- on the books for five months -- does not define those involved in a domestic partnership or civil union as spouses...

Labels: , , , , , ,