Poland: European Court of Human Rights Rules in Favor of Gay Widower

Poland may not discriminate against gay couples, in spite of a clause in the its constitution stating that marriage is "a union of a man and a woman", the European Court of Human Rights ruled in Strasbourg.

The court found, in a unanimous ruling released on Monday, in favour of Piotr Kozak, whose partner died in 1998, and who had his request to continue living in their municipal flat in the western city of Szczecin turned down, in spite of a provision in Polish law allowing a "person who has lived in de facto cohabitation with the tenant" to succeed to the tenancy.

The Strasbourg tribunal recognised the difficulty in maintaining a balance between traditional marriage and the rights of sexual minorities but found that the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights is "a living instrument" and has to be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions. It also found that, in this case, Poland did not have a clear interest in discriminating between heterosexual and homosexual couples.

The case was greeted with joy by gay and lesbian groups in Poland.

Full Story from FT.com
Click here for gay marriage resources.
To subscribe to this blog, use the rss feed on the right, or use the form at right to join our email list. You can also email us at info@purpleunions.com. Or find us on Facebook - just search for Gay Marriage Watch (you'll see our b/w wedding pic overlooking the Ferry Building and Bay Bridge in SF). We're also tweeting daily at http://www.twitter.com/gaymarriagewatc.

Italian Constitutional Court Ruling on Marriage Equality Due March 23rd

Just got this from one of the friends of GMW:

"I want to share with you that on March, 23rd. the Italian Constitutional Court will issue an opinion on gay marriage, responding to inquiries made by four lower courts."

Here's a little background from an article on the ILGA-Europe.org site:

Is the Italian Civil Code unconstitutional in indirectly limiting marriage to opposite sex couples? This is the question put forward to the Constitutional Court by the Tribunal of Venice. A same-sex couple lodged a complaint against the refusal of the mayor to proceed with the publication of the notice of marriage, the first step in order to enter civil marriage in Italy. The two men argued that the Civil code does not explicitly define marriage as a union between a man and a woman nor does it include sameness of sex in the list of hindrances. In any case, if such obstacle were to exist, then it would collide with the Constitution and the fundamental freedoms set forth therein.

In April 2009 the three-judge panel found that even though no explicit limit exists, a systematic approach to the Civil code rooted on provisions like those that refer to wife and husband for the exchange of vows lead inevitably to such conclusion. Nevertheless, some articles of the 1948 Constitution appear to undermine the legitimacy of these provisions of the 1942 Civil code. The judges referred to article 2, which protects "inviolable human rights" and social groups like family, to art. 3's prohibition of discrimination on grounds of personal conditions, to art. 29 on the recognition of marriage, as well as to art. 107, which binds Italy to respect international obligations (ECHR, EU law, etc.).

Fingers crossed, everyone!

New Poll: 52% Think Supreme Court Will Rule Against Gay Marriage

Most Americans predict the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, a national poll indicated Thursday. And most Americans would prefer the court to rule that way, the Angus Reid Public Opinion poll found.

The online survey of a representative national sampling of 1,000 U.S. adults indicated 52 percent believe the justices will define marriage as a heterosexual union, while 28 percent think the court will define marriage federally as a union between two people, regardless of gender.

Fifty-eight percent want the court to define marriage as heterosexual only, while 34 percent would like no gender limitations, the survey found. Slightly more than a third, or 34 percent, say couples of the same sex should be allowed to marry, while 26 percent say they should only be allowed to form civil unions.

Full Story from UPI
Click here for gay marriage resources.
To subscribe to this blog, use the rss feed on the right, or use the form at right to join our email list. You can also email us at info@purpleunions.com. Or find us on Facebook - just search for Gay Marriage Watch (you'll see our b/w wedding pic overlooking the Ferry Building and Bay Bridge in SF). We're also tweeting daily at http://www.twitter.com/gaymarriagewatc.

India: Sodomy Ruling From Supreme Court Due Next Month

The Indian Supreme Court is expected to give a final ruling on repealing the ban on gay sex next month. Last year, the Delhi High Court ruled that the colonial-era law was unconstitutional. Although this decision applied only to the jurisdiction of Delhi, gay rights campaigners hope it will persuade other areas to follow suit. Today, a Channel 4 News Online report suggested that along with legislative change, attitudes to homosexuality in the capital were slowly becoming more positive, with gay Bollywood storylines and even a gay pride shop. However, the importance of marriage in society means that many gay men are still expected to marry women. Full Story from Pink News

Click here for gay marriage resources.

To subscribe to this blog, use the rss feed on the right, or use the form at right to join our email list. You can also email us at info@purpleunions.com. Or find us on Facebook - just search for Gay Marriage Watch (you'll see our b/w wedding pic overlooking the Ferry Building and Bay Bridge in SF). We're also tweeting daily at http://www.twitter.com/gaymarriagewatc.

CA: 9th Circuit Affirms Campaign Document Ruling

A federal appeals court reaffirmed its ruling Wednesday that allowed sponsors of California's ban on same-sex marriage to withhold campaign strategy documents from gay rights advocates who are seeking to overturn the ballot measure. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Dec. 11 had overturned a judge's order to produce the documents, ruling 3-0 that their disclosure might discourage participation in future campaigns and inhibit strategists from speaking candidly. An appellate judge then sought a rehearing before an 11-judge panel, but the court said Wednesday that the request failed to gain majority support from its members. No vote total was announced. The November 2008 initiative, Proposition 8, amended the California Constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, overturning a May 2008 state Supreme Court ruling that allowed gay and lesbian couples to marry. Full Story from SF Gate: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/31/BAGA1BBNTC.DTL&feed=rss.gay

Click here for gay marriage resources in California.

To subscribe to this blog, use the rss feed on the right, or use the form at right to join our email list. You can also email us at info@purpleunions.com. Or find us on Facebook - just search for Gay Marriage Watch (you'll see our b/w wedding pic overlooking the Ferry Building and Bay Bridge in SF). We're also tweeting daily at http://www.twitter.com/gaymarriagewatc.

CA: Appeals Court Asked to Reconsider Prop 8 Campaign Document Decision

Judges of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will vote soon on whether to reconsider their decision last week denying gay rights advocates access to internal communications of Proposition 8 supporters who succeeded in getting voters to ban same-sex marriage last year. In a terse announcement filed this evening, the three judges who denied the access, citing 1st Amendment grounds, said one of the 27 active judges on the court had called for a vote to rehear the issue with a full 11-member panel of judges. The call for the rehearing vote could signal dismay by at least one judge on the court at Friday's ruling denying lawyers for two gay couples the chance to review Proposition 8 supporters' campaign-related e-mails and letters. The lawyers want to comb the communications for evidence that the ballot measure was an attempt to sow fear and discrimination against gays and lesbians. Full Story from the LA Times: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/12/appeals-court-to-vote-on-new-hearing-in-proposition-8-challenge.html

Click here for gay marriage resources in California.

To subscribe to this blog, use the rss feed on the right, or use the form at right to join our email list. You can also email us at info@purpleunions.com. Or find us on Facebook - just search for Gay Marriage Watch (you'll see our b/w wedding pic overlooking the Ferry Building and Bay Bridge in SF). We're also tweeting daily at http://www.twitter.com/gaymarriagewatc.

CA: 9th Circuit Says Prop 8 Backers Don't Have to Release Campaign Documents

A federal appeals court in San Francisco has reversed a judge's order that backers of Proposition 8, the state initiative that banned same-sex marriage, give their campaign strategy documents to opponents trying to overturn the measure. In a unanimous ruling Friday, the Ninth U.S. Circuit of Appeals tossed out the order that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker issued in October against backers of Prop. 8, which state voters approved in November 2008. Walker had said lawyers for two same-sex couples and a gay-rights group were entitled to see internal memos and e-mails between Yes on 8 strategists to look for evidence that the campaign had exploited prejudice against gays and lesbians. The plaintiffs are trying to show that the measure was discriminatory and thus unconstitutional. Full Story from SFGate: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/11/BA3A1B34VC.DTL

Click here for gay marriage resources in California.

To subscribe to this blog, use the rss feed on the right, or use the form at right to join our email list. You can also email us at info@purpleunions.com. Or find us on Facebook - just search for Gay Marriage Watch (you'll see our b/w wedding pic overlooking the Ferry Building and Bay Bridge in SF). We're also tweeting daily at http://www.twitter.com/gaymarriagewatc.

Panel May Rule on Release of Referendum 71 Petition Signers' Names in Next Few Days

The dicey question over whether the Secretary of State can release the names and addresses of those who signed petitions to get Referendum 71 on the November ballot is now in the hands of the three-member panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Ref 71 will ask voters on Nov. 3 to either approve or reject the state's latest expansion of the domestic partnership law, which grants marriage-like benefits to registered gay and some senior couples. Attorneys for protect Marriage Washington, which gathered enough signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot, told the three-judge panel that petition signatures are protected free speech under the First Amendment and as such should be shielded from public release. Full Story from the Seattle Times: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2010065743_the_dicey_question_over_whethe.html

Planning to marry your partner? Click here for gay marriage resources in Washington State.

To subscribe to this blog, use the rss feed on the right, or use the form at right to join our email list. You can also email us at info@purpleunions.com. Or find us on Facebook - just search for Gay Marriage Watch (you'll see our b/w wedding pic overlooking the Ferry Building and Bay Bridge in SF). We're also tweeting daily at http://www.twitter.com/gaymarriagewatc.