By Ramy Eletreby

Same-Sex Marriage/Civil Union Round Up: Connecticut, New Jersey, and Texas

As of Oct. 1, Connecticut joined Vermont and became the second state in the United States to offer legal recognition of civil unions for same-sex couples. Unlike Vermont, however, Connecticut lawmakers passed the civil union law without a court order.

Several gay activists view the recognition as an understated victory because it falls short of full marriage equality. Additionally, though Connecticut will recognize Vermont's civil unions, the state will not recognize same-sex marriages from Massachusetts because Connecticut law still specifies that marriage be between a man and a woman. "We're pleased that significant rights and privileges are being extended to same-sex couples, but obviously we want same-sex marriage," said Anne Stanback, president of Love Makes a Family. Stanback says that she hopes lawmakers will consider marriage equality again in 2007.

On Oct. 21, Lambda Legal's three-year-old New Jersey lawsuit filed on behalf of seven same-sex couples seeking marriage equality went to the state Supreme Court. "This is what we've long been awaiting -- our chance to make our case before the state's highest court," said Lambda Legal attorney and Marriage Project Director David Buckel. "Since filing this lawsuit our clients have welcomed new children into their families and mourned the loss of loved ones. With these life-changing events come difficult and painful challenges our clients shouldn't have to face but do because they are not allowed to marry."

The brief states that, "Plaintiffs cannot enjoy dignity, security and first-class status as citizens when the government denies them access to one of society's most esteemed institutions, marriage, with the person each loves." The brief is joined by a vast array of friend-of-the-court briefs, including from the American Psychological Association, Legal Momentum (formerly NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund), Human Rights Campaign (representing several gay rights groups), and several others.

There was less favorable news in Texas where a constitutional amendment on the upcoming Nov. 8 ballot is sparking a major outcry statewide from gay activists opposed to Proposition 2 or the Texas Marriage Amendment. Same-sex marriage was banned in Texas under the 2003 Defense of Marriage Act.

The No Nonsense in November campaign has launched a statewide tour to educate voters on what the discriminatory amendment actually means. The amendment states: "The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

If passed, the amendment to the Texas Constitution could prohibit a judge from recognizing any legal contracts between homosexuals, including granting power of attorney, medical directives, or child guardianship. "I look at it as a hate crime," said Alice Parrish of the No Nonsense in November campaign. "It's an amendment that shows fear."

Kansas Gay Teen Sex Ruling Overturned

In a unanimous 6-0 vote, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that giving a more severe punishment for teenagers of the age of consent who have consensual sex with underage teens of the same gender was unconstitutional. The decision reflects the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas that overturned state anti-sodomy laws.

In 2000, 18-year-old Matthew Limon was sentenced to 17 years in prison for engaging in consensual oral sex with a 14-year-old boy. Had the 14-year-old been a girl, Limon would have received a maximum of one year and three months in prison. The lower courts justified the harsher punishment as protecting children's traditional development, fighting disease, and strengthening traditional values.

In arguments before the state high court, Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline argued that overturning the sentence would undermine the morality of Kansas citizens and lead to gay marriage, incest, bestiality, and sex with children. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which handled Limon's appeal, argued that different penalties for underage sex based on sexual orientation violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Justice Marla Luckert ordered that Limon be re-sentenced and all language outlining different legal treatment for heterosexuals and homosexuals be stricken from the law. "Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate state interest," wrote Luckert.

"As of today, Matthew Limon has already served four years and five months longer than a heterosexual teenager would have received for the same act," said Lisa Brunner of the ACLU in a statement. "He has long since paid his debt to society, and we're thrilled that he will be going home to his family soon."

Massachusetts Parents Fight Against Local School "Gay Agenda"

In Lexington, Mass., David and Tonia Parker pulled their son out of Joseph Estabrook School after he brought home a book from his kindergarten class that showed families with same-sex parents. They believe the school was promoting a "gay agenda" and maintain that it is their right under freedom of religion to ensure "spiritual safety" for their child.

School administrators claimed that they are merely fulfilling their duty to expose children to the diversity within society and to promote tolerance towards those of all backgrounds.

David Parker, however, said the school was not being tolerant toward him and his family. Parker was banned from school property after several protests and counter-protests sparked a flood of hate mail towards school Superintendent Paul B. Ash and a slew of letters to the local newspapers calling the Parkers bigots. "Real respect, real tolerance, is not pushing your beliefs on other people," Parker said. "What people do in their bedroom, that's their business. What they tell my children in school about these subjects -- that's my business."

Texas Prison Officials Not Held Accountable in Rape Suit

On Oct. 18, former inmate Roderick Johnson lost his civil case against six Texas prison officers whom he accused of failing to protect him in prison. Johnson, a gay black man, claimed that other inmates had beaten, raped and sold him as a sex slave while prison officials turned a blind eye. A jury voted 10-2 that the prison officials were not responsible.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which handled Johnson's lawsuit, said that Johnson should have been granted protective housing after going through the necessary channels seeking a transfer to an area for vulnerable prisoners.

"I am grateful that I have had the opportunity to tell the world what happened to me," said Johnson. "Prison rape is a huge problem. This process has opened some eyes to the violence that takes place everyday, and I hope it will encourage others to get involved in doing something about it."

In the first half of 2004, there were 8,210 allegations of sexual violence reported by prison authorities in the United States with almost half of the inmate-on-inmate sexual violence occurring in Texas, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Ten percent of the nation's prisoners are held in Texas.