In New Hampshire, some 37 couples rang in the New Year with a mass ceremony at the Statehouse in Concord.
Over on the West Coast, couples in Oregon, however, expecting to complete domestic partnership registries and union ceremonies were halted once again.
Under the registry, couples would have been guaranteed the right to visit partners in hospitals and make medical decisions, file joint state tax returns, have joint health insurance plans or take sick leave to care for their partners. The issue of same-sex marriage in the state originally arose in March 2004 when Multonomah County began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Soon after, the county was ordered to stop, but not after 3,000 marriage licenses had been granted. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage was passed that November. In 2005, the state Supreme Court ruled the amendment legal and efforts to enact the domestic partner registry began.
The last week of December, opponents of the new domestic partnership law asked U.S. District Judge Michael Mossman to intercede after the Oregon Secretary of State's office ruled that there needed to be 116 more valid signatures to put the matter to voters in November. Judge Mossman has set a Feb. 1 hearing to consider the matter.
In response, Basic Rights Oregon, the state's largest gay rights group, organized candlelight vigils in seven cities. During the Portland vigil, BRO Executive Director Jeana Frazzini called the delay "a kick in the gut."
So what does this mean for the upcoming 2008 Presidential election? New Hampshire, a key electoral state, had its primary on Tuesday, making it the site of a feverish battle between presidential hopefuls. The fact that the state just joined the handful granting formal civil unions to same-sex couples could become a campaign issue. Republicans who decide to run with the issue in hopes of energizing their GOP base could also be seen as gay-bashers and thus alienate themselves from the state's overwhelming number of Independent Party members. At about 40 percent of the electorate, the Independents outnumber registered Republicans and Democrats. They are free to vote in either party's primary. Not raising the issue might brand them as weak candidates among party activists. Another thing to consider is that New Hampshire Republicans are seen as more moderate than the norm on issues of gay marriage. Activists with the Human Rights Campaign have been working diligently since the Iowa caucuses, staging intensive efforts in New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina to make gay rights a top concern among primary voters. Issues of civil rights and marriage equality for LGBT citizens will continue to be a primary issue this year and LGBT voters should realize the importance of being active in the discussions as well as the election process.
COURT JUSTICE IN S.C.
Unfortunately, as couples celebrate new marriages and unions, others across the nation are engaged in custody battles following divorce. When these battles involve a gay or lesbian parent and moral views come into play, they can become more difficult as the parents must often fight harder to preserve the law and not fall victim to discrimination.
One such case in our state caused the S. C. Court of Appeals to recently repeal a family court decision, not the first time Appeals court has issued a gay-friendly opinion regarding parental custody. In 1987, the case of Stroman vs. Williams recognized that homosexuality, in and of itself, cannot bar custody or reasonable rights of visitation.
The most recent case involves Ernest Matthew West and Mary Denise West. In 1982, the S.C. residents were married and later had two children. Mrs. West sought separation, custody and child support on February 23, 2004. During the separation, Mr. West, living in Florida at the time, would travel to South Carolina every other weekend to visit his children and eventually bought a house in Greenville. During one of the separation hearings, the mother sought a divorce and asked for the father's visitation to be supervised. Her grounds were his alleged controlling nature, unstable lifestyle, temper and credibility, citing that the father's homosexual relationship threatened to harm the children. The father admitted to the relationship a week before the final hearing. Lexington County Family Court Judge H.E. Bonnoitt, Jr., then awarded full custody to the mother and granted the father a standard unsupervised visitation schedule, except for a restriction that he could not take the children out of state. The judge also restrained the father from exposing the children "to any non-spouse romantic companion or relationship." Neither restriction was imposed on the mother.
In the finding, the judge acknowledged that it was an "unusual restriction" but was "necessary to protect the morality of the children." But there was no evidence that leaving South Carolina with their father would pose a threat to the children. On Dec. 14, the S.C. Court of Appeals reversed the Family Court Judge's restrictions. The panel said that the restriction was based on the judge's moral problems with the father rather than on evidence of threat to the children's well-being. They felt the judge gave out the limitation solely to penalize the father for his conduct. Visitation cannot be used to punish parents for homosexual activity.
West vs. West was not published and thus cannot be used as a precedent for future cases, but fortunately what limited laws we now have protecting LGBT people, supports the results in this case. David C. Shea of Columbia, the father's lawyer, told S.C. Lawyers Weekly that he thinks "it is going to be a theme that we will start seeing a lot more. Despite the lack of precedential value, I would expect the results in future cases to follow along the lines of this."
Until next week, have fun and be safe.
-Chris Rudisill, Weekly Surge