Hedy Weinberg of the Tennessee ACLU said she is pleased to challenge before the Tennessee Supreme Court an anti-gay marriage amendment slated to go to voters in November. (Photo by Mark Humphrey/AP)
advertisement
advertisement
|
Monday, March 27, 2006
NASHVILLE, Tenn.—The Tennessee Supreme Court will decide whether a proposed anti-gay marriage amendment to the Tennessee Constitution should be pulled from the November ballot, the Tennessean reported last week. The high court’s decision follows last month’s ruling by Davidson County Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle against the ACLU lawsuit, clearing the way for voters to decide whether the state constitution should be amended to ban gay marriage. Lyle ruled on whether voters were given legally required notice about the amendment and did not address the merits of gay marriage. "We’re pleased to have the opportunity to present our case to the Tennessee Supreme Court," said ACLU Executive Director Hedy Weinberg, the newspaper reported. Oral arguments are scheduled for June 7. The ACLU and gay groups say the state did not provide the six months notice of the amendment that state law requires. The state and others argue that wide media coverage provided the public with adequate notice. "The court’s reaching down to take the case makes sense in light of the time constraints, and I read nothing into that regarding the merits of the case," said Byron Babione of the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative group supporting the amendment.
LOS ANGELES—The owners of nine gay bathhouses and sex clubs are suing Los Angles County to block a new regulation that requires them to obtain a county health license, pay a fee of more than $1,000, allow quarterly inspections and provide onsite testing and counseling for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases for at least 20 hours a week, the Los Angeles Times reported last week. The lawsuit asks a judge to either void the regulation or exempt the nine bathhouses and sex clubs. The county is seeking the new rules to increase oversight at what they call "commercial sex venues," which are defined as any business that "as one of its primary purposes allows, facilitates and/or provides facilities for its patrons or members to engage in any high-risk sexual contact while on the premises." Club owners are claiming that since they provide condoms and have disclaimers prohibiting unsafe sex, they are not commercial sex venues, the newspaper reported.
SPRINGFIELD, Mo.—The owners of a gay men’s campground in Douglas County have sued their neighbors for alleged harassment that ranges from shooting at campers to raising hogs to oust the campground, the Springfield News-Leader reported March 19. Cactus Canyon Campground owners Charles Franzke and James Thideman’s lawsuit further alleges that the harassment violates Missouri’s hate crime law, which includes crimes based on sexual orientation. "That is the whole crux of the harassment—that we are gay and that we run a successful gay business," Thideman said. But Brian Malkmus, an attorney representing four of the defendants, disagrees. "From my perspective, the case is a land dispute at its heart," Malkmus said, the News-Leader reported. The court filing states that the defendants also threw rocks at, threatened and circulated petitions against the campground owners, and vandalized campground property.
NEW YORK—A former student at a New York medical school contends he was expelled because of his sexual orientation. Jeevan Padiyar said a copy of a memo written by an administrator at Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University proves the point, UPI reported March 17. In the memo, an associate dean warned a professor about his support of "an openly gay student." The university’s lawyers said the memo is a fake and that Padiyar was expelled for an e-mail he sent a faculty member. Padiyar’s lawyer claims that the memo came from an anonymous supporter. "Who in their right mind would write such a letter?" asked Daniel Riesel, Yeshiva’s lawyer, UPI reported.
ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP)-—-Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson got a vote of confidence March 20 from fellow Democrats, even as Minnesota’s chief justice cast doubt on Johnson’s claim he was promised by a member of the high court that it would not strike down the state’s marriage laws. Chief Justice Russell Anderson insisted no members of the court ever spoke with Johnson about whether the state’s law banning gay marriage could withstand a legal challenge. Johnson (D-Willmar) has been under intense scrutiny since the public release of a tape of him speaking in January to pastors from his area about gay marriage. Johnson apologized March 17 for his secretly taped comments, saying he was guilty of "sanding off the truth" but not lying.
|
