Search

The article reports on the New Jersey Supreme Court's ruling on October 25, 2006 that same-sex couples are entitled to legal recognition and to the same benefits that heterosexual couples acquire through marriage. The court has given lawmakers to 180 days to rewrite the laws to give equal benefits to same-sex couples.

This article focuses on the legalization of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and the impending battle between gay activists and social conservatives. Seldom in recent times has a clerical act inspired so much jubilation. One second past midnight on May 17th, gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts, and same-sex couples began to fill out marriage licence applications in Cambridge City Hall, specially opened for the occasion. War is an appropriate metaphor. Supporters, pointing out that May 17th was the 50th anniversary of Brown v Board of Education, claim the ceremonies in Massachusetts mark the biggest advance in civil rights since racial segregation was abolished. Conservatives, who see "the end of western civilisation" in the marriages, look back to 1973 and another Supreme Court ruling: Roe v Wade, which legalised abortion and started a culture war that has lasted for 30 years. Certainly, the full legalisation of gay marriage in Massachusetts took many liberal activists by surprise. Many assumed Vermont's civil unions (non-marriages with most of the legal advantages) would be the best they could get. The right's reaction was less militant than might have been expected. Yet the counterattack is only just around the corner and may precipitate years of conflict. Only a handful of liberal states, including Connecticut, Rhode Island and New York, have suggested they might honour same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts.

The article reports on the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeals regarding the right to women-only policy. The British Columbia Court of Appeals had ruled out that the Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter (VRR) has the right to accept only women to volunteer to counsel women. The ruling overturned a previous judgment by the Human Rights Tribunal that VRR could not discriminate Kimberly Nixon as a volunteer. Nixon is the transsexual-complainant in a case against VRR.

This section presents selected lower court rulings in the U.S. that evidence an impact on human and civil rights issues. In the case Chicoine v. Chicoine, the South Dakota Supreme Court, citing a mother's open lesbian behavior, remanded a trial court's order allowing the woman restricted visits with her two children. The justices cited several decisions from other states that hold a parent's sexual behavior does have relevance in deciding the scope and nature of visitation rights. In the case U.S. v. Minsky, a federal appeals court in Cincinnati, Ohio, ruled that a talk between a prosecutor and a judge violated the constitutional rights of a defendant whose attorney was not present. The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit directly affects the state of Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee and is likely to be closely scrutinized by other circuits. In the case, Jane Doe v. George D. Small, a Chicago, Illinois, federal appeals court reversed a trial judge's order banning a Christian display from a public park in Ottawa, Illinois. The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the ban on the display was too severe and unduly penalized the Jaycees, who sponsored the annual display.