(Tuscon, Ariz.)  Lambda Legal has filed a federal lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Tucson to block a move to strip domestic partner benefits from gay and lesbian state employees.  Arizona lawmakers included a provision stripping domestic partner health benefits from state employees as part of a last-minute budget deal signed by Governor Jan Brewer in September, while retaining spousal health benefits for heterosexual workers.  

Lambda Legal represents 10 state employees – including from the Arizona Highway Patrol, the State Department of Game and Fish, and state universities – who rely on health benefits from their employers to keep their families safe.

“This is an issue of equal pay for equal work,” said Tara Borelli, staff attorney for Lambda Legal.  ”By stripping away these vital benefits from loyal state employees, the state isn’t just paying them less for the same work than their heterosexual colleagues — it’s pulling away a vital lifeline that all workers need.  This is simply cruel and saves the state next to nothing.”

State lawmakers voted over the summer to eliminate the state’s domestic partner benefits, which were adopted with the leadership of former Governor Janet Napolitano, now Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.  Current Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the budget bill with the provision revoking the health insurance coverage for domestic partners.

Arizona Highway Patrol Officer Tracy Collins is lead plaintiff and relies on her work-provided health benefits to protect her partner of 11 years, Diana Forrest, and their family.  ”I put my life on the line every day for the people of Arizona just by going to work,” said Collins.  ”Though the stress of working a dangerous job takes a toll on my family, I’m proud to be a public servant.  But losing Diana’s health coverage will put us in a desperate situation.”  

“This discriminatory elimination of vital health benefits denies equal pay for equal work to a small, politically vulnerable group of dedicated public workers who perform valuable services and pay equal taxes.  By stripping gay and lesbian state employees of health coverage for a domestic partner, the new law unfairly and unconstitutionally inflicts severe hardship upon a targeted group of Arizona families,” added Borelli.

The settlement announced Tuesday by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission includes a requirement that the company train its employees and managers about sexual harassment.

The EEOC lawsuit alleged company managers knew about repeated sexual assaults against six male employees by a group of male kitchen staffers at a restaurant in Chandler, Ariz., but did not intervene. The EEOC says the company denied the allegations.

Messages seeking comment from the company, based in Calabasas, Calif., were not immediately returned.

About 750 workers would be affected says the Department of Administration. If put into affect, the state budget would define “dependents” of state employees who are entitled to coverage as a spouse or a child younger than 19, or younger than 23 if a full-time student.

Then-Gov. Janet Napolitano added domestic partners and their children to the list of those covered last year, a decision which was opposed by Senate Majority Whip Pamela Gorman, (R-Anthem). Gorman believes such decisions should be left to state lawmakers.

Current Gov. Jan Brewer opposed granting unmarried domestic partners equal benefits that were given to married couples in a questionnaire she filled out in 2006 for the Center for Arizona Policy.

Members of LGBT advocacy groups, such as Barbara McCullough-Jones  of Equality Arizona, are figuring out how best to fight such a decision.

“This particular benefit is critical because it is doing exactly what society asks us to do, and that’s to take care and be responsible for our families,” McCullough-Jones said.

Read the full Arizona Star story here.

The small group of demonstrators on Wednesday was protesting US tax law, which does not allow same-sex couples to file joint returns. The group said the federal Defense of Marriage law forces gay couples to pay higher taxes than married couples do.

The police officer was apparently called by a driver complaining that the 8 foot by 5 foot flag had obstructed his view of traffic.

Protest organizer Christopher Hall told The Arizona Republic that the protesters were well behaved.

“I was upset more than anything and confused as to what was the problem,” said Hall the president of Central Arizona Rainbow Equality.

Hall said that he checked with city officials before holding the demonstration and the protesters were abiding by a requirement they be at least seven feet from the sidewalk.

Hall said that the the officer asked for their identification and the protesters complied. They were then told they could not fly the flag “anywhere” in the city limits or they would risk arrest.

“This was wrong,” Hall told The Republic. “They’ve actually violated, in my opinion, First Amendment rights.”

Hall said the group has filed a complaint with police, and that he has a meeting with Police Chief Robert Huddleston on Monday.

“The Casa Grande Police Department will continue to work with this and any other citizen group to respect their right to assemble and demonstrate in a safe manner.,” Huddleston said in a statement. “We apologize for any inconvenience or misunderstanding, and look forward to the completion of the investigation.”

The cloth wristband has words “Rainbows are gay” on it. 

Chris Quintanilla says it is the latest in several anti-gay experiences he has had at the school. After nothing was done, his mother went to the American Civil Liberties Union.

In a letter sent this week to Peoria Unified School District, the ACLU said that the principal violated Quintanilla’s constitutional rights, pointing to a 40-year-old landmark Supreme Court decision guaranteeing students’ free speech and expression. 

“When I asked my son’s principal why he wouldn’t be allowed to wear his wristband to school anymore, he said some teachers found it offensive,” said Natali Quintanilla, mother of the eighth grader.

“My son is honest and happy about who he is, and I love him and support his right to be himself. There are a lot of things teachers should be more concerned about than one little wristband – like educating our children.”

Quintanilla said that her son was harassed for being gay earlier this school year. When she asked to the principal to do something to prevent the harassment she said she was told “If he didn’t put it out there the way he does, he wouldn’t have much of a problem.”

The Supreme Court has held that students have a right to free speech at school, and that includes gay students. 

” The ACLU has won dozens of cases over the years where schools have tried to get away with illegal censorship,” said Elizabeth Gill, staff attorney for the ACLU national Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project. “A handful of teachers supposedly working themselves into a tizzy over one little wristband is hardly an excuse for violating Chris Quintanilla’s right to free speech.”

The ACLU letter refers to 1969’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court wrote, “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights… at the schoolhouse gate.” 

The letter also pointed to a Florida case in which a high school principal had attempted to ban rainbows at school. In that case, a federal judge ruled last May that the school had violated students’ First Amendment rights. 

“When schools censor students like this, they are failing one of the most important civics lessons there is,” said Dan Pochoda, Legal Director of the ACLU of Arizona. “Schools should respect the Constitution and encourage all students – lesbian, gay, bisexual, and straight – to appreciate and exercise their freedoms, rather than illegally trying to silence them.”

The ACLU has given the school ten days to respond to its letter. The school has yet to respond.

Gino Meriano and Philip Cotton filed notice of the proposal with the Secretary of State’s Office, the first step to begin collecting signatures to have the question put to voters in 2010.

“This was a special moment and one that Philip and I will not forget, at last a new start and fresh approach for Arizona by bringing a new concept that will provide same-sex couples full and equal legal rights and protection that is well overdue,” Meriano said in a statement.

To get the question placed on the ballot they will need to collect 230,047 valid signatures.

If approved, the measure would provide almost all of the rights and obligations of marriage that are covered under Arizona law.

That would include tax benefits currently available only to married couples, partner rights to determine each other’s care if one is unable to make medical decisions, inclusion in domestic violence laws and the ability to collect benefits after a partner’s death or to inherit a partner’s assets on death.

Meriano owns Pink Weddings, a Mesa-based company that helps same-sex couples arrange commitment ceremonies.  Cotton is the founder of the LGBT rights group Unified Voice, based in Peoria, Ariz.

Arizona has a so-called Defense of Marriage law that bars same-sex marriage. Last November, voters approved a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Supporters of the amendment argued that DOMA could be overturned by the courts and the amendment would block that.

The vote came two years after voters turned down a similar amendment. That version also would have barred civil unions.

Meriano and Cotton believe Arizona voters, while wanting to limit marriage, would approve civil partnerships and that the debate is only over the name. Meriano said that he believes straight voters will support civil partnerships and gays who want marriage over civil unions will support the word ‘partnerships.’

 He said that was the case in the UK, which gives gay couples all of the rights of marriage under the Civil Partnership law but not the name marriage. The UK law was passed in 2005.

The group behind the marriage amendment said it would oppose the civil partnership plan.

The conservative Center for Arizona Policy called civil partnerships “counterfeit marriage”.

“Marriage – and the benefits of marriage – should be reserved for one man and one woman,” said Cathi Herrod the center’s president.

City Council will vote Wednesday on the registry.

The move comes a month after Arizona voters agreed to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, although councilors in favor of the registry said plans for it were well in the works before the November election.

“It boils down to a basic human right, and as we enter this holiday season, the issue is even more pronounced,” said Phoenix Councilman Tom Simplot, one of a handful of openly gay elected local officials, told the Arizona Republic.

Simplot said the registry was conceived about five years ago, when some council members began working with local hospitals to assure same-sex partners of patients were given a say in medical care.

Arizona law has since been amended to provide rights to the domestic partners of the sick, but same-sex partners do not have parental rights over their partner’s children. Additionally, some private companies which provide domestic partner health insurance often seek proof of a relationship.

The Phoenix plan would remedy that, say supporters.

To be eligible, domestic partners would have to appear in person at the city clerk’s office and sign a notarized document stating that they are in a committed relationship, are financially interdependent, and live in the same domicile in the City of Phoenix. The document must also state neither partner already is married, that the partners are not blood relatives and each is over the age of 18.

It would cost $50 to be registered and partners would receive a document attesting they are registered.

Opponents, including state Sen. Linda Gray (R), say the the plan is open to abuse.

Gay said that the document would be easy to forge and that the $50 fee would not cover the costs. “I think it creates more problems than it solves,” Gray told The Republic.

The 2006 U.S. Census Bureau showed 133,600 domestic-partner households in Arizona. More than a quarter of them were in Phoenix.

The City of Tucson has had a similar registry since 2003.

The bodies of Tina Loesch, 37, and Skye Hanson, 44, were found in a sports utility vehicle near Tucson. They had been on the run for eight years following the murder of Loesch’s mother Barbara in Post Falls, Washington.

Arizona police said Loesch shot Hanson in the head before turning the gun on herself. Police are searching for Loesch’s 18-year-old son, Kristopher, to see if he is safe.

On January 8, 1998, Loesch went to her mother’s home with a hit man – Bradley Steckman. The 89-year-old mother was in a hot tub and Steckman picked up a nearby TV set and dropped it into the tub.  The elderly Loesch was instantly electrocuted to death.

Steckman was eventually arrested and convicted of murder in 2001, but not before implicating the younger Loesch.

He claimed that she had offered him $10,000 to kill her mother, but he was never paid.  He also implicated Hanson, but both women had disappeared.

Police said that Tina Loesch had taken out a $525,000 life insurance policy on her mother, naming herself as the sole beneficiary. She was electrocuted in an attempt to make the killing look like an accident.

Fingerprints at the scene led investigators to Steckman.

Police also said they wanted to question Loesch about the mysterious death of her father, two years before her mother was killed. Gary Loesch was shot to death while he delivered papers near Post Falls. The case remains unsolved.

Investigators say that while on the run, Loesch worked on home construction sites and Hanson was a landscaper.

Arizona police say that a 9mm semi-automatic pistol was found at the scene of the murder-suicide and an eight-page suicide note that included information about the killing of Barbara Loesch was found nearby.

I recently wrote about the charging of a teenage boy as an adult for the brutal murder of a gay classmate. While the law states that adulthood begins at eighteen, many, including many readers, believe that adult responsibility, at least for the bad stuff, can come earlier.

Well, this weekend there was a lot of talk about and eight year-old boy in Arizona who shot and killed his father and his father’s co-worker with a 22 caliber rifle. Although the boy’s mother lives in town, the police officers detained him and questioned him without a parental presence. Moreover, they are now calling that he be charged as an adult.

Even if the child is treated as a juvenile, he is charged with first degree murder, an offence that requires pre-meditation.

Worst case scenario? Police in Arizona believe that a third grader decided to kill his parents, waited until he could gain access to a gun and then deliberately shot, not only his father, but another man in the house. He did all of this with the same intent and understanding of the consequences of his actions as you or I.

I am hoping that many readers find this scenario as ludicrous as I do. In fact, it would be ludicrous if the child were nine, or ten, or even eleven. But what if he were twelve? Would you know for certain that he understood the consequences of his actions? That he could form the intent to kill?

This case is heartbreaking, but it is also an important illustration of the “where to draw the line” dilemma.

This country charges people over eighteen as adults not because it is the moment individuals become criminally responsible in every case. It is the most likely moment, given other laws and responsibilities in society, when an individual will begin to behave like an adult.
=

If, instead of abiding by the eighteen year cutoff, the law is used to determine on a case by case basis when one is a child or an adult we risk writing off real hope for change for some teenagers and children.

Better to let one or two adult minded offenders spend a few years in a juvenile facility, than give up on one child who could be rehabilitated and take advantage of a normal and healthy future.

Similar bans on same-sex marriage were approved by voters Tuesday in Florida and Arizona; while in Arkansas the electorate endorsed a measure to prevent same-sex couples from adopting.

Results from more than 90 percent of precincts throughout California show the proposed amendment with a slim two percent lead – 52 to 48 percent.

While the initiative’s supporters were celebrating, opponents insisted it was premature to concede. Late absentee and provisional ballots meant as many as 3 million ballots were left to be counted after all precinct votes were tallied.

It is the first time such a vote has taken place in state where gay unions are legal.

A study by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law indicated that by Election Day 2008, approximately18,000 same-sex couples had married in California.

Exit polls reported by CNN show that while a slim majority of white voters said they rejected the amendment, an equally slim majority of African American and Hispanic voters said they had voted for the amendment.

The battle for and against the measure, known as Proposition 8, cost more than $67 million, making it one of the most expensive ballot campaigns in history. Much of the money on both sides came from outside California.

The highly charged campaign resulted in a number of incidents throughout California.

Last week, a cyber attack brought down the “No on Prop 8″campaign Web site. The FBI and Secret Service are investigating.

In Fresno, police are investigating death threats against two local supporters of Proposition 8 – Mayor Alan Autry and Pastor Jim Franklin of the Cornerstone Church.

In Torrance, a man has been charged with a felony hate crime assault for allegedly using an anti-gay marriage “Yes on Prop. 8″ lawn sign to attack a gay man wearing a “No on 8″button.

In Bakersfield, a local leader of the campaign for the ballot measure was videotaped at a pro-gay marriage rally kicking and punching a protester. The protester, who had been heckling him, declined to press charges.

In Roseville, three young people were arrested on suspicion of stealing “Yes on 8″ signs from several front yards.

Florida

In Florida, the ballot measure amends the state constitution to limit marriage to opposite sex couples and ban civil unions.

The amendment also could be used to deny partner benefits to unmarried couples who live together.

The amendment says, “Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”

Constitutional amendments in Florida require a 60 percent majority. The marriage amendment won with 62 percent of the vote. Thirty-eight percent were opposed.

Florida already had a law restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, but supporters of the amendment say the law could be overturned in court.

Arizona

In Arizona, where a simple majority is needed to amend the state constitution, 56 percent of voters approved limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.

It was the second time Arizona voters were asked to change the state’s constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Voters rejected a similar state constitutional amendment in 2006. That measure would have also stopped the state from recognizing civil unions of same-sex couples.

Arizona law already prohibits same-sex marriages. Supporters say the amendment will “protect the sanctity of families” by preventing judges from overturning the 1996 state law.

Arkansas

Arkansas, which already has a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, now will limit adoptions and foster care of children to people who are legally married.

The ballot measure passed Tuesday by a wide margin – 57-43 percent.

The measure grew out of a state Supreme Court ruling last year that overturned a Child Welfare Agency Review Board policy that banned gay people from serving as foster parents.

In its unanimous ruling, the court said that “the driving force behind adoption of the regulations was not to promote the health, safety and welfare of foster children but rather based upon the board’s views of morality and its bias against homosexuals.”

The Arkansas Family Council – the same group that spearheaded Arkansas’ constitutional ban on same-sex marriage – collected enough signatures to place the adoption referendum before voters.

Connecticut

In Connecticut, a potential anti-gay measure was also on the ballot. Connecticut voters turned down a call for state constitutional convention.

Under the state constitution, the question automatically goes on the ballot only every 20 years.

Earlier this year, the state Supreme Court ruled that Connecticut’s civil unions law failed to provide equality. The first same-sex marriages in the state are slated to begin Nov. 12.

By chance, the automatic ballot question came up this year, raising fears that if voters agreed to a constitutional convention it would have been used to ban gay marriage.

The Family Institute of Connecticut had gone on record calling for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.