I know it’s a little early to be making predictions regarding the gay rights case in front of the New York Court of Appeals. But from what I’ve read, the court has a lot of ways to rule in our favor.

The court has two main arguments that will allow it to find that the gay rights extensions passed in New York will remain: First, the court could outright rule that gay marriages in other states will be recognized in New York because out of state marriages, unless contrary to public policy, are always recognized in state. This has been extended to include marriages between first cousins and underage marriages historically.

The other side will argue that calling something a marriage doesn’t make it a marriage, and New York should not succumb to the arbitrary labels chosen by other “liberal” states.

But here’s the kicker: the court can also duck the marriage question altogether. They can simply rule that it is within the discretion of Department of Civil Servants to extend benefits and if they choose to call those benefits spousal benefits, then that is their prerogative.

It’s not a good thing for our legal battles that the court can duck the obligation to rule on the marriage issue. The argument that same-sex marriages are simply an aberration under the marriage umbrella is flawed and specious and we would be well served to have a judicial ruling on the subject. However, it is more likely that the court will choose to duck out of the hot topic issue and sit back on the discretion reasoning.

Why rock the boat if you don’t have to.

Sadly, this is one opportunity to rock the boat I wish the court would take.

At issue is whether the BSA is a religious organization, and if the leases violate the California constitution which ban governments from favoring religious groups.

The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to ask for a legal opinion from a state high court in a federal case is rare, but not unheard of.

The 9th Circuit is considering an appeal of a 2003 ruling that voided the Scouts’ leases based on the state rule.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued San Diego and the Boy Scouts of America over the leases on behalf of a lesbian couple and an agnostic couple, each with scouting-age sons.

The Boy Scouts has been the target of preferential treatment lawsuits since the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2000 ruled that the organization has a constitutional right to exclude openly gay men from serving as troop leaders and because it compels members to swear an oath of duty to God.

U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones Jr. ruled in July 2003 that San Diego acted improperly when it leased 18 acres of Balboa Park camp space to the Scouts. The judge ruled that the group is a religious organization and the lease violated the federal establishment clause that prohibits the government promotion of religion.

The city’s action was an implicit endorsement of the Scouts’ “inherently religious programs and practices,” Jones ruled.

The same judge later ruled that the Scouts’ lease with the city for a separate aquatics center at Fiesta Island in Mission Bay Park also was illegal.

Jones said the city has shown preferential treatment to the Boy Scouts, “an admittedly religious, albeit nonsectarian, and discriminatory organization,” because it had negotiated exclusively with the Scouts for the lease of the aquatics center.

The Scouts had leased the half-acre Fiesta Island property since 1987 at no charge. The group spent $2 million to build the aquatics center and provided for its maintenance.

The Balboa Park camp was developed by the Scouts after World War II and in 1957 the group signed a 50-year lease with the city. The lawsuit was brought after the City Council voted to extend the lease for 25 years.

In 2006, the Scouts appealed to the 9th Circuit and a three judge panel in a split decision ruled to asked the California Supreme Court for an opinion.

The Scouts then asked for a review by the full 9th Circuit court.  The full court declined to hear the case until the California justice weigh in. The high court has not indicated when it will issue a legal opinion in the case.

Stephen English says he was forced to quit his job at an awning manufacturer because the company refused to stop workers from calling him a faggot and other gay slurs.

English filed a complaint with the Employment Appeal Tribunal alleging the harassment began when fellow workers discovered he had been educated at a boarding school and that he lived in largely gay Brighton.

The complaint said that final straw came when the company’s in-house employee magazine said he had attended Brighton’s Gay Pride parade wearing “skin-tight Lycra cycling shorts”.

The Tribunal refused to hear the case because English is not gay and is married.

English appealed to the Court of Appeal.

In a 2-1 landmark ruling the court said that a person can  be “harassed” by homophobic remarks even though he is not gay, is not thought to be gay by his fellow workers and he accepts they do not believe him to be gay.

Writing the majority opinion Lord Justice Sedley said it did not matter whether English was gay or not.

“[The] calculated insult to his dignity” and the consequently intolerable working environment were sufficient to bring his case within the regulations.” Sedley wrote.

“The incessant mockery created a degrading and hostile working environment, and it did so on grounds of sexual orientation,” the judge said.

The ruling said that he had a case, and ordered the Tribunal to hear it.

In its final report, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, the state’s Civil Union Review Commission concluded that the state’s two-year-old civil union law doesn’t do enough to give gay couples the same protections as heterosexual married couples.

“This commission finds that the separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children,” the report says. The findings of the commission’s 13 members were unanimous.

The commission found that the rights afforded to those in civil unions were not always well understood, and that allowing gay couples to marry would alleviate the problem. For example, there have been instances when people in civil unions have been prevented from visiting their partners in hospitals and making medical decisions on their behalf, the commission found.

“The commission’s report should spark a renewed sense of purpose and urgency to overcoming one of society’s last remaining barriers to full equality for all residents,” said Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts Jr., a Democrat from Camden and one of the key figures in setting the Legislature’s agenda.

Robert Corrales, a spokesman for Gov. Jon S. Corzine, said the governor would not comment on the report until it was presented. But in the past, Corzine has said that he would sign a bill allowing gay marriage.

Connecticut and Massachusetts are the only states to allow gay marriage, and both were ordered to do so by their highest courts. Earlier this year, California’s high court said it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to marry, but the decision was trumped by a constitutional amendment approved by voters last month.

Gay marriage opponents criticized the report, saying the commission was made up of members who favored gay marriage and calling its recommendations predetermined.

“If you look at the membership of that committee, they’re all advocates. It’s an advocacy group,” Pat Brannigan, the executive director of the anti-gay-marriage New Jersey Catholic Conference, said Tuesday. “It doesn’t mean that that is the conclusion that society and people in general will come to.”

Steven Goldstein, the commission’s vice chairman and the chairman of Garden State Equality, New Jersey’s leading gay rights group, said that while there are some activists like him on the commission, it was a diverse group.

Six of the 13 members are members of the Corzine administration, which Goldstein points out went to court in 2006 to oppose gay marriage. The other seven are members of the public, including one Goldstein described as a “pro-life Republican,” AnnLynne Benson of Clementon.

Benson, who confirmed that she is Republican and opposes abortion, said Tuesday that her views about gays have evolved over the past 15 years or so as she has met more gay people. She said the point of the commission was not to wrestle with whether the state Supreme Court was right to allow civil unions in 2006, but whether the unions delivered on their intent.

Benson said the commission gathered plenty of public comment at a series of hearings before deciding to issue the report.

Of the 150 people who testified or wrote letters to the commission, only 10 opposed allowing gay couples to marry. Some opposed gay marriage on religious grounds and some – including Brannigan – argued that civil unions were working well.

The report cited another study that found that allowing gay marriage in New Jersey would help the state in lean economic times, too: It estimated that gay weddings would add nearly $250 million to the state’s economy over three years.

Meanwhile, the Iowa Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday from prosecutors and attorneys for six gay couples and three of their children over a district court’s decision to overturn that state’s gay-marriage ban last year. Only one gay couple managed to marry before the judge who issued the ruling stayed his decision.

Prosecutors argued that the ruling overturning the ban violated the separation of powers because the gay marriage issue should be left up to state lawmakers to decide, not the courts.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued their clients should have the same right to marry that heterosexual couples have.

It could take a year or more before a ruling is issued, attorneys involved in the case said.

Last year, Polk County Judge Robert Hanson struck down the state Defense of Marriage law, declaring it to be unconstitutional. Later the same day, Hanson stayed the ruling pending an appeal.

In court Tuesday, Assistant Polk County Attorney Roger Kuhle argued that Hanson had overstepped his authority.

Kuhle also said that state support of same-sex marriage would damage traditional marriage, arguing that it would indicate to future generations that marriage is no longer about procreation.

“One could easily argue, and we do, that fostering same-sex marriage will harm the institution of marriage as we know it,” Kuhle told the justices. “It’s not going to happen tomorrow. We’re not going to see any changes tomorrow, next week, next year, in our generation. But you’ve got to look to the future.”

Lambda Legal attorney Camilla Taylor, representing the six couples who are challenging the ban on gay marriage, told the court that the law violates Iowa’s constitution.

Taylor said that the constitution protects gay people’s rights to due process and equal protection.

Dennis Johnson, a former Iowa Solicitor General and now a Des Moines lawyer who also represented the same-sex couples, disputed Kuhle’s arguments that there would be long-term detrimental effects to marriage as “highly speculative.”

“The question is: Why are same sex couples kept out?” Johnson asked. “They have families, they would benefit from the stability, the financial stability. Their children would benefit.”

Both sides exceeded their allotted time as the justices continually interrupted the attorneys to ask questions.

Justice Mark Cady wanted to know whether opening up gay marriage would promote polygamy. “How do you stop more than two people from getting married?”

Johnson replied that marriage always has been a union of two people and if those people were of the same-sex the principle would not change.

“We put our best case forward, and hope that the Court breathes life into the Iowa Constitution’s promise of equality,” Taylor told a news conference following the hearing.

Taylor was the chief architect of the lawsuit and argued it in court since its inception.

Johnson told reporters that Iowa has a long, proud history of protecting individual rights. 

“The government has no business standing in the way of a loving same-sex couple who wants to take responsibility for each other and their family,” he said. 

The six same-sex couples involved in the case were in court to hear the arguments.

“My grandparents were married 68 years and Reva’s grandparents were married 57 years. My family values the importance of marriage and commitment and I learned that lesson very early – it’s a lesson I want to pass on to our son,” said Ingrid Olson, one of plaintiffs in the lawsuit along with her partner Reva Evans and their son Jamison.

It is expected the court will not rule for several months.

If the justices uphold Hanson’s ruling striking down Iowa’s ban it would become the fourth state to legalize gay marriage after Massachusetts, Connecticut and California.  Voters, however, in California last month amended the state constitution overriding the California Supreme Court ruling.  That vote is currently being challenged before the state high court.

While the Iowa justices consider their ruling, one same-sex couple was legally married in the state. 

 In the two hours between the time Hanson made his original ruling and then stayed it,  Sean Fritz and Tim McQuillan of Des Moines applied for a marriage license, found a judge to waive the waiting period and were married. They remain the only legally gay married couple in Iowa.

A poll released two weeks ago found that a majority of people in the state support gay couples rights but are divided on whether that should be marriage or civil unions.

The poll by the University of Iowa found that 28.1 percent of those surveyed support same-sex marriage, while another 30.2 percent support civil unions but not marriage.  A third of those questioned oppose any recognition of same-sex couples, with about 10 percent having no opinion or refusing to answer.

In a separate case, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in January that co-adoptions by same-sex parents were legal. 

The case involved a lesbian couple who had split up. While they were together one partner had adopted as a co-parent the children of her partner.  When the relationship ended the birth mother asked a court if the other woman had visitation rights and could be compelled to pay child support.

A lower court ruled that co-adoptions by same-sex couples were illegal and threw out the case.  The Supreme Court disagreed and ordered the lower court to revisit the case.

Both sides on the marriage issue will be given 30 minutes on Tuesday to make their arguments. It is the first state Supreme Court to hear a same-sex marriage case since California voters last month overturned a high court ruling that struck down that state’s ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional.

The Iowa case centers around a state appeal of a ruling by a Polk County judge that struck down a state law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Six same-sex Iowa couples went to court in 2005 after the Polk County recorder denied them marriage licenses.

Last year County Judge Robert Hanson ruled that the law violated the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection.

Less than two hours after the the ruling, two Des Moines men applied for a marriage license, found a judge to waive the waiting period, and were married.

Hanson then stayed his ruling until the state could appeal it to the Iowa Supreme Court. The marriage of Sean Fritz and Tim McQuillan remains the only legal same-sex marriage in the state.

Lambda Legal, which represents the six couples said it is cautiously optimistic the Supreme Court will uphold Hanson’s ruling.  Lambda attorney Camilla Taylor noted that the Iowa court traditionally has led the nation on civil rights issues, pointing out that the Iowa justices struck down a ban on interracial marriage more than a century before the U.S. Supreme Court declared such laws unconstitutional.

“This is not even a close constitutional call,” Taylor told The Des Moines Register. “If you examine the law in other states, the case law in Iowa is at least as strong, if not stronger. The Iowa Supreme Court has made it clear from its inception that the law includes broader guarantees of equality than federal law.

In a separate case, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in January that co-adoptions by same-sex parents were legal.

The case involved a lesbian couple who had split up. While they were together, one partner had adopted as a co-parent the children of her partner.  When the relationship ended, the birth mother asked a court if the other woman had visitation rights and could be compelled to pay child support.

A lower court ruled that co-adoptions by same-sex couples were illegal and threw out the case.  The Supreme Court disagreed and ordered the lower court to revisit the case.

The issue of gay marriage has prompted Republicans and socially conservative groups to press for an amendment to the state constitution to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Democrats who control the legislature have thwarted GOP demands they take up the proposed amendment. House Speaker Pat Murphy (D) has said he is in no rush to bring in legislation.

To amend the Iowa Constitution, simple majorities are needed in both the House and Senate in two consecutive general assemblies and then it must be approved by a simple majority of voters in the following general election.

Polls show that most Iowans would support civil unions, but not marriage, for same-sex couples.

The former Culture Club singer was tried under his real name, George O’Dowd.

Court was told that O’Dowd, 47, met 29-year-old Audun Carlsen on a gay internet site and agreed to meet at the singer’s home where Carlsen was to pose for a naked photo shoot.

The two men later exchanged emails and at one point O’Dowd accused Carlsen of hacking into his computer and stealing the photos. Nevertheless, O’Dowd invited Carlsen to another photo shoot at his home.

It was a plot to exact revenge, the prosecution said, for what O’Dowd believed was theft of the original pictures.

After O’Dowd had taken several photos of Carlsen, the performer invited the younger man into his bedroom.

When Carlsen entered the room, he realized a second man had joined O’Dowd.

O’Dowd has refused to name the other man, Norton told the court.

“The two men grabbed Mr Carlsen and forced him, we say, to the floor,” prosecutor Heather Norton told the jury during the trial.

“Mr O’Dowd produced a set of handcuffs. They placed one end on Mr Carlsen’s right wrist and the other end was placed through a hook that was screwed to a fixture near the bed.”

She told the jury that Carlsen, “was frightened, shaking and crying. His fear increased when Mr O’Dowd returned into the room carrying with him a box.”

The box, said Norton, contained chains and leather straps.

Carlsen managed to free himself by pulling a hook the handcuffs were attached to from the wall.  He escaped through a window clad in only his underwear and called police from a local news vendor’s stand.

O’Dowd did not testify on his own behalf. In a transcript of a police interrogation, O’Dowd admitted he handcuffed Carlsen but denied punching or assaulting the hustler.

The performer’s attorney suggested that bruises Carlsen had could have been due to the fact that he was HIV positive.

O’Dowd was released on bail following the verdict. He is due to be sentenced Jan. 16.  Judge David Radford indicated jail was a real possibility for the singer.

“This is a case where custody is the more likely option,” Radford said.

It is the latest brush O’Dowd has had with the law.

In 2006, a judge in New York City sentenced him to five days of community service after being convicted of filing a false police report.

The singer had called police in October 2005 with a bogus report of a burglary by a male prostitute at his lower Manhattan apartment. When police went to investigate they found cocaine inside.

He was originally charged with drug offenses but under an agreement with prosecutors he pleaded guilty to the lesser charges and worked off his sentence picking garbage.

Robert Walsh, who was attacked by Michael Silvestri, testified at his federal lawsuit trial that the attack on New Year’s Eve in 2003 was the culmination of nearly two years of anti-gay slurs from his fellow firefighter.

Spokeswoman Kate Ahlers says the city’s law department is pleased that the matter has been resolved.

Walsh’s lawyer did not return calls for comment, but his co-counsel also confirmed the settlement.

Former firefighter Michael Silvestri pleaded guilty to assault in 2006 after hitting Walsh, and served a year in jail. He previously told the New York Post, “I am not a gay basher. I have plenty of gay friends – I’m the most liberal guy you’d ever meet.”

But the former Culture Club singer says he had no intention of hurting the man. He also denies he tried to assault the escort or that he swung a chain at him.

The singer, whose real name is George O’Dowd, is on trial for the false imprisonment of 29-year-old Audun Carlsen.

O’Dowd says in a police recording played Monday that he asked Carlsen to come to his apartment. O’Dowd says he wanted to ask Carlsen if he had tampered with his laptop.

The ’80s pop icon has a history of drug abuse and served a community service sentence in 2006 in the United States after falsely reporting a burglary.

The California Supreme Court has agreed to hear a number of cases dealing with Proposition 8. But, as the LA Times reported, not all judges are on board to hash out the vote in the courtroom.

Specifically, Justice Joyce Kennard, a long-time supporter of gay rights, voted not to review the Prop 8 challenges. Instead, she hoped that the court would limit its review to the validity of existing gay marriages.

It may seem that this proves that even ardent supporters of equal rights don’t think that Proposition 8 is a revision to the Constitution. However, the actions of Justice Kennard and others on the court are more indicative of the impossibility of the task to come, than a personal change in views about gay marriage.

It is political suicide for a Court to overrule a majority of the state’s population. Huge outrage will be directed at the courts, not just by conservatives, but by all citizens who would rather see law made in the legislature, and not in the courtroom. If the court is going to take the leap for equal rights that we believe they should, it is not politically viable for the most left wing judge to lead the charge.

When it comes to controversial tactics, better to have an irreproachable, centrist or right leaning adjudicator decide in favor of the minority. This will lend more legitimacy to the decision and will insulate it more from partisan accusations.

I still assume that the court will not have the courage to overrule the voters in California. But so far, it seems that Justice Kennard is playing the right game.