Following a federal appeals court ruling that reinstated Nebraska's ban on gay marriage, Lambda and the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Project asked the court to either reverse its decision or rehear the case.

"The federal appeals court panel ... just ignored the U.S. Supreme Court, which has ruled that states can't pass laws just to discriminate against gay people," said Matt Coles, director of the ACLU's Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project. "We are hopeful that the court will recognize this decision simply can't be squared with constitutional guarantees of equality."

Court urged to reconsider ruling on Nebraska gay marriage ban [Sioux City Journal]

Posted by Ace

In response to today's Washinton State Supreme Court 5-4 split decision on a challenge to the gay marriage ban, a Washinton lawmaker plans to introduce new legislation that would create marriage equality.

In its ruling the court noted there are hardships for same-sex couples and suggested that the legislature "may want to re-examine the impact of the marriage laws on all citizens of this state."

Rep. Ed Murray (D-Seattle) said he would take that suggestion seriously.

[...]

Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire late Wednesday indicated she would sign a marriage bill if it passed the legislature.

She said that when she and her husband Mike married state government provided certain rights and responsibilities, but, she said.
"I believe the state should provide these same rights and responsibilities to all citizens." Gregoire said. "I also believe the sacrament of marriage is between two people and their faith; it is not the business of the state."

The bill, however, is likely to meet stiff opposition in the legislature from Republicans.

I expect that we will see this trend across the country in the next few years--we'll see civil unions as well as full marriage equality legislation. California's legislative body passed a bill in both chambers that would have provided full marriage equality, though Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed this legislation.

Even in more conservative states we will see this trend of bringing in pro-equality legislation, even with the promise of a veto by the Governor.

Three words. It's about time.

Lance Bass, band member of 'N Sync, says he's gay and in a "very stable" relationship with a reality show star. Bass, who formed 'N Sync with Justin Timberlake, JC Chasez, Joey Fatone and Chris Kirkpatrick, tells People magazine that he didn't earlier disclose his sexuality because he didn't want to affect the group's popularity.

"I knew that I was in this popular band and I had four other guys' careers in my hand, and I knew that if I ever acted on it or even said (that I was gay), it would overpower everything," he tells the magazine.

Read the rest here.

In a five-four decision, the Washington Supreme Court upheld the same-sex marriage ban. Equal Rights Washington vows to take the fight to the legislature.

From Equal Rights Washngton:

ERW Disappointed in Marriage Lawsuit Decision, Promises to Take Fight to the Legislature

Today the Washington State Supreme Court delivered a distressing decision to state residents when they refused to alleviate the suffering that lesbian and gay couples and their children face by being denied the basic human right of marriage.

"Of course we are disappointed in the ruling," said Barbara Green, Interim Executive Director of Equal Rights Washington. "Today in Washington state families headed by lesbian and gay couples lack the critical protections afforded by marriage. Our children, elderly couples and surviving partners will remain vulnerable and all gays will continue to be second class citizens until marriage equality is achieved"

Josh Friedes, ERW Advocacy Director, added, "In the United States, the right to marry is a hallmark of full citizenship, and all gays and lesbians have been branded as second class citizens by being denied the basic right to marry the person they love."

ERW will now turn our attention to changing the law through the state legislature. Said Friedes, "We are confident that support for ending discrimination will grow over time as lesbian and gay families tell their stories to legislators and the public. We take comfort in the knowledge that support for marriage equality is growing in Washington and that faith communities are joining with the families, friends, neighbors and co-workers of gays and lesbians to advocate for basic civil rights for their loved ones."

The state Supreme Court today upheld Washington's law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, rejecting the argument of 19 same-sex couples that they've been unfairly denied the right to wed.

In a splintered decision, Justice Barbara Madsen wrote that the state's marriage law was enacted to "promote procreation and to encourage stable families."

"The legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State's legitimate interests in procreation and the well-being of children."

She wrote that the same-sex couples failed to prove that they had a fundamental right to marry, or that the state's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional.

The ruling -- signed by Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and Justice Charles Johnson -- also noted a hardship for same-sex couples, however, and suggested that the legislature "may want to re-examine the impact of the marriage laws on all citizens of this state.

Concurring in the outcome were Justices James Johnson and Richard Sanders.

There were a total of six opinions, including one dissent each from Justices Mary Fairhurst, Bobbe Bridge and Tom Chambers. Justice Susan Owens signed both Fairhurst's and Chambers's dissents.

Justice Fairhust said the plurality and concurring options "... condone blatant discrimination against Washington's gay and lesbian citizens in the name of encouraging procreation, marriage for individuals in relationships that result in children, and the raising of children in homes headed by opposite-sex parents, while ignoring the fact that denying same-sex couples the right to marry has no prospect of furthering any of those interests."

The decision came on a case the Justices heard on March 8, 2005, when attorneys made constitutional arguments inside the Temple of Justice as thousands of people rallied outside.

Attorneys for the state and King County -- as well as a group of state lawmakers and religious leaders opposing same-sex marriage -- argued that the question of who can marry should be left to the Legislature.

They said lawmakers had a rational reason for limiting marriage to people of the opposite sex: Only those couples are biologically capable of having children, and keeping them together is generally best for those children.

But attorneys for the same-sex couples -- whose case was supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, Northwest Women's Law Center and Lambda Legal -- say the law discriminates against loving couples.

They argued that keeping same-sex couples from marrying makes it more difficult for them to raise their children, though it still accomplishes nothing for the kids who are being raised by a mother and a father.

The case was an appeal from two lawsuits, one in King County and one in Thurston County, filed by 19 same-sex couples who sued for the right to wed.

Today's ruling decides the fate of the state's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act. The law, passed by an overwhelming majority of lawmakers over Gov. Gary Locke's veto, defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Superior Court judges in King and Thurston counties struck down the law banning same-sex marriage as unconstitutional in 2004.

More than 40 states have a law defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and about 20 have written that definition into their constitution.

Earlier this month, New York's highest court ruled that preventing gay couples from marrying did not violate the state constitution -- a blow to same-sex couples who had high hopes that the case would go their way.

With Washington's ruling, Massachusetts remains the only state to allow same-sex marriage; it did so under a state Supreme Court ruling in May 2004.

via SeattlePI.com

The Washington state Supreme Court announced today that it will issue its long awaited ruling on same-sex marriage on Wednesday.

The case hinges on how the nine justices interpret 34 words in the state constitution. The key passage is Article 1, Section 12, which says, "No law shall be passed granting to any citizen... privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens."

That section sounds very similar to that of Oregon's Article 1, Section 20--that is until 2004 when voters passed Measure 36.

Washington is obviously very hopeful and have been waiting a very long time for this ruling. There is no telling what direction the ruling will go, but some are predicting that it will be a ruling in which the court more refers the issue to the Washington State Legislature to resolve.

If they do in fact rule that under Washington's Article 1, Section 12 and Washington's laws currently discriminatory, it would seem as if Washington would be the second state in the US to permit same-sex marriage.

The court could through out the state's law limiting marriage to opposite sex couples, uphold the existing law or say that the issue should be determined by the legislature.

The case went to the high court following two lower court verdicts.

In a historic ruling in 2004, King County Superior Court Judge William Downing said that the Washington State Constitution guarantees basic rights to lesbian and gay people -- and that those rights are violated by a state law prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.

The case involved eight same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in King County.

One month later, a court in Thurston County ruled similarly.

Both decisions were appealed by the state to the Supreme Court, which leaves us where we are today. We'll report as soon as the decision comes down tomorrow morning. It should be at/around 8:30am.

-G.S.

Voted Against Limits on Payday Loans.
Westlund voted against legislation to limit the crippling interest rates charged on payday loans. [2005 General Session, SB 545, Voice vote 5/31/05, Westlund - N]

Voted To Eliminate Cost of Living Increase to Minimum Wage.
Westlund voted to overrule the will of Oregon voters by eliminating annual cost of living adjustments to the Oregon minimum wage created under 2002's Measure 25. [2003 General Session, HB 2624, 4/1/2003, Third Reading, Westlund - Y]

Seal of Approval From Oregon's Leading Extremist Anti-Choice Group.
After Westlund was appointed to the Senate in 2003, Oregon Right to Life boasted of their role in the decision, crowing that Westlund "has a pro-life voting record." In 2005, he returned the favor by co-sponsoring three of their legislative priorities. [Ortl.org]

Alined himself with Oregon's extremist Christian right-wing group to permanently write blatant discrimination in the Oregon State Constitution.
Senator Westlund signed and paid for a voter's pamphlet statement of support in favor of Measure 36 in 2004, a measure which completely slammed the door on marriage and the family security that comes with it for thousands upon thousands of Oregonians. He stated (in part):

"While many people might expect me to break once again from my party and oppose Measure 36, they will be interested to know that I am a strong supporter of marriage being defined as being between one man and one woman.

Measure 36 is simple. If it passes, and I hope that it does, it will simply confirm what most of us thought already to be true-Marriage in Oregon is legally defined as being between one man and one woman. Of all our cultural institutions, few are more important and more worth protecting than marriage. Please, Vote Yes on 36."

Voted in Favor of Bill Requiring a 24 Hour Delay and Biased Anti-Choice Information Before a Woman Could Receive an Abortion.
Westlund voted for legislation requiring that would have required women seeking an abortion to be given biased information regarding the procedure and then be delayed at least 24 hours before going ahead with the procedure. [2003 General Session, HB 2547, 3/27/03, Third Reading, Westlund - Y]

Voted to Double Logging in Tillamook & Clatsop State Forests.
Westlund voted to direct the State Forester to increase logging levels in the Tillamook & Clatsop state forests. The bill would have doubled the level of cutting, according to the Oregon League of Conservation Voters. [2003 General Session, HB 3632, 6/11/03, House Third Reading, Westlund - Y, OLCV Legislative Scorecard 2003]

Voted to Weaken The Endangered Species Act.
Westlund cast two votes to require the State Fish and Wildlife Commission to consider the economic and social impacts of protecting wildlife before listing animals as endangered species. The bill would have radically weakened the Oregon Endangered Species Act which currently lists endangered species based on biological status. [2001 General Session, HB 3981, 7/1/01, Motion to Adopt Conference Committee Report, Motion to Repass, Westlund - Y, Y]

Voted Against Equality for Oregonians
In 1999, Senator Westlund voted for a House Resolution (HJR4) to "to establish that marriage may consist only of union of one male and one female".

Carried Budget Bill That Blocked Clean Car Initiative.
In 2005 Westlund was the floor carrier for the DEQ budget bill that included a Republicans amendment prohibiting the agency from implementing clean car emissions standards. Westlund voted for final passage of the legislation. [2005 General Session, HB 5135, 7/28/05, Carried by Westlund, Third Reading, Westlund - Y]

Progressive politics Ben? I can't even call this "middle of the road" politics.

- Jenn Stewart

New polling (hat tip to Blue Oregon) shows that the current Oregon gubernatorial race is very, very close when Sen. Ben Westlund is factored into the equation. Westlund is polling at 10%, Saxton at 38% and Kulongoski at 40%.

Without Westlund in the race, the polling looks better for Kulongoski. 49% Kulongoski and Saxton with 40%. This proves that Westlund is pulling far more Democrats than Republicans, or the way that I look at it, SPOILING THE ELECTION. Polling was done by Zogby and the Wall Street Journal.

Ben Westlund is the Ralph Nader of the 2006 Oregon gubernatorial race.

How are Democrats getting tricked into drinking the Westlund Kool-Aid? It's a death trap. Read this: Ben Westlund's Record. It Ain't Pretty.

When I first heard the news about Westlund running for Governor I was excited. I was excited because I was naive. This is the first in a series of reasons why I will not be voting for Senator Westlund.

During the 2005 legislative session Senator Westlund courageously co-sponsored Senate Bill 1000 that would have created civil unions, as well as an omnibus, statewide anti-discrimination policy. As a Republican from Eastern Oregon this is not an easy task. He received an incredible amount of criticism from other Republicans and obviously the other extremists for his support of the bill.

Currently Ben is collecting signatures to run for Oregon's Governor and it looks as if he will make it on the ballot. So what's the problem with this potential candidate for Oregon Governor? Isn't he a big supporter of the gay community? Doesn't he believe in equality under the law? I'm not sure. It's an entirely new position for him.

I've had many discussions with people in the GLBT community about Westlund. Some of these people say that their vote is going to him because of his staunch support of SB1000.

To those people I say this: EDUCATE YOURSELF.

Ben Westlund on Measure 36:
Ben Westlund publicly endorsed Measure 36, the Constitutional Amendment to permanently enshrine blatant discrimination into the most sacred document in Oregon. A document that is meant to protect citizens, not harm them. Ben Westlund wrote a pro-Measure 36 argument in the 2004 Voters Pamphlet.

Here is what he said:

An Open Letter from Senator Ben Westlund:
I have worked hard in my career to open and balanced as I have deliberated on important public policy issues. At times, I have been at odds with my own party about various issues ranging from tax policy to healthcare reform. I am proud of my independence.

Recently, I have had long meaningful discussions about Measure 36, the constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. While many people might expect me to break once again from my party and oppose Measure 36, they will be interested to know that I am a strong supporter of marriage being defined as being between one man and one woman.

First of all, most of us believe that the Constitution intended for marriage to be defined as being between one man and one woman. In fact, an early Oregon statute dating to 1862 reinforces this fact. Most people, if they were being honest with themselves would agree that the culture of 1859 and the legislature of 1862 had no other intention.

More importantly however is my own strong personal beliefs about how important it is to our culture and society that we hold on and reinforce this very important institution we know as marriage. Study after study and psychiatrist and psychologist alike point to the value and the importance of children having both a mother and a father as role models.

Measure 36 is simple. If it passes, and I hope that it does, it will simply confirm what most of us thought already to be true-Marriage in Oregon is legally defined as being between one man and one woman. Of all our cultural institutions, few are more important and more worth protecting than marriage.

Please, Vote Yes on 36.
Senator Ben Westlund

1999: Ben Voted Against Marriage Equality
In 1999, Senator Westlund voted for a House Resolution (HJR4) to "to establish that marriage may consist only of union of one male and one female".

Some say Senator Westlund has had a change of heart and that should count for something. It does. But, when it comes to the Governor's race, we need someone with a civil rights record longer than one legislative session and the real ability to win-two things Westlund has yet to prove.

Posted by Jenn Stewart

Patricia Todd, who is running in Alabama's District 54, emerged victorious in her primary. Her district has the highest percentage of gay voters in the state and has a large D edge. A victory in the general is virtually guaranteed. She will be the first, in Alabama history, to be openly gay and serving in the Alabama Legislature.

Who is Patricia Todd?

A lifelong advocate for equal rights, Patricia is currently the director of development for AIDS Alabama, on the board of Equality Alabama, is the Alabama State Coordinator of the Campaign to End AIDS, and is the founder and former president of the Alabama Stonewall Democrats. She was also the first executive director of Birmingham AIDS Outreach. She is well known for her feminist and progressive activism, including her work with the Women's Business Center and the Women's Professional Network Birmingham. In 2004 she ran and was elected as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention.

Congrats Patricia!

-JS

The House of Representatives on Tuesday rejected a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. The measure fell 47 votes short of the two-thirds majority they needed.

The failure came despite an appeal from the White House.

"When activist judges insist on redefining the fundamental institution of marriage for their states or potentially for the entire country, the only alternative left to make the people's voice heard is an amendment of the Constitution," said a statement issued by the Administration.

The proposed amendment said that "marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither the Constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

A similar proposed amendment failed to get enough votes last month in the Senate.

At the opening of Tuesday's debate, Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga, said that despite the loss holding the vote was important.

"This vote will serve as an opportunity for each and every member of this body to go on record in support or in opposition to protecting the traditional definition of marriage," said Gingrey.

"This bill, to put it simply and bluntly, is about adding discrimination and intolerance to the United States Constitution," said Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass.

Conservative Republicans vowed they would return next year and eventually would win. But one conservative group, the Traditional Values Coalition, said it was a "good thing for traditional marriage" that the measure failed because it wasn't clear enough in ruling out civil unions.

The U.S. Constitution has been amended only 27 times, including the 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights. In addition to two-thirds congressional approval, a proposed amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states.

via 365gay.com

Gavin Newsom, the Democratic San Francisco mayor, gave an interview to Rolling Stone in which he discussed gay marriage and the lack of public support from other Democrats.

From Rolling Stone

"Where's the moral courage? It's lost. I have the luxury of saying this from San Francisco, I certainly respect what it's like saying this in parts of Kentucky or North Carolina, but also believe this issue won't go away for the Democratic party we stand up on historic principles.

We've never run the 90-yard dash on equality - ever. The history of this party is civil rights, women's rights, human rights, labor rights, gay and lesbian rights. And for us to hold up civil unions and say that separate is somehow now equal - when just a-year-and-a-half we ago celebrated the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board - is transparent to the people. They see through the Democrats.

I tell all of my fellow Democrats this is not going to go away. As long as we allow this to be dangled in front of us because of our unwillingness to say publicly what so many of us are saying privately, it will haunt the Democratic party. And it will be used as a wedge issue just as it is being dangled in front of congressional candidates in the November election.

Not every Democrat in Washington agrees with gay marriage. But I will make the case - based on some strong evidence - that an overwhelming majority do. But they just can't say it. And that is a limitation that is causing more damage than the issue. Because, again, it shows a weakness of character.

This is really one of the great final civil rights struggles, and again I say to my colleagues in the Democratic party: Why are you a Democrat if you can't stand on a fundamental construct that has always distinguished our party. That we didn't sit around. We advanced the issues of equality. We engaged the American people head on."

NATIONAL AFFAIRS EXCLUSIVE: Mayor Gavin Newsom on Gay Marriage [Rolling Stone]

Ace

In conservative Colorado Springs, home to backers for the state's anti-gay rights constitutional amendment and the group Focus on the Family, the Gill Foundation is trying to stir discussion about the idea of nature as a cause of homosexuality with an innovative ad campaign. The $900,000 effort uses street banners and TV ads with a puppy named Norman who can't stop acting like a cow by mooing instead of barking; the ads direct people to the Web site, www.borndifferent.org, which asks: "When did you decide to be straight?"

Colorado Springs also is home to the "Christian ministry" Focus on the Family, which has drawn criticism from gay activists nationally for its position that "homosexuality is preventable and treatable."

via The Gazette

A five year old will become the youngest transgendered student in the Broward County school system when classes commence this fall a Miami newspaper reports.

The Miami Herald says that the youngster was diagnosed with gender dysphoria, the clinical term for transsexuality, two years ago.

The parents said the child refused to wear girl's clothing and repeatedly said she hated having a penis - often trying to hide it between her legs.

The father is an attorney and the mother a counselor. Neither had heard of gender dysphoria until they brought their biologically born boy to a doctor.

"Gender dysphoria can take place during a fetus' development in the womb,'' gender specialist and sexologist Marilyn Volker, told the Herald.

The Broward school system has what is regarded as one of the finest LGBT acceptance rankings in the state, according to Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays and Equality Florida.

There already are a number of trans students in the school system but none as young as kindergarten age.
The youngster will be enrolled in kindergarten as a girl and her presence is likely to go unnoticed school officials told the Herald. She will dress in neutral "gender-neutral" clothing and use a "gender-neutral name".

The school said told the Herald that this is standard practice to help trans students fit in and feel more comfortable. 

via 365gay.com

Phil Angelides, Gov. Schwarzenegger's Democratic challenger, declared on Friday that he would sign a gay marriage bill into law if he became governor.

From The Advocate

Phil Angelides held a news conference along with New York senator Hillary Clinton the day after the highest court in her state refused to recognize same-sex marriage, saying it was up to the legislature.

Last year Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have legalized same-sex marriage in California for the exact opposite reason, saying it was up to the courts or the voters to decide and not the legislature. Though Senator Clinton ducked questions about the New York court ruling, Angelides said that if California's legislature were to pass another same-sex marriage bill, he would sign it. He told reporters simply, "If we can get behind people to build a lasting relationship, that is a good thing."

A poll this week by the research institute at San Jose State University shows Angelides trailing Schwarzenegger by seven points.

Schwarzenegger challenger would make same-sex marriage legal in California [The Advocate]

Posted by Ace

(Albany, New York) The Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York State, ruled Thursday that the state "Constitution does not compel the recognition of marriages between members of the same sex."

In a 4 - 2 decision, the court said that "Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the Legislature."

The court heard arguments in May in an omnibus case involving four different lawsuits brought by 44 gay and lesbian couples.

Only six justices were on the bench to hear the combined cases. Justice Albert M. Rosenblatt, considered by many a swing vote, recused himself.

In lower courts judges in three of the cases upheld the current ban on same-sex marriage. In the fourth, New York City judge Doris Ling-Cohan ruled that the New York State Constitution guarantees basic freedoms to lesbian and gay people, and that those rights are violated when same-sex couples are not allowed to marry. That ruling was overturned in a midlevel appeals court.

Writing for the majority Justice Robert Smith said that the Domestic Relations Law, which governs marriage, does not specifically say that only people of different sexes may marry each other, but "that was the universal understanding when Articles 2 and 3 were adopted in 1909, an understanding reflected in several statutes."

The court also said that there are "at least two grounds that rationally support the limitation on marriage that the Legislature has enacted." Two of those, the ruling said, involve children.

"First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships.

"Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not."

The ruling also noted that the Legislature could "rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father."

The justices said in the ruling that the same-sex couples fighting for marriage equality "have not persuaded us that this long accepted restriction is a wholly irrational one, based solely on ignorance and prejudice against homosexuals ... If we were convinced that the restriction plaintiffs attack were founded on nothing but prejudice - if we agreed with the plaintiffs that it is comparable to the restriction in Loving v Virginia a prohibition on interracial marriage that was plainly 'designed to maintain White Supremacy' -- we would hold it invalid, no matter how long its history."

In a dissent, Chief Judge Judith Kaye said the court failed to uphold its responsibility to correct inequalities.

Kaye said that several bills that would have permitted same-sex marriage have been introduced in the Legislature over the past several years, but none ever has made it out of committee.

"It is uniquely the function of the Judicial Branch to safeguard individual liberties guaranteed by the New York State Constitution, and to order redress for their violation," she wrote.

"The court's duty to protect constitutional rights is an imperative of the separation of powers, not its enemy. I am confident that future generations will look back on today's decision as an unfortunate misstep."

A poll released in April showed that a majority of people across New York State support same-sex marriage.

Decisions in challenges to state laws barring same-sex marriage are pending in two other states.

Arguments in New Jersey were heard in February. (story)

In the state of Washington the wait for a ruling on gay marriage has turned into a marathon.

Arguments challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriage, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, were made before the Washington state Supreme Court in March 2005.

Meanwhile, in California, a mid level appeals court will hear an omnibus same-sex marriage case next week. That case is expected to reach the California Supreme Court next year.

The only state where same-sex marriage currently legal is Massachusetts. Gay and lesbian couples there began marrying in May 2004 after that state's high court ruled the ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

So not exactly lightning, nor is it really a funny thing when someone dies. BUT.

(AP) Arizona Anti-Gay Marriage Leader Dies in Car Crash

A woman who was spearheading the ballot effort to prohibit gay marriage in Arizona has been killed in an automobile crash, authorities said.

Lynn Stanley, chairwoman of the Protect Marriage Arizona Coalition, died in a crash early Monday on Interstate 40, according to the state Department of Public Safety.

Authorities said Stanley, 58, was returning to Phoenix from Las Vegas, where she was visiting two sisters, at the time of the accident.

The Protect Marriage coalition collected some 300,000 signatures to place its measure on the November ballot, said Nathan Sproul, a political consultant for the effort.

Amending the state Constitution, as the Protect Marriage coalition intends, requires at least 183,917 valid signatures.

The group planned to submit its petitions today, with Stanley on hand to celebrate the accomplishment.

Her death has led the initiative to delay its submittal until Thursday, the deadline to turn in signatures.

Birth order has been confirmed as a factor in whether or not a boy will grow up to be gay. This information comes from a recent Canadian study of 944 gay men. The study also has implications in the debate over whether sexual orientation is determined before birth or is the result of a child's environment.



Ace