By Lya Carrera
In Newsweekly Contributor
Published Newspaper: In Newsweekly
Published Date: December 28, 2005, Issue 15 19

SIGNATURES EXPECTED TO BE APPROVED BY END OF YEAR; GLAD’S COURT CHALLENGE EXPECTED IN JAN., WITH EARLIEST LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION POSSIBLE ON MAY 10

Despite the fact that this past November marked the second anniversary of the “Goodridge v. Department of Public Health” case favoring gay marriage in the Bay State, the tug of war to ban or maintain it presses onward.

The legal activist group, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), said that it would file a lawsuit to the attorney general’s office in the first week of January 2006 to stop a gay marriage question - making it illegal in Massachusetts - from being put on the ballot in November 2008.

GLAD (www.glad.org) is responding to the recent development from opponents of gay marriage who filed the 65,825 required signatures to the office of Mass. Secretary of State William F. Galvin in early December to start the process.

“There is a clause in the Massachusetts Constitution that says that citizen initiated petitions cannot be intended to reverse a judicial decision,” said Carisa Cunningham, GLAD’s director of public affairs and education. “This is dearlyintended to reverse a judicial decision, so it is a constitutional challenge.”

On the other hand, the Massachusetts attorney general’s office disagreed, and subsequently wrote an opinion editorial that was published in various daily newspapers located as far north as Gloucester and Lowell and as far south as Brockton and Cape Cod.

“The SJC [Supreme Judicial Court] has clearly ruled that the phrase ‘reversal of a judicial decision’ was used in a very special and limited sense, to refer to proposals relating to the ‘recall of judicial decisions,” said Mass. Attorney General Tom Keilly via the article sent by e-mail from Terence Burke, Reilly’s spokesperson.

“The notion of ‘recall of judicial decisions’ first proposed in 1912 by Theodore Roosevelt but wider/rejected by 1918, would have allowed voters to directly reject a court’s ruling that a state law was unconstitutional and to put that law back into effect. That is very different from amending the Constitution. Amending the Constitution does not require the people to say that a court’s decision was wrong and should be ignored. Instead, it changes the rules to be applied by the court in future cases.”

Vote on Marriage.Org, a committee created by the Coalition for Marriage and Family is responsible for moving the ballot question forward.

“What we’re endeavoring to do is amend the state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman going forward from the time that the amendment would become law,” said Lisa Barstow, spokesperson for Vote on Marriage.Org (www.voteonmarriage.org).

“So what the amendment does, assuming it’s adopted by the voters in 2008, is gay marriages would no longer take place after 2008, but it would not touch existing marriages.” (The proposed amendment can be viewed at www.sec. state.ma.us/ele/elepip/pipidx.htm.)

At this point, there are many steps that need to take place before the ballot question is placed before voters. “[Right now,] the office counts the number of signatures on the petitions that were certified by the cities and towns,” said Brian S. McNiff secretary of state’s spokesperson.

“[Then Secretary of State Galvin] will notify the petitioners that presumably they succeeded in getting the amount of signatures they need…. The next step is that it goes to the Legislature.”

But before that happens, GLAD promises to challenge the constitutionality in court.

If and when the question gets to the Legislature, as early as May 10, 2006, it will be voted on. Since the ballot question is asking to amend the state’s Constitution it needs to be heard in two consecutive constitutional conventions - which are joint meetings of both the house and senate - in 2006 and 2007. In addition, since it is citizen proposed, it will need to be approved by 50 of the state’s 200 lawmakers in each session.

The ballot question could be changed by the Legislature, but that would require “three-fourths of the members [150 of the state’s 200 lawmakers] to vote to amend that initiative petition,” said Mass, state Senate Clerk William F. Welch.

“[Also], the Legislature could attach a legislative alternative [or an additional question] to that and [it] would take only a majority vote or [the vote from the] majority of the members elected.”

Many, like Massachusetts House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, who support gay marriage, feel optimistic. “I think the Speaker is hopeful that as more time goes by people, such as citizens [and] legislators, will see that since gay marriage has been legal now… that the sky hasn’t fallen, water hasn’t run uphill, life has gone on and it will continue to go on,” said Kimberly Haberlin, DiMasi’s spokesperson.

On the other hand, those against gay marriage want to give the voters a chance to decide for themselves. “We hope to give the citizens of Massachusetts the opportunity to vote on marriage,” Barstow said. “We feel like this is a flawed judicial decision, [and] it was a complete overreach for the judiciary to get into the area of what should have been a legislative decision in terms of redefining marriage without citizen input or accountability.”

Of course, if it was left to the voters, it couldbe voted down according to an October poll conducted this year by The Center for Public Opinion Research at Merrimack College (http://kahuna.merrimack.edu/ polling/data.html). The results concluded that 37 percent would support amending the constitution to define marriage as one man and one woman while 53 percent would oppose it.

By Lya Carrera
In Newsweekly Contributor
Published Newspaper: In Newsweekly
Published Date: December 21, 2005, Issue 15 18

WITH PRESBYTERIAN RULES UNCLEAR AND CHURCH DIVIDED, SARA J. HERWIG FACES SIGNIFICANT OBSTACLES TO ORDINATION

There is nothing typical about student intern Sara J. Herwig. At 48 years old, she is following her dream of becoming an ordained minister of the First Presbyterian Church of Waltham.

She says her day usually begins early on Sunday mornings. Before teaching her 9:30 a.m. Sunday School class, she hangs the rainbow flag outside the church doors. After her class, she assists in the worship service by leading the congregation through various sections, such as the opening, the closing, “the call to confession, the call to worship, the prayer of the people, and the affirmation of faith.”

When she is at the podium, she appears much taller than her height of 5 feet, 10 inches. She dresses conservatively in a blouse and skirt. Her blue eyes are framed behind rectangular, clear glasses, and her shoulder-length, blonde hair is clipped back. Her voice is clear and strong, but soft-spoken.

Herwig’s path to ordination was not an easy one. At 27 years old, she had been through the candidacy process before and she would have been ordained, but she withdrew because she was coming to terms with some very difficult issues: Back then, “she” was a “he.”

“I don’t like to refer to my former [male] name,” Herwig says, “[It] brings up memories that aren’t very pleasant.” After “living full-time” in her “female gender role” for the past seven years, Herwig began her candidacy process for ordination in the fall of 2001. It was at this time that her call to serve God was challenged.

Herwig says the controversy is that she used to be male, and the committee that approves her ordination is divided. First, although other transsexuals have been ordained as ministers within this denomination, she is the first preparing to become a church pastor. Second, there are no references in the Bible, or in the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) that can deny transsexuals from being ordained or having leadership roles. However, there is a Bible verse in Deuteronomy 22:5 that refers to cross-dressing, but not specifically to sex reassignment. In addition, the Presbyterian Church (USA) does have a 1978 document called the “Definitive Guidance” that states, “any active, practicing, or self-proclaimed homosexuals are not to be considered for ordination.”

“Many Presbyterians see transsexualism as a gay issue,” Herwig says. “As a result, many also believe that transsexuals are gay … even though the reality might be that you are not gay and not involved with anyone at all.”

Social Worker Lisette Lahana says this may be a perception that society holds in general. “Many see transsexuals as cross-dressing, and they may link that with sexual orientation,” she says. “For some transsexuals, cross-dressing does help to express their sexual orientation, but for others it expresses their gender identity.”

In spite of the controversy, Herwig has many supporters. Pastor Jean Southard of the First Presbyterian Church of Waltham is one of them. “I believe that Sara has the gifts for ministry and she is called; by God to minister,” she says. “She has the right to become a minister as anyone would who has the intelligence, the call, and the gifts, so I support her.”

However, there are many in the Presbyterian community who think differently. “I would oppose anyone who puts anything as being primary in their identity that’s not God,” says Reverend Kevin Ford, a chaplain at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a minister of the Presbytery of Boston. “Today, the thing that many people in the church see is whether or not someone is gifted. The problem is that ther, are lots of gifted people in the world, but a lot of them should not be leaders in the church.”

Despite opposing opinions, Herwig will not be deterred. “In order to serve God as who I am, I need to do that as a female, because that is who I am, and that is what I am called to do,” she says. Herwig says her call to serve God began when she was a teenager in Wichita, Kan., while attending a youth rally one evening though her call to be her “true self” arose when she was in elementary school.

Although biologically born a male, she felt psychologically that she was female. Regardless of her feelings, she continued on her expected path. She attended college in Kansas, divinity school in Massachusetts, got married and had a daughter. It was only when Herwig divorced in 1990 that she finally came to terms with her transsexualism.

Herwig says the symptoms for transsexualism vary from depression to suicide. Many transsexuals resolve this conflict by cross-dressing, taking hormones to change their physical characteristics or having surgery to change their sex organs to fit their gender reality. For Herwig, it became too difficult for her, so she decided to have the surgery. “The times when it was the hardest was probably being married and wanting to connect intimately with my spouse [because] I had this extreme dislike and uncomfortableness with my own genitalia,” she says.

Herwig will continue with her quest for ordination, but she could still be denied at any point during this process. Nevertheless she is committed to herself, her faith and her denomination. “The reason I don’t seek ordination in a different denomination that would accept me is because I believe that God has not just called me to an ordained ministry,” she says, “but to an ordained ministry in the Presbyterian Church.”

By Lya Carrera
In Newsweekly Contributor
Published Newspaper: In Newsweekly
Published Date: December 14, 2005, Issue 15 17

LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION REPORT PLACES EMPHASIS ON TESTIMONY FROM EX-GAYS AND ON DOCTOR WHO CALLS HOMOSEXUALITY ‘UNHEALTHY’; GAY SUPPORTERS OUTRAGED

Amid controversy, and based on evidence that gay rights supporters are questioning, a state commission recommended that the new New Hampshire Legislature ban gay marriage and civil unions, but allow minimal benefits for same-sex couples.

Among the controversial parts of the report, released on Thursday, Dec. 1, are views stating that “gays tend to be measurably more promiscuous than their straight counterparts,” “that homosexuality is unhealthy and tends to transmit disease.” It also questions the ability of same-sex couples in “their ability to raise children.” And critics claim that testimony from ex-gays is given disproportional weight.

“Their report is very homophobic with unsubstantiated claims. [It has] ignored every credible evidence,” said Mo Baxley, executive director of the New Hampshire to Freedom to Marry. “New Hampshire is fiscally conservative, but not socially conservative. The commission does not represent mainstream New Hampshire folks.”

N.H. state Rep. Maureen Mooney (R-Merrimack) does not agree. “I think that is rather harsh about our work,” said Mooney. “We as a commission worked hard to produce a very thorough and comprehensive report.”

Not only were supporters not pleased with the outcome, neither were some of the commission members. As a result, these members wrote a report of their own called the “Minority Report” to contradict the findings of the commission’s original report called the “Majority Report.” Basically, the minority’s report favors same-sex marriage while the majority’s report is against it.

The minority’s report contends that “throughout its proceedings, the majority forced the commission to plod through antiquated and demonizing debates about whether gay men and lesbians are psychologically stable, transmit disease through acts of sexual intimacy, or are biologically aberrant…. Further, by embracing the testimony of Dr. John Diggs and so-called ‘ex-gays’ on what can only be called the ‘junk science’ of so-called ‘reparative therapy’ that purports to fix gay people by making them heterosexual, the majority has exposed its deep discomfort with gay people.”

“I am very disappointed in the majority’s report. It is outrageous. It makes outrageous comments,” said N.H. state Sen. Martha Fuller Clark (D-Portsmouth), who is a commission member and one of the authors of the ‘Minority Report.’ “[It] made personal biases and prejudices, and despite all testimony that was heard it continued with biases and prejudices as the basis for their report.”

The minority’s report further states that “for the most part, the ‘evidence’ on which its conclusions rest is either absent or misrepresented. For example,… It implies that Biologist Dennis Bobilya refuted any biological basis for same-sex sexual orientation when his testimony made clear that genetics and hormonal components combine with a variety of factors to influence a person’s orientation.” The report then cites two more examples: the testimonies from Dr. Ellen Perrin, child development expert, and Historian Nancy Cott.

“That is inaccurate,” said N.H. state Rep. Tony Soltani (R-Epsom), the commission’s chairman, regarding the criticism that their evidence is either absent or misrepresented. “I personally have gone through thousands of pages of evidence, and the evidence that we relied on has been the more reliable evidence. In fact, some of the evidence that we received we dismissed it [as being] unreliable or unscientifically supported, [and that was evidence] from both sides - to be fair.”

Although the majority’s report recommends banning same-sex marriage and adding a constitutional amendment to “define marriage as the union between a man and a woman,” it also realized “that gay and lesbian citizens encounter problems or experience inconvenience as a result of not being married to the partner with home they have chosen to live with.” Thus, the commission members submitted the following proposals to solve these dilemmas: extending a patient rights to specify “who can visit him or her in the hospital,” the recognition of out-of-state parental status of gay and lesbian couples and a non-monetary reciprocal benefits agreement.

Fuller Clark thinks that [these proposals] have plans have been submitted. “Given the fact that [neighboring] New England stales are either recognizing civil unions or gay marriages, [it] challenges New Hampshire to address the legal [aspects] for [gay and lesbian couples] who pass or move to New Hampshire. [These proposals] do not address the significant issues that gays and lesbians have to deal with in terms of interface with the state.”

Even with the differences between Ihe two reports (www.nhhousegop.com), the minority’s report states “all sides agree that [the] Legislature has a vital role to play in formulating state policy on marriage in protecting the rights of New Hampshire citizens.” And the legislature will certainly have the opportunity to play a role now that both reports have been handed in to House Speaker Douglas Scamman. Although Scamman was not available for comment, Kelly Cowling, Scamman’s spokesperson, said, “He has not read the report yet, but he is glad that the commission is done. He is looking forward to the ongoing process.”

And it is a process that Fuller Clark would like it to move forward. “I hope that the Commission’s findings do not harm the gay and lesbian community,” Fuller Clark said. “We made a lot of progress in the last 30 years… and I would not want a report like this to backfire.”

On the other hand, Sollani thinks differently. “This has been the most in-depth study done by any of our states or territories,” Soltani said. “They [the other states] are watching this and now that it [the study] is released, it is going to be cited in many of the states as the authority. Now what we have done for our own state is propose to the people and propose to the Legislature several avenues of taking action.”

Mooney has similar thoughts. “I think we have given future legislators a lot of material to be used for future discussions,” Mooney said. “I hope that New Hampshire adopts Hawaii’s Reciprocal Benefits Act allowing the state’s role, in terms of distributing benefits, to be fair.”

Despite the findings in the majority’s report, it will not stop gay activists from seeking support for gay equality. “[We will] continue to work on defeating the constitutional amendment,” Baxley said. “[We will also] continue to talk to legislators, rotary clubs, and religious and community folks to make people more active and aware.”