Florida Ponders Tax as Tool to Aid Family-Values Films

March 9, 2010
New York Times
By DAMIEN CAVE

MIAMI — The movie “Bait Shop” had too much boozing to earn the extra rebate from Florida’s “family friendly” program of incentives for film production. “Confessions of a Shopaholic” was, well, just too violent.

“There’s a scene where the woman is fighting over shoes and she is beating another woman with a shoe,” said Lucia Fishburne, the state’s film commissioner, adding: “We err on the side of conservative.”

But for Florida’s Republican leaders, that is apparently not enough. A bill that aims to expand the state’s film incentive program — an effort to attract jobs, which is likely to pass — would add language limiting a proposed 5 percent tax credit to productions that do not exhibit or imply “nontraditional family values.”

The bill’s sponsor, Representative Stephen L. Precourt, an Orlando Republican, told The Palm Beach Post that he wanted to encourage filmmaking akin to “The Andy Griffith Show.” On Tuesday, after declining requests to clarify what he meant, he released a statement denying that the new requirement for the tax break was in any way discriminatory.

It was an effort to manage a sudden controversy. State lawmakers had promoted the bill as Florida’s best bet for job creation, but this week three words left undefined started spinning through the blogosphere with the definition “nothing homosexual allowed.” One Democratic co-sponsor pulled his name from the bill, while a post on the liberal Daily Kos blog suggested Monday that Hollywood boycott the state “to give Florida exactly what they want.”

In an interview, Gov. Charlie Crist would not say whether he supported the bill’s new family friendly definition, but Ms. Fishburne said she was worried that the program was being misunderstood. She emphasized that the family friendly credit is a bonus, not a requirement: of 81 productions that received state rebates since 2007, only 8 have applied for what is now an extra 2 percent on top of the standard 15 percent. Six, including the Disney movie “Old Dogs,” have received it.

The new bill would increase all the incentives, creating a minimum tax credit of 20 percent for eligible productions with a budget of $625,000 or more. The family friendly bonus would go up to 5 percent, but the program would still be optional.

Right now the bonus can go only to movies suitable for a 5-year-old, with “cross-generational appeal” and “a responsible resolution of issues.”

Ms. Fishburne said the new bill’s language was more confusing.

“ ‘Nontraditional family values,’ we will have to be told what that is,” she said. “I’m not going to define it; there are a lot of different traditional values out there.”

John Stemberger, president of the Florida Family Policy Council, a conservative group that supports the bill, said that “traditional” means marriage between a man and a woman. He called the proposal “a brilliant idea” that was pro-family, not anti-gay.

But Brian Winfield, a spokesman for Equality Florida, said it was not just gay people who would be left out.

“There are millions of families led by single parents, there are millions of families led by gay couples, or families with children being raised by an aunt or uncle or grandparent,” Mr. Winfield said. “Every one of these fits into what has been offered as a possible definition of ‘nontraditional family values.’ Who knows who it would discriminate against?”

Gary Fineout contributed reporting from Tallahassee, Fla.

in In the News  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

David Cameron: Tory party would give gay parents more time off

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 12:54 AM on 04th March 2010

Gays and lesbians in civil partnerships would receive extended paternity and maternity leave under the Tories.

David Cameron made the pledge in an interview with the gay magazine Attitude.

The Tory leader said the party’s proposal to extend paternity and maternity rights would apply to same-sex couples who adopted children or used artificial insemination.

Under Labour plans, maternity leave is to be extended to 52 weeks by 2010. After the first 26 weeks, parents can choose whether the mother or the father stays at home.

Conservative plans are more flexible, allowing parents up to 26 weeks of leave together.

Mr Cameron repeated his promise that gays in civil partnerships would enjoy the same tax breaks as married couples.

And he apologised for his party’s previous support for Section 28, the ban on promoting homosexuality in schools.

in In the News  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

The Bird Whisperer

in Videos  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Foreign Adoption Alert – Dual Proceedings Can Be Problematic

In this New York Surrogate’s Court adoption proceeding where the two parties never married, petitioner, the father of the Cambodian child who is the subject of this adoption, sought to vacate the court’s prior order permitting respondent, the New york adoptive parent, to “re-adopt” a Cambodian orphan who was residing with her in New York, and to allow him immediate visitation as the father’s child, pursuant to a Cambodian adoption.

The respondent contended that the petitioner had relinquished his adoptive parental rights by a “letter” provided to the authorities in Cambodia, after which she obtained an order of adoption in Cambodia and a subsequent ex parte “re-adoption” order from the Surrogate’s Court in New York. Respondent also contended that the petition was dismissible under the “act of state” doctrine, whereby “the acts of foreign sovereigns taken within their own jurisdictions shall be deemed valid,” because neither of the Cambodian adoptions were completed with a “Giving and Receiving” ceremony.

At trial, petitioner contended that he never legally relinquished his parental rights, and that the respondent’s “re-adoption” of the infant in New York was invalid because he was not served with notice of the proceedings.

The Surrogate’s Court granted the petition, recognized petitioner as the father, vacated its prior order permitting the respondent to adopt the infant, and granted the petitioner immediate visitation by finding that: (1) petitioner’s Cambodian adoption was valid; and (2) he remained the child’s father because his letter relinquishing his rights was invalid under New York law [DRL §115-b]. The Appellate Division affirmed (4-1) on grounds that: (1) because the respondent never completed her Cambodian adoption proceeding, her ex parte “re-adoption” proceeding in New York was a nullity; and (2) even if the respondent’s Cambodian adoption had been completed, New York was not obligated to recognize it pursuant to the “act of state” doctrine, as a foreign adoption involves private interests, in contrast to the act of a foreign state to give effect to its public concerns.

The Court of Appeals affirms, but for different reasons. The Court finds that, although the validity of the petitioner’s Cambodian adoption need not be questioned, the validity of petitioner’s relinquishment of his parental rights must be determined under New York law in accordance with its choice-of-law rules. In this instance, where the involved individuals — petitioner, respondent, and the infant — each resided in New York at the time of the Cambodian proceedings, New York’s interests are paramount, thus making its law controlling. In so holding, the Court determines that, because the petitioner never properly relinquished his parental rights under New York law, he remained the infant’s sole parent. Matter of Doe. Decided 2/16/10.

 

FAMILY LAW. ADOPTIONS. FOREIGN ORPHAN. “ACT OF STATE” DOCTRINE. APPLICABILITY.

in Adoption  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Anne Hathaway Left catholic Church to Support Her Gay Brother

“Anne Hathaway‘s family left the Catholic Church because of its intolerance of homosexuality. Anne grew up wanting to become a nun but shunned Catholicism when she learned her older brother, Michael, was gay.”

Hathaway says, “The whole family converted to Episcopalianism after my elder brother came out. Why should I support an organization that has a limited view of my beloved brother?”

Anne was nominated for an Oscar™ for Rachel Getting Married [’08]. She’s also co-starred in The Devil Wears Prada, The Princess Diaries, and Brokeback Mountain.

in Family Stories  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Risks of Using a Known Sperm Donor

Posted on January 28, 2010 by Gideon Alper -GayCouplesLawBlog.com –

Seattle University Law School professor Julie Shapiro had a interesting post this past weekend on why lesbians should think twice before using a known sperm donor.

Professor Shapiro points out what’s unique about a California where a lesbian couple split up five months after one woman gave birth to twins. Now they fight for custody.

Smith [the non-birth mother] is not simply opposed by Quale [her former partner, the birth-mother] but also by Wallace [the sperm donor], and Wallace is not simply a party in the case, he is present as Quale’s new partner. Quale and Wallace can present themselves as a heterosexual couple, both of whom are related to the child–a traditional, man/woman, genetically constructed family.

It’s not hard to imagine that a court might seize an opportunity to ensure the twins are raised in an ordinary heterosexual, genetically constructed household. 

I agree. While Smith, the non-birth mother, might have a legitimate claim to keeping parental rights, I doubt the court will do anything other than award full parental rights to the birth mom and dad. Especially since the the lesbian couple split up just five months after the twins were born.

in Anonymous/Known Donation  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Federal Appeals Court: Louisiana Must Recognize Out of State Gay Adoption

Posted on February 18, 2010 by Gideon Alper – GayCouplesLawBlog.com –

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that Louisiana has to recognize the New York same-sex adoption of a Louisiana child even though Louisiana does not itself grant same-sex adoptions.

Last October I talked about Adar v. Smith, the Fifth Circuit case where a couple that went to New York to legally adopt a baby born in Louisiana couldn’t get an updated birth certificate from Louisiana. Back then, Louisiana said it didn’t have to recognize adoptions from other states that it wouldn’t perform itself.

The Court today said otherwise.

Why is This Case Important?

Because it’s about how the full faith and credit clause applies to gay rights. The full faith and credit clause is the part of the U.S. Constitution that makes one state recognize the judgments of another state.

Sound familiar? You often hear about how states that don’t allow gay marriage should have to recognize gay marriages from states that do. Instead, states without gay marriage give a similar argument to the one Louisiana gave in Adar v. Smith–that they shouldn’t have to recognize marriages that they themselves would not allow.

What Did the Court Say?

Here’s why the Fifth Circuit said the full faith and credit clause makes Louisiana recognize the New York same sex adoption:

•First, it recognized that the Supreme Court has said that there are no “public policy exceptions” to the clause.

•Second, it disagreed with Louisiana’s argument that adoption decrees are more like a statute than a judgment. Louisiana said that because the New York adoption decree represents New York public policy created by New York statutes, recognizing the adoption would be replacing Louisiana’s policy with New York’s.

•Instead, the court said that the birth certificate is required because it recognizes what New York has already done (the recognition required by the clause). It does not have to reflect would Louisiana would do on its own.
So what does this mean for gay marriage?

Not much. While the court says that domestic-law judgments must be given full faith and credit by other states, a marriage is not a judgment. Further, what gay marriage faces that gay adoption doesn’t face is DOMA, a federal allow that says specifically that states don’t have to recognize gay marriages from other states. Unless DOMA is repealed or is ruled to be unconstitutional, marriages from gay marriage states probably won’t get recognized elsewhere.

Be sure to read the press release from Lambda Legal, which represented the two men.

in Adoption  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Surrogacy decriminalized in Australia

Submitted by Jeff on Wed, 02/10/2010 – 11:22am- ProudParenting.com

Under reforms in Australia, legal parentage of a child born in surrogacy agreements will transfer from the birth mother to the parent or parents who commissioned the birth. This extends to same-sex couples.

An opposition bill that would see surrogacy continue to be illegal for same-sex couples was debated but it failed to pass.

The Australian State Parliament made the decision after a lot of debate.

Premier Anna Bligh [pictured] has defended her Government’s new surrogacy laws – saying same-sex couples and singles are already becoming parents through artificial insemination.

Ms. Bligh told Parliament it would be wrong to ban them from having a child through surrogacy.

“The time for putting our heads in the sand on this issue is over,” she said.

in In the News / Surrogacy  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret

January 29, 2010
By SCOTT JAMES – New York Times-

When Rio and Ray married in 2008, the Bay Area women omitted two words from their wedding vows: fidelity and monogamy.

“I take it as a gift that someone will be that open and honest and sharing with me,” said Rio, using the word “open” to describe their marriage.

Love brought the middle-age couple together — they wed during California’s brief legal window for same-sex marriage. But they knew from the beginning that their bond would be forged on their own terms, including what they call “play” with other women.

As the trial phase of the constitutional battle to overturn the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage concludes in federal court, gay nuptials are portrayed by opponents as an effort to rewrite the traditional rules of matrimony. Quietly, outside of the news media and courtroom spotlight, many gay couples are doing just that, according to groundbreaking new research.

A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many. Some gay men and lesbians argue that, as a result, they have stronger, longer-lasting and more honest relationships. And while that may sound counterintuitive, some experts say boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution.

New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

That consent is key. “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”

The study also found open gay couples just as happy in their relationships as pairs in sexually exclusive unions, Dr. Hoff said. A different study, published in 1985, concluded that open gay relationships actually lasted longer.

None of this is news in the gay community, but few will speak publicly about it. Of the dozen people in open relationships contacted for this column, no one would agree to use his or her full name, citing privacy concerns. They also worried that discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage.

According to the research, open relationships almost always have rules.

That is how it works for Chris and James. Over drinks upstairs at the venerable Twin Peaks Tavern in the Castro neighborhood of San Francisco, they beamed as they recalled the day in June 2008 that they donned black suits and wed at City Hall, stunned by the outpouring of affection from complete strangers. “Even homeless people and bike messengers were congratulating us,” said Chris, 42.

A couple since 2002, they opened their relationship a year ago after concluding that they were not fully meeting each other’s needs. But they have rules: complete disclosure, honesty about all encounters, advance approval of partners, and no sex with strangers — they must both know the other men first. “We check in with each other on this an awful lot,” said James, 37.

That transparency can make relationships stronger, said Joe Quirk, author of the best-selling relationship book “It’s Not You, It’s Biology.”

“The combination of freedom and mutual understanding can foster a unique level of trust,” Mr. Quirk, of Oakland, said.

“The traditional American marriage is in crisis, and we need insight,” he said, citing the fresh perspective gay couples bring to matrimony. “If innovation in marriage is going to occur, it will be spearheaded by homosexual marriages.”

Open relationships are not exclusively a gay domain, of course. Deb and Marius are heterosexual, live in the East Bay and have an open marriage. She belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and maintained her virginity until her wedding day at 34. But a few years later, when the relationship sputtered, both she and her husband, who does not belong to the church, began liaisons with others.

“Our relationship got better,” she said. “I slept better at night. My blood pressure went down.”

Deb and Marius also have rules, including restrictions on extramarital intercourse. “To us,” Marius said, “cheating would be breaking the agreement we have with each other. We define our relationship, not a religious group.”

So while the legal fight over same-sex marriage plays out, couples say the real battle is making relationships last — and their answers defy the prevailing definition of marriage.

“In 1900, the average life span for a U.S. citizen was 47,” Mr. Quirk said. “Now we’re living so much longer, ‘until death do us part’ is twice as challenging.”

Scott James is an Emmy-winning television journalist and novelist who lives in San Francisco.

in Family Stories  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Another Florida judge delivers ruling against gay adoption ban

Submitted by Jeff on Wed, 01/27/2010 – 2:41pm on ProudParenting.com
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Maria Sampedro-Iglesia has delivered the third ruling against Florida’s infamous adoption ban – allowing a lesbian couple to adopt an infant relative, the Miami Herald reports:

“While the 1977 law remains in limbo, Sampedro-Iglesia’s ruling suggests some state court judges already have made up their minds about gay adoption, a thorny political issue in a state with a significant social conservative streak. ‘There is no rational connection between sexual orientation and what is or is not in the best interest of a child,” Sampedro-Iglesia wrote in her order. ‘The child is happy and thriving with [Alenier]. The only way to give this child permanency … is to allow him to be adopted’ by her. In her ruling, Sampedro-Iglesia declared Florida’s adoption law ‘unconstitutional on its face.’ For Alenier, who shares a home near downtown Hollywood with her longtime partner, Melanie Leon, the ruling made formal what she already knew she had – a family.”

Two Florida judges have already declared the ban unconstitutional.

in Adoption / In the News / Legal  by Anthony Brown 0 comments