Weekly Political Roundup

A light news week before the U.S. holiday weekend:

• The Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan over Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, among other issues.
• The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issued new guidance for LGBT people facing housing discrimination.
• New York attorney general and gubernatorial candidate Andrew Cuomo (D) said that if elected, he would make marriage equality a “priority.”
• New York State Senator Ruben Diaz Sr. (D) forced the abandonment of a spending-bill provision that would have allowed married gay and lesbian couples to file joint state tax returns. He threatened to vote with Republicans against the bill if the measure was not dropped.
• Rhode Island Gov. Don Carcieri (R) vetoed a bill that would have expanded the state’s definition of a hate crime to include crimes based on gender identity or expression. Carcieri said current law, which covers “racial, religious, sexual orientation, gender or disability prejudice,” is sufficient.
• The Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously upheld the state’s ban on marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples.

Around the world:

• The lower house of the Irish parliament passed a bill granting civil partnerships to same-sex couples.

Less Is Paramour

A Tennessee court of appeals struck down a ruling that prohibited Angel Chandler’s same-sex partner of over 10 years from spending the night when Chandler’s two children from a previous relationship came to visit.

Good news—although it’s unfortunate that this is in fact the second time the court has had to do this. Back in September 2009, they ordered a lower court to reconsider its initial ruling that the partner could not stay the night in the presence of the children. The lower court had applied the state’s “paramour clause,” which said that any unmarried lovers, of either gender, could not stay overnight with parents if children were in the home. The catch, of course, is that same-sex couples cannot marry in Tennessee, even if they want to. The ACLU, which argued Chandler’s case, explained in September:

Despite a court-ordered psychological evaluation of all the parties finding Chandler’s partner was a positive influence on the teenagers, the trial judge imposed the restriction under the mistaken belief that he was required to do so under state law. Since same-sex couples cannot get married in Tennessee, the requirement that Chandler couldn’t have an unmarried partner in the home meant that Chandler couldn’t have her partner of ten years live at home. . . .

When the lower court “reconsidered,” it came up with the same answer it did the first time. Kudos to the court of appeal for stepping in again and taking at least a bit of the nonsense out of the nonsensical laws that restrict same-sex couples.