Rutland Herald, March 16, 2001
Box 668, Rutland, VT, 05702 
(Fax: 802-775-2423)( http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/ )
(Online Mailer: http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Opinion/Letters/ )
http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/22380.html

House (Vermont)votes 84-55 for law barring gay marriage
By TRACY SCHMALER, Vermont Press Bureau
       MONTPELIER -- Few supporters of a bill outlawing gay marriage stood up 
on the floor Thursday night to defend the measure as it was derided by 
opponents for being a mean-spirited political ploy and a waste of lawmakers' 
time. 
       But supporters spoke up loudly when it mattered, voting 84-55 in favor 
of the bill, which specifically states that a man is prohibited from marrying 
a man and a woman is prohibited from marrying a woman.  Lawmakers have to 
vote again on Friday in order for the proposal to clear the House. 
       The debate was emotional, for both its content and the late hour -- 
the vote was called a bit after 8:30 p.m., almost 12 hours from the time 
lawmakers began their work on the floor Thursday. 
       Supporters maintained that the bill clarified the existing marriage 
laws in the state and laid out an obstacle for gay couples who may try in the 
future to expand the statute to include gay marriage. 
       Opponents countered that the bill made no substantive change in state 
law because marriage is already defined in several places in statute as a 
union between one man and one woman.  They argue that the measure has been 
proposed to appease those Vermonters opposed to civil unions, a law passed 
last year that created a parallel system of marriage for gay and lesbian 
couples. 
       "It is intended to clarify that the action we took last year was the 
only marriage allowed in the state is between one man and one woman," said 
Rep. Margaret Flory, R-Pittsford, chairwoman of the House Judiciary 
Committee, referring to the civil unions law. 
       The issue brought out passions on both sides.  Committee members 
disagreed over it, as did lawmakers within both the Democratic and the 
Republican parties.  The Progressives were united in their opposition to the 
bill. 
       The Judiciary Committee was fractured.  The committee vice chairman, 
Rep. Michael Vinton, D-Colchester, opposed the bill, and while he 
acknowledged his reluctance to speak out against his own committee, he stood 
up on the House floor Thursday night and raised questions about the motive 
behind the initiative. 
       "I do believe this piece of legislation is one thing:  It is a 
political piece of legislation," he said.  Vinton was a member of the 
Judiciary Committee last year when it drafted the bill that later became 
civil unions. 
       The head of the committee last year, Rep. Thomas Little, R-Shelburne, 
offered a new proposal Thursday that he argued satisfied both sides -- it 
clarified existing law without creating potential problems. 
       "I believe the language being used ... is sending the wrong message," 
he said.  "(My proposal) does not go so far as the committee's language, 
which would result in unintended consequences or at least as far as I'm 
concerned what should be unintended consequences." 
       Little said he worried that under Flory's proposal, if another state 
passed a gay marriage law and a same-sex couple who had gotten legally 
married entered Vermont they could be denied certain rights and benefits. 
       His amendment was defeated, 80-60. 
       The two openly gay members of the House told their colleagues Thursday 
that there was no confusion in their minds about their preclusion from 
getting married. 
       "I can assure you that we know marriage is between one man and one 
woman.  We understand it and we accept it," said Rep. Robert Dostis, 
D-Waterbury, as his partner of 17 years listened from a seat across the House 
chamber. 
       But Dostis, contrary to what supporters of the bill contended, said it 
did have harmful consequences for gays and lesbians.  "When you grow up gay, 
you live in fear of persecution and when you read this, it hits very deep," 
he said. 
       Rep. William Lippert, D-Hinesburg, who is also gay and a member of the 
Judiciary Committee, questioned the need for the bill. 
       "How many times does this body need to tell us that we are excluded?" 
he said, noting that it was a year ago to the day that the House voted on 
civil unions, opening one door for same-sex couples and closing another. 
       Rep. Craig Scribner Sr., R-Bristol, responded that one more time would 
satisfy him.  He noted that if it hadn't been for civil unions, he would not 
have been sitting in the chamber Thursday night. 
       "I defeated a 10-year incumbent without knocking on a door because of 
his vote on this issue," he said.  Others said they had had enough of debate 
on an issue that did little for the majority of Vermonters. 
       "I am tired of talking about sex," said Rep. Alice Miller, 
D-Shaftsbury.  "This is a monumental waste of time and taxpayer's dollars." 
       [Fenceberry Note:  A list of how individual members voted can be found 
at http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/22378.html]

Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, March 14, 2001
200 E. Las Olas, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 33301 
(Fax: 954-356-4624 ) (E-Mail: letters@sun-sentinel.com )
( http://www.sun-sentinel.com/ )
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/daily/detail/0,1136,38000000000105097,00.html

Gierer captures seat on Oakland Park (FLA) City Commission 
By LISA J. HURIASH,  Sun-Sentinel
       OAKLAND PARK -- Roger Mann's anti-gay campaign failed to win him a 
seat on the City Commission.
       Mann, who was campaigning for the second time for the commission, 
knocked on doors pitching the fact he is heterosexual, and therefore the best 
candidate.
       Larry Gierer, the victor in Tuesday's race, is openly gay.  John 
O'Sullivan, the third candidate, said sexuality isn't an issue.
       "What it has shown is the community of Oakland Park is a very 
accepting community," Gierer said Tuesday night.  "I was surprised someone 
would chose heterosexuality as their platform.  But the people have spoken.  
They have said it doesn't bother them what a person's sexual preference is."
       Gierer campaigned to bring harmony to the city and commission, expand 
economic growth and encourage more neighborhood associations. 
       Even though Mann had been getting signals his tactics weren't 
garnering support, he remained convinced early Tuesday that the seat would 
finally be his, citing his own exit polls.
       But one clue that he was alienating voters came at a candidates' forum 
last week when the crowd groaned after Mann announced that "there are a lot 
of people concerned (that) family values are going out the window."
       During that forum, he also referred to neighboring Wilton Manors, a 
town with a sizable gay population, as a "pink village."  That drew some boos 
from the audience.
       "That was a little humor," he said later.  "There's a lot of sissies 
down there.  That's why I don't live there."
       On Tuesday night, he admitted defeat and said he would call Gierer to 
congratulate him.
       "I wanted to give heterosexuals a choice," he said, adding that he 
might try a third bid for office in two years.  He said if he doesn't think 
he has enough support, he'll recruit "a family man with a wife, three kids 
and a dog" to run, "if there are any family men left in Oakland Park."
       Mann is single with no children.
       In the other two city races . . . [cut]
       • Lisa J. Huriash can be reached at lhuriash@sun-sentinel.com or 
954-356-4557.

Rainbow Network (U.K.), 16th March 2001 
http://www.rainbownetwork.com/content/NewsLife.asp?newsid=1614

Teacher(in Indiana) Sued Over Homophobic Taunts 
       A teacher is being sued by parents over allegations that he made 
homophobic remarks to his students, including a youth suffering from 
Tourette’s Syndrome.
       Donald E Miller, a history teacher at Taft Middle School, Crown Point, 
Indiana, is at the centre of the case.
       Miller is alleged to have victimised students in his class with gay 
taunts.  In one incident on Valentine’s Day, he is said to have replaced the 
inoffensive message on a heart-shaped sweet with the word ‘Fag’.  He then 
gave the sweet to a youth who suffers from Tourette’s Syndrome.
       Jim Brown, a lawyer representing the student, said that the boy’s 
disorder may have attracted Miller's attention.  People with Tourette’s, a 
neurological disease, make uncontrollable outbursts, including spitting and 
swearing.  The youth has not been named.
       Brown added that Miller bullied other students, pointing a television 
remote control at them and calling it a ‘fagometer’.
       Brown alleges that when parents complained to the principal, they were 
told "that's just Mr Miller being Mr Miller".
       Representatives of the school said that Miller is on paid leave.  He 
has been relieved of his classroom duties whilst an investigation is being 
held.  Brown said that the school administration is not included in the 
lawsuit.  Some of the boy’s classmates are circulating petitions to reinstate 
Miller.

The Citizen, March 17, 2001
171 Fair Street, Laconia, NH, 03246 
(Fax: 603-524-6702 ) (E-Mail: kmaclean@citizen.com )
( http://www.fosters.com/citizen )
http://www.fosters.com/citizen/news2001/March/17/con0317h.htm

Lesbian wins hearing in discrimination case 
Franklin dentist allegedly refused to treat her
By GORDON D. KING, Staff Writer
       CONCORD — The New Hampshire Commission on Human Rights has found 
probable cause in the case of a woman who alleges she was refused dental care 
because she is a lesbian.
       The Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) of Boston brought 
the complaint on behalf of Tricia Thompson against Dr. Jay Roper of Franklin.
       In September, GLAD filed the complaint with the commission alleging 
sexual orientation discrimination in a public accommodation in violation of 
state law, according to Jennifer Levi, GLAD staff attorney.
       "New Hampshire dictates fair and equal treatment for all of its 
citizens in places of public accommodation regardless of sexual orientation.  
This is a classic example of different treatment.  This is an important case. 
It’s a fundamental violation of the state’s gay rights law," Levi said.
       According to the commission’s decision, Thompson sought routine dental 
care for Dr. Roper in March of 1999, having been a regular patient of his for 
nearly three years.  At the March visit, Dr. Roper asked his patient why she 
listed a woman’s name in the patient record information box marked spouse.  
When the patient responded that she considers the person she listed to be her 
spouse, Dr. Roper refused to treat her, Levi said.
       "That I am a lesbian should have no effect on whether or not I receive 
health care.  Before he knew my sexual orientation, Dr. Roper never had any 
problem providing me with treatment.  Learning that I have a female partner 
should not change that.  I am very happy with this ruling and hope this 
matter can be resolved soon," Thompson said in a statement issued through 
GLAD.
       According to attorney Levi, the commission investigator agreed that 
the refusal to provide dental care was based on sexual orientation, a 
consideration which is impermissible under state law.
       "The fact that the commission found probable cause shows that there is 
merit to the patient’s complaint against the dentist," attorney Levi said.
       New Hampshire health providers are considered a public accommodation 
and equal access is protected by state law, according to Katharine A. Daly, 
executive director of the commission.
       The next step is to look at a way to remedy the situation.  GLAD will 
make a proposal for resolving the complaint through the commission, then the 
complaint will be taken up at a hearing.
       Daly said a hearing before the commission has been set for June 12 but 
it is possible that the matter can be resolved during conciliatory 
discussions prior to that.
       "The commission has the authority to take action to ask him to cease 
and desist this practice, and to take affirmative action.  This means to 
provide equal services to everyone," the director said.
       The executive director said the commission also has the authority to 
make violators pay compensatory damages and can levy fines up to $10,000.  
This is in addition to awarding the victim her legal fees, she explained.
       The executive director expressed surprise that GLAD released the 
investigator’s findings.  The usual practice, she explained, is to make the 
decision of the commission public after the hearing.
       Attorney Levy said the organization has seen what she calls a fair 
amount of discrimination in the treatment of gays and lesbians by health care 
providers.
       When Dr. Roper was contacted, he said he would not be making any 
comment on the matter.
       • Gordon D. King can be reached at 524-3800 ext. 5916 or by e-mail at 
gking@citizen.com

Associated Press, March 15, 2001

Portuguese Parliament Grants Rights To Same-Sex Couples
       LISBON, Portugal (AP) -- Portuguese lawmakers Thursday granted legal 
rights and tax benefits to gay and lesbian couples who have lived together 
for more than two years, allowing them the same rights as heterosexual 
couples in common law marriages.
       The bill was passed on the votes of a majority of left-of-center 
lawmakers in the 230-seat National Assembly, Portugal's parliament, while 
right-of-center parties opposed the bill, a parliamentary spokeswoman said on 
customary condition of anonymity.  Exact voting figures were not immediately 
available.
       Gay and lesbian groups have lobbied for several years for equal rights 
with heterosexual common law couples.
       In 1999 a majority of lawmakers, including some from the governing 
left-of-center Socialist Party, balked at a proposal to incorporate same-sex 
relationships in new legislation on common law marriages.
       However changes to the bill, including a deal on taxes, persuaded more 
Socialists to approve it.
       Homosexual marriages are not permitted in this mostly Roman Catholic 
country.

Los Angeles Times, March 14, 2001
Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA, 90053
(Fax: 213-237-7679 or 213-237-5319 ) (E-Mail:  letters@latimes.com )
( http://www.latimes.com/ )
http://www.latimes.com/living/20010313/t000022133.html

Stranded Between Love and Country 
Binational gay couples can't marry to gain U.S. citizenship, so some stay 
illegally or pressure their mates to emigrate. 
By Susan Carpenter, Times Staff Writer
       Barbara Dozetos and her Canadian girlfriend met online four years ago, 
got together in person shortly thereafter and have been living together for 
the last two years.  But come September, when her partner's student visa 
expires, Dozetos, who lives in Vermont, could be forced to choose -- give up 
her lover, leave the U.S. for Canada or continue the relationship long 
distance. 
       In similar circumstances, a heterosexual couple would have the option 
of marriage as a means of gaining legal immigration status for a noncitizen.  
But for gay and lesbian Americans in binational relationships, that 
alternative is not available. 
       "It's comical that a country that prides itself on being so socially 
advanced is so far behind the curve when it comes to this law," said Dozetos, 
37, a writer for PlanetOut, a gay and lesbian lifestyle Web site. 
       Dozetos and her partner are among an estimated 100,000 same-sex 
binational couples in the U.S, according to Immigration Equality, the L.A. 
offshoot of the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task Force.  There are 
potentially tens of thousands more, as many gay Americans' foreign partners 
are living here illegally and are unwilling to identify themselves for fear 
of deportation, according to the task force. 
       Some activists believe the problem is likely to grow as technology is 
progressing and breaking down geographical barriers, making it easier and 
less expensive to communicate internationally.  Increased international 
travel, including the number of citizens from other countries who visit the 
U.S., increases the odds that binational couples will be formed.  In recent 
years 14 other countries, including Britain, Australia, France and Canada, 
have passed laws allowing the same-sex, foreign partners of their citizens to 
immigrate. 
       U.S. immigration policy, the activists say, just isn't keeping pace. 
       The INS says it is simply applying the law as written -- which does 
not recognize domestic partnerships whether same-sex or heterosexual. 
       "A domestic partnership between a man and a woman, the INS wouldn't 
recognize that either.  Obviously, they're in a better position because if 
they wanted to get married they could," said INS spokeswoman Eyleen Schmidt.  
"The INS' hands are tied until such time as [same-sex marriage] is recognized 
as a legal, viable marriage." 
       The case of a 26-year-old American and his Japanese partner, who asked 
that their names not be used for this story, illustrates the dilemma that 
many gay couples face.  The Japanese teacher of English as a second language 
entered the country with a student visa 3 1/2 years ago.  His visa expired 
two years ago, about the same time he met his partner at a West Hollywood 
nightclub.  The two have been living together for the last year and a half.  
Because he overstayed his visa and is now "out of status" with the INS, he 
cannot work.  Nor can he drive -- his license has expired. 
     "He feels like he's in a prison," said his American partner, who 
supports the two of them on his salary as a public policy worker.  Like many 
faced with the decision between coming clean on immigration status and facing 
deportation or remaining in the U.S. illegally with loved ones, he has chosen 
the latter. 
     "It's this great interaction of double closets -- the closet of 
homosexuality and the closet of immigration status," said Ron Buckmire, 
co-chair of Immigration Equality, the L.A. chapter of the Lesbian and Gay 
Immigration Rights Task Force, an advocacy and support organization. 
       The problem has intensified since 1996, when the Immigration Reform 
Act increased the penalties for foreigners who overstay their visas.  Anyone 
who stays 180 days or more beyond what they are allowed can be deported and 
barred from returning to the U.S. for three years.  Those who stay 365 days 
or longer can be barred for 10 years. 
       The INS occasionally grants asylum to those who have established that 
they would be persecuted on the basis of their sexual orientation if sent 
back to their native countries, but few successfully make that case.  The 
most common means of immigration to the U.S. are sponsorship through an 
employer and sponsorship through a family member, such as a parent or spouse. 
 The greatest percentage of the 675,000 immigrations that are granted each 
year occur through marriage, according to an INS spokeswoman. 
       To gain residency, some gay and lesbians marry fraudulently -- meaning 
they arrange to marry an American of the opposite sex with whom they have no 
romantic involvement.  But entering into such a marriage is a high-stakes 
game.  The penalty for the foreigner, if caught, is deportation and a 
permanent barring from ever reentering the country. 
       Last month, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, (D-New York), introduced for the 
second year a bill that would grant gay and lesbian binational couples the 
same rights as married heterosexuals.  It would add the words "or permanent 
partner" anywhere it says "spouse" in the federal immigration code. 
       The legislation, known as the Permanent Partners Act, intentionally 
steers clear of promoting gay marriage, recognizing that will be a subject of 
prolonged legal debate and one that isn't necessary to solve the same-sex 
immigration problem. 
       It is co-sponsored by 49 members of the House (including Los Angeles 
Democrats Henry Waxman and Xavier Becerra).  It needs 218 votes to pass -- 
and even its backers acknowledge it is unlikely to get that level of support. 
 Nadler reintroduced the bill, in part, to increase public awareness on the 
issue, said Eric Schmeltzer, Nadler's press secretary. 
       "Out of the education process we hope there will be enough public 
pressure on Congress to pass something like this in the future.  By and 
large, the American people are very fair," Schmeltzer said.  "I think the 
majority of Americans would say it's a gratuitous cruelty to split apart 
loving and committed couples as the immigration code does now." 
       That means it is unlikely there will be any legal change in INS law in 
time to help a 38-year-old immigration attorney from West Hollywood and his 
33-year-old Australian boyfriend.  The couple -- who asked that their names 
not be printed in this article -- met two years ago when the Australian, a 
costume designer, was visiting the U.S. 
       The two dated for three months, then maintained their friendship by 
phone and e-mail for the following two years until the Australian earned 
enough money to return to the U.S. on a tourist visa, which means he can 
visit but not work here.  The two now live together, but that could end in 
the fall.  It all depends on whether the costume designer is successful in 
petitioning the INS for an "O" visa, granted to artists of exceptional 
talent. 
       "At this point I think it's a 50-50 chance," said his attorney and 
boyfriend.  If the petition is denied, he said, "we'll have to make a 
decision as to whether I'm going to go to Australia and abandon everything.  
I won't be able to practice law over there.  My whole family's here.  I've 
never been to Australia.  It's insane." 
       As recently as 1990 the INS barred gays and lesbians from even 
entering the U.S.  Until then, they were classified as having a psychological 
disorder and denied immigration. 
       Today, laws in many states permit gays to adopt children and many 
employers extend health benefits to domestic partners.  But same-sex 
marriages that would solve the current immigration problem are not 
recognized. 
       Last spring, when Vermont legalized civil unions, granting same-sex 
partners the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual married 
couples, many in the gay and lesbian community thought the immigration 
problem was solved.  But a civil union is not the same as marriage.  Even if 
it were, it would have no effect on immigration law. 
       Marriage is regulated by individual states.  Immigration is regulated 
by the federal government, and in 1996, Congress passed the Defense of 
Marriage Act, which officially defined marriage for federal purposes, 
including immigration, as a union between a man and a woman. 
       Even in Vermont, where Dozetos and her partner live, things are no 
simpler.  "It's particularly interesting with us living in Vermont, everybody 
thinks civil unions solved all the problems, and that's not the case at all," 
said Dozetos.  "If we got [one] tomorrow, it still wouldn't take care of the 
immigration problem.  As a matter of fact, it would aggravate it." 
       The student visa Dozetos' girlfriend is using to live in the U.S. is 
temporary.  Forming a civil union might indicate their desire to circumvent 
the law and reduce her girlfriend's chances of securing a work-related visa 
that could allow her to stay in the U.S. permanently. 
       It is just one more of the many legal dilemmas faced by binational gay 
and lesbian couples who want to make their home in the United States.   
       [Articles reader Barbara Dozetos is online at barbara@abovefold.com]

Scripps-McClatchy Western Service, March 11, 2001 
DAN WALTERS: An ongoing gay rights war 
      SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Simply put -- perhaps too simply - Californians 
have evinced three distinct attitudes toward homosexuality, transsexuality 
and other non-heterosexual orientations. 
      There are those who believe fervently that all sexual orientations are 
equally valid, from a humanistic or moral standpoint, and should be 
recognized as such in law and social custom.  There are those who just as 
sincerely see anything other than traditional heterosexuality as deviance.  
And there are those -- perhaps the majority -- who are somewhat ambivalent, 
not fully buying into either of the absolutist positions. 
      Last year was something of a watershed in the never-ending political 
war between gay rights advocates and self-described "family values" 
defenders.  While some new laws enacted by the Legislature to further gay 
rights took effect, California voters overwhelmingly enacted a ban on gay 
marriages, and the ranks of openly homosexual legislators doubled from two to 
four. 
      Clearly, last year's events did not settle anything.  And as the 2001 
political season gets under way, there's also a renewal of hostilities 
between those who want to advance gay rights and those who resist them. 
      The strong vote against gay marriage didn't deter Assemblyman Paul 
Koretz, a first-term Democrat whose West Hollywood-centered district has a 
high concentration of gays, from introducing a measure that would make unions 
of same-sex couples "legally indistinguishable" from man-woman marriages. 
      Koretz insists that his measure, patterned after a "civil union" law 
enacted in Vermont, would not violate Proposition 22, the anti-gay marriage 
measure enacted last year, a contention that anti-gay rights groups, of 
course, reject.  Gay advocates, such as the California Alliance for Pride and 
Equality, and their opponents, such as the Capitol Resource Institute, are 
beating the drums on both sides. 
      Republican legislators will uniformly oppose the Koretz bill, but it's 
really an issue for Democrats to resolve, since they control both houses of 
the Legislature and the governorship.  Although liberals will 
enthusiastically back the "civil union" approach, it's a very touchy matter 
for Democrats from conservative districts and Gov. Gray Davis, who will be 
seeking re-election in 2002. 
      One reason it's difficult for centrist Democrats is that two years ago, 
they somewhat reluctantly accepted another measure that purported to stop 
harassment of gay public school students, only to see the implementation of 
the measure become a political hot potato.  The Capitol Resource Institute 
and others on the rightward side of the gay rights issue contend that the 
administrative regulations being drawn up by the Department of Education go 
well beyond the carefully written legislation.  In the draft of the 
implementation program, critics see a presumption that any student, or 
parent, not fully accepting non-heterosexual orientations, including 
pedophilia, could be branded a bigot and be forced to undergo behavior 
modification training. 
      Whether that possibility exists is subject to interpretation, but it's 
certainly clear that the proposed rules would require school curricula to 
"integrate lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender historical figures, events, 
concepts and issues..."  That appears to conflict with the spirit, if not the 
letter, of the legislation that moderate Democrats and Davis accepted.  The 
measure, enacted in 1999, says it would "not require the inclusion of any 
curriculum, textbook, presentation or other material..."  The Koretz bill and 
the Department of Education rules will be this year's flashpoints.  But no 
matter how they are resolved, there will be new ones next year, and every 
year thereafter.  Both sides see it as a fundamental moral struggle and 
aren't about to give up. 

Associated Press, March 15, 2001
Texas Court Upholds Sodomy Law
By KRISTEN HAYS
       HOUSTON (AP) -- A Texas appeals court upheld the state's sodomy law 
Thursday in the case of two men charged with having sex in a private home.
       The nine-member 14th Court of Appeals voted 7-2 to overturn a June 
ruling by three members of the same panel that said the law was 
unconstitutional because it forbids sex between same-sex partners, yet allows 
the same acts between heterosexuals.
       The sodomy law, which has been on the books for more than a century, 
was challenged after John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner were arrested on 
Sept. 17, 1998 and charged with engaging in homosexual conduct.
       Harris County sheriff's deputies had entered Lawrence's apartment 
after receiving a false report of an armed intruder inside but found the men 
having sex.
       Under the sodomy law, homosexual oral and anal sex is a Class C 
misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $500.
       Lawrence and Garner pleaded no contest in a justice of the peace court 
and later in a Harris County Criminal Court-at-Law so they could start the 
legal challenge.
       Prosecutor Bill Delmore said he was pleased with the ruling.
       Ruth E. Harlow, legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and 
Education Fund, who argued the case on behalf of the two men, said they would 
appeal.
       "The court's ruling failed to enforce the constitution's promise of 
equality,'' she said.
       She said the ruling also allows the government to overstep its bounds 
by "bashing down the bedroom door'' to criminalize consensual sex between 
same-sex partners.
       "It guts the right to privacy,'' she said.
       Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Kansas are the only states that outlaw 
sodomy between same-sex partners.  Texas has had a sodomy law since 1860 but 
decriminalized it for opposite-sex partners in 1974.
       Twelve other states prohibit sodomy between same- and opposite-sex 
partners.  Harlow said similar laws in Georgia, Tennessee and Montana have 
recently been thrown out.