Young Gay Manitoba Men Practice Unsafe Sex At Alarming Rates, Arrests Made In Murder Of D.C. Principal, New York Court Of Appeals Ruling Expands Definition Of Gay Parental Rights, Second Challenge Likely To Defense Of Marriage Act, Washington Court Of Appeals Agrees To Hear Gay Marriage Ballot Initiative Argument

HIV/AIDS workers in Winnipeg, Manitoba are concerned that the province’s reported new infection rates are rising because gay men aged 19-25 are having unprotected sex, contending that they are not at risk for contracting the virus. John Major, the president of Gios Cares, an advocacy group, said that “a lot of the kids or younger adults now think they’re invincible and that they cannot get it. And if they do, there’s meds out there that will help them live forever.” Perhaps most troubling is the trend among gay male sex workers who display apathy about safer sex practices, and avoid wearing condoms.

In Washington, D.C. Monday, two teenage boys were each charged with murder, robbery, and a handgun violation in connection to the killing of popular D.C. principal Brian Betts. Police say a third teenage boy is in custody and is expected to be charged in the killing. The two charged – Sharif Tau Lancaster and Alante Saunders, according to police, had recently escaped from the custody of a D.C. Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services home, although it is not clear they were considered escapees at the time of the murder. 42 year old Brian Betts was found April 15th by colleagues after failing to show up for work. The case, a mystery initially, was solved because the mother of one of the suspects, Artura Otey Williams, 46 years old, used Betts stolen credit cards to make a number of purchases. Betts met the suspects on a national phone sex chat line hours before he was killed, according to the authorities, no sign of forced entry into Betts’ home. However, it remains unclear why he was subsequently shot. Police say the investigation is still ongoing.

Two rulings Tuesday by the New York State Court of Appeals expand the rights of gay parents in the state, the court declaring that the non-biological parents in same sex relationship hold the same rights to those of biological parents. In the first case, the Court of Appeals , by a 4-3 margin, found that a woman is entitled to seek child support from a former partner not the biological mother of the child raised together prior to the couple separating. In the second case, and perhaps the more profound of the two, the Court, by 7-0 margin, ruled that a woman can seek visitation rights from her former partner because before the law she is a legal parent, even though she is not the child’s biological mother. The two women had entered into a civil union in Vermont, but reside in New York State. Although same sex marriage is still not legal in the state, the law recognizes same sex marriages performed in other states.

Thursday, a lawsuit challenging the constitutional validity of the federal law that defines marriage as that only existing between a man and woman – the American Defense of Marriage Act – will be heard in a Massachusetts court, a federal judge in Boston hearing arguments on the government’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, as well as the same sex couple’s request to rule in the favour without a trail. The Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders are suing on behalf of seven same sex couples and three widowers who were married in Massachusetts when the state became the first in the nation to legalize gay marriage in 2004. Under the Defense of Marriage Act, however, none of the couples have access to benefits afforded to married heterosexual couples at the federal level.

In Washington, D.C. the Court of Appeals has agreed to hear arguments Tuesday, Bishop Harry Jackson having sued after the Board of Education and Ethics refused his request to approve a ballot initiative to define marriage as that only existing between a man and woman, Jackson responding the to a measure that legalized gay marriage in Washington in March. The Superior Court in January had ruled that allowing the initiative would violate the city’s Human Rights Act which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. Today’s hearing will be before a full court.