Utah Senate Committee Kills Second Parent Adoption Bill, Indiana Republican-Controlled House Judiciary Committee Advances Measure To Amend Constitution Banning Same Sex Marriage, Iowa Governor Branstad Believes In Treating Everyone With “Fairness And Dignity” Expect Homosexuals, British Health Professions Council Hears Of Christian Podiatrist Who Refused To Treat Patients He Believed Gay and Walked Out Of Child Protection Training Session Because Trainer Smiled At Him With “Eyes Twinkling”

The Salt Lake Tribune reports that Senate Bill 62, which would have allowed second-parent adoptions for unmarried couples, including gay and lesbian pairs, died in a Senate committee Monday morning, by a vote of 5-1, the Senate Health and Human Services Committed table SB62, designed to allow a legal parent of a child to designate a second adoptive co-parent. Currently, Utah law prohibits anyone living in an unmarried, cohabiting relationship from adopting or fostering children. Married couples and single individuals can adopt. According to an analysis of U.S. Census data by the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, there are 2,900 children currently being raised by same sex couples in Utah. Members of the Senate committee expressed concerns about the stability of unmarried relationships and the preservation of current policy that promoted placing children with a married mother and father. Senator Pat Jones (Democrat-Salt Lake City) said “It’s obvious to anyone that can breathe that there are loving couples on both sides of this issue, cohabiting couples and married couples. My personal belief is marriage is one man, one woman. I also believe that children are better [off] with married couples.” Jones added that she had received more phone calls and e-mails from residents of her district against the bill than in favour.

Sad news from Indiana, the Indianapolis Star reporting that the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee voted 8-4 to approve a measure to amend the state constitution to ban same sex marriage, the bill now headed to the House for amendments and consideration. Previous efforts to add a ban on same sex marriage to the constitution have failed repeatedly, but this year, with Republicans holding a majority in both houses, that could change. Even if the measure passes this year, it would still have to be approved by another, separately elected legislature and then in a referendum by voters, before being placed into the state’s founding document. Micah Clark, of the anti-gay American Family Association, asked legislators to approve the ban to allow voters the final say, but did so in a predictably awkward, bizarre way. “Two percent of the population does not have the right to define marriage for the rest of the population,” he said. He then referenced the Super Bowl in his testimony about why marriage should be limited to heterosexual couples. “If any two teams could place it would lose the significance. It wouldn’t be so super. By the same token if we change the definition of marriage it loses its unique significance. If any two people can marry, it doesn’t mean much.”

Iowa Governor Terry Branstad, in an interview with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register conducted on January 27th was asked to set aside the question of the action took by the state Supreme Court in striking down the Iowa same sex marriage ban, and talk about his personal philosophy about rights for gay people in Iowa and where he would like to see that issue go. He answers “Well, I think the court made a mistake.” Pressed to offer his personal view, he says “Well, I want to treat everybody with fairness and equity, but I don't think that includes meaning that people of the same sex should be able to be married. I don't want to discriminate or treat people in an unfair manner, but this is something that is a new right, that never existed before and one certainly that a vast majority of Iowans don't think was appropriate to be done the way it was done. I think the people of Iowa should have an opportunity to vote on that issue.”

The BBC reports that a Christian health worker who asked a colleague to treat one of his patients because he believed the man to be homosexual, a hearing has been told. Steve Hardie, a podiatrist, has appeared before a Health Professions Council at a fitness to practice hearing. He is also accused of “rude” behaviour towards two male patients he perceived to be a gay couple. Hardie any denies misconduct. The hearing was told Hardie treated a high-risk diabetic patient who had an ulcer on his foot in May, 2005, but failed to provide him a full assessment and gave him a follow-up appointment too far in the future to be “in keeping with usual practice.” Hardie later explained his actions to his line manager, Joanna Hood, saying that the patient was an “effeminate man.” Vicky Lord, representing the council, said that “Miss Hood was aware he didn’t approve of homosexuality. He had quoted his Christian faith as a reason for his views.” Hardie is also accused of walk out of a child protection training session in June, 2006, because he believed the trainer had “made passes” at him, including smiling with “eyes twinkling.”