MESA, Ariz. (AP) – The pastor of a Mesa church has quit in protest of the Roman Catholic Church’s tougher stand against gays in the priesthood.

The Rev. Leonard Walker’s departure came before the Vatican’s formal release of a document expressly barring homosexuals and those with homosexual tendencies from entering seminaries.

“This new Vatican document says we’re not fit to serve,” said Walker, who is gay. “How could I, with any integrity, continue to serve when they take this kind of hostile and aggressive position?”

Walker said his own sexuality is not the issue. Instead, he said it is the dignity of the many gays who have worked in and continue to responsibly serve the church.

“In my 31 years as a priest, the church has always had a position against homosexuality and that kind of stuff, but it never got this assertive, this aggressive,” Walker said.

Even if the new policy focuses on screening males who apply to Catholic seminaries and not gays already serving, Walker said he couldn’t stay silent as the policy takes effect.

The Vatican document, whose contents were first revealed two weeks ago, says that “the church, while deeply respecting the people in question, cannot admit to the seminary and the sacred orders those who practice homosexuality, present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or support so-called gay culture.”

Diocesan spokesperson Mary Jo West said Walker never broached the issue in a letter to the chancery in mid-November where he said he “wanted to resign for personal reasons, to take time away from his ministry for personal discernment.”

Walker said he is officially taking a leave of absence from diocesan work, but resigning as pastor of Queen of Peace Catholic Church, which has about 1,200 families.

He said he plans to begin work at a hospice.

LITTLE ROCK (AP) – The Arkansas Department of Human Services is appealing a judge’s ruling that the state had improperly banned homosexuals from serving as foster parents.

The agency filed papers with the Arkansas Court of Appeals to appeal a ruling last year by Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox that the state ban on gay foster parents was unconstitutional.

Fox had ruled the Child Welfare Agency Review Board did not have authority from the Legislature to craft the policy, which Fox said was based on the board’s sense of public morality.

Fox also said testimony did not prove gay foster parents posed a hazard to the children.

Agency attorney Kathy L. Hall argues that Fox misapplied the law that gave the board authority to make its rules.

The ban began in March 1999, when the board ruled that children should be in traditional two-parent homes because they are more likely to thrive in that environment.

Four Arkansans sued, represented by lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union. The suit said the four were qualified parents and had been discriminated against.

The ACLU had argued that the regulation violated the equal-protection rights of gays and lesbians. In his ruling, Fox said gays and lesbians are not a protected class. But the judge said banning them did not promote the Child Welfare Agency Review Board’s mission of ensuring the health, safety and welfare of children.

Fox also said that public morality, as determined by the Legislature, is a legitimate state interest, within constitutional limits. Fox noted testimony of sociologists and psychologists that gays and lesbians can be as loving and caring foster parents as heterosexuals, and that their children can be as well-adjusted as those raised by heterosexual couples.

After the ruling, the Department of Human Services stopped asking whether potential foster parents were gay, DHS spokesperson Julie Munsell said.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs have 30 days in which to file a response to the appeal.

ATLANTA (AP) – It’s been more than a year since Georgia voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages and months since a ruling on a challenge to the measure was expected.

But the wait for that ruling continues as the case is stalled in a lower court. If the ruling comes soon, gay advocates expect it will fuel more debate on gay rights issues in January, when the legislative session begins.

“Whatever decision the judge reaches is going to draw the attention of both sides,” said Chuck Bowen, executive director of Georgia Equality.

In January, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance Russell said she would rule on a challenge to the same-sex marriage ban once the state Supreme Court decided whether to allow lawmakers who sponsored the ban to defend it in court.

When the high court declined that appeal in March, advocates had expected a decision from Russell within weeks. But months later the judge has yet to issue her ruling.

“I don’t know what the delay is,” said state Rep. Karla Drenner, Georgia government’s only openly gay politician.

Russell would not comment. A member of her staff said the judge is managing a busy court docket. She just finished presiding over the case of Michael LeJeune, an alleged drug dealer who was sentenced to life in prison last month after pleading guilty to killing and dismembering another man over a $250 drug debt.

When the judge does issue her ruling, Drenner said the timing “is a double-edged sword” because it will instantly frame the debate over any proposal that affects gays and lesbians.

Drenner helped lead opposition in the Legislature to the ban. Georgia was one of several states last year where voters passed same-sex marriage bans, and many believe homosexuality was used as a divisive wedge issue in the presidential campaign.

Opponents argued in court that the constitutional amendment was flawed because it contains more than one subject. They also claimed the summary that voters saw on the ballot was misleading.

While the judge’s ruling could come soon, it won’t signal an end to the fight over same-sex marriage, said Jack Senterfitt, who challenged the amendment on behalf of the gay rights organization Lambda Legal.

“It’s fairly clear that however she rules, it will wind up in the Georgia Supreme Court,” he said.

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) – The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that a Bloomington woman can sue for parental rights to a child her former lesbian partner conceived through artificial insemination.

The court’s 4-1 ruling sends Dawn King’s lawsuit back to a Monroe County judge, who ruled in March 2004 that King had no legal standing with the child because she was not the girl’s biological parent.

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s ruling in November 2004 and ordered a trial, finding that King, 36, was a “legal parent” of the child. Her former partner, Stephanie Benham, appealed that ruling.

In the most recent decision, the Supreme Court also ordered the case to trial, although it cited different legal precedent than the appellate ruling as the basis for its decision.

“Whether any element of King’s claims will be legally sustainable remains an open question for resolution after a hearing on the merits,” wrote Chief Justice Randall Shepard.

Attorney Sean C. Lemieux, who represented King, said he was pleased by the ruling. Lemieux said Indiana is one of several states where lawmakers have left parental, custody and child support issues raised by births from artificial insemination to the courts.

“The trial court said there was no legal entitlement, and the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court have both said, ‘There may well be a legal entitlement. You’ll have to have a trial to figure that out,’” Lemieux said.

Messages left for Benham’s attorneys were not returned.

King and Benham, who shared a home, lives and finances for nine years, agreed that Benham would conceive a child through artificial insemination and they would raise the child together, court documents showed. Benham was impregnated with sperm donated by King’s brother, and King was present and participated in the child’s birth.

After the pair split in January 2002, King paid child support and had regular visits with the child until July 2003, when Benham stopped accepting the support and denied King visitation.

King sued, asking a Monroe County judge to determine custody, visitation and support issues.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Brent Dickson said the Supreme Court’s majority opinion “may open a veritable Pandora’s Box of troublesome questions” about parental rights.

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) – An organization representing gay and lesbian alumni of the Naval Academy has asked the alumni association to adopt an anti-discrimination policy for its membership.

But Skid Heyworth, a spokesperson for the U.S. Naval Academy Alumni Association, said the organization does not have a discriminatory membership policy.

“We are an inclusive organization. We have been an inclusive organization ever since the alumni association was founded,” he said.

Jeff Petrie, a 1989 graduate and president of USNA Out, an organization of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender graduates, said in a news release that he would attend an association board meeting in Annapolis to ask the board to adopt a formal policy against discrimination. The board has twice refused to establish USNA Out as a chapter.

Heyworth said retired Adm. Carlisle A.H. Trost, chair of the board, notified Petrie in June, after talking with other board members, that the association is open to all former midshipmen.

“He told Mr. Petrie that adding a clause into our bylaws would be unnecessary and would not better define who we are and what we stand for,” Heyworth said.

He said he does not expect that Petrie’s request that the board adopt an anti-discrimination policy will be on the board agenda for the meeting.

Petrie said he will press the issues despite arguments that the association does not discriminate.

“I’m sure it’s true that even to the casual observer, you would say that an anti-discrimination policy is necessary in an alumni association of a college that teaches discrimination,” he said. “The Naval Academy Alumni Association knows it [discrimination] is there. They are stonewalling us.”

He added, “A decision on an anti-discrimination policy will eventually have to take place. Whatever reason they find to delay making such a decision, eventually a change will have to be made.”