Same-Sex Marriage Update [Archive] - Page 4

MsTinkerbelly

06-30-2011, 08:00 AM

The difference between life and death in the Rhode Island civil union bill
By Adam Bink

The Rhode Island legislature just passed legislation legalizing civil unions for same-sex couples.

This was a difficult road. The choice was made to push a civil unions bill through in Rhode Island rather than marriage — a choice that may, to Rhode Islanders, be the best choice based on what they want and need at the moment.

What becomes a problem is language like this in the bill:

15-3.1-5. Conscience and religious organizations protected. – (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no religious or denominational organization, no organization operated for charitable or educational purpose which is supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization, and no individual employed by any of the foregoing organizations, while acting in the scope of that employment, shall be required:

(1) To provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, certification, or celebration of any civil union; or

(2) To solemnize or certify any civil union; or

(3) To treat as valid any civil union; if such providing, solemnizing, certifying, or treating as valid would cause such organizations or individuals to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.

(b) No organization or individual as described in subsection (a) above who fails or refuses to provide, solemnize, certify, or treat as valid, as described in subdivision (a)(1), (a)(2) or (a)(3) above, persons in a civil union, shall be subject to a fine, penalty, or other cause of action for such failure or refusal.

Perhaps some legislators looked at the careful negotiation and insertion of religious exemption language in New York State and demanded the same deal. The difference is that pastors deciding who to marry, and synagogues deciding whether to rent out their reception hall for a wedding, is not the same as this.

I’ll give you an example: if I were back home in suburban Buffalo and my partner had a medical emergency and I had to get him to a hospital, Kenmore Mercy hospital would be the closest at just over 3 miles away. I could drive there in my sleep. Unfortunately for me, Kenmore Mercy is a Catholic hospital. If he were treated at Kenmore Mercy, then despite all my civil union paperwork, despite my partner’s wishes for me to make important medical decisions on his behalf, or be at the doctors’ side to tell them important information like what he’s allergic to or that he only has one functional kidney, they can treat me as a complete stranger and it’s legal. They could do to me the same as what happened to Daniel Weiss in New Jersey, one of the plaintiffs in the new lawsuit being filed:

Daniel Weiss, for instance, had to show doctors his civil union ring to show that he could make medical decisions for his long-time partner, John Grant, after Grant was struck by a car and his skull shattered in Manhattan. Despite explaining it to attending doctors, the hospital called Grant’s sister up from Delaware – four hours away – to make medical decisions for him.

“At the moment that we needed civil unions the most to provide equality, it failed for us miserably,” said Weiss. “To this day, the records at Bellevue Hospital do not recognize that I am the next of kin.”

Let’s say I didn’t want to go to a Catholic hospital because of those very concerns. Then the next closest hospital would either be Millard Fillmore-Gates Circle or Millard Fillmore Suburban, both about 6 miles away. That’s twice the distance, more stoplights, more chance for an accident or hitting traffic.

That’s the difference between life and death. And this bill’s language could mean that.

Will Gov. Chafee veto it?

iamkeri1

06-30-2011, 05:21 PM

Yikes Tink!
Dang! what a quandry! Under the heading of "something is better than nothing", I would not want this bill vetoed, but (again) dang! it needs a little tweaking.
Smooches,
Keri

Jess

06-30-2011, 09:54 PM

As I see it, Civil Unions are never going to carry the same legal weight as "marriage". I used to think they would be fine as long as we got the same rights. However, they will never be the same.

I don't have a problem with religious institutions ( churches, synagogues, mosques) refusing to "cater to" LGBT couples regarding marriage or even individuals seeking religious guidance. I do have issue with an institution that charges for their services and are open to the "public" not adhering to what a state views as a legal marriage.

On the other hand, I also do support the rights of a privately owned business to "refuse service" as they deem fit. I think the harder question is should "hospitals" etc be run by a church? Once a church becomes a "for profit" institution, in my opinion, they become ethically responsible to the larger community they serve and the laws that govern that community.

I am really fine with a church saying to me ( or another LGBT couple): " No, we will not hold your service here because we do not agree with your choices", because I believe MOST LGBT folks would not be attending a church who would not honor them. At least, I can safely say I would not be. As long as the LAW allows us to marry, we can get married ANYWHERE. Churches( that are LGBT friendly) backyard, park, alley beside the justice of the peace, so who really needs to push the issue of being married IN a church?

We seek LEGAL rights, not religious...so by all means, protect your churches! If a hospital denies legal rights however, that hospital needs to become privatized and not open to the general public.

Thanks for the continuing updates! Much appreciated!

MsTinkerbelly

07-01-2011, 10:10 AM

Yikes Tink!
Dang! what a quandry! Under the heading of "something is better than nothing", I would not want this bill vetoed, but (again) dang! it needs a little tweaking.
Smooches,
Keri

I personally think this one needs to be vetoed.

Sometimes we have to say we are no going to take second best, and this looks like one of them.

Jess

07-06-2011, 05:28 PM

This is really very heart warming and shows that some religious groups are on a more open minded path.

United Church of Christ Passes Two More LGBT Affirming Resolutions

http://glaadblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/UCC-logo2-226x300.gif

Yesterday was a good day for the United Church of Christ. Delegates of General Synod 28, the UCC’s national deliberative body, passed two resolutions Tuesday: one calling for international human rights for all people and rejecting systematic discrimination against LGBT people, and another affirming the support for all families wishing to adopt and raise children.

“All God’s children who are LGBT deserve freedom from fear of torture, freedom from fear of sexual assault and execution, access to education and competent health care, and guarantees of non-discrimination in their professional and family lives,” said the Rev. Emily Heath, a member of the Vermont Conference and the resolution review committee.
The United Church of Christ, a mainline Protestant denomination, has historically been one of the most LGBT affirming religious groups in the United States, and ordained the Rev. William R. Johnson, an openly gay minister, in 1972. In 1985, the General Synod passed a resolution calling on all UCC congregations to “declare themselves open and affirming,” and in 2005, the UCC became the first mainline Christian denomination to officially support marriages for all couples. The General Synod meets every two years to vocalize the UCC’s stance on particular issues to the wider church body. Because the UCC is a covenantal polity, individual congregations can differ from the General Synod on non-constitutional matters.

In order for universal human rights standards to be truly universal, every person, whatever their sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, is entitled to the full enjoyment of all human rights;
The use of criminal law, or proposals to use criminal law, against members of sexual minorities creates a legal and social environment that is discriminatory and violates the human rights endorsed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
- Supporting International Human Rights Related to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, 28th General Synod

Article taken from: http://glaadblog.org/2011/07/06/united-church-of-christ-passes-two-more-lgbt-affirming-resolutions/

iamkeri1

07-07-2011, 05:29 PM

Published on Saturday, June 25, 2011 by FlaglerLive.com (http://flaglerlive.com/24090/pt-florida-gay-marriage)When Florida, Like New York State, Joins the Ranks of the Civilized on Gay Marriage

by Pierre Tristam (http://www.commondreams.org/pierre-tristam)

In the early morning of June 28, 1969—just after 3 a.m.—a posse of plainclothes cops raided the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar at 53 Christopher Street in Manhattan’s Village. The cops’ pretext: the bar was selling liquor illegally. That was bogus. It was just another night of gay harassment. There were 200 people in the bar. They were evicted. On the street, they grew to 400. They’d had enough. They threw bricks, bottles and garbage at the cops. They rioted again the next night. Cops charged the rioters several times, beat and clubbed them as if Manhattan’s Sheridan Square area had turned into a Bull Connor corner of Alabama. The Stonewall Inn’s shattered windows were boarded up and covered in graffiti: “Support gay power.” “Legalize gay bars.”
The gay movement was born. http://www.commondreams.org/sites/commondreams.org/files/imce-images/support-love_0.jpgIt's not complicated. (Brocco Lee)
At 10:30 p.m. Friday, the Republican-majority New York Senate voted 33 to 29 to legalize gay marriage, making New York the largest state by far to ratify the most important and belated civil right since the Voting Rights Act of 1965. New York joins Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and the District of Columbia in that minority of civilized states where gays and lesbians are no longer treated as second-class citizens, and where the religious establishment is no longer allowed, hideously and unconstitutionally, to dictate doctrine and discrimination.
There’ll be a time in the future when people will look back at the barbed-wired bans on gay marriage in place today and wonder how this nation, so big on liberty and rights, could have suffered idiotic bigotry on such a scale for so long. Then again, this same nation was founded as much on the pretensions of the Declaration of Independence as it was on the repression of slaves, the genocide of Indians and the marginalization, until 1920, of women. American enlightenment has at times had the DNA of carob molasses.
So the question isn’t when will Florida and the rest of the union join the ranks of the civilized regarding gay marriage. That’s bound to happen. The question is how unnecessarily late Florida will choose to do so.
In 2004, 14.3 million people in 11 states, with combined majorities of 67 percent, voted in constitutional bans of one sort or another against gay marriage. Florida already had a ban in place in statute. Not content with that much explicit discrimination on the books, voters enshrined their intolerance in the constitution when 62 percent approved Amendment 2 in 2008, putting this medieval verbiage in a 21st century constitution: “Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”
Where can such baseless assertions as marriage being the “legal union of only one man and one woman” have so much as a throb of credibility other than in the harebrained fictions of scriptures and other codes of cults that have, or should have, absolutely no bearing on the civil laws of civil society? Since when do scriptures dictate to constitutional principles? And how long will the U.S. Supreme Court allow these unconstitutional state amendments to fly in the face of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution? Civil unions aren’t the answer. That’s the separate-but-equal standard in play these days that gives gay-marriage opponents cover the same way Plessy v. Ferguson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson) gave institutional racism a half century’s boost with its separate-but-equal slam on blacks. Astoundingly, Barack Obama still clings to the gay version of Plessy v. Ferguson, though he’s retreated from enforcing the crock of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (http://flaglerlive.com/18351/rc-defense-of-marriage-repeal) and abolished the folly of the military’s don’t-ask-don’t-tell (http://flaglerlive.com/1237/dont-ask-dont-tell).
New York State is celebrating. We should celebrate along. There is nothing in gay marriage that offends anymore than straight marriage does, marriage itself (http://flaglerlive.com/15162/lw-101202-rosa-parks#w4)—not the sexual nature of its participants—having its issues, often because of the religious shackles imposed on it: if there is a problem with marriage, let’s start with, for example, some churches’ and mosques’ and synagogues’ revolting impositions on women to submit to their husbands, to endure their violence, to defer to their judgments, to persist in the superstitious beliefs in patriarchy, which have as much validity as inherited or divine right.
But let’s also remember that in gay matters, Florida remains closer to Iran than to New York State. Florida pioneered the anti-gay movement with the likes of Anita Bryant and her war on gay adoption, a war finally ended only when Charlie Crist put an end to the charade (http://flaglerlive.com/10878/charlie-crist-gay-issues) last year. As the 2008 vote shows, Floridians revel in putting down en entire class of people behind the cloak of religious authority and its sickly, opportunistic twin: tradition. If it’s traditional to discriminate, to hurt, to hate (http://flaglerlive.com/12398/lw-101007-degeneres-bullying#1a), oppress, and in Florida it still is, it’s also just as traditional, in the American sense anyway, to revolt. New York State just did. Florida will, too, one day, though like a brigand clinging to his loot, Florida won’t do it willingly: the Supreme Court will drag it out of its backwardness, if it can still read the 14th Amendment.

Jess

07-07-2011, 06:56 PM

Christie recently pointed out a case of discrimination regarding a gentleman who had submitted his partners obituary to a newspaper. The paper included everything he submitted EXCEPT HIS relationship to the deceased. For a fee, however, they would submit a "correction" and mention him in the obituary.

In light of that, THIS is really great news:

Dallas Morning News' Wedding Announcements Become Fully Inclusive

http://glaadblog.org/2011/07/06/dallas-morning-news-wedding-announcement-policy-becomes-fully-inclusive/

MsTinkerbelly

07-11-2011, 07:57 AM

Senate Judiciary Committee to hold hearing on DOMA repeal
By Adam Bink

Big news out yesterday:

***ADVISORY***

Leahy Announces Plan To Hold First-Ever Congressional Hearing On Repealing Defense Of Marriage Act

WASHINGTON (Thursday, July 7, 2011) – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) Thursday announced that, in the coming weeks, the Committee will hold the first congressional hearing on proposals to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Earlier this year, Leahy joined with Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and others to introduce the Respect for Marriage Act, a bill that would repeal DOMA and restore the rights of all lawfully married couples, including same-sex couples, to receive the benefits of marriage under federal law.

The hearing will be entitled “S.598, The Respect for Marriage Act: Assessing the Impact of DOMA on American Families,” and is expected to be held in the coming weeks. The hearing will be webcast live online. Further details will be announced at a later date.

We are in close communication with the Senators’ offices as the final date is being settled upon, and we’ll be there with bells on!

We’re also proud that we’ve worked to pick up the last few votes to pass the Respect for Marriage Act in the committee. If there’s a markup, we’ll have all 10.

UofMfan

07-11-2011, 11:05 AM

SbBtNVFjeDA

MsTinkerbelly

07-20-2011, 12:34 PM

DOMA repeal: Live at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing
Updates will scroll from the bottom

By Adam Bink

9:45 AM EST: Good morning from the hearing room. Chairman Leahy opens the hearing by making remarks about New York and Vermont moving forward on marriage; how he and his wife might feel if their marriage were not acknowledged by the federal government; and how we will hear today from Reps. Nadler, John Lewis, and Steve King.

9:54 AM: Leahy reiterates that the Respect for Marriage Act will not force any state to marry any same-sex couple or change laws.

Update: A live webcast can be found here.

9:56 AM: Sen. Feinstein, the lead sponsor and our partner in this fight to repeal DOMA, is now speaking. She starts by thanking Chairman Leahy for his leadership. She notes how family law is typically the domain of the states, and how this law intervenes unnecessarily. She thanks the 16 Californians who submitted statements for the record. She notes there are between 50,000 and 80,000 married same-sex couples in the nation, 18,000 of which are in California.

9:58: Rep. John Lewis, the civil rights legend, starts by noting that in the year 2011, that it is still necessary to hold hearings and debate whether human beings should be able to marry the one they love. He notes in his home state of Alabama, there were colored water fountains and white water fountains, among other establishments with such distinctions. He said when Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, it was a stain on our democracy. Rep. Lewis notes that marriage is a basic human right, and no government, federal or state, should be able to tell people they cannot marry. Congress, he says, should not only repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, but should work to ensure equality across the country. Justice delayed is justice denied, and passing this bill is the simple right thing to do. “These are our brothers and sisters, we cannot turn our back on them; we must join hands and work to create a more perfect union.”

10:05: Rep. Steve King of Iowa: Traditional marriage is a cornerstone of our society, S.598 (the Respect for Marriage Act) would demean this institution. Says that the arguments conveyed by same-sex marriage advocates could be used to promote marriage between family members. Notes that Iowans voted out the three Iowa Supreme Court justices up for retention last November. Notes 31/31 votes at the ballot level. Complains that the Obama Administration believes DOMA is unconstitutional despite no court ruling so (which is actually false).

10:10: Rep. Nadler: Reviews what the Respect for Marriage Act would do, and notes how it would actually protect states’ rights and restore equal respect for marriages in every state. It would continue to allow every religion to choose whether or not to permit same-sex marriage.

10:17: Sen. Grassley, the ranking member: Notes that several members of this body on the pro-equality side voted for DOMA in 1996. They did not do so, he asserts, to harm gay and lesbian people, but to support “traditional marriage.” Argues that states that make changes in marriage laws should not “impose” those changes on other states (although the Respect for Marriage Act would not do such a thing). Says there was a witness he would have called, but she declined, citing intimidation because of her support of DOMA. Grassley chides about respect and the First Amendment (as if this doesn’t happen on both sides).

10:24: Witnesses who are not members of Congress will start speaking. Ron Wallen from Indio, CA is up. Ron begins by noting how his husband, Tom, was diagnosed with leukemia. He passed away on March 8. They were married in California in 2008. He notes how Social Security benefits were to be $1,850, $300 for a pension, and his own benefit of $900 were part of their income. Notes how Social Security survivor’s benefit allows people like Ron to stay in their home; however, he now has to worry about paying his mortgage because their combined income dropped dramatically and was not supplemented by survivor’s benefits. Asks simply to be treated fairly.

10:31: Tom Minnery from Focus on the Family is up. Argues that he represents the people who voted for “traditional marriage.” Goes on to complain about marriage being destroyed.

Ed. note: On the Republican side, Sens. Grassley and Hatch are present. On the Democratic side, Chairman Leahy and Sens. Feinstein, Franken, Schumer, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Coons and Blumenthal are present.

10:36: Andrew Sorbo from Connecticut is up. Spent 35 years as a teacher/principal in the public and Catholic schools. Lost his husband of nearly 30 years recently, a professor of medicine at Yale. Joined in a civil union in Vermont. His husband was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. They were married in 2009 in Connecticut, but Colin (his spouse) died for months later. Was forced to pay additional health insurance expenses, almost one-third of his entire pension, as a consequence of DOMA. Unable to inherit Social Security benefits.

10:42: Susan Murray from Vermont is up. Susan was a co-counsel in Baker v. Vermont which helped established civil unions. She and her wife cannot file joint tax returns and must pay far more in taxes because of DOMA. Her wife has to pay tax on the value of her health insurance coverage for Susan, which amounts to about $6,200 per year down the drain.

10:48: Chairman Leahy asks Murray why marriage was so much more important to her than civil unions. Murray responds that everyone knows what marriage is, but civil unions are confusing to people. Leahy asks if DOMA protects families or if it’s the other way around. Murray notes a same-sex couple who adopted three kids in Albany, including one who is HIV+ because his mother was an intravenous drug user. DOMA undermines their ability to care for these children: they can’t file joint tax returns, and so they spend money they cannot spend on tutors or college for the children. Chairman Leahy asks Minnery if children benefit when their parents have diminished incomes under DOMA, and asks, aren’t they put at a disadvantage. Minnery argues that those children are better off with no home, then corrects himself (wow). Minnery keeps dancing around the question. Leahy repeats the question. Minnery acknowledges, yes, children are made worse off.

10:57: Sen. Grassley notes the Respect for Marriage Act would repeal Section 3 and Section 2. Asks Minnery if Section 2 has anything to do with benefits. Minnery notes that one’s financial situation remained the same before Section 2 and would remain the same afterwards. Notes Section 2 has to do only with states. Warns that if DOMA were to be repealed, then “presumably” same-sex marriages would have to be recognized in other states that have not enacted such laws (this is actually false). Repeats assertion that social science research “shows” kids are better off in households of opposite-sex parents (this is also false, and refuted by various professional medical associations).

11:03. Sen. Feinstein is given the gavel temporarily while Chairman Leahy steps out. Feinstein notes that the courts have ruled that marriage laws belong to the states. Reiterates that nothing in this bill would obligate any state or religion to recognize a same-sex marriage. Notes that same-sex couples are subject to thousands of dollars of additional taxes because of DOMA, in the area of gift tax, estate tax, divorce, filing taxes jointly. Notes that if a woman gives her legally married wife a piece of jewelry or electronic item, they have to pay gift taxes, whereas opposite-sex couples do not have to do so as married couples recognized by the government. Notes that veterans’ benefits are affected under DOMA, including cemetery burial for spouses of gay servicemembers.

Ed. note: Sen. Durbin just arrived.

11:10: Sen. Whitehouse notes the stories of several Rhode Island couples who are ineligible for Social Security benefits, filing taxes jointly, and other rights that heterosexual married couples have. Thanks Sen. Feinstein for her leadership.

Ed. note: Chairman Leahy is back.

11:15: Sen. Franken says he believes passage of the Respect for Marriage Act would be a historical moment akin to passage of the 19th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. Notes Minnery cited an HHS report in his testimony, a report that Franken got ahold of and read. Asks Minnery whether a same-sex couple that has married and adopted kids would fall under the definition of a “nuclear family.” Minnery says no, a nuclear family means husband and wife. Franken says, “it doesn’t.” He begins to read a quote from the study that backs up his assertion, and asks how we can trust the rest of Minnery’s testimony if he screwed that up. Ouch.

He asks Murray a quick question and finishes.

11:21: Sen. Coons, who introduced the Respect for Marriage Act alongside Sen. Feinstein on March 16th, argue that it isn’t the business of the federal government to reach into American homes and decide who is married and who is not. This is a strong argument with regard to states’ rights. Notes that his own marriage did not “magically dissolve or disappear” because New York enacted marriage recognition for same-sex couples. As a religious person, does not believe his own faith empowers him to interpret the will of God. Asks an extremely smart question of the witnesses how DOMA has harmed them other than with respect to benefits. Sorbo notes that as a teacher for 35 years, he led the Pledge of Allegiance ending with “and liberty and justice for all,” knowing it was false. Also had to use the word “I” when asked if he was going on vacation, instead of “we,” knowing that would lead to questions on who the “we” was. Argues DOMA is an insult to dignity and equality. Criticizes supporters of DOMA as descendants of sexists, racists, and other people who sought to deny equality.

11:28: Sen. Blumenthal thanks the witnesses for giving a face and a voice to the “practical consequences” of DOMA. Nations, he says, are “judged by their capacity for growth,” and today’s hearing marks a moment of growth. Asks Sorbo to expand on how he was not able to access his IRA account after Colin died. Sorbo responds that the IRA was in Colin’s name, and they tried to transfer it over to his name, they spent hours and hours on the phone. He was eventually forced to withdraw at inopportune circumstances. If he were a woman, he could have deferred withdrawal for seven extra years — enough time to build up the account before withdrawal.

11:36: Sen. Durbin notes his support for the Defense of Marriage Act and his original co-sponsorship of the Respect for Marriage Act, quoting Abraham Lincoln, “I’d rather be right some of the time than wrong all of the time.” Reiterates that the Respect for Marriage Act does not mandate any religion to change its beliefs or any states to change its laws.

Ed. note: Sen. Feinstein notes a vote coming up at noon, explaining the need for her and others to leave, and adjourns the second panel, moving on to the third. Sen. Coons will lead the third and final panel. Sen. Schumer also returns.

11:42: Joe Solmonese of HRC notes, for the first time this hearing, the effects of DOMA on bi-national couples, like Courage members Stylianos Manolakakis and Robert Koehl of NYC, who spoke at yesterday’s press conference.

11:47: Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defense Fund pontificates about the definition of marriage and why government has an “interest” in marriage. Cites the Loving case, interestingly, and notes the Court’s assertion that marriage is vital to survival of the human race (not clear on why this is relevant to his argument).
11:52: Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center is up. His full testimony can be found here. The highlight which generated incredulous laughter is his assertion that the Respect for Marriage Act would enable polyagmous relationships, which he asserts to be “one of the current projects of the left.” Um.

One other note is that he argues the Respect for Marriage Act would force heterosexual taxpayers to “subsidize” the marriages of same-sex couples. It’s weird, because no one ever asks what the bottom line would look like if heterosexual couples were allowed to do something.

11:58: Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry notes the arc of history with respect to where things were in 1996 and where they are today. Notes the support of Rep. Bob Barr and President Clinton. Notes that thousands of couples are preparing to marry in New York, but, at the same time, will soon feel the sting of discrimination from the federal government.

12:05: Sen. Klobuchar, who publicly is supportive of the Respect for Marriage Act but refuses to co-sponsor, asks how the passage of time has affected the debate on same-sex marriage. Solmonese notes the testimony of the earlier panel.

12:12: Sen. Coons asks Joe about how DOMA has secondary negative effects on LGBT youth and culture. Joe notes societal disparity in places like hospital emergency rooms in most places across the country.

12:16: Finally, Sen. Schumer reads a statement and then adjourns the hearing. Thanks to everyone for reading and commenting. This thread will no longer update.

Ed. note: Courage Campaign’s statement on the hearing can be found below.

STATEMENT OF COURAGE CAMPAIGN CHAIR RICK JACOBS ON HISTORIC SENATE HEARING TO REPEAL DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT (DOMA)
Courage Campaign Leads the Grassroots Effort

Washington, D.C. – The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law that has been blatantly discriminating against same-sex married couples for nearly 16 years was the focus of a first-ever Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on repealing the law today.

On Tuesday, Sen. Feinstein (D-California) and Rick Jacobs, chair and founder of the Courage Campaign, hosted a news conference to discuss ongoing efforts to repeal the law. They were joined by three same-sex couples who shared their stories of hardship under DOMA.

“These Republican senators, and any other senator who has not yet signed up to co-sponsor or support our bill to repeal DOMA have heard, and will continue to hear, thousands and thousands of stories of hardship from same-sex married couples from around the country,” said Jacobs. “We are tired of second-class, and in some cases, third-class citizenship in our own country. We pay taxes, we serve our communities and we work hard. We are entitled to the same rights, freedoms and benefits as other Americans. No more, no less.”

Gay couples in D.C., New York, and elsewhere now have the right to legally marry. However, same-sex married couples from every state in the U.S. are barred from 1,100 federal rights and privileges afforded to straight married couples. “The Respect for Marriage Act,” introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) on March 16 of this year, is a bill that would restore their rights and repeal DOMA. The Courage Campaign, a grassroots organizing network, launched a grassroots effort to support the Respect for Marriage Act.

Since March, Courage Campaign members have used direct contact, petitions and social media to urge four senators to co-sponsor the Respect for Marriage Act. The Courage Campaign targeted Sens. Klobuchar, Kohl, Udall of New Mexico, and Bingaman and asked them to co-sponsor the Respect for Marriage Act, all with success. Sen. Feinstein also held a conference call with Courage Campaign’s DOMA field captains (of which there are 75 in 43 states) earlier this year to thank them for their hard work and discuss next steps in the campaign.

Earlier this month, over 25,000 Courage members petitioned President Obama to formally endorse the Respect for Marriage Act. Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced the White House’s unprecedented endorsement of the bill, in a rare move usually reserved only for legislation that has passed one house of Congress. This move underscores the urgency with which DOMA must be repealed.

# # #

Courage Campaign is a multi-issue online organizing network that empowers more than 700,000 grassroots and netroots supporters to work for progressive change and full equality in California and across the country. Through a one-of-a-kind online tool called Testimony: Take A Stand, the Courage Campaign is chronicling the sights, sounds and stories of LGBT families and all who wage a daily struggle against discrimination across America. For more information about Testimony, please visit, http://www.couragecampaign.org/Testimony.

Soon

07-20-2011, 01:23 PM

ZyAueltLsa4&feature=player_embedded

MsTinkerbelly

07-29-2011, 07:52 AM

Prop 8: CA Supreme Court announces key hearing date
By Adam Bink

The California Supreme Court has set for Tuesday, September 6th, at 10 AM PST, which is the first day of the Court’s fall session. The Court will hear arguments with regard to whether proponents of ballot initiatives have standing to defend their initiatives when challenged in court and the state’s public officials refuse to defend such initiatives. The good folks at National Center for Lesbian Rights tell me to expect a ruling on that issue in December or January. Of course, with this expedited hearing schedule, that could change.

In a previous announcement, the US District Court for the Northern District of California has set August 29th at 9 AM PST as the date to hear the motion to release video recordings from the first phase of the trial.

MsTinkerbelly

07-29-2011, 02:23 PM

Soon

08-05-2011, 03:39 PM

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-m3EL4qhMnlU/Tju-5F6zYUI/AAAAAAABIKo/cWMwC6yX4IA/s400/dear-bigots-10884-1312448544-2.jpg

Jess

08-05-2011, 05:31 PM

YAY Kenneth Cole!!!

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/deborahljacobs/files/2011/08/09Ck46s0fKfu7_61.jpg

citybutch

08-05-2011, 06:02 PM

I JUST posted this in another thread!! LOL...

YAY Kenneth Cole!!!

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/deborahljacobs/files/2011/08/09Ck46s0fKfu7_61.jpg

msW8ing

08-07-2011, 08:52 AM

Suquamish Native American Tribe Approves Same-Sex Marriage

http://unicornbooty.com/2011/08/suquamish-native-american-tribe-approves-same-sex-marriage/

iamkeri1

08-07-2011, 10:23 AM

C00L! and totally cool photo!
Smooches,
Keri

citybutch

08-07-2011, 08:49 PM

Get it... somehow... it's on Netflix and Facebook... It should be required for all of us!

7RCIeg0aVV8

MsTinkerbelly

09-01-2011, 04:43 PM

Prop 8 trial: Plaintiffs to appear before CA Supreme Court in hearing on standing
By Adam Bink

Via press release:

American Foundation for Equal Rights
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 1, 2011

ADVISORY: Plaintiffs to Appear Before CA Supreme Court to Debate Proponents’ Standing in Prop. 8 Case

Proponents Not Harmed by Marriage Equality

DATE: Tuesday, September 6, 2011

TIME: Hearing scheduled to begin at 10:00am Pacific Time

WHERE: Supreme Court of California
Earl Warren Building
350 McAllister Street (4th Floor)
San Francisco, CA 94102-4797

**Press conference with AFER lead attorney Theodore B. Olson and Board President Chad Griffin immediately following hearing outside courthouse.**

DETAILS: On Tuesday, September 6 at 10:00am PT, plaintiffs in the Perry v. Brown case will be at the Supreme Court of California for a hearing regarding whether under state law proponents of a ballot initiative have a right to represent the state on appeal when state officials do not do so (i.e., “standing”). Plaintiffs maintain that proponents of Proposition 8 do not have standing because they cannot show specific and concrete harm. Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional in August 2010. The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) is the sole sponsor of the Perry case.

This hearing falls on the very first day of the court’s fall calendar. The question was certified to the Supreme Court of California by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit earlier this year.

Me in Blue

Once the Supreme Court hears arguments, by law it has 90 days to send it's decision to the 9th District Circut Court of appreals, who will then make it's ruling on whether or not the Proponents have standing to defend Prop 8 since the Governor and Attorney General have said they will not.

If the 9th District Court then declares the Proponents do not have standing, Prop 8 is struck from our (CA) consitution THEORECTICALLY, as then appeals and possible stays could be filed and/or granted.

Looks like a long fight still ahead, but at least we are seeing movement once again!

MsTinkerbelly

09-07-2011, 12:38 PM

Federal Appeals Court: Arizona Can't Revoke Gay Domestic Partner Benefits

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Arizona may not revoke domestic partner insurance benefits for gay employees of the state. For now, Gov. Jan Brewer can suck it.

In a unanimous opinion, the three-judge panel agreed the state is not obligated to provide health insurance for its workers or their families. "But when a state chooses to provide such benefits, it may not do so in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner that adversely affects particular groups that may be unpopular," Judge Mary Schroeder wrote for the court. She noted there is no other way for gay workers to get those benefits in Arizona, with a state constitutional amendment barring same-sex nuptials. Tuesday's ruling does not end the efforts by lawmakers and Gov. Jan Brewer to curtail the benefits. Instead, it simply requires the state to continue providing coverage until there is a full trial on whether the law is unconstitutional. "It seems apparent that the court's real motivation here is for the legalization of gay marriage," said Brewer press aide Matthew Benson. "The governor stands with the majority of Arizona who overwhelmingly in 2008 defined marriage as between one man and one woman."
Arizona began offering domestic partners benefits in 2008 at the order of then-Gov. Janet Napolitano.

MsTinkerbelly

09-23-2011, 12:59 PM

First House Republican to Support DOMA Repeal
By Domingo Martinez

Andrew Harmon of The Advocate has an article on Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) becoming the first House Republican to support repealing the “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA). Rep. Ros-Lehtinen’s history of supporting equality includes her vote against the 2006 constitutional amendment defining marriage as a man and a woman and her vote to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Now, she’s cosponsoring the Respect for Marriage Act

There is more to the story, but I couldn't link it....

Cindy:bunchflowers:

MsTinkerbelly

09-30-2011, 12:35 PM

msnbc.com staff and news service reports
updated 2 hours 47 minutes ago

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has decided that military chaplains may perform same-sex unions, whether on or off military property.

..The ruling announced Friday by the Pentagon's personnel chief follows the historic Sept. 20 repeal of a law that had prohibited gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.

"A military chaplain may participate in or officiate any private ceremony, whether on or off a military installation, provided that the ceremony is not prohibited by applicable state and local law," a memo released Friday said. "Further a chaplain is not required to participate in or officiate a private ceremony if doing so would be in variance with the tenets of his or her religion."

The Department of Defense statement, issued by Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Clifford L. Stanley, also makes clear that the Pentagon doesn't back the individual ceremonies, despite passing the ruling.

"A military chaplain’s participation does not constitute an endorsement of the ceremony by DoD," it says.

Difference in benefits?
The ban on gay people serving openly in the military, commonly known as "don't ask don't tell," was in place for 18 years before it was repealed. It allowed gays to serve as long as they did not openly acknowledge their sexual orientation, and prohibited commanders from asking.

Navy chaplains' training was updated in May to answer questions about civil ceremonies for gay couples, months before the repeal, should the ban be dropped.

On May 9, The Associated Press reported that even if a marriage were to be performed, same-sex Navy partners would not get any health, housing or other benefits that are provided to married couples involving a man and woman.

Some members of Congress have objected to military chaplains performing same-sex unions, saying it would violate the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. Others arguing that it may undermine order and discipline.

On Sept. 20, when the ban was lifted, Pentagon press secretary George Little told reporters, "No one should be left with the impression that we are unprepared. We are prepared for repeal."

*Anya*

09-30-2011, 02:03 PM

It is amazing and mind-boggling!

Wow!

Starbuck

09-30-2011, 02:19 PM

I am ecstatic that military chaplains have been given the right to perform same sex marriages on or off base! This is one less discriminatory thing service members have to worry about, where they can say their vows or who they can have marry them. Now the only down side is it still has to be legal in the state in which they are stationed, if I read that correctly. But yea! Another step forward!

Okiebug61

09-30-2011, 03:28 PM

[QUOTE=Starbuck;428599]I am ecstatic that military chaplains have been given the right to perform same sex marriages on or off base! This is one less discriminatory thing service members have to worry about, where they can say their vows or who they can have marry them. Now the only down side is it still has to be legal in the state in which they are stationed, if I read that correctly. But yea! Another step forward![/QUOTE

So if they die does this mean the benefits will be their partner's?

Corkey

09-30-2011, 04:27 PM

Okiebug61

10-01-2011, 07:46 AM

[quote=Okiebug61;428640]

There are no benefits to partners, DOMA needs to be overturned first.

There should be no separation of our rights as humans.

Corkey

10-01-2011, 12:17 PM

[quote=Corkey;428659]

There should be no separation of our rights as humans.

Well no there shouldn't, but there are laws on the books that need to be repealed, and until then there are no benefits to partners. So tell your Senator, your Congressperson they need to do as you ask not as they wish for a change.

Okiebug61

10-01-2011, 03:22 PM

[quote=Okiebug61;428961]

Well no there shouldn't, but there are laws on the books that need to be repealed, and until then there are no benefits to partners. So tell your Senator, your Congressperson they need to do as you ask not as they wish for a change.

No worries! I am very active in making sure those that represent me know that I am for equal rights across the board.

iamkeri1

10-02-2011, 11:39 PM

I found this amazingly beautiful video on the Equality Florida website.

I wish this woman would run for congress.
Smooches,
Keri

I was just going to give you the link and ask for help uploading it, but I found the video on youtube as well, so here (hopefully) it is

JRWC1UlMjZQ

MsTinkerbelly

10-12-2011, 08:58 AM

Prop 8 Repeal Fight May Go Forward

As Equality California is mired by internal turmoil and the loss of its second executive director in several months, another LGBT rights group says they are moving forward with plans to place a repeal of Proposition 8 on California's 2012 ballot. Rex Wockner reports:
Love Honor Cherish will submit language to the California attorney general by Friday for a ballot measure to overturn Prop 8. The attorney general will write a petition title and summary, and then LHC can collect voter signatures for 150 days. The group would need to collect valid signatures from 807,615 registered California voters. The initiative would amend the California Constitution to delete or overturn Prop 8, via which voters amended the Constitution in 2008 to re-ban same-sex marriage. The Los-Angeles-based organization's outreach director, Lester Aponte, said Oct. 11 that LHC already has launched efforts to build a statewide campaign structure.

iamkeri1

10-12-2011, 10:12 AM

I guess this is an OK idea. However, it will limit legality of Lgbtq marriages to California. The decision regarding prop 8 that is already underway in the California Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of banning lgbts marriage will, it is my understanding, have broader, national effects. I live in Florida, where ANY recognition of glbtq couples is forbidden by law. My hopes lay in having these "banning" laws overturned in all states with the result that lgbtq marriages will be legalized nation wide.

That way I don't have to move to achieve equal rights.
Smooches,
Keri
I edited this to say that I understand the new petition will not stop the case currently in the Supreme Court in Cali. However, if the court decides that prop 8 was illegal in the first place, then the new petition is redundant.

Prop 8 Repeal Fight May Go Forward

As Equality California is mired by internal turmoil and the loss of its second executive director in several months, another LGBT rights group says they are moving forward with plans to place a repeal of Proposition 8 on California's 2012 ballot. Rex Wockner reports:
Love Honor Cherish will submit language to the California attorney general by Friday for a ballot measure to overturn Prop 8. The attorney general will write a petition title and summary, and then LHC can collect voter signatures for 150 days. The group would need to collect valid signatures from 807,615 registered California voters. The initiative would amend the California Constitution to delete or overturn Prop 8, via which voters amended the Constitution in 2008 to re-ban same-sex marriage. The Los-Angeles-based organization's outreach director, Lester Aponte, said Oct. 11 that LHC already has launched efforts to build a statewide campaign structure.

MsTinkerbelly

10-12-2011, 12:51 PM

I guess this is an OK idea. However, it will limit legality of Lgbtq marriages to California. The decision regarding prop 8 that is already underway in the California Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of banning lgbts marriage will, it is my understanding, have broader, national effects. I live in Florida, where ANY recognition of glbtq couples is forbidden by law. My hopes lay in having these "banning" laws overturned in all states with the result that lgbtq marriages will be legalized nation wide.

That way I don't have to move to achieve equal rights.
Smooches,
Keri
I edited this to say that I understand the new petition will not stop the case currently in the Supreme Court in Cali. However, if the court decides that prop 8 was illegal in the first place, then the new petition is redundant.

I have very mixed feelings about putting this up to a vote again....but I know how it felt to have my equality RIPPED from me in one night. Maybe it was a false (only California) equality, but I grieved for weeks over the thought of that many fellow Californians voting to make me "less than". Oh they couldn't take my marriage away, but they made me belong to a seperate class of citizens my fellow queers could no longer join.

I can understand how the people behind the repeal would want to have Prop 8 removed from our Constitution...it is a stain upon this state (dramatic I know) and I too want to have it erased.

Is it the best idea? Probably not, but I get the NEED of people to actually try and do something. (f)

iamkeri1

10-12-2011, 08:42 PM

I feel your pain, MsT. I too grieved that loss when prop 8 passed. I am 63 years old, and even though I have dealt with sooooo much discrimination in my life, I could actually not believe that people could go to the polls and vote to take civil rights (that they hold dear themselves), away from other people; my people. It IS a stain upon our countries history that this has happened. I agree with you completely.

In 1988, after my then lover transitioned, we were able to legally marry. It was like being given a treasure that we had sought after our whole life. Our happiness was overwhelming, yet it was tinged with sadness as well. Our beloved gay friends had not yet gained this right that we treasured. We talked for months over whether it would be "right" for us to marry when they could not. In the end our desire to marry won out.

l know your joy at your own marriage is leavened with disappointment that other lgbtq folk can no longer exercise that right. You have to do what feels right to you. I wish you and those you work with success in getting the new proposition on the ballot and passed by an overwhelmong vote of the people. I hope a similar measure will soon be passed in Florida.
Smooches,
Keri

MsTinkerbelly

10-18-2011, 12:51 PM

SLDN To Sue Over DOMA

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network will file a federal lawsuit on behalf of married gay military members impacted by DOMA.
The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network will argue that the federal Defense of Marriage Act violates the Fifth Amendment right to due process, in what the group says will be the first case of its kind. "That has never been done before," Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of SLDN, told The Huffington Post. Sarvis, who spoke about his group's plans at the OutServe Armed Forces Leadership summit here over the weekend, said the case would be brought by several currently serving members of the military who were married in the seven jurisdictions where same-sex marriages are legal. He declined to identify the plaintiffs. "We're looking at all the legal remedies available," Sarvis said, noting that the group also is working to change Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which governs the armed forces and defines marriage as between two individuals of the opposite sex.

iamkeri1

10-18-2011, 01:41 PM

Due Process - that is an interesting take on it. Can't see how it would help with any long term legal precedent, but DOMA is fairly new, so it might have some application there. Blessings to them. Knock on every door. Maybe one will open (or fall over from the pressure) Worksfor me either way.

Thanks MsT!
Smooches,
Keri

MsTinkerbelly

10-27-2011, 10:02 AM

DOMA: New lawsuit filed on behalf of gay and lesbian servicemembers
By Adam Bink

As noted in the comments by Greg in SLC, today a new lawsuit was filed on behalf of gay and lesbian servicemembers, challenging the Defense of Marriage Act. The lawsuit is being filed in district court in Boston (the same court that handed down the successful decision in Gill v. OPM). Michael Lavers from EDGE Media Network:

A group of gay and lesbian servicemembers and veterans filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act in a federal court in Boston on Thursday, Oct. 27.

The eight plaintiffs, who have 159 years of military service between them, maintain that DOMA specifically prohibits the military from offering their spouses the same family support and benefits that married heterosexual servicemembers automatically receive. These include on-base housing, health care, survivor benefits and burial rights at national cemeteries.

“The case we are bringing today is about one thing, plain and simple: It’s about justice for gay and lesbian servicemembers and their families,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, at a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, Oct. 27. “These couples are in long-term, committed and legally recognized marriages and the military shouldn’t be forced to turn their back on them because the federal government refuses to recognize their families.”

Among the plaintiffs is Capt. Steve Hill, an Army reservist who is stationed in Iraq who submitted a YouTube question about the end of the military’s ban on openly gay and lesbian servicemembers during a Republican presidential candidate debate in Florida last month.

Chief Warrant Officer Charlie Morgan returned to New Hampshire from Kuwait in August where she lives with her wife Karen Morgan and their four-year-old daughter. A full-time officer with the New Hampshire National Guard, Charlie Morgan was recently diagnosed with breast cancer after a recurrence. She pointed out that her inability to obtain a military identification card prevents her from taking her daughter on base to take advantage of the facilities and other services other married couples receive.

“We’re just looking to receive the same benefits and opportunities as our married heterosexual counterparts,” said Charlie Morgan as her wife stood by her side. “Time may not be on our side.”
The repeal of ’don’t ask, don’t tell’ became official on Sept. 20, but SLDN and other groups continue to stress that the end of the Clinton-era law is an important first step towards remedying long-standing inequalities against gay and lesbian servicemembers.

The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit a week before the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to debate a bill that would repeal DOMA. The White House announced earlier this year that it would no longer defend the Clinton-era statute, but House Republicans continue to back the law.

Retired Capt. Joan Darrah of Alexandria, Va., was a naval intelligence officer until she retired from the Navy in 2002. Seven of her colleagues died in the room in which she had been working in the Pentagon moments before American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the building on Sept. 11, 2001. Under DADT, Darrah said her partner of nearly 20 years, Lynne Kennedy, would not have been notified of her death.

MsTinkerbelly

10-31-2011, 12:37 PM

By Kat Giantis MSN

That sound you hear? It's the institution of marriage banging its head against the wall and asking for mercy. A little more than two months after tying the knot in a ridiculously ostentatious, E!-sponsored ceremony, Kim Kardashian is giving Kris Humphries the heave-ho.

Following weeks of rift rumors, Kim, 31, filed for divorce on Monday, citing the usual "irreconcilable differences," according to legal papers obtained by TMZ.

Kim has retained go-to celebrity divorce attorney Laura Wasser to get her out of the 72-day-old marriage (and presumably enforce the ironclad prenup). In the divorce docs, she requests that no spousal support be awarded to the NBA player.

The date of separation is listed as Oct. 31, 2011.

"She wanted the fairy tale, and she got caught up in it all," a Kardashian konfidante tells People. "She felt like the pressure of the TV show just isn't what they could have handled."

According to TMZ, Kris thought they could work through their problems, and he didn't know Kim planned to pull the plug until Monday morning.

The reality starlet, whose first union to music producer Damon Thomas also ended in divorce, flew solo at a Halloween bash on Saturday, explaining to Us Weekly that Humphries, 26, was back home in Minnesota.

"It's always tough when you're apart," she said. "But we do what we can to try and spend time together and make that time for each other."

Last week, Kim admitted to People that married life hasn't been "ideal."

I suppose that this will be the "queers fault"...I mean, if it weren't for us, idiots like this might stay married longer than 2 months! Nah, probably not...

Cindy

Gráinne

10-31-2011, 01:08 PM

Only in America, where most of the couples here on this site cannot legally marry, after only being together for a million years. And "they" say we ruin the institution of marriage?!

Soon

11-02-2011, 01:38 PM

20 Couples That Put Kim Kardashian's Marriage To Shame (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/20-couples-that-put-kim-kardashians-marriage-to-s)

MsTinkerbelly

11-03-2011, 07:49 AM

DOMA: Senate Judiciary Committee markup on Respect for Marriage Act begins today
By Adam Bink

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin the markup process on the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. All 10 committee Democrats publicly pledge support for the bill, though it’s not clear what amendments will be offered and whether that calculus could be changed.

Republicans are expected to exercise their prerogative to hold over the bill one week, which they have done on every committee bill this year. That means that today’s meeting will likely be about other business and Senators will make only brief remarks on the Respect for Marriage Act. Actual votes, including amendments if offered, are therefore expected to take place on Thursday, November 10th. Sen. Grassley, the ranking Republican, is expected to offer an amendment to strike Section 2 of the bill, which provides for the ability to retain federal rights for same-sex married couples no matter which state they reside in. There may be other amendments introduced shortly before the 10th. In short, no fireworks expected today, though I’ll update if that changes. Courage Campaign and our members are working with our allies in and outside of the Senate to ensure anti-LGBT amendments are not adopted by the committee and that we have a successful vote on the overall bill.

Whenever the vote happens, it will make headlines around the nation and serve as a chance to again move people’s hearts and mind on this issue, as well as educate the public, so the committee consideration should not be dismissed as a non-starter simply because we are short on the votes in the full Senate. As I wrote in this essay, we have a long way to go and every moment builds a majority for DOMA repeal

MsTinkerbelly

11-03-2011, 07:55 AM

The California Supreme Court has until December 5th to rule on whether or not the groups that are fighting Judge Walker's decision to overturn Prop 8 have standing to do so. If they rule that they do not, Judge Walker's decision stands and marriage may resume, and if they do have standing then we move on and fight to have the Supreme court rule Prop 8 unconsitutional once more.

The Court might rule before that date, so if anyone sees something in the news please post!

MsTinkerbelly

11-03-2011, 12:35 PM

How gay and lesbian servicemembers remain treated as second-class
By Adam Bink

Over at Talking Points Memo, Brian Beutler examines some cases:

Two weeks ago, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) neatly demonstrated the power of retail politics — and at the same time brought to light a legal conflict that has made the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell a bumpy affair.

Shaheen had intervened on behalf of a constituent named Charlie Morgan — an openly gay Chief Warrant Officer in the New Hampshire National Guard — who had just returned from a deployment in Kuwait, only to be forbidden by the military from bringing her spouse Karen to an event aimed at helping families deal with the transition back to life at home.

It’s unthinkable that a straight, married service member would have faced this kind of obstacle. But though Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell had been stricken from the books, and Morgan was allowed to serve openly, the Defense of Marriage Act still allowed the New Hampshire National Guard to deny her spouse authorization to attend the so-called Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program.

Shaheen took Morgan’s case straight to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the policy was quickly reversed — the Morgans were allowed to attend Yellow Ribbon event earlier this month.

But the problem isn’t limited to reintegration events or the New Hampshire National Guard. It’s happening nationwide — the ripples of an inherent tension between the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the continued existence of the Defense of Marriage Act. So advocates, politicians, and service members are handing megaphones to service members and their spouses who have suffered as a result of the conflict, to see the Defense of Marriage Act overturned by the courts or repealed by Congress.

“We’ve got a conflict here between the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act,” Shaheen told me in a telephone interview recently. “Until DOMA is repealed or stricken, they and their families will be caught in the middle.”

It’s the obverse of “Separate but Equal” — gay services members who no longer fear for their jobs but find themselves treated unequally under the law.

Shannon McLaughlin is an Army Major and JAG in the Massachusetts Air National Guard. She and her spouse Casey have 10 month old twins and decided recently that Casey should leave her teaching job — and the health benefits that came with it — to be a full-time parent.

“Babies are covered under my health insurance, but Casey is not,” McLaughlin told me in a phone interview Wednesday. “We went down to one income for the benefit of the children…but then we got whapped with an extra bill, which is over $700 a month…. My male counterpart who does the same job I does, his family’s covered, and we do the same work.”

Gay spouses are also denied housing privileges and ID cards providing access to discounted amenities and services.

Lt. Col. Victoria Hudson’s family faces a similar risk. Her wife Monika Poxon is insured, but lacks the safety net other military spouses have in the event that she leaves or loses her job.

“I have a child — my wife is the birth mother of my child,” Hudson told me. “I can add the child to the insurance if I want to, but I can’t add the mother. But if something happened to her job, and she lost her insurance, she’d have no safety net.

Joshua Snyder is married to army reservist, Capt. Steven Hill — who gained notoriety in September when he submitted a YouTube video questioning GOP presidential primary candidates about the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Snyder recalls listening while mortars landed within feet of Hill, who is currently deployed, while the two were speaking on Skype.

Hill was unscathed, but if he’d been injured or killed, Snyder wouldn’t find out through normal channels.

“There’s a lot more hoops to jump through…to make sure I’m the first contact,” he said. “There’s nothing automatic to make sure I’d be notified.”

Morgan, McLaughlin, Hudson, and Hill are among the plaintiffs in a federal district court lawsuit, filed late last week by the Servicemember’s Legal Defense Network, against Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki

MsTinkerbelly

11-04-2011, 12:36 PM

New Jersey couples go back to court seeking marriage equality today
By Adam Bink

Today in Superior Court:

TRENTON — In the latest attempt to legalize gay marriage in New Jersey, same-sex couples are headed to court today to try to convince a judge their partnerships are more than civil unions.

The couples, defeated in their efforts last year to get the state Legislature to recognize same-sex marriages, turned to the courts to obtain what they say would be true marriage equality.

Superior Court Assignment Judge Linda Feinberg will hear arguments from Garden State Equality, a civil rights organization for same-sex couples, and the state Attorney General’s Office, which is defending New Jersey’s civil union law.

In a 2006 decision that stopped short of recognizing gay marriage, the state Supreme Court said legislators have to provide marriage-like rights to same-sex partners. It left the details of those rights up to the lawmakers. Later that year, legislators created civil unions, giving the same benefits of marriage but not using the term.

In January 2010, the state Senate defeated an effort to legalize same-sex marriage. Two months later, six same-sex couples went to the Supreme Court asking for the right to marry. But the state’s highest court declined to hear the issue and instead said the case has to work its way through the trial courts. That starts today with arguments before Feinberg.

This amid public support continuing to rise in the new Pew Center poll (though the numbers are less in support than in other surveys showing a majority).

MsTinkerbelly

11-07-2011, 09:00 AM

Judge rules New Jersey lawsuit for marriage equality can proceed
By Adam Bink

Seth in Maryland in the comments notes the news. A big hearing this past week, and what came out of it:

If the law creating civil unions does not give same-sex couples the same protections as married heterosexual couples, it has to be examined as to whether it is constitutional, Mercer County Assignment Judge Linda Feinberg said during a hearing in Trenton this afternoon.

But in dismissing three counts of the complaint, Feinberg also said there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage under the state Constitution. One count of the suit — a claim that the civil union law does not give them equal protection — remains.

She noted same-sex couples complain civil unions, created in New Jersey in 2006, still don’t give them the same benefits as marriage in situations such as health benefits sharing and health care decisions.

“I don’t think that the court can remain silent and take no action if…the result is that those benefits are not equal in the protections,” Feinberg said

Hollylane

11-09-2011, 04:37 PM

After attending a town hall meeting held by Basic Rights Oregon, I was very sad to receive an email today stating that B.R.O. will not pursue a ballot measure on marriage in 2012.

At the meeting, I felt like we were being herded into deciding not to put this on the ballot. The decision felt like it had already been made, and we were being convinced to agree with the deciders.

I also found it disheartening that I heard so many people saying:

"I don't want to put it on the ballot unless we have a guarantee that we will win"

There is nothing on any ballot that is guaranteed to win. What if other Civil Rights were not fought for because we couldn't be given a guarantee that they would win?

I am very disappointed.

MsTinkerbelly

11-10-2011, 11:02 AM

BREAKING: Sen. Judiciary Committee votes to repeal DOMA
By Adam Bink

Just now, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-8 to repeal DOMA by passing the Respect for Marriage Act. A huge step forward for our movement to repeal DOMA!

Today’s victory will make headlines and help educate the public on what DOMA is and why it needs to go. We know when we tell stories, we win as a movement. Today’s victory will also add momentum and help bring more Senators on board so when we have a pro-repeal leadership in the House, Senate and White House, we can move forward as quickly as possible to repeal DOMA, instead of starting from scratch

It was a lift to get to this summer’s hearing and today’s vote. We all did it together — people in each state who contacted their Senator, folks like you who spread the word and chipped in.

Below is a statement from Courage Campaign’s Rick Jacobs:

“For the first time in history, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to make gays and lesbians whole people,” said Rick Jacobs, the chair and founder of the Courage Campaign, an online, grassroots political organization with more than 750,000 members around the country. “This truly historic vote today should never have been necessary because this absurd law should never have been on the books. Thanks to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, we have a bill that can move to the Senate floor where fair-minded people who believe in a nation united, not divided, can end federal discrimination against gay and lesbian couples legally married in six states and the District of Columbia. Sadly, the Republicans think this is a partisan issue, but then some thought the same about the other great civil rights issues of this nation. Eventually, America is just.”

MsTinkerbelly

11-10-2011, 11:04 AM

Marriage equality: Basic Rights Oregon decides to not go to ballot in 2012
By Adam Bink

Announced by their board.

After careful consideration and extensive community input, Basic Rights Oregon’s Board of Directors voted unanimously to extend our public education campaign and continue to build public support. We will not pursue a ballot measure on marriage in 2012.

Today we re-commit ourselves to this effort. We’re committed to opening a new dialogue with our friends, family and neighbors and, ultimately, winning the freedom to marry.

Here’s the statement from Basic Rights Oregon’s Board of Directors:

For three years, Basic Rights Oregon has led a proactive community education campaign to build public support for the freedom to marry for all caring and committed couples. We have reached out to our neighbors in communities across the state, engaged in thoughtful conversations, and shared our stories in TV ads and online.

This work is opening hearts and changing minds. Every day more and more Oregonians are coming to support the freedom to marry.

In Oregon, the only path to allowing same-gender couples to join in civil marriage is through the ballot. It is not a question of if we will cross this threshold, but when.

We have considered the possibility of putting this issue on the ballot for the 2012 election. However several factors, including the expense of waging a statewide political campaign in the midst of an economic crisis, led us to conclude that we are better off extending our education campaign and building momentum for a later election.

Ballot measures in Oregon have historically been used to attack the gay and transgender community. Today, we are finally in the driver’s seat, deciding when to go forward with a proactive ballot measure to achieve equality, instead of just fighting back. That presents our community with a tremendous opportunity and an immense responsibility.

To reach this decision, we evaluated a variety of data including an online survey with over 1,000 respondents from across Oregon. We convened a group of community leaders and campaign professionals, and held town halls in communities around the state.

The feedback we have overwhelmingly heard is that we must allow our education work to continue. The progress we’ve made in increasing support for the freedom to marry will only get better in the next two years.

Today we re-commit ourselves to this effort. We’re committed to opening a new dialogue with our friends, family and neighbors and, ultimately, winning the freedom to marry.

iamkeri1

11-10-2011, 01:36 PM

MsT
You are always such a good source of info on this subject. Thanks so much. I am heartened by this vote in the Senate. I do not believe it will pass in the House. BUT I am also heartened by the fact that voting results this week have all opposed reducing rights for people. I feel hopeful that this trend will continue in next years elections. I hope that the Republicans will be held responsible for their total obstructionism in both houses of Congress, and that the Democrats achieve a majority in both houses so we can get DOMA repealed. Another Liberal Supreme Court Justice would be helpful as well, LOL. 14th amendment people!!!!

I am disappointed by the decision in Oregon. The only argument against putting marriage equality to a vote that makes any sense at all is is the lack of money to wage a campaign, and its not a very good answer either.

Waiting has never helped a civil rights movement. PUSHING hard is what works. Putting the issue in people's face over and over again. Forcing them to re-think their positions over and over again until they see the injustice in the current state of affairs. As for the lack of money, look what was accomplished in Ohio by people with very little money (They overturned the anti-union law passed by the republican run state legislature earlier this year) and in Mississippi. (They voted down a bill declaring life to start at the moment of conception) Both of these measueres were accomplised by word of mouth, by people speaking their minds to each other, by door to door campaigns, and with very little money. I think marriage equality (and civil rights in ALL areas for LGBTQ people) should be put on the ballot EVERY year in EVERY state until we have torn down the walls of anti-us laws that keep us from our dreams.
I quote the words of Martin Luther King Jr, spoken in an earlier and yet still ongoing struggle ...

Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself,

Smooches,
Keri

MsTinkerbelly

11-10-2011, 01:40 PM

MsTinkerbelly

11-17-2011, 08:50 AM

BREAKING: CA Supreme Court to issue opinion on Prop 8/standing tomorrow Will be today the 17th!!!!!!By Adam Bink

The California Supreme Court just announced it will issue its opinion tomorrow, November 17th at 10 AM PST regarding whether the proponents of ballot initiatives have authority to represent the state of California when the state’s public officials (governor and attorney general) decline to do so. From the court’s release:

The court granted the request of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to address the following question: “Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative’s validity or the authority to assert the State’s interest in the initiative’s validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.”

Opinion(s) in the above case(s) will be filed on:

Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 10:00 a.m.

For those not familiar with the timeline of the case, this is not a binding decision on the case. That rests with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Some background: in December of last year, the 9th Circuit heard the appeal of Judge Walker’s ruling, which struck down Prop 8. The court heard arguments on the constitutionality of Prop 8, and arguments on whether the proponents of Prop 8 (ProtectMarriage.com, et al) even have standing to represent the state of California in the case as defendant when Gov. Brown and Attorney General Harris decline to do so. For the live-blogging of those arguments, click here.

Rather than immediately rule on those arguments, the 9th Circuit decided to kick the ball over to the California Supreme Court on the issue of standing, asking an important question: do proponents of ballot initiatives in California — in this case, those who collected signatures and raised money and helped pass the initiative — have the authority to represent the state when the state’s public officials decline to defend the initiative? If ultimately not, then Prop 8 goes without a defendant, our side (the plaintiffs) wins and Prop 8 ends.

The California Supreme Court accepted the question, heard arguments (for live-blogging of those arguments at the hearing, click here), and tomorrow will issue its opinion. From there, the 9th Circuit 3-judge panel which heard the appeal of Judge Walker’s decision and kicked the ball over to the California Supreme Court will read the opinion and then issue its own ruling some time after, which actually functions as a decision in the case. It’s important to note that tomorrow’s opinion, while influential, is more of a “hey 9th Circuit, here’s what we think about your question.” It’s not a binding decision per se. That said, many legal observers believe that the 9th Circuit will follow what the California Supreme Court decides on standing. The issue of whether Prop 8 is constitutional is another question.

From there, the ruling can be appealed to the full 9th Circuit en banc, and of course the U.S. Supreme Court, both of which may or may not take up the case.

We’ll have coverage and reaction to the opinion tomorrow here at Prop8TrialTracker.com

MsTinkerbelly

11-17-2011, 11:03 AM

Prop 8 trial: Preview of today’s California Supreme Court opinion in Perry v. BrownBy Adam Bink

Today, the California Supreme Court will issue its opinion regarding whether the proponents of ballot initiatives have authority to represent the state of California when the state’s public officials (governor and attorney general) decline to do so. The specific case around which this arises is Perry v. Brown and the proponents being ProtectMarriage.com et al, e.g., the people who filed and helped pass the ballot initiative. It was referred to the California Supreme Court by the 9th Circuit, which will take the California Supreme Court’s opinion and then issue a ruling in the case down the road.

Some background and links:

•You can read more about how we got to this point in the case and why today’s opinion is important in yesterday’s preview post.
•The decision will come down at 10 AM PST/1 PM EST today. Jacob Combs, Prop8TrialTracker.com’s writing intern, will have the decision up as soon as it comes in, and update that post with coverage and reaction throughout the rest of the day. Be sure to refresh the post for updates when it goes up. We’ll also have legal commentary from Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who led the legal team for the In re Marriage Cases decision before the California Supreme Court in 2008, among others.
•Meanwhile, on the preview side of things, many questions have come in on how long it would take for the 9th Circuit to turn around a decision in Perry v. Brown after today’s opinion is issued, and the timeline from there. Lyle at SCOTUSBlog has a thought on the timeline for the case:
Although both sides in the historic lawsuit over the gay marriage ban have expected their dispute ultimately to reach the Supreme Court, it now seems quite unlikely that the case will move fast enough in federal court from here on to reach the Justices in time for a decision during the current Term. A case must be ready for the Justices to consider by no later than the end of January in order for it to be decided in the current Term, which is likely to end late next June. The Circuit Court is considering the Proposition 8 case on an expedited basis, but it is doubtful that it could act quickly enough, and that preliminary filings in the Supreme Court could be made soon enough, for the case to be ready within the next two and a half months.

•Elsewhere, Ari Ezra Waldman has an interesting meta piece at Towleroad on the implications of the Perry case overall.
•If you’d like to read the live-blogging transcript of arguments before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on this issue, you can find it here. If you’d like to read the arguments before the California Supreme Court back in September, you can find them here. From a legal point of view on whether people should be allowed to stand in for duly elected officials in court (and for the sake of trying to divine how the Court will rule today), they are fascinating.
•Many folks in the comments yesterday opined on whether the California Supreme Court will rule that state law allows for ballot proponents to have standing to represent the state. What’s your prediction of today?
•There’s also a robust debate being had over whether the case should be decided on the merits (e.g. whether Prop 8 is constitutional or not) versus standing (which many people refer to as a more technical issue). Remember that if the proponents of Prop 8 are found to not have standing and that is held up on appeal, the case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and Prop 8 ends. On the one hand, many hope the California Supreme Court decides in favor of standing for ballot proponents and the 9th Circuit ultimately grants standing for the Prop 8 backers to represent the state in court so that a final decision can be had on the constitutionality of Prop 8 and perhaps even marriage equality nationwide, e.g. whether laws and constitutions across many states that limit marriage to opposite-sex couples are in violation of the U.S. Constitution. On the other hand, many others wish to see Prop 8 end however it can. Aside from the serious implications of whether ballot proponents can represent the state in California instead of elected officials, one way to view this is that there are two bites at the apple to take down Prop 8: constitutionality and standing. For the sake of allowing couples who desperately wish to wed — some, like Ed and Derence in Palm Springs, with serious medical conditions like Alzheimer’s threatening their right to the pursuit of happiness — many just want Prop 8 to end however it can end, standing or otherwise. There is also a concern on the merits side that 5 Justices cannot be had on the U.S. Supreme Court who find Prop 8 to be unconstitutional. What do you think?
•We’ll see you when the ruling comes down later today

Jess

11-17-2011, 11:10 AM

Moving to same sex marriage state. Next... DOMA... :cheer::cheer::cheer:

MsTinkerbelly

11-17-2011, 01:35 PM

BREAKING: CA Supreme Court rules Prop 8 proponents do have standing to appeal
By Jacob Combs

This morning, the CA Supreme Court ruled that the proponents of Prop 8 do have standing under state law to appeal the decision in Perry v. Brown:

…In response to the question submitted by the Ninth Circuit, we conclude, for the reasons discussed above, that when the public officials who ordinarily defend a challenged state law or appeal a judgment invalidating the law decline to do so, under article II, section 8 of the California Constitution and the relevant provisions of the Elections Code, the official proponents of a voter-approved initiative measure are authorized to assert the state’s interest in the initiative’s validity, enabling the proponents to defend the constitutionality of the initiative and to appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative.

For background on how we came to this point, what today’s opinion means and where we go from here, Prop 8 was declared unconstitutional by a California district court in August 2010. Both the duly elected governor and attorney general at the time (Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown, respectively) as well as the governor and attorney general elected in the 2010 elections (Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris, respectively) have declined to represent the state in the case, believing Prop 8 to be unconstitutional. So the proponents of Prop 8 (ProtectMarriage.com et al, who put the measure on the ballot and worked to pass it in the first place) stepped forward to do so.

The case was appealed to the 9th Circuit, which not only heard arguments on whether Prop 8 is constitutional or not, but whether the proponents — unelected, unaccountable ProtectMarriage.com et al — even have standing to defend Prop 8 in the first place. The 9th Circuit decided to ask the California Supreme Court whether or not proponents of ballot initiatives have standing under California law to represent the entire state when the state’s elected officials refuse to do so. Today, the Court responded to that question. The CA Supreme Court’s decision is not binding on the 9th Circuit: it’s really more of an advisory opinion. However, it is a very influential opinion that the 9th Circuit will take very seriously.

Why is this all important? Because there are essentially two bites at the apple to take down Prop 8: constitutionality and standing. Whether the courts find Prop 8 to be constitutional is critically important for obvious reasons. But if the 9th Circuit rules that the proponents of Prop 8 do not have standing and we win on appeal, Prop 8 will end. Beyond that, it has critical implications for the ballot initiative process in California and who represents the state.

As for next steps, many legal observers believe the 9th Circuit is likely to adopt the CA Supreme Court’s opinion and say Prop 8′s proponents do have standing to appeal. That’s not for certain, however, since the proponents could have standing under California law but not in federal court (i.e., a federal appeals court). It’s uncertain when the 9th Circuit will issue its ruling, though many legal observers believe it will be sometime in the next few months, and it may even hold another hearing for additional arguments.

The full ruling can be found here. Check back throughout the day for updates and analysis.

Update 8: Some more notes from the AFER press call:

Olson and Boies expressed hope that there would be no need for further hearings at the 9th Circuit, since both sides made detailed arguments at last year’s hearing and nothing has changed regarding the facts of the case. Furthermore, they stressed that both the district court and the 9th Circuit have agreed several times to expedite the case in the past, and predicted that it would do so again moving forward.

One reporter asked whether AFER’s team could drop the standing issue and just ask the court to consider the case on the merits. Both Olson and Boies made it very clear that every court has to determine whether a specific case is in its jurisdiction, and that therefore the issue of standing is one that is brought up by the court itself, not the litigants. Parties can’t waive this discussion—if the court asks them to argue about standing, they must. They also predicted that the if the case ended up before the US Supreme Court, they believe that court would ask them to address the issue of standing just like the 9th Circuit did.

Update 7: I was on a press call with AFER, which is sponsoring the case. Some notes:

Ted Olson, David Boies and Chad Griffin spoke on the call. They hope the 9th Circuit will proceed without further argument, although in some cases, they want one more briefing. They do not want to predict a day or month, however. Further, as we’ve explained here at P8TT, either side can seek review of the case to the 9th Circuit or the US Supreme Court. If petitions are filed in the Supreme Court after the panel decision, they’d be filed this spring. No prediction on when the US Supreme Court would take the case — it could be in June, or in October.

Update 6: NCLR’s Executive Director Kate Kendell also weighs in:

“We disagree profoundly with the California Supreme Court’s holding that a handful of unelected initiative sponsors have the power to represent the interests of the entire public and to override the decisions of the state’s elected executive officers. Nonetheless, we are relieved that the case is once again moving forward and the Ninth Circuit will now address whether the initiative proponents can continue this appeal and, if so, whether Prop 8 is constitutional. We hope the Ninth Circuit will issue its decision soon and hasten the day when this damaging law is off the books. Every day that goes by, same-sex couples in California are being denied not only the basic right to marry, but the right to be treated with equal dignity and respect. Same-sex couples in California have lived under the shadow of this unfair law for far too long.”

Update 5: Statement from Lambda Legal’s Legal Director, Jon Davidson:

While today’s ruling from the California Supreme Court is disappointing, the good news is that the Perry case is now back in federal court, where we expect a quick victory. It’s important to keep in mind, though, that today’s ruling addresses only a procedural legal question. The key issue in this case is whether the U.S. Constitution permits a state electorate to treat one group of people unequally to everyone else by depriving them of what the state’s high court has held to be a fundamental right. A federal court has already ruled that the federal Constitution prohibits the voters from doing that and that Prop. 8 therefore is unconstitutional. We look forward to seeing that decision upheld so that same-sex couples in California may once again enjoy the freedom to marry.
In addition, today’s ruling does not settle the federal law question of whether Prop 8 proponents have standing in federal court. It remains up to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to decide whether or not the U.S. Constitution allows initiative proponents to defend a challenge to the measure the proponents supported when elected state officials don’t. Regardless of today’s decision, we at Lambda Legal believe that the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that initiative proponents don’t have that right.

In the end, the proponents of Prop. 8 are just people with an opinion. That does not make them entitled to stand in for the government when they don’t agree with its decisions. We believe the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit should rule that Prop. 8′s proponents lack standing under federal law and, if the judges who originally heard the appeal rule otherwise, that the full Ninth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court should rule that initiative proponents are not entitled to take over the government’s role.

Even if the federal courts find that the proponents have the right to appeal, we continue to believe that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional and that the appellate courts will agree. As Judge Walker ruled, there is not even a legitimate government interest in denying same-sex couples access to the title and status of marriage when the state provides them all of the rights, benefits, and duties afforded different-sex couples through marriage. Prop. 8′s only purpose was to send the message that the same-sex couples don’t deserve to be seen as equal to different-sex couples and that message is one the federal Constitution prohibits. That is especially so when, as here, the state supreme court has ruled that denial of access to marriage violated the state’s guarantee of equal protection. What Prop. 8 did was amend the California Constitution’s equal protection clause to create a gay exception and provide that all people in the state have equal rights except for lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. That too is something the U.S. Constitution does not allow.

We therefore remain very optimistic that, one way or another, Prop. 8 will eventually be overturned.

Update 4: Attorney Adam Bonin over at DailyKos adds his take.

Update 3: More from Shannon on timing:

It is likely the Ninth Circuit will issue a ruling fairly quickly, since they agreed to hear the case on an expedited basis. But even if they do, it likely will not be soon enough to permit the Supreme Court to hear the case during its current term. It is also possible that the Ninth Circuit may ask for supplemental briefing, which would delay things further.

Update 2: Shannon Minter, Legal Director at National Center for Lesbian Rights who led the legal team to win In re Marriage Cases at the California Supreme Court in 2008, sent his reaction in over e-mail:

This is a terrible decision in terms of its impact on California law. The court has given initiative proponents unprecedented and virtually unlimited power, and the people of California will be living with the dangerous consequences of that decision for years to come. That said, the Court’s ruling means that the Ninth Circuit will almost certainly find that the proponents of Prop 8 have standing to pursue the appeal, which means that the Ninth Circuit will now decide whether to affirm or reverse Judge Walker’s decision finding that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. If the Ninth Circuit agrees with Judge Walker, the Supreme Court is very likely to take the case. In the bigger picture, this is good news for same-sex couples in California. Prop 8 is blatantly unconstitutional for many reasons—not only because it deprives same-sex couples of a basic right, but because it was enacted for the sole purpose of targeting a particular group in order to deny them equal protection of the laws.

Update 1: Statement from Courage Campaign

California Supreme Court Rules Prop 8 Proponents Have Legal Standing to Appeal Judge Walker’s Decision Regarding Prop 8

Statement from Rick Jacobs, Chair and Founder of the Courage Campaign

“While we respect the recommendations that the California Supreme Court made to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals– that they grant standing to the proponents of the so-called ProtectMarriage.com — it is only a recommendation,” said Rick Jacobs, chair and founder of the 750,000 member Courage Campaign. “Allowing the Prop 8 proponents to have special rights in Court may open the floodgates to wealthy special interests to do the same. The judges of the 9th Circuit must determine if people who had enough money to buy a ballot measure that calls for people to vote on each other’s rights should have special rights in federal court. Regardless, we are confident that justice and love will prevail.”

Throughout the Perry v Schwarzenegger (now Perry v Brown) Prop 8 trial, Jacobs live-blogged daily from the courthouse and documented all of the latest motions and court rulings. Prop 8 Trial Tracker (www.Prop8TrialTracker.com), a project of the Courage Campaign Institute, has logged over 4 million page views, 110,000 comments and is the #1 Google search result for “Prop 8 Trial.” The highly-popular blog has followed every aspect of the Prop 8 trial, in addition to its NOM Tour Tracker that followed the National Organization for Marriage on three tours across the country

iamkeri1

11-17-2011, 02:47 PM

OK This sucks. One f-ing delay after another by these people who have no skin in the game. So now I see the wisdom of placing same sex marriage on the ballot again in 2012. Peoples opinions have changed over the last couple of years and we can at least hope it will pass.

I wonder if passage of a new law would make this case moot in the opinion of the court, and result in it perhaps being thrown out? If so, then that will delay federal court exploration as to the constitutionality of any marriage law that descriminates against a specific group, since the new CA law will apply to CA only.

Thanks for the updates, Ms T.
Smooches.
Keri

Jess

11-19-2011, 08:33 AM

While it may not be about same sex marriage, this certainly speaks to the journey toward equal rights and benefits for US.

taken from a news release on 11/18/2011:

Log Cabin Republicans Challenges the Federal Government to be a Competitive Employer

(Washington, DC) – Log Cabin Republicans are pleased to support legislation led by two great allies Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) and Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), that would provide domestic partner benefits to Federal employees.
“As the largest employer in the nation, the United States government should lead the way in attracting and retaining the best and brightest for public service,” said R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director. “Right now the Federal government lags behind 22 states, the District of Columbia, and a majority of Fortune 500 companies when it comes to providing competitive personnel policies. This commonsense legislation would provide greater access to benefits for employees, and would do so without adding to the Federal debt.”
In the Senate, Log Cabin Republicans ally, and Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee Ranking Member, Senator Collins introduced the legislation with Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT). In doing so, she said, “this change is both fair policy and good business practice. The federal government must compete with the private sector when it comes to attracting the most qualified, skilled, and dedicated employees. Today, health, medical, and other benefits are a major component of any competitive employment package. Indeed, private sector employers are increasingly offering these kinds of benefits as standard fare. Among Fortune 500 companies, for example, domestic partner benefits are commonplace. According to the Office of Personnel Management, nearly 60 percent of Fortune 500 companies, including some of our top federal contractors, extend employment benefits to domestic partners.”
In the House, longtime Log Cabin Republicans champion, and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen introduced the legislation with Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), saying “I am pleased to co-sponsor this legislation because we are a nation that prides itself on treating everyone as equals and this bill assures that we bring those same ideals to the regulations that guide federal benefits for domestic partners of federal employees. We have taken steps to gain equal rights for all but much remains to be done. Passage of this legislation will be one step in the right direction. I am pleased that the Senate has also introduced a similar bill.”

Under the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2011, same-sex domestic partners of federal employees living together in a committed relationship would be eligible for health benefits, long-term care, Family and Medical Leave, and federal retirement benefits, among others. Federal employees and their domestic partners would also be subject to the same responsibilities that apply to married federal employees and their spouses, such as anti-nepotism rules and financial disclosure requirements.
According to a 2009 UCLA Williams Institute report, over 30,000 federal workers live in committed relationships with same-sex domestic partners who are not federal employees.
Lieberman and Collins, along with Ros-Lehtinen and Baldwin have introduced the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act in the past two Congresses.
Almost 60 percent of all Fortune 500 companies, one out of three employers - and 50 percent of employers with 5,000 or more workers - provide benefits to domestic partners of their employees. Twenty states and several hundred local jurisdictions extend benefits to their employees with same-sex domestic partners.
Based on the experience of private companies and state and local governments, the Congressional Budget Office estimated last year that the total cost of benefits would average about $70 million per year through 2020. Considered as a share of the federal government's total budget for federal employees, this estimated cost would amount to only about two hundredths of a percent (0.0002).

MsTinkerbelly

11-29-2011, 08:51 AM

A snip from Matt Baume...

"And in Spain, the conservative Popular Party won big in national elections. Party leaders have vowed to repeal the country’s marriage equality law, so now Spanish LGBTs are rushing to marry before lawmakers have a chance to make good on their threats."

MsTinkerbelly

11-30-2011, 08:46 AM

Iowa House Speaker says gay marriage is not the focus…so far
By Adam Bink

Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen:

House Speaker Kraig Paulsen, R-Hiawatha, said he has no plans to revisit volatile social issues like gay marriage and abortion when lawmakers convene Jan. 9. Republicans who control the House approved tough restrictions on abortion and a resolution calling for a statewide vote on banning gay marriage last time around, but the Senate‘s Democratic leader blocked debate on both measures.

Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, has indicated he would do the same again, and given that, Paulsen said there’s little incentive to revisit the issues.

“We’re not afraid to address those issues, but we’re also not interested in squandering Iowans’ time,” he said. “We have a job to do and we’re going to do it.”

Gronstal said he also expected to focus on economic issues and avoid drawn-out arguments of social issues.

“Iowans would prefer that we all work on things that would get 100,000 Iowans back to work,” he said. “Kraig and I have talked and he seems to be in agreement that this session is going to be much shorter than last session.”

[...]

Paulsen said he’s not interested in spending more time on issues that can’t be resolved. There have been some discussions about gun control issues, but no firm proposals have surfaced, he said.

“Right now, the primary focus of the caucus, make no mistake, is on jobs and the economy,” Paulsen said.

With the session scheduled to end April 17, both leaders said they also want to avoid the kind of gridlock that kept lawmakers in session this year until the end of June. But they conceded that’s always a challenge when each party controls one chamber.

“Some of those issues, particularly the budget issues, are difficult to work through,” Paulsen said.

Of course, we’ve seen this movie before in New Hampshire, where the new Republican majority earlier this year said its primary focus was jobs and the economy and that it had no plans to repeal marriage equality for New Hampshire residents, then moved to do just that until a broad coalition rose up against it and an overwhelming majority opposed doing so in the polls. And next year, they’re planning on doing it again. So we’ll see if Paulsen and his folks stick to their word.

iamkeri1

11-30-2011, 01:26 PM

The longer it stays on the books, the longer it is likely to stay.
Let's keep our fingers crossed.
Smooches,
Keri

MsTinkerbelly

12-02-2011, 01:37 PM

Details about the coverage of next week’s Perry hearings
By Jacob Combs

As you probably know, next Thursday, Dec. 8, is the date for the final two hearings in the 9th Circuit appeal of Perry v. Brown. At 2:30 pm PST, the appellate panel will hear arguments regarding the release of court recordings made during the trial, and at 3:30, the panel will hear arguments regarding the motion to vacate Judge Walker’s decision because he has been in a long-term relationship with a man. Both hearings will last one hour. There will be no further arguments on the constitutional issues of the case, and the 9th Circuit could issue a decision at any time after next Thursday.

As always, we will be providing full coverage of the court proceedings. Courage Campaign’s Rick Jacobs and Arisha Hatch will be at the James R. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco, liveblogging the proceedings, and Adam and I will be on P8TT helping them and bringing you all the day’s news.

The 9th Circuit panel has also agreed to allow the proceedings to be videotaped for a later broadcast by C-SPAN and NBC-7 San Diego. For those living in San Francisco, the court will also be providing a live stream of the hearings in Courtroom One to other parts of the Browning Courthouse. (There will also be limited public seating in the courtroom itself). A live remote feed will also be available at the Richard H. Chambers Courthouse in Pasadena, the U.S. Pioneer Courthouse in Portland and the William K. Nakamura Courthouse in Seattle. Finally, the audio and video recordings will be available on the court’s website at or before noon of Dec. 9. For more information on watching the live video streams in San Francisco or elsewhere, check here.

If you don’t happen to live in one of those cities or can’t make it to the courthouse to watch the live stream, make sure to follow next Thursday’s proceedings at Prop8TrialTracker.com!

MsTinkerbelly

12-05-2011, 01:59 PM

Maine Has The Marriage Signatures

Maine's activists have raised almost twice the required petition signatures to place marriage equality on the 2012 ballot. In 2009 the state legislature approved same-sex marriage, but that action was undone by the fascist criminals at NOM, who immediately launched their successful repeal campaign. No gay marriages ever took place in Maine.
"Not only were we incredibly successful at gathering signatures at the polls today, but volunteers all over the state met voters who have changed their minds on this issue in the last two years," said Betsy Smith, EqualityMaine Executive Director. EqualityMaine filled more than 500 volunteer shifts, from Aroostook to York County and many places in between. The enthusiasm was incredible, we had a volunteer in Gardiner who kept calling to extend her shift because she was so excited at how many people were signing," Mello said. Volunteers from around the state reported Mainers who said they'd had changes of heart since 2009. "I met a man today in Caribou, who told me he wouldn't have signed two years ago, but his daughter has now convinced him," said EqualityMaine Political Director Ali VanderZanden, who spent the day with volunteers in Aroostook County.
About 35,000 of the over 100K petitions were signed last month on Election Day.

KimbaYLRF

12-05-2011, 02:28 PM

I really hope Maine gets the same sex marriage passed. I have a cousin who lives in Maine and it would be so nice to see him and his partner be able to get married.

MsTinkerbelly

12-07-2011, 01:38 PM

Tomorrow’s Prop 8 hearings: what to expect, where to watch
By Jacob Combs

Tomorrow is an exciting day in the Perry trial: we’ll be before the 9th Circuit arguing for the release of the trial recordings and against our opponents’ motion to vacate Judge Walker’s decision because he is in a relationship with a man. As Gayapolis reports, the day will start off with a “Free the Tapes” and “Motion to Marry” rally on the steps of the 9th Circuit courthouse at 1 pm, immediately preceding the hearings, which begin at 2:30 p.m. and will last for two hours.

There are many ways to get coverage of tomorrow’s hearings, not least of which is right here at Prop8TrialTracker.com. Rick and Arisha will be liveblogging from the courthouse in San Francisco, and Adam and I will be here on the site bringing you updates from news outlets throughout the day.

If you live in San Francisco, there is a chance you could watch the trial live at the James R. Browning Courthouse at 95 7th St. There will be a limited number of public seats available in Courtroom One, so if you’re interested, get there early! Remote viewing will also be available live at the Richard H. Chambers Courthouse in Pasadena, the U.S. Pioneer Courthouse in Portland and the William K. Nakamura Courthouse in Seattle.

Last week, the appellate panel that will hear the case granted a request from KRON-4, a San Francisco TV station, asking to televise the proceedings live and videotape them for later broadcast. The court had already approved requests from C-SPAN and NBC-7 San Diego to record the hearings for later broadcast. I spoke with KRON-4 earlier today and was informed that they have decided not to broadcast the hearings live (a disappointment), so for now, if you can’t get to one of the courthouses, you’re best bet is to follow us here on P8TT. The audio and video recordings of the trial will be available on the 9th Circuit’s website by noon on December 9. For more information about the hearings, check out this document from the 9th Circuit.

After tomorrow, the appeals panel could issue a decision any day (on the merits of Prop 8 and standing of its proponents to appeal; on releasing the tapes; and on the appeal of the decision concerning Judge Walker’s sexual orientation), either in one cumulative ruling or in several separate ones. The panel has moved swiftly in the past, and it seems likely that we will have a decision by the end of the year or in early 2012. Of course, we’ll have those updates when they happen. See you tomorrow for the hearings

Gentle Tiger

12-08-2011, 07:50 PM

Some good news! WOW, (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/04/prop-8-overturned-gay-mar_n_671018.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false)

MissItalianDiva

12-08-2011, 08:11 PM

Some good news! WOW, (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/04/prop-8-overturned-gay-mar_n_671018.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false)

This is from 2010

MsTinkerbelly

12-08-2011, 09:26 PM

Some good news! WOW, (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/04/prop-8-overturned-gay-mar_n_671018.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false)

Don't we wish!

MsTinkerbelly

12-08-2011, 09:28 PM

This is from 2010

Just saw this...lol

A lot of people see the old stuff and get excited...maybe soon, right?

Nat

12-09-2011, 10:58 AM

Back to back prop 8 hearings to be broadcast starting at 230 pm pacific (430 central, 530 eastern) online (http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/12/proposition-8-hearings-to-be-broadcast-live-online-at-kqed.html)

MsTinkerbelly

12-09-2011, 11:06 AM

Back to back prop 8 trials to be broadcast starting at 230 pm pacific (430 central, 530 eastern) online (http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/12/proposition-8-hearings-to-be-broadcast-live-online-at-kqed.html)

If you check the date on the article, they were talking about the hearings that were going to happen yesterday. The courts heard arguments on both of the issues of releasing the Prop 8 Trial Tapes, and Judge Walker having heard the case (should his decision be thrown out?)while having a same-sex relationship himself.

The issue of whether or not Prop 8 should be thrown out as Judge Walker ruled; along with the other two issues from yesterday will be decided by the ninth circut court of appeals any time now.

Keep your fingers and toes crossed!

MsTinkerbelly

12-15-2011, 01:36 PM

District court to hear oral arguments tomorrow in Golinski v. OPM
By Jacob Combs

Tomorrow, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California will hear oral arguments in a case brought by Lambda Legal on behalf of Karen Golinski, an employee of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals who attempted to have her wife, Amy Cunninghis, put on her government health insurance plan. Karen and Amy wed in California in August 2008, and when Golinski’s initial attempt to add her wife to the insurance plan was rejected, she filed an internal complaint with the 9th Circuit, which prohibits discrimination based on sex or sexual orientation.

9th Circuit Chief Justice Alex Kozinski held in 2009 that the court should reverse its earlier denial to Golinski, but the U.S. Office of Personnel Management instructed Blue Cross/Blue Shield to deny Golinski’s request. Kozinski ordered OPM to stop, but the office responded that under DOMA, it was prevented from extending health coverage to Golinski’s spouse.

Earlier this year, a district judge dismissed Golinski and Lamdba Legal’s claim ‘without prejudice’ (meaning it could be amended), saying the OPM’s obligations under DOMA trumped the 9th Circuit’s non-discrimination policy. The judge, however, did not address the merits of DOMA specifically, and noted that Golinski “ha[d] a clear right to relief.”

Golinski and Lambda then filed an amended suit challenging DOMA’s constitutionality. Since the U.S. Department of Justice is no longer defending DOMA in court, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) intervened in the lawsuit. Tomorrow’s hearing will address both BLAG’s request to dismiss the suit, and Golinski’s request for a summary judgment that DOMA is unconstitutional

MsTinkerbelly

12-19-2011, 08:55 AM

Love Honor Cherish starts process for 2012 ballot repeal of Prop 8
By Jacob Combs

As the San Jose Mercury News reports, the Los Angeles-based marriage equality organization Love Honor Cherish received clearance yesterday to begin gathering signatures in an effort to place a repeal of Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California, on the 2012 ballot. The organization will have to collect 807,615 signatures by May 14 in order to qualify.

Earlier this fall, Equality California, another marriage equality organization, announced in an email to members that it would not be seeking to place Prop 8 back on the ballot in 2012. EQCA cited the fact that public support for marriage equality in California has not significantly increased since the 2008 election and the difficulty of mounting a repeal campaign in a tough economy. At $83 million, the Prop 8 battle was the most expensive political race regarding a social issue in the history of the U.S.

Love Honor Cherish’s decision underscores the disagreement in the California LGBT community (which many have spoken quite convincingly about in the comments here on P8TT) surrounding the best options for bringing marriage equality back to the state. While a win at the ballot would certainly be one of the quickest ways to repeal Prop 8, a loss could be costly both financially and emotionally. When EQCA decided not to seek Prop 8 repeal in 2012, it cited the ongoing Perry v. Brown trial as a slower but more definitive win for marriage equality in the Golden State that would set an important legal precedent protecting the rights of LGBT couples.

**Me** I will be back later to post where those in California can sign up to pass petitions...I personally hope that the courts make the decision to throw out Prop 8 before the people of California have a chance to vote on it again.

iamkeri1

12-22-2011, 12:03 PM

I want it both ways!!!
Smooches
Keri

MsTinkerbelly

12-23-2011, 11:10 AM

Michigan Bans Partner Benefits

Michigan's GOP Gov. Rick Snyder has signed a bill that bans all state agencies from offering domestic partner benefits.
"The decision to take healthcare benefits away from families just in time for the holidays is mean-spirited and cruel. Governor Snyder had an opportunity to show real leadership and put an end to the political games; instead he approved an extreme policy that sets our state back, jeopardizes our economy and puts our families at risk," said Kary Moss, executive director of the Michigan ACLU. "The bill serves no other purpose than to single out a small minority of people and deprive them of critical protections as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. We are prepared to challenge this law on behalf of Michigan families in the coming weeks."
Michigan now faces a mass exodus at its state universities, where educators and administrators had threatened to resign if the bill became law. Analysts are divided as to whether the new law applies to the education system

MsTinkerbelly

12-23-2011, 01:48 PM

Socarides: Obama will endorse marriage equality before 2012 election
By Jacob Combs

Writing in this week’s New Yorker, Richard Socarides, who served as an advisor on LGBT issues in the Clinton administration and founded the marriage equality group Equality Matters earlier this year, predicts that President Obama will declare his support for marriage equality before the 2012 election. In doing so, he cites both Perry v. Brown and Gill v. OPM, predicting that those cases will be decided in favor of marriage equality activists in the Ninth and First Circuits, respectively. Both of those decisions are expected to be handed down in the next few months. Writes Socarides:

The remarkable new reality for Obama in this election is that supporting marriage equality is smart politics. A majority of independents and young voters already favor equal marriage rights. These are important voting blocks, and a key part of the President’s reëlection strategy. Support for gay rights will also help him energize liberals in the Party and others who think he has not acted boldly around core progressive issues such as immigration and the environment and on other civil-rights issues. Hard-right conservatives who strongly oppose marriage rights, meanwhile, will never support Obama anyway.

For most in the LGBT community, it’s not a question of if Obama will declare his support for the cause, it’s a matter of when. I will admit that when the president made his now infamous statement earlier this year that his views on gay marriage were “evolving,” I, like many others, took that as a coded message saying, ‘I’ll support it in my second term.’ (Evolution in that context meaning survival of the elected, I guess.) But Socarides’s point is well made. An Obama announcement would be great news for the cause, and either way, 2012 looks like it could shape up to be a watershed year for marriage equality in the United States.

blackboot

12-31-2011, 12:10 AM

Judge rejects last minute lawsuit to stop Civil Unions in Hawaii January 1st

"Come the New Year couples can officially enter into Civil Unions in Hawaii.

"We have countless couples ready to enter into Civil Unions on January 1st and January 2nd," says Alan Spector, Equality Hawaii.

But, a lawsuit filed this week, tried to stop it from happening.

Emmanuel Temple, the House of Praise in Wahiawa and Lighthouse Outreach Assembly of God in Waipahu filed for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to block the implementation of the Civil Union law, saying the law violates their civil rights and constitutional protections for religious freedom.

"The law hasn't even gone into effect yet and they're suing, claiming they will be forced to host Civil Union ceremonies in their churches when that hasn't happened," says Spector.

Supporters of Civil Unions say the motion for a TRO is frivolous.

"It's an attempt to make couples who are anticipating possibly the happiest moment in their lives, feel unsettled and unsure," says Valerie Smith, Equality Hawaii.

The state's response: "It is certainly cruel for Plaintiffs to wait until this late date to bring this action, knowing full well that many, many people have been looking forward to civil unions since the Governor signed it into law more than 10 months ago."

The church's attorney Shawn Luiz replied: "The state's position is absurd. The Church cannot be forced to allow its property to be used for a same-sex ceremony anymore than the Plaintiffs could be ordered to allow a civil union between a man and a woman on Church property."

After several hours going over the arguments, Federal Court Judge Michael Seabright denied the church's request for a TRO, but allowed the case to proceed.

"The meat of the case is still that Act 1 does not comply with the First Amendment as far as my clients are concerned," says Luiz. "We are still going to move ahead and do what we came here to do, make sure the state complies with the First Amendment."

"I'm glad that it's over. I thought of it as an unnecessary distraction and now we can forge ahead and follow-through with our plans and look forward to January 1st at midnight," says Smith.

A state web site that allows couples to register online for Civil Unions is scheduled to go live at midnight January 1st."

To apply online for a civil union go to: civilunion.ehawaii.gov

To apply online for marriage go to: marriage.ehawaii.gov/

MsTinkerbelly

01-03-2012, 11:03 AM

Civil unions come to Hawaii and Delaware with the new year
By Jacob Combs

Happy New Year, P8TT! Not only does today mark the beginning of what’s bound to be a thrilling and possibly wild year for marriage equality, it’s also an important milestone for LGBT couples in Hawaii and Delaware, where civil union laws passed in 2011 have finally gone into effect.

Government offices in both states are closed for the holiday, but in Delaware, New Castle County Clerk of the Peace Ken Boulden opened his office today by appointment to issue licenses. Earlier today, Equality Delaware President Lisa Goodman and her partner became the first couple to obtain a civil union in the state. In Hawaii, a district court judge denied a request by two churches for a restraining order barring the new law from going into effect. The churches are suing to have the civil union law declared unconstitutional.

In 1993, the state of Hawaii set off the marriage equality debate with a court decision ruling that the state’s law banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. In the 19 intervening years, much has changed, and the arrival of legal equality in the Aloha State (and Delaware too!) is something to celebrate.

Along with many in the community, I find myself somewhat conflicted when it comes to civil unions. Of course, our ultimate goal is and must be full federal marriage rights: having marriages for heterosexual couples and civil unions for gay and lesbian couples smacks of “separate but equal” discrimination. Nevertheless, civil unions are an important stepping stone to full equality. Their impact is undeniable, and they bring real rights and protections that gay and lesbian couples deserve. (Of course, that’s only when the civil union law is well-designed–yes, I’m looking at you, Rhode Island.)

Furthermore, civil unions set the stage for judicial decisions like In re marriage cases, the California Supreme Court ruling that held in part that it was unconstitutional to prohibit gay couples’ relationships from being recognized as marriages, even though the state’s domestic partnership law granted these couples the same rights as opposite-sex couples. Civil unions could be the first step in other states to judicial decisions (or, of course, legislative action) affirming full marriage equality.

Here’s to a great 2012

MsTinkerbelly

01-04-2012, 02:00 PM

WA Gov. Chris Gregoire: I Will Introduce Bill To Make Gay Marriage Happen

"It is now time for our gay and lesbian citizens to be treated equally and that means marriage." - Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire. Story developing, update here in minutes.

UPDATE: The Seattle Times has more.
Gov. Chris Gregoire on Wednesday said she'll put forward legislation to legalize marriage for gay and lesbian couples. The proposal will be introduced during the legislative session that starts Monday. If it's approved, Washington would become the seventh state to legalize gay marriage. "It's time, it's the right thing to do, and I will introduce a bill to do it," Gregoire said in a statement. "Our gay and lesbian families face the same hurdles as heterosexual families -- making ends meet, choosing what school to send their kids to, finding someone to grow old with, standing in front of friends and family and making a lifetime commitment," Gregoire said. "For all couples, a state marriage license is very important. It gives them the right to enter into a marriage contract in which their legal interests, and those of their children if any, are protected by well-established civil law."
Washington state currently has an "everything but the name" domestic partners law that was upheld in the bitterly contested Referendum 71 battle.

MsTinkerbelly

01-05-2012, 08:52 AM

...Biological Mom Kept From Child in Lesbian Legal Case (ABC News)

....Tina's biological daughter turned 8 this week, but she has not seen the girl since Dec. 22, 2008, because of a custody fight with her former lesbian partner. The partner is unrelated to the child, but gave birth to her.

"I thought I'd have her back on her birthday," said Tina, a law enforcement officer, whose name was never on the birth certificate and who has been denied parenting rights under Florida state law.

For 11 years, the Brevard County couple forged a committed relationship, living together, sharing their finances and raising a daughter. Tina's egg was fertilized with donor sperm and implanted in her partner's womb.

But when their romance fell apart when the child was 2, the Florida courts had to decide, who is the legal parent, the biological mother or the birth mother who carried the unrelated child for nine months in her womb?

A trial court summarily sided with Tina's ex-partner, citing Florida statute. "The judge said, 'It breaks my heart, but this is the law,'" according to the birth mother's lawyer, Robert J. Wheelock of Orlando.

But on Dec. 23, a state appeals court rejected the law as antiquated and recognized both women as legal parents.

Citing the case as "unique," the 5th District Court of Appeal ruled that both the U.S. and Florida constitutions trump Florida's law, according to the Orlando Sentinel, which first reported the story.

"I am elated and I am thankful," said Tina, now 41. "I am hoping things will run smoothly from this [point] forward, but it may not be the case. She is appealing and trying to keep me away from my daughter."

Court papers identify both women only by their initials. ABCNews.com is withholding Tina's last name to protect her privacy.

Wheeler has asked for a stay of Tina's rights and said the case will surely go to the Florida Supreme Court and, he hopes, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"I made a decision to have a child and raise her, not so someone else could keep her away from me," said Tina. "I want to see her grow and be a part of her life. The longer time passes the more I am missing out."

Wheelock would give no personal details about the birth mother, including where she is living with the child. He said she could not be available to talk to ABCNews.com on "such short notice."

The case, he said, is an important one.

"Anything to do with gay rights is a big deal," said Wheelock. "It will probably raise the level of conversation significantly for the next few years."

But he said the case, which has lingered for two years, will take time. "Nothing is that quick or easy," he said.

"The real person who is being affected is the kid, who has had a very stable life for a long time and now it's thrown in the mix here, a pawn in some grander scheme," said Wheelock. "There is a human side to this."

The plight of both women and their young daughter highlights the murky laws that surround same-sex families, particularly in states like Florida that do not recognize gay marriage. The state only legalized second-parent adoption last year, too late for Tina.

"I was told to see a counselor and I should have gone to a lawyer to get surrogacy paperwork so that didn't give her all the rights when she shares no biology with her," she said.

The Brevard County couple, who worked on the same police force, lived as a married couple, according to Tina's lawyer, Robert A. Segal of Melbourne.

"They couldn't solemnize the relationship, but they had been living together, owned property together, shared bank accounts and income," he said. "They held themselves up to the world as a committed couple."

"It's a moral, ethical and legal issue," said Segal. "The court sees it as a clear intent on the part of these parties to very deliberately bring a child into the world and to raise her together."

Gay advocacy groups hailed the appellate decision giving both mothers parenting rights, but warned that because many states do not recognize same-sex relationships, children are often the victims.

"Certainly a mother, like most parents, would go to the ends of the earth not to lose her relationship with the child," said Beth Littrell, an attorney in the southern regional office of LAMBDA Legal.

The law provides no distinction between biological and birth mother and has "not caught up with science or the state of same-sex marriages," ruled the appellate court.

"It's heartbreaking when they have no recourse," Littrell said. "And all kinds of harm can be created for the child with these ambiguous laws."

When Tina and her partner decided to have a child, the birth mother was 39 and infertile. Her egg was harvested and fertilized with by sperm from an anonymous donor, who relinquished his rights to the child.

When the child was born in 2004, the women hyphenated their names as the child's last name.

"They did everything that a very happy family does, but the relationship broke down," said Segal.

Lesbian Couple Were at First Amicable
Tina's lawyer said that the birth mother had turned "mean" after an amicable separation. "It happens a lot in divorcing couples," said Segal.

He said his client had been painted as a "donor mother," which was far from the truth.

"That is not a term that has legal sense to it," Segal said. "She was not giving [her eggs] with no strings attached and relinquishing rights. That wasn't happening here. She intended to be part of the child's life."

At first, the biological mother paid child support to her ex-partner and the couple worked out a time-share arrangement with their daughter, who had moved with her birth mother back with family in North Carolina.

But at some point, the birth mother decided to go to Australia for an educational law enforcement program, taking the child with her and not telling her ex-partner.

"Letters were returned by the birth mother's mother and she got tight-lipped," said Segal. "We started piecing things together and bringing in an investigator from Australia."

Tina and her lawyer filed a petition at the trial level asking to be declared a legal mother with parental rights. She also challenged the constitutionality of Florida law.

"The bottom line was, we wanted her to be a legal parent and given enforceable legal rights," said Segal.

The appeals court sent the case back to circuit court to determine visitation, custody and child support arrangement with an emphasis on the well-being of their daughter.

Two other similar court cases in New York City and California are also raising national attention.

"It does appear to be a trend where courts are looking at the intention of the parties to decide who the legal parents are, and that has applications for [couples] who plan to have a child and create that child through artificial insemination and to raise that child, even if the relationship goes awry," said LAMBDA Legal's Littrell.

"It was a great decision for this family and for each of the parents with the child at the center of the controversy," she said. "The language and the reasoning the court employed bode well for same-sex couples across the board."

As for Tina, she is now living with a new partner and has another child and one on the way. She said her legal fight has been expensive, but "all worth it if I can get her back."

"Shame on me," said Tina that she didn't understand the legal complexities that would be involved. "I did not know that I would not be on the birth certificate, that I would not have any legal right to my biological child."

MsTinkerbelly

01-05-2012, 01:39 PM

Marriage equality repeal expected in New Hampshire before the end of the month
By Jacob Combs

New Hampshire features prominently in the news these days because of its first-in-the-nation primary, to be held Jan. 10, but as the Nashua Telegraph reports, there will be another very newsworthy happening in the state soon after those contests. A vote in the legislature to repeal the state’s marriage equality law will most likely be held before the end of the month, although no firm date for the vote has been scheduled.

If the bill were to pass, it would mark the first time that a state legislature passed and then later repealed the legalization of gay marriage, although California and Maine both took away previously existing marriage rights through their respective initiative processes. The New Hampshire bill, which would repeal the earlier gay marriage law and replace it with a civil union provision, passed the state’s House Judiciary Committee in October on an 11-6 vote.

There are a lot of things wrong with the decision by the New Hampshire GOP to move ahead with this legislation, not least of which is the fact that rights which have been duly relegated to a segment of the population should not be withdrawn simply because of a change in the political winds. Furthermore, many critics of the law argue that it contains conflicting provisions that would create a legal nightmare regarding whether or not pre-existing marriages remain valid (although supporters say they will.)

Most importantly, though, as Scott Wooledge writes persuasively in the Huffington Post, the repeal bill is being pushed through the New Hampshire legislature against overwhelming public opinion in the state in support of its existing marriage equality laws. The most recent poll by the New Hampshire television station WMUR and the University of New Hampshire Survey Center demonstrates that only 27 percent of the state’s adults support repealing the law, while a full 50 percent strongly oppose doing so.

New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch (a Democrat) has said he will veto any repeal attempts by the Republican-controlled legislature. Although the GOP has the bodies in both chambers to override that veto, it’s still unclear as to whether they have the votes to do so, particularly among their caucuses more libertarian members.

If the repeal bill fails when it comes up (most likely on January 11 or 18), it will be a non-issue, and no doubt will be mostly ignored after the media swarm of the caucuses. If it succeeds, though, it will be a dramatic step backward for the state in a manner completely inconsistent with the will of its citizens

AtLast

01-05-2012, 02:23 PM

MsTinkerbelly

01-12-2012, 01:39 PM

North Carolina’s Director of Elections resigns over anti-marriage equality ballot initiative
By Jacob Combs

Until very recently, Sherre Toler had been the Director of Elections for North Carolina’s Harnett County for over 11 years. Just a week ago, she resigned from her position over an anti-gay marriage amendment that has been placed on the state’s ballot in 2012. The website BlueNC received this incredible statement from her via email:

On January 3, 2012 I resigned my position as Director of Elections for Harnett County, NC. I am extremely proud of the progress and accomplishments made to the voting procedures and polling places in Harnett County over the last eleven and a half years. I am especially proud that the Board of Election’s Office has always been operated in a fair, efficient and non-partisan manner during my tenure.

Unfortunately, recent actions of the North Carolina General Assembly made it impossible for me to continue as Director of Elections as speaking publicly about candidates or issues appearing on the ballot is prohibited. In September, the legislature passed a bill requiring a referendum be placed on the May, 2012 primary ballot defining marriage as a “union between a man and a woman”. I cannot and will not be a party to such actions.

If “marriage” were simply a religious institution, this would not be an issue. Different faiths are free to impose whatever moral restrictions they choose on their congregations and they in turn are free to accept or reject those restrictions. From a psychological and emotional perspective, marriage provides the individuals an opportunity to demonstrate their love for each other by committing themselves to this “special” relationship. In addition, marriage provides the participants in the relationship with a myriad of legal rights and special status, including inheritance and property rights as well as insurance and tax benefits. Marriage provides over 1000 legal rights and protections. The so-called “Defense of Marriage” Act seeks to ensure that anyone wishing to marry their partner of the same gender will be DENIED those legal rights. The broad language of the referendum could also impact private contracts between individuals, powers of attorney, and domestic partnerships, including heterosexual ones.

Slavery, discrimination and segregation represent a tremendous blight upon the great history of this country. Not so long ago, “marriage” between those of different races, particularly black and white, was prohibited by law and this ban was supported by the “Majority”. In 2011, Public Policy Polling conducted a poll of Republican voters in Mississippi and a number of them (46%) believe that not only in their opinion is interracial marriage wrong but that it should be ILLEGAL.

Only 40% indicated they believe it should be legal. There can be little doubt that if interracial marriage were put to a majority vote, some jurisdictions would outlaw those marriages as well. It is important to a free society that civil rights not be subject to a popular vote!

As a result, I am opening Lighthouse Strategies and Consulting, LLC, a political consulting business. I plan to work tirelessly over the coming months to educate North Carolina citizens on the impact of this amendment and to defeat the effort to write discrimination into the North Carolina Constitution. I will also be working to help elect progressive candidates to local, county, state and federal offices so that these types of actions by legislatures around the country will not be repeated.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. stated, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” I simply could not continue in the position of Director of Elections and remain silent on this important issue.

Sherre Toler

This is true courage. It will be exciting to see what Toler does in North Carolina in the lead-up to the fall, and she will no doubt be a great ally in the fight against the state’s anti-gay initiative

iamkeri1

01-13-2012, 04:59 AM

Wow. I am overwhelmed with emotion at the decision of this brave woman. One person truly can make a difference
Smooches,
Keri

MsTinkerbelly

01-16-2012, 08:50 AM

Maryland Senate President will allow vote on marriage equality, but calls it “an attack on the family”By Jacob Combs

Mike Miller, the Maryland Senate President, is not an ally of marriage equality–he recently called same-sex marriage “an attack on traditional families”on the Marc Steiner Show, and has promised to vote against any bill that comes up in his chamber to legalize gay marriage. “I don’t want to sound like one of the Republican candidates for President,” Miller also said on the program, “but I am what I am.”

Nevertheless, Miller has also made clear that he will allow an open vote on the issue in the state Senate, where he expects the bill will pass, as it did last year. It subsequently failed in the House of Delegates and was withdrawn after votes that were expected in favor of the measure disappeared, and the entire debate was put on hold until the 2012 legislative season.

Miller plans to hold the vote during the early parts of the Senate’s session. The bigger hurdle, as last year, will be the House, even though the chamber has traditionally been the more socially liberal than the Senate. Current preliminary vote counts show the measure five votes short in the House. If the bill does pass the legislature and is signed into law, it will most likely face a ballot challenge in the 2012 election.

While Miller’s comments on marriage equality are divisive and extreme, it is to his credit that he will allow the measure to come up for a vote rather than simply killing it based on his own personal convictions. In Rhode Island, one of the principal roadblocks to marriage equality has been Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed, who personally opposes gay marriage and has refused to let marriage equality bills even come up for a vote in her chamber. Also, Miller’s decision to hold a vote early in the session is also good news, so that the marriage equality debate doesn’t get pushed to the end of the legislature’s business and then face the threat of being ‘not important enough’ for the end of the session, as some lawmakers claimed in New York this summer. These are good signs, but certainly not definite ones, for the success of marriage equality in Maryland this year

MsTinkerbelly

01-18-2012, 01:39 PM

New Hampshire marriage equality repeal delayed until February or later
By Jacob Combs

The Eagle-Tribune, a Massachusetts-based newspaper, is reporting today that the repeal of New Hampshire’s marriage equality law, scheduled to go before the legislature by the end of January, has been pushed back by House leaders until February. Said Republican House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt:

“We must deal with some critical financial and economic-related legislation first, as well as legislative redistricting, prior to any discussion of gay marriage. It’s critical to keep to keep legislative priorities in their proper order.”

If GOP leaders in the New Hampshire legislature were really keeping their legislative priorities in order, the repeal bill wouldn’t be on their agenda at all. Still, it’s a small piece of good news that the leadership is postponing the vote rather than holding it at the beginning of the session

MsTinkerbelly

01-18-2012, 05:35 PM

Seventy U.S. mayors to announce support for marriage equality
By Jacob Combs

The Wall Street Journal reports that 70 mayors from across the country will come together to endorse marriage equality in a Friday news conference organized by Freedom to Marry. Mayors from both sides of the political aisle will be represented in the new organization, called Mayors for the Freedom to Marry.

Jerry Sanders, the mayor of San Diego, Thomas Menino, the mayor of Boston and Antonio Villaraigosa, the mayor of Los Angeles (and president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors) will serve as the coalition’s chairs. Mayors Marilyn Strickland of Tacoma and Annise Parker of Houston will join the three chairs for Friday’s press conference, to take place at the Capital Hilton Hotel in Washington, D.C. at 10:00 a.m

MsTinkerbelly

01-20-2012, 08:48 AM

Marriage equality is one vote away in Washington, gains major corporate supporters
By Jacob Combs

Great news out of Washington today. State Senator Jim Kastama has announced that he will support the state’s marriage equality bill in the Senate, putting it just one vote shy of passage. Kastama, a conservative Democrat from a politically diverse district, admitted that he has struggled with the vote:

“This decision is a deeply personal one. Unlike some of my colleagues in liberal districts, I will not return home to cheers and handshakes. I represent the district I was raised in. My wife and I purchased and live in the same house I grew up in and we have raised our family there. My district has known me my whole life and for 16 years has entrusted me to be a fiercely independent legislator. The people of my district are generous and decent, but I also know that there are childhood friends who will never forgive me for this vote.”

In addition, Kastama noted that he believes it is important for the bill to pass without a provision that would send it to the ballot later this year. Kastama’s full statement can be read here, and compellingly makes the case for why legislatures should not shy away from important legislation simply because it’s controversial.

In other encouraging news, a broad coalition of businesses, including Microsoft, Nike and Real Networks, signed a letter today in support of the legislation.

Still, without that last Senate vote, nothing can happen. We have to keep up the pressure on the remaining undecided votes. The following Senators have not taken a position on the bill:

Sen. Brian Hatfield of Raymond D (360) 786-7636
Sen. Paull Shin of Edmonds D (360) 786-7640
Sen. Joe Fain of Auburn R (360) 786-7692
Sen. Doug Ericksen of Ferndale R (360) 786-7682
Sen. Linda Evans of Wenatchee R (360) 786-7622
Sen. Andy Hill of Redmond R (360) 786-7672

In addition, Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen has stated that she won’t support the bill and instead wants to send the issue to the ballot. At this point, it’s worth trying to change her mind–she can be reached at (360) 786-7648. If you live in Washington, write, call and make your voice heard. And if you live elsewhere, do the same

Soon

01-20-2012, 05:31 PM

q02f9k-0UQw&feature=player_embedded#!
...the thing is, he did publicly support it in 1996 (or so)--it's on record...THEN he backtracked and de-evolved...

MsTinkerbelly

01-23-2012, 11:04 AM

Gov. Christie nominates openly gay New Jersey Supreme Court justice
By Adam Bink

Well, like Steven Goldstein of Garden State Equality, you could pick me up off the floor too. His statement:

A few minutes ago, just before announcing his two new Supreme Court nominees, Governor Christie called me on my cell phone to tell me he is nominating Bruce Harris to the New Jersey Supreme Court. Bruce will become the first openly LGBT person in history, and the third African-American person in history, to serve on the New Jersey Supreme Court. Most importantly, Bruce is eminently qualified to be a Supreme Court justice.

As I told the Governor right then and there, you could have picked me up off the floor.

When I met with Governor Christie in 2010 at his request, he told me that though we would differ on some issues like marriage equality, he viewed the LGBT community as an important part of New Jersey, and that he wanted his Administration to have a good working relationship with Garden State Equality. That has been the case every step of the way. Since Governor Christie took office, his Administration has treated us with warmth and responsiveness. Yes is yes, no is no, and we’ll get back to you means they get back to you faster than you thought, usually with invaluable help. To be clear, the Governor and his staff were invaluable in helping us pass the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights, the nation’s strongest anti-bullying law that the governor signed in January 2011.

No one’s asked me to say any of this – I am simply giving credit where credit is due, too rare in political life.

Now, as for the marriage equality bill: The Governor and I didn’t discuss that in our phone conversation. I recognize, and caution everyone, that it would be unwise to read any change here in the Governor’s position on marriage equality; he has said in past months and years that he would veto the bill, and we take him at his word. We will fight hard every minute of every day to win marriage equality in New Jersey. Nothing will deter us.

But again, right now, that doesn’t mean we should not give credit where credit is due. Today, the Governor has made civil rights history, and on behalf of all of us at Garden State Equality, I extend to him our most profound appreciation.

Worth noting that this week will begin hearings on the marriage equality legislation in New Jersey (as well as in Washington — more on that from Jacob later).

MsTinkerbelly

01-23-2012, 01:35 PM

Marriage equality bill to be debated in Washington legislature today
By Jacob Combs

Thanks to Sagesse for posting this in Quick Hits.

Today, hearings will be held in in the Washington legislature to debate the recently introduced bill that would make marriage equality in the state a reality. The Seattle Times has the schedule for the hearings, with the first to begin at 10:00 am in the Senate (where panels will argue both the pros and cons of the bill) and the second to take place in the House beginning at 1:30 (the marriage equality bill will be the last of five to be brought up, and will probably be covered around 2:30.) Both hearings will be aired live on the website of TVW, the state’s equivalent of C-SPAN.

In other news, the Williams Institute at UCLA released a report last week that marriage equality would bring an $88 million boost to the Washington economy and provide $8 million of tax revenue in its first three years from resident same-sex couples alone. From the report:

“Our study estimates that resident same-sex couples will spend $39 million on weddings in Washington in the first year alone. That translates to approximately $3.4 million in tax revenue, given Washington sales tax rates.”

Although the Williams report did not specifically calculate the effects of out-of-state couples coming to marry in Washington, those numbers would no doubt have an effect on the state’s economy as well. It’s unclear whether the report’s data will be brought up at today’s hearing, but on a day devoted to legislative debate about the merits of same-sex marriage, it’s well worth noting that marriage equality isn’t just good policy from a civil rights perspective, but good economic policy as well

MsTinkerbelly

01-23-2012, 03:25 PM

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — As lawmakers held their first public hearing on gay marriage, a Democratic senator on Monday announced her support for the measure, all but ensuring that Washington will become the seventh state to legalize same-sex marriage.

The announcement by Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, that she would cast the 25th and deciding vote in favor of the issue came has hundreds of people filled the Capitol to advocate for and against gay marriage.

"I know this announcement makes me the so-called 25th vote, the vote that ensures passage," Haugen said in a statement. She said she took her time making up her mind to "to reconcile my religious beliefs with my beliefs as an American, as a legislator, and as a wife and mother who cannot deny to others the joys and benefits I enjoy. This is the right vote and it is the vote I will cast when this measure comes to the floor."

The state House is widely expected to have enough support to pass gay marriage, and Gov. Chris Gregoire publicly endorsed the proposal earlier this month. However opponents have already said they would challenge any new law with a public referendum.

Opponents and supporters packed a Senate committee hearing for the first public hearing of the most high-profile issue before the Legislature this session. The Senate set up three overflow areas for the public, including the public gallery on the Senate floor.

Gay marriage foes wore buttons that said "Marriage. One Man. One Woman." Others wore stickers that read "Washington United for Marriage," a group that announced in November that it was forming a coalition to support same-sex marriage legislation.

Democratic Sen. Ed Murray, a gay lawmaker from Seattle who has led the push for gay civil rights and domestic partnerships, testified before the Government Operations, Tribal Relations & Elections Committee with his longtime partner, Michael Shiosaki.

"I have waited 17 years to ask this body to consider marriage equality for gay and lesbian families," said Murray, who is sponsoring the Senate bill. "I realize the issue of marriage for our families is emotional and divisive. It touches what each of us holds most dear, our families."

Others argued that the measure goes against traditional marriage and the Bible.

"You are saying as a committee and a Legislature that you know better than God," said Ken Hutcherson, pastor of Antioch Bible Church.

Washington would join New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and the District of Columbia in legalizing gay marriage. The state has had a domestic partnership law since 2007, and an "everything but marriage" law since 2009.

The National Organization for Marriage issued a statement Monday morning pledging a referendum campaign to fight any gay marriage law at the ballot. Last week, the group announced that it would spend $250,000 to help fund primary challenges to any Republican who crosses party lines to vote for same-sex marriage in Washington state. So far, two Republicans in the Senate, and two in the House have said they would vote in support of gay marriage.

"I want to re-emphasize that we fully expect that this issue is going to end up on the ballot," said Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle and sponsor of the House bill, said at a news conference following Haugen's announcement. "People should not be complacent."

Gay marriage has won the backing of several prominent Pacific Northwest businesses, including Microsoft Corp. and NIKE, Inc., and last week a conservative Democrat who once opposed same-sex marriage said he will now vote for it.

In October, a University of Washington poll found that an increasing number of people in the state support same-sex marriage. About 43 percent of respondents said they support gay marriage, up from 30 percent in the same poll five years earlier. Another 22 percent said they support giving identical rights to gay couples but just not calling it marriage.

When asked how they would vote if a referendum challenging a gay marriage law was on the ballot, 55 percent said they would vote yes to uphold the law, with 47 percent of them characterized as "strongly" yes, and 38 percent responded "no," that they would vote to reject a gay marriage law.

If a marriage bill were passed during this legislative session, gay and lesbian couples would be able to get married starting in June unless opponents file a referendum to challenge it at the ballot.

___

The gay marriage bills are Senate Bill 6239 and House Bill 2516.

___

Associated Press writer Mike Baker contributed to this report; Rachel La Corte can be reached at http://www.twitter.com/RachelAPOly

MsTinkerbelly

01-24-2012, 08:49 AM

Maryland governor introduces marriage equality bill
By Jacob Combs

On the heels of today’s big announcement out of Washington, marriage equality is also moving forward in Maryland, with Governor Martin O’Malley introducing a bill at tonight’s evening legislative session to legalize gay marriage in the state. The Baltimore Sun reports that O’Malley’s staff worked throughout the day to fine-tune the religious protections language in the bill, which the governor said in a briefing would make the bill “a little clearer” and, he hopes, ensure that it enjoys “additional support” in comparison with a similar bill that failed last year. From the Sun’s article:

The language provided Monday night made a few key changes, according to Raquel Guillory, a spokeswoman for O’Malley. She said the bill extended legal protections to leaders of religious groups, while last year’s bill shielded only institutions.

The bill also makes clear that religious leaders, not the state, control theological doctrine, Guillory said. And it further limits any punitive actions — like denying government funds — that the state could take against religious organizations for failing to perform same-sex marriages.

Tomorrow morning, O’Malley will host a breakfast with LGBT advocates and members of the religious community to discuss his bill. This is the strongest show of support the governor has given marriage equality so far; last year, he said he would sign a bill legalizing gay marriage should it pass the legislature, but did not include it in his own legislative package.

A Senate hearing on the bill will take place on January 31. In the House, two committees will consider the bill: the Judiciary Committee and the Health and Government Affairs Committee

iamkeri1

01-25-2012, 12:59 AM

Good news and more good news!!!
Smooches,
Keri

MsTinkerbelly

01-26-2012, 01:42 PM

Breaking: EqualityMaine to put marriage equality question on 2012 ballot
By Jacob Combs

EqualityMaine announced that it would deliver over 105,000 signatures to the Maine Secretary of State today supporting the inclusion of a marriage equality measure on the 2012 ballot. The group needed 57,000 signatures for the measure to qualify.

In a press call this morning, GLAD and EqualityMaine said that a late December poll showed 54 percent of Mainers support the right of same-sex couples to legally marry, with 42 percent opposed. That poll reinforces the findings of two other polls in February and May of 2011, both of which showed 53 percent support for marriage equality. EqualityMaine plans to spend the rest of the year continuing to build support for the measure before it goes to voters in 2012.

Once the Secretary of State has received the signatures, there is a 30-day public comment period on the measure. After that, unless changes are proposed, the ballot measure would move forward.

The Citizens Initiative that will be on the 2012 ballot is called “An Act to Allow Marriage Licenses for Same-Sex Couples and Protect Religious Freedom.” The proposed ballot language, which was submitted to the Secretary of State in June, reads as follows:

Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses for same-sex couples, and that protects religious freedom by ensuring that no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs?

Over the last year, EqualityMaine’s Field Director, Amy Mello, has conducted a campaign throughout the state to change the hearts and minds of Mainers through conversations about marriage equality. That campaign has had a success rate of over 20 percent.

We’ve written here at P8TT before against putting the rights of minorities up to a popular vote. Maine’s unique political system, however, makes a popular vote on the issue a practical necessity. The Citizens Initiative power in the state is used liberally, and it is important to note that marriage equality already went through Maine’s legislative process and was signed into law. At this point, the final say on the matter must come from the people.

I asked Betsy Smith, EqualityMaine’s Executive Director, about the possibility of the Tea Party-controlled legislature putting a competing ballot measure (for example, one that proposed civil unions) on the ballot in order to split the vote and cause a marriage equality provision to fail. In her eyes, it is highly unlikely the legislature could so. A competing bill would need majority support in the legislature, and would clearly be opposed by both pro-marriage advocates and those members who are against even allowing same-sex couples to enter into civil unions. EqualityMaine has been working to ensure that their measure is the only marriage-related question on the November ballot.

Because 2012 is an election year, it’s likely there will be a significant voter turnout in Maine, a state that is remarkably consistent in the number of voters who come out for presidential elections with some of the highest turnout in the nation. A marriage equality measure has a better chance of success with this year’s electorate than it did in 2009, an off-election year. Still, there are specific demographics EqualityMaine is targeting to build support for the measure, among them the parents of young children, young men in particular, independents and rural voters.

With this exciting announcement, Maine joins the group of states that are making 2012 an exciting year for marriage equality. We’ll have more here at P8TT on marriage equality in Maine as the campaign moves forward

MsTinkerbelly

01-27-2012, 01:33 PM

A small victory for LGBT couples in Australia
By Jacob Combs

Gay marriage is most likely still a ways off in Australia (even though the ruling Labor party amended its platform in support of marriage equality in December), but a new government policy will make life a little bit easier for LGBT couples in the country. In many countries which allow marriage equality, including Portugal, Spain, Norway and South Africa, applicants for a marriage license are required to produce a Certificate of No Impediment (CNI) which states that both individuals are over 18 and unmarried. In the past, the Australian government has refused to grant CNIs to same-sex couples, effectively prohibiting them from being married abroad.

Yesterday, Australia’s attorney-general, Nicola Roxon, announced that same-sex couples will be able to apply for CNIs starting February 1. The marriages these couples enter into abroad still won’t be recognized by the Australian government.

A small victory, indeed, but an important one for Australia’s LGBT citizens on the road to full marriage equality.

MsTinkerbelly

01-31-2012, 08:48 AM

Washington marriage equality updates: bill clears House committee, goes to full Senate on Wednesday
By Jacob Combs

Today, the Washington state House Judiciary Committee voted 7-6 on parties lines to send marriage equality to the full House for a vote. Republicans offered three amendments to the bill: two allowing further exemptions for religious convictions, and one that would have instated a six-month residency limit (presumably to limit out-of-state couples in jurisdictions without marriage equality from coming to Washington to get married). All three amendments were rejected, as well as an attempt to put the law on the November ballot as a referendum.

Last week, Washington’s marriage equality bill passed the Senate Government Operations, Tribal Relations & Election Committee on another party line vote, 4-3. It will go on for a full Senate floor vote on Wednesday. Since 25 senators, enough for it to pass, have already committed their support, the question now becomes how many and which other senators (if any) will vote in favor of the bill to be on the right side of history without having to be the deciding vote to make the measure pass. No date has been set yet for the full House vote.

If you live in Washington (or somewhere nearby), Washington United for Marriage is looking for your help to fill the state capitol with as many marriage equality supporters as possible for the Senate vote. You can sign up for more information here. As always, we’ll have coverage and analysis of what happens in the Washington Senate here on P8TT!

Update (Adam): Sources close to the process tell me opponents are very likely to begin to collect signatures to hold a ballot referendum on the marriage bill in November. 120,557 signatures are required and the deadline to turn them in is June 6. Many of you remember the Referendum 71 campaign in 2009 on certain domestic partnership protections enacted into law; this is similar

MsTinkerbelly

01-31-2012, 01:37 PM

Maryland Senate committee to take up marriage equality bill today
By Jacob Combs

Today, Maryland’s Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee will take up a marriage equality bill a 1 p.m., with LGBT advocates and religious leaders holding a rally in support of the legislation at 9:30 a.m.

Yesterday, the Washington Post released a poll showing that Marylanders support the legislation 50-44 percent, but many polls in the last few months have shown the margin between the two sides to be very close. The Post poll showed deep racial divides in the opinion of Maryland Democrats, with support standing at 71-24 percent for whites and 41-53 percent for blacks. Gov. Martin O’Malley’s religious protections, which go further than those in last year’s failed bill, are in many ways aimed at garnering the support of Democrats in the House who withheld their votes last year based on input from religious members of their constituencies.

In an excellent editorial yesterday, the Baltimore Sun made the case for the bill’s adequate protections of religious liberty:

There may never be a consensus among the state’s religious organizations over whether God intended people of the same sex to love each other and to marry. Those are theological questions best left up to the members of each faith to decide, and this legislation includes clear, explicit protections of their right to do so. But just as the government may not impede the right to the free exercise of religion, no particular religion’s values may be the basis of the law of the land. A democracy requires that all citizens be treated equally and in accordance with the same basic rules of fairness.

I wrote last week about religious leaders in Maryland who are personally opposed to marriage same-sex couples being granted marriage rights, but are supporting O’Malley’s bill and the freedom of gay couples to have the same choice to marry as their straight counterparts. Maryland’s marriage equality bill passed the Senate last year, so passage looks likely in that chamber this year as well

MsTinkerbelly

02-02-2012, 08:53 AM

BREAKING: Washington Senate passes marriage equality bill
By Jacob Combs

As anticipated, a proposed marriage equality bill passed the Washington Senate tonight, with a final vote tally of 28-21.

The bill cleared a House committee on Monday, and now moves onto another fiscal committee before it will go to the full House, where it is expected to pass.

Check back here on P8TT throughout the night for analysis. Congratulations, Washington!

UPDATE: If you’re interested in the steps that led up to the final vote tonight, Slog, the Seattle Stranger’s blog, followed today’s Senate proceedings live. Before the session began, Sen. Brian Hatfield (a Democrat) announced his support for the bill, becoming the 26th Senator to do so. Two Republicans who were previously undecided also voted in favor–Sen. Andy Hill and Sen. Joe Fain–bringing the total yes count to 28. The bill could be taken up in the House as early as February 8; the legislative session will last until March 8.

After the bill passed, Gov. Chris Gregoire, who has been strongly supportive of the push for marriage equality in Washington this year, released the following statement:

Tonight the Washington State Senate stood up for what is right and told all families in our state that they are equal and that the state cannot be in the business of discrimination. I believe that this decision should be made by our state Legislature, and I’m proud our elected leaders recognized that responsibility.

Tonight we saw the best of Washington and our leaders. They were respectful and they were kind. I thank Sen. Ed Murray for his leadership.

This vote was courageous and was only possible with bipartisan support. That support shows Washington’s commitment to equality. Fair-minded and responsible leaders crafted a bill that protects religious freedoms while ensuring equal rights. I commend our state Senators who acknowledged tonight that separate but equal is not equal.

Tonight our families are better for this vote. Our kids have a brighter future for this bill. And our state is better for this bill. I encourage the House to approve this bill and get it to my desk for my signature. I look forward to the day when all Washington citizens have equal opportunity to marry the person they love.”

iamkeri1

02-03-2012, 05:47 PM

Wow that is just so great!!! I am filled with emotion as each new state passes these marriage equity laws.

OK lets get these laws passed in the warm states soooooon!

Ms T
What is the progress on getting marriage quity back on the ballot in Cali by election time? What's the deadline for signatures?
Smooches,
Keri

MsTinkerbelly

02-03-2012, 07:23 PM

They're working on getting signatures....don't know the deadline off hand. The 9th Circut court of Appeals should be ruling on Prop 8 any day....they usually publish their opinions on Thursdays, as they did this past Thursday on the tapes from the trial. The tapes will remain sealed, which really wasn't a surprise.

Kobi

02-06-2012, 12:22 AM

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Goldman Sachs Group Inc Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein, one of Wall Street's most powerful figures, has become the first major business leader to join a national media campaign in support of same-sex marriage.

Gay rights advocacy group Human Rights Campaign published a video on Sunday in which 57-year-old Blankfein, who has headed investment bank Goldman Sachs since 2006, asks viewers to join a "majority of Americans who support marriage equality."

"America's corporations learned long ago that equality is just good business and it's the right thing to do," Blankfein said in the video, which was posted on popular video website YouTube.

Blankfein had already made his views on the issue known. Last year he was one of the financial industry executives to sign an open letter calling on New York state lawmakers to legalize same-sex marriage.

Yet Sunday's video is a rare public display of support on a highly controversial issue from one of the financial world's titans whose firm has not always endeared itself among supporters of liberal causes, depicted by some lawmakers and activists as the epitome of Wall Street greed.

"Our campaign is all about recruiting unexpected spokespeople so Americans can connect the dots and realize that on an issue like this there can be agreement," Human Rights Campaign spokesman Fred Sainz said.

Besides Blankfein, the Americans for Marriage Equality campaign has attracted a dozen personalities on similar videos, including Senator Al Franken, Cleveland Browns linebacker Scott Fujita and Oscar-winning actress Mo'Nique.

"The fact that we have Mo'Nique and Lloyd Blankfein campaigning on this should show that we can have commonality on the issue. We approached Lloyd Blankfein and literally within hours he had said yes, he would do it," Sainz said.

MsTinkerbelly

02-06-2012, 01:50 PM

BREAKING: 9th Circuit to rule on constitutionality of Prop 8 tomorrow
By Adam Bink

Just in from the courthouse:

The Court anticipates filing an opinion tomorrow (Tuesday, February 7) by 10:00 a.m. in Perry v. Brown, case numbers 10-16696 and 11-16577, regarding the constitutionality of Proposition 8 and the denial of a motion to vacate the lower court judgement in the case. A summary of the opinion prepared by court staff will be posted along with the opinion.

To recap, Judge Walker ruled Prop 8 to be unconstitutional in August 2010. The case and various related cases wound they way through the courts over the next year and a half. Tomorrow, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will finally issue a ruling on the appeal of Judge Walker’s verdict. From there, the case could go to the full 9th Circuit en banc (full 9th Circuit rather than just a panel of judges, as is the case here) and/or the Supreme Court.

The court will also rule on the motion to vacate Judge Walker’s decision because he’s gay.

As usual, we’ll be providing the best coverage on the web before and after the ruling tomorrow morning

Soon

02-06-2012, 06:55 PM

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/video?id=8531932

MsTinkerbelly

02-06-2012, 07:26 PM

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/video?id=8531932

That was AMAZING! Thank you for posting it...I hadn't seen the show.

MsTinkerbelly

02-07-2012, 12:06 PM

Prop 8 has been ruled unconstitutional! More later on whether or not a stay is issued

MsTinkerbelly

02-07-2012, 12:18 PM

BREAKING: Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional by 9th Circuit panel
By Jacob Combs and Adam Bink
Prop8TrialTracker.com just received the 9th Circuit’s opinion in Perry v. Brown that Proposition 8, the 2008 voter-enacted ban on marriage equality in California, is unconstitutional. In addition, the appeals panel ruled that the proponents of Prop 8 did have standing to pursue their appeal of Judge Walker’s decision striking down the marriage ban, and upheld District Court Judge Ware’s decision denying a stay to throw out Walker’s ruling because he is gay. The ruling on constitutionality was divided on an 2-1 vote, with Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Michael Hawkins voting to strike Prop 8 down, and Judge N. Randy Smith voting to uphold the ban. The ruling regarding standing and the motion to throw out Judge Walker’s decision was a unanimous 3-0 vote

MissItalianDiva

02-07-2012, 12:37 PM

Thrilled to see Prop 8 struck down but pissed the stay is still in place. It should have been lifted with this ruling. The law clearly states the stay can and should be lifted once the ruling was overturned.

MsTinkerbelly

02-07-2012, 12:43 PM

UPDATE 1: From the ruling, p. 80, footnote 27:
“The stay pending appeal issued by this court on August 16, 2010 remains in effect pending issuance of the mandate.”
UPDATE 2: The National Center for Lesbian Rights’s senior attorney, Chris Stoll, shares his thoughts with us on the next steps of the trial:
The stay is still in effect. Footnote 27 the opinion says that the previously issued stay remains in effect pending issuance of the mandate. Mandate issues 7 days after the deadline for filing a petition for rehearing expires, or 7 days after petition for rehearing is denied, whichever is later. I expect that the proponents will ask for a further stay from 9th Circuit, and if that is not granted, they will ask the Supreme Court.
It usually takes months for the en banc reconsideration to be completed. If a party asks for en banc review, the request is sent to all of the 20-something active judges on the court. Memos are often exchanged between the judges before a vote takes place on whether to take the case en banc. If they take it, names are drawn for the panel and a whole new series of briefs are usually filed, which takes a few more months. Then they hold oral argument and issue a decision. It is really almost like starting the whole appeal all over again.
The losing party has up to 90 days to ask the Supreme Court to take the case. It then usually takes a couple of months at least for the Supreme Court to decide whether to take a case. The party opposing Supreme Court review gets to file a brief saying why the Supreme Court should not take the case, and amicus briefs can be filed on both sides as well. Also, the Court does not do any business from the end of June to September. If all that briefing is not completed before the Court’s summer recess begins, then it will not even consider whether to take the case until it comes back in September

MsTinkerbelly

02-07-2012, 01:07 PM

UPDATE 5: From the AP’s coverage of the decision:
The court crafted a narrow decision that applies only to California, even though the court has jurisdiction in nine western states. California is the only one of those states where the ability for gays to marry was granted then rescinded.
“Whether under the Constitution same-sex couples may ever be denied the right to marry, a right that has long been enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, is an important and highly controversial question,” the court said. “We need not and do not answer the broader question in this case.
UPDATE 6: As Adam points out, the money line from the ruling:
“By using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed, without a legitimate reason for doing so, the people of California violated the Equal Protection Clause [of the federal Constitution]. We hold Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional on this ground

MsTinkerbelly

02-07-2012, 01:35 PM

In my opinion, The Supreme Court and the 9th Circut full court will probably decide not to hear the case since this is a decision limited only to California and the unconstitutional taking away of a previous right; and then marriage in California would be available to same-sex couples once again.

Okay...in my dreams!

BTW... I follow this case because I want everyone to have full equality under the law, in that they can protect their families with the same protections hetro couples receive; but in my case, I believe that also pertains to polyamourous families and "other" types of families wanting to protect their units with legal federal protections. I know that in the United States that day may never come, but isn't that the ideal we should all work to achieve?

Merlin

02-07-2012, 05:31 PM

Ding dong the witch is dead ? No more prop 8 ? Love and light from the Uk.

MsTinkerbelly

02-07-2012, 05:44 PM

Ding dong the witch is dead ? No more prop 8 ? Love and light from the Uk.

It was ruled invalid, but that decision will be appealed so we are still in limbo.

MsTinkerbelly

02-07-2012, 06:39 PM

UPDATE 8: Jon Davidson, Legal Director at Lambda Legal, just sent in his reaction:
The opinion is wonderful. It goes right to the dark heart of Proposition 8 — the measure had no purpose other than withdraw from lesbians and gay men the right to designate their committed relationships as marriages in order to deprive us of a societal status that affords dignity to those relationships. That is simply not a government objective the federal Constitution allows. It also brilliantly explains why it matters so much. “We do not celebrate when two people merge their bank accounts; we celebrate when a couple marries. The designation of ‘marriage’ is the status that we recognize. It is the principal manner in which the State attaches respect and dignity to the highest form of a committed relationship and to the individuals who have entered it” and that’s what Prop 8 wrongly tried to take away.
UPDATE 9: At the AFER press conference, attorneys Ted Boutrous and Ted Olson spoke about their ideas of whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court will take the case. Boutrous pointed out that the 9th Circuit’s decision today is deeply founded in previous Supreme Court rulings, particularly Romer v. Evans, and doesn’t raise any thorny issues that conflict with a decision from another circuit, the Supreme Court may be less inclined to take the case for those reasons. On the other hand, Ted Olson argued that part of California’s constitution, the largest state in the country (representing around 1/8 of the total U.S. population), has now been struck down by two courts, so the Supreme Court may wish to weigh in on those grounds. Both arguments are intriguing, and of course we won’t know anything until the case makes its way to the Supreme Court.
UPDATE 10: Also at today’s conference, attorney Ted Olson addressed the stay that is currently prohibiting Judge Walker’s now-upheld ruling from going into place. According to today’s ruling, the previous stay placed on that ruling by the 9th Circuit in August 2010 is in effect until the appeals court’s mandate is final. What this means is that the proponents of Prop 8 now have 14 days to ask for a rehearing by an en banc panel of the 9th Circuit. If they do not, the stay will be lifted. It is likely the proponents will ask for further appellate review, and ask for the 9th Circuit to place an extended stay on its decision pending that review. If the 9th Circuit were to deny that stay, the proponents could then go to the Supreme Court to ask for a stay pending appeal. The following guidelines for an en banc rehearing can be found after Judge Smith’s concurring and dissenting opinion in today’s ruling:
Purpose (Rehearing En Banc)
A party should seek en banc rehearing only if one or more of the following grounds exist:
Consideration by the full Court is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the Court’s decisions; or
The proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance; or
The opinion directly conflicts with an existing opinion by another court of appeals or the Supreme Court and substantially affects a rule of national application in which there is an overriding need for national uniformity.
UPDATE 11: Today, at 5 p.m., Courage Campaign’s Rick Jacobs, Chair and Founder, and Adam Bink, Director of Online Programs, will attend a community event at Los Angeles City Hall. L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa will be in attendance, as well as AFER board members Rob Reiner and Dustin Lance Black and a broad range of community and advocacy organizations. The event will take place at City Hall, on the 3rd floor of 200 N. Spring St. More information can be found on AFER’s Facebook page.
UPDATE 12: NOM’s reaction, which was itself predictable:
“As sweeping and wrong-headed as this decision is, it nonetheless was as predictable as the outcome of a Harlem Globetrotters exhibition game,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “We have anticipated this outcome since the moment San Francisco Judge Vaughn Walker’s first hearing in the case. Now we have the field cleared to take this issue to the US Supreme Court, where we have every confidence we will prevail.”
UPDATE 13 (Jacob): I got to listen in to AFER’s press call this afternoon about the 9th Circuit decision. Here are some highlights:
Ted Olson spoke in a little more detail about the stay. Essentially, in its decision today the 9th Circuit set it up so that the stay would expire when it issues a mandate affirming Judge Walker’s ruling. The proponents of Prop 8 have 14 days from today to request further appellate hearings. If they don’t, the mandate goes into effect 7 days later, and the stay is lifted (that would happen on Feb. 28). If they do seek a rehearing or Supreme Court review, the mandate cannot be issued until that process is complete, and the stay would remain in place.
AFER’s attorneys were very clear that while the specific decision the 9th Circuit came to today is carefully crafted and applies only to California (following the principle of judicial restraint), the reasoning the judges use to make their decision is much broader and could have major repercussions. In essence, today’s decision says that discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is unconstitutional. On p. 77 of the decision, Judge Reinhardt writes, “Proposition 8 operates with no apparent purpose but to impose on gays and lesbians, through the public law, a majority’s private disapproval of them and their relationships, by taking away from them the official designation of ‘marriage,’ with its societally recognized status. Proposition 8 therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause.” This kind of reasoning follows that made by AFER’s attorneys in trial, and as AFER President Chad Griffin points out, it could have ramifications in other states with marriage equality, such as New York (and possibly Washington, later this year), in which marriage opponents wish to seek to rescind previously enumerated marriage rights through a popular referendum or by changing the makeup of the legislature.
To further prove this point, attorney David Boies pointed to this quotation from p. 60: “There is no rational reason to think that taking away the designation of ‘marriage’ from same-sex couples would advance the goal of encouraging California’s opposite-sex couples to procreate more responsibly.” Again, because of the scope of today’s decision, that sentence technically only applies to California. Nevertheless, that sentence (and its explicit rejection of the ‘responsible procreation’ argument made against marriage equality) can be cited and expanded upon by other courts in the future.
Ted Olson noted that when it decided Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court (in a majority opinion authored by Justice Kennedy) argued that it was not making any decision about the validity of gay relationships, and only ruling about private sexual conduct. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia blasted the majority and argued that Lawrence could some day used in support of marriage equality. He was correct, of course–the Perry decision cites Lawrence and Justice Scalia’s dissent specifically. In Olson’s mind, today’s ruling demonstrates unequivocally that marriage is a centrally important American institution, and that it is unconstitutional to call gay couples’ relationships civil unions or domestic partnerships, because doing so implicitly classifies those relationships as less valid than heterosexual marriages. In his mind, today’s decision lays the framework for further expansion of marriage rights in other courts.
UPDATE 14: Over on Twitter, “Modern Family” stars Jesse Tyler Ferguson and Eric Stonestreet ask a very good question.
UPDATE 15: GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney released this statement regarding the 9th Circuit’s decision:
“Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage. This decision does not end this fight, and I expect it to go to the Supreme Court. That prospect underscores the vital importance of this election and the movement to preserve our values. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices.”
UPDATE 16: When asked about the appellate ruling, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney had no official response from the administration, saying, “I don’t have a comment on litigation in general and in this litigation to which we are not a party. Beyond that, I can say that the President has long opposed, as you know, divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples.”
UDPATE 17: From the Wall Street Journal’s opinion pages, James Taranto writes:
The Ninth Circuit has a poor batting average in Supreme Court appeals, and this decision was written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who is notoriously liberal. Those facts are likely to inspire optimism among conservative commentators who oppose same-sex marriage. They shouldn’t. Reinhardt’s decision was expertly crafted to appeal to his former Ninth Circuit peer Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose view of the matter is all but certain to prove decisive.
In August 2010, this column ventured a prediction: “When the Supreme Court takes up Perry v. Schwarzenegger–perhaps under the name Brown v. Perry or Whitman v. Perry [it will be Perry v. Brown if today's opinion is appealed]–the justices will rule 5-4, in a decision written by Justice Kennedy, that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”
Although we still think that is Justice Kennedy’s inclination, we hereby walk back our prediction a bit. The court will not find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in this case, but it will strike down Proposition 8 and thereby reimpose same-sex marriage in California. Reinhard’s decision lays out a way in which Justice Kennedy can do so–and indeed makes it very difficult for Kennedy to uphold Proposition 8.
The trial judge in the Perry case held that same-sex marriage was itself protected by the U.S. Constitution. But the Ninth Circuit judges set aside this holding and decided the case on “narrow grounds.” They found that Proposition 8 was analogous to Amendment 2, a Colorado ballot measure that the Supreme Court struck down in Romer v. Evans (1996).
Amendment 2 barred state and local government in the Centennial State from official actions “designed to protect the status of persons based on their ‘homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships.’ ” In a 6-3 ruling, the high court held that the amendment violated equal protection by “imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group.” The author of that decision was Anthony Kennedy.
UPDATE 18: Towleroad’s Ari Ezra Waldman has a long, detailed reaction and analysis piece to the 9th Circuit’s ruling. His fundamental argument, though, is crystal clear:
More than any single vote, more than any single veto, more than any single legislative majority, the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Perry v. Brown is the most significant advancement in the fight for marriage equality in American history to date. Consider this: Never before has a federal appellate court affirmed any of the conclusions that the Ninth Circuit did today:
that denying committed gay couples their right to marry cannot encourage opposite sex marriages;
that when a state denies the right to marry while allowing gay couples all the rights and privilges of marriage, it cannot base the marriage ban on any rationale that denigrates gay parents;
that domestic partnerships are unequal to marriage;
that, as a matter of law, marriage rights do not hinge on natural procreative ability;
and, of course,
that a ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional

Merlin

02-08-2012, 12:20 AM

It was ruled invalid, but that decision will be appealed so we are still in limbo.

And yet in most states its legal to marry your cousin ?

Is that right ?

*Anya*

02-08-2012, 07:22 AM

Couple in Landmark California Case Getting Divorced

Robin Tyler has confirmed that she and Diane Olson, the first couple to legally marry in Los Angeles County, where they sued for the right, are now getting divorced.

They applied for a marriage license every year since 2001 and were rejected until June 16, 2008, finally being given the right when the state's Supreme Court found a California ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional.

"When we took the oath, the clerk who gave us our license had tears in her eyes," Tyler remembers in a 2008 op-ed about the moment for The Huffington Post. "She had turned us down so many times earlier that she could not hold back her emotions."

Tyler and Olson were two of the four original plaintiffs in the case that led to the landmark ruling, which was eventually overturned by California voters with the passage of Proposition 8.

When they were married, they'd been together for 15 years and known each other for 35.

MsTinkerbelly

02-08-2012, 09:00 AM

MsTinkerbelly

02-08-2012, 01:37 PM

Marriage equality bill to receive full Washington House vote at 1 p.m.
By Jacob Combs

Following yesterday’s historic news of the 9th Circuit striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional, today brings another monumental event for marriage equality: the Washington House is scheduled to vote on a marriage equality bill at 1 p.m. PST. The bill passed the state Senate last Wednesday on a 28-21 vote, with four Republican senators voting in favor of the measure.

According to The Olympian, Democratic Rep. Jamie Pederson believes there are 54 to 56 votes in the House to pass the bill, significantly more than the 49-vote majority needed to approve the bill. Observers have expected the bill to easily pass the House, and Governor Chris Gregoire has pledged to sign it into law. That law would take effect on June 7.

You can watch tomorrow’s House proceedings live on TVW, Washington’s state version of C-SPAN. And, of course, we’ll have the news here on Prop8TrialTracker.com when it breaks!

MsTinkerbelly

02-08-2012, 01:39 PM

And yet in most states its legal to marry your cousin ?

Is that right ?

Ah yes..... your 1st cousin in California....pretty much your 1/2 sibling if you want to get technical. :jester:

MsTinkerbelly

02-08-2012, 03:20 PM

Top 10 questions on next steps in the Prop 8 trial
By Adam Bink

After major rulings like yesterday, there are always many questions that surface in the comments here at Prop8TrialTracker.com and elsewhere on what this means and what next. The Prop8TrialTracker.com staff took at look at many of those questions, consulted with our friends in the legal community and put together a list for your perusal (and if we’ve missed any, feel free to add in the comments and we’ll do our best to answer them).

1. Everyone says the losing side (Prop 8′s proponents) can now appeal to the 9th Circuit en banc. I thought the 9th Circuit just ruled?

A randomly selected 3-judge panel made up of 9th Circuit judges just ruled 2-1 that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. But the 9th Circuit is made up of several dozen judges. En banc is a term referring to when all the judges hear a case. When it comes to the 9th Circuit, if the request for an en banc hearing is granted, 11 judges from the 9th Circuit will convene to take a look at the case, which may involve a hearing.

2. What’s the timeline for that?

It usually takes months for the en banc reconsideration to be completed. If a party asks for en banc review, the request is sent to all of the active judges on the court. Memos are often exchanged between the judges before a vote takes place on whether to take the case en banc. If they take it, names are drawn for the panel and a whole new series of briefs are usually filed, which takes a few more months. Then they hold oral arguments and issue a decision. It is really almost like starting the whole appeal all over again.

3. What happens if the 9th Circuit doesn’t take an en banc appeal?

The losing side can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

4. If the 9th Circuit takes the case en banc and they rule, what happens after they rule?

The losing side can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

5. Can the losing side from the 9th Circuit panel decision just go straight to the Supreme Court and not appeal to the 9th Circuit en banc at all?

Yes.

6. Will the Supreme Court take the case?

There are many different opinions about that. Many legal experts note the limited scope of yesterday’s 9th Circuit panel decision. Note that the Court explicitly said it was not making a ruling on same-sex marriage in general, but instead ruled on this one constitutional amendment (Proposition 8, passed by voters in 2008). In fact, Judge Reinhardt, writing for the majority, wrote:

Whether under the Constitution same-sex couples may ever be denied the right to marry, a right that has long been enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, is an important and highly controversial question. It is currently a matter of great debate in our nation, and an issue over which people of good will may disagree, sometimes strongly. Of course, when questions of constitutional law are necessary to the resolution of a case, courts may not and should not abstain from deciding them simply because they are controversial. We need not and do not answer the broader question in this case, however, because California had already committed to same-sex couples both the incidents of marriage and the official designation of ‘marriage,’ and Proposition 8’s only effect was to take away that important and legally significant designation, while leaving in place all of its incidents. This unique and strictly limited effect of Proposition 8 allows us to address the amendment’s constitutionality on narrow grounds.

Note also that the Court did not apply its ruling to the states covered in the 9th Circuit to say “all of the laws banning same-sex marriage do not comply with the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and are therefore unconstitutional.” Instead, the 9th Circuit panel limited the scope of its ruling to Prop 8.

What does that mean with respect to the Supreme Court? It means, according to many legal experts, that the Court is less likely to take the case. That combined with the fact that over 99% of all cases filed for Supreme Court review are rejected for consideration means the Court may not take the case, in which case, yesterday’s 9th Circuit panel decision (or the decision of a full en banc review panel, if there is one) would stand. Of course, other legal experts believe the Court would take up the issue.

7. So what does that mean for same-sex marriage in California if the Supreme Court does not take the case?

If the Supreme Court does not take the case and there is no 9th Circuit en banc review (or there is a ruling from en banc review that Prop 8 is unconstitutional along the lines of yesterday’s decision), yesterday’s decision would become final, Prop 8 would fall, the stay would be lifted and same-sex couples in California can marry once again.

8. What’s the timeline for the Supreme Court?

The losing party has up to 90 days to ask the Supreme Court to take the case. It then usually takes a couple of months at least for the Supreme Court to decide whether to take a case. The party opposing Supreme Court review gets to file a brief saying why the Supreme Court should not take the case, and amicus briefs can be filed on both sides as well. Also, the Court does not do any business from the end of June to September. If all that briefing is not completed before the Court’s summer recess begins, then it will not even consider whether to take the case until it comes back in September. That all sets up for a decision in 2013 at the earliest.

9. Is there any indication of how the Supreme Court might rule?

Many legal minds have remarked how both Judge Walker’s decision as well as Judge Reinhardt’s opinion yesterday were along the lines of Justice Kennedy’s arguments with respect to cases like Romer v. Evans, the landmark case that struck down Amendment 2 in Colorado. Attorney Adam Bonin, writing at DailyKos, best encapsulates this widely remarked opinion as he notes:

This is a decision which the Supreme Court—if it hears the case at all—will affirm. It’s written in Justice Kennedy’s sweet spot, and I would not be surprised to see the Chief Justice and even Justice Alito potentially adhering to a precedent that said that if Romer remains good law, Prop 8 cannot stand.

On the other hand, there is a good chance same-sex marriage advocates will lose, and lose big. Adam goes on to note:

Am I disappointed this panel didn’t go further? Not really. No one knows where the Supreme Court as a whole is on marriage equality. And, in particular, we can’t be sure just where Justice Kennedy is on marriage equality, and on this he is the key vote. He has made clear that he believes in the role of the Supreme Court to be a leader on issues of social justice—whether in expanding gay rights or in looking to international norms to scale back America’s death penalty—and in this case Kennedy’s grandiosity could be marriage equality’s best friend.

But I wasn’t willing to take that chance. For all we know, Justices Breyer and Ginsburg might not be ready to go that far. Moreover, you can’t always rely on Justice Kennedy, who is a conservative, after all. Maybe he recoils from changing the national definition of marriage.

The bottom line is, no, there is never a “sure” indication of how the Court will rule, though yesterday’s opinion helps solidify various guesses. Does the 9th Circuit panel’s decision “set up” for a favorable ruling at the Supreme Court if it takes the case? Most likely, yes. Does that mean the Supreme Court will affirm yesterday’s ruling? There is a better chance. Does it mean the Supreme Court will “go big” and strike down laws across the country banning same-sex marriage, if it takes the case at all? Not necessarily.

10. So while this is all happening, the stay on yesterday’s decision is still in effect and same-sex couples cannot marry?

Yes, the stay is still in effect. Footnote 27 in the opinion says that the previously issued stay remains in effect pending issuance of the mandate. Mandate issues 7 days after the deadline for filing a petition for rehearing expires, or 7 days after a petition for rehearing is denied, whichever is later. It’s generally expected that proponents will ask for a further stay from the 9th Circuit, and if that is not granted, they will ask the Supreme Court.

More questions can be submitted in the comments and we’ll keep an eye out and do our best to answer them here for you as well as in the comments. As such this post may update

MsTinkerbelly

02-08-2012, 07:17 PM

The bill passed in the house and is awaiting the Governor's signature. Yay Washington State!

MsTinkerbelly

02-08-2012, 07:25 PM

BREAKING: Washington legislature passes marriage equality
By Jacob Combs
As anticipated, a proposed marriage equality bill passed the Washington House tonight, with a final vote tally of 55-43. The bill passed the state Senate last week, and now moves to Governor Chris Gregoire, who has pledged to sign it into law. Because there is no emergency clause in the bill, the law will take effect 90 days after the end of the legislative session, meaning gays and lesbians would be able to marry on June 7, unless opponents of marriage equality collect enough signatures to put the measure on the ballot in November, in which case the law would be suspended until the referendum was complete.
In his speech this afternoon on the House floor in support of the bill, openly gay Rep. Jamie Pedersen read from Judge Reinhardt’s 9th Circuit opinion yesterday striking down Prop 8 as unconstitutional, sharing the following words from the decision:
“We need consider only the many ways in which we encounter the word ‘marriage’ in our daily lives and understand it, consciously or not, to convey a sense of significant…. The name ‘marriage’ signifies the unique recognition that society gives to harmonious, loyal, enduring, and intimate relationships.”
Congratulations, Washington!

StrongButch

02-08-2012, 10:31 PM

I am in Washington Anybody wanna get married (lol) Washington is a great state to live in very liberal Many ride there bicycles all year and recycle Im proud to say I live here

iamkeri1

02-08-2012, 10:34 PM

MsTinkerbelly

02-08-2012, 10:42 PM

I did not reply yesterday because I was really too sleepy to read all the info you provided, Ms T. Not only that, but I was really dis-spirited by the narrowness of the decision that the court made. I have been hoping for a long while now that a decision would be forthcoming that would have a national effect. I guess it is good in its limited way. It does protect queers who have once had rights from losing those rights. Good for them, but it actually makes it more difficult for those who have no real hope of their state (like my state of Florida) actually ever passing an equity law in the first place. Glad if it helps you guys, though.
Smooches,
Keri

I never thought that I would see equal marriage in my lifetime anywhere in this country...I bet there were women who never thought they would ever vote...interracial couples that were afraid to be seen together let alone marry...people owned that had no hope. You get my point.

It will take a while, and it wil take the Government to get it done, but it is building steam and will keeping moving forward until someday our children and grandchildren will wonder what all the fuss was about.:rrose:

Toughy

02-09-2012, 12:07 AM

State sanctioned marriage has never held any interest for me....even when I was a kid. And it still holds no interest.

It is the military that leads the way for the entire country, as it did with integration of black soldiers. The first step has been taken for civil rights. When the military (which it must) finally forces equal rights the rest of the country will follow.

The military is forcing federal benefits and has the absolute best case in the court systems for equal rights.

it's damn hard to look someone in the eye, who has lost half a leg or two and more, and say your marriage sucks and your benefits, should you die, cannot go to your same sex life partner.

iamkeri1

02-10-2012, 12:16 AM

Maureen Walsh Washington State Congresswoman speaks on same sex marriage bill. FANTASTIC! She deserves some major props.
Smooches,
Keri

qy4R6UNueuM

MsTinkerbelly

02-10-2012, 01:53 PM

Gov To Sign WA Marriage Bill On Monday

Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire will sign her state's marriage equality bill on Monday morning, thereby setting the clock ticking on the rush to collect referendum signatures to block gay marriage at the ballot box.
A statehouse signing ceremony in Olympia, Washington's capital, was slated for 11:30 a.m. local time on Monday. The bill won final legislative approval from the state House of Representatives on Wednesday by a vote of 55-43. The measure will not take effect before early June. Opponents have vowed to seek its repeal at the polls in November, but they cannot begin collecting signatures for a petition to overturn the measure by referendum until it is signed into law.

MsTinkerbelly

02-13-2012, 01:34 PM

By GEOFF MULVIHILL -AP

TRENTON, New Jersey — New Jersey lawmakers gave their blessing to legalizing gay marriage for the first time Monday as the state Senate passed a bill that would allow nuptials for same-sex couples. Gov. Chris Christie has said he will veto such legislation.

..The Senate's vote sends the bill to the Assembly, which is expected to pass it Thursday.

Six states and Washington, D.C., allow gay marriage, and Washington state will join that list when Gov. Christine Gregoire signs legislation legalizing same-sex marriage Monday.

New Jersey's governor, a Republican, announced his veto intentions last month. He has said he does not believe marriage laws should be changed, but he does support New Jersey's civil union law, which grants gay couples the legal protections of marriage.

Christie said he wants to put a change in the definition of marriage to a public vote.

But gay rights groups oppose a referendum. They see gay marriage as a civil rights matter and argue that it should not be up to the masses to protect the rights of a minority group.

Five years ago, New Jersey's state Supreme Court ruled that gay couples should have the same rights as married heterosexual couples. In response, the Legislature created civil unions.

Gay rights advocates say that because the civil union designation is hard to understand and still treats committed gays differently from married couples, the courts should eliminate civil unions and recognize gay marriage. A lawsuit seeking to do that is in the state court system.

MsTinkerbelly

02-14-2012, 01:48 PM

Love Honor Cherish cancels Prop 8 ballot repeal initiative
By Jacob Combs

Last night, some big Prop 8 news came out of California as Love Honor Cherish, which had begun the process to collect signatures and place a repeal of Prop 8 on the November ballot, announced that it is canceling that effort. In an email to its supporters, LHC wrote:

Following last week’s victory in the 9th Circuit, we are now hopeful that weddings of gay and lesbian couples will resume by the end of this year, or even, at the end of this month. And what an incredible day that will be when gays and lesbians are able to marry again in California!

In the meantime, our “backup plan” to put the repeal of Prop 8 on the ballot this November is no longer feasible. Although we have had success so far–our wonderful volunteers, significant donor commitments, our campaign office, and support from numerous leaders and organizations around the state–collecting the 807,615 valid signatures required will likely not happen by mid-April as required to qualify for the November 2012 ballot.

We would need more than $1.5 million in donor commitments to hire a paid signature gathering firm to assist us in this massive effort. In view of the 9th Circuit victory and the narrowness of the ruling, making Supreme Court review less likely, raising the additional funds needed is now not realistic. And, as we have stated, we had no illusions that the initiative could qualify based solely on our statewide volunteer signature gathering effort

iamkeri1

02-15-2012, 02:25 AM

MsTinkerbelly

02-15-2012, 11:10 AM

(((Miss T,)))
I know you were committed to this proposition. I hope you are not too disappointed about the decision to halt the process. From your lips to God's ears that Cali folk will be back in the marriage business by years end.
Smooches,
Keri

I was really crushed by the people of California voting in Prop 8...I spent weeks grieving for the slap. Ideally I would love for people to change their minds, vote Prop 8 down and have a Kumbaya moment where we are all as one, but pffffttt that one is never going to happen and no one should get to vote on my civil rights anyway.

I firmally believe that even if everyone has to wait a while, the Government is going to have to force this issue for it to be something that is available to all that want it. I'm already married in my State, but Federal recognition and the benefits that go along with marriage are what I am really after.

MsTinkerbelly

02-15-2012, 01:33 PM

Marriage equality opponents file referendum paperwork in Washington
By Jacob Combs

As expected, opponents of marriage equality have filed paperwork in Washington state to put a referendum of the state’s recently passed marriage bill on the November ballot. SeatllePI reports:

Opponents of same-sex marriage, seeking to force a referendum on Washington’s new law, filed the paperwork in Olympia about three hours after Gov. Chris Gregoire signed marriage equality into law.

They have until June 6, a political D-Day for collecting and submitting 120,577 valid voter signatures to put marriage equality on the November ballot. The right of same-sex couples to wed would be blocked until voters decide the issue.

…

Sponsors of Referendum 73 include groups at the right end of the political spectrum such as Concerned Women for America and the National Organization for Marriage. The campaign is being mounted under the banner of a group called Preserve Marriage Washington. Backholm predicted that the campaign will be “expensive”, with estimates in the $2-4 million range for each side.

Conservatives forced a statewide referendum in 2009 in a bid to roll back the a domestic partner law, nicknamed “Everything but Marriage,” after it was passed by the Washington Legislature. Voters by a 53-47 percent margin voted to sustain the rights of domestic partners.

MsTinkerbelly

02-15-2012, 01:34 PM

Maryland’s marriage equality bill heads to full House after passing committee vote
By Jacob Combs

Yesterday, two Maryland House of Delegates committees which heard testimony on a proposed marriage equality bill last Friday voted as a joint body to advance the bill to a full House vote. The joint committee vote required a majority of the 45 legislators to move the bill to the House; it passed 25-18.

As the Baltimore Sun reported, yesterday’s vote did hold a few surprises. Delegate Robert Costa, who represents a conservative area in Anne Arundel County, took supporters of marriage equality by surprise when he voted yes, becoming the only Republican so far to do. Del. Sam Arora, whose relationship with the LGBT community has been on rocky ground, abstained from the vote. Arora included marriage equality in his platform when he ran for office, garnering cash and political support from progressives and the LGBT community, co-sponsored last year’s marriage equality bill, and then later issued a statement saying he had changed his mind about marriage rights but would still vote for the bill.

Last year, two delegates who had co-sponsored the legislation, Jill Carter of Baltimore and Tiffany Alston of Prince George’s County, stunned supporters by dropping their support for the measure. Alston voted against moving the bill out of committee this year, and also introduced an amendment that would delay the bill’s effective date to allow for a voter referendum before it would go into effect. That measure failed. Carter has not co-sponsored the bill this year, saying her support for marriage equality had “diminished,” but did vote to move it to the House floor.

Supporters of the bill have expressed optimism, saying they believed House leaders would move the measure to a full floor vote only if they thought it could pass. Last year, the Judiciary committee, which was the only one to hear testimony on a marriage equality bill, voted to send it to the full House, only to have it sent back to committee when support dried up, killing the measure. This year, only 11 of the 21 Jucidiary committee members voted in favor of the bill, although 15 of the 23 members on the health committee, a majority, voted yes.

What does this all mean? Essentially, if marriage equality does come up for a full House vote in Maryland this year, which it looks like it will, it’s going to be a very close vote that will probably come down to the few legislators still sitting on the fence. If you live in Maryland or know anyone who does, it’s time to contact those representatives! Maryland could be another win for 2012, but it’s going to be an uphill battle getting there

iamkeri1

02-16-2012, 03:22 AM

Did they request a stay so that marriages will not be able to take place while the opponents seek signatures to get it on the ballot or it is defeated at the polls?
Smooches,
Keri

Marriage equality opponents file referendum paperwork in Washington
By Jacob Combs

As expected, opponents of marriage equality have filed paperwork in Washington state to put a referendum of the state’s recently passed marriage bill on the November ballot. SeatllePI reports:

Opponents of same-sex marriage, seeking to force a referendum on Washington’s new law, filed the paperwork in Olympia about three hours after Gov. Chris Gregoire signed marriage equality into law.

They have until June 6, a political D-Day for collecting and submitting 120,577 valid voter signatures to put marriage equality on the November ballot. The right of same-sex couples to wed would be blocked until voters decide the issue.

…

Sponsors of Referendum 73 include groups at the right end of the political spectrum such as Concerned Women for America and the National Organization for Marriage. The campaign is being mounted under the banner of a group called Preserve Marriage Washington. Backholm predicted that the campaign will be “expensive”, with estimates in the $2-4 million range for each side.

Conservatives forced a statewide referendum in 2009 in a bid to roll back the a domestic partner law, nicknamed “Everything but Marriage,” after it was passed by the Washington Legislature. Voters by a 53-47 percent margin voted to sustain the rights of domestic partners.

MsTinkerbelly

02-16-2012, 08:50 AM

Did they request a stay so that marriages will not be able to take place while the opponents seek signatures to get it on the ballot or it is defeated at the polls?
Smooches,
Keri

The 9th Circut Court left the stay in place until their Mandate could be put into effect, or until another appeal was filed by the other side.
From post 881:
UPDATE 1: From the ruling, p. 80, footnote 27:
“The stay pending appeal issued by this court on August 16, 2010 remains in effect pending issuance of the mandate.”
UPDATE 2: The National Center for Lesbian Rights’s senior attorney, Chris Stoll, shares his thoughts with us on the next steps of the trial:
The stay is still in effect. Footnote 27 the opinion says that the previously issued stay remains in effect pending issuance of the mandate. Mandate issues 7 days after the deadline for filing a petition for rehearing expires, or 7 days after petition for rehearing is denied, whichever is later. I expect that the proponents will ask for a further stay from 9th Circuit, and if that is not granted, they will ask the Supreme Court

MsTinkerbelly

02-16-2012, 01:37 PM

Civil union bill passes Colorado House panel
By Jacob Combs

Yesterday, the Colorado Senate Judiciary Committee voted 5-2 to advance a civil union bill to the Senate floor. One Republican joined the committee’s four democrats to vote yes on the measure. The bill is expected to pass the Democrat-controlled Senate, but its passage is unclear in the House, where Republicans hold a majority by a margin of one vote. From the Washington Post:

The bill addresses parental rights and child support when a same-sex couple separates. The bill would also grant same-sex couples other rights similar to what exist in a traditional marriage, such as the ability to be involved in their partner’s medical and end-of-life decisions. It also would enhance inheritance and property rights.

Colorado banned marriage equality in 2006, when voters amended the state constitution to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples. Last year, a similar bill passed the Senate, only to be killed in a House committee on a party-line vote. Rep. Mark Ferrandino, a gay legislator who supported the 2011 bill, told reporters that he was confident the measure would have passed a full house vote. This year could prove differently, with more Republicans in the state expressing support for the measure. Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper also mentioned the bill in his State of the State speech in January, urging lawmakers to pass it and provide protections for Colorado’s gay and lesbian couples

MsTinkerbelly

02-16-2012, 01:38 PM

Marriage equality bills to be considered today in New Jersey, Maryland legislatures
By Jacob Combs

Starting at 1 p.m. EST, the New Jersey General Assembly will debate and then vote on the marriage equality bill that passed the state’s Senate on Monday. The Assembly is expected to pass the bill, which Gov. Chris Christie has promised to veto. A link to the Assembly’s media stream can be found here.

Also today, the Maryland House of Delegates will begin debate on a proposed marriage equality bill, which passed out of a joint House committee on Tuesday. A procedural move in the House on Wednesday delayed consideration of the bill until today to buy more time for supporters to lobby legislators. Debate was scheduled to begin this morning, but was pushed back to a special session late this afternoon which will begin at 5:30 p.m. EST. Audio of the session will be available here. A final vote in the House could occur later this week.

We’ll have updates here on P8TT when the votes occur in either state!

UPDATE: The Baltimore Sun reports that a second GOP lawmaker has announced his support for marriage equality in Maryland:

Del. Wade Kach, a Baltimore County Republican, told The Sun this morning that he will switch his vote and throw his support behind Gov. Martin O’Malley’s bill to legalize same-sex marriage.

Kach said the change in heart came after considerable deliberation. He plans to put out a statement at 10:15 a.m.

The move puts O’Malley closer to the 71 votes he needs for passage in the 141-member chamber, but it is still unclear that supporters have the numbers they need. Lawmakers will begin debating the marriage bill this morning. A final vote could come as soon as Friday.

Kach’s decision is stunning since he voted against the same-sex marriage bill in committee on Monday night and is a co-sponsor of a different measure that would define marriage as between a man and a woman

MsTinkerbelly

02-16-2012, 07:49 PM

Did they request a stay so that marriages will not be able to take place while the opponents seek signatures to get it on the ballot or it is defeated at the polls?
Smooches,
Keri

Oh jeez, you were asking about Washington! I believe that the side wishing to force a vote has until June to gather enough signatures to put it to a vote to repeal it in November. I think they call it a referendum.

MsTinkerbelly

02-16-2012, 07:53 PM

Did they request a stay so that marriages will not be able to take place while the opponents seek signatures to get it on the ballot or it is defeated at the polls?
Smooches,
Keri

At the earliest, Marriage cannot begin until the legislature finishes their session...I think that is June as well.

MsTinkerbelly

02-17-2012, 08:54 AM

New Jersey Assembly passes marriage equality bill
By Jacob Combs

Updated at 6:15 to reflect accurate vote count–apparently one assembly member’s button was broken during the vote.

In a late afternoon vote, the New Jersey General Assembly passed marriage equality on a vote of 42-33. The measure passed the Senate earlier this week by a 24-16 margin. The bill now goes to the desk of Gov. Chris Christie, who has promised to veto it.
The Washington Post reports on supporters’ next move should Christie keep true to his veto threat:

The bill would need several Republican votes in each house to override the governor; Christie himself essentially guaranteed that that won’t happen.

With that in mind, Democrats who identified same-sex marriage as their No. 1 priority for the two-year legislative session that began in January have adopted a longer view. They say there’s no rush for an override vote, especially because the Legislature has been unsuccessful in every prior attempt to override Christie, most notably to reinstate a surcharge on millionaires.

Instead, they plan to bide their time in hopes that support for gay marriage — currently 52-42 percent in New Jersey, according to one recent voter poll — will continue to grow.

“Civil rights is incremental, civil rights is long range, and you take one achievement at a time,” said Steven Goldstein, head of the state’s largest gay rights group, Garden State Equality.

In case same-sex couples can’t win gay marriage through legislation, they have engaged in a parallel fight in the courts. Seven gay couples and several of their children have sued, claiming that the state’s civil union law doesn’t work as intended

iamkeri1

02-17-2012, 01:46 PM

Any chance that a supreme court justice (preferably Thomas or Scalia) will retire (or die) before prop 8 is advanced to the supreme court? The new justice might not vote due to "newness", but at least one of the bad old votes would be gone.

I can dream can't I
Smooches,
Keri

suebee

02-18-2012, 10:09 AM

Same-sex marriage law change in Canada addresses divorce. Link here (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/02/17/gay-marriage-loophole.html).

*Anya*

02-18-2012, 03:54 PM

Excellent documentary on the case of Virginia couple Richard and Mildred Loving, an interracial couple arrested, jailed and banished from Virginia for marrying in the 1950's.

As I listen to it, I can't help but replace interracial with gay and realize I am listening to the same exact excuses for not allowing lesbians and gays to marry.

Their love was not illegal. Their marriage was, a violation of Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act banning interracial marriage.

Richard and Mildred Loving were both sent to jail, charged criminally, convicted of felonies and banished from Virginia, the harsh beginning of a nine-year journey in which the couple would fight all the way to the Supreme Court, for the right to go home as husband and wife. 18 other states also had similar laws.

June 12,1967, the Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, struck down the laws banning interracial marriage:

"Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the state"

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/02/14/2639770/a-loving-legacy.html#storylink=cpy

Gaige

02-19-2012, 09:04 AM

RANDALLSTOWN, Md. (WJZ)– Same-sex couples are one step closer to walking down the aisle legally in Maryland. The Civil Marriage Protection Act narrowly passed in the House of Delegates.

The bill will now head over to the Senate where it is expected to pass just as it did last year. But both sides believe it will then go to referendum in November so it could be Maryland voters who make the final call.

If voters approve the measure, the earliest a gay couple could wed in Maryland is January when the law would go into affect.

MsTinkerbelly

02-20-2012, 08:55 AM

West Virginia legislator introduces civil unions bill
By Jacob Combs

Delegate John Doyle, a Democrat, has introduced a bill in the West Virginia House to provide gay and lesbian couples with the same legal rights and protections as their heterosexual counterparts. The AP reports:

Delegate John Doyle says he introduced the bill Thursday to start a conversation about family equality. The Jefferson County Democrat says that gay and lesbian couples should have the same safety net to deal with the death of a parent or the loss of a job as married couples.

Fairness WV, which advocates on behalf of the gay, lesbian and transgender community, says this is the first time a civil union bill has been introduced in the West Virginia Legislature.

Doyle also sponsored a bill that would prohibit workplace and housing discrimination based on sexual orientation. That bill has not advanced since it was introduced

MsTinkerbelly

02-20-2012, 11:02 AM

The problem with Gov. Christie’s veto
By Jacob Combs

Yesterday, just like he promised to, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie vetoed the marriage equality bill that passed the state legislature earlier this week.

Along with his veto, Christie has called for a referendum on the issue in November while simultaneously issuing insert-foot-here arguments suggesting that African-American civil rights leaders would have been “happy” to have a referendum on their rights. While the governor has accused Democrats in the New Jersey Legislature of political theater, the truth is that either both sides of the issue in New Jersey are guilty of that charge, or neither are.

Supporters of the bill are taking a long-term strategy towards bringing marriage equality to the Garden State with a plan to gain enough support by 2014 to override the governor’s veto with a 2/3 vote in both houses of the legislature. Assembly Democrats have stated that they would have had two more votes in favor of marriage equality if two Republican members who were on vacation had taken part in Thursday’s vote. That means supporters will have to court 10 more votes in the Assembly and three more in the Senate to override the veto.

Christie’s calculus on the issue is not difficult to ascertain. As Steven Goldstein, Chair of Garden State Equality, said in a statement:

[Christie] won’t veto the bill because he’s anti-gay. He’ll veto the bill because the 2016 South Carolina Republican Presidential primary electorate is anti-gay. And if I get flooded with letters now from Charleston, so be it.

But despite Gov. Christie’s perhaps wise political choice regarding his future career, his veto threat may in fact be an dereliction of the duty pertaining to his current career. As Tobias Wolff, Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania, astutely pointed out in an e-mail to Prop8TrialTracker.com’s Adam Bink:

The New Jersey Supreme Court decided, unanimously, that same-sex couples are entitled to fully equal treatment under the New Jersey Constitution. Experience has demonstrated that civil unions fail to provide that fully equal treatment. In enacting a marriage equality bill, the New Jersey legislature is fulfilling a constitutional mandate from the State’s highest court.

The case that Professor Wolff is referring to is Lewis v. Harris, a 2006 decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court that gay and lesbian couples in the state were entitled to the same equal protection as heterosexual couples. In its ruling, the court stated:

We have decided that our State Constitution guarantees that every statutory right and benefit conferred to heterosexual couples through civil marriage must be made available to committed same-sex couples. Now the Legislature must determine whether to alter the long accepted definition of marriage.

This week, the Legislature did just that, determining that keeping the term ‘marriage’ from gay and lesbian couples is an unfair burden on those couples’ relationships. In 2008, a Civil Union Review Commission comprised of clergy, lawyers, lawmakers and marriage equality activists unanimously recommended that New Jersey provide marriages to same-sex couples, saying that “civil unions will not be recognized by the general public as the equivalent of marriage in New Jersey.”

By vetoing the marriage equality bill that the New Jersey legislature passed this week, Gov. Christie has expressly reneged on his constitutional responsibility to confer “every statutory right and benefit” to same-sex couples, and he has thwarted the power of the Legislature, provided by the state’s Supreme Court in 2006, to make the decision to provide the equal rights that Lewis mandated.

With his conditional veto, Christie is clearly trying to have it both ways on the issue of marriage equality. In his statement, the governor said, “I have been just as adamant that same-sex couples in a civil union deserve the very same rights and benefits enjoyed by married couples — as well as the strict enforcement of those rights and benefits.” He also called for creating an ombudsman position that would look into complaints lodged by couples that they have been discriminated against despite having entered into civil unions.

But as Judge Stephen Reinhardt so eloquently put it in his ruling striking down California’s Proposition 8 at the 9th Circuit, it is impossible to claim that gay and lesbian couples in civil unions deserve “the very same rights and benefits” as couples in marriages, while simultaneously arguing that they do not have the right to the term ‘marriage.’ The math here is not complex: either gay couples have all the same rights as straight couples, or they have all the same rights minus one–the right to call their unions what they really are.

Gov. Christie’s veto is not merely a matter of personal choice or a difference of opinion. It is one man, disagreeing with other two branches of government in his state, making a conscious decision to withhold equal protection from a class of its citizens

MsTinkerbelly

02-21-2012, 08:46 AM

What tomorrow’s (today) 9th Circuit deadline means for the Prop 8 case
By Jacob Combs

Tomorrow (today), February 21, marks a big deadline in the Prop 8 case that those of us who have been counting the days since the 9th Circuit’s decision have been eagerly anticipating: the last day that the proponents of Prop 8 can file a petition for rehearing with the 9th Circuit. The proponents have 14 days from the initial decision to do so, meaning that if they do not request an en banc review of the February 7 decision with a larger panel of the appeals court, the 3-judge panel’s ruling will be the last word at this level of appeal.

At this point, there’s no reason to speculate whether or not the proponents will actually file for a rehearing tomorrow, as they may be waiting until the last moment to do so. One question that is probably on many minds though is what happens to the stay depending on the proponents’ actions tomorrow.

In its ruling on February 7, the 9th Circuit wrote that the mandate (that is, the official notice of the decision) will not go into effect until 7 days after the deadline for a rehearing petition expires, or 7 days after a rehearing is denied. What that means is that the 9th Circuit’s stay on Judge Walker’s ruling striking down Proposition 8 will be lifted 7 days after tomorrow’s deadline (February 28), should the proponents choose not to file for rehearing. If the proponents do file for a rehearing, the stay is automatically extended until that rehearing is either denied or it is accepted and then ruled on, both of which could take some time.

Even if the proponents do not file for a rehearing tomorrow, however, it’s important to note that it is only the 3-judge panel’s initial stay that will expire on the 28th. Regardless of what they do tomorrow, the proponents have a full 90 days following the decision to seek Supreme Court review. Should they choose not to petition for rehearing, the proponents could still request an extension of the stay from the 9th Circuit pending Supreme Court review. Should that request be denied, they could petition the Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy, who is responsible for petitions from the 9th Circuit, could then either grant a stay on his own or refer it to the full court.

Tomorrow is certainly an important day no matter how the proponents of Prop 8 decide to act, because it gives us insight into their strategy moving forward. Nonetheless, it is too soon to say when marriages could resume in California

blackboot

02-22-2012, 07:06 AM

Abercrombie: Hawaii law on marriage denies constitutional rights to same-sex couples
www.therepublic.com --Audrey McAvoy Associated Press

"HONOLULU — Gov. Neil Abercrombie told a federal court Tuesday that Hawaii's existing marriage law denies federal constitutional rights to same-sex couples who want to marry.

His stance on the issue came as his health director, Loretta Fuddy, told the same court that she would fight to uphold Hawaii's existing law because her department is charged with implementing laws passed by the Legislature.

Both issued their opinions in responses to a lawsuit filed last year by two women who want to marry and not simply join in a civil union. Abercrombie signed Hawaii's civil union legislation into law last year. It allows same-sex and opposite-sex couples to enter into a civil union with the same state rights and responsibilities as traditional marriage.

But the governor said state law as it stands is unequal.

"Under current law, a heterosexual couple can choose to enter into a marriage or a civil union. A same-sex couple, however, may only elect a civil union. My obligation as governor is to support equality under law. This is inequality, and I will not defend it," he said in a statement.

His filing to U.S. District Court in Honolulu said "there is no legitimate reason to deny otherwise qualified couples the ability to marry simply because they are of the same sex."

HONOLULU — Gov. Neil Abercrombie is telling a federal court Hawaii 's existing marriage law denies federal constitutional rights to same-sex couples who want to marry.
Fuddy said she decided to defend the lawsuit after consulting with the governor.

"The Department of Health is charged with implementing the law as passed by the Legislature. Absent any ruling to the contrary by competent judicial authority regarding constitutionality, the law will be enforced. Because I am being sued for administering the law, I will also defend it," she said.

Natasha Jackson and Janin Kleid of Kapolei sued the state in December, saying they are being denied their constitutional right to marry. They argue they need to be married in order to get certain federal benefits.

Jackson was unable to get insurance coverage for Kleid under the federal Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, or COBRA, because they weren't married. Their lawsuit alleged that the couple has remained true to one another and steadfast during their four-year relationship even as they have suffered serious health problems and lost jobs.

John D'Amato, the attorney for Jackson and Kleid, said the governor's position was courageous.

"I think it represents a sea change in Hawaii politics to have a leader of his stature to come out so directly and say this is just wrong. It's just wrong to continue to deny same-sex couples the right to marry," D'Amato said.

The governor's filing won't have a practical significance because the health department will continue to uphold the law, D'Amato said. As for the lawsuit, D'Amato said it wouldn't hurt but it also wouldn't help as U.S. District Court Judge Alan Kay will be ruling on the issue and he's not constrained by the governor's remarks."

iamkeri1

02-22-2012, 03:22 PM

The voice of each person who speaks out against injustice deserves to be heard. Kudos to the Governor!!!
Smooches,
Keri

Blade

02-22-2012, 03:30 PM

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/02/22/3035130/nc-takes-center-stage-in-gay-marriage.html

N.C. takes center stage in gay marriage battle
BY LYNN BONNER
lbonner@newsobserver.com
BY LYNN BONNER The News and Observer
Posted: Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2012
Modified: Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2012 Tracy Hollister with Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Raleigh speaks against the gay-marriage amendment at Monday's Wake County Board of Commissioners' meeting. The meeting drew a big crowd as the anti-gay marriage amendment and the Tea Party-backed opposition to the county's sustainability were on the agenda.
More Information
Get the latest political news at our Under the Dome blog

These terms apply to both heterosexual and same-sex couples who live together but aren't married. Such status gives certain rights to couples - both opposite-sex and same-sex - in regard to health care, child custody and power of attorney if they live in communities that legally recognize such unions. Neither status confers any of the federal benefits of marriage because the Defense of Marriage Act stipulates that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
In states or cities and counties that do not recognize domestic partnerships or civil unions couples may draw up legal documents that cover the same ground but those agreements may be ignored by hospitals and courts.

States across the country in the last three weeks started moving toward allowing same-sex couples to marry, while North Carolina is looking to catch a wave that crested eight years ago by asking voters to approve a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions.
Six states and Washington, D.C., now allow same-sex marriage. The Washington state legislature passed a law earlier this month making it the seventh state. The Maryland legislature is expected to send a bill allowing same-sex marriage to the governor by the end of this week. In both states, opponents have said they will push for a voter referendum.
Now the focus is on North Carolina with supporters looking for another victory for a constitutional ban. Opponents are hoping that North Carolina will be the first Southern state to say no to a ban.
"The movement toward securing rights for same-sex couples has been flying ahead at breakneck speed," said Roger Hartley, an associate professor of political science at Western Carolina University. But that change is also facing strong resistance, he said.
Earlier this month, the Pew Research Center released a national poll taken in October that showed the public was almost evenly divided on the issue: 46 percent of those surveyed favored allowing gays and lesbians to marry and 45 percent were opposed. Other national polls taken last year by Gallup and CNN showed a slim majority - 51 percent - in favor of same-sex marriage for the first time.
In North Carolina, opinion polls show a majority of residents support some type of legal recognition for same-sex couples, whether it be civil unions or marriage. Amendment opponents see this as evidence that the proposed constitutional ban - which would also prohibit civil unions and domestic partnership - runs counter to changing attitudes.
In the people's hands
Amendment supporters say the legalization of same-sex marriage in other states is added proof that North Carolina needs voters to define marriage in the constitution.
"By pushing this decision to the people, it gets it out of the minds and hands of the legislature and one activist judge who can do anything about it at any time," said Rep. Dale Folwell, a Winston-Salem Republican who is running for lieutenant governor.
Thirty states have already approved constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. North Carolina is the only state in the Southeast without one. Proposed amendments will appear on ballots here and in Minnesota in the May 8 primary
A handful of states passed such amendments before 2002. But the big push peaked after the 2003 Massachusetts court ruling that said its constitution guaranteed equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. Twenty-three of the 30 states that have amendments passed them between 2004 and 2006.
Amendments have passed in every state that's put them on the ballot.
North Carolina would have had its amendment up for a vote back when most other states were doing it, Folwell said, except that the Democratic-controlled legislature buried the bills. Republicans now control both chambers in North Carolina.
About a dozen states that passed constitutional amendments or laws barring same-sex marriage still recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships.
Nevada, Oregon and Wisconsin passed constitutional same-sex marriage bans, but legislatures in those states later voted to allow civil unions or to confer legal rights to domestic partners.
No civil unionsThe North Carolina amendment would close off recognition of domestic partnerships or civil unions for gay or heterosexual couples. The only way to legalize civil unions or domestic partnerships if the amendment passes would be for voters to approve another constitutional amendment.
Tami Fitzgerald, founding member of the pro-referendum committee, said the amendment is meant to "settle the issue once and for all" and prevent courts or advocates of same-sex marriage from one day using civil unions or domestic partnerships to push for full marriage rights.
"It's what I'd call a camel's nose under the tent," she said. "Civil unions and domestic partnerships are marriage substitutes. It gives all the rights of marriage. They just don't go all the way."
A U.S. Census Bureau survey estimates that there are more than 198,000 households in North Carolina where partners are unmarried.
More than 91 percent of those households are heterosexual couples living together.
"That's one of the reasons why this amendment is so bad, it takes away any sort of legal recognition of unmarried couples - that's straight or gay unmarried couples," said Stuart Campbell, executive director of Equality North Carolina, a gay-rights advocacy group.
Losing benefitsAmendment foes argue that children being raised by unmarried parents will lose health insurance coverage offered by municipalities that provide domestic partner benefits. The amendment will jeopardize other laws that recognize legal relationships between unmarried couples, they say.
Amendment proponents call those objections scare tactics. "The amendment does not change the existing policy of the state of North Carolina at all that's been there for the last 340 years," said House Majority Leader Paul Stam, an Apex Republican.
Changes in attitudes make it less likely that voters will want to keep the state tied to 300-year-old policies, said Brent Childers, executive director of Faith in America, a North Carolina-based organization that fights what it calls "religious-based bigotry" against gays.
Childers said public opinion of homosexuality is changing, just as opinions changed on segregation and women's rights.
"The polling shows that we have reached a tipping point where a majority of Americans no longer consider homosexuality immoral conduct," he said. "I honestly believe there's an awakening happening in the American public."
Fitzgerald said all the patchwork of state laws points to the need for a federal marriage amendment that would codify the definition of marriage in the U.S. Constitution that would resolve "a clear clash of values."
North Carolina voters will have their say on a state amendment on May 8.
Copyright 2012 The News and Observer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Bonner: 919-829-4821

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/02/22/3035130/nc-takes-center-stage-in-gay-marriage.html#storylink=cpy

MsTinkerbelly

02-23-2012, 08:52 AM

Breaking: California district court rules DOMA unconstitutional
By Jacob Combs

Today marked another major milestone in the path to getting rid of the Defense of Marriage Act, as Judge Jeffrey White of the Northern District of California struck down DOMA in the case Golinski v. OPM.

Judge White, a Bush appointee, determined that DOMA should be considered under the more critical heightened scrutiny measure (as the Justice Department recommended last year), but also noted that several courts have found that the provision would not even pass the more deferential rational basis test. In his decision, Judge White wrote:

The Court finds that neither Congress’ claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further.

Today’s decision is significant because it joins Judge Joseph Tauro’s joint decisions in the 2010 cases Massachusetts v. HHS and Gill v. OPM striking down DOMA in Massachusetts district court. That case is now on appeal in the First Circuit, and it is likely that today’s decision will be appealed in the Ninth Circuit.

These DOMA challenges can only mean good news for the Prop 8 case, especially now that that case may be delayed if considered for rehearing in the Ninth Circuit. If Judge Tauro’s decision is upheld on appeal, it would essentially cause a circuit split, making it more likely (especially on top of the fact that Judge White’s decision may also be making its way through the appeals process) that the Supreme Court would take the case. In striking down DOMA, the Supreme Court would not have to make any deliberation on an inherent constitutional right to marriage equality, and could rely on a states’ rights argument that might appeal to the court’s more conservative wing. A Supreme Court opinion striking down DOMA would almost certainly be referenced in a defense of Judge Walker’s Prop 8 decision, not to mention the fact that it would make a win in the Prop 8 case even more consequential, since gay and lesbian couples in California would be able to enjoy full federal marriage rights.

In an email to P8TT, Jon Davidson, Legal Director of Lambda Legal, had this to say about today’s decision:

I would say that between the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, the ruling we obtained yesterday reinstating our New Jersey marriage case, the passage of marriage equality in Washington, the passage of a marriage equality bill through the legislature in New Jersey, and the passage of a marriage equality bill through the Maryland House, this latest victory over DOMA shows that we have passed the tipping point. February 2012 will go down in history as the month marriage equality became unstoppable

MsTinkerbelly

02-23-2012, 05:36 PM

Breaking: Maryland Senate passes marriage equality
By Jacob Combs

Tonight, the Maryland Senate debated and passed a bill to bring marriage equality to the state by a vote of 25-22. The measure passed the House of Delegates earlier this week by a vote of 72-67. Last year, the bill passed the state Senate by a margin of 25-21, but was withdrawn from the floor of the House of Delegates as support evaporated at the last minute.

The bill will now head to the desk of Gov. Martin O’Malley’s, who supports it. Opponents of marriage equality in the state have promised to collect signatures to put the issue up for a voter referendum in November. Maryland would be the fifth state to have a ballot question on marriage equality this year, provided opponents of Washington state’s recently passed marriage vote succeed in their signature collection effort.

MsTinkerbelly

02-27-2012, 01:45 PM

Marriage equality ballot initiative approved in Maine
By Jacob Combs

It’s official: marriage is going to be on the ballot this November in Maine. Bloomberg reports:

Secretary of State Charles E. Summers Jr. verified more than 85,000 of the 105,000 signatures submitted last month, said Barbara Redmond, his deputy secretary. About 57,000 names were required, according to EqualityMaine, the Portland-based gay- rights group leading the coalition that collected them.

“Same-sex couples want to marry for the same reasons other couples want to marry: because they love each other and want to spend their lives together,” Betsy Smith, EqualityMaine’s executive director, said in a statement. “There’s no question that momentum is growing for same-sex marriage in Maine.”

It will be the second time Mainers confront the issue at the ballot box. In 2009, voters rejected by 53 percent to 47 percent a law permitting gay marriage that was championed by Democratic lawmakers and signed by then-Governor John Baldacci, also a Democrat. In 2010, Republicans won control of both legislative chambers and the governor’s seat for the first time since 1966.

If the measure passed, Maine would become the first state (or one of the first, depending on what happens on election day in other states) to approve marriage equality in a popular vote. Advocates will spend the next nine months educating Maine voters and building momentum on the road to election day

Nat

02-28-2012, 06:13 PM

Received this email today:

Thank you for contacting me regarding President Barack Obama’s decision to order the Department of Justice (DOJ) to discontinue defending the Defense of Marriage Act (P.L. 104—199). I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this important matter.

I strongly oppose President Obama's decision to instruct the DOJ to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. The President has elected to make this ill-informed decision based on political motivation, rather than defending a statute that was passed by Congress, signed into law by previous Administrations, and broadly supported by the American people. I firmly believe that both President Obama and his Administration have an obligation to defend and uphold federal law, regardless of personal ideology, and you may be certain that I will continue to monitor this matter closely.

As you may know, in 1996 Congress overwhelmingly passed—and former President Bill Clinton signed into law—the Defense of Marriage Act. This federal law defines marriage as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife"—I firmly support this position.

Under the laws, traditions, and customs of all fifty states, marriage has historically been defined as the union of a man and a woman. However, judicial rulings—and outright lawlessness by local officials in some states—have threatened traditional marriage and moved this debate onto the national stage. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas provides lower courts with the leverage needed to invalidate traditional marriage laws. And the first major assault on traditional marriage came in Goodridge v. Mass. Dept. of Health, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court—citing the Lawrence decision—overturned that state's traditional marriage law. Since this time, other activist state courts have followed Massachusetts' lead. In light of these judicial trends, constitutional scholars on both sides of the aisle agree that the Defense of Marriage Act and similar state laws are now in peril. I believe that judges should strictly interpret the law and avoid the temptation to legislate from the bench or color their rulings with personal ideology.

I appreciate the opportunity to represent Texans in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator

MsTinkerbelly

02-28-2012, 07:14 PM

Wow, just wow.

Blade

02-29-2012, 04:47 PM

http://obsdailyviews.blogspot.com/2012/02/tied-in-michigan-did-reagan-dems-sway.html

MsTinkerbelly

03-01-2012, 11:09 AM

OHIO: Gay Activists Work To Place Repeal Of Marriage Ban On November Ballot

Activists in Ohio have launched a drive to place a repeal of the same-sex marriage ban on the November ballot.

The Freedom to Marry Coalition expects to file more than 1,700 signatures of registered Ohio voters; 1,000 valid signatures are required in the first step of placing a constitutional issue before Ohio voters this fall or possibly next year. The proposal would change the Ohio Constitution — amended in 2004 to block same-sex marriage — to say that the state and political jurisdictions define marriage as “a union of two consenting adults, regardless of gender.” It also would stipulate that “no religious institution shall be required to perform or recognize a marriage.”
The proposed amendment will be submitted to Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine today.

MsTinkerbelly

03-01-2012, 05:32 PM

ANNAPOLIS, Maryland — Maryland's governor signed a measure legalizing gay marriage Thursday, joining seven other states.

..Gov. Martin O'Malley, a Democrat, signed the bill a week after its final passage in the Legislature. The law is scheduled to take effect in January 2013.

However, opponents — backed by many churches — are expected to petition the law to a referendum on the November ballot.

"Religious freedom was the very reason for our state's founding and at the heart of religious freedom is the freedom of individual conscience," O'Malley said just before adding his signature to the legislation, referring to the state's origins as a British colony that was a haven for Catholics.

Referendum organizers need to collect almost 56,000 signatures to put the measure before voters and are expected to rely heavily on churchgoers who oppose same-sex marriage as a matter of faith, to reach that goal. Even gay marriage advocates expect the referendum to end up on the ballot.

Six states and the Washington capital district already recognize gay marriages. The state of Washington has also legalized gay marriage, and its law takes effect in June. Voters there are expected to petition the measure to referendum this November.

Maine legalized the unions for same-sex couples in 2009, but later that year became the only state overturn a such a law passed by a legislature

MsTinkerbelly

03-05-2012, 08:42 AM

Efforts underway to reverse Ohio ban on same-sex marriage?
By Adam Bink

This went unnoticed, but a Thursday piece in the Columbus Dispatch reports signature-gathering for a ballot question in November or soon after (an effort which apparently came about inspired by the 9th Circuit ruling in the Prop 8 trial case):

A proposed constitutional amendment to undo Ohio’s 2004 same-sex marriage ban will be submitted today to Attorney General Mike DeWine.

The Freedom to Marry Coalition expects to file more than 1,700 signatures of registered Ohio voters; 1,000 valid signatures are required in the first step of placing a constitutional issue before Ohio voters this fall or possibly next year.

The proposal would change the Ohio Constitution — amended in 2004 to block same-sex marriage — to say that the state and political jurisdictions define marriage as “a union of two consenting adults, regardless of gender.” It also would stipulate that “no religious institution shall be required to perform or recognize a marriage.”

Tim Hagan, former Cuyahoga County commissioner, Democratic candidate for governor in 2002 and co-chairman of the campaign, called it “the most-significant civil-rights act since 1964. I don’t know how one human being can look at another human being and say, ‘You don’t have the same rights.’

“I have a sister who’s gay. I have close friends who are gay,” Hagan said. “But this is not just a gay issue. This is an issue for all of us who believe strongly in human rights.”

Phil Burress, of the Cincinnati-based group Citizens for Community Values, said that if same-sex marriage supporters put the issue on the ballot this fall “they can kiss (President Barack) Obama goodbye.” Burress’ group was instrumental in passing the 2004 amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman, an issue credited by some with helping President George W. Bush to win a second term.

“I guess they’re feeling their oats because seven states have same-sex marriage,” Burress said. “ They’re going to have their hands full. We’re prepared to meet them on the field of battle.”

If DeWine approves the ballot language of the proposed amendment, it will be sent to the Ohio Ballot Board, which would determine whether the proposal can be placed on the ballot as one or multiple issues.

At that point, the Freedom to Marry Coalition can begin the task of collecting the 385,253 valid signatures required to put the issue on the statewide ballot. That could happen in November or next year, campaign officials indicated.

Hagan acknowledged that overturning the ban will be a “challenge,” but he said he thinks there has been a “fundamental shift” in public opinion since 62 percent of Ohio voters supported the 2004 amendment.

[...]The Freedom to Marry Coalition sprang up this year after a federal appeals court ruled that a same-sex marriage ban in California was unconstitutional.

Dozens of elected officials and candidates, most of them Democrats, signed on in support of the coalition, including Columbus Mayor Michael B. Coleman, Columbus City Council President Andrew J. Ginther, Franklin County Commissioner John O’Grady and Michael F. Curtin, former editor of The Dispatch and now a Democratic candidate for the 17th District in the Ohio House.

MsTinkerbelly

03-07-2012, 01:36 PM

What’s in a word: the ‘redefinition’ of marriage
By Jacob Combs

As the Seattle Times reports, Judge Thomas McPhee of Thurston County heard arguments yesterday at a 9 a.m. hearing regarding the proposed language of Washington’s Referendum 74, the ballot initiative to repeal the state’s marriage equality bill that was signed into law last month.

In Washington state, it falls to the Solicitor General’s office (part of the Attorney General’s office) to keep ballot language understandable, brief and impartial. When the proposed lagnaguge to Referendum 74 was released in Febraury, parties on both sides of the issue filed briefs in opposition with the court. The most significant language battle, however, has come down to one word: “redefine.”

In the Solicitor General’s February proposal, the ballot language read:

This bill would REDEFINE MARRIAGE to allow same-sex couples to marry, modify existing domestic-partnership laws, allow clergy to refuse to solemnize or recognize marriages and religious organizations to refuse to accommodate marriage celebrations.

In opposing this language, marriage equality advocates in Washington have argued that the phrase “redefine marriage” does not even appear in the marriage bill that passed the legislature last month, and is in fact a politically charged buzzword used by anti-marriage equality forces to obfuscate the issue. (Try googling ‘redefine marriage’ and seeing what kind of sites show up.)

Although the Attorney General’s office has sided with the opponents of marriage equality on this point, there’s reason to be hopeful that Judge McPhee will not approve the proposed language. Washington law states that a ballot initiative should ”not — to the extent reasonably possible — create prejudice either for or against the measure.” Because of this, it is likely that he could rule the ballot’s wording must be more neutral. Judge McPhee’s ruling, when released, will be final.

As always, it’s important to note how much of an impact one word can have when it comes to marriage equality. The reason opponents of marriage equality like to use the word “redefine” is that it makes marriages between gays and lesbians seem distinct from those between heterosexual couples. It walls off marriage behind a semantic barrier, making equal rights sound like extra rights. Although it has been said before, it begs repeating that allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry is no more a “redefinition” of marriage than extending the vote to women was a “redefinition” of the right to vote. Words matter, and the language of Referendum 74 will no doubt have a big impact come November.

Blade

03-10-2012, 08:31 PM

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/03/09/3084279/poll-most-in-nc-would-not-ban.html

A majority of North Carolinians are opposed to the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages that will be on the May 8 ballot, even as they remain skeptical about gay marriages, according to a new Elon University/Charlotte Observer poll.
Although the rest of the South, often referred to as the Bible Belt, has adopted such a ban, the survey found 54 percent of Tar Heel residents interviewed opposed the constitutional amendment. It found that 38 percent supported it.

This poll suprised me, though it was not a poll of registered voters. ALL NC registered voters need to get out and vote May 8th.

Strappie

03-10-2012, 09:44 PM

Minnesota has a vote on this come November! It will take a miracle!

MsTinkerbelly

03-13-2012, 12:49 PM

Wall Street Journal poll shows shift in marriage equality attitudes among unexpected groups
By Jacob Combs

A Sunday article in the Wall Street Journal titled “Democrats Pressure Obama on Gay Marriage” highlights the possibly impending showdown between President Obama and Democratic party leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Antonio Villaraigosa regarding the formal inclusion of marriage equality in the party’s platform. But what is perhaps most surprising and encouraging in the Journal‘s piece is a poll showing that not only is support for marriage at an all time high, it has also increased dramatically among some unexpected and significant groups:

The most-recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll suggests that views on gay marriage are shifting faster than for any other hot-button social issue in recent memory, pollsters say.

Forty-nine percent of Americans now say they approve of gay marriage, up from 40% shortly after Mr. Obama took office in 2009. Mr. Obama’s stated stance makes him part of the 8% of respondents who are unsure how they feel about gay marriage, according to the poll released last week.

The poll showed the biggest jump among blue-collar voters and African Americans, two key Democratic constituencies. Support among blue-collar voters jumped 20 percentage points to 49%. African-American support for gay marriage rose from 32% to 50%. More than half of Hispanics and voters aged 18 to 34 also voiced support. Mr. Obama’s advisers have closely watched the changing views among African-Americans and Hispanics.

If these trends hold up, this could be big news for the marriage movement, not just in terms of the President’s position but also the greater political landscape itself. African-American, Hispanic and blue-collar voters are important to the President’s reelection strategy, but if support for marriage among those groups is growing, a choice by the President to fully endorse marriage equality becomes much less risky.

More importantly, it means that the political majority that favors marriage is not only growing, but becoming more diverse. It is both rare and thrilling to be living in a time when attitudes on this issue are changing so quickly in the direction of equal rights and justice. President Obama isn’t the only one losing ground for his justification about staying out of the marriage debate. As attitudes continue to change, politicians across the political spectrum will lose that justification as well

MsTinkerbelly

03-13-2012, 12:53 PM

PA Marriage Ban Bill Pulled

Pennsylvania's proposed ban on the recognition of all same-sex relationships was abruptly withdrawn this morning shortly prior to its scheduled hearing before a state House committee.
News broke a few minutes ago that the House State Government Committee will delay its vote on HB 1434, known as the “Marriage Protection” amendment, proposed by State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler). The legislation, which drew intense criticism from gay rights advocates, would establish an amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution that would redefine marriage as “the legal union of only one man and one woman.” Metcalfe currently serves as the State Government Committee chair.
The bill will likely resurface in a marriage-specific form.

MsTinkerbelly

03-13-2012, 04:32 PM

Maine ballot measure on marriage equality clears hurdle, polls show voters likely to approve it
By Jacob Combs

The Kennebec Journal reports that the Maine House of Representatives today voted unanimously to indefinitely postpone a citizen initiative that would bring marriage equality to the state, freeing the measure to go directly to the ballot in November. The bill now heads to the state Senate, which is expected to take the same action.

In addition to that good news, a PPP poll from last week shows strong support for the measure going into the election, with 54 percent of respondents saying they support marriage equality and only 41 percent saying they oppose it. When presented with the exact ballot language (regarding “marriage licenses for same-sex couples that protects religious freedom by ensuring that no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs”), respondents supported the measure by a margin of 47 percent to 32 percent.

Moreover, the PPP vote found that while Democrats and Republicans in the state had not experienced any significant changes in opinion since 2009 (when voters repealed Maine’s marriage equality law), there has been a marked shift in opinion among independent voters. In 2009, independents opposed marriage equality by a 52/46 margin; in this year’s poll, they support it by a 57/36 margin. That’s a remarkable and dramatic development in only three years, and one that could likely make the difference come election day.

As always, these numbers should be viewed cautiously: the election is several months away, and things will change as the campaign heats up. Nevertheless, PPP’s poll didn’t find the even split that many past polls have found in states considering ballot measures on marriage; rather, Maine’s numbers seem to support a clear momentum in favor of marriage. When looked at in the context of the the state’s diocese’s decision not to campaign against marriage, Maine is beginning to look like a possible game changer in November.

MsTinkerbelly

03-14-2012, 12:48 PM

Washington judge releases final ballot language for marriage equality initiative
By Jacob Combs

Yesterday, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Thomas McPhee released his decision on the final wording for Referendum 74, the proposed ballot measure to either uphold or overturn Washington’s recently passed marriage equality law. Judge McPhee’s decision, which is final and cannot be appealed, is a victory for marriage advocates because it removes language about the law’s intent to “redefine marriage” and instead opts for more neutral wording. Supporters of the initiative will now have to collect 120,577 signatures by June 6 to qualify it for the November election.

Here is the finalized ballot language for Referendum 74:

Ballot Title:
The legislature passed Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6239 concerning marriage for same-sex couples, modified domestic-partnership law, and religious freedom [and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill].

This bill would allow same-sex couples to marry, preserve domestic partnerships only for seniors, and preserve the right of clergy or religious organizations to refuse to perform, recognize, or accommodate any marriage ceremony.

Should this bill be

___ Approved

___ Rejected

Ballot Measure Summary:
This bill allows same-sex couples to marry, applies marriage laws without regard to gender, and specifies that laws using gender-specific terms like husband and wife include same-sex spouses. After 2014, existing domestic partnerships are converted to marriages, except for seniors. It preserves the right of clergy or religious organizations to refuse to perform or recognize any marriage or accommodate wedding ceremonies. The bill does not affect licensing of religious organizations providing adoption, foster-care, or child-placement

iamkeri1

03-14-2012, 09:06 PM

Wow! That seems to me to be a very clearly stated referendum. I don't think it should be on the ballot at all - rights being inalienable and all that, but at least people voting on the referendum will be able to clearly understand what they are voting for/against. Two things will work toward samesex marriage being passed.

1 people are more likely to vote for the first choice.
2 people are more likely to vote FOR a referendum than against it.

Have all available body parts crossed hoping that it passes.
Smooches,
Keri

MsTinkerbelly

03-15-2012, 12:42 PM

Denmark set to legalize marriage equality by summer
By Jacob Combs

Helle Thorning-Schmidt, the center-left prime minister of Denmark, announced this week that his government plans to introduce draft legislation that will bring marriage equality to the country on June 15. From BNO News:

Denmark was the first country in the world to legalize same-sex unions in 1989 but, despite a generally tolerant society towards homosexuality, politicians repeatedly rejected bills to legalize same-sex marriage. The previous Danish government also rejected a same-sex marriage bill last year.

But Thorning said the Danish government will submit a draft legislation on Wednesday which will allow same-sex couples to get married at both City Hall and the Church of Denmark if they find a priest who is willing to perform the wedding. Although some church leaders have spoken out against same-sex marriage, previous surveys have suggested that as many as 70 percent of priests are willing to marry same-sex couples.

Thorning-Schmidt called the bill “a big step forward” and a “natural” progresion for her country. After the introduction of the civil union bill in 1989, gay couples in Denmark enjoyed the same rights as straght couples, but were not allowed to be married in a religious ceremony. In 1997, the Church of Denmark allowed religious leaders to bless gay unions and in 2009, gay couples won the right to adopt children.

The legislation is expected to pass, making Denmark the 11th country with marriage equality. The other 10 are Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden

MsTinkerbelly

03-15-2012, 12:57 PM

ITALY: Supreme Court Rules That Gay Couples Are Entitled To "Family Life"

The Italian Supreme Court today issued a ruling that gay activists say may help clear the road for same-sex marriage.
In its first case regarding a gay couple who wed abroad, the Supreme Court rejected their appeal to be recognized legally in Italy yet said the two men still had the "right to a family life". "Today's Supreme Court judgement is important," said Fabrizio Marrazzo, spokesman for activist group Gay Center. "The ruling says that gay couples must also enjoy the same legal rights as any heterosexual couple. The words are clear and sharp. Parliament and the government must give an answer".

MsTinkerbelly

03-16-2012, 12:41 PM

President Obama opposes anti-gay Amendment 1 in North Carolina
By Scottie Thomaston

This is news:

“While the president does not weigh in on every single ballot measure in every state, the record is clear that the President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same sex couples,” said Cameron French, his North Carolina campaign spokesman.

“That’s what the North Carolina ballot initiative would do – it would single out and discriminate against committed gay and lesbian couples – and that’s why the President does not support it.”

Equality activists in North Carolina have been pressing the President and the First Lady to publicly oppose the amendment, and the number of people in opposition is growing. Recently, Wooledge noted that the fight in NC is winnable. This move by the president is very welcome and could help steer the conversation in a more positive direction for the equality side.

Hopefully this is also a sign of more changes to come. North Carolina is a battleground state, and the Democratic National Convention will be held there this year

Maybe someone up the campaign food chain finally figured out there’s no harm in pointing out that discrimination placed in a state constitution is simply wrong. It’s not like we’re asking for an endorsement of marriage equality. He’s got that problem as well — related to the platform — with many of his fellow Dems calling for marriage equality language to be added to it, but that’s not the same issue for North Carolina.

If people are that uptight about that frank and earnest statement of opposition to Amendment One stated above, the President shouldn’t have expected to win over those votes anyway.

Soon

03-19-2012, 08:42 PM

She’s a Sens fan, her girlfriend’s a Leafs fan and their marriage proposal during NHL game was adorable (VIDEO)l (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/she-sens-fan-her-girlfriend-leafs-fan-marriage-060257777.html)

iamkeri1

03-19-2012, 10:01 PM

What a great video. Made me smile. Despite the slow progress, there has still been LOTS of progress in my lifetime. Thanks for the reminder.
Smooches,
Keri

MsTinkerbelly

03-22-2012, 07:43 AM

Repeal of marriage equality in New Hampshire fails
By Scottie Thomaston

Marriage equality was retained in New Hampshire today:

Today, the Republican-controlled House in New Hampshire failed to pass one of seven bill attempts that would have killed same-sex civil marriage equality. The vote failed 133-202. Democratic Governor John Lynch, who signed the 2009 bill legalizing same-sex marriage into law, would have vetoed HB 437, sponsored by Republican David Bates, an attempt to disenfranchise thousands of same-sex couples along with gay, lesbian, and bisexual citizens who in the future might wish to marry. It was unclear if the GOP would have been able to assemble enough votes to override the Governor’s veto.

Good As You has a bit more.

And Wooledge at Daily Kos:

The vote failed, 202 to 133 according to Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) legal group, tweeting from the state house.

A 74% Republican house
It failed to even pass, let alone reach a veto-sustaining majority it would have needed to get around Gov. John Lynch’s desk. The failure to even sustain a majority of House members votes can only be seen as a crushing defeat to religious right’s grip on the agenda of the Republican party, which controls 74% of the seats in the NH house. The party should have been easily been able to reach 50% +1.

NOM and other groups had been pushing to repeal marriage rights for gay couples, and they were delivered a huge upset. And fairness and moral correctness wins again

MsTinkerbelly

03-22-2012, 10:03 AM

Obama administration considering a marriage equality endorsement before November’s election
By Jacob Combs

It looks as if President Obama’s storied “evolution” on marriage equality may finally be entering an end stage, reports Chris Johnson of the Washington Blade, citing an inside source in a piece published today about the administration’s movement towards a full endorsement of equality. From the Blade:

The chances that Obama will make such an announcement before the election are looking better than in previous months as the issue receives growing media attention and voters in a handful of states face ballot initiatives this year.

An informed source, who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity, said “active conversations” are taking place between the White House and the campaign about whether Obama should complete his evolution on marriage and that the chances of him making an announcement are about 50-50.

According to the source, the administration would like to unveil another major pro-LGBT initiative before the November election, and an endorsement of marriage equality could fit the bill. But concerns persist on how an endorsement of same-sex marriage would play in four or five battleground states.

As always, this battleground state/swing voter argument is what marriage advocates run up against when it comes to the President’s evolution. The Obama campaign worries that a marriage announcement could alienate socially conservative Democrats as well as the independents who will no doubt be so important to his reelection. These are valid concerns in the abstract, but the real question is: do they really line up with reality?

Elections are fuzzy creatures at best, so guessing how different factors would affect them is an inexact science. Still, I think a persuasive argument can be made that an endorsement of marriage equality would likely have little negative effect on Obama’s reelection, and would in fact have a significant positive effect.

First, as polling continues to demonstrate that support for marriage equality is strong and growing, some of the most significant gains on the issue have been among independents. A PPP poll from earlier this month showed that independent voters had shifted in just two years since 2009 from opposing marriage equality by a 52/46 margin to supporting it by a 57/36 margin. A Field poll in California in early March also showed inroads amongst indepdents, with a full 56 percent supporting the freedom to marry. Even more significantly, a recent Wall Street Journal poll conducted nationally showed that support for marriage had increased dramatically in several unexpected demographic groups, most significantly blue-collar voters, which experienced a 20 percent jump in the last two years, and African-Americans, which experienced an 18 percent increase. A majority of Hispanics aged 18 to 34 also voiced support.

These opinion shifts show that marriage equality is quickly becoming a winning issue for pro-equality candidates even among constituencies that have been historically hesitant about the issue. Most of the voters who would oppose Obama for a pro-marriage position would oppose him anyways on other issues. As these various polls demonstrate, a marriage announcement would likely do little harm to the President’s standing amongst independents and important Democratic voters.

In truth, though, what the Blade article truly demonstrates is the fact that many of us in the marriage equality community have known and been frustrated by for years. That the administration is considering when and how a marriage announcement should be made shows that Obama already supports marriage equality, at least privately. What this means is that LGBT advocates end up frustrated with him for his glacial pace at adopting a position that they know will come eventually, and anti-marriage forces no doubt acknowledge the same facts and oppose Obama for what they know will be his future position. In that way, the evolution stance is a lose-lose situation, and it has the added damage of allowing GOP candidates and pundits to make the specious claim that they share the same views as the President when it comes to marriage equality.

If Obama were to make his marriage announcement before the election, it would no doubt give him a big boost of support going into the fall. It would energize the young Democratic base, who look at this issue as a fundamental rights question of paramount importance. It would excite and motivate LGBT voters (and, even more importantly, donors), who have been frustrated with the President but would no doubt respond to a huge position shift on one of their central issues. And it would draw a better distinction with the eventual GOP nominee, who will be one of several men who have espoused far-right anti-LGBT views throughout the primary campaign that are out of touch with the majority of Americans.

The one hitch: an ENDA executive order. On Tuesday, the Labor and Justice departments cleared an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The order is named after the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill that would prohibit such discrimination amongst private employers but which failed to pass Congress. With this ENDA order close to being ready for signature, the Obama administration could make ENDA its pre-November LGBT action as opposed to marriage equality. “My feeling is you’ll get one, you won’t get both before Election Day,” said the source quoted by the Washington Blade.

An ENDA victory would have a big impact, and would provide long-overdue rights to LGBT individuals who work for the government and for federal contractors. It would not, however, have the same electoral value as a marriage announcement. Supporting marriage equality before the election would put Obama in a much stronger position to make it a reality in his second term as president

MsTinkerbelly

03-27-2012, 10:05 AM

DOMA trials: updates from the First and Ninth Circuits
By Jacob Combs

Yesterday, the Justice Department filed two briefs with the Ninth Circuit regarding the appeal of Golinski v. OPM. In its first filing, the government petitioned the Ninth Circuit for an “initial hearing en banc,” and requested that the en banc petition as well as the overall appeal be expedited. As you may remember from the Prop 8 trial, an appeal in the Ninth Circuit goes first to a 3-judge panel, and can then proceed to a larger 11-judge en banc panel. In its filing, the Justice Department called DOMA “a constitutional question of exceptional importance and urgency,” and specifically cited the need for a determination on whether classifications based on sexual orientation should be examined under heightened scrutiny or rational basis scrutiny.

I wrote recently about how the district court’s decision in Golinski v. OPM, looking specifically at the significance of Judge Jeffrey White’s determination to strike down DOMA on heightened scrutiny grounds. The Ninth Circuit’s 1990 decision in a case called High Tech Gays ruled that gays and lesbians were not a suspect class (and therefore not deserving of heightened scrutiny). As Judge White noted in his ruling, however, High Tech Gays was based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, which was specifically overturned by the 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. High Tech Gays, then, is based on outdated law, and Judge White noted that the Ninth Circuit can and should make a new determintion on the scrunity question. In its brief, the government argues that a Ninth Circuit panel would have to determine whether High Tech Gays still binds panels in the appellate court, while an en banc court could look at the question of heightened scrutiny anew.

The Justice Department’s position is a big deal, because it recognizes just how important the scrutiny issue is to the determination of DOMA’s constitutionality, and essentially argues for skipping the panel step and going straight to the en banc review that would almost certainly be required for such an important precedential consideration. In addition, the government also filed a separate motion to consolidate and expedite both BLAG and the Justice Department’s appeals, writing that “ongoing litigation creates uncertainty for Ms. Golinski and countless others who are harmed by DOMA, given its extraordinary scope.”

Also yesterday, the First Circuit announced the names of the three judges who will make up the appeals panel for in the companion cases of Gill v. OPM and Massachusetts v. HHS. The three judges are Chief Judge Sandra L. Lynch, Judge Juan R. Torruella and Judge Michael Boudin, who are Clinton, Reagan and George H.W. Bush appointees, respectively, and the most senior active justices in the First Circuit. In terms of pertinent decisions in the judges’ past, Judge Boudin last year upheld the right of transgender prisoners to receive hormone therapy. P8TT will continue to look into the judges’ background for any information as to how they might rule in the Massachusetts cases. The First Circuit will hear arguments in the two DOMA cases in Boston on April 4 beginning at 10 a.m. BLAG and the Justice Department will each receive 20 minutes to speak, while attorneys for Gill and Massachusetts will each receive 10.

One interesting aspect of the First Circuit hearings is the attorneys who will be making the government’s arguments on both sides. In some ways, the face-off will be a meeting of the greats: Paul Clement, a former U.S. Solicitor General who left his previous law firm after it withdrew from defending DOMA, will be representing BLAG in Boston, while the Justice Department will be represented by Stuart Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Decision. Delery was recently assigned to the case to replace another government attorney, and his appointment is significant because he is both a high-ranking member of the Justice Department and because he is openly gay.

With these developments in the First and Ninth Circuits, we have a lot to look forward to as DOMA continues to be examined and, hopefully, struck down by more appellate courts on its way to its eventual consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court

MsTinkerbelly

03-28-2012, 12:48 PM

Marriage equality supporters in Ohio resubmit petition to repeal constitutional amendment
By Jacob Combs

Early this month, a group called the Freedom to Marry Coalition collected and filed over 1700 signatures with the Ohio Attorney General’s Office to place a measure on the November ballot that would repeal the state’s 2004 constitutional ban on marriage equality. A week later, Attorney General Mike DeWine, an opponent of marriage equality, rejected the group’s petition, writing that he was “unable to certify the summary as a fair and truthful statement of the proposed constitutional amendment for three reasons.”

Yesterday, the Freedom to Marry Coalition resubmitted their petition, this time with almost 2400 signatures. In an email to The Gay People’s Chronicle, Ian James of the Freedom to Marry coalition wrote, “We expected the AG rejection and drafted a revised summary petition. The issue of brevity, Title 31 and the individual recognition have been addressed.”

Should DeWine accept the revised proposal, the group would have to collect around 385,000 signatures to put the measure on the ballot. Equality Ohio, the state’s largest LGBT advocacy organization, has not yet come out in support of the effort, and any path to repealing the constitutional amendment rmains uncertain.

Blade

04-01-2012, 03:57 AM

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/03/26/3141282/proposed-nc-marriage-amendment.html

Long article

Blade

04-01-2012, 04:00 AM

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/03/30/3137415/poll-shows-confusion-over-proposed.html

This much is clear: There’s a lot of confusion over the so-called “marriage amendment” on the May 8 primary ballot.
Everything from what it’s called to what it would do has been disputed. Poll results released Thursday show solid support for the referendum – until the pollsters explained to the potential voters what it proposes.
For instance, 7 percent of those surveyed thought it would legalize gay marriage, instead of the opposite.
For something as serious as amending the state constitution, that seems like a problem.
The survey by Public Policy Polling shows the amendment passing with 58 percent in favor and 38 percent opposed.
In January, the polling firm reported 56 percent in favor and 34 percent opposed; so the gap is narrowing ever so slightly.
But the poll found only about one-third of the respondents actually know what the amendment would do.
The proposal has often been referred to by the shorthand “marriage amendment,” but it goes beyond marriage.
If approved, it would secure in the state’s constitution a prohibition against legally recognizing gay marriage – as well as civil unions between same-sex couples and domestic partnerships between couples of the opposite sex.
According to census figures, there were 223,000 couples in domestic partnerships in North Carolina in 2010. Only 12 percent of those were same-sex couples.
The PPP poll showed 28 percent of voters think the amendment only bans gay marriage. But when told that it also prohibits civil unions, support drops to 41 percent in favor and 42 percent opposed.
Thirty-four percent acknowledged that they really don’t know what it means.
Alex Miller, co-chairman of the anti-amendment group Protect All N.C. Families, said the poll shows that people will vote against the amendment if they understand it. He said proof that the proposal is vague is in the official explanation of the amendment, which notes that the potential ramifications of the law would have to be settled in court.
“What I’m afraid of is the supporters of this amendment will be able to essentially sneak it in past the people of North Carolina and put it into our constitution, and once the majority understands its effects it will be too late,” Miller said.
But Rep. Paul “Skip” Stam, the Republican majority leader in the state House and one of the authors of the amendment, says it’s not as complicated as opponents say.
“Their objection is that they know it will not do the things they are alleging,” Stam wrote in an email Thursday. “The confusion comes from their own unwillingness to address the marriage amendment on its own terms.”
John Robinson of the Elon University Poll found similar uncertainties in a poll conducted earlier this month in partnership with The News & Observer and ABC11.
“It’s very clear they, in varying degrees, support some kind of legal recognition for same-sex couples, but there’s confusion over how they would vote on the amendment,” Robinson said.
Robinson also points out that there is a kind of confusing double-negative about the issue: If you oppose gay marriage you’re for the amendment, and if you support it you’re against it.
Even what to call the amendment is controversial.
People have come to refer to it as “Amendment One,” although that’s not what it will be titled on the ballot. There, it really doesn’t have an official name at all, other than “constitutional amendment.”
The PPP survey of 1,191 likely primary voters was an automated phone poll taken between March 23 and Sunday. It has a margin of error of 2.8 percent.

MsTinkerbelly

04-02-2012, 04:34 PM

In new lawsuit, DOMA is challenged as it applies to immigration rights
By Scottie Thomaston

Immigration Equality has filed a new lawsuit challenging the Defense of Marriage Act as it applies to the immigration rights of gay and lesbian bi-national couples. The complaint, notes the reasons that the Defense of Marriage Act treats same sex couples dealing with immigration issues particularly harshly:

The discriminatory impact of DOMA is particularly acute in the immigration context. For immigration purposes, whether the federal government recognizes a couple’s marriage can determine whether a family may remain in the United States and live together, or may be torn apart.

The group’s press release says:

Five lesbian and gay couples filed suit today in the Eastern District of New York, challenging Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prevents lesbian and gay American citizens from sponsoring their spouses for green cards. The lawsuit, filed on the couples’ behalf by Immigration Equality and the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, alleges that DOMA violates the couples’ constitutional right to equal protection.

“Solely because of DOMA and its unconstitutional discrimination against same-sex couples,” the lawsuit states, “these Plaintiffs are being denied the immigration rights afforded to other similarly situated binational couples.” Were the Plaintiffs opposite-sex couples, the suit says, “the federal government would recognize the foreign spouse as an ‘immediate relative’ of a United States citizen, thereby allowing the American spouse to petition for an immigrant visa for the foreign spouse, and place [them] on the path to lawful permanent residence and citizenship.”

The complaint asserts that keeping families together is not only the highest priority for the plaintiffs who are in long term same sex relationships, but it’s also considered the highest government priority and commitment to family values is repeatedly affirmed in our laws. Because of DOMA, these and other families could be ripped apart:

Each of the Plaintiff couples were legally married, and there is no question that each couple’s marriage is recognized in the jurisdiction in which the American spouse resides. For example, Frances Herbert and Takako Ueda were lawfully married in 2011 in Vermont. Thus, if Takako were a man instead of a woman, she would have already been recognized as an “immediate relative,” allowing her to attain lawful permanent residence and to remain in the United States.

Immigration Equality notes on their website the administration’s rather arbitrary enforcement of DOMA as it pertains to immigration – they’ve stopped some deportations but allowed others – and explains their case:

Over the course of the past year, the Obama Administration has refused to approve – or even hold — green card applications filed by our families. As a result, couples are facing separation and exile … and we will not sit idly by as the federal government keeps tearing families apart.

There is no question that DOMA is unconstitutional. We know it; the Obama Administration knows it; and the families who feel its impact know it most of all. It is time to end this law, and Immigration Equality and our families will do just that.

On April 2nd, we filed suit on behalf of five lesbian and gay couples, challenging Section 3 of DOMA, which prevents lesbian and gay American citizens from sponsoring their spouses for green cards. The lawsuit, filed on the couples’ behalf by Immigration Equality and the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, alleges that DOMA violates the couples’ constitutional right to equal protection.

This is not the first lawsuit that has alleged DOMA is unconstitutional as applied to immigration rights. In California, Lui v. Holder was thrown out because the judge said Adams v. Howerton is controlling precedent. In Illinois, Revelis v. Napolitano is awaiting further action.

The lawsuit is called Blesch v. Holder

Cin

04-02-2012, 05:13 PM

In new lawsuit, DOMA is challenged as it applies to immigration rights

I have my fingers crossed. It might be pie in the sky right now, but I would love someday for my wife and I to be able to choose where we want to live.

MsTinkerbelly

04-03-2012, 10:03 AM

DOMA trial: What to expect from tomorrow’s hearing in the First Circuit Court of Appeals
By Jacob Combs

Tomorrow morning, starting at 9:30 a.m. EDT, the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston will hear oral arguments in the companion cases of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services. It has been almost two years since District Court Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional under both the Fifth and Tenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Judge Tauro, a Nixon appointee, was the first district court judge in the country to strike down DOMA. A little over a month ago, another Republican-appointed judge, Jeffrey White of the Northern District of California, also declared DOMA unconstitutional.

It’s been a while since the original district court trial that Judge Tauro presided over, so we here at Prop8TrialTracker.com wanted to provide a brief review of the issues presented in the two cases and the legal analysis behind the judge’s decision. In Gill, filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), the plaintiffs argued that DOMA violates the equal protection provisions of the Fifth Amendment by discriminating against gay and lesbian couples who are married under the laws of the state they live in but denied federal marriage benefits by the government. In the companion case of Massachusetts, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley claimed that Congress overstepped its authority and ran afoul of the Tenth Amendment in passing DOMA because the law undermined states’ abilities to recognize marriage equality.

Judge Tauro awarded summary judgment to the plaintiffs in both cases, striking down DOMA under the Fifth and Tenth Amendments. In his decision in Gill, Tauro rejected the arguments that DOMA encouraged responsible procreation or realized a governmental desire to ensure children were raised by their two biological parents and concluded instead that Congress passed DOMA because of moral disapproval of same-sex relationships and prejudice against gay people. In Massachusetts, Tauro affirmed that marriage has always been a province of state law in the United States, and ruled that DOMA constituted an unprecedented intrusion upon states’ rights by imposing a national definition of marriage. In his decisions, Judge Tauro declined to decide whether or not DOMA should be considered under heightened scrutiny, ruling that the statute failed even the more deferential rational basis scrutiny.

Because it is so significant, the issue of which level of scrutiny should apply to cases like the DOMA and Prop 8 trials deserves some explanation here. Essentially, when a court considers an equal protection challenge of a law that applies certain rules to specific groups of people, that court must decide whether the group bringing the suit is subject to heightened or rational basis scrutiny. As Judge White wrote in his February ruling explaining the two levels of scrutiny: “Courts apply the most searching constitutional scrutiny to those laws that burden a fundamental right or target a suspect class, such as those based on race, national origin, sex or religion.” In cases like these, the government must show that a classification is “substantially related to an important government objective.” If a law doesn’t involve a protected class or a fundamental right, they are subject to rational basis scrutiny, and must be shown to be “rationally related to the furtherance of a legitimate governmental interest.”

As we wrote about here at Prop8TrialTracker.com, in February of 2011, the Department of Justice announced its determination that sexual orientation was a classification meriting heightened scrutiny review. In addition, it announced that is would cease to defend DOMA in court, and the House of Representatives’s Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) took up the defense in its stead. Briefings were submitted in the fall. As it did recently in another DOMA case in the Ninth Circuit, the Department of Justice (along with the plaintiffs) filed a request for en banc review in the First Circuit as opposed to the slower route of proceeding to a 3-judge panel before en banc consideration. The reasoning behind this decision has to do with the scrutiny question. Because the 3-judge panels that first hear cases when they appealed are bound by a court’s earlier decisions, the panel appointed to hear Gill and Massachusetts would have to consider the First Circuit’s 2008 decision in Cook v. Gates, which determined that no Supreme Court ruling held that sexual orientation is a classification meriting heightened scrutiny. An en banc panel would not be bound by that determination, and could consider the question anew. Nevertheless, the petition for initial en banc hearing was denied.

In tomorrow’s hearing, you can expect to hear about the issue of scrutiny, and specifically Cook v. Gates, since the appeals panel will no doubt want to address the whether rational basis or heightened scrutiny applies. As mentioned above, Cook is a controlling precedent on this 3-judge panel, making it extremely unlikely the panel would opt for heightened scrutiny in considering Judge Tauro’s rulings. Because the Cook case concerned Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, a law that affected the military, it is somewhat different from these DOMA cases, which affect civilians (and, it might be added, service members as well). Nonetheless, it seems almost certain that the First Circuit panel will follow Judge Tauro (and Cook) and use rational basis scrutiny in its determination of DOMA’s constitutionality.

The most unique portion of Judge Tauro’s 2010 ruling was his use of the Tenth Amendment, a darling of conservatives seeking to limit the scope of federal power. Tauro’s ruling in Massachusetts persuasively makes the case for striking down DOMA on Tenth Amendment grounds alone, even though the Fifth Amendment equal protection arguments of Gill are perhaps more traditional in cases like these. It will be intriguing to watch what questions the panel asks in terms of Judge Tauro’s two parallel tracks of analysis, and whether it finds one more convincing than the other.

Tomorrow’s meeting is also significant because of the lawyers who will be arguing for the various different parties. As we wrote before here at P8TT, the Justice Department will be represented by Stuart Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Decision and one of the highest-ranking officials in the department. BLAG, on the other hand, will be represented by conservative legal wunderkind Paul Clement, former U.S. Solicitor General, who enjoyed the national spotlight this week because of his well-reviewed performance arguing against the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act before the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition, Mary Bonauto, a prominent civil rights attorney whom the New York Times Magazine compared to former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, will be arguing for GLAD. Bonauto is well-known for her successful arguments in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Court decision that brought marriage equality to the Bay State. Maura Healy, the head of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s civil rights division, will represent the state of Massachusetts.

In terms of the panel itself, there appears to be little to be read from the proverbial tea leaves. The three judges making up the panel are Chief Judge Sandra L. Lynch, Judge Juan R. Torruella and Judge Michael Boudin, who are Clinton, Reagan and George H.W. Bush appointees, respectively, and the most senior active justices in the First Circuit. In terms of pertinent decisions in the judges’ past, Judge Boudin last year upheld the right of transgender prisoners to receive hormone therapy. In an email to P8TT, Shannon Minter, Legal Director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights, wrote that none of the three judges can be easily classified as liberal or conservative.

Unfortunately, due to the ban on electronic devices of any kind in the courtroom tomorrow, P8TT will not be able to live blog the First Circuit hearing. If you live in Boston, you can try to attend the hearing in person when the courtroom opens at 9:00 a.m. (the courthouse itself will open at 7:30 a.m.). Feel free to send reactions and dispatches to prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT org. Immediately after the hearing, audio of the oral arguments will be posted on the court’s website.

As always, Prop8TrialTracker.com will provide full coverage of tomorrow’s hearing. Check back throughout the day for updated news and analysis

MsTinkerbelly

04-04-2012, 07:54 AM

Ohio’s Attorney General certifies ballot language to replace anti-gay marriage amendment
By Scottie Thomaston

Ohio’s Attorney General Mike DeWine has finally certified the ballot language for an amendment to the state constitution to repeal and replace their anti-gay amendment that currently bans gay and lesbian couples from being able to get married. The new language will state that marriage is “a union of two consenting adults.” The proposed language also clarifies that no religious institution will be required to perform or recognize marriages.

The certification comes after DeWine’s refusal last month to authorize the proposed ballot language. He suggested a few reasons for denying certification at the time:

After reviewing the submission, I conclude that I am unable to certify the summary as a fair and truthful statement of the proposed constitutional amendment for three reasons. First, the summary is longer than the text of the amendment… Second, the summary states that the amendment retains the rights contained in “Section 11 of Article XV for political subdivisions to not recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals.” However, the text of the amendment does not indicate that political subdivisions would retain these rights. Third, the summary states that the amendment retains “the portions of Title 31 that codifies this Amendment.” However, the text of the amendment does not contain any reference to Title 31.

In today’s statement, DeWine calls the new language fair and truthful:

The group re-submitted its paperwork on March 26 and DeWine today certified the proposal and a “fair and truthful” summary of the proposed amendment, he said in a news release.

“Without passing on the advisability of the approval or rejection of the measure to be referred, I hereby certify that the summary is a fair and truthful statement of the proposed constitutional amendment,” he said in a letter to the petitioners.

Yesterday, it was reported that Cleveland’s NAACP President George Forbes has joined the Freedom to Marry campaign – the group pushing the marriage initiative in Ohio. Forbes noted that he worked to clarify the religious language exempting churches from having to perform services, and said:

“The time is now to grant two loving people the Freedom to Marry,” he said in a written statement.

“Not since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has there been a more important step to achieving equality for all Americans.”

As for the next steps in the amendment process:

DeWine said in a news release that once the summary language and initial signatures are certified the Ohio Ballot Board must determine if the amendment contains a single or multiple issues. The petitioners must then collect signatures in 44 of Ohio’s 88 counties, equal to 5 percent of the total vote cast in the county for the office of governor at the last gubernatorial election.

Total signatures collected statewide must also equal 10 percent of the vote cast for the office of governor in the last gubernatorial election.

If successful it will add to the growing list of pro-marriage initiatives on statewide ballots in the upcoming election.

MsTinkerbelly

04-05-2012, 07:56 AM

There are some really interesting articles over at the Prop 8 Trial Tracker Blog this morning that are way too lengthy to repost and I am link challenged.

One of the arguments to repeal DOMA is focusing not on the 14th amendment, but on the 10th which has to do with the individual States ability to decide what is right for the people of the State; and then the Government saying no, they can't have those rights.

Like I said, it's an interesting read.

MsTinkerbelly

04-05-2012, 04:36 PM

California federal judge rules denial of same sex spousal benefits is discriminatory
By Scottie Thomaston

Chief Judge James Ware of the Northern District of California has issued a ruling in a case involving denial of insurance benefit to a law clerk with a same-sex spouse, deciding that the denial of benefits is discriminatory. The court has a policy that guarantees a “discrimination-free workplace.” Because he can’t force the national office to cover spouses,:he ordered the chief clerk of the San Francisco federal court to reimburse Nathan for the past and future costs of buying insurance for his husband.

But the Defense of Marriage Act complicates the issue. Courts have to comply with DOMA, and the administration itself is still enforcing it, until it’s ruled unconstitutional definitively by the Supreme Court. It puts a spotlight on the fact that courts have policies on anti-discrimination in the workplace but then are required by law to discriminate. If there is to be any change in procedure, that decision, Wieking [the clerk ordered by Ware to reimburse funds] said, “will have to be made by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.”

MsTinkerbelly

04-09-2012, 12:37 PM

In Minnesota, President Obama’s campaign opposes anti-gay amendment that denies “rights and benefits to same sex couples”
By Scottie Thomaston

The president’s campaign for re-election is coming out in opposition to an attempt to put an anti-gay marriage amendment in Minnesota’s constitution, in what looks to be the administration’s new approach to discussing anti-gay ballot initiatives. Using language much like the statement released by the Obama campaign in opposition to Amendment 1 in North Carolina – and much stronger than previous statements referencing “divisive and discriminatory” laws but not addressing gays and lesbians – the campaign says:

“While the President does not weigh in on every single ballot measure in every state, the record is clear that the President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same sex couples,” said Kristen Sosanie, spokeswoman for the Obama for America – Minnesota campaign. “That’s what the Minnesota ballot initiative would do – it would single out and discriminate against committed gay and lesbian couples – and that’s why the President does not support it.”

As in North Carolina, state law in Minnesota already makes it illegal for gay and lesbian couples who are in love to be able to marry each other. The amendment is another in a long line of superfluous, animus-based attacks on gay and lesbian families meant to reclassify them as less valid than heterosexual relationships.

It’s good to see the administration address the problem with these amendments head on. The problem was never that laws or amendments of this sort are “divisive” or vaguely discriminate – they’re targeted at viciously attacking gay and lesbian families by placing in state constitutions the idea that one form of relationship and one sexual orientation is the only valid kind, and anyone else is inferior.

And the fact that the campaign has to keep noting that they can’t weigh in on every one of these initiatives says a lot in itself. This year the gay and lesbian community is fighting back against efforts to ban legal recognition of our relationships in some states and fighting to affirm them in other states. Even after releasing statements on North Carolina and Minnesota, there are still efforts in Maine and Maryland and Washington and New Jersey underway. When one law passes to affirm gay and lesbian relationships it always follows with immediate efforts to undermine the new law. It’s a concerted, long-term effort to deny gays and lesbians legal and societal acceptance and recognition.

MsTinkerbelly

04-10-2012, 12:58 PM

Lambda Legal files marriage equality lawsuit in Nevada
By Jacob Combs

MetroWeekly’s Chris Geidner broke the news this morning that Lambda Legal is filing a new marriage equality lawsuit in Nevada on behalf of eight couples living in the state. Sevcik v. Sandoval marks the first time that Lambda Legal has sought equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians in federal court. Same-sex couples in Nevada can enter into domestic partnerships that provide many of the benefits of marriage without the title, thanks to a law passed by the legislature in 2009 over the veto of then-Governor Jim Gibbons, a Republican.

Lamdba Legal’s suit is no doubt in part inspired by the success of the American Foundation for Equal Rights in the Prop 8 case, Perry v. Brown, which led to historic rulings in favor of marriage equality in California both at the district and appellate court levels. Nevada, like California, falls under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, so lawyers in the Sevcik case could cite the Prop 8 ruling in the Ninth Circuit as precedent. Additionally, any appeal of the eventual Sevcik ruling would end up at the Ninth Circuit just like Perry did.

Despite these similarities, the legal arguments that Lamdba Legal are pursuing in Sevcik are not quite the same as AFER’s arguments in Perry. The central complaint in the new Nevada case is an equal protection claim that domestic parternships violate the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples. In the Prop 8 case, AFER made the same equal protection claim but also argued for a fundamental right to marriage under the U.S. Constitution. Tara Borelli, a staff attorney with Lamdba, explained to MetroWeekly that the group “certainly believe[s] that the fundamental right to marry includes same-sex couples, but this court doesn’t need to answer that question to rule for the plaintiffs here. We’re convinced that our equal protection claim is so clearly correct that we want to keep the focus on that claim.”

Lambda Legal’s strategy makes the Sevcik case a more conservative one than the Prop 8 case in Perry, and would appear to be a response at least in part to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in the Prop 8 case, which declined to address the fundamental right question and instead focused more specifically on the circumstances unique to California’s situation.

In explaining Lambda’s complaint, Borelli said, “One of the reasons that we’re suing in the state of Nevada is that this is a particular equal protection problem that this case examines. It’s the kind of problem created where a state excludes same-sex couples from marriage deems them fit for all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage through a lesser, second-class status — in this case, domestic partnership. That shows just how irrational that state’s decision is to shut same-sex couples out of marriage.”

As we wait to hear whether or not the Prop 8 trial will be heard by an 11-member en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit (a process which, unfortunately, may take several more months), it will be exciting to watch another marriage equality case start up at the district court level. Like the several lawsuits against the Defense of Marriage Act, which build upon each other and make a convincing case for that law’s inherent unfairness, the Sevcik suit is a great step forward in winning marriage equality across the country

Nadeest

04-10-2012, 03:13 PM

Let's hope that they win, and quickly.

MsTinkerbelly

04-11-2012, 12:57 PM

MONTANA: Supreme Court To Hear Partner Benefits Case For Same-Sex Couples

On Friday the Montana Supreme Court will hear the case of six same-sex couples who have sued to have their partners covered by their package of employee benefits.

The Montana Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Donaldson & Guggenheim, et al. v. State of Montana on Friday at the University of Montana. The session will start at 9:30 a.m. in the University Theatre with an introduction to the case. Hosted by the UM School of Law, the session is free and open to the public. Jan Donaldson and Mary Anne Guggenheim, along with five other same-sex couples in committed, intimate relationships, are bringing a constitutional challenge against several Montana laws under which same-sex couples cannot obtain the same public and private benefits provided to married opposite-sex couples

Blade

04-12-2012, 07:56 PM

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/04/12/3169234/perdue-opposes-marriage-amendment.html

BullDog

05-01-2012, 01:33 PM

sxnjQdMpnCM

iamkeri1

05-02-2012, 01:22 AM

Out of the mouth of babes...

Julien

05-08-2012, 07:07 PM

It Could Happen to You

I don't know if this has been posted already, but here it is again. Such a heartbreaking story.

pR9gyloyOjM

Blade

05-08-2012, 07:27 PM

with 42% of the precincts reporting so far, we are losing in the NC marriage amendment by 18%.

kittygrrl

05-08-2012, 07:38 PM

with 42% of the precincts reporting so far, we are losing in the NC marriage amendment by 18%.

:married: horrible news, but thank you for the update

Blade

05-08-2012, 07:40 PM

:married: horrible news, but thank you for the update

It's getting worse now 40/60 with 50% of the vote in

iamkeri1

05-08-2012, 09:45 PM

Though this amendment passed, there ARE smarter and wiser heads in NC. This is a clip from a May 6 press conference. In it the Rev. Dr. William J. Barber, the pastor of Greenleaf Christian Church in Goldsboro, North Carolina chides the press for the way the have handled coverage for this amendment. People like this will keep working, and we will keep working, and we will succeed in getting our full rights as citizens of the USA.
Smooches,
Keri

ywImcNViPtc&hd=1

Leigh

05-08-2012, 10:03 PM

It was very disappointing to her about NC passing this bill but I don't think it is the end ~ I'm sure things will work out in the end :)

iamkeri1

05-08-2012, 10:04 PM

Pearl and Lennie of North Carolina. From the mouths of babes in the post above to the mouths of cherished elders, truth flows. These two are so beautiful.
Smooches,
Keri

61s8xwIIV68

MsTinkerbelly

05-09-2012, 12:03 AM

The North Carolina law may be voided...I'll post from the prop 8 blog tomorrow because from my iPad I have issues.

Long story short, in some areas...primarily democratic, people were given the ballots without the amendment question on them. For some reason 17 year olds could vote if they would be 18 in 6 months, but they had ballots without the amendment question. They were also giving those ballots to regular voters that might otherwise vote to defeat the amendment, instead of the ballots for those over 18. Some say on purpose....we'll see.

Beloved

05-09-2012, 03:47 AM

The rights of the minority should never be subject to the vote of the majority. I may be over-optimistic but I believe same sex marriage will be fully legal across the US in my lifetime. It's going to happen. These are temporary set backs. The fight is still on!

Soon

05-09-2012, 07:00 AM

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eFEdG8jKFOI/T6pnoI-ppgI/AAAAAAABW48/GquDl6v1Gk4/s400/NCtrivia.jpg

MsTinkerbelly

05-09-2012, 07:48 AM

Update 3 Scottie Thomaston:: There are reports of problems with ballots. Some voters are not being given ballots with amendments on them. Huffington Post’s Gay Voices reports:

All, we’re getting reports here in Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Raleigh (which are base areas for us, e.g. anti-Amendment 1) of precincts handing out INCORRECT ballots. In North Carolina, 17-year-olds can vote in the statewide primary (e.g., for governor, etc.) if they turn 18 by November 6th. However, they CANNOT vote on Amendment 1 in this primary — they can only vote for candidates — therefore they are being handed ballots WITHOUT Amendment 1. That is proper election procedure.

The problem is, the reports we are getting are that people OVER 17 are also being handed these ballots WITHOUT Amendment 1 in what would normally be heavily anti-Amendment 1 precincts (Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Raleigh). We are working on testimonials from voters who have experienced this — in the meantime, if you report on Amendment 1, PLEASE ask readers to call 1-866-OUR-VOTE if they experience this in NC, or know someone who did. That will enable the campaign’s field team to investigate and correct this as soon as possible

Semantics

05-09-2012, 01:11 PM

Finally.

Obama declares support for gay marriage

President Obama today announced that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his longstanding opposition amid growing pressure from the Democratic base and even his own vice president.
In an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, the president described his thought process as an “evolution” that led him to this place, based on conversations with his own staff members, openly gay and lesbian service members, and conversations with his wife and own daughters.

"I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama told Roberts, in an interview to appear on ABC’s “Good Morning America” Thursday. Excerpts of the interview will air tonight on ABC’s “World News with Diane Sawyer.”

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own. But he said he’s confident that more Americans will grow comfortable with gays and lesbians getting married, citing his own daughters’ comfort with the concept.

“It’s interesting, some of this is also generational,” the president continued. “You know when I go to college campuses, sometimes I talk to college Republicans who think that I have terrible policies on the economy, on foreign policy, but are very clear that when it comes to same sex equality or, you know, believe in equality. They are much more comfortable with it. You know, Malia and Sasha, they have friends whose parents are same-sex couples. There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and we’re talking about their friends and their parents and Malia and Sasha, it wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently. It doesn’t make sense to them and frankly, that’s the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective.”

http://gma.yahoo.com/obama-announces-his-support-for-same-sex-marriage.html

Soon

05-09-2012, 01:12 PM

Obama Backs Gay Marriage (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/obama-gay-marriage_n_1503245.html)

WASHINGTON -- In a nod to a dramatic shift in public opinion, Barack Obama on Wednesday became the first sitting president to announce his support for same-sex marriage.

In a sit-down interview with ABC's Robin Roberts, Obama completed what has been a markedly long and oft-mocked evolution on the matter.

"I've always been adamant that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly," Obama told Roberts, in an interview that will air in full on ABC's "Good Morning America" Thursday.

"I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married," he said.

Apocalipstic

05-09-2012, 01:16 PM

Thank you President Obama!

Jess

05-09-2012, 01:22 PM

my post for today from FB :

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/389181_3150202958452_1366450312_2984148_414286837_ n.jpg

"These signs somehow found their way into my trunk over the past few weeks... There is one house I pass on my hour drive through NC back roads daily that had signs saying NO to the amendment. Their house is surrounded literally by signs to vote yes. It is now up for sale. It is devastating to realize your neighbors want to deny you of basic rights."

The Church less than what would be a city block from the women's home I mentioned above ( I know they are women as they were having a yard sell last weekend), put up a message stating "God states marriage is between one man and one woman"... It really hasn't helped my drive back and forth daily feel good.

As much as I love the area where I live, our politics are still so backward thinking. It truly breaks my heart.

Nat

05-09-2012, 01:23 PM

I thank Biden for talking out of school which effectively forced Obama's hand.

~ocean

05-09-2012, 01:33 PM

i'm an Obama supporter as well as a campaign advocate for Salem State University.. it's going to be a very busy fall season. :)

Reader

05-09-2012, 01:40 PM

Bam backs gay marriage.

Nat

05-09-2012, 01:43 PM

What do you think "For me, personally" means to him in this context?

Apocalipstic

05-09-2012, 01:45 PM

What do you think "For me, personally" means to him in this context?

That he is not saying everyone should agree. He is after all a politician.

Even so, I am so proud of him!

Reader

05-09-2012, 01:50 PM

Maddow should be great tonight!

msnbc 9pm EST

http://www.rachelmaddow.com/

Reader

05-09-2012, 01:52 PM

Bam said his views have 'evolved' over time. The ability to evolve, grow and change is what distinguishes people.

Semantics

05-09-2012, 01:55 PM

What do you think "For me, personally" means to him in this context?

That he is not saying everyone should agree. He is after all a politician.

Even so, I am so proud of him!

I'm going to go a step further and say that it may be carefully crafted ambivalence. He's leaving the door open to further clarify that this is his personal opinion and that he may not take any action on it politically if it comes down to it.

MsTinkerbelly

05-09-2012, 02:19 PM

By Michael O'Brien

Updated 4:00 p.m. ET- President Barack Obama endorsed the right of same-sex couples to marry on Wednesday, a landmark pronouncement made in light of mounting pressure from gay rights advocates.

Obama became the first U.S. president to back the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry, a reversal from views expressed during the 2008 campaign, when he said he opposed same-sex marriage but favored civil unions as an alternative.

Obama told ABC News that, after reflection, he had "concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married."

In making his announcement, Obama completes what he had described as an “evolution” in his views on this issue, hastened by growing fervor this week involving gay rights. The growing pressure was capped Tuesday by North Carolina voters’ approval of a constitutional amendment banning not only same-sex marriages, but civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, as well.

Obama’s shift not only speaks to a broad swath of the electorate, which has exhibited increasing acceptance of same-sex marriage in opinion polls, but also gay and lesbian voters who compose a core part of Obama’s base, and have been major fundraisers for his re-election.

ABC News

President Barack Obama appears in an interview with ABC News on Wednesday, speaking in support of gay marriage. "It is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married," the president said.
The president had found himself under increasing pressure this week to state his position unequivocally after Vice President Joe Biden voiced support for same-sex marriage.

Obama explained that he had hesitated in fully supporting same-sex marriage because he thought civil unions would be sufficient.

"I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married," he told ABC.

While the White House emphasized that Biden’s position wasn’t representative of the entire administration, Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s pronouncement Monday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” in support of same-sex marriage added to pressure on the president.

“I have no update on the president's personal views,” press secretary Jay Carney said repeatedly at Monday’s White House press briefing in reference to the president’s self-styled “evolution” on gay marriage.

As a result, Obama has risked fallout among his political base. The Washington Post reported this week that gay and liberal donors had threatened to withhold financial support for the president or a super PAC due to his refusal to sign an executive order barring discrimination of gays and lesbians in federal contracting.

Comments from Vice President Joe Biden and Education Secretary Arne Duncan brought Obama's views about gay marriage back into national spotlight.NBC's Chuck Todd reports.
And Obama was expected, too, to encounter frustration at a major Hollywood fundraiser this week at the home of actor George Clooney.

The overwhelming approval, too, of the measure, which Obama had opposed, in North Carolina -- a key swing state -- heightened speculation that the president might address the issue.

RELATED: North Carolina approves ban on same-sex marriage

Mitt Romney re-iterated his opposition to both same-sex marriage and civil unions earlier today to KDVR-TV in Denver.

"Well, when these issues were raised in my state of Massachusetts, I indicated my view, which is I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name," he said. "My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate but that the others are not."

Obama has faced tremendous pressure throughout his administration to advance gay rights.

Among his earliest acts as president included signing an executive order extending benefits to federal employees in same-sex partnerships in 2009. Obama also ordered the government to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act -- the 1996 laws allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages in other states -- in court.

The administration’s crowning achievement on gay rights came more methodically, though -- sometimes to the frustration of advocates for same-sex rights.

Obama signed the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” -- the military’s ban on openly gay or lesbian service members -- into law in December 2010. But the repeal came after months of legislative wrangling, and the president’s refusal to sign a simple order to make the change. And even after Obama signed the law, the implementation took months.

Same-sex marriage is hardly the hot-button issue it was compared to the last decade, though. Support for it now eclipses opposition; 49 percent of Americans said that favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry, according to the March NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, while 40 percent oppose it. (In October 2009, 49 percent opposed same-sex marriages, while 41 percent supported them.)

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan says he supports gay marriage, one day after Vice President Joe Biden said he's "comfortable" with marriage equality.
Opinion has shifted especially among independent voters, who back marriage rights 46 percent to 37 percent. About three in 10 Republicans said they, too, support same-sex marriage.

However, of the 18 states making composing the “toss-up” or “lean” categories in NBC’s battleground map, 10 have banned same-sex marriage and civil unions outright, either by constitutional amendment or statute. Just two -- Iowa and New Hampshire -- have legalized gay marriage outright, while other states operate in more nebulous space when it comes to gay and lesbian couples.

Semantics

05-09-2012, 02:59 PM

Fox Nation: 'Obama Flip-Flops, Declares War On Marriage'

As is often the case, Fox News' eccentric aggregation cousin Fox Nation took a slightly different angle about President Obama's endorsement of gay marriage than many news outlets.

While others played the news straight (no pun intended) or celebratory, Fox Nation had a rather more apocalyptic take on the occasion:

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/600048/original.jpg

link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/fox-nation-obama-flip-flop-war-marriage_n_1503889.html?1336595793)

Soon

05-09-2012, 03:26 PM

Thank President Obama. (http://thinkprogress.org/take-action/thank-obama-lgbt-b/)

Soon

05-09-2012, 03:32 PM

Obama/Biden (http://www.barackobama.com/obama-for-america-2012-campaign-alt-april-1?source=OM2012_LB_G_core-search_campaign_my1g&utm_medium=om2012&utm_source=G&utm_campaign)

Lady Pamela

05-09-2012, 04:24 PM

The President stood up for us...here is 2 ways to say Thank You and stand up for him!

Please share and pass it along..we need to get as many people as we can to show our support!

http://www.allout.org/en/actions/thanksobama?akid=702.21

.

https://secure3.convio.net/hrc/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&
page=UserAction&id=1442

Lady Pamela

05-09-2012, 06:00 PM

One more place to show support

http://dccc.org/page/s/stand-with-president-obama-in-support-of-marriage-equality

Nat

05-09-2012, 10:59 PM

And the backlash bigotry begins...

(And didn't republicans just say that the term "War on Women" was an improper use of the word "War" when we have soldiers fighting/dying for their country?)

Fox Nation: 'Obama Flip-Flops, Declares War On Marriage'

As is often the case, Fox News' eccentric aggregation cousin Fox Nation took a slightly different angle about President Obama's endorsement of gay marriage than many news outlets.

While others played the news straight (no pun intended) or celebratory, Fox Nation had a rather more apocalyptic take on the occasion:

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/600048/original.jpg

link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/fox-nation-obama-flip-flop-war-marriage_n_1503889.html?1336595793)

Nat

05-09-2012, 11:04 PM

When Same-Sex Marriage was a Christian Rite (http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html)

Interesting stuff - though it's posted on livejournal and I haven't fact-checked it in any way.

MsTinkerbelly

05-10-2012, 10:03 AM

News roundup: reactions to President Obama’s marriage announcement, and other headlines
By Jacob Combs

Yesterday was a hugely historic day, with President Obama becoming the first sitting U.S. president to endorse full marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples. Yesterday, we brought you live updates before, during and after the President’s announcement, and here is a collection of news items from late yesterday and early this morning on this game-changing endorsement and other marriage related news.

Speaking to The Daily Beast, Ted Olson, the Republican member of the two-attorney duo that successfully litigated the Prop 8 trial at the district court and before the Ninth Circuit, said that he was “gratified that the president has thrown his personal support and the authority of the presidency behind the goal of justice, equality, and decency for all citizens.”

He also spoke out about the passage of Amendment One in North Carolina on Tuesday, noting the similarities between the nullification of domestic partnerships there with the rollback of marriage rights effected in California by Prop 8. ”This is a law,” Olsen said, “that withdraws existing rights from people based upon their sexual orientationIt withdraws rights and privileges that gay and lesbian citizens have had in North Carolina for some time now. That is one of the bases on which the Ninth Circuit specifically struck down Proposition 8.”

Yesterday, Scottie reported that two U.S. Senators had made public their support for marriage equality as well. Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed finally completed his (extremely gradual) evolution on the issue of DOMA, tweeting that he now supported marriage equality and would cosponsor the Respect for Marriage Act. The support of Senator Reed puts us at 33 Senators in support of repealing DOMA–we need 17 more for a majority and 27 more to break a filibuster.

In addition, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced his support as well in a nuanced statement, saying, “My personal belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman. But in a civil society, I believe that people should be able to marry whomever they want, and it’s no business of mine if two men or two women want to get married.”

For anyone trying to parse out the political and electoral effect of Obama’s announcement, the short-term effect yesterday was apparent and crystal-clear. According to Buzzfeed, the Obama campaign received an astonishing $1 million in spontaneous contributions in the first 90 minutes after the announcement yesterday. Clearly, supporters were fired up about the President’s move.

The marriage announcement will also undoubtedly help Obama with big-money donors as well. The Washington Post reported the other day that gay men make up 1 in 6 of Obama’s top fundraising bundlers. For those who had hesitated to raise money for Obama as he continued evolving, yesterday’s announcement removes a final barrier to outright support for the campaign. ”This is beyond unifying–it’s electrifying,” said Eugene Sepulveda, a former top bundler.

It’s also worth noting just how much the Obama campaign has embraced this announcement and chosen to make it a significant news story. Not only did the campaign send out a fundraising email touting the President’s new views and seeking donations, it also put Obama’s announcement on the front page of the campaign’s website. Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt sent two tweets out highlighting the marriage announcement as part of the campaign’s narrative that Obama is a forward-looking leader while Romney is a creature of the past ”We’ve amended Constitution to expand righgts. Romney, RNC on record saying they want to enshrine discrimination into it,” read one of them.

UPDATE: The Obama campaign is out today with a new ad titled “Mitt Romney: Backwards on Equality.” It really is amazing how actively the campaign is incorporating marriage equality into its messaging