Same-Sex Marriage Update [Archive] - Page 5

MsTinkerbelly

05-17-2012, 10:06 AM

Small but significant: Obama becomes first president to use “marriage equality” in public
By Jacob Combs

Speaking earlier this week at a New York fundraiser hosted by Ricky Martin at the Rubin Museum of Art, President Obama became the first sitting president to use the term “marriage equality” in a public speech. Referring to the pride he feels for passing the Lilly Ledbetter Act (which gives women greater opportunities to seek legal action for equal pay), Obama spoke about his belief that all citizens in the United States should be treated equally:

The first bill I signed, the Lilly Ledbetter Act — a simple proposition — equal pay for equal work. I don’t want my daughters treated differently than my sons. That’s the reason why we’re fighting for comprehensive immigration reform — because I believe that a child who’s here, raised with our kids, playing with our kids, has as much talent as our kids, the notion that somehow they would not have the capacity, the ability to proclaim themselves Americans and to fulfill their American Dream — that’s not who we are and that’s not what we’re about.

The announcement I made last week about my views on marriage equality — same principle. The basic idea — I want everybody treated fairly in this country. We have never gone wrong when we expanded rights and responsibilities to everybody. That doesn’t weaken families; that strengthens families. It’s the right thing to do.

This may seem like a small, semantic technicality, but it’s actually a highly significant moment. The truth is that when it comes to advocating for marriage rights for gay and lesbian individuals, language matters. Polls conducted in states across the country find that respondents are far more likely to respond that they support such rights when they are presented as “marriage equality” as opposed to “gay marriage.” Having to put any adjective in front of the word marriage, whether it be “gay” or “same-sex,” inherently brands the concept as something other than ‘just’ marriage, or some specific subset of marriage.

In truth, though, gays and lesbians aren’t trying to get “gay married.” We’re trying to get married the same way that heterosexual couples are allowed to. In a much deeper sense, using the term “marriage equality” as opposed to “gay marriage” gets to the root of the marriage debate: what we are seeking is not a new right and not a special right, but rather equal access to the already existent and constitutionality fundamental right to marry that all individuals should enjoy.

So when President Obama uses the term “marriage equality,” it may not make headlines. But it’s a big moment that shows just how far we’ve come, and what an important ally we now have on our side

Wolfsong

05-18-2012, 05:57 AM

[SIZE="5"][B]In truth, though, gays and lesbians aren’t trying to get “gay married.” We’re trying to get married the same way that heterosexual couples are allowed to. In a much deeper sense, using the term “marriage equality” as opposed to “gay marriage” gets to the root of the marriage debate: what we are seeking is not a new right and not a special right, but rather equal access to the already existent and constitutionality fundamental right to marry that all individuals should enjoy.

Two weeks ago my wife and I received a letter from ADP (who administrates our paychecks). It said that because we had a recognized dependent, which is a non-spouse or dependent child who is covered by insurance benefits, AND the federal government does not recognize domestic partnerships and/or civil unions, we will be required to pay income taxes on those benefits in the amount of $500 taken out twice a year. Yesterday I checked the bank deposits. It was $250 short.

I think I am preaching to the choir here but........there isn't even anyone that I can complain to about this. What are we supposed to do? Throw our dildos in Boston harbor? Whoo hoo that'll show 'em.

Bastards

Taxation of Domestic Partner Benefits (http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/taxation-of-domestic-partner-benefits)

MsTinkerbelly

05-30-2012, 10:02 AM

Marriage equality lawsuit filed in Illinois
By Jacob Combs

Today, Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Illinois will each file a lawsuit contending that the state’s refusal to grant marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples violates the equal protection and due process rights of those couples under the state’s constitution. Activists in the state, who successfully shepherded a civil unions bill into law last year, had been pursuing a legislative strategy, but a House bill that was introduced earlier this year was removed from consideration in the middle of the session. While there are no plans to abandon their legislative push, marriage equality advocates in the state believe that a more feasible path to marriage rights in the state might be through the judicial system.

“We feel like we’re at a tipping point,” said Camilla Taylor, a Lambda Legal attorney who headed up a similar case that led to the legalization of gay marriage in Iowa. “You reach a point where you can no longer tell these families that they should hold off. You lack the justification when we reach a national moment, when it’s clear that our time is now.” After President Barack Obama announced his support for marriage equality earlier this month, Illinis Gov. Pat Quinn announced his endorsement as well.

The two suits will be filed on behalf of 25couples from across Illinois, all of whom attempted to obtain a marriage license from the Cook County clerk’s office and were denied due to an Illinois law that states, “A marriage between 2 individuals of the same sex is contrary to the public policy of this State.” Intriguingly, the office of David Orr, the Cook County Clerk, released a statement today that read: “The time is long past due for the state of Illinois to allow county clerks to issue marriage license to couples who want to make their commitment. I hope these lawsuits are the last hurdle to achieving equal marriage rights for all.”

The two Illinois lawsuits resemble In re Marriage Cases, the series of consolidated lawsuits that were filed in California after the state enacted a domestic partnership law. In that case’s landmark ruling, the California Supreme Court held that marriage is a fundamental right under the state constitution and that withholding only the title of ‘marriage’ from gay couples while providing them all of the rights and privileges accorded to married couples violated their equal protection rights. That ruling would lead to the passage of Proposition 8, followed by the Prop 8 trial.

It is unclear at this point whether or not Gov. Quinn will defend Illinois’s mini-DOMA in court. As with the other marriage equality cases being argued throughout the country, Prop8TrialTracker.com will have more news and analysis of the new Illinois lawsuits as they progress through the courts.

MsTinkerbelly

05-31-2012, 10:05 AM

..Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional
By DENISE LAVOIE | Associated Press – 11 mins ago....BOSTON (AP)

— A federal appeals court Thursday declared that the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutionally denies federal benefits to married gay couples, a groundbreaking ruling all but certain to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In its unanimous decision, the three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the 1996 law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman deprives gay couples of the rights and privileges granted to heterosexual couples.

The court didn't rule on the law's more politically combustible provision, which said states without same-sex marriage cannot be forced to recognize gay unions performed in states where it's legal. It also wasn't asked to address whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marry.

The law was passed at a time when it appeared Hawaii would legalize gay marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004.

The court, the first federal appeals panel to deem the benefits section of the law unconstitutional, agreed with a lower level judge who ruled in 2010 that the law interferes with the right of a state to define marriage and denies married gay couples federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns.

The 1st Circuit said its ruling wouldn't be enforced until the U.S. Supreme Court decides the case, meaning that same-sex married couples will not be eligible to receive the economic benefits denied by DOMA until the high court rules.

That's because the ruling only applies to states within the circuit, including Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire and Puerto Rico. Only the Supreme Court has the final say in deciding whether a law passed by Congress is unconstitutional.

Although most Americans live in states where the law still is that marriage can only be the union of a man and a woman, the power to define marriage had always been left to the individual states before Congress passed DOMA, the appeals court said in its ruling.

"One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage," Judge Michael Boudin wrote for the court. "Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress' denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest."

During arguments before the court last month, a lawyer for gay married couples said the law amounts to "across-the-board disrespect." The couples argued that the power to define and regulate marriage had been left to the states for more than 200 years before Congress passed DOMA.

An attorney defending the law argued that Congress had a rational basis for passing it in 1996, when opponents worried that states would be forced to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. The group said Congress wanted to preserve a traditional and uniform definition of marriage and has the power to define terms used to federal statutes to distribute federal benefits.

Since DOMA was passed in 1996, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, including Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maryland, Washington state and the District of Columbia. Maryland and Washington's laws are not yet in effect and may be subject to referendums.

Last year, President Barack Obama announced the U.S. Department of Justice would no longer defend the constitutionality of the law. After that, House Speaker John Boehner convened the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to defend it. The legal group argued the case before the appeals court.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the Boston-based legal group that brought one of the lawsuits on behalf of gay married couples, said the law takes one group of legally married people and treats them as "a different class" by making them ineligible for benefits given to other married couples.

"We've been working on this issue for so many years, and for the court to acknowledge that yes, same-sex couples are legally married, just as any other couple, is fantastic and extraordinary," said Lee Swislow, GLAD's executive director.

Two of the three judges who decided the case Thursday were Republican appointees, while the other was a Democratic appointee. Boudin was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, while Judge Juan Torruella was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. Chief Judge Sandra Lynch is an appointee of President Bill Clinton

MsTinkerbelly

06-04-2012, 10:09 AM

Illinois Attorney General announces support for marriage equality lawsuits
By Jacob Combs

The upcoming court battle in Illinois over the constitutionality of civil unions and the state’s prohibition on marriage equality looks like it promises to be an intriguing and unusual one. Earlier this week, Lambda Legal and the ACLU of Illinois announced that they were simultaneously filing two lawsuits, Darby v. Orr and Lazaro v. Orr, arguing that the civil unions the state began offering to gay and lesbian couples last year infringe upon those couples’ equal protection rights under the Illinois Constitution.

David Orr, who is the official government defendant in both lawsuits by virtue of his position as Cook County Clerk, is himself a supporter of marriage equality: in a statement released by his office last week, Orr wrote of his “hope [that] these lawsuits are the last hurdle to achieving equal marriage rights for all.” Because of Orr’s position, it seems unlikely that he will elect to put forward any strong defense of the status quo once the cases make their way to court.

In another twist, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan announced over the weekend her plans to intervene in the two marriage cases–on the side of the plaintiffs. Usually, state Attorneys General intervene in court cases when state laws are challenged in order to support those statutes, or, as in the case of Proposition 8 and California Attorney General Kamala Harris (like her predecessor Jerry Brown), they choose to opt out of such lawsuits if they do not support the law in question. Madigan, however, believes that Illinois’s civil unions law does not in fact adequately protect equal protection rights, and plans to intervene on behalf of Lambda Legal and the ACLU in both cases.

With both Orr and Madigan expressing support for the lawsuits, it’s an open question now as to who will actually defend the constitutionality of the civil unions law in court. David Orr would normally be represented in court by Anita Alvarez, the state attorney for Cook County, but it is unclear if the Democratic attorney will opt to defend the law, especially after Madigan’s announcement.

In California, when both the Governor and Attorney General declined to support Proposition 8 in court, the constitutional amendment’s official backers intervened in court to defend it. In Illinois, however, there are no ballot proponents to stand up for the civil unions law (since it was enacted legislatively and not by a popular vote), and Democrats control both chambers of the legislature. It will be interesting to see who steps forward to defend the law, and if the courts decide to allow them to do so

Wolfsong

06-04-2012, 05:48 PM

I have to revise my stance on this issue and admit my realization that my position, at least in this issue, was terribly short-sighted. In the beginning, I supported state's right to vote and determine for themselves.

On many issues I opt for state's rights over Federal involvement. Who am I to tell someone a thousand miles away how to live their lives? It is my contention that the Federal goverment has been trying to change America from the Constitutional Republic that we are supposed to be to a Democracy since the 1950's....but that is a discussion for it's own thread.

In this case I see very clearly that we are going to remain disadvantaged until gay marriage is viewed as a legitimate civil rights issue by all, and addressed and approved by the federal goverment. Civil Unions are merely a bone tossed to get both sides to shut-up. Give Civil Unions the same legal rights as marriage and I don't give a damn what it's called....but it will shut me up.

suebee

06-05-2012, 11:20 AM

Court will not rehear proposition 8 case. (http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2012/06/05/court-will-not-rehear-proposition-8-case)

MsTinkerbelly

06-05-2012, 12:37 PM

BREAKING: 9th Circuit DENIES request to re-hear Prop 8 case
By Scottie Thomaston

The judges sitting in the Ninth Circuit have issued a new order in the Perry v. Brown case today. The full panel of Ninth Circuit judges have decided that en banc rehearing of the three-judge panel’s decision will not be granted. This comes after a months-long wait: the proponents of Proposition 8 announced their intention to seek en banc review of the Ninth Circuit’s three-judge panel decision on February 21 of this year. As we noted yesterday, the decision to deny rehearing of the case with a new, randomly-selected eleven judge panel means that Judge Reinhardt’s opinion, which was joined by Judge Michael Daly Hawkins and garnered a dissent by Judge N. Randy Smith, either way, will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court where the proponents will now likely file a petition for certiorari, asking them to review and possibly overturn Judge Reinhardt’s opinion for the Ninth Circuit’s panel of three judges.

An en banc rehearing at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is much different from other circuits. Generally, en banc means that the entire court will rehear the case, with all judges in the circuit participating. But the Ninth Circuit has an inordinately large number of judges, so they have a procedure wherein they have an ‘en banc panel’ consisting of eleven judges: ten randomly-chosen judges plus the Chief Judge (at the Ninth Circuit that is Alex Kozinski) presiding. If rehearing had been granted, the randomly selected panel could have heard arguments and issued new briefing in the case or they could have decided to forgo that and issue a new decision without it.

Now that en banc rehearing was denied, the proponents have 90 days to file a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, seeking review of the decision striking down Proposition 8. It’s likely that Justices at the Supreme Court would have their conference to take up the petition and decide whether to grant review or not sometime after their summer break in October. Oral argument would follow a few months later, and then a final decision would be issued by June or July 2013.

Judge O’Scannlain has filed a dissent from the denial of en banc rehearing joined by Judges Bybee and Bea, and in it he discusses his belief that Judge Smith’s dissent was correct. He says that “we have now declared that animus must have been the only conceivable motivation for a sovereign State to have remained committed to a definition of marriage that has existed for millennia.”

No one is certain if the Supreme Court would grant review of the case as it currently stands. Judge Reinhardt’s opinion for the three-judge Ninth Circuit panel is very narrow and the holding is specific to California’s unique legal circumstances. A denial of rehearing in this case leaves the decision California-specific and there may not be four Justices – the number needed to grant certiorari – who want to visit an issue that’s so limited in scope. On the other hand, the panel’s decision did strike down an amendment to a constitution of an enormous state involving a contentious issue. And allowing gay couples to marry in California would nearly double the amount of people in the United States who live in an area that allows same-sex marriage.

This process has gone on for so long. The complaint was initially filed on May 22, 2009 and the trial began on January 11, 2010. Judge Walker didn’t issue a decision in the case until August 4, 2010. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling came much later, with the three-judge panel issuing its ruling on February 7 of this year. Now the Perry case is entering its final phase.

Now that the Ninth Circuit has denied en banc rehearing of the three-judge panel’s decision, the case will face its final test soon, at the Supreme Court, as the proponents are widely expected to seek review of the three-judge panel’s decision. If the proponents do file a petition for certiorari the Justices will look at the petition in a conference later this year where the final decision will be made: review the case or let the Ninth Circuit’s decision be the final word in this long journey to decide the fate of the odious Proposition 8. It promises to be an exciting year

UPDATE (Jacob): Some more details. The original three-judge panel voted 2-1, along the same lines as the decision, to deny en banc rehearing, with Judges Reinhardt and Hawkins voted to deny it and Judge Smith voting in favor of it.

As expected, Judge O’Scannlain (who has written in favor of en banc rehearing on LGBT cases before and has excoriated the Ninth Circuit for its rulings favorable to gays and lesbians), wrote a dissent, joined by Judges Bybee and Bea, explaining why he supported the rehearing. Here is his brief dissent, in full:

A few weeks ago, subsequent to oral argument in this case, the President of the United States ignited a media firestorm by announcing that he supports same- sex marriage as a policy matter. Drawing less attention, however, were his comments that the Constitution left this matter to the States and that “one of the things that [he]’d like to see is–that [the] conversation continue in a respectful way.”1

Today our court has silenced any such respectful conversation. Based on a two-judge majority’s gross misapplication of Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), we have now declared that animus must have been the only conceivable motivation for a sovereign State to have remained committed to a definition of marriage that has existed for millennia, Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052, 1082 (9th Cir. 2012). Even worse, we have overruled the will of seven million California Proposition 8 voters based on a reading of Romer that would be unrecognizable to the Justices who joined it, to those who dissented from it, and to the judges from sister circuits who have since interpreted it. We should not have so roundly trumped California’s democratic process without at least discussing this unparalleled decision as an en banc court.

For many of the same reasons discussed in Judge N.R. Smith’s excellent dissenting opinion in this momentous case, I respectfully dissent from the failure to grant the petition for rehearing en banc.

Judges Reinhardt and Hawkins also filed a response to Judge O’Scannlain’s dissent today, concurring in the denial of rehearing:

We are puzzled by our dissenting colleagues’ unusual reliance on the President’s views regarding the Constitution, especially as the President did not discuss the narrow issue that we decided in our opinion. We held only that under the particular circumstances relating to California’s Proposition 8, that measure was invalid. In line with the rules governing judicial resolution of constitutional issues, we did not resolve the fundamental question that both sides asked us to: whether the Constitution prohibits the states from banning same-sex marriage. That question may be decided in the near future, but if so, it should be in some other case, at some other time

MsTinkerbelly

06-06-2012, 07:54 AM

Questions and answers on next steps as the Prop 8 case heads towards Supreme Court
By Scottie Thomaston, Adam Bink, and Jacob Combs

Yesterday was the big news of the Ninth Circuit’s decision not to rehear the case with an 11-judge en banc panel. The staff here at Prop8TrialTracker.com have seen a steady stream of comments and questions about today’s decision and the future of the Perry v. Brown case challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8. Here we will try to answer some of these questions. Updates with new questions from the comments or elsewhere will be added at the bottom.

1. Is there still a stay? What’s the story with that?

Yes. Yesterday’s 9th Circuit order says: “The mandate is stayed for ninety days pending the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. If such a petition is filed, the stay shall continue until final disposition by the Supreme Court.”

A petition for writ of certiorari means to request that the U.S. Supreme Court review the case. If the proponents of Proposition 8 (those who put it on the 2008 ballot and helped pass it, and now are defendants in the lawsuit) decide to seek review by the Supreme Court – and they have already indicated they will indeed file a petition for certiorari – the decision will remain stayed if the Supreme Court takes the case until a final decision by the Supreme Court, likely in the summer of 2013. If the Supreme Court does not take the case, the decision will become final and Prop 8 will end.

2. What will the proponents do next?

The proponents of Proposition 8 will file a petition for certiorari at the Supreme Court. They will argue that the Ninth Circuit wrongly decided the legal issues presented in the case and they will suggest the Supreme Court should reverse the Ninth Circuit’s decision. It takes four votes out of the nine Justices to grant review of cases and set the case up for arguments before the Supreme Court.

3. Is super en banc at the 9th Circuit still possible?

“Super en banc” means review at the 9th Circuit by all the judges on the court, rather than a 3-judge panel or 11-judge panel. It’s theoretically possible under the current rule 35-3. However the wording of the rule seems to suggest that so-called “super en banc” is only possible after the en banc panel hearing with 11 randomly-selected judges, and that rehearing for an 11-judge panel was just denied by the Ninth Circuit judges. So it seems highly unlikely that this case is headed anywhere except straight to the Supreme Court.

4. When do Prop 8′s proponents have to appeal or go home by?

Proponents have 90 days to file for a writ of certiorari at the Supreme Court. After that, if there is no petition filed, the mandate will issue (meaning that the Ninth Circuit’s decision will come into effect, Prop 8 will end, and same-sex marriages will resume in California.)

5. If Prop 8′s proponents appeal, when will the Supreme Court decide whether or not to take the case?

The Supreme Court heads into summer break soon, and given the timeline for appeal, it is unlikely the Court will decide in conference whether or not to take the case until they return from their summer break around October 2012.

6. By when would the Supreme Court issue a decision if they took the case?

Oral arguments are usually heard within 4 months or so if certiorari is granted, and the Court almost always issues its decisions by July 4th. So a decision would be expected by July 2013.

7. What issues will the Supreme Court decide on appeal if they take the case?

It’s up to them. The Supreme Court has broad discretion to decide which questions it will take up in each case. In the petition for certiorari, there is a list of “questions presented” which are the legal issues the petitioners want the Supreme Court to take on. But just because proponents ask doesn’t mean the Supreme Court has to take those specific questions.

Having said that, it’s likely that the Supreme Court would decide whether or not proponents have ‘standing’ to appeal the case in federal court, and it’s of course likely that the Supreme Court will rule one way or the other on the constitutionality of Proposition 8. Beyond those key issues, Supreme Court review is typically limited to the issues raised in the court below. Since the opponents of Proposition 8 raised the issue of subjecting laws against gays and lesbians to a higher form of scrutiny and since they addressed the possibility of a broader ruling on marriage equality, the Supreme Court could decide to accept those questions if they are raised, or introduce the issue. It seems more likely that they would want to decide the narrow issue of Proposition 8′s constitutionality, but that’s just speculation until the Court has their conference and agrees on the questions it will hear.

8. Is it better or worse for the opponents of Proposition 8 if the Supreme Court does or does not review the case?

It depends on one’s goals and predictions. The Supreme Court is of course a mostly conservative court. On many issues, it is made up of four moderates and four conservatives with Justice Kennedy as the ‘swing vote’ on a few social issues. Justice Kennedy is, for the most part, fairly conservative. He did write the opinions in the two most recent pro-LGBT cases to come out of the Supreme Court: Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, however. If the Supreme Court reviews the case, that presents the possibility that they might uphold Proposition 8. If they deny the petition for certiorari, the Ninth Circuit decision stands and California will have marriage equality as the law in the state.

If the Supreme Court reviews the case, though, there is a real potential of having at least five votes to uphold the Ninth Circuit decision striking down Proposition 8. Since Justice Kennedy has written pro-LGBT opinions, it is not outside the realm of possibility he would apply his own logic from those opinions (especially Romer, on which the Ninth Circuit’s opinion heavily relies) to this case and decide things in our favor. Even if we ended up with a narrow Supreme Court opinion striking down Proposition 8 in a way that only applies to California, the case could be used as precedent to build on in the future.

On the other hand, there are reasons to hope the Supreme Court does not take the case. Perhaps chief among them is, as Adam noted here back in February, there is a big chance that supporters of marriage equality could lose. No one knows where Anthony Kennedy, nor other Justices, stand on same-sex marriage, although the 9th Circuit decision is tailored in such a way to make it more likely to turn a favorable ruling. Why risk it, especially with another case in Nevada that may reach the Court after more states have legalized same-sex marriage, public opinion keeps moving and the composition of the Court grows perhaps more favorable? Take a strong ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, legalize same-sex marriage in California, and on to the next fight. Second, for the sake of couples who have waited a long time to marry, waiting another year could lead to serious harm (such as, in the case of Ed and Derence, one’s unfortunate passing). So it depends on one’s goals and predictions regarding the future of same-sex marriage in California and the nation.

MsTinkerbelly

06-07-2012, 01:00 PM

Opponents of marriage equality in Washington state file signatures required for ballot referendum
By Jacob Combs

The Washington state law passed earlier this year to bring marriage equality to the state is officially on hold now that opponents of the measure have submitted a raft of signatures to the Secretary of State seeking to put the issue on the November ballot. The ballot measure, known as Referendum 74, would ask Washington voters to uphold or overturn the legislature’s law allowing same-sex couples to wed in the state while protecting the religious freedoms of places of worship who do not recognize marriage equality. The proponents of Referendum 74 told reporters that they had collected 241,000 signatures, about twice as many as the 120,577 required by law.

Before the ballot initiative becomes official, the Secretary of State will have to verify the accuracy of the signatures, but it is extremely likely the proponents will have required the requisite number even if a chunk of signatures are found to be invalid. According to the Secretary of State’s office, the referendum could be officially certified by the middle of next week.

It goes without saying that marriage equality’s past record at the ballot box looks unpromising–32 out of 32 states have voted against marriage rights in the past. In reliably blue Washington, though, opponents of marriage equality face a tougher road than they have in some other states. Washington is the only state where a popular vote has uphold expanded rights for LGBT citizens: in 2009, voters upheld a law passed by the legislature that extended domestic partnerships to gay and lesbian couples. According to Matt Barreto, a political science professor at the University of Washington who has conducted extensive polling on the issue, support for equal legal rights for same-sex couples has grown since 2009.

That means that marriage opponents must walk a fine line in the state as they try to avoid making it seem like they are against legal equality for gays and lesbians while striving to preserve the definition of marriage as a union of opposite-sex partners. Speaking to the New York Times, Joseph Backholm of the anti-marriage equality group Preserve Marriage Washington said that Washington voters this year will have a chance to make a decision on marriage only, and could repeal the new law without feeling like they’ve taken rights away from gay couples. In a way, the fact that Backholm has to frame the issue this way is in itself a victory for our side, since it shows that the island of exclusion he and his colleagues stand upon is being steadily eroded as public opinion changes. (Of course, this does mean that Backholm’s position is becoming increasingly tenuous and, in a sense, desperate, since it is essentially only a matter of semantics.)

The facts on the ground in Washington look good for our side: a recent independent poll found that 54 percent percent of Washingtonians approve of the legislature’s law, with only 33 percent opposed. Support among independents was also strong, with 52 percent in favor and 36 percent opposed. Obama carried Washington easily in 2008, and he enjoyed a 54 percent approval rating in the state just last week. In addition, marriage equality advocates have a big cash advantage so far: they’ve raised over $700,000, while opponents have so far raised only a little over $110,000.

Finally, another anti-marriage equality group in the state, the awkwardly named Marriage Equals One Man Plus One Woman, is seeking signatures for another ballot amendment that would institute a mini-DOMA in Washington limiting marriage to heterosexual couples only. That group must obtain 242,000 signatures by July 6, and has collected approximately 100,000, according to the Chicago Tribute. If both ballot measures qualify for the November election, it could create a bit of chaos for all sides, the effects of which are unclear, but which could bode well for marriage advocates if opponents are split between two measures.

When it comes to popular votes on marriage equality, it’s always wise to be cautious. We can be sure that our opponents will be out in droves between now and November, and its going to take both manpower and money for us to win. Still, in Washington state, we will be able to conduct perhaps the most aggressive campaign on the most positive ground that we’ve had so far. That in itself is enough of a reason for us to give it everything we’ve got.

Quintease

06-13-2012, 03:53 PM

This is sad, the cost of same sex marriage. (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/47740677/ns/today-money/)

MsTinkerbelly

07-12-2012, 10:03 AM

Over 70 cities and corporation file amicus brief against DOMA in Golinski case
By Jacob Combs

The Seattle Times reported earlier this week that the city of Seattle is joining seven other cities in opposing the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in court in the case of Golinski v. OPM. In a new brief filed on Tuesday, over 70 business and municipal employers urged the Ninth Circuit to uphold a district court’s ruling that DOMA violates the U.S. Constitution, specifically addressing the impact that the law has on employers in the way it forces them to discriminate against their own workers:

The House of Representatives argues that Congress, through DOMA, sought to impose a uniform rule of eligibility for federal marital benefits.3 The perspective of the American employer who must implement DOMA is very different. Because marriages are celebrated and recognized under state law, a federal law withholding marital benefits from some lawful marriages, but not others, creates a non-uniform rule. Employers are obliged to treat one employee spouse differently from another, when each is married, and each marriage is equally lawful. In this brief, amici show how the burden of DOMA’s dual regime is keenly felt by enterprises that conduct operations or do business in jurisdictions that authorize or recognize same-sex marriage.

Joining Seattle in the brief were the cities of San Francisco, New York, Boston, Cambridge, Santa Monica, Los Angeles and West Hollywood and a wide range of major businesses, among them Levi Strauss, Microsoft, McGraw-Hill, CBS, Starbucks, eBay, Xerox, Viacom, Gap and Google.

What makes the new Golinski brief so powerful is that it addresses specifically the ways that DOMA harms American businesses by straining the relationship between employers and employees and interfering with companies’ efforts to create transparent, fair work places. As the companies wrote in the brief, “DOMA forces amici to investigate the gender of the spouses of our lawfully- married employees and then to single out those employees with a same-sex spouse,” requiring businesses to incur the cost of providing fair and equal benefits to their gay and lesbian employees should they choose to do so.

Perhaps even more significantly, the new brief argues that DOMA essentially prohibit companies from conducting business according to their own corporate missions and instead forces them to affirm discrimination that they disagree with. As the amici brief concludes:

Our principles are not platitudes. Our mission statements are not simply plaques in the lobby. Statements of principle are our agenda for success: born of corporate experience, tested in laboratory, factory, and office, attuned to competition. Our principles reflect, in the truest sense, our business judgment. By force of law, DOMA would rescind that judgment, and direct that we renounce these principles, or worse yet betray them.”

If this employers’ brief demonstrates anything, it shows just how short-sighted and narrow the determination to pass DOMA was in the first place. Congress put the law into place with minimal research and fact-finding, doing it merely to set in stone a government-dictated restriction predicated upon the prevailing morals of the day.

But American society and American business have changed since 1996. Today, over 86 percent of Fortune 500 companies protect their gay and lesbian employees from discrimination. Overwhelmingly, American business is of the belief that gays and lesbians should be treated equally to heterosexuals. It’s past time for our government to do the same

MsTinkerbelly

07-20-2012, 10:08 AM

Second-parent adoption upheld in lesbian Georgia couple’s divorce case
By Jacob Combs

The GA Voice reports that the Georgia Court of Appeals has upheld a lesbian couple’s second-parent adoption, although the court declined to address the state’s marriage equality ban on the legality of second-parent adoptions in general. The complex case arose after Nicole Bates, who became pregnant through a sperm donation in 2007, requested that her partner Tina be allowed to adopt the child as a second legal parent. A Fulton County judge approved the adoption. From the GA Voice:

In 2010, the couple broke up and the biological mother, Nicole Bates, went back to Judge Glanville and asked the adoption be voided. Judge Glanville told Nicole Bates that she did not file within the six-month time limit allowed to challenge adoption cases, so the second-parent adoption was still legal.

Not satisfied, Nicole Bates appealed the judge’s decision to the Court of Appeals, which eventually dismissed the case. Nicole Bates went to the state Supreme Court seeking to void the adoption of her former partner, but the state Supreme Court also decided to not hear the case.

Tina then filed for custody of the child, but when the Georgia Supreme Court would not hear the case, Nicole filed a motion asking Henry County to dismiss Tina’s request since Georgia does not allow second-parent adoptions between couples who are not married. A state judge in Henry County sided with Nicole, but Tina requested that an appeals court invalidate the ruling, arguing that the case had already been decided in Fulton County. The Court of Appeals sided with Tina, but stated clearly in its decision that it decided “nothing in this case about whether Georgia law permits a ‘second parent’ adoption.”

Kobi

07-26-2012, 02:12 PM

BOSTON—Civil unions for gay couples in Vermont must be treated as "the equivalent of marriage" in Massachusetts, the highest court in Massachusetts ruled Thursday.

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a couple who enters into a civil union in Vermont must dissolve that union before either person can marry a third party in Massachusetts.

The ruling came in the case of two gay men who married in 2005 in Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage.

During divorce proceedings several years later, one of the men found that his partner had previously been in a civil union in Vermont. The man then argued that the Massachusetts marriage was invalid because of the earlier Vermont civil union.

The SJC agreed.

"We define marriage as `the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others.' ... This is the relationship established by Vermont civil unions. ...By that definition alone, a Vermont civil union is the functional equivalent of a marriage," Justice Roderick Ireland wrote for the court in the unanimous ruling.

The case went to the high court after a Probate and Family Court judge handling the divorce case asked for a ruling on whether the Massachusetts marriage was invalid.

Todd Elia-Warnken entered into a civil union in Vermont in 2003. Even though that union was never dissolved, he married Richard Elia in Massachusetts in 2005.

In 2009, Elia-Warnken filed for divorce from Elia.

Elia filed a counter-claim for divorce in 2010. At some point, Elia learned that Elia-Warnken had an undissolved civil union in Vermont. He then moved to dismiss the divorce complaint and counterclaim on the grounds that his Massachusetts marriage was void.

The SJC found that because the high court considers the Vermont civil union the equivalent of marriage, the Massachusetts marriage was void because it would constitute illegal polygamy if Elia-Warnken had a spouse in Vermont and another spouse in Massachusetts.

In 2000, Vermont became the first state in the country to recognize same-sex unions, with civil unions, giving gay and lesbian couples some rights and benefits of marriage. In 2009, the state Legislature passed a gay marriage bill. Same-sex couples can no longer get a civil union, but existing civil unions are still recognized.

Elia-Warnken argued that because the law did not convert civil unions into marriages, civil unions were different and not equal to marriages.

The SJC, however, did not agree with that argument and said it wanted to avoid the "uncertainty and chaos" that could result if the civil union was not dissolved.

"Here, if we do not recognize the plaintiff's civil union, he would have two legal spouses, each of whom could expect virtually the same obligations from him, such as spousal or child support, inheritance, and healthcare coverage," Ireland wrote.

"Preventing complications such as these is one of the purposes of the polygamy statutes."

Ben Klein, a senior staff attorney for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, who represented Elia, said Massachusetts laws have always said that a person can have only one spouse at a time. He said the SJC ruling simply applies that law to the legal relationships of same-sex couples.

"They were not saying that civil unions are constitutionally acceptable under the Massachusetts constitution; they were only saying that because Vermont has created this as a legal mechanism that provides all the rights and benefits of marriage, we will respect that Vermont law for the purposes of how we treat civil unions here," Klein said.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/07/26/mass_court_recognizes_vermont_civil_unions/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Latest+news

Little Fish

07-26-2012, 02:32 PM

Thanks for this update kobi--one step closer......:-)

MsTinkerbelly

07-27-2012, 12:39 PM

Final ballot language released for Maine marriage equality referendum
By Jacob Combs

Yesterday, the AP reported that Charlie Summers, Maine’s Secretary of State, had released the final ballot wording for the referendum that will ask Mainers whether or not to bring marriage equality back to their state. The final wording is short and to the point: “Do you want to allow the State of Maine to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?”

Summers, a Republican who opposes marriage equality, had originally proposed a different ballot question which read, “Do you want to allow same-sex couples to marry?” Equal marriage advocates in the state had opposed that wording, saying that it was misleading and withheld vital information from Maine voters since it did not represent the part of the law that protected religious institutions who are opposed to marriage equality. A 30-day comment period was held during which the public could respond to the proposed language.

Advocates on both side of the issue said they were pleased with Summers’s final wording. Supporters of equal marriage rights said the final wording makes it clear that the law concerns only civil marriage and has no effect on religious institutions’ decisions to recognize marriages between gay and lesbian couples. Protect Marriage Maine also said that it considered the language a good middle ground, although the group’s chairman, Rev. Bob Emrich, said he wished it had included language asking voters whether they wanted to “redefine” marriage.

Moving ahead, marriage equality supporters in the state will bear some of the burden of explaining the laws religious protections, since they will not be explicit in the wording. Nonetheless, it’s a good sign that this ballot language doesn’t include any mention of “redefining” marriage, or of limiting marriage to “one man and one woman.” On both those fronts, the Maine language is simple, balanced and easy to understand

Toughy

07-27-2012, 02:25 PM

“Do you want to allow the State of Maine to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?”

“Do you want to allow the State of Maine to issue civil marriage licenses to same-sex couples?”

Seems to me the addition of the word 'civil' makes it very clear that this has no effect on what organized religion does or does not about gay marriage.

I think it should read something like this: 'any two consenting adults may be issued a civil marriage license'. It certainly goes a long way towards equality for gender/sex variant individuals.

UofMfan

07-30-2012, 02:13 PM

PARTY PRIDE: DEM PLATFORM TO SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/30/gay-marriage-democratic-convention_n_1720030.html?1343670343)

The news, first reported by the Washington Blade, represents a historic and phenomenal win for LGBT rights groups, which could hardly have envisioned progress being made so quickly on this front.

iamkeri1

07-31-2012, 12:40 AM

Toughy, not intended as an attack on you, just a sign of my own frustration.

I am sick of the constant ass-kissing of the Christian Right that has become a requirement for the passing of almost any law these days. Why do we constantly have to reassure them that they will be allowed to continue to discriminate against us and that the law will continue to support that discrimination? Churches/religions, whatever that choose to not follow federal law regarding civil rights, (for example, churches are exempt from handicapper accessibility laws under both the 1973 Handicapper Civil Rights Act, and the ADA) should lose their tax exempt status.
The consitution allows no law which prohibits the free exercise of religion, but it doesn't say we have to pay for their prejudices. This would not only clear things up regarding religious objections to marriage equality, it would resolve all the issues over birth control, abortion etc that are so contentious in the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare), and other civil rights conflicts as well. There are hundreds; don't want to list them here .

"Of course, pastor, bishop, rabbi, imam, monk, or whatever you call yourself, we would not even consider forcing you to obey any law that would interfere with the practice of your belief. Go right ahead and refuse to cover birth control under your health care, and don't hesitate at all to keep your doors locked to queers, it's all good. In fact we, the Federal Government, want help you maintain the purity of your beliefs. We will, therefore, immediately stop giving you the special religious tax exemptions that might make you feel dependent upon the government, as well government funding for any programs you maybe running. We are sure this heathen money has been a distraction for your followers. Removing it will free you up to generate income for your group in whatever way is allowable under your faith principles"

Should the suggestions above fail to find congressional approval, here's my easy solution. Take legal marriage completely out of the hands of the church" and place the transaction of this legal contract where it belongs - in the courthouse.

ALL marriages are to be performed by the state through whatever vehicle currently required by a particular state for hets who chose a civil ceremony; Judges, justices of the peace, notary publics, etc. Since religion has been taken out of it and all individuals have equal protection under the law, queers will of course be granted marriage licenses and the ability to marry civilly. Churches may continue to perform whatever religious ceremony they now provide for their followers. BUT these are religious ceremonies only with no legality attached. If you haven't been married civilly by the state, you ain't married legally. If religious leaders wish to maintain the autonomy of their religions, they shouldn't be providing legal services like signing and filing or marriage licenses.

Keri has spoken. Make it so,

Smooches!

Seems to me the addition of the word 'civil' makes it very clear that this has no effect on what organized religion does or does not about gay marriage.

I think it should read something like this: 'any two consenting adults may be issued a civil marriage license'. It certainly goes a long way towards equality for gender/sex variant individuals.

MsTinkerbelly

08-10-2012, 10:09 AM

Nevada’s marriage equality lawsuit: could it be bigger than the Prop 8 trial?
By Jacob Combs

This morning, at 9 a.m. Pacific time, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada will hear arguments in Sevcik v. Sandoval, a marriage equality lawsuit filed by a group of committed gay and lesbian couples challenging the constitutionality of the state’s domestic partnership law. And although the Sevcik case may not make big news headlines the way that the Prop 8 trial has throughout its journey through the courts, it may end up being a even more important decision in the long-term fight for full federal LGBT equality.

Beverly Sevcik and Mary Baranovich of Carson City, the lead plaintiffs in Sevcik who are represented in court by Lambda Legal, have been together for more than 40 years, and have raised three children together. Along with the seven other couples included in the filing, Sevcik and Baranovich argue that Nevada’s domestic partnership law, which provides gay and lesbian couples with many of the rights and responsibilities of marriage without the title itself, violate their equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution.

As I wrote in April when the case was announced, the Sevcik case is certainly a sibling case to the Prop 8 trial, Perry v. Brown, in that argues that laws denying gays and lesbians full legal recognition of their committed relationships is a practice abhorrent to the federal constitution. Unlike the Prop 8 case, however, in which lawyers argued that gays and lesbians have a fundamental right to marriage (a right that the Supreme Court has recognized as fundamental, albeit not explicitly for gay couples, many times in the past), the Sevcik case focuses only on making an equal protection claim.

Tomorrow’s hearing may not be a headliner because it is somewhat procedural: the court will consider two motions, one filed by Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval seeking to dismiss the lawsuit (citing the antiquated Supreme Court case Baker v. Nelson, which we’ve written about before on this site), and another by the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, the main proponent of the state ballot initiative that banned marriage equality in Nevada. In its brief, the Coalition seeks to intervene in the lawsuit as a defendant.

Three years ago, though, the Prop 8 case itself had similarly modest beginnings. Today, it is a major lawsuit followed closely by the media, and it will most likely garner even more headlines this fall when the Supreme Court decides whether or not to take up the case for review in its next term. If it does, the stage will be set for a landmark ruling that would huge ramifications for gay and lesbian couples across the United States.

But there are many court-watchers, myself included, who believe that the Supreme Court will in fact decline to review the Prop 8 case, opting to put off until a later date any decision on the issue of whether or not there is fundamental right to marry for gay and lesbian couples. If that were to occur, the Ninth Circuit’s narrow ruling, which expressly limits its effect (and its legal reasoning) to California only, would stand. That would be a major victory, since it would bring equality back to the nation’s largest state and the thousands of gay and lesbian couples whose relationships are currently treated as second-class in California.

But once Prop 8 is history, the central question of the Perry lawsuit, the one the Supreme Court may likely choose to avoid answering, will remain: is it constitutional for gay couples’ relationships to be denied the same recognition and respect as straight couples? And just as importantly, what is the road to equality for gays and lesbians who are not living in states like California, where public opinion is by and large favorable to marriage equality? When the American Foundation for Equal Rights filed the Prop 8 lawsuit in 2009, they made clear that their goal was nothing less than full federal marriage equality: they wanted their case to be the marriage equivalent of Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down anti-sodomy laws across the country.

If Perry doesn’t end up being a sweeping victory for the LGBT equality movement like Lawrence was, that future landmark case will still be waiting in the wings. Besides Sevcik, there is only one other case in the country regarding a federal right to marriage that is currently making its way through the court system, Jackson v. Abercrombie, in which a district court judge ruled just this week against gay couples seeking full equality in the state. If either case makes its way to the Supreme Court, it won’t do so for several years, by which time the marriage equality situation in America may look quite different, with more states offering marriage rights and, potentially, a Supreme Court decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act.

Today’s hearing in Sevcik v. Sandoval is important because it is an incremental step in a larger legal and socio-political movement that looks likely to outlast the Prop 8 trial. And while it may not make headlines today, it just might make history some day soon.

blackboot

08-13-2012, 07:42 AM

Senior U.S. District Judge Alan Kay upheld today Hawaii laws banning same-sex marriages-By Ken Kobayashi-The Star-Advertiser-Hawaii-Aug 08, 2012 -

"The judge issued a 117-page decision which throws out the lawsuit filed by a lesbian couple and a gay man who contended the state laws violate the U.S. Constitution due process and equal protection provisions.

Kay ruled in favor of state Health Director Loretta Fuddy and the Hawaii Family Forum, and against the three plaintiffs and Gov. Neil Abercrombie, who contended the law violated the Constitution.

Hawaii’s marriage laws reserving marriage to a man and a woman “are not unconstitutional,” Kay said.

“Nationwide, citizens are engaged in a robust debate over this divisive social issue,” he said.

“If the traditional institution of marriage is to be restructured, as sought by plaintiffs, it should be done by a democratically-elected legislature or the people through a constitutional amendment, not through judicial legislation that would inappropriately preempt democratic deliberation regarding whether or not to authorize same-sex marriage.”

Abercrombie said he “respectfully” disagrees and will join in an appeal of the ruling.

“To refuse individuals the right to marry on the basis of sexual orientation or gender is discrimination in light of our civil unions law,” he said.

“For me this is about fairness and equality.”

John D’Amato, lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he will appeal to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The lawsuit was filed last year on behalf of Natasha Jackson and Janin Kleid, who were denied a marriage license here, and by Gary Bradley, against Abercrombie and Fuddy.

Abercrombie, however, agreed that the law violated the constitutional protections, which resulted Attorney General David Louie’s office providing one team to represent the governor and another representing Fuddy, who defended the marriage laws.

Kay earlier allowed the Hawaii Family Forum, a Christian organization, to intervene in the case and defend the laws.

He heard more than two hours of arguments in the case on July 24.

In his decision, Kay granted requests by Fuddy and the forum to immediately rule in their favor without the case going to trial. He rejected the plaintiffs’ request for a ruling declaring the marriage laws unconstitutional."

MsTinkerbelly

08-13-2012, 10:04 AM

BREAKING: Federal judge agrees to hear Nevada marriage equality lawsuit
By Scottie Thomaston

A hearing was held today in Nevada on two motions in Sevcik v. Sandoval, Lambda Legal’s marriage equality lawsuit. The judge has just agreed that the case can proceed:

(Las Vegas, August 10, 2012)—The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada today agreed to hear a lawsuit brought by Lambda Legal on behalf of eight same-sex couples challenging Nevada’s law banning marriage for same-sex couples.

Gov. Brian Sandoval, joined by Carson City Clerk-Recorder Alan Glover, had moved to dismiss the case. Today, the Court agreed to hear that motion at the same time as hearing argument in the parties’ motion for summary judgment.

The two motions discussed in the hearing today were: (1) a motion to intervene by the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, and (2) a motion to dismiss by Governor Brian Sandoval based on Baker v. Nelson. Prop 8 Trial Tracker reader Greg in SLC attended the hearing, and he noted in a comment that, “Nevada district court right now. Hearing has ended. Judge seems clearly conservative. He was skeptical of entering any expert testimony to support plaintiffs. Mary and Beverly are dear beautiful people, as are the other plaintiffs we met. Next court date on this case set for Monday after thanksgiving in Reno, NV.”

Lambda Legal’s Tara Borelli comments:

“This is an important first step in bringing the freedom to marry to Nevada,” said Lambda Legal Staff Attorney Tara Borelli. “These loving couples, burdened by the stigma of Nevada’s marriage ban, will have the chance to demonstrate in court that their relationships and their families are worthy of equal dignity and respect.”

We will have more as this story develops, and see this post for an introduction to our continuing coverage of this trial.

MsTinkerbelly

08-13-2012, 10:07 AM

Democrats approve marriage equality in party platform
By Jacob Combs

This Saturday, the Democratic Party’s full platform committee, a body of around 120 Democrats, approved draft platform language that includes a full-fledged endorsement of marriage equality. The marriage language was accepted without dissent and with little debate, a sign of just how established the position has become in the party since President Obama announced his personal support of marriage equality in May.

Last Thursday, BuzzFeed’s Chris Geidner exclusively reported on the draft platform language established by the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee, which read:

We support the right of all families to have equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law. We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference.

We oppose discriminatory federal and state constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny equal protection of the laws to committed same-sex couples who seek the same respect and responsibilities as other married couples. We support the full repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act.

Also included in the draft language (and also reported by Geidner) is an endorsement of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit hiring and firing based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and language regarding bullying and support for LGBT youth. The platform’s immigration reform section was amended as well to include new language which reads: “the administration has said that the word ‘family’ in immigration includes LGBT relationships in order to protect binational families threatened with deportation.”

The approved platform will be sent to delegates for a final vote at the Democratic National Convention, which will take place in Charlotte, North Carolina from September 3-6

MsTinkerbelly

08-16-2012, 12:38 PM

South Australia likely to move towards marriage equality along with Tasmania
By Jacob Combs

Earlier this month, I wrote that Tasmania looked likely to become the first Australian state to offer equal marriage rights to gays and lesbians following a speech by Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings to her party conference vowing to introduce marriage equality legislation in the government’s next term. This week, South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill followed Giddings’s lead, according to The Australian, telling a rally in Adelaide that he will push for marriage equality in his state:

On the steps of Parliament House, Mr Weatherill said he would support a Greens bill and allow Labor MPs a conscience vote.

“People should be entitled to express their own identity in any way they wish and the law shouldn’t become a barrier to prevent them from doing that,” he said.”So, from my perspective, it’s a simple question of the dignity of the individual.

“People should be entitled to express their identity in any way they wish and the law shouldn’t get in the way.”

Also this week, Prime Minister Julia Gillard surprised Australia’s LGBT community by agreeing to deliver the keynote speech at a national meeting of the Australian Christian Lobby, an anti-gay group that has made statements in the past comparing gays and lesbians to pedophiles and Nazis.

Marriage equality at the national level in Australia faces a major hurdle in Prime Minister Gillard, who opposes equal marriage rights even though her majority Labor Party changed its platform last year to include marriage equality. Because of Australia’s parliamentary system, it is incredibly difficult for marriage legislation to pass without Gillard’s stamp of approval, which is why state-level governments are stepping in to be at the forefront of LGBT equality in the country.

MsTinkerbelly

08-30-2012, 12:39 PM

Tasmania’s lower house passes marriage equality, New Zealand bill survives first vote
By Jacob Combs

While marriage equality may be on hold at the federal level in Australia right now, the issue is moving apace in a few of the state legislatures. Sky News reports today that the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2012 “sailed” through Tasmania’s lower house, the Legislative Assembly, paving the way for an upper house vote to allow full marriage equality in the state. From Sky News:

Labor and Greens members and onlookers, including Australian Marriage Equality chief Alex Greenwich, erupted into applause as the bill was passed.

Liberal Leader Will Hodgman was the lone voice against the bill, saying his team was united in believing marriage was between a man and a woman, and a matter for the commonwealth.

For the first time in the state’s history, a bill in the lower house was co-sponsored, by Ms Giddings and Greens Leader Nick McKim.

‘I do not believe that the personal moral disapproval that some individuals may feel towards same-sex marriage is a valid reason to allow discrimination to continue in the 21st century,’ Ms Giddings said.

The bill’s fate in Tasmania’s upper house is uncertain: 13 of the 15 independents in the chamber have not yet taken a position on it. Intriguingly, Tasmania was the last state in Australia to decriminalize homosexuality, which it did in 1997. Legislators in South Australia look likely to make it the next state after Tasmania to make a move towards full marriage equality.

Meanwhile, in New Zealand, legislators passed a marriage equality in the first of three votes by an overwhelming margin of 80 to 40. The bill needed only a simple majority, so the AP notes that the numbers are a good sign of the bill’s future success. A poll of lawmakers just this week found only a slim majority of 61 members said they would vote for the bill. Notably, politicians in New Zealand cited President Obama’s May announcement in support of marriage equality as a reason for moving forward with legislation in their country:

The proposed changes can be directly traced to Obama’s declaration in May in support of gay marriage. That prompted center-right Prime Minister John Key to break his long silence on the issue by saying he was “not personally opposed” to the idea. Then lawmaker Louisa Wall, from the opposition Labour Party, put forward a bill she had previously drafted.

“If I’m really honest, I think the catalyst was around Obama’s announcement, and then obviously our prime minister came out very early in support, as did the leader of my party, David Shearer,” Wall told The Associated Press. “The timing was right.”

MsTinkerbelly

09-07-2012, 07:57 AM

BREAKING: Prop 8, DOMA cases have been distributed for September 24 conference at the Supreme Court
By Scottie Thomaston

The Supreme Court docket page for Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Prop 8 case, has a new notice that the case has been “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.” The September 24 conference is the first time this term that the Justices will meet privately and look at petitions for certiorari to decide which cases they will accept for review. Usually, the Court announces its orders from conferences on the Monday following the conferences, however if they do take up the Prop 8 case on September 24, they could announce as early as the next day whether the full Court will review the case. It takes four votes to grant review.
If the Court denies the petition, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision stands, and Proposition 8 will be invalidated, though the case won’t set a nationwide precedent. If they decide to review the case, they’ll reach a final decision on the merits at the end of June 2013.

The Court could also potentially ‘relist’ the case for a later conference. This would mean instead of making a decision at the September 24 conference, the case would be held and listed for a subsequent one.

Also distributed for the September 24 conference is Windsor v. USA, challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. Windsor was petitioned to the Supreme Court for review before judgment at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, where oral arguments are currently scheduled for September 27.

SCOTUSBlog lists the Golinski v. OPM and all of the Massachusetts DOMA petitions as distributed for the September 24 conference, however, the Supreme Court docket page for those cases does not reflect this yet

iamkeri1

09-07-2012, 12:05 PM

MsTinkerbelly

09-07-2012, 12:53 PM

Ms T
I don't understand why Prop 8 would not have national significance if SCOTUS lets the decision stand. Didn't the challenge to the law come from a 14th amendment perspective? Equal justice under the law and all that? If SCOTUS refuses to overturn the 9th district position, why would that not have national ramifications? Is there something so specific about Prop 8's wording that the decision could only apply to Prop 8 and not to ALL laws banning same sex marrriage?

But aside from that, I'm realy excited about this coming before the supreme court. Since we now know that money equals free speech it seems only reasonable that marriage vows would also equal free speech and that same sex couples be able to have the freedom to speak their vows of marriage to each other. A different way of looking at it, an appeal with back up from two constitutional amendments.

Can you tell I'm anxious for this to happen? Freedom for my peeps!!!!

As always, thanks so much for the update and the good feelings you give me as we take each little teensy step toward equality.:bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:

Smooches,
Keri

In a nutshell, the lawsuit to invalidate Prop 8 wasn't about marriage for all, it was about striking down a Consitutional Amendment in the State of California which took away rights already granted to its citizens.

The decision (should the Supreme Court grant review) could be USED by other people to argue for rights in their states, but the issue being decided is a very narrow one, not meant to be Federally applied.

My gut tells me that the Supremes will refuse to review, thus beginning marriages in California again. My hope is they review so that others can use this case in their search for equality.

iamkeri1

09-08-2012, 12:18 AM

T Y
Smooches,
Keri

MsTinkerbelly

09-14-2012, 12:37 PM

September 14, 2012
Prop 8 at Supreme Court: What To Expect
By Matt Baume

This is it. The moment of truth for Proposition 8.

In just a matter of days, the Supreme Court of the United States will meet to consider hearing AFER’s case against Prop 8. There are a number of different potential outcomes. So let’s take a minute to talk about what’s going to happen, and when.

First, a few basics. Prop 8 passed in 2008 by a narrow margin, changing the California state constitution and taking away the freedom to marry from committed gay and lesbian couples.

In response, AFER sued the state in federal court, pointing out that there is no rational basis for Prop 8, and that the law now denies Californians equal protection under the law.

And we won. Twice. First in District Court in 2010, and then at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2012. Both courts agreed that Prop 8 violates the United States Constitution, and should be struck down. But even though we won, the law will remain in place until its proponents can exhaust their opportunities to be reheard.

And now they’re down to their last opportunity for that rehearing: the Supreme Court of the United States.

Here’s what happens next.

The Justices will meet on Monday, September 24th, to discuss all the cases before them. At that meeting, they’ll chose some of the cases that they’ll hear during their upcoming term, which will run from November to June of 2013. Other cases, they’ll decide not to hear.

If they decide to take our case, they’ll announce it in a list that’s released on Tuesday, September 25th. Then we’ll file briefs, have oral arguments, and get a decision from the court by next June.

If we’re not on that list, it means one of two things. Either they won’t hear our case, or they’re simply holding off on making a decision until later.

If they’ve rejected the petition to hear our case, then they’ll announce that on the following Monday, October 1st. In that case, our previous victory will be the final, decisive word. In other words, Prop 8 will be unconstitutional forever, and marriages can start back up again in California.

So there you have it. It’s taken a while to get here, but we’re finally approaching the end the case

MsTinkerbelly

09-20-2012, 10:03 AM

Justice Ginsburg Sees DOMA Ruling In Her Near Future
By Josh Voorhees
|
Posted Thursday, Sept. 20, 2012, at 9:46 AM ET

During a Q-and-A with students at the University of Colorado yesterday, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested that the high court will likely decide soon whether the law that bars federal recognition of same-sex couples is constitutional.

How soon? Likely within the year.

Ginsburg was asked a question about whether the equal-protection clause would be applied to the Defense of Marriage Act. The Associated Press with her answer, or rather lack thereof:

Ginsburg said with a smile that she couldn't answer the question. She said she could not talk about matters that would come to the court, and that the Defense of Marriage Act would probably be up soon. "I think it's most likely that we will have that issue before the court toward the end of the current term," she said.
Congress passed DOMA in 1996 when Hawaii seemed close to legalizing gay marriage. The law effectively halted the movement at the time but more than a half-dozen states have legalized it since, and a growing number of lower courts have taken issue with key provisions in the law. Several other states, meanwhile, have passed their own, individually-crafted bans on same-sex unions.

MsTinkerbelly

09-25-2012, 08:00 AM

Supreme Court has not granted Prop 8 case
September 25, 2012
By Scottie Thomaston

The Supreme Court just issued its orders from yesterday’s “long conference”, the conference that takes place after the Court’s summer recess. There were a few cases granted, but neither Perry, the Prop 8 case, nor Windsor, a DOMA case, were granted today. And as of this writing, the Supreme Court docket for both cases still show that the case was distributed for this conference. Whether the Justices re-listed the case for another conference or are planning to deny a writ of certiorari to hear the case is uncertain at this point.

**note from Tinkerbelly

If they are going to deny the case we will hear next Monday.

MsTinkerbelly

09-25-2012, 12:39 PM

What’s Next for Prop 8 and the Supreme Court
By Matt Baume

Major Prop 8 news today: the Supreme Court of the United States has released a list of some of the cases it will take in its upcoming term, and AFER’s case is not included.

This doesn’t mean that the court is passing on the case — at least not yet. It either means that they’re going to officially decline to hear it next week, or that they’re holding off on making a decision until later in their term.

If they decide to pass on the case, then our previous victories would stand and marriages could resume in California. And if they do eventually decide to take the case, AFER will defend our victories in court with briefs and oral argument by April 2013. In that case, we’ll expect a final decision by the end of June.

MsTinkerbelly

09-27-2012, 10:08 AM

Second Circuit hears oral arguments in Windsor case
By Jacob Combs

I’m at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals today in Manhattan covering oral arguments in the DOMA case Windsor v. USA. Edie Windsor, an 84-year old New Yorker, was forced to pay more than $363,000 in estate tax after her wife, Thea Spyer, died. A district court judge in New York ruled in Windsor’s favor, and while the ACLU, which is representing her, has appealed the case straight to the Supreme Court, the Second Circuit is still considering the case on its own.

Arguments began today at 10 a.m. Eastern time, and I was unfortunately unable to liveblog the case because laptops and cell phones are prohibited in the courtroom. As this post publishes, I’ll be at the court taking notes the old-fashioned way on pad and paper, and I’ll be posting a complete summary and analysis later in the day. Stay tuned!

MsTinkerbelly

10-01-2012, 07:52 AM

Supreme Court has yet to take action on Prop 8, DOMA cases
By Scottie Thomaston

Like last week, orders were expected this morning that could have addressed whether the Supreme Court will take up the constitutional challenges to Prop 8 and DOMA, as well as other gay rights cases. And like last week, no action was taken on these cases. The Court did not outright deny review, and it did not write a summary reversal or a remand in the cases. The docket page for the Prop 8 case still reflects that it was ready for the September 24 conference. The Windsor docket page says the same.

We will have updates if anything changes

MsTinkerbelly

10-01-2012, 02:19 PM

Supreme Court Waiting to Issue Prop 8 Ruling
By Matt Baume

We could be getting big news from the Supreme Court on Prop 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act any day now. Make sure you’re subscribed to breaking alerts for all the latest news. And polling is still very close in Maryland, with marriage on the ballot in just five weeks. We’ll have the latest numbers and show you how to get involved in this crucial race.

There’s still no word from the Supreme Court regarding the Prop 8 case. That means that we now know that court hasn’t rejected the petition for review. The next step is for them to issue a decision on hearing the case at some point in the coming weeks. In the mean time, AFER is preparing for all possible outcomes. And we’re continuing our work towards full federal marriage equality.

MsTinkerbelly

10-01-2012, 02:24 PM

It appears marriage will not begin immediately in California as the Supreme Court has indicated with their silence that the case will be reviewed at a later date.

I have mixed feelings...sadness because the people of California are forced to wait if Marriage is what they want and they are after a same sex union, and I am filled with dread that the highest court in the land may also state that we are second class citizens...but I am also filled with the hope that all of these cases; Prop 8, Doma, Winsor....might bring about a Federal change for all of us within my lifetime.

Exciting stuff.

iamkeri1

10-01-2012, 05:00 PM

Ms T.
If the supreme court decides against us on prop 8, that will be the death knell of the 14th amendment... a task that the republicans have been trying to accomplish for some time now.

My fear is that SCOTUS will make a limited decision with a state by state resolution, when I am hoping for a decision that will have a much broader reach. The reason I was so excited about the approach that was taken in this court action is that it is based on equal protection under the law. If forbidding marriage to same sex couples is not legal in California (under the 14th amendment to the Federal Constitution) then it follows in my mind that forbidding these marriage is against the constitution in all states.

The only reasonable decision in my book.
Smooches,
Keri

Toughy

10-02-2012, 12:58 AM

and let us not forget that affirmative action is on SCOTUS docket...........it could mean the end of affirmative action..........as well as same sex (/gender) marriage

MsTinkerbelly

10-09-2012, 12:34 PM

Quick update on Prop 8 case
By Scottie Thomaston

On Friday, the Supreme Court held another conference to determine which cases it would take up this term. Since the Prop 8 case is still outstanding, along with Windsor v. USA – a DOMA case – and Brewer v. Diaz, a case related to domestic partner benefits in Arizona, the Court could have considered those cases at its conference. Normally, the Court releases a list of orders from its conference the following Monday. Yesterday, though, was a federal holiday. The order list is out today, and no action has been taken on any of the gay rights cases.

The next conference is on October 12, and the dockets remain unchanged, still reflecting the cases were ready for the September 24 conference.

The next list of new “distributed” cases that are ready to be taken up at the next conference will be released tomorrow. The list tomorrow will reflect cases that are ready for distribution at the October 26 conference.

Right now the Prop 8 case as well as all the DOMA cases except three with responses due next week (two in Pedersen, one in Windsor) are ready for a conference to decide if the Supreme Court will take them up. Of course, responses are not mandatory, but it can be reasonably assumed that there will be responses filed. It seems more and more likely that the Court is simply waiting for all the DOMA cases to be ready before it takes any action on those or on Prop 8. We could see the cases taken up at the November 9 or November 20 conference

MsTinkerbelly

10-18-2012, 06:03 PM

Defense of Marriage Act ruled unconstitutional by second appeals court
Andrew Kelly / Reuter

By NBC News staff and wire services
Updated at 4:34 p.m. ET: A federal appeals court in New York on Thursday became the second appeals court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, ruling that the law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman is unconstitutional.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals joins the 1st Circuit court in Boston, which handed down its ruling in May, in rejecting a key part of the law. The 2nd Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that DOMA unconstitutionally denies federal benefits to lawfully married same-sex couples.

The constitutionality of same-sex marriage could ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, which may take up the issue in its current term.

"Homosexuals are not in a position to adequately protect themselves from the discriminatory wishes of the majoritarian public," Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs wrote for the 2-1 majority.

"Even if preserving tradition were in itself an important goal, DOMA is not a means to achieve it," he said.

USJudge Chester Straub dissented, arguing that the federal definition of marriage should be left to the political process. "If this understanding is to be changed, I believe it is for the American people to do so," he wrote.

Appeals in several DOMA cases are pending before the Supreme Court.

"Next stop, Supreme Court," said Rick Jacobs, founder of the Courage Campaign, a California-based progressive advocacy organization. "Politicians and judges have no business telling anyone who they can love and who they can marry."

The appellate panel ruled in favor of Edith "Edie" Windsor, an 83-year-old lesbian whose partner, whom she married in Canada, died in 2009. Windsor argued that the 1996 law discriminates against gay couples in violation of the Constitution.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled today the Defense of Marriage Act discriminates against gay couples. Legendary attorney David Boies and Zach Wahls join The Last Word to look at the case that could be headed to the Supreme Court.
Six states have legalized same-sex marriage, including New York in 2011. Because of the Defense of Marriage Act, federal law and government programs do not recognize those marriages.

Windsor had to pay $363,000 in federal taxes after inheriting property from Thea Spyer, to whom she was married. The IRS stated the marriage was not recognized at the federal level and imposed the estate tax.

"Given her age and health, we are eager for Ms. Windsor to get a refund of the unconstitutional tax she was forced to pay as soon as possible," Roberta Kaplan, her legal counsel, said in a statement.

"This law violated the fundamental American principle of fairness that we all cherish," added Windsor. "I know Thea would have been so proud to see how far we have come in our fight to be treated with dignity."

The Obama administration said last year it considered DOMA unconstitutional and would no longer defend it. Instead, a group appointed by the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives is defending the law in courts across the country.

The appeals court rejected the group's arguments that the law was necessary to maintain a uniform definition of marriage, that it served the government's interest of saving money and that it was necessary to encourage procreation.

Referring to the House Republican leadership, which is defending the law in court because it holds a 3-2 majority on the House's Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, Jacobs wrote:

BLAG argues that, unlike protected classes, homosexuals have not "suffered discrimination for longer than history has been recorded." But whether such discrimination existed in Babylon is neither here nor there. BLAG concedes that homosexuals have endured discrimination in this country since at least the 1920s. Ninety years of discrimination is entirely sufficient to document a "history of discrimination."

Jacobs was appointed in 1992 by by President George H. W. Bush to serve on the Second Circuit. He was joined in his opinion by Judge Christopher Droney, an Obama appointee. Straub, who wrote the dissent, is a Clinton appointee.

The decision came less than a month after the court heard arguments on Sept. 27.

Lawyer Paul Clement, who had argued in support of the law on behalf of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives, was traveling and did not immediately return a message for comment to The Associated Press.

James Esseks, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, called the ruling "a watershed moment in the legal movement for lesbian and gay rights."

"It's fabulous news for same-sex couples in New York and other states," he said.

Esseks said the 2nd Circuit went farther than the appeals court in Boston by saying that when the government discriminates against gay people, the courts will presume that the discrimination is unconstitutional.

In striking down the law, Jacobs wrote that the law's "classification of same-sex spouses was not substantially related to an important government interest" and thus violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo praised the decision:

"In June 2011, New York State inspired the rest of the nation by becoming the largest state to achieve marriage equality. Today’s ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit provides further momentum for national progress on this important civil rights issue. What we did here in New York can only be the beginning, and we must continue to work together until all Americans are free to marry whom they love and are entitled to all of the rights and benefits of marriage equally, regardless of sexual orientation."

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has donated $250,000 to support same-sex marriage backers in Maryland, added:

“Today’s decision affirms that DOMA deprives same sex couples of equal protection under the law. This ruling is an important step in ensuring the rights of men and women are not dependent upon who they love and who they chose to spend their lives with. We have much more to do, but we are another step further on the road to a more perfect union for all Americans.”

The National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, said it looked forward to a Supreme Court ruling:

“This is yet another example of judicial activism and elite judges imposing their views on the American people, and further demonstrates why it is imperative for the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review in the currently pending DOMA cases as well as to the Proposition 8 case. The American people are entitled to a definitive ruling in support of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, as 32 states have determined through popular vote."

Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

MsTinkerbelly

11-01-2012, 12:54 PM

Supreme Court to Review DOMA and Prop 8 Cases Next Month
by Jason St. Amand
Web Producer / Staff Writer
Tuesday Oct 30, 2012

LARGEMEDIUMSMALL The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday that it would meet privately in late November to discuss whether to hear cases that challenge California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act, San Diego Gay & Lesbian News reports.

On Nov. 20, the justices will meet in private to decide if they will review Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenges California’s Prop 8 -- a measure that was enacted in 2008 that bans same-sex marriages in the state. The judges will also review a number of cases that challenge DOMA, a federal law put into effect in 1996 that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

"For far too long, gay and lesbian couples in California have been waiting to exercise the fundamental freedom to marry that the United States Constitution already tells them they have," Adam Umhoefer, executive director of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the sponsor of the Perry case, said. "With the distribution of our case for the Court’s consideration, we move one step closer to the day when the nation will be able to live up to the promise of liberty and equality enshrined in our Constitution, and all Americans will be able to marry the person they love."

In 2009, the Perry case was filed in federal District Court on behalf of two same-sex couples, Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo. In February of this year the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an August 2010 ruling from the District Court that found Prop 8 to be unconstitutional. In July, however, those who back Prop 8 asked the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.

The justices will decide whether to hear a number of other cases related to DOMA as well. At least four judges need to agree whether the Supreme Court will hear a specific case.

If the court decides against hearing the Prop 8 case, same-sex couples in California will once again be allowed to marry just a few days after the decision. The high court is expected to make its announcement on Nov. 26.

"For generations, Americans have looked to the Supreme Court to uphold the fundamental tenets of our constitution and on November 20th, the court will face those questions once again for the LGBT community," Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin, who is also the co-founder of American Foundation for Equal Rights, said in a statement. "Never before have the justices confronted so many cases critical to the lives of LGBT people and our families. With truth and justice on our side, I know that we will prevail in knocking down the dark walls of discrimination known as Prop 8 and DOMA."

SelfMadeMan

11-01-2012, 01:51 PM

5 days until Minnesota votes on a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man/one woman, I'm so nervous, and hoping that our state does the right thing!

Sun

11-01-2012, 02:25 PM

One of the amazing aspects of the complicated Prop 8 appeals process is that CA leaders will not defend the case.

Interesting in its historic nature.

Hollylane

11-06-2012, 10:01 PM

Maryland Question 6 allows voters to decide whether to approve a state law passed earlier this year legalizing same-sex marriages.
For 698,804 51%
Against 665,972 49%

52% reporting

Hollylane

11-06-2012, 10:18 PM

It passed in Maryland!!!! OMG!!!!! YES!!!! I'm on the phone with Gaige, and she is so amazingly excited! At least that is what they just said on the radio :)

Dance-with-me

11-06-2012, 10:38 PM

Very, very closely watching the MD vote since they're our most significant neighbor. ::nail biting::

Strappie

11-06-2012, 10:39 PM

As of 10:24 pm.... No Vote for the Marriage Amendment in MN was 54%...

Woooop Wooooooop!! It's close but looking good!!

Sun

11-06-2012, 10:52 PM

Marriage Equality wins in Maine, Maryland
and Amendment 1 is going down in MN.

Washington State has not reported yet.

Great work everyone!!

Hollylane

11-06-2012, 10:53 PM

Passing in Washington so far, and in Maine!!!

Politico reports 58% of voters in Maryland voted yes!!!

Sun

11-07-2012, 12:16 AM

Maine & Maryland called it. Marriage is now legal for everyone.

MN close on Amendments.

Washington still counting but looks good.

Congratulations Hollylane! I know you are watching Maryland closely

Stud_puppy1991

11-07-2012, 12:36 AM

I'm so happy for the states that now have same-sex marriage. It's getting there. Equality is coming, I can feel it. Still, I wish the Hoosier State would wake up. Ah well, I'm still happy.

firegal

11-07-2012, 12:49 AM

Same sex marriage with 57 % of votes in, Washington State.......

Aprroved 959,857 52%

Reject 893,953 48%

Looking Good!

Angeltoes

11-07-2012, 12:52 AM

Same sex marriage with 57 % of votes in, Washington State.......

Aprroved 959,857 52%

Reject 893,953 48%

Looking Good!

Yes, Washington!!! Do it, neighbor!!!

Sun

11-07-2012, 01:13 AM

So happy for you all!

Looks great! Same sex marriage with 57 % of votes in, Washington State.......

Aprroved 959,857 52%

Reject 893,953 48%

Looking Good!

thedivahrrrself

11-07-2012, 01:48 AM

Marriage Equality Upheld in Washington State (http://www.bainbridgereview.com/news/177591381.html?mobile=true)

I know not all votes are counted yet, but some are calling it a win.

This is a huge personal victory for many stuck in the nightmarish legal loophole of gay divorce. Washington has no residency requirements, and as such, it will be the first state to legalize gay divorce for all couples, regardless of where they live.

I will be very happy to close that chapter of my life

Yay, Washington!

GraffitiBoi

11-07-2012, 01:49 AM

MN close on Amendments.

Minneapolis has 14 precincts which haven't been counted yet due to ballot issues. At least three of these have to be hand counted later today. Minneapolis has the bulk of the voters and the bulk of the GLBT population and supporters. *keeping my fingers crossed*

--Currently 49% of voters are FOR the amendment. They need 51% to get it into the state constitution. With so many Minneapolis precincts yet to be counted we are all very hopeful that this amendment will not pass.

GraffitiBoi

11-07-2012, 02:42 AM

MN Vote NO! Won out! The amendment has been struck down!

Sun

11-07-2012, 06:51 AM

Congratulations! I don't know if you saw the elections thread from last night but I have a minister friend over there who asked me to ask you all on the planet to pray for them last night. They worked very hard to defeat this amendment. Many are straight allies. I'm sure that my friend is very happy today as she refuses to perform marriages as long as everyone could not marry. You are all on your way.

Keep up the great work.

Gaige

11-07-2012, 06:57 AM

It passed in Maryland!!!! OMG!!!!! YES!!!! I'm on the phone with Gaige, and she is so amazingly excited! At least that is what they just said on the radio :)

The people on the radio told you I was excited? That's kinda scary baby lmao. Just teasin'. I love you.

MsTinkerbelly

11-07-2012, 08:51 AM

Last night the people of 4 States voted on same-sex marriage and the people of 4 States proved that the time will come when everyone will be free to marry the person (maybe someday the persons) of their choice.

I am filled with hope.

MsTinkerbelly

11-07-2012, 08:55 AM

Marriage equality passes in Maine; Politico calls MD marriage equality initiative, says it will pass
By Scottie Thomaston

Updated at midnight

Maine has voted to allow marriage equality in the state. Freedom to Marry writes:

Portland – Maine today became the first state to approve the freedom to marry for same-sex couples through a majority vote on a ballot measure. Maine is expected to begin issuing marriage licenses in mid-December.

“Today, a majority in Maine voted in favor of loving and committed same-sex couples seeking the freedom to marry,” said Freedom to Marry National Campaign Director Marc Solomon. “Now the commitment gay and lesbian couples have made in life will be respected equally under the law, celebrated before their loved ones, and called what it is: marriage.”

“It’s hard to overstate the national significance of this vote,” Solomon continued. “For years, our opponents have argued that we could not win a majority vote at the ballot. Today, Maine voters proved them wrong, standing up for the Golden Rule and for freedom for all Mainers.”

The centerpiece of the three-year campaign was a robust field effort. Volunteers and organizers made more than a million telephone calls, knocked on nearly 300,000 doors, and had 275,000 one-on-one conversations with voters.

“We congratulate Mainers United for Marriage Campaign Director Matt McTighe for the extraordinary effort he has run, as well as all the coalition partners, and particularly Equality Maine and Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, for their steadfast commitment to this fight,” said Solomon.

For the first time in history the voters have passed marriage equality.

Politico has called the marriage equality initiative in Maryland, projecting that it will pass.

Politico says:

Yes 58.0% 1,138,135
No 42.0% 823,931

We will have more.

Update 12:15ET
The AP has called Washington, Maryland, and Maine.

Anthony De Rosa
✔@AntDeRosa RT @kxly4news: (AP) Washington voters are narrowly approving gay marriage in the state, following the lead of voters in Maryland and Maine
6 Nov 12 ReplyRetweetFavoriteUpdate 12:20

Apparently the politico results for MD are incorrect – they switched the results of two initiatives. However, the end result is the same: Maryland is won. The marriage equality campaign issued a statement:

Free State approves marriage licenses for gay and lesbian couples at ballot box

BALTIMORE – Voters approved Question 6, the Civil Marriage Protection Act, paving the way for gay and lesbian couples to receive a marriage license beginning in January. Tonight is the first time in history any state has voted on and passed marriage equality on the ballot.

“Fairness and equality under the law won tonight,” said Josh Levin, campaign manager for Marylanders for Marriage Equality. “We’re sure to feel the ripples of this monumental victory across the country for years to come.”

Question 6 protects religious freedom of churches and clergy. No church or clergy member will have to perform any marriage they don’t want to.

Legislatures and courts have legalized marriage equality in six states and the District of Columbia. Maryland is the first state to legalize same-sex marriage through a vote of the people.

“This victory would not have been possible without the unparalleled leadership of Governor O’Malley, resolve of the LGBT Caucus in the legislature, and the full-court press by the Human Rights Campaign, which has been here day in and day out for more than a year working for full equality.”

Scuba

11-07-2012, 09:34 AM

Welcome the state of Washington to the Marriage Equality club!! We will not be denied!!

Strappie

11-07-2012, 07:48 PM

I'm so damn proud of the state I call home

Minnesota Defeated the Marriage Amendment!!!

I couldn't be prouder... 30 States tried before us and We DID IT!!!

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQhCAjNtO8Ry3g_LALxGrudj6KI3XU3y Vdch1c0-ddW7nxOs5GS

Soon

11-20-2012, 03:28 PM

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GKFzEfgkKMQ/UKuI6UNysyI/AAAAAAAB_kQ/QdB3JP4zs2M/s400/Globalmarriage.jpg

MsTinkerbelly

11-21-2012, 08:52 AM

Gay couples anxiously await High Court decision on Prop 8

By: Dan Schreiber | 11/19/12 8:45 PM
SF Examiner Staff Writer

Thom Watson was turned away along with his fiance, Jeff Tobaco, in 2010 after trying to get married. Wedding bells could be ringing for same-sex couples in San Francisco and across California as soon as the holidays, depending on how the U.S. Supreme Court responds to an appeals case for the state’s gay marriage ban later this month.

In February, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco affirmed a lower court ruling that 2008’s voter-approved Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Proponents of the same-sex marriage ban then took the case to the high court, which could rule as early as Nov. 30 on whether to take up the matter.

If federal justices decide not to hear the case — thus leaving the issue in the realm of individual states — the 9th Circuit ruling would effectively become the law of the land in California. Alternatively, the court could decide to make a more definitive federal ruling on the issue, which would take months more to be settled.

Interestingly enough, many local couples said they would prefer the quicker but less definitive resolution.

“I suspect we will be in line at the courthouse that day,” said Thom Watson, 50, of Daly City.

Watson and his fiance, Jeff Tobaco, said while they could have obtained a legal marriage in another state, it’s important to them to make their vows close to home.

“We’ve been waiting ever since Prop. 8 first passed, and given that the state had already overturned some marriages previously, we didn’t want to be in that situation,” Watson said. “There’s a symbolic importance to have marriage recognized here in the state we’ve chosen to make our home.”

Stuart Gaffney, one of the two plaintiffs in the original 2008 state Supreme Court challenge of Prop. 8, said celebrations would ignite in The City’s Castro neighborhood if the 9th Circuit ruling stands. Although it could take the appeals court a few days to finalize its ruling, Gaffney said some couples plan to exchange symbolic vows that would be legally finalized soon thereafter.

“It has been a very long wait for many couples who simply want to say ‘I do,’” Gaffney said.

But Gaffney cautioned that justices could also delay a decision, leaving the situation in limbo. Anti-Prop. 8 attorney David Boies recently predicted a U.S. Supreme Court hearing that ends in a 5-4 decision affirming same-sex marriage rights, but some eager couples would like to see the situation in California rectified sooner than later.

With three states having passed voter-approved same-sex marriage laws in the recent election, the momentum should be built up more before a federal ruling, Watson contends.

“I think right now there are better paths than the Supreme Court for this decision,” Watson said. “It makes it much more likely that once the right case makes it to the Supreme Court, we’ll have more states on board and right now, I don’t think the court is ready to make that decision.”

UofMfan

11-25-2012, 06:11 PM

wdnxMFs8tTk

MsTinkerbelly

11-29-2012, 09:01 AM

San Francisco asks Ninth Circuit for advance notice regarding Prop 8 decision mandate
By Jacob Combs

Yesterday, Therese Stewart, San Francisco’s Deputy City Attorney, wrote a letter to the Ninth Circuit asking for advance notice “if and when the mandate will be issued in the event the United States Supreme Court denies certiorari in the Perry case.” This involves a bit of legal intricacy, but essentially the issue is this: if the Supreme Court decides not to hear the appeal of the Ninth Circuit’s decision of the Prop 8 case, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling becomes the final legal say on the matter. But the circuit court’s ruling doesn’t go into effect the very instant the Supreme Court issues its order denying certiorari in the case; rather, the high court essentially returns the case to the Ninth Circuit for final dispensation in the case. The circuit court must then issue what is called a ‘mandate,’ or a formal declaration that its decision should go into effect. (The ruling is currently stayed ‘pending issuance of the mandate.’)

In Stewart’s letter, she outlines two reasons for the City’s request:

“As the Court is aware, this case has generated extremely wide interest. In prior instances when decisions were issued in this and other cases relating to marriage for same-sex couples, there have been large gatherings, including protestors, in the Civic Center area of San Francisco…. To ensure the health and safety of San Francisco’s residents and visitors, the San Francisco Police Department would be grateful if the Court could provide advance notice of its intention to issue its mandate in this case so that the Department can plan for and deploy an adequate number of officers to the areas where protests are likely to occur.

“Equally important, if the Supreme Court denies certiorari and the Ninth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit issues the mandate, the City anticipates there will be immediate and substantial demand from same-sex couples for marriage licenses and ceremonies…. The logistical efforts the City undertook to accommodate the couples as promptly and seamlessly as possible were substantial.”

Naturally, if the Supreme Court does deny certiorari in the Prop 8 case next week, the first question for everybody will be when same-sex couples can wed again in California. In the past, the Ninth Circuit has provided advance notice to the media and the public before issuing its decisions, so it looks like there’s a good chance it will grant Stewart’s request to ensure the end of Prop 8 goes smoothly

MsTinkerbelly

11-30-2012, 01:42 PM

Federal judge rules against gay and lesbian plaintiffs in Nevada marriage equality case
By Scottie Thomaston

A federal district court judge in Nevada has ruled against same-sex couples in Nevada seeking access to marriage. Sevcik v. Sandoval is a legal challenge to Nevada’s constitutional regime with respect to same-sex couples, filed by Lambda Legal. The state allows same-sex couples to have most of the rights and benefits associated with marriage but denies them and only them use of the word marriage. The plaintiffs in this case say that denying them marriage violates the equal protection of the laws.

The judge disagreed, writing that the 1972 summary dismissal in Baker v. Nelson forecloses the issue. He suggested a broad reading of Baker (which concerned an equal protection challenge based on gender), writing that “The equal protection claim is the same in this case as it was in Baker, i.e., whether the Equal Protection Clause prevents a state from refusing to permit same-sex marriages. Although the judge found that the amendment does indeed draw a dividing line between two groups and that “for the purposes of an equal protection challenge, the distinction is definitely sexual-orientation based”, he applied the most lenient form of judicial review for equal protection challenges, rational basis review, where “a court does not judge the perceived wisdom or fairness of a law, nor does it examine the actual rationale for the law when adopted, but asks only whether “there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.”” Under this standard, he wrote, “[t]he protection of the traditional institution of marriage, which is a conceivable basis for the distinction drawn in this case, is a legitimate state interest.” Thus there is no violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Regarding the allegation that Nevada’s constitutional regime denying gays and lesbians marriage rights is based on animus toward the group, he wrote, “[t]he conceivable benefits to society from maintaining a distinction between traditional marriage and same-sex domestic partnerships provide a rational basis for the State of Nevada to maintain the distinction, even if one result of the distinction is the stigmatization of same-sex relationships or if bias was one motivating factor.”

The judge’s ruling against the plaintiffs was anticipated after he expressed skepticism about their case at the initial hearing. As we reported:

[]Judge Jones seemed skeptical in general about allowing any such expert testimony, saying that to do so would require him to sit “as a legislature” (14). ”This area you’re talking about,” he said, “is so broad it’s across the entire United States. You’re asking them to summarize thousands of incidences.” Attorneys, he said, should tell courts what the law is, and he specifically questioned the course of action taken by Judge Vaughn Walker in the Prop 8 case in California with regard to allowing expert opinion on the changing shape of marriage in the United States and the difficulties faced by LGBT individuals.

An attorney for the state of Nevada raised the point that there are currently several petitions pending with the Supreme Court on the issue of marriage equality and the Defense of Marriage Act, to which Judge Jones responded, “It makes sense to get this decided and off with the circus train.” In particular, Judge Jones noted that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in the Prop 8 case, in which it singled out the fact that California had extended and then withdrawn equal marriage rights from gay and lesbian couples, differentiated that case from Sevcik, since Nevada had never extended such rights.

The case will likely be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Okiebug61

12-02-2012, 10:44 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/west-point-chapel-hosts-first-same-sex-wedding-185326592.html

MsTinkerbelly

12-04-2012, 08:51 PM

Yet another delay at the Suprene Court for California....stay tuned:candle:

Dude

12-04-2012, 09:11 PM

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2012/12/counties_in_washington_ready_t.html

Greyson

12-06-2012, 01:49 PM

Mexican Supreme Court rules for marriage equality
Posted on December 6, 2012 by swyatt11

In a unanimous ruling Wednesday, the Supreme Court of Mexico has paved the way for same-sex couples to marry in every one of the country’s 31 states before the U.S. has federal marriage equality. Gay marriage has been legal in the Federal District, Mexico City, since 2010, and the Supreme Court had previously ruled that those marriages must be recognized nationwide. Wednesday’s ruling struck down a law in the southern state of Oaxaca that denied same-sex couples the right to marry there.

http://21border.com/2012/12/06/mexican-supreme-court-rules-for-marriage-equality/#more-2838

iamkeri1

12-06-2012, 06:54 PM

Wow! marriage equality, virtually with the stroke of a pen. Congratulations Mexico! Finally somewhere warm with marriage equality.

With all the cases before our own Supreme Court. I was hoping we would soon be celebrating a similar recognition of equality in the good old US of A.

Smooches,
Keri

Soon

12-07-2012, 01:38 PM

Bearded Love: Larry Duncan And Randell Shepherd Apply For Marriage License In Seattle
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/07/larry-duncan-and-randell-_n_2258224.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay%20Voices)

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/894619/thumbs/o-LARRY-DUNCAN-RANDELL-SHEPHERD-BEARDED-COUPLE-570.jpg?18

According US News, Larry Duncan, 56, a retired psychiatric nurse, and Randell Shepherd, 48, a computer programmer, of North Bend, Wash., have been together 11 years. They wore the matching outfits as a "fashion statement."

"We were at a party and we met eyes and fell in love," Duncan said to the news source.

"He came up and asked me out, and I said yes," Shepherd added.

The bearded couple is considering getting married Sunday at a local church that will perform mass ceremonies for same-sex couples.

Although they're not religious, Duncan told NBC, “Enough people have told me, ‘God hates fags'. I want someone in a church to say, ‘God loves fags,’ to have that stamp on it.”

Greyson

12-07-2012, 02:59 PM

Sun

12-07-2012, 03:11 PM

US Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Friday to take its first serious look at the issue of gay marriage, granting review of California's ban on same-sex marriage and of a federal law that defines marriage as only the legal union of a man and a woman.

The cases will be argued before the justices in March, with a decision expected by late June.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/07/15756101-us-supreme-court-to-take-up-same-sex-marriage-issue#comments

This is taking way too long. I really would like to see some direct action protests happen before March so that the Justices get the message that we are not all sitting back, all homogenized and suburban, sipping on iced tea, waiting for a stamp of approval from them when the civil rights of so many have been stripped away. What about all of the aging couples that are waiting on this? Prop 8 has been ruled unconstitutional by the 9th Circuit court of appeals, the presiding district. Thanks to Mormon and Catholic money, that has funded the "Yes on 8" hate campaign, our state is left with this legal mess. To add insult to injury, the case is a huge waste of taxpayers money. We are in a financial crisis in this nation and we are wasting money debating if it would be too offensive to some to allow same sex couples to marry.

Seriously this is embarrassing. I have run out of conversation on this topic with my friends in Canada and Europe. It is impossible for them to understand how and why so many are so sexually repressed that they woudl invest so much time, money in energy in denying marriage equality. Even our own President, who is a constitutional law scholar agrees that DOMA needs to go. There is no way that he would take that position if this had a snowballs chance in hell of making it through a Supreme Court review.

On the positive side, it is going to be one hell of a Pride season when this nonsensical hateful roadblock is eliminated and couples can have the freedom to marry once and for all, as it should be.

Thanks for this thread so that I can rant. ;)

MsTinkerbelly

12-07-2012, 03:23 PM

Greyson

12-07-2012, 03:35 PM

Thank you for posting this Greyson.

While I am sad that there are people in my State that must continue to wait to marry the person they choose, I am equally happy that the broader issue of same-sex marriage will finally be addressed by the highest court in our land, both with the issue of DOMA and Prop (hate)8 finally being decided.

I too am happy that the broader issue of DOMA will be addressed. It is long over due, generations over due. Many in our country have paid a personal price.

Civil Rights, Human Rights seem to come by pain, struggle and those at the brunt of injustice refusing to give up the fight, the hope, the action and required fighting, pushing back.

Sun

12-07-2012, 03:55 PM

I too am happy that the broader issue of DOMA will be addressed. It is long over due, generations over due. Many in our country have paid a personal price.

Civil Rights, Human Rights seem to come by pain, struggle and those at the brunt of injustice refusing to give up the fight, the hope, the action and required fighting, pushing back.

Greyson,

Thank you for the updates. I wish that I could say that I was happy, but this issue makes me angry. The Prop 8 campaign was downright traumatizing for many of us. At an NGLTF training in Castro last spring, the agenda was sidelined by many community leaders sharing how traumatized they still were after the No on 8 campaign. I attended as a volunteer from our legislative ministry and spent hours listening to the pain of leaders who had not really processed this information, nor did they feel that they had a right to because after all, this is a battle and we are expected to keep on fighting.

For me the internal conflict is having to "fight" or "defend" something that is inherently about love. The NGLTF training experience made me aware that our leadership needs places to go and safely process the battle fatigue.

I never doubted that the Supreme Court would hear the Prop 8 case. How could they not? It is clearly unconstitutional.

Again thank you for the update

Greyson

12-07-2012, 03:56 PM

Supreme Court Review of Marriage Cases Has Enormous Impact for Same-sex Couples

Williams Institute Research Shows Far Reaching Economic, Regulatory Effects on Same-Sex Families

“Given that multiple circuit courts have found DOMA’s Section 3 unconstitutional, the Court has an important opportunity to provide nationwide answers regarding the validity or invalidity of this federal statutory provision,” said Nan Hunter, Legal Scholarship Director, Williams Institute, and Associate Dean and Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center.

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/press-releases/supreme-court-review-of-marriage-cases-has-enormous-impact-for-same-sex-couples/

MissItalianDiva

12-07-2012, 04:29 PM

Thank you for posting this Greyson.

While I am sad that there are people in my State that must continue to wait to marry the person they choose, I am equally happy that the broader issue of same-sex marriage will finally be addressed by the highest court in our land, both with the issue of DOMA and Prop (hate)8 finally being decided.

I am with you on this one. While I am saddened people are still having to wait the review was necessary and this now will mean and clear up so much more assuming the review is in our favor which I am positive it will be. There are deeper issues here that this will address and the outcome will be far more grand then it would have been had they just denied review. Cmon June....Pride really is going to be crazy this year

iamkeri1

12-08-2012, 01:34 AM

I can't even begin to say how much I love this picture. I am regularly overcome with delight over the diversity in our LGBTQ people. They (we) amaze me, amuse me and affirm me. I love you my peeps!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Smooches,
Keri

Bearded Love: Larry Duncan And Randell Shepherd Apply For Marriage License In Seattle
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/07/larry-duncan-and-randell-_n_2258224.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay%20Voices)

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/894619/thumbs/o-LARRY-DUNCAN-RANDELL-SHEPHERD-BEARDED-COUPLE-570.jpg?18

According US News, Larry Duncan, 56, a retired psychiatric nurse, and Randell Shepherd, 48, a computer programmer, of North Bend, Wash., have been together 11 years. They wore the matching outfits as a "fashion statement."

"We were at a party and we met eyes and fell in love," Duncan said to the news source.

"He came up and asked me out, and I said yes," Shepherd added.

The bearded couple is considering getting married Sunday at a local church that will perform mass ceremonies for same-sex couples.

Although they're not religious, Duncan told NBC, “Enough people have told me, ‘God hates fags'. I want someone in a church to say, ‘God loves fags,’ to have that stamp on it.”

Toughy

12-08-2012, 12:42 PM

This is taking way too long. I really would like to see some direct action protests happen before March so that the Justices get the message that we are not all sitting back, all homogenized and suburban, sipping on iced tea, waiting for a stamp of approval from them when the civil rights of so many have been stripped away. What about all of the aging couples that are waiting on this? Prop 8 has been ruled unconstitutional by the 9th Circuit court of appeals, the presiding district. Thanks to Mormon and Catholic money, that has funded the "Yes on 8" hate campaign, our state is left with this legal mess. To add insult to injury, the case is a huge waste of taxpayers money. We are in a financial crisis in this nation and we are wasting money debating if it would be too offensive to some to allow same sex couples to marry.

<snip>
from another post:

The Prop 8 campaign was downright traumatizing for many of us. At an NGLTF training in Castro last spring, the agenda was sidelined by many community leaders sharing how traumatized they still were after the No on 8 campaign. I attended as a volunteer from our legislative ministry and spent hours listening to the pain of leaders who had not really processed this information, nor did they feel that they had a right to because after all, this is a battle and we are expected to keep on fighting.

For me the internal conflict is having to "fight" or "defend" something that is inherently about love. The NGLTF training experience made me aware that our leadership needs places to go and safely process the battle fatigue.

I never doubted that the Supreme Court would hear the Prop 8 case. How could they not? It is clearly unconstitutional.

Sun this is not directed at you in particular, but is about issues you raised.

Frankly, protesting in front of SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) is a double edged sword. I'm pretty sure the anti-marriage folks have the same feeling from their perspective and will be out there protesting. Who is SCOTUS supposed to listen to? I prefer they ignore any and all protests and decide strictly on the merits of the cases.

NO civil rights issue is a waste of taxpayers money. It is one of the things my taxes should be paying for.....to promote the general welfare of the people which includes all civil rights issues.

SCOTUS is the last Court appeal. SCOTUS should step into this mess....that is what they are for......think back to the 60's and civil rights for black folk (and other POC). Public debate is a key to democracy and the more public debate, the better off we all will be.

As to our 'poor leaders' who are having trouble processing what a huge fuck-up they presided over.........I got zero sympathy for any of them. They presided over the worst political campaign I have ever experienced in all my years in social justice. They had their collective heads up their asses and ignored what worked in other civil rights campaigns (any political campaign really) our community won....think back to the CA proposition that would have banned gay teachers. They shoud be spending their time figuring out what they did wrong, rather than crying about being traumatized.........

Soon

12-09-2012, 10:29 AM

"When Thea and I met nearly 50 years ago, we never could have dreamed that the story of our life together would be before the Supreme Court as an example of why gay married couples should be treated equally, and not like second-class citizens. While Thea is no longer alive, I know how proud she would have been to see this day. The truth is, I never expected any less from my country." - DOMA litigant Edith Windsor, 83, responding to yesterday's decision by the Supreme Court.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSdbEs3c6ueVJCjs1S5XCCirmmLC7TiY fgnI-CyYINqQui2o1ZG

Greyson

12-11-2012, 03:20 PM

Civil Behavior

Should a Gay Uncle Boycott His Straight Niece’s Wedding?

By STEVEN PETROW
Published: December 11, 2012

My partner and I live in North Carolina, a state whose constitution now prohibits same-sex marriage. We have been together for 25 years and have been to lots of weddings in that time. I used not to mind so much going to other people’s weddings even though we couldn’t make our own union legal. But now I do. I’ve had enough. I’m tired of being polite.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/booming/should-a-gay-uncle-boycott-his-straight-nieces-wedding.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

Nadeest

12-11-2012, 03:54 PM

Greyson

12-11-2012, 09:58 PM

I just saw this link on my Facebook page, from the Huffington Post, and wanted to share this information. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/11/supreme-court-asks-lawyer_n_2279393.html?ir=Gay+Voices

Supreme Court Asks Lawyer To Argue Special DOMA Question

By JESSE J. HOLLAND 12/11/12 02:54 PM ET EST

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday invited a Massachusetts lawyer to come argue that the justices cannot rule on one of the gay marriage questions it had planned to decide next year.

The court asked lawyer Vicki C. Jackson of Cambridge to join the gay marriage arguments this spring, but she won't be arguing whether it's legal for governments to treat gay Americans differently in issues of marriage. Instead, at the court's invitation, Jackson will be arguing that it's improper for the Supreme Court to even consider making a ruling on a federal law that treats gay married couples differently from heterosexual married couples.

The high court will be hearing two gay marriage arguments: first, whether California's constitutional amendment that forbids same-sex is constitutional. The second question is the one Jackson will argue that justices should stay out of: the constitutionality of a federal law that denies to gay couple who can marry legally the right to obtain federal benefits that are available to heterosexual married couples.

Gay marriage is legal, or will be soon, in nine states – Maine, Maryland, Washington state, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont – and the nation's capital, the District of Columbia.

But a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, known by its acronym DOMA, defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal health and pension benefits, as well as favorable tax treatment.

So far, four federal district courts and two appeals courts struck down the provision. Last year, the Obama administration abandoned its defense of the law, but continues to enforce it. House Republicans are now defending DOMA in the courts.

Jackson was asked by the court to argue "that the Executive Branch's agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this court of jurisdiction to decide this case." She will also argue that House Republicans cannot substitute themselves for the Justice Department and therefore they lack "standing in this case."

__________________________________________________ ____________

I am unclear on this. The Supreme Court is asking Jackson to argue that the Supreme Court Justices should stay out of arguing that justices should stay out of: the constitutionality of a federal law that denies to gay couple who can marry legally the right to obtain federal benefits that are available to heterosexual married couples?

Then the article gones on to say because "that the Executive Branch's agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this court of jurisdiction to decide this case."

What does this last paragraph mean? What is it saying? What is the agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional?

Thanks for posting the Link Nadeest.

kittygrrl

12-12-2012, 12:07 AM

Supreme Court Asks Lawyer To Argue Special DOMA Question

By JESSE J. HOLLAND 12/11/12 02:54 PM ET EST

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday invited a Massachusetts lawyer to come argue that the justices cannot rule on one of the gay marriage questions it had planned to decide next year.

The court asked lawyer Vicki C. Jackson of Cambridge to join the gay marriage arguments this spring, but she won't be arguing whether it's legal for governments to treat gay Americans differently in issues of marriage. Instead, at the court's invitation, Jackson will be arguing that it's improper for the Supreme Court to even consider making a ruling on a federal law that treats gay married couples differently from heterosexual married couples.

The high court will be hearing two gay marriage arguments: first, whether California's constitutional amendment that forbids same-sex is constitutional. The second question is the one Jackson will argue that justices should stay out of: the constitutionality of a federal law that denies to gay couple who can marry legally the right to obtain federal benefits that are available to heterosexual married couples.

Gay marriage is legal, or will be soon, in nine states – Maine, Maryland, Washington state, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont – and the nation's capital, the District of Columbia.

But a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, known by its acronym DOMA, defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal health and pension benefits, as well as favorable tax treatment.

So far, four federal district courts and two appeals courts struck down the provision. Last year, the Obama administration abandoned its defense of the law, but continues to enforce it. House Republicans are now defending DOMA in the courts.

Jackson was asked by the court to argue "that the Executive Branch's agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this court of jurisdiction to decide this case." She will also argue that House Republicans cannot substitute themselves for the Justice Department and therefore they lack "standing in this case."

__________________________________________________ ____________

I am unclear on this. The Supreme Court is asking Jackson to argue that the Supreme Court Justices should stay out of arguing that justices should stay out of: the constitutionality of a federal law that denies to gay couple who can marry legally the right to obtain federal benefits that are available to heterosexual married couples?

Then the article gones on to say because "that the Executive Branch's agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this court of jurisdiction to decide this case."

What does this last paragraph mean? What is it saying? What is the agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional?

Thanks for posting the Link Nadeest.

I'm not lawyer but it seems logical that if a case has been appealed up to the Supreme Court and there is a question about a law's constitutionality then this is the appropriate venue for this question to be answered..the court has the power to nullify or empower it ie obamacare ..i hope there is a lawyer among us who can answer:mob:

Greyson

12-12-2012, 10:27 AM

I'm not lawyer but it seems logical that if a case has been appealed up to the Supreme Court and there is a question about a law's constitutionality then this is the appropriate venue for this question to be answered..the court has the power to nullify or empower it ie obamacare ..i hope there is a lawyer among us who can answer:mob:

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I get it that the next step would be to address it in the US Supreme Court after the ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals. What I don't understand is the second point that the Supreme Court asked Ms. Jackson to argue. I think this is what the question is. "Does the Supreme Court even have jurisdiction to rule on DOMA because of the agreement with the lower court? This is where it gets fuzzy for me. Am I reading the second point correctly? What agreement was made? Is the court implying that DOMA is restricted to the enforcement and interpretation of the Executive Branch only? The article did say something about the US House of Representatives (Congress) taking up the defense of DOMA in the courts and that would come under this second point question too.

Again, thanks for responding to my post.

kittygrrl

12-13-2012, 09:49 PM

Greyson

12-13-2012, 10:12 PM

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I get it that the next step would be to address it in the US Supreme Court after the ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals. What I don't understand is the second point that the Supreme Court asked Ms. Jackson to argue. I think this is what the question is. "Does the Supreme Court even have jurisdiction to rule on DOMA because of the agreement with the lower court? This is where it gets fuzzy for me. Am I reading the second point correctly? What agreement was made? Is the court implying that DOMA is restricted to the enforcement and interpretation of the Executive Branch only? The article did say something about the US House of Representatives (Congress) taking up the defense of DOMA in the courts and that would come under this second point question too.

Again, thanks for responding to my post.

It's a great question to ponder..complicated & very interesting..i hope it turns out to be a good thing that the Court is, at least, considering it..but it's hard to believe it can be considering it's a very conservative court..now why would they want to consider it now?..:sunglass:

I just read this piece in the NY Times today. It explains what the Supreme Court is doing in regards to Same Sex Marriage two court cases it will be looking at. I will need to read it again but for a layperson such as myself, it really helps clear up some of the above questions.

I gather that "Standing" is one of the issues to be addressed and there is also some variation of States Rights in relation to Federal Jurisdiction. I hope it may offer some understanding to others here in our community.
__________________________________________________ ___________

Standing and Delivering

December 12, 2012
By LINDA GREENHOUSE

Is it heretical of me, or merely quirky, to find myself nearly as fascinated by the procedural game the Supreme Court is playing in the same-sex marriage cases as I am by the underlying merits of the two appeals the court has agreed to decide?

After all, same-sex marriage is legal in nine states and the District of Columbia, and public opinion on the issue is evolving rapidly in other parts of the country, with or without the blessing of the United States Supreme Court. On the other hand, the procedural minefield the court has laid around these cases may hold implications reaching well beyond the domain of gay rights — for the relationship of states to their citizens and for the balance of power between the president and Congress.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/12/standing-and-delivering/?nl=opinion&emc=edit_ty_20121213

wolfsgirl

12-15-2012, 08:39 AM

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20121213/BLOGS02/121219887/illinois-gay-marriage-advocates-to-push-for-january-vote

Maybe Illinois will be state 10.
After counting heads and consulting with legislative leaders, the chief sponsors of a bill to permit same-sex couples to get married in the state disclosed this morning that they intend to push for a vote in the General Assembly's lame-duck session, which will occur over two weeks just after New Year's.

Metro

12-28-2012, 09:49 PM

http://tinyurl.com/c89yw4y

MsTinkerbelly

02-01-2013, 01:40 PM

Illinois Gay Marriage: Senate President Aims For Bill To Pass By Valentine's Day

Valentine's Day might just be particularly poignant this year for same-sex couples in Illinois.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Illinois Senate President John Cullerton is hoping to see legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in Illinois approved by lawmakers in time for the Feb. 14 holiday.

Cullerton told the paper he is hopeful the state Senate will approve the bill next week -- and is confident they have the 30 votes of support needed to do so. The bill would then need to advancing to the House of Representatives, which is considered to be more conservative. Gov. Pat Quinn has already vowed to sign the bill.

Earlier in the week, Cullerton told the City Club of Chicago that those pushing for marriage equality were "getting more support in the public every day," the Associated Press reports.

Bernard Cherkasov, CEO of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy group Equality Illinois, told the Windy City Times that he sees Cullerton's announcement as boding well for his and other advocates' push for marriage equality in the land of Lincoln.

"I believe that the Senate president would not have announced a timeline on the bill if he did not think it had the votes to pass," Cherkasov told the Windy City Times on Friday.

With marriage equality advocates ramping up their efforts, so too are the opposition -- but apparently that group does not include the state's Republican Party. According to a Sun-Times column by Capitol Fax blogger Rich Miller, Illinois GOP lawmakers, too, want to see the marriage equality bill approved as quickly as possible.

With Democratic majorities holding the reins in both chambers of the Illinois General Assembly, Miller argues that Republicans hope to get the matter out of the way and behind them.

Nevertheless, a group of African American clergy also stepped up this week to push for the matter of marriage equality in Illinois to be left up to voters, WBEZ reported. On the other side of the issue, 250 clergy members in Illinois previously endorsed the marriage equality bill as "morally just."

Marriage equality supporters in Illinois last month reintroduced legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage in the state. Sponsors had hoped to pass the bill during the lame-duck session in early January, but say they ran out of time to do so, though it was advanced by the Senate Executive Committee for the first time. President Barack Obama has expressed his support for the Illinois marriage equality bill

MsTinkerbelly

02-11-2013, 01:37 PM

Outgoing DOD boss Panetta extends some benefits to same-sex spouses, partners of gay troops

By Bill Briggs, NBC News contributor

Departing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta extended Monday a list of benefits — all previously denied by the Pentagon — to the same-sex spouses of service members as well as to the unmarried partners of gay troops.

The perks, automatically available to heterosexual military spouses, will include hospital child care services, hospital visits, and the issuing of military ID cards, which will give same-sex spouses and partners access to on-base commissaries, movie theaters and gyms. The policy changes will go into effect once training on the new rules is completed, Panetta said.

While advocates for gay and lesbian service members and their families hailed Panetta’s policy switch as “substantive” and “encouraging,” the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) still blocks the DOD from enacting more than 85 other benefits now provided to heterosexual military spouses and their children — most notably medical and dental care, housing allowances, and death benefits.

Also, as NBC News reported Feb. 4, that same federal law mandates that when a gay service member is killed in combat, military officials must first notify that troop’s blood family, not their spouse, as is normally the course of action.

Panetta said DOMA is “now being reviewed by the United States Supreme Court" — and he offered his first clear signal that the Pentagon wants that law overturned.

“There are certain benefits that can only be provided to spouses as defined by that law,” Panetta said. “While it will not change during my tenure as secretary of defense, I foresee a time when the law will allow the department to grant full benefits to service members and their dependents, irrespective of sexual orientation. Until then, the department will continue to comply with current law while doing all we can to take care of all soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and their families."

Same-sex advocates have been pushing the DOD to extend full benefits to the spouses and partners of all U.S. service members since the repeal 17 months of ago of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy which prohibited gay troops from revealing their sexual orientation.

“At the time of repeal, I committed to reviewing benefits that had not previously been available to same-sex partners based on existing law and policy,” Panetta said. “It is a matter of fundamental equity that we provide similar benefits to all of those men and women in uniform who serve their country ...

“Taking care of our service members and honoring the sacrifices of all military families are two core values of this nation. Extending these benefits is an appropriate next step under current law to ensure that all service members receive equal support for what they do to protect this nation."

Advocates for gay and lesbian service members and their families praised Panetta’s policy shift although they said that the move is not groundbreaking due to the DOMA legal blockade.

“Secretary Panetta’s decision today answers the call President (Barack) Obama issued in his inaugural address to complete our nation's journey toward equality, acknowledging the equal service and equal sacrifice of our gay and lesbian service members and their families,” said Allyson Robinson, an Army veteran and executive director of OutServe-SLDN, an association of actively serving lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender U.S. military personnel with more than 50 chapters and 6,000 members.

“We thank him for getting us a few steps closer to full equality — steps that will substantively improve the quality of life of gay and lesbian military families,” Robinson said.

The American Military Partner Association (AMPA), a support network for LGBT military families, released the following statement today in response to Panetta's announcement:

“We’ve waited far too long for this, and it’s fantastic news that our dedicated military families will now have access to some of the benefits and support services they need and deserve,” said Stephen Peters, the group's president. “However, (DOMA) continues to undermine our military families who sacrifice so much for our nation. This summer, we hope that the Supreme Court will make it clear that our families are just as important and deserve the same protections, benefits, and support that federal recognition brings.”

To offer the new benefits to partners, DOD will ask gay and lesbian service members to sign a “Declaration of Domestic Partnership” in which they will attest that they are in a committed relationship, and intend to remain so indefinitely, and that neither is legally married, according to OutServe-SLDN.

The changes will take “several months to complete, Pentagon officials said. The extra time is needed so that military leaders can offer a chance for the public to comment on the new rules and also to allow an opportunity for each of the branches to update its IT system, develop new processes for issuing ID cards, and train their personnel on the refreshed benefits package.

Panetta did stop short on offering a full slate of benefits that gay advocates have been requesting for two years: on-base housing and burial at Arlington National Cemetery and other items that don’t fall under DOMA, according to OutServe-SLDN. (The organization’s lawyers drafted an explanation outlining the policy shift for gay service members and their families.)

DOD officials have explained to OutServe-SLDN that “policy for burial at Arlington National Cemetery is under review. At issue is how to verify eligible same-sex relationships for the surviving spouse in order to ensure equitable policy implementation."

blackboot

02-22-2013, 09:40 PM

Obama Administration Urges Supreme Court To Strike Down DOMA
The Huffington Post | By Anjali Sareen

The Obama administration on Friday urged the Supreme Court to strike down the Defense Of Marriage Act in a brief that calls the law unconstitutional because it violates "the fundamental guarantee of equal protection."

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argues in the brief that Section 3 of the 1996 federal law prohibits the marriage of same-sex couples and should get the court's close scrutiny.

"The law denies to tens of thousands of same-sex couples who are legally married under state law an array of important federal benefits that are available to legally married opposite-sex couples. Because this discrimination cannot be justified as substantially furthering any important governmental interest, Section 3 is unconstitutional."

DOMA, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, has been found unconstitutional by lower courts. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal in one of those cases, U.S. v. Windsor. Oral arguments are scheduled for March 27.

Verrilli argues in his brief that gays and lesbians have been historically discriminated against. He describes how DOMA should proceed if the Supreme Court does not apply the increased scrutiny:

"The government has previously defended Section 3 under rational-basis review, and does not challenge the constitutionality of Section 3 under that highly deferential standard."

The administration argues that the court may consider a higher level of rational-basis review. The brief states that the increased consideration would be valid in order to "guard against giving effect to a desire to harm an 'unpopular group.'"

The brief wraps up with an argument against the view advanced by the House Republicans in the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group: the issue is not for the courts to decide.

"This is, however, the rare case in which deference to the democratic process must give way to the fundamental constitutional command of equal treatment under law. Section 3 of DOMA targets the many gay and lesbian people legally married under state law for a harsh form of discrimination that bears no relation to their ability to contribute to society. It is abundantly clear that this discrimination does not substantially advance an interest in protecting marriage, or any other important interest. The statute simply cannot be reconciled with the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. The Constitution therefore requires that Section 3 be invalidated."

Toughy

02-23-2013, 11:14 AM

http://www.christianpost.com/news/jon-huntsman-backs-gay-marriage-describes-it-as-a-conservative-cause-90589/

Jon Huntsman (R) who probably could have defeated Obama in 2012 supports gay marriage and calls it a conservative cause.

UofMfan

02-26-2013, 05:31 PM

Apple And Facebook Join 250 Employers Asking Supreme Court To Support Gay Marriage (http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/apple-and-facebook-join-250-employers-asking-supreme-court-to-support-gay-marriage/marriage/2013/02/26/61343)

Toughy

02-27-2013, 01:42 AM

TV documentary about the United Methodist Church and marriage equality. There is a U-Tube link to watch it....it's 27 minutes long.

http://www.kqed.org/news/bayarea/achurchdivided/index.jsp

MsTinkerbelly

02-28-2013, 03:19 PM

Obama administration to express support for gay marriage before Supreme Court

By Pete Williams, Chief Justice Correspondent, NBC News

Administration officials say the Justice Department will urge the U.S. Supreme Court to allow same-sex marriage to resume in California, wading into the protracted legal battle over Proposition 8 and giving gay-rights advocates a new court ally.

After first suggesting it would not get involved, the Obama administration will file a friend-of-the-court brief late today in support of the two gay couples who launched the fight over the issue four years ago, the officials said. Today is the last day for filing briefs in support of the couples' position.

The administration last year signaled it might stay on the sidelines. In May, when President Obama first said that "same-sex couples should be able to get married," he added that it was not a matter for the federal government.

But he appeared to express a different view in January during his inaugural address when he said, "Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law, for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well."

The Supreme Court hears oral arguments in late March to decide the fate of Proposition 8, an amendment to the state constitution approved by 52 percent of California voters in 2008. It banned same-sex marriages in the state and went into effect after 18,000 gay couples were legally married earlier that year

MsTinkerbelly

02-28-2013, 07:28 PM

Obama administration steps into gay marriage battle

By Pete Williams, Justice Correspondent, NBC News

The Justice Department Thursday urged the US Supreme Court to uphold same-sex marriage in California and went even further, suggesting it is unconstitutional to block gay couples from getting married in half a dozen other states.

States violate the Constitution, the administration argued, if they offer civil unions to gay couples but deny them the right to marry.

While that position clearly applies to the legal dispute in California, it would also apply to at least seven other states -- Delaware, Hawaii Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, and Rhode Island. Each offers civil unions but not same-sex marriage.

And while the administration takes no position in its brief beyond those states, its reasoning would have even broader implications.

If the administration's legal theory were ultimately accepted, no state could, under constitutional guarantees against discrimination, deny same sex couples the right to marry.

After first suggesting it would not get involved in the California case, the Obama administration late Thursday filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the two gay couples who launched the fight over the issue four years ago.

In a statement, Attorney General Eric Holder said, "In our filing today in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the government seeks to vindicate the defining constitutional ideal of equal treatment under the law ... The issues before the Supreme Court in this case and the Defense of Marriage Act case are not just important to the tens of thousands Americans who are being denied equal benefits and rights under our laws, but to our Nation as a whole."

The Supreme Court hears oral argument in late March to decide the fate of Proposition 8, an amendment to the state constitution approved by 52 percent of California voters in 2008. It banned same-sex marriages in the state and went into effect after 18,000 gay couples were legally married earlier that year.

A federal judge declared the ban unconstitutional, and a federal appeals court last year upheld that ruling, though on narrower grounds that apply only to California. In December, the Supreme Court agreed to take up the issue.

The Justice Department is not directly involved in the case, because the gay couples that brought the lawsuit are challenging a state restriction, not a federal one. But each side had urged the government to file a brief in support of its position.

After voters approved the measure stopping same-sex marriage, state officials in California declined to defend it in court. That defense has been carried on by the original proponents of Prop 8.

The Obama administration last year signaled it would stay on the sidelines. In May, when President Obama first said that "same-sex couples should be able to get married," he added that it was not a matter for the federal government.

"This is an issue that is going to be worked out at the local level because historically this has not been a federal issue. Different states are coming to different conclusions," he said in an interview with ABC News.

But he appeared to express a different view in January, urging legal equality for same-sex couples during his inaugural address.

"Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law, for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well," he said.

In a separate case the administration is urging the Supreme Court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, a law passed by Congress in 1996 that prohibits federal agencies from recognizing same-sex marriages in states where they are legal. As a result, married gay couples are denied over 1,000 federal benefits available to traditional couples.

"The law denies to tens of thousands of same-sex couples who are legally married under state law an array of important federal benefits that are available to legally married opposite-sex couples," Solicitor General Verrelli wrote last week in urging the court to overturn DOMA.

The law is unconstitutional, he said, "because this discrimination cannot be justified as substantially furthering any important governmental interest."

Nine states currently permit same-sex couples to marry -- Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington. It is also permitted in Washington, D.C.

Soon

03-01-2013, 07:33 PM

"I’ve never filed a brief to the Supreme Court, so I thought I would post mine here. I’m sure someone will tweet it to them. Portia and I have been married for 4 years and they have been the happiest of my life. And in those 4 years, I don’t think we hurt anyone else’s marriage. I asked all of my neighbors and they say they’re fine. But even though Portia and I got married in the short period of time when it was legal in California, there are 1,138 federal rights for married couples that we don’t have, including some that protect married people from losing their homes, or their savings or custody of their children.

"The truth is, Portia and I aren’t as different from you as you might think. We’re just trying to find happiness in the bodies and minds we were given, like everyone else. In the words of Benjamin Franklin, 'We’re here, we’re queer, get over it.' And there’s another famous quote that says 'A society is judged by how it treats its weakest members.' I couldn’t agree with that more. No one’s really sure who said it first, so if anyone asks, tell them I said it." - Ellen DeGeneres, writing on her website.

Soon

03-01-2013, 07:36 PM

apQt4xGzvKw

Soon

03-06-2013, 03:48 PM

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SOejt46hHBI/UTa8jmvqfHI/AAAAAAACVvQ/hD6uEdvzI2Y/s400/domadefends.jpg

Soon

03-14-2013, 06:07 PM

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bWR-q0BD-jk/UUE_Vw9ihNI/AAAAAAACWIQ/LUG20QEcbZU/s400/46.jpg

MsTinkerbelly

03-19-2013, 07:12 PM

Supreme Court Plans Same-Day Release of Oral Argument Recordings in Marriage Cases

By ADAM LIPTAK 3/19/13-New York Times

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court announced on Tuesday that it would release same-day audio recordings of oral arguments in two same-sex marriage cases scheduled to be heard next week.

The last time the court allowed same-day access to such recordings was a year ago, when it heard three days of arguments over the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care law. The court’s general practice in recent years has been to release audio recordings of arguments at the end of the week.

The court said the recording of the hourlong argument in the first case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144, would be available on its Web site by 1 p.m. on March 26. That case is a challenge to Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage.

The recording of the argument in United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307, will last almost two hours and will be available by 2 p.m. on March 27, the court said. The case is a challenge of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The court’s statement did not address television coverage, which almost certainly means it will not be permitted.

Besides the health care arguments, the court has released same-day audio recordings 21 times, starting with two in the case that came to be known as Bush v. Gore and ending with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Until recently, recordings in other cases were not released until the end of the term.

In September 2010, the court announced that the same-day release of recordings would be discontinued and that recordings of the week’s arguments would be released on Fridays. The court ordinarily hears arguments on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

The new system took the court out of the business of making judgments about which arguments are newsworthy, a practice that raised First Amendment concerns. The significance of the arguments over the health care law and same-sex marriage apparently overcame those concerns

UofMfan

03-20-2013, 03:08 PM

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j269/translator08/Wearred-marriageequality.jpg

Sparkle

03-25-2013, 01:32 PM

One of my dearest and oldest friends, her wife and my faerie godchild will be on the CBS Evening News tonight at 5:30pm (5:30pm nationwide).

They were interviewed by John Blackstone as the "human face" of families impacted by Prop 8!

Tune in if you can.

Sparkle

03-25-2013, 09:20 PM

JustBeingMe

03-25-2013, 09:58 PM

Tomorrow is a HUGE DAY, and the decisions that come will be one's to remember, no matter which way it goes.

Sun

03-25-2013, 10:09 PM

NGLTF is a buzz with all of the excitement about the hearings this week.

WATCH: Task Force's Darlene Nipper on MSNBC's "Melissa Harris-Perry Show"

MsTinkerbelly

03-26-2013, 08:01 AM

Edited to add: they got bumped from tonight's broadcast. They're hoping it will be run tomorrow night.

Big day the next two days. ��I'm anxious. I'm not certain all of the public and political declarations of support for marriage equality is indication that the court will rule in our favour on either case. Scalia is a bastard.
And he has a powerful whip on that court.

But I'm hoping!

There are several ways the court can go, including the ruling that the Proponents of Prop 8 were not harmed by the decisions in California declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional, and Prop 8 would be void. This is the option I personally do not want (but believe will happen), as it changes nothing for anyone except us.

MsTinkerbelly

03-26-2013, 10:09 AM

There are several ways the court can go, including the ruling that the Proponents of Prop 8 were not harmed by the decisions in California declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional, and Prop 8 would be void. This is the option I personally do not want (but believe will happen), as it changes nothing for anyone except us.

I was reading briefly (as I'm on my break), that the court indicated that they will probably not touch on the broader issue of same sex marriage for all, and will be (as I said above) limited to affecting California (Prop 8) one way or another.

Let's hope I'm wrong.

Rockinonahigh

03-26-2013, 10:25 AM

I haven't posted hear but I shure have read a fue post that u all have put on hear.I do hope that things go our way,even if its a little bit to get the wheels in motion.But,I think the courts will take the easyest way out,I hope not but I think they will.To bad the high court dose us this way,I have been told by someone who I know that works in D.C. that as long as it's not anything that will effect them..who cares.To bad,I hope i'm wrong.

thedivahrrrself

03-26-2013, 10:30 AM

Today, change your profile picture to this to show your support for marriage equality.

http://sphotos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/392747_633063050042831_727378900_n.jpg

JustBeingMe

03-26-2013, 12:28 PM

An unprecedented Supreme Court case that advocates on both sides hoped might settle the question of gay marriage once and for all could be reduced to a procedural issue.
Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism in oral arguments Tuesday that the proponents of California's gay marriage ban, called Proposition 8, have the legal right to defend the ban in court. Several of the justices closely questioned the attorneys in the landmark case over the procedural legal issue, called standing, suggesting they may be poised to throw the case out without significantly addressing the broader issue of whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry.
The 2008 voter-approved gay marriage ban has been the target of lawsuits for four years, challenged by gay couples who say it discriminates against them based on their sexual orientation. Since it passed, public opinion on gay marriage has shifted rapidly in the country, with a slight majority for the first time now saying they believe gay couples should be allowed to wed, and two lower courts have struck Prop 8 down as discriminatory. Still, the vast majority of states outlaw gay marriage.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's conservative-leaning swing vote and the author of two major decisions in favor of gay rights, appeared to be on the fence in the controversial case. Early in the arguments, he suggested that the estimated 40,000 children being raised by same-sex couples in California might be harmed by their parents' inability to marry. "They want their parents to have full recognition and full status," Kennedy said. "The voice of these children is important in this case."
Later in the oral arguments, however, Kennedy said he wondered whether the case should have been granted at all, again mentioning the standing issue.
"You're really asking for us to go into uncharted waters," Kennedy said, adding that there's a "substantial question" over whether Prop 8's defenders have the standing to bring suit.
Kennedy also disagreed with a comparison of this case to Loving v. Virginia, the landmark 1967 Supreme Court case that struck down laws banning interracial marriage. He noted that such anti-miscegenation laws had been illegal in other countries for hundreds of years, unlike gay marriage, which is still relatively new all around the world.
Kennedy also lamented that research into how same-sex couples and their children fare is new. “We have five years of information to pose against 2,000 years of history,” he said.
The standing issue has dogged supporters of Prop 8 since former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and California's attorney general declined to appeal a lower court's decision striking down the ban. A coalition of people who helped place Prop 8 on the ballot in the first place stepped up to defend the ban in court without financial help from the state. That group must prove they would experience a direct injury if Prop 8 is struck down in order to have standing to appeal.
The state Supreme Court in California ruled that the coalition had standing to pursue the case, but justices from both the liberal and conservative wings of the court appeared skeptical of that ruling. Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked whether it was appropriate for supporters of a ballot initiative to defend it in court, rather than the state itself. Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the court had never "allowed anything like it" in the past.

If the justices decide to throw out the case on standing, the lower court's decision allowing gay marriage will most likely be the law of the land in California.
Even if the justices get past the standing hurdle, it's unclear whether they would issue a broad ruling affirming gay marriage. That depends on Kennedy, who would have to break with his conservative colleagues to give the liberals a majority in favor of gay marriage.
The Court's four more liberal justices, along with swing justice Kennedy, closely questioned the Prop 8 defenders' attorney about why the government has a reason to exclude gay people from marriage.
Justice Elena Kagan asked attorney Charles Cooper to explain how allowing same sex couples to marry would hurt heterosexual marriage. Cooper replied that he did not think that was the question at hand in the case, at which point Kennedy interjected and asked if he was "conceding the point" that gay marriage does not cause harm. Cooper answered that there may be unforeseen consequences of broadening the "age-old, bedrock" institution of marriage to include gay people.
But even though Kennedy appeared skeptical of the argument that the government has a reason to deny same-sex couples marriage, he also expressed frustration with the quality of the case, mentioning both the standing issue and some of the odder legal arguments advanced by the lower courts. Kennedy criticized the Ninth Circuit of Appeals decision striking down Prop 8 narrowly in a way that only affected California, calling it an "odd rationale." The judges in that case said California was discriminating against gay couples by providing them with all the legal benefits of marriage minus the name. Kennedy and other justices said such reasoning appears to punish states that want to offer gay couples more rights while leaving untouched the many states that provide no legal recognition whatsoever to these couples.
Many legal experts believe that Kennedy, because of his legacy of supporting gay rights on the bench, will not vote to uphold Prop 8. But the oral arguments do not give many hints as to how he will proceed. He may join with the four liberals to write a narrower opinion striking down Prop 8 that finds a different line of argument from the Ninth Circuit's, or they may reject the case on standing, which would effectively legalize gay marriage in California while deferring the larger question of gay marriage for another time.
A decision is not expected until June.

Sparkle

03-26-2013, 06:16 PM

cbsn.ws/11JmuEZ

My dear friends & godchild talking about what Prop 8 means to/for them.

MsTinkerbelly

03-27-2013, 12:42 PM

Supreme Court DOMA Case: Justices Sounded Skeptical Of Law's Constitutionality, Purpose

WASHINGTON -- A majority of Supreme Court justices on Wednesday morning appeared skeptical of the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for federal purposes as between a man and a woman. Whether the justices believe they have the power to make any decision in this case, however, remained murky.

It was the second day in a row that the high court heard arguments dealing with same-sex marriage. At issue Wednesday in United States v. Windsor was whether it was constitutional for the U.S. government to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages that had been recognized by the states.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who said Tuesday that the children of same-sex couples “want their parents to have full recognition and legal status,” seemed troubled by the fact that DOMA refuses to recognize even those same-sex unions that are already recognized by states.

"When the federal government has 1,100 laws, which means in our society the federal government is intertwined with citizens' day-to-day lives," Kennedy said, then Congress is doing more than simply ensuring a uniform definition of marriage.

DOMA was only helping states, Kennedy said, “if they do what we want them to do.” He pointed out to Paul Clement, the lawyer defending DOMA, that the law applied to states “where voters have decided” to legalize same-sex marriage and stated that he believed there was injury to same-sex couples whose marriages were not recognized by the federal government.

Section 3 of DOMA, at issue in Wednesday morning's case, says "the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" for purposes of "any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States."

Plaintiff Edie Windsor, 83, brought suit against the federal government after the Internal Revenue Service cited DOMA in denying her a refund for the $363,000 in federal estate taxes she paid following the 2009 death of Thea Spyer, her partner for over 40 years. Windsor and Spyer had married in Canada in 2007, but resided in New York. Because Windsor would have been eligible for an estate tax exemption had Spyer been a man, she argues that DOMA's Section 3 violates her equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment.

On this point, Windsor had a friend in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said that DOMA created "two types of marriage," likening same-sex marriage in the states to the "skim milk" version of straight unions.

Justice Kennedy also showed hostility to DOMA. But like his position in the Proposition 8 oral arguments Tuesday, he appeared reluctant to rule on equal protection grounds. Instead, the question for him was "whether or not the federal government under our federalism scheme has the authority to regulate marriage."

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, representing the Obama administration on the merits of the case, avoided Kennedy's question, choosing instead to emphasize Congress' discriminatory purpose in enacting DOMA in 1996.

The law "is not called Federal Uniform Definition of Marriage Act," he said. "It's called the Defense of Marriage Act."

Justice Elena Kagan pushed a similar point. She told Clement, who was defending DOMA on behalf of the House of Representatives' Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, "that maybe Congress had something different in mind than uniformity" in the definition of marriage. Suggesting the law was "infected with prejudice, fear, spite, and animus," Kagan read a portion of the House Report, which said DOMA was meant to reflect Congress' "collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality."

Perhaps key to the justices' analysis of the case is whether to regard laws that single out gays and lesbians with what's called "heightened scrutiny" -- a level of review now used to strike down measures that single out politically disfavored and less powerful groups.

On this point, Chief Justice John Roberts focused in on the “sea change” in public opinion on the question of same-sex marriage. How did that “sea change” come about, he asked, unless gay and lesbian Americans had amassed significant political power. Roberts said it seemed to him that politicians were “falling over themselves” to endorse gay marriage.

Roberts also wondered why, if President Barack Obama believes DOMA is unconstitutional, he continues to enforce it. “I don’t see why he doesn’t have the courage of his convictions,” the chief said. Kennedy chimed in later, saying he didn’t “understand why they continue to enforce” DOMA.

Clement said that if 10 years from now, there were only nine states left that didn’t have gay marriage, the federal government might be fully entitled to force the remaining states to recognize such unions.

Judging from Wednesday's first 50 minutes of oral arguments, however, the case may instead be decided on whether the justices have the power to hear the case at all.

In United States v. Windsor, the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit both declared DOMA unconstitutional. The Obama administration agrees with them.

Chief Justice Roberts asked Deputy Solicitor General Sri Srinivasan, arguing on behalf of the Obama administration, whether there was "any case where all parties agreed with the decision below," but a court "nonetheless upheld" its ability to hear the case.

The chief's question about legal standing reflects DOMA's long, strange trip to this point. A bipartisan piece of legislation, it was signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton, who now believes it should be overturned.

In 2010, a Department of Justice official told reporters that defending DOMA was “difficult” for the Obama administration, while Attorney General Eric Holder told D.C. law students that the DOJ “has a responsibility to defend those statues that the Congress has passed if there is an argument that can be made to defend those statutes."

But things changed in 2011, when Holder announced that the DOJ would no longer defend DOMA. Holder was not in the courtroom on Wednesday, but Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole and Acting Assistant Attorney General Stuart Delery, who runs the DOJ's Civil Division, were in attendance on behalf of the department.

After the DOJ backed off from defending the law, House Republicans stepped in. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group hired Clement, George W. Bush’s former solicitor general, to defend the law on behalf of the federal government.

Clement faced difficult questioning Wednesday from the Supreme Court's liberal wing on why the House had any legally recognizable interest in representing a position the executive has abandoned.

"How is this case any different from enforcing general powers of the United States," Justice Stephen Breyer asked

MsTinkerbelly

03-29-2013, 10:05 AM

Supreme Court likely to advance gay marriage but stop short of broad ruling

By Pete Williams, Justice Correspondent, NBC News

After two days of highly anticipated courtroom arguments about same-sex marriage, a sweeping ruling on gay rights seems unlikely from the U.S. Supreme Court. But when decisions in both cases come in late June, the result may nonetheless be an important one for advocates of same-sex marriage.

The Supreme Court appeared ready to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act during Wednesday's oral arguments but it was a different story for Prop. 8 with Justices signaling that they may take a narrow approach to avoid setting a national precedent on the issue of same-sex marriage. California Attorney General Kamala Harris discusses.

Though it's risky to predict how the court will rule based solely on comments by the justices during the oral arguments, one outcome seemed probable -- a decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act.

"A decision saying that DOMA is unconstitutional because it discriminates against people based on their sexual orientation, and requiring the federal government to give full recognition to the existing marriages of same-sex couples, would be a huge victory," said Paul Smith of the Washington, D.C., law firm of Jenner & Block.

He was in the courtroom when the justices took up the Proposition 8 case on March 26. Ten years earlier to the day, Smith stood before the justices to argue the case of Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated state laws criminalizing homosexual conduct.

In the challenge to California's Prop 8 -- the state constitutional amendment enacted by voters in 2008 that limits marriage to one-man-one-woman couples -- the justices seemed to be searching for a way to avoid a decision. One possible outcome: declaring the case procedurally flawed and sending it back to California, where a lower court decision found Prop 8 unconstitutional. That would allow same-sex marriage to resume there without setting a precedent for other states.

During Wednesday's argument on DOMA, by contrast, at least four of the justices suggested that the law improperly discriminates against gay couples by blocking the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages in the states that permit them.

Elena Kagan read from a House report that said Congress passed DOMA to express its "moral disapproval of homosexuality." Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the 1,100 federal benefits denied to same-sex couples water down their relationships to "skim-milk marriages."

Rodell Mollineau, president of American Bridge and former spokesman to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Washington Post political reporter Nia-Malika Henderson and National Review's Washington, D.C. editor and CNBC contributor Robert Costa join The Daily Rundown to talk about the same-sex marriage debate and give their shameless plugs.

Sonia Sotomayor asked if members of Congress could create any "class of people they don't like" and deny them benefits. Stephen Breyer asked what justification would permit treating gay marriages differently.

The fifth vote to strike down DOMA seemed likely to come from Anthony Kennedy, whose comments throughout the argument reflected a concern that Congress had no authority to define marriage, a power reserved to the states.

Former solicitor general Paul Clement, representing the House Republicans who came forward to defend DOMA, said the law was proper because it dealt only with the government's own definition of marriage in federal laws. For that reason, he said, the question of federal power was "not a DOMA problem."

Justice Kennedy disagreed. "I think it is a DOMA problem. The question is whether or not the federal government, under our federalism scheme, has the authority to regulate marriage," he said.

Kennedy said DOMA was "not consistent with the historic commitment of marriage, and of questions of the rights of children, to the states."

Even if Justice Kennedy's focus on the limits of federal power constrains the court's ruling in the DOMA case, avoiding a full-throated declaration that discrimination based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional, advocates of gay rights say it would still send a powerful message.

"I think it's enormous," said Mary Bonauto of GLAD, a pioneer in gay rights litigation, of the possibility that DOMA would be struck down.

Advertise | AdChoices

"This is a law that has the effect of discriminating only against married same-sex couples. And anytime you eliminate a double standard based on sexual orientation, it matters," she said.

And Paul Smith of Jenner & Block says such a decision could lay the groundwork for future legal challenges to state laws that forbid same-sex couples to marry.

"While it's not the same thing as requiring states to let people get married, it will push the momentum forward," he said, and could have an effect on lawsuits now pending that challenge bans on same-sex marriage in Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico and Oklahoma

wahya

03-29-2013, 11:53 AM

Just got off my fb and my straight friend who is for equality staryed a convo about the opinions of how people felt about this issue reguarding religion. Omg. Almost accidently burnt my apt. Down getting into the convo. Seems a few are going off subject and taking it or trying to push religion in it. I made some pretty strong points and made a few think about things. Some are misunderstanding what pride means. They say we are throwing our gayness in their face and forcing them to accept us in a harsh way. Lol I am pretty good at getting my point across without having to be nasty with my words. (Yrs of manager training has helped) But this one young lady who's mother is a lesbian was my main disccusion. She is young but is against it..so I hope i did make her think.

MsTinkerbelly

04-03-2013, 12:40 PM

Americas

Vote moves Uruguay towards marriage equality

Uruguay's Senate has voted to legalise same-sex marriage by approving a single law governing matrimony for heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Tuesday's 23-8 vote comes after a lower-house approval in December. It will now return to the lower chamber of Congress for amendments.

If the bill is approved, Uruguay will become the second nation in Latin America, after Argentina, and the twelfth in the world to legalise gay marriage.

"It goes beyond homosexuality, it's about a law where everyone shares the same rights and obligations,'' said Federico Grana, a legislator in the ruling Frente Amplio coalition and a member of the Black Sheep Collective, a gay rights group that presented the bill's first draft.

The bill lets couples, gay or straight, decide whose surname goes first when they name their children.

"This is an issue of liberty, of people's choice and justice,'' said Senator Rafael Michelini.

"Liberty because the state should not meddle in who you should marry; of justice because if you marry abroad with someone of the same sex and later return to Uruguay, your marriage should be recognised.''

Church critical

The bill also clarifies rules for adoption and in-vitro fertilisation (IVF), and eliminates the words "husband and wife" in marriage contracts, referring instead to the gender-neutral "contracting parties".

The Roman Catholic Church opposes the proposal, but the Church has little political influence in secular Uruguay, which became the first Latin American country to legalise abortion last year.

President Jose Mujica has been pushing for liberal-leaning proposals in his mandate and says he plans to sign the marriage bill into law.

US-based Human Rights Watch welcomed the Senate vote, urging the lower house to pass the bill swiftly.

"Uruguayan senators made the right decision by allowing same-sex couples to marry," said the group's Boris Dittrich.

"Final approval will enable gays and lesbians in Uruguay to marry the person they love and will strengthen the fundamental rights of everyone in Uruguay to equality and non-discrimination."

The bill also includes a measure to raise the minimum age for marriage to 16 for everyone, instead of the present age 12 for girls and 14 for boys

MsTinkerbelly

04-05-2013, 12:47 PM

Sen. Chris Coons.

U.S. Senator from Delaware

Delaware is Ready to Fight for Marriage Equality

Posted: 04/05/2013 11:51 am

Last week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in two potentially landmark cases on marriage equality in the United States -- one that challenges state laws that prohibit full marriage equality and another challenging the federal law that limits rights for married couples based on sexual orientation.

While we wait for these important court decisions, the Delaware General Assembly is moving forward on legislation that will make ours the tenth state (the eleventh, if you include the District of Columbia) to extend marriage equality to all of our citizens.

This is going to be a big year for equality in this country. As a nation, we're poised to make historic progress, and in Delaware, we have the opportunity to make sure that everyone has the same right to marry the person they love.

Equality is the birthright of every American, and it's up to all of us to work to ensure that everyone -- no matter their sexual orientation or gender identity -- can access the equal rights and protections due every American.

Delaware legalized civil unions for same-sex couples in 2011, and I was proud to stand with two close friends at their wedding the same day the law went into effect. They were the first couple in our state to get married under the new law.

It was a beautiful New Year's Day service at Trinity Episcopal Church in Wilmington. The pews were packed with loved ones -- family members, friends, neighbors, and members of the congregation. The couple's kids stood at their sides.

"Just as every marriage performed in this church has been," I said in my sermon, "this union is about two people who proudly and passionately love each other celebrating that love and demonstrating their commitment to one another in front of God, their families, their friends, and our community."

Winning civil unions in Delaware was a critical brick on the path to full equality, but it only got us part of the way. Civil unions still relegate gay and lesbian couples to a second-class status that ought not be acceptable in this country.

We're trying to fix that in Delaware.

We've done a whip count and, frankly, if the Delaware General Assembly's vote on marriage equality were held today, it would be close. Really close. The organization leading the fight here, Equality Delaware, has my full support, but it needs the support of allies around the country, too.

We're trying to make sure that every member of the state House and Senate hears directly from their constituents in support of marriage equality, and Equality Delaware has mobilized an impressive field and voter outreach program to do it. Volunteers are phone-banking and canvassing in key communities. Rallies are being organized on college campuses.

To learn more about the fight for marriage equality in Delaware and how you can get involved, visit EqualityDelaware.org

MsTinkerbelly

04-10-2013, 12:48 PM

French Senate approves crucial marriage equality measure

By Agence France-Presse
Wednesday, April 10, 2013 14:17 EDT

France’s Senate on Wednesday approved the crucial first article of a bill granting gay couples the right to marry, clearing the way for a law that has sparked protests from conservatives and religious groups.

The upper house approved the article overnight by a vote of 179 to 157, with all Senators from the ruling Socialists voting in favour and five from the main opposition right-wing UMP breaking ranks with their colleagues to approve it.

The full bill must still be approved by the Senate, as well as another controversial article granting homosexual couples the right to adopt. A final vote is expected on Thursday or Friday.

The head of the Socialists’ Senate faction, Francois Rebsamen, said the vote “marked a victory in the fight against homophobia and for tolerance and democracy.”

The vote came after 10 hours of debate that saw UMP Senators voice fierce opposition to the bill.

“Marriage is between a man and a woman with a view to procreation. Two men or two women will never be able to have children!” UMP Senator Charles Revet said during the debate.

The bill has come under vehement attack in a country that is officially secular but predominantly Catholic, mobilising hundreds of thousands of people in pro- and anti-gay marriage protests nationwide.

In January, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators flooded into Paris for an anti-gay marriage march. Last month, police were forced to fire tear gas on people protesting the bill, and dozens were arrested.

Opponents said Wednesday they would organise another mass protest in Paris on May 26 if the law is approved, to demand its withdrawal and a referendum on gay marriage.

President Francois Hollande championed same-sex marriage and adoption during his election campaign last year, and his support for the legislation has not wavered throughout the turmoil

DapperButch

04-11-2013, 07:04 PM

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/11/us-usa-gaymarriage-delaware-idUSBRE93A0XV20130411

(Reuters) - Delaware on Thursday became the latest U.S. state to take action to extend marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples, as Governor Jack Markell announced a bill to legalize same-sex marriage.

Markell, a Democrat, said in a telephone interview that while he was confident the bill would pass, given that his party controls both the upper and lower chambers of the legislature, "nothing is sure until it's done."

"What we know is same-sex couples want to get married for the same reason that other couples want to get married," Markell said in a telephone interview.

Markell announced the legislation at an afternoon press conference, where he was joined by state Senate President Pro Tempore Patricia Blevins, House Speaker Pete Schwartzkopf and Attorney General Beau Biden, Markell's office said.

Three other states are considering bills on same-sex marriage, while nine states and the District of Columbia have already legalized gay marriage.

In 2011, Markell signed into law a bill authorizing civil unions for same-sex couples.

Republican state Senator Brian Pettyjohn said he believed Delaware's civil union law, which was approved before he took office, went gone far enough and has been a fair compromise, ensuring that gay and straight couples are treated equally while reserving marriage for heterosexual couples.

"Civil unions, OK, that's law. But when you want to redefine marriage, that's crossing the line," Pettyjohn said in a telephone interview. "There is no further benefit that same-sex marriage would give to couples than what they have with civil unions."

Some 30 states have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, while nine states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage: Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and Washington.

Same-sex marriage bills are also under consideration in Minnesota, Rhode Island and Illinois.

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a legal challenge to a 1996 law that restricts federal recognition of marriage to heterosexual couples.

(Reporting by Edith Honan; Editing by Scott Malone, John Wallace, Richard Chang and Leslie Adler)

iamkeri1

04-12-2013, 10:53 AM

Many Blessings to all who work to extend our rights in the USA and throughout the world.
Smooches,
Keri

MsTinkerbelly

04-15-2013, 10:04 AM

Legalize Polygamy!

No. I am not kidding.

By Jillian Keenan|Posted Monday, April 15, 2013, at 5:35 AM

Polygamy, once hidden in the shadows of Utah and Arizona, is breaking into the open as fundamentalist Mormons push to decriminalize it on religious grounds, while at the same time stamping out abuses such as forced marriages of underage brides.

Recently, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council reintroduced a tired refrain: Legalized gay marriage could lead to other legal forms of marriage disaster, such as polygamy. Rick Santorum, Bill O’Reilly, and other social conservatives have made similar claims. It’s hardly a new prediction—we’ve been hearing it for years. Gay marriage is a slippery slope! A gateway drug! If we legalize it, then what’s next? Legalized polygamy?

We can only hope.

Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.

For decades, the prevailing logic has been that polygamy hurts women and children. That makes sense, since in contemporary American practice that is often the case. In many Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints polygamous communities, for example, women and underage girls are forced into polygamous unions against their will. Some boys, who represent the surplus of males, are brutally thrown out of their homes and driven into homelessness and poverty at very young ages. All of these stories are tragic, and the criminals involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. (That goes without saying, I hope.)

But legalizing consensual adult polygamy wouldn’t legalize rape or child abuse. In fact, it would make those crimes easier to combat.

Right now, all polygamous families, including the healthy, responsible ones, are driven into hiding (notwithstanding the openly polygamous Brown family on TLC’s Sister Wives, that is). In the resulting isolation, crime and abuse can flourish unimpeded. Children in polygamous communities are taught to fear the police and are not likely to report an abusive neighbor if they suspect their own parents might be caught up in a subsequent criminal investigation. In a United States with legalized polygamy, responsible plural families could emerge from the shadows—making it easier for authorities to zero in on the criminals who remain there.

Many people argue that there is no such thing as a “healthy, responsible” polygamous family, particularly for the children born into one. “Children are harmed because they are often set in perennial rivalry with other children and mothers for the affection and attention of the family patriarch,” argued John Witte Jr. in the Washington Post. “Men with lots of children and wives are spread too thin,” agreed Libby Copeland in Slate. The earnestness of these arguments is touching but idealistic. Men in monogamous marriages can’t be spread too thin? Children in monogamous families don’t rival each other for the attentions of their parents? Two-parent families are not the reality for millions of American children. Divorce, remarriage, surrogate parents, extended relatives, and other diverse family arrangements mean families already come in all sizes—why not recognize that legally?

It’s also hard to argue with the constitutional freedom of religious expression that legalized polygamy would preserve. Most polygamous families are motived by religious faith, such as fundamentalist Mormonism or Islam, and as long as all parties involved are adults, legally able to sign marriage contracts, there is no constitutional reason why they shouldn’t be able to express that faith in their marriages. Legalized polygamous marriage would also be good for immigrant families, some of whom have legally polygamous marriages in their home countries that get ripped apart during the immigration process. (It’s impossible to estimate exactly how many polygamous families live here, since they live their religious and sexual identities in secret. Academics suggest there are 50,000 to 100,000 people engaged in Muslim polygamy in the U.S., and there are thousands of fundamentalist Mormon polygamist families as well.)

Finally, prohibiting polygamy on “feminist” grounds—that these marriages are inherently degrading to the women involved—is misguided. The case for polygamy is, in fact, a feminist one and shows women the respect we deserve. Here’s the thing: As women, we really can make our own choices. We just might choose things people don’t like. If a woman wants to marry a man, that’s great. If she wants to marry another woman, that’s great too. If she wants to marry a hipster, well—I suppose that’s the price of freedom.

And if she wants to marry a man with three other wives, that’s her damn choice.

We have a tendency to dismiss or marginalize people we don’t understand. We see women in polygamous marriages and assume they are victims. “They grew up in an unhealthy environment,” we say. “They didn’t really choose polygamy; they were just born into it.” Without question, that is sometimes true. But it’s also true of many (too many) monogamous marriages. Plenty of women, polygamous or otherwise, are born into unhealthy environments that they repeat later in life. There’s no difference. All marriages deserve access to the support and resources they need to build happy, healthy lives, regardless of how many partners are involved. Arguments about whether a woman’s consensualsexual and romantic choices are “healthy” should have no bearing on the legal process. And while polygamy remains illegal, women who choose this lifestyle don’t have access to the protections and benefits that legal marriage provides.

As a feminist, it’s easy and intuitive to support women who choose education, independence, and careers. It’s not as intuitive to support women who choose values and lifestyles that seem outdated or even sexist, but those women deserve our respect just as much as any others. It’s condescending, not supportive, to minimize them as mere “victims” without considering the possibility that some of them have simply made a different choice.

The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet

MsTinkerbelly

04-16-2013, 07:37 PM

News, Politics, international

Ireland's Constitutional Convention votes for marriage equality

Print|Comments (1)Posted by David Zimmerman April 16, 2013 09:31 AM

Ireland’s constitutional convention has voted to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. Members of the convention (which is comprised of one third politicians and two thirds citizens) were overwhelmingly in favor of allowing same-sex marriage with 79 percent recommending that the constitution be amended to allow for marriage equality. The convention's recommendation will now be sent to the Government, which has pledged to hold a debate and respond within four months.

As for what form the constitutional change will take, there are two options, a directive amendment ("the State shall enact laws providing for same-sex marriage") or a permissive amendment ("the State may enact laws providing for same-sex marriage").
78 percent of the convention’s members voted for a directive amendment.

Asked what form the constitutional change should take 78 percent of members voted for a directive amendment while 17 percent opted for a permissive amendment

The members also voted in favor of recommending that the State pass laws "incorporating changed arrangements in regard to the parentage, guardianship and the upbringing of children".

"It is a major milestone on the remarkable journey to full constitutional protection for lesbian and gay people and families in Ireland," said Gay and Lesbian Equality Network (GLEN) director Brian Sheehan. "It builds on the extraordinary progress we have achieved over the last 20 years, and clearly demonstrates that Ireland is ready to take the next step to complete that remarkable journey."

A spokesman for the Catholic Communications Office said: "While the result of the constitutional convention is disappointing, only the people of Ireland can amend the constitution. The Catholic church will continue to promote and seek protection for the uniqueness of marriage between a woman and a man, the nature of which best serves children and our society."

This blog is not written or edited by Boston.com or the Boston Globe.
The author is solely responsible for the content

Nadeest

04-17-2013, 06:21 AM

IF we are going to make polygamy legal, shouldn't we also make polyandry and polyamorous marriages legal? After all, why shouldn't women have multiple husbands, if men can have multiple wives? Nor do I see anything wrong with polyamorous relationships. Why shouldn't they be legal, also?

Nadeest

04-17-2013, 06:33 AM

I found this article from "The Atlantic" interesting, when I was looking things up, just now. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/02/when-taking-multiple-husbands-makes-sense/272726/

Daktari

04-17-2013, 07:03 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/17/new-zealand-legalises-same-sex-marriage

New Zealand legalises same-sex marriage
Cheers and applause ring out in parliament building after 77 of 121 members vote to allow gay couples to wed

MsTinkerbelly

04-23-2013, 12:59 PM

French lawmakers approve marriage equality bill

By Agence France-Presse
Tuesday, April 23, 2013 11:47 EDT

French lawmakers on Tuesday extended marriage and adoption rights to same-sex couples, making France the 14th country in the world to legalise gay marriage. The 331 to 225 vote was preceded by months of bitter –and sometimes violent– exchanges on the subject in parliament and in the streets.

The National Assembly first passed the so-called “Marriage for All” law in February. It had to give it a second and final reading on Tuesday, after the upper-house Senate approved the same bill with some amendments on April 12.

The landmark legislation was greeted by wild cheering from some and boos by others gathered outside the National Assembly. Opponents were scheduled to converge outside the building to protest the reform at 7pm, as they have been doing for the past several days.

“I hope people across the country will celebrate this moment,” said Martin Gaillard, a 31-year-old advocate of gay marriage, who admitted feeling stressed during the past weeks because of all the attention garnered by the law’s detractors.

“This remains a joyous day,” added Gaillard, whose “Projet Entourage LGBT” has sought to build support for gay marriage on the Internet for over two years.

He remembered that gay marriage had little political traction at the start of his project, but then became a hot topic of the 2012 presidential campaign. President François Hollande came to power last May promising to legalise marriage and adoption for same-sex couples.

Recent opinion polls show that a majority -between 53% and 58%- of people in France support gay marriage.

According to Yves-Marie Cann, of the French polling firm CSA, those figures have remained constant throughout months of controversy. However, he noted that the number of people against adoption by same-sex couples has risen in recent months, with 56% now opposed to the measure.

Violent confrontations

The months-long legislative process was closely followed by supporters and opponents of the bill, who staged massive rallies in Paris and around the country to either defend or try to defeat the historic bill.

The anti-gay marriage camp –a motley mix that includes traditional Catholic families, some members of the opposition UMP party and far-right groups– organised some of the largest marches seen in France in recent years.

CSA’s Cann said the issue had revealed a sharp ideological divide in French society, with more than 72% of right-wing sympathisers saying they were against the law.

As the bill neared a final vote, some opponents adopted a hardline approach, leading to violent confrontations with police on Paris’s iconic Champs Elysées in late March.

Meanwhile, rights groups said they had documented a significant rise in attacks targeting gays and LGBT-friendly businesses, and accused the so-called peaceful protests of trivialising hateful homophobic speech. On the eve of the vote, National Assembly president Claude Bartolone received a letter filled with gunpowder warning him to delay it.

Frustrations also spilled over inside parliament, where quarrelling MP’s allegedly threw punches and had to be separated by security last week.

An evolving process

Opponents pledged to keep fighting the marriage reform despite its passing. Just hours before the vote, opposition MP Henri Guaino told France Inter radio that he would continue joining protests until Hollande called a referendum on the issue.

Guaino nevertheless admitted that it would be very difficult to reverse the law once it went into effect and after same-sex couples began to wed.

French stars come late to gay marriage fight

Other lawmakers said they would immediately request that the law be scrutinised by France’s Constitutional Council, while others said they would repeal it as soon as conservatives regained a majority in parliament. Leaders of the anti-gay marriage marches announced they would consider running in mayoral elections next year.

Gaillard, the gay-marriage activist, said the legislative victory was somewhat anticlimactic. “I feel like this is part of an evolving process; this is clearly the direction France needs to move in. The impression I have is that we are finally catching up.”

France is now the ninth European country to legalise gay marriage, joining Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Portugal, as well as neighbouring Belgium and Spain.

Questioned as to what would become of Projet Entourage LGBT –now that gay marriage was no longer an idea but a reality– Gaillard said his group was considering turning its attention to championing access to in vitro fertilisation for same-sex couples or supporting teen victims of homophobia. For now, he said he was only sure he would be catching up on some hard-earned rest.

Kobi

04-24-2013, 06:49 PM

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — Rhode Island is on a path to becoming the 10th state to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry after a landmark vote in the state's Senate on Wednesday.

The Senate passed gay marriage legislation by a comfortable 26-12 margin, following a House vote of approval in January. The bill must now return to the House for a largely procedural vote, likely next week, but the celebration began Wednesday.

Heavily Catholic Rhode Island is the last remaining New England state without gay marriage. Marriage legislation has been introduced in the state for nearly two decades, only to languish on the legislative agenda.

Supporters mounted a renewed push this year, and the Senate vote was seen as the critical test after the House easily passed the bill. Gov. Lincoln Chafee, an independent, called Wednesday's vote historic.

"I'm very much looking forward to signing this," he told The Associated Press as he congratulated supporters.

The first gay marriages in Rhode Island could take place Aug. 1, when the legislation would take effect. Civil unions would no longer be available to same-sex couples as of that date, though the state would continue to recognize existing civil unions. Lawmakers approved civil unions two years ago, though few couples have sought them.

http://news.yahoo.com/ri-way-10th-state-allow-gay-marriage-215029420.html

MsTinkerbelly

05-02-2013, 06:24 PM

Rhode Island becomes 10th state to legalize gay marriage

Charles Krupa / AP

By Andrew Rafferty, Staff Writer, NBC News

Rhode Island became the final state in New England and the 10th in the country to legalize gay marriage after independent Gov. Lincoln Chafee on Thursday signed a bill that will allow same-sex marriage.

"I know that you have been waiting for this day to come," Chafee said to the state's gay and lesbian community at a bill-signing ceremony in front of hundreds. "I know you have loved ones that dreamed this would happen but did not live to see it. But I am proud to say that now at long last, you are free to marry the person you love."

In a New York Times op-ed Wednesday, Chafee outlined his support for gay marriage not only on moral grounds, but also economic.

"The talented workers who are driving the new economy — young, educated and forward-looking — want to live in a place that reflects their values. They want diversity, not simply out of a sense of justice, but because diversity makes life more fun," he wrote. "Why would any state turn away the people who are most likely to create the economies of the 21st century?"

As a Republican U.S. senator in 2004, Chafee voiced his support for gay marriage when most members of his party were staunchly opposed to it. He was ousted from his Senate seat in 2006 but won the governor's race in the Ocean State in 2010 as an independent.

Chafee is now calling on fellow governors to push for similar legislation to what passed in Rhode Island on Thursday, and calling for the Supreme Court to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. Though public opinion continues to turn in favor of same-sex marriage, legalizing it is still a heavy lift for many states.

Even in Rhode Island, which sits in the country's friendliest territory for gay-marriage supporters, opposition from the state's heavy Catholic population put the prospects of passage in jeopardy for years. The legislation has been introduced in the House every session since 1997.

But last fall, more gay-marriage supporters were elected to the state legislature, and the bill's passage was the result of a highly energized and coordinated campaigning from those equal rights groups, business leaders, community organizers and politicians.

The bill overcame its biggest hurdle last week when it passed the Senate by a comfortable 26-12 vote after Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed, D-Newport, allowed a vote despite her opposition to gay marriage. The House easily passed the legislation in January but needed to approve the final language in a procedural vote Thursday that passed 56-15. The session was largely a celebration in which legislators reflected on the significance of the bill and thanked those who fought for its passage.

"We are truly social creatures, and that is the essence of this legislation," House Speaker Gordon Fox, D-Providence, said before the bill was signed. "You are free to love and commit to the person of your choice no matter what your gender may be.... And the foundation of that is a very simple, yet probably the most powerful word in the English language: Love," said Fox, who is gay.

Along with the five other New England states, Rhode Island joins Iowa, Maryland, Washington, New York and Washington, D.C., in recognizing same-sex marriage. Minnesota, Illinois and Delaware are also expected to come to decisions about the issue soon.

Opponents to gay marriage argued passing the legislation would lessen religious liberty for churches and certain faith-based organizations

A day before the bill passed, the National Organization for Marriage called on the House to reject the legislation, which they say contains "a shocking lack of religious liberty protections, potentially ghettoizing people of faith unless they compromise and remain silent in the public square."

"When marriage is redefined into a genderless institution, it presents a range of legal conflicts for people of faith and the small businesses and charitable organizations they operate to serve the public," Christopher Plante, regional director for the organization, said in a statement.

The first same-sex marriages could take place Aug. 1, when the new law takes effect. Civil unions, which the state approved two years ago, will no longer be available to gay couples, though existing civil unions will still be recognized.

The Associated Press contributed to this report

iamkeri1

05-06-2013, 02:38 PM

Every Time another state recognizes our humanity, I find myself in tears again.

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, Rhode Island!!!!
Teary Smooches,
Keri

MsTinkerbelly

05-07-2013, 12:45 PM

No. 11? Delaware poised to legalize gay marriage

Ali Vitali, @alivitali MSNBC
1:50 PM on 05/07/2013

The Delaware Senate is scheduled to vote Tuesday on a gay marriage bill that could make it the 11th state to allow same-sex marriages.

The bill passed the Delaware General Assembly in April by a vote of 23-18 and it is expected to pass the Democrat-controlled state Senate.

Delaware Gov. Jack Markell, a consistent supporter of gay marriage, has vowed to sign the bill. The governor previously said that allowing same-sex marriage in Delaware “is inevitable.”

The push for gay marriage in Delaware follows the passage of same-sex marriage in Rhode Island last week, as well as wins for marriage equality in Maine, Maryland, and Washington this past November.

These state-level battles are taking place amid the backdrop of a Supreme Court considering arguments on both the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s controversial Prop 8.

National polling also shows that a majority of the public supports the move to legalize gay marriage. Nate Silver reported in late March that, on average, polls show 51% approval for same-sex marriage, with 43% opposed.

Delaware legalized civil unions in 2011, and while Gov. Markell hadn’t expected to revisit the issue so soon, he told advocates he was “happy to stand” with them.

The 10 other states to allow gay marriage include Rhode Island, New York, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Iowa, Massachusetts, Maine, Maryland, and Washington. The District of Columbia has also legalized gay marriage

MsTinkerbelly

05-07-2013, 03:36 PM

.

Delaware Senate Passes Marriage Equality Bill, Will Be Law

The vote was 12-9. Gov. Jack Markell will sign the bill into law, making Delaware the 11th state, plus DC, to allow same-sex couples to marry.

The Delaware Senate passed a marriage equality bill Tuesday on a 12-9 vote, following the House's passage of the bill in late April.

Speaking in favor of the bill before the vote, Sen. Bryan Townsend said, "I hope we begin to treat as equals all those who wish to announce their love and commitment to the world."

Gov. Jack Markell will sign the bill, making Delaware the 11th state to recognize same-sex couples' marriage rights. The bill will go into effect on July 1, and all civil unions not converted to marriages or dissolved by July 1, 2014, will be automatically converted into marriages.

During the course of the afternoon, Sen. Karen Peterson came out publicly to her colleagues as a lesbian, discussing what the bill would do for her and her longtime partner.

Senator David P. Sokola, the bill's lead sponsor in the Senate, led debate for the supporters, including calling on Equality Delaware's leader, Mark Purpura. Purpura went through the bill, section by section, to explain its purposes.

The bill reverses Delaware's 1996 law banning same-sex couples from marrying. It also provides that same-sex couples' recognized relationships from jurisdictions other than Delaware will be treated as a marriage for purposes of Delaware law. Finally, it specifies that no religious individual will be forced to solemnize any same-sex couple's wedding.

Delaware passed civil unions in 2011, but Markell has been saying since last summer that he expected Delaware to move on granting gay and lesbian couples full marriage rights in 2013.

Sen. Robert Venables, one of the key opponents of the bill, said, "Things have moved a lot faster than anyone expected. I'm having problems with my own self. So far, I've not evolved. I wonder what's wrong with me."

Explaining "how far these people will go in their pursuit of being normal," Venables discussed a book he said was called the "Queen James Bible," which he said had the purpose of removing homophobia from the Bible.

"I don't wish anyone ill will," Venables said, "[but] I think this goes too far, to say a man marries a man and a woman marries a woman."

MsTinkerbelly

05-08-2013, 10:08 AM

Minnesota Marriage Equality Bill Gets Floor Vote Thursday

Posted by: Bridgette P. LaVictoire on May 7, 2013.

It looks like Delaware will be 11 and Minnesota will be 12. At which point, we will be at the rough quarter mark for marriage equality in the United States. The Minnesota House of Representatives has announced that HF1054, or the civil marriage to same-sex couples, bill will have a floor vote on 9 May.

This means that the bill has enough votes to pass since House leaders have stated repeatedly that the bill will not come to the floor without the needed 68 votes to pass. The bill will include strong protections regarding religious freedom.

Minnesota United Campaign Manager Richard Carlbom stated “Thursday’s vote in the Minnesota House of Representatives will be a historic victory for thousands of same-sex couples and families in our state. We are confident that the necessary votes to extend the freedom to marry for same-sex couples have been secured and that HF1054 will pass the House floor. The Minnesota House of Representatives is now poised to make Minnesota the next state to grant civil marriage to same-sex couples and their families by affirming what we already know to be true: Marriage is about the love, commitment, and responsibility that two people share, and it is a basic freedom that should no longer be denied to some simply because of who they are.”

The Senate will likely vote on the bill shortly thereafter, and passage in both chambers would then send the bill to Governor Mark Dayton, who has stated that he will sign the law.

This past November, Minnesota United lead the campaign to stop an amendment that would have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman in Minnesota. That amendment failed at a time when Maryland and Washington State upheld their marriage equality laws at the ballot box and Maine became the first state to vote a marriage equality bill into law

MsTinkerbelly

05-09-2013, 12:55 PM

The debate is still going on in the Minnesota House, primarily because one of the Republicans decided to propose "Civil Marriage" for same sex couples instead of "marriage" as the hetro couples receive.

They are determined until the last second possible to keep us "less than". The house has enough votes to pass without one Republican vote, so the debate is pretty much a formality.

MsTinkerbelly

05-09-2013, 02:16 PM

Marriage Equality USA
1:06 PM -
Community
- U.S. - General

Marriage equality has just passed in the Minnesota House by a 75-59 vote. It now will move on to the Senate this coming Monday. If it passes there, marriages will begin in Minnesota this summer

MsTinkerbelly

05-09-2013, 02:53 PM

Minnesota House Approves Marriage Equality 75-59

The Minnesota House of Representatives passed a marriage equality bill in a bipartisan vote, following three hours of debate.

BY Sunnivie Brydum.

May 09 2013 2:08 PM ET UPDATED: May 09 2013 4:36 PM ET

Pro-equality group Minnesotans United created the above meme to be shared on social networks demonstrating support for marriage equality.

The Minnesota House of Representatives approved a bill legalizing marriage equality Wednesday afternoon by a vote of 75-59, earning "aye" votes from two Republicans. The bill will likely be heard by the full state Senate next week.

The legislation, House File 1054, provides for marriage between any two adults, but would not require religious institutions or individuals to perform or recognize same-sex marriages.

The House spent a good deal of time debating an amendment proposed by Republican Rep. Tim Kelly, which would have created civil unions for same-sex couples, rather than full marriage equality. The amendment was rejected by a vote of 22-111.[/

"In Minnesota, we don't turn our backs on family," said out lesbian Rep. and bill sponsor Karen Clark during the three-hour debate, during which supporters and opponents could be heard chanting outside the closed chamber doors.

Governor Mark Dayton has promised to sign the bill if it reaches his desk. In November, Minnesota voters rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that would have banned marriage equality — the first state to reject such an amendment.

A Senate committe approved the legislation in March. If the legislation passes the Democrat-controlled Senate, as it is expected to do next week, and the Governor signs the bill, Minnesota would become the 12th state to legalize marriage equality, and the first midwestern state to do so legislatively. Same-sex couples could begin marrying on August 1, reports Pam's House Blend. The Iowa Supreme Court mandated marriage equality in a unanimous decision in 2009

MsTinkerbelly

05-13-2013, 12:34 PM

MARRIAGE EQUALITY: Minnesota Senate to vote on Freedom to Marry Act TODAY MAY 13TH

Updated: May 13, 2013 10:23 AM PDT

ST. PAUL, Minn. (KMSP) -
In a matter of hours, the Minnesota Senate is expected to pass a bill to legalize same sex marriage and make Minnesota the 12th state with marriage equality.

The scene at the Capitol is more subdued than last Thursday's vote in the House -- more of a celebration-in-waiting. And unlike Thursday, when supporters and opponents stood shoulder-to-shoulder in the Rotunda, the Capitol on Monday is filled almost exclusively with supporters of the bill.

LIVE VIDEO

Watch live video of the debate and vote at http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/category/237218/live-video

'GOING TO THE CHAPEL'

Crowds have been growing by the hour, with supporters singing a chorus of "Going to the Chapel" from the Capitol steps ahead of the noon session.

Last Thursday, the Minnesota House passed the H.F. 1054 – the Freedom to Marry Act – with a 75-59 vote. Monday, Minnesota senators will vote on S.F. 925 and leaders say it has enough support to pass. The bill's next stop would be the desk of Gov. Mark Dayton, who has all intentions of signing it.

LAST STAND

But while marriage equality in Minnesota is a foregone conclusion, opponents are staging their last stand.

Bill Zemke from St. Peter's Catholic Church in Forest Lake, Minn. and Bob Hinnenkamp from St. John's Parish in Excelsior, Minn. both showed up at the Capitol on Monday to show their opposition.

"I don't want to change the definition of marriage for a minority of people," Hinnenkamp said.

WHAT CHANGES?

The bill changes the word "marriage" in state law to "civil marriage," and changes the definition of those eligible from "a man and a woman" to "two persons."

GOVERNOR TO SIGN BILL TUESDAY

The Senate is expected to start debating at noon, with a vote to follow. And then a vote will follow. Gov. Dayton is expected to sign the bill on Tuesday, and couples would be allowed to get married starting on Aug. 1

Read more: MARRIAGE EQUALITY: Minnesota Senate to vote Monday - KMSP-TV http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/22230490/details-about-minnesota-gay-marriage-bill#ixzz2TCOydssv

MsTinkerbelly

05-13-2013, 03:39 PM

Marriage Equality Watch
2:22 PM - Public

Minnesota just passed the marriage equality bill after 4 1/2 hours of debate!!!!!

BREAKING: Minnesota Senate Passes Marriage Equality Bill 37 to 30 – On to Governor Dayton »
Minnesota Senate After months of speculation, the marriage equality bill just cleared the Minnesota Senate, after passing the House last week on a surprising 75-59 vote. Governor Mark Dayton, narrowly elected last November, has been pushing the bill, and has promised to sign it.

DapperButch

05-13-2013, 06:17 PM

Yes Haw! As always thanks for keeping us updated MsTinkerbelly!

MsTinkerbelly

05-13-2013, 09:51 PM

I can't cut and paste (iPad), so I'll put something on tomorrow...long story short, a hong kong court ruled today that a transwoman would be allowed to marry her boyfriend.

Not same-sex marriage I know, but a huge step in human rights, and a win for the dignity we all deserve.

SelfMadeMan

05-14-2013, 06:41 AM

SO PROUD to live in Minnesota! After all the hard work, phone banking, door knocking, lobbying and protesting, we will watch Governor Dayton sign it into law this evening at 5:00! Love is legal!

MsTinkerbelly

05-14-2013, 07:57 AM

HONG KONG -- Hong Kong's top court granted a transgender woman the right to marry her boyfriend Monday in a watershed ruling that falls short of allowing same-sex marriage.

The surprise decision only covers the right of a transgender person who was born male to marry a man, and for one who was born female to marry a woman.

The ruling by the Court of Final Appeal brings the semiautonomous Chinese city in line with many other places in the Asia-Pacific region, including mainland China, where transgender people are allowed to marry as their new gender.

The court ruled in favor of the woman, identified only as W. One of the judges on the five-member panel dissented.

W's lawyer, Michael Vidler, said his client was "overjoyed." W, who is in her 30s, was born a man but had surgery in 2008 to become a woman. The hospital issued a letter certifying her new gender.

Vidler read a statement by W to reporters in which she said that after the surgery she has lived her life "as a woman and been treated as a woman in all respects except as regards my right to marriage. This decision rights that wrong."

In a conference call later with reporters, W said, "I'm very glad that I can finally get married to my beloved boyfriend in Hong Kong." She added that she hopes the ruling will have a positive influence how sexual minorities are seen in Hong Kong, where many hold conservative views.

Vidler said the ruling won't take effect for 12 months, giving the government time to change marriage laws.

The judges noted that from evidence and submissions received, "it appears in the Asia-Pacific region, such marriages are permitted" in mainland China, Singapore, India, South Korea, Japan, Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand. Same-sex marriage remains rare in the region, though New Zealand approved it last month.

In China, the Ministry of Civil Affairs clarified the law in 2003 to make it clear that transgender marriage is legal.

Hong Kong, a former British colony, came back under Chinese control in 1997 but was granted a high degree of autonomy from Beijing and retains a separate legal system.

Nadeest

05-14-2013, 08:42 AM

Ooops, I didn't see this, before I posted something about it, here. I just don't remember,offhand, what thread that i posted it in! lol @ myself

chris1life

05-14-2013, 03:33 PM

iamkeri1

05-18-2013, 01:43 PM

I'm so proud that our country is starting to move in a direction that will give us equality! This butch gets all emotional and teary eyed every time a new state pass the law! We are gaining ground folks. Ha I may have to move out of Mississippi Because I Would die of shock if it ever passed here.

Right with you there chris, on all counts - the tears and the consideration of moving. Also seems quite a long shot for Florida to pass anything like this.

Ms T ...
Not same-sex marriage I know, but a huge step in human rights, and a win for the dignity we all deserve.

MANY states do not recognise sex changes, even if they allow you to change your sex on your Driver's license or even your birth certificate. Because of your appearance and your paperwork, you may be allowed to marry, but if the underlying law does not regognise sex changes, then the marriage, if challenged by divorce or upon death, can/will be found invalid. If you move in to such a state having been legally married somewhere else, doesn't mean a state with these restrictions will recognise your marriage. So it remains a same sex issue. Seems like we are all stuck on the same road. Fortunately we are gaining ground at last.

... and Ms T thank you so much for all you do to help our movement and keep us up to date as well
Smooches,
Keri

MsTinkerbelly

05-22-2013, 10:07 AM

Illinois Will Pass Marriage Equality Bill, Sponsor Says

Rep. Greg Harris of Illinois predicts success for the state's marriage equality bill, which coincidentally today picked up Bill Clinton's endorsement.

BY Trudy Ring.

May 21 2013 3:26 PM ET

May could become an even more spectacular month for marriage equality: The sponsor of the Illinois bill predicts it will pass by the month’s end, which is also the end of the legislative session.

Rep. Greg Harris, the chief sponsor, said he will “absolutely” call a vote on the marriage equality bill by May 31, and “it’s going to win,” Chicago’s Windy City Times reports. Harris has previously said he would not bring the measure to a vote in the House of Representatives unless he was sure there was enough support to pass it. The state Senate approved it Valentine’s Day, and Gov. Pat Quinn has vowed to sign it.

The bill picked up an endorsement today from former president Bill Clinton, who issued a statement invoking another president. “Since the days of Abraham Lincoln, Illinois has stood for the proposition that all citizens should be treated equally under the law,” President Clinton said in Tuesday’s statement. “Lincoln himself came to Springfield in search of opportunity, and he dedicated his life to securing equal opportunity for all citizens. I believe that for Illinois and for our nation as a whole, in the 21st century that must include marriage equality.”

Several other supporters of the bill have predicted it would pass by May 31, according to Windy City Times. If this happens, Illinois will join three other states — Rhode Island, Delaware, and Minnesota — that have approved marriage equality in the past few weeks. Twelve states plus the District of Columbia offer marriage rights to same-sex couples.

MsTinkerbelly

05-24-2013, 07:56 AM

Nevada Takes Another Step Toward Marriage Equality

The state Assembly approved a pro-equality constitutional amendment, but it faces another round of legislative and citizen votes.

BY Trudy Ring.

May 23 2013 6:41 PM ET

The Nevada legislature advanced a measure today that would repeal the state’s anti–marriage equality constitutional amendment and replace it with one guaranteeing same-sex couples’ freedom to marry.

The state Assembly approved the bill today by a vote of 27-14; the state Senate had passed it last month. Both houses will vote on it again in the 2015 legislative session, and if they approve it in exactly the same form, it will go before voters in 2016, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reports.

All the no votes were from Republicans, but some GOP members supported the legislation, including Assemblywoman Michelle Fiore of Las Vegas. Addressing fellow lawmakers, she said, “When we started this floor session, I introduced my mother to this body, proudly. What is currently in our constitution does not allow her to get married. You see, my mom is gay. I love my mom with all my heart, and I am who I am today because of her guidance, influence, and how she raised me.”

Marc Solomon, campaign director for the national group Freedom to Marry, released a statement in support of Nevada’s action, saying, “Lawmakers in Nevada took a huge step today toward undoing a discriminatory amendment that never should have been written into the state constitution and advancing the freedom to marry. We look forward to the day that Nevada couples join those in the 12 other marriage states in being able to make a lifelong commitment to the person they love.”

MsTinkerbelly

05-28-2013, 07:53 AM

Floyd: Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings says he’ll back marriage-equality resolution

Jacquielynn Floyd

jfloyd@dallasnews.com

Published: 27 May 2013 10:30 PM

Updated: 27 May 2013 11:49 PM

After weeks of sidestepping the question, Mayor Mike Rawlings says he will vote next month in favor of a Dallas City Council resolution supporting the right of same-sex couples to marry.

“I will vote for this resolution as written,” he told me during a conversation last week. “This is an important issue, and I did not want to turn this into a sound bite.”

The resolution was proposed for council consideration last month by council member Scott Griggs, who said he has enough votes to get it passed.

Rawlings didn’t exactly put on a poker face to conceal his irritation at the timing. Griggs’ announcement came less than two weeks before the May 11 elections, in which Griggs was running against fellow council member Delia Jasso for the same seat because of a redrawing of district boundaries.

Jasso was among those who supported the amendment, but Rawlings suggested that Griggs — who ultimately won the race — wanted to shore up support among gay and lesbian residents in Oak Cliff.

“To do this for what seem to be political reasons is not good judgment,” Rawlings said earlier this month. He characterized what he viewed as a symbolic debate on a divisive constitutional issue as a “misuse of the council’s time.”

Griggs politely responded that he felt the issue was “timely” and “relevant” and that he looks forward to the resolution’s passage.

Now, with council elections in the rearview mirror, Rawlings says he has decided to join the council majority supporting the measure.

He’s not backing away from his insistence that marriage equality for same-sex couples isn’t something the Dallas City Council can confer.

“There is no doubt in my mind that this is not a city issue,” he told me. “I was concerned that this was done right in the last weeks of the City Council races.”

But he will sign, he says, because he personally supports marriage equality — even though (he adds, without breaking stride) he also does not want to pick a moral fight with people who believe same-sex marriage violates their personal religious convictions.

“I want to honor their beliefs and their tradition of beliefs,” he said. “Trying to referee what I think is a cultural dialogue — I don’t think that’s my job description.”

And don’t even get him started on the Mayors for Freedom to Marry initiative, which has enlisted 349 mayors in 35 states to sign a pledge promising to support marriage equality.

“That’s a Grover Norquist thing,” he said dismissively, a reference to the conservative pioneer who launched a national effort to bind candidates and elected officials to no-new-taxes pledges.

Rawlings has said repeatedly that he is “pledge-phobic” and dislikes the blunt, unnuanced tactic of pinning leaders down to broad rhetorical absolutes.

Yet, he’ll support the Dallas resolution. He’ll sign — in part, he says, because his 25-year-old son has charged him with “talking out of both sides of his mouth” on the issue.

Critics will no doubt say Rawlings is bowing to the inevitable, that he’s making a political calculation to support the measure now that a majority vote is assured.

“This resolution, when passed, will be nothing more than a smile in our direction,” wrote Daniel Cates, a contributing columnist for the gay weekly Dallas Voice. It would have been more useful, Cates argued, had it come up months ago, when the state Legislature was early in its biennial session.

I understand the impatience of people who say they’re tired of being insulted and reviled and denied what they view as basic rights. Political and social change surely seem slow when you’re the one waiting for them to happen.

But there is a cultural change coming. Rawlings referred to it as an “arc of history,” an evolution in public opinion that’s shifting to recognize that gay Americans are equal and ordinary participants in the everyday life of our nation.

When frightened opponents shout insults like “unnatural” and “depraved,” I can’t help but recall that other groups have heard the same when they asked to partake in the same rights and privileges as everybody else: women who wanted to vote, interracial couples who wished to marry, minorities who wanted the constitutional promise of equality to not be a lie.

Rawlings, who is no dope, gets this. And whether his decision is personal or political or a little bit of both is really beside the point.

He’ll sign. And it’s the right thing to do

MsTinkerbelly

05-29-2013, 10:06 AM

Illinois Gay Marriage: LaShawn Ford Says He's No Longer Undecided On Marriage Equality Bill

Posted: 05/28/2013 5:10 pm EDT | Updated: 05/28/2013 5:11 pm EDT

An Illinois representative formerly undecided on the state's marriage equality bill who'd been targeted by both marriage equality supporters and opponents said in an interview this week that he plans to vote yes on the legislation.

State Rep. LaShawn Ford, a Democrat representing Oak Park and part of Chicago's West Side, told the Wednesday Journal in a Monday interview that he believes "the time has come" for legal same-sex marriage in Illinois.

Ford partially credited his support for the bill to the respect he has for marriage equality bill's lead sponsor, state Rep. Greg Harris, a Chicago Democrat.

"This will go down in history as an example of how to effect change in the world," Ford told the paper.

Ford is one member of the state House's Black Caucus, which has been extensively lobbied by advocates on both sides of the issue in recent months.

The 20 black members of the state House have long been identified as the key "swing" vote that could determine the fate of the pending bill, prompting the National Organization for Marriage and a group of socially conservative African-American ministers led by the Rev. James Meeks to target the lawmakers' constituents with robo-calls opposing same-sex marriage.

Meanwhile, a competing group of black religious leaders has spoken out in favor of marriage equality in Illinois.

With the state's spring legislative session set to end on Friday, the marriage equality bill must be passed by the House by that date or risk being delayed for many months more. Rep. Harris told the Windy City Times last week he will "absolutely" call the bill to a vote before the session's end.

Harris has repeatedly stated in recent months he would not call for a vote on the bill in the House unless he was sure supporters had lined up the 60 votes they need for the measure's approval.

As the state Senate has already OKed the bill in a Valentine's Day vote and Gov. Pat Quinn has vowed to sign it into law, the House vote is the only remaining obstacle to legal same-sex marriage in Illinois.

MsTinkerbelly

05-29-2013, 02:19 PM

First gay marriage celebrated in France

Jerard Julien / Reuters

By Catherine Bremer, Reuters

MONTPELLIER, France - Two men married each other in the southern French city of Montpellier on Wednesday, in the first same-sex wedding in a country rocked by protests against and for the reform.

Vincent Autin and Bruno Boileau exchanged vows in the city hall before the mayor, relatives and friends as dozens of riot police stood guard outside to ensure the ceremony was not interrupted by protesters.

The two men, who have been together since they hit it off six years ago discussing music in an online forum, embraced to wild cheers from the audience of some 500 people and the strains of "Love and Marriage" by U.S. crooner Frank Sinatra.

"It's a great pleasure for me to declare you married by law," said Montpellier Mayor Helene Mandroux as the couple, both dressed in dark suits, kissed and signed the marriage registry.

The ceremony marked a symbolic end to months of debate that often overshadowed France's economic woes, sealing Socialist President Francois Hollande's reputation as a reformer despite bitter and continued opposition from Catholics and conservatives.

Despite support for the reform in Montpellier, which boasts of being France's most gay-friendly town, officials scrapped plans to broadcast the wedding live on a giant TV screen and instead beamed it live online to the city's website.

Moments before the men walked in, a smoke bomb was lobbed from outside into the perimeter of the city hall. Security guards rushed to investigate, but the wedding went ahead.

An emotional Autin gave a brief speech to the audience, thanking his family, friends and government spokeswoman Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, a personal friend present at the ceremony.

"Love each other, love us, love one another, because it's important," said Autin from a balcony to a crowd of hundreds of well-wishers outside the city hall, adding the next step would be a law allowing gay couples to adopt children.

After the men exchanged a kiss, Mandroux signed the first ever marriage registry entry for two people of the same sex in France, a nation predominantly Roman Catholic but fiercely attached to the separation of church and state.

Backed by a slim majority of French and feted by gay men and lesbians when it came into force this month, a law making France the 14th country to allow same-sex marriage has triggered street protests by conservatives, Catholics and extreme right-wingers.

"This is a historic moment in your own lives... and a historic moment for our country," Mandroux told the ceremony. "We are building here together the society of tomorrow."

Frigide Barjot, a pink-clad comedian who leads the anti-gay marriage movement, has urged her supporters to stay away from Wednesday's wedding and expressed concern at right-wingers who have hurled bricks, bottles and firecrackers during marches. On Sunday, a massive march in Paris was marred by violence.

"I forbid militants from going to protest in Montpellier," Barjot told Reuters TV after hardliners in motorcycle helmets beat up a press photographer at a march against the reform in Paris on Sunday.

Hundreds of the well-wishers outside city hall and many of the guests inside were dressed fancifully, with men in drag made up as nuns and others wearing gold and pink capes.

"It's a fantastic day for us, for our generation and for the kids that will have proper homes because of this," said Lucile Dampierre, 24, a student and lesbian activist who was trying to get one of the seats reserved for members of the public.

Earlier, French Interior Minister Manuel Valls pledged to toughen penalties for homophobic behavior, citing an increase in the number of threats against gay people on online forums.

"Why do we need to toughen security? Because there are threats," he told i-Tele news TV. "It's likely that we'll have to harden penalties for homophobic speech and behavior by law."

Organizers of the wedding in Montpellier, a bohemian city with a medieval university, took no chances. Between 50 and 100 police and gendarmes were deployed and ready to cordon off any potential protests.

A few dozen members of the public were let in to the 500-seat function room alongside invited guests and dozens of journalists for the wedding of the year in Montpellier's futuristic new city hall, built in blue glass.

Bruno's teary-eyed mother, Dominique Boileau, dressed in a short white dress and coral jacket, told reporters: "I cried when Hollande passed the law and I am still crying. I am proud of them."

Homosexuality, still a crime in some 78 countries, has been legal in France since the Revolution, and the age of consent was lowered to that of heterosexual relations in 1981.

Autin, 40, and Boileau, 29, were the first gay couple to apply to marry as President Hollande was pushing through the law, which grants equal marriage and adoption rights that go beyond existing rules for civil partnerships.

Autin proposed by phoning Boileau at work in September in front of city officials who had just announced that Montpellier would host the first gay wedding. A surprised Boileau, put publicly on the spot via speakerphone, said yes.

Since then, rallies that are partly fuelled by anger at the government over other issues like the economy appear to have eroded support for the gay marriage law; it now stands at 53 percent, with 47 percent opposed, reflecting a deep national division, particularly over the adoption rights it includes.

Last week, one opponent of gay marriage shot himself dead at the altar of Paris's Notre Dame cathedral and on Sunday hundreds of thousands marched in the capital to demand the law's repeal.

That evening, the jury at the Cannes Film Festival, along France's Mediterranean coast from Montpellier, handed top prize to an explicit, taboo-shattering love story between two women.

MsTinkerbelly

05-30-2013, 02:19 PM

Michigan state senators introduce marriage equality bills
SDGLN Staff
May 30th, 2013

DETROIT -- Michigan state senators late Wednesday proposed four pieces of legislation that would advance recognition of same-gender marriages in the
state. Three of the bills specifically address same-gender relationship recognition in Michigan.

An additional resolution calls on the federal government to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which restricts the federal government's recognition of same-gender marriages.

Equality Michigan, the only statewide anti-violence and advocacy organization serving Michigan's LGBT communities, has been promoting such legislation since an amendment to the state's constitution strictly forbiding same-gender relationship recognition was passed in 2004. The organization has pledged to work with elected officials to begin the process towards reversing the harm caused to LGBT families by such discriminatory laws.

"Michigan state Senators Warren, Johnson, Whitmer and Smith understand that a growing number of voters demand an end to the second-class
treatment that LGBT families receive from our government. With these four pieces of legislation, Michigan's Senate Democratic elected officials have
begun a conversation LGBT people have spent years preparing for and lifetimes suffering from the absence of," said Emily Dievendorf, managing
director of Equality Michigan.

"Earlier this month, we saw that 56% of Michigan voters support legal recognition of loving and committed LGBT couples. An increase of more than 10% over last year with most of that growth coming from Republicans and Independents. Now is the time for all sides to come together and discuss how Michigan can harness the economic and social gains other states are benefiting from as they end their government's harmful policies towards LGBT families," she said.

Michigan Senate Joint Resolution W, introduced by Senator Rebekah Warren (D-Washtenaw), would allow Michigan voters to repeal the 2004 amendment to the state constitution banning same-gender relationship recognition by the government. Senate Resolution 64, introduced by Senator Bert Johnson
(D-Wayne), calls on the federal government to repeal their Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Senate Bill 405, introduced by Senator Gretchen Whitmer (D-Ingham), would repeal legal limitations on same-gender relationships put in place prior to the 2004 constitutional ban. Finally, Senate Bill 406, introduced by Senator Virgil Smith (D-Wayne), would recognize same-gender marriages occurring in states where such relationships are already legally recognized.

In addition to supporting the proposed legislation, the organization has been working on a long-term marriage equality strategy with national organizations, members of the Unity Michigan Coaliation such as ACLU of Michigan and Affirmations of Ferndale, and local grassroots organizations
like MI Love and Vote Equal. Equality Michigan continues the push to amend Michigan's Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act to include protections for the
LGBT communities. Updates on the organization's work are available on their website and blog.

About Equality Michigan

Equality Michigan has worked passionately for over 20 years to achieve full equality and respect for all people in Michigan regardless of sexual
orientation, gender identity or gender expression

MsTinkerbelly

06-04-2013, 12:47 PM

Commentary
.
Op-ed: On Day of Decision, How Will You React?

When the Supreme Court issues its ruling this month, how we react will send a message to the country.

BY Lucas Grindley.

June 03 2013 2:35 AM ET

If the Supreme Court says it's wrong how California has treated my husband and me, that it's wrong to pretend the wedding we had in our church in Washington, D.C., in 2010 was merely dress-up, then I don't know that I'm prepared for how I'll feel.

Maybe it will be like getting married all over again. Maybe I'll have to hold back tears, like I did on my wedding day, because I'm the strong one.

When the Supreme Court issues its much-anticipated ruling, as is expected to happen any day now, the media will predictably turn its cameras on LGBT people across the country and ask us how we feel. But when the reporter levies that expected question, what will we say?

Those of us living in California might be cheering in the streets because Proposition 8 is overturned. Or we might be caught off guard while lining the sidewalks at a Pride celebration, like one in New York City where plaintiff Edie Windsor is a grand marshal. We'll surely applaud loudly as she passes by, a true hero, having challenged the Defense of Marriage Act and won. It might be hard to remember, though, that despite legitimate reason to celebrate, no matter the outcome at the Supreme Court, this isn't the end.

Hardly anyone with legal expertise expects the justices will make a sweeping ruling that sends marriage equality throughout the country. Even if DOMA is struck down or if Californians can marry, we need only look to New York City and its recent spate of violent antigay attacks for a reminder that marriage equality won't solve all our problems.

No matter what the Supreme Court says, Florida teen Kaitlyn Hunt will still be put on trial over her relationship with her girlfriend. Transgender people will still be barred from military service. The Boy Scouts will still fire gay scout leaders due to a senseless fear we will molest children.

The Advocate has been keeping a somewhat informal "marriage census" as each new state in May recognized same-sex marriages. It attempts to show the rising tally of LGBT people who can now legally marry the person they love. With just 12 states plus the District of Columbia in our column, roughly 2.1 million of us are able to marry. It's sometimes easy to forget that hundreds of thousands of people are impacted by a law, or a judge's decision. Will those of us in California, where my D.C. marriage might suddenly become legal, be thinking of our gay and lesbian friends in Louisiana when the high court issues its ruling? Only if we try.

I recently spoke with longtime activist Robin Tyler — who is one of the original plaintiffs in the suit that led, briefly, to marriage equality in California — about her and others' plan to revive a worthwhile idea called Day of Decision. After the Lawrence v. Texas ruling in 2003, Day of Decision actions happened in 50 U.S. cities. The Supreme Court had overturned precedent and ruled that gay sex couldn't be made illegal. A photo taken of two Chicago men holding a sign at one of the Lawrence v. Texas rallies seems almost prescient today. It read, "Supreme Court VICTORY today — ORGANIZE for FULL LGBT equality tomorrow!"

A new website for the reemerged theme, DayOfDecision.org, proclaims that "When the Court Decides, We Must Act!" At the very least, we must act like the fight isn't over.

In the event that the Supreme Court doesn't make marriage equality a reality nationwide, Day of Decision is calling for protests. The website is a coordinating tool. In some ways, protests strike me as a reminder to ourselves as much as to mainstream media that the ruling isn't a final "happy ending." It's actually not an ending at all. Whether you can protest on that day or make a poignant post on Facebook or answer a reporter's question with a longing for more action, do something on the Day of Decision that ensures we have many more "Days of Decision" to come.

As always, the Supreme Court is unpredictable. Among the possible permutations of its judgment is a fairly bare-bones approach that makes same-sex marriage legal in some states but not others. The Obama administration has pushed for this idea, that marriage equality could be left for states to opt into.

"On a practical level, a half-way decision could easily bitterly divide our community," the new Day of Decision website warns. "It’s not hard to see why: Imagine a country made up of 'blue' states that have marriage equality, oblivious to the sufferings of others, and the 'un-free' red states where LGBTs would be left to twist in the wind, without rights, perhaps for a generation or more."

In pursuit of the very basic dream of getting married and starting a family, my partner and I decided to leave one of those "un-free" states. We said goodbye to friends and family, good jobs, the first home we bought together, and the Florida Gulf Coast where I'd grown up. We packed up the car and moved away.

And I hope that when the Supreme Court issues its ruling, I will think of all the LGBT people who still live there

MsTinkerbelly

06-05-2013, 12:40 PM

U.K. House of Lords Gives Initial OK to Marriage Equality by 242 Votes

The peers rejected an effort to defeat the bill during its second reading, sending the legislation to a committee and report stage, before it returns to the House of Lords for a final vote.

BY Sunnivie Brydum.

June 04 2013 3:02 PM ET

Following two days of debate, England's House of Lords has voted to move forward marriage equality legislation by a vast majority of 390-148. The peers voted down a proposal from Lord Geoffrey Dear that would have killed the bill on this, its second reading, according to The Guardian.

Today's vote sends the pending legislation to a committee, after which it will be sent through the report stage, then returned to the House of Lords for third reading and final vote. If the bill passes each of those hurdles, it will be sent to the queen for her signature into law, also known as Royal Assent. Parliament's other chamber, the House of Commons, gave final approval to the legislation in May.

During Monday's debate, Baroness Liz Barker came out for the first time as being in a same-sex relationship. Opening the first day of debate by declaring a personal interest in the issue, Barker, a Liberal Democrat, said, "Many years ago, I had the great good fortune to meet someone. She and I have loved each other ever since — that is, apart from the occasional spectacular argument, usually about driving or DIY."

It was the first time Barker had publicly acknowledged her sexual orientation, according to British LGBT site PinkNews. Barker went on to express gratitude for a letter from a bishop that acknowledged the meaning of marriage has evolved over the years, placing the debate in a larger historical context.

"What we are doing today does not undermine any existing or future marriage," said Barker. "It extends the status of marriage to gay men and lesbians who want to make a public commitment in the presence of their families and friends, and sometimes their co-religionists. It reflects the wishes of those people who today do not want just to tolerate lesbians and gay men; they want to celebrate and support them as people in their own right."

Other members of the parliamentary chamber adopted similarly progressive tones, citing the importance of marriage equality for families and rejecting homophobic arguments that claimed the Parliament was trying to invalidate or "redefine" existing heterosexual marriages. Lord Patrick Jenkin, a former minister, told the House that his grandfather, a renowned scientist, taught him early in life that condemning people due to their sexual orientation is "as foolish" as condemning someone for having red hair. Jenkin also succinctly dismissed several antigay arguments advanced by other peers, saying many of them "reek of homophobia," reports PinkNews.

Of course, not all peers were so eager to embrace marriage equality. Baroness Jill Knight, an 85-year-old Tory peer, put forth several stereotypes about gay people, saying they are "delightful" and "very artistic." But then Knight said that a "higher power" than any of the peers had "already decided that people are not equal," because some people are born bling, men can't bear a child, and women can't produce sperm. Knight also alleged that the bill would require schools to "teach homosexuality," despite strong "conscience clause"provisions included in the measure that would allow religious officials and institutions to decline to serve a gay or lesbian couple in conflict with their belief. Knight announced she would not support the bill.

MsTinkerbelly

06-19-2013, 07:54 AM

Arizona: Org. Files for Marriage Equality Ballot Initiative

Some Arizona residents are waiting to hear what the Supreme Court will say, in an effort to establish legal marriage equality in their state.

BY Michelle Garcia.

June 18 2013 3:11 PM ET

A campaign was launched Monday to repeal Arizona's ban on same-sex marriage through a ballot initiative in 2014, years after it was approved by 56% of the state's voters in 2008.

The of Equal Marriage Arizona are working to gather 259,213 signatures to get their proposal to define marriage as a union between two adults, as opposed to one man and one woman, on next year's ballot, according to the The Arizona Republic.

"The attitudes of this state, of the people of this state, have changed a lot," marriage advocate and business owner Warren Meyer told the Associated Press. "We believe that Arizonans are ready for equal marriage."

Meyer and Log Cabin Republican chairwoman Erin Ogletree Simpson officially filed papers to launch the campaign on Monday with the Arizona Secretary of State's Office. They plan to wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on its two marriage equality cases, concerning the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8, before launching their signature campaign.

Meyer said he anticipates a campaign with costs "in the millions" to spread the word and get people to sign the petition, and then to sway voters

MsTinkerbelly

06-24-2013, 12:36 PM

The Supreme Court Will Return At 10 A.M. Tomorrow

The wait continues on two marriage equality cases argued before the Supreme Court in March.

BY Sunnivie Brydum.

June 24 2013 10:57 AM ET

The Supreme Court did not issue rulings in either of two cases dealing with marriage equality today, but could do so Tuesday at 10 a.m. Eastern.

In March, the Court heard arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Proposition 8 case, and U.S. v. Windsor, the challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act. Because the cases are contentious and were argued late in the term, many Court observers believe LGBT Americans won't get the much-awaited decision day until the last possible opportunity on the Court's calendar. Reporters at SCOTUSBlog expect the Court to add at least one more decision day this week, since the Court still has six decisions to announce before the end of its term this month. SCOTUSBlog expects the Court to announce a third decision day this week, likely scheduled for Wednesday or Thursday.

MsTinkerbelly

06-25-2013, 10:05 AM

U.S. Supreme Court to issue rulings in marriage equality cases Wednesday

Posted on 25 Jun 2013 at 10:11am

The U.S. Supreme Court will issue rulings Wednesday in two marriage equality cases, California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act.

Chief Justice John Roberts announced after three rulings Tuesday morning that the court would meet for its final day Wednesday at 9 a.m. CST to read its last three decisions. Wednesday is the 10th anniversary of when the court ruled that sodomy laws nationwide were unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas.

Dallas’ LGBT community and allies will celebrate the marriage rulings at a Day of Decision rally Wednesday night at 7 p.m. at the Legacy of Love monument

MsTinkerbelly

06-25-2013, 12:51 PM

Michigan Moves Toward Marriage Equality

A package of four bills introduced today could bring marriage equality to the Great Lakes State.

BY Sunnivie Brydum.

June 24 2013 1:36 PM ET

While the Supreme Court continues to deliberate over two marriage equality cases, Democratic lawmakers in Michigan are moving ahead with legislation to establish the freedom to marry.

House Democrats today introduced a package of marriage equality bills that would amend the Michigan constitution to allow same-sex marriage, overturning a voter-approved ban from 2004, and would also allow Michigan to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, reports the Detroit Free Press. The package of legislation includes four bills, which would also amend the state's law on who may marry, and proposes a resolution calling on the U.S. Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.

"My colleagues and I believe that Michigan cannot wait any longer to recognize marriage equality and allow all people the equal rights and benefits that married couples currently enjoy," said East Lansing Democrat Sam Singh, one of the key sponsors of the legislation. Singh is joined by fellow House Democrats Rudy Hobbs, Jeff Irwin, and Kate Segal in introducing the legislative package.

"It’s time for Michigan to stop discriminating against the thousands of couples who want to marry and enjoy the same recognition and benefits for themselves and their children that come with marriage, and that my wife, Kathryn, and our kids enjoy," said Irwin in a statement announcing the bills. "The legislation that we propose today represents the next step in the fight to ensure all citizens are equal in Michigan."

"The Democratic leaders who will introduce these marriage equality bills recognize the importance of Michigan standing on the right side of history in regards to the rights of our lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) citizens," said Emily Dievendorf, managing director of Equality Michigan, in a press release. "Michigan's voters will no longer tolerate second-class treatment of LGBT families. Enough is enough, and Representatives Singh, Hobbs, Irwin, and Segal deserve credit for helping lead the charge."

MsTinkerbelly

06-26-2013, 07:59 AM

The decisions will be announced soon, and I will be working without news until 9am PST.

Pins and needles folks, pins and needles.

blackboot

06-26-2013, 08:07 AM

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/p320x320/941427_474607709299535_716725950_n.jpg

Tommi

06-26-2013, 08:07 AM

.DOMA Struck down

blackboot

06-26-2013, 08:15 AM

Lambda Legal

BREAKING: Supreme Court declares section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. Details to come.

*Anya*

06-26-2013, 08:19 AM

By STEPHANIE CONDON / CBS NEWS/ June 26, 2013, 10:05 AM

Part of DOMA overturned...

The gay rights movement saw a significant victory at the Supreme Court Wednesday, where the justices struck down part of a law barring federal benefits to married same-sex couples.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court struck down a provision of the 17-year-old Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that denies federal benefits -- like Social Security benefits or the ability to file joint tax returns - to same-sex couples legally married.

The impact of the DOMA case, United States v. Windsor, is clear for the nation's approximately 130,000 married same-sex couples. Section 3 of the law, the provision that was struck down, denies same-sex couples federal benefits. That provision impacts around 1,100 federal laws, including veterans' benefits, family medical leave and tax laws.

blackboot

06-26-2013, 08:29 AM

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/p320x320/1016183_474618612631778_497020893_n.jpg

blackboot

06-26-2013, 08:32 AM

SCOTUS drops Prop 8 case! Same-sex marriage can resume in California!

Tommi

06-26-2013, 08:33 AM

Same Sex Marriage Can Resume in Calif

The U.S. Supreme Court decided Wednesday it will not take up a challenge to California's voter-approved Prop 8 -- a ban on same-sex marriage that landed before the Justices after years of legal battles.

The ruling states the people who brought this case had no legal standing to bring the case to the Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court decided Wednesday it will not take up a challenge to California's voter-approved Prop 8 -- a ban on same-sex marriage that landed before the Justices after years of legal battles.

The ruling states the people who brought this case had no legal standing to bring the case to the Supreme Court

MsTinkerbelly

06-26-2013, 08:52 AM

I am happy for my State, and for those in States where marriage equality reigns...but I know the fight is not over until everyone can enjoy the same sense of equality.

Tommi

06-26-2013, 09:03 AM

I am happy for my State, and for those in States where marriage equality reigns...but I know the fight is not over until everyone can enjoy the same sense of equality.

YES.. MsTinkerbelly. So right--" HRC....efforts in states around the country, including New Jersey, Hawaii, Oregon, Nevada and others."

STAND FOR MARRIAGE (http://humanrightscampaign.tumblr.com/post/53931878628/monumental-victories-reveal-two-tiers-of-equality-in)
Follow breaking news and learn more about what decisions mean for two historic marriage equality cases at the Supreme Court.

June 26, 2013 at 10:54 am

Monumental Victories Reveal Two Tiers of Equality in America

In recent years, California’s Proposition 8 and the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act became symbols of anti-LGBT discrimination around the country and around the world. Today, both crumbled.

In a watershed moment in the fight for equality, the United States Supreme Court today ruled to return marriage equality to California and to strike down DOMA. The court ruled in the Prop 8 case on procedural grounds, not reaching a decision on the merits of Prop 8 or the broader question of whether the Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to marry the person you love.

Marriages in California are expected to begin again soon. While a joyous milestone, these victories nonetheless throw into sharp relief the uneven progress for LGBT people around the country—a landscape where states like California are rapidly advancing toward equality, but progress in many other places remains stagnant.

“Today’s historic decisions put two giant cracks in the dark wall of discrimination that separates committed gay and lesbian couples from full equality,” said HRC president Chad Griffin, who brought together the bipartisan legal team of Ted Olson and David Boies that brought the Proposition 8 case to the Supreme Court. “While we celebrate the victory for Californians today, tomorrow we turn our attention to the millions of LGBT people who don’t feel the reach of these decisions. From the Rocky Mountains to the heart of the South, it’s time to push equality forward until every American can marry the person they love and all LGBT people are guaranteed equal protection under the law.”

HRC is committed to accelerating the progress of marriage equality through ongoing financial and strategic assistance to efforts in states around the country, including New Jersey, Hawaii, Oregon, Nevada and others. And with the Defense of Marriage Act gone, the organization is pushing hard to ensure that the Obama administration cuts through regulatory clutter and delivers the greatest number of benefits to the greatest amount of people.

“These decisions underscore the emergence of two Americas. In one, LGBT citizens are nearing full equality. In the other, our community lacks even the most basic protections,” said Griffin. “Everywhere that injustice still prevails, we will fight for justice. And our message to those who cement their feet on the wrong side of history is that we will win.”

For Full Story: http://humanrightscampaign.tumblr.com/post/53931878628/monumental-victories-reveal-two-tiers-of-equality-in

Greyson

06-26-2013, 09:28 AM

Italianboi

06-26-2013, 11:23 AM

Greyson

06-26-2013, 11:53 AM

NO MORE DOMA!!!

With DOMA being struck down this now means that legally married same-sex couples will now be afforded all Federal rights and protection. This would include Immigration law. Now legally married same-sex partners can immigrate to this country if they choose to. Honestly, I did lose hope in my country, USA about 10 years ago. Some of that belief was restored today.

After listening to more legal analysis this morning I am unsure if Immigration status must be recognized in every state. Some say it will depend upon the state. Immigration comes under Federal law. We know states can pass immigration laws and policies but many times they are struck down because Immigration is under Federal purview.

But, this is not the first time our courts make decisions that seem opposed to the constitution. DOMA was a perfect example. Until DOMA the Federal government left it up to the States to decide matters of marriage and divorce. Historically it came under "States Rights." Also, States would honor, recognize all marriages from any state and then afford legal status to their union when in a state that did not perform the marriage. All of that was not the case for interracial couples until Loving vs. Virginia in 1967.

Now we shall see how each state decides to Queer marriages. There are still 37 states the define marriage as "One Man and One Woman."

This past Sunday I did speak to a diverse group of people primarily made up of straight white middle and upper class and there was representation from Latino, African American, LGBTQ and poor people. I addressed Immigration Reform. I reminded them that Senator Marco Rubio was doing every thing he could to keep Immigration Reform out of the reach of Same-Sex couples and families during this latest change in our immigration laws.

I am hoping the overruling of DOMA will now settle that particular immigration injustice. Our time is here. Never give up on humanity for all.

Timeline for Interracial Marriage in USA:

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/raceequalopportunity/tp/Interracial-Marriage-Laws-History-Timeline.htm

Timeline for LGBTQ Marriage in USA:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/26/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-chronology-idUSBRE95P07320130626

MsTinkerbelly

06-26-2013, 05:15 PM

Kamala Harris On Prop 8 Decision: Same-Sex Marriages In California Should Begin Immediately

Posted: 06/26/2013 5:23 pm EDT

California Attorney General Kamala Harris gave a triumphant press conference Wednesday morning in reaction to the Supreme Court's decision to effectively dismiss California's Proposition 8, which barred same-sex couples from marrying.

In an exuberant speech delivered in downtown Los Angeles, Harris said that all 58 counties in California must abide by Northern California Judge Vaughn Walker's 2010 ruling that declared Prop 8 unconstitutional.

She also strongly urged the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to lift the stay on same-sex marriages as soon as possible -- even before the usual 25-day waiting period until the Supreme Court clerk notifies the lower court of its judgement.

"I am absolutely saying that if the 9th Circuit lifts its stay before the 25 days, that marriages can resume in California -- and shall resume in California," Harris said. "As soon as they lift that stay, marriages are on."

In an emotional tribute to California's same-sex couples, Harris explained that even just one more day of unequal rights was one day too many.

"Each one of those days that has passed has been a day that a family member who may have enjoyed and participated in a wedding ceremony may have passed away," she said. "Each day that has passed is a day that a baby may have been born -- and that California child, then, is in a situation where they don't have the full dignity that other children have when they look up and they ask, 'Why can't my mommies or my daddies be married also?'"

"For that reason," she concluded, "I urge the 9th Circuit to lift the stay as quickly as possible."

In a statement released just after the Supreme Court's ruling on Prop 8 Wednesday, California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) also put the onus on the 9th Circuit to lift the stay on same-sex marriages.

"Same-sex Californians will not be able to marry until the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confirms the stay of the injunction, which has been in place throughout the appeals process, is lifted," Brown said in a statement.

Even though Judge Walker found Prop 8 unconstitutional, he also issued a stay on same-sex marriage along with his ruling, acknowledging that the case could still live on in appeals.

Unfortunately for Harris and same-sex couples who want to get married as soon as possible, the 9th Circuit has already confirmed that it will indeed wait for 25 days -- and even longer, if need be -- before lifting the stay on same-sex marriages.

The court prefers to wait for the Supreme Court's ruling to become official and also wants to give Prop 8 proponents time to ask for a rehearing, the Associated Press reports.

Nadeest

06-27-2013, 06:25 AM

Only Section 3 of DOMA has been deemed unconstitutional. That clears the way for federal benefits to be given to all married people, yes. However, Section 2 is still in effect, thus States can still refuse to recognize same sex marriages that happened in another state.

The fight is far from over, people. We have just won one battle. The war is still going on, and we have not nearly won, yet.

Soon

06-27-2013, 11:51 AM

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17fio0nt5x8ydjpg/ku-xlarge.jpg

MsTinkerbelly

06-27-2013, 12:41 PM

Marty Lederman Guest

Posted Wed, June 26th, 2013 11:32 pm

Email Marty
Bio & Post Archive »

The fate of same-sex marriage in California after Perry

Back before the oral arguments in Perry, I wrote a post explaining what might happen to same-sex marriage in California if the Supreme Court were to hold that the Proposition 8 sponsors did not have standing to appeal from Judge Vaughn Walker’s judgment of August 4, 2010.

Now that that is indeed what has happened, what does it mean for the marriage rights of same-sex couples in California?

The Supreme Court concluded that the judgment of the Ninth Circuit must be vacated, and remanded the case to the court of appeals “with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.” What about the district court judgment, however? In my previous post, I surmised that perhaps the Supreme Court would say something about the proper scope or application of the trial court’s judgment in the event the Court vacated the court of appeals’ decision. Not so: the Court majority is silent on the question of how Judge Walker’s injunction should be applied. Notably, however, in his dissenting opinion Justice Kennedy wrote that “the Court’s opinion today means that a single district court can make a decision with far-reaching effects that cannot be reviewed.”

Judge Walker’s injunction — see page 136 of his opinion — therefore remains unchanged by the Supreme Court’s decision; it is in effect the law of the case. What does this mean, as a practical matter, for same-sex marriages in California? Let’s take the relevant questions in turn:

1. When will the injunction take effect?

A: When the court of appeals lifts the stay that it imposed on the district court’s judgment. The Supreme Court’s mandate to the court of appeals will not be issued for at least 25 days. As far as I know, however, the court of appeals does not have to wait for the Supreme Court’s mandate in order to lift its stay of the trial court’s injunction. And Attorney General Harris apparently has asked the court of appeals to lift the stay as soon as possible. Therefore the trial court’s injunction will presumably go into effect on Monday, July 22d at the latest . . . and perhaps earlier.

2. Which state officials are bound by the injunction?

A: Judge Walker’s injunction reads: “Defendants in their official capacities, and all persons under the control or supervision of defendants, are permanently enjoined from applying or enforcing Article I, § 7.5 of the California Constitution.” (Section 7.5 is Proposition 8, which provides: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”)

The defendants who are bound by the injunction are six California officials—the County Clerks of Alameda County and Los Angeles County, the Governor, the Attorney General, the Director of the Department of Public Health & State Registrar of Vital Statistics, and the Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the Department of Public Health. The injunction clearly binds these six officials.

Moreover, in a memorandum dated June 3, 2013, Attorney General Harris concluded that, under California law, all California County Clerks—officers who have responsibilities to issue marriage licenses and otherwise implement state marriage laws—are “under the control or supervision” of the Director of the Department of Public Health & State Registrar of Vital Statistics. In support of this conclusion, the Attorney General relied primarily upon language in the California Supreme Court opinion in Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco, 95 P.3d 459, 498 (Cal. 2004). I do not know enough about California law to assess whether the Attorney General’s opinion is correct that County Clerks are subject to the supervision of the Director of DPH . . . but assuming it is correct, then the injunction would also run against all California County Clerks, at least with respect to their function of issuing marriage licenses.

3. Which same-sex couples does the injunction protect?

A: Well, it obviously benefits the two couples who sued in Perry — Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo. They will be able to obtain marriage licenses from the defendant Clerks of Alameda and Los Angeles Counties, respectively.

What about the many other California same-sex couples who were not plaintiffs in the case? In my earlier post, I wrote that it is “not clear from the face of the injunction whether Judge Walker intended it to apply only to the defendants’ treatment of the two plaintiff couples, or whether Judge Walker instead intended to prohibit the defendants from denying marriage licenses to any same-sex couples in California.”

But in the briefing subsequent to my post, all the parties appeared to agree that Judge Walker’s injunction was intended, and is best construed, to also guarantee non-party same-sex couples the right to receive California marriage licenses. Therefore I think it’s fair to assume the injunction will be interpreted, by public officials and courts alike, to protect all same-sex couples, not limited to the four named plaintiffs. As Lyle explains, that is certainly the view of the relevant California officials, including the Governor and the State Registrar, who have advised state officials accordingly.

Did Judge Walker have the authority to issue such an injunction protecting non-parties? I don’t think he did, for the reasons I described in my previous post—primarily, that district court judges generally do not have the power to issue injunctions that protect persons other than the parties before them, absent a class action or a case in which a broader injunction is necessary to ensure that the plaintiffs receive complete relief. (On the other hand, not a single Justice on the Supreme Court uttered a word today to call into question the legality of the breadth of Judge Walker’s injunction, a fact that will certainly lend support to the counterargument that Judge Walker did not overreach in crafting the scope of the order, in the event that were to become an issue in further litigation.)

But even if I were right about that legal proposition—that is to say, even if Judge Walker’s injunction should have been limited to the protection of the plaintiffs before him—so what? That injunction nevertheless governs the case, and it will be operative, regardless of whether it should have been more tailored. And in their briefs to the Supreme Court, both the private-party challengers of Prop 8 and the City and County of San Francisco stressed that no party (no party with standing, anyway) had challenged the scope of that injunction.

Now that the injunction will finally go into effect, could there be a new challenge to the application of Judge Walker’s decision to non-party couples? If so, such a challenge presumably would come from either the named defendants (virtually inconceivable), or from a County Clerk who does not wish to issue a marriage license to a couple who were not plaintiffs in the Perry case.

My tentative view is that such a County Clerk challenge is a very unlikely prospect, for several reasons:

First, such a Clerk might be subject to the direction of the State Director of DPH as a matter of California law, and the Director might have the authority to forbid such a challenge and to direct the Clerk to issue the license. (Again, I am not sufficiently well-versed in California law to know for sure on this point.)

Second, a motion by such a County Clerk for relief from the judgment as applied to non-party couples, presumably pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “must be made within a reasonable time,” according to Rule 60(c)(1). And it’s now been almost three years since the court issued the injunction. On the other hand, the injunction has been stayed most of that time, which might affect whether a motion now would be “reasonable.” (Any Rule 60 mavens out there who might know more about this?) [UPDATE: Thoughts from Howard Wasserman on this and related issues.]

Third, and most importantly, why bother? A County Clerk knows that if he refuses to issue a marriage license, the couple in question could simply drive to another county to apply to a different Clerk. Moreover, such a Clerk thinking of challenging the scope of the injunction also knows that if that collateral attack were successful, the requesting couple could then bring their own constitutional lawsuit against the Clerk, and would almost certainly prevail on the merits in the district court and in the Ninth Circuit—especially in light of the Supreme Court’s decision today in Windsor. Even a successful challenge to the scope of Judge Walker’s injunction, therefore, would only (at best) delay an almost inevitable injunction against the Clerk in question. Hardly worth the candle, then.

If I’m right that no Clerk is likely to challenge the application of the injunction to non-plaintiffs, or in any event that any such challenge is unlikely to be successful in permitting the Clerk to deny license applications in the long run, the result will be that County Clerks throughout California will be legally required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples . . . and most or all will be willing or required to do so by July 22d at the latest. Judge Kennedy, then, will have been proven correct that “the Court’s opinion today means that a single district court can make a decision with far-reaching effects that cannot be reviewed.”

That is to say: Same-sex marriage in California is here to stay. And therefore, as of August 1, marriage equality will be a reality in the District of Columbia and thirteen states: California, Connecticut, Delaware (where a new law takes effect July 1), Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota (where a new law takes effect August 1), New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island (also Aug. 1), Vermont, and Washington.

tara_kerrie

06-27-2013, 09:30 PM

A group called Arkansans for Equality submitted paperwork to the Attorney General to see if the paperwork is legal so they can start gathering signatures to have an ammendment to overturn the ban on gay marriage on the ballot next year.

I think i explained that right. If i misunderstood i hope that Medusa or someone will correct me.

MsTinkerbelly

06-28-2013, 07:57 AM

MsTinkerbelly

06-28-2013, 10:08 AM

Arkansas reacts to same-sex marriage ruling

8:17 PM, Jun 26, 2013

Lisa Hutson

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (KTHV) - The U.S. Supreme Court made two historical rulings regarding same-sex marriage Wednesday. Legally married same-sex couples will now be able to receive the same federal benefits reserved only for heterosexual couples.

Arkansas defined marriage as between one man and one woman back in 2004, and while today's decision doesn't change that, some advocates say it fueled the fire to make same-sex marriages legal in the natural state.

"We've got support now from the Supreme Court, at least 5 of them, that marriage equality should happen or at least they shouldn't be denied federal benefits. I think that says something. We are moving forward as a country," said Trey Weir, co-founder of the Arkansas Initiative for Marriage Equality.

Wednesday's decision will affect those same-sex couples legally married in one of the 10 states that recognize them, but it will not affect those living here in Arkansas.

"Military benefits for same-sex spouses, social security survivor benefits, just a whole long list of benefits that are now available," said Weir.

"A positive aspect to this ruling is that it does not create a constitutional basis for same-sex marriage itself. Now it just gives the benefits--the federal benefits--to same sex couples," added Sarah Bean with Arkansas Family Council.

Beans said while the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, it's decision not to rule on Proposition 8 shows the states have all the power when it comes to same-sex marriage.

"This is a state's decision. It's the state's rights. The states need to decide. I believe in 38 or 39 states, those states have made the decision that marriage should be between one man and one woman, and I'm glad the federal government is going to honor that. That is exactly what needs to happen," explained Bean.

But, Weir believes the attitudes towards same-sex couples are changing and hopes Arkansas' law will too.

"I think people are starting to understand that it's going to happen. People are bringing it to the dinner table. They are talking about it, and hopefully some hearts and minds will be changed," Weir concluded.

Weir also said his team has drafted a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in Arkansas and plans to submit it to the Attorney General's office. They hope to get 200,000 signatures in order to get the measure on the 2016 ballot.

Arkansas' congressmen and senators say they still support the amendment Arkansas voters approved in 2004 defining marriage as between a man and a woman

tara_kerrie

06-28-2013, 12:03 PM

http://www.fox16.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoId=4121086&navCatId=19792

tara_kerrie

06-28-2013, 12:10 PM

LITTLE ROCK, AR (News Release) - Arkansans for Equality, a Non-Profit Organization supporting equality for all Arkansans, has submitted ballot language for the 2014 ballot to the Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel for the repeal of Amendment 83.

Amendment 83 denies marriage equality to all Arkansans by limiting same sex marriage, denying civil unions and not recognizing such marriages or unions from other states.

"We are excited the United States Supreme Court has found DOMA unconstitutional. We applaud our federal government, and now we urge our state government to recognize equality for all Americans must mean equality for all Arkansans. In the Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers stated that all men have the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When all Americans share those same human rights, only then are we truly are free," says AFE Co-chair Judd Mann.

Arkansans for Equality is a bipartisan organization founded in 2012. The organization's belief is that all individuals, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity should be treated equally under the law and in every environment.

Language for Ballot Initiative to repeal Amendment 83 to the Arkansas Constitution:

Popular Name: Repeal of Arkansas Marriage Amendment

Title: Proposed Amendment to the Arkansas Constitution to Repeal Amendment 83, Which Limits the Definition of Marriage and Limits the Ability of the State of Arkansas to Recognize Civil Unions or Other Relationships Substantially Similar to Marriage; Which Limits the Rights of Arkansas Residents Married in Other Jurisdictions; Which Limits the Rights of Arkansas Residents Who Entered into Civil Unions in Other States; and Which Prevents Federal Laws Pertaining to the Rights of Married Persons being Applied in a Consistent Manner to Persons Living in Arkansas Who Were Married or Entered into Civil Unions Elsewhere; but Which Allows the Arkansas Legislature or Courts to Determine the Capacity of Persons to Marry, and to Regulate the Legal Rights, Obligations, Privileges and Immunities of Marriage, Subject to Federal Law.

tara_kerrie

06-28-2013, 12:15 PM

LITTLE ROCK, AR - Wednesday, President Barack Obama became the first U.S. President to support gay marriage. While that news is not sitting well with some Arkansans, others say attitudes on same-sex marriage in Arkansas are changing.

Right now, Arkansas bans same-sex marriage by defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but, one state leader already says she sees attitudes changing.

"I think it's a turning point, and I was very happy that President Obama did that," says State Representative Kathy Webb.

Webb is the first openly gay elected official in Arkansas history. Wednesday's presidential announcement in support of same-sex marriage makes her proud.

"All we want is to be treated equally, and I don't think that's something that's too much to ask," says Webb.

"It was no surprise whatsoever when I saw on the news today that he indeed came out and said 'I support same-sex marriage,'" says Jerry Cox with the Family Council.

The conservative Little Rock-based Family Council believes strongly marriage is between one man and one woman.

"Not politically smart. At least, not for a state like Arkansas where three out of four people have already voted and said that they oppose same-sex marriage," says Cox of Obama's statement.

However, in Webb's six years in the state legislature, she's seen support for same-sex marriage grow.

"I think as people continue being more comfortable being themselves, you're gonna see attitudes in Arkansas really change," she says.

The Family Council, though, doesn't see same-sex marriage acceptance coming to Arkansas any time soon.

"If the values of people are becoming more liberal, it's not to a point where it's gonna be tipped in favor of same-sex marriage. And so, whether or not there's a trend or not, the only trend you can measure for sure, is the one where 31 states have already voted and said we think marriage ought to be the union of a man and a woman," says Cox.

Q: Do you support same-sex marriage?

Yes

50.9%
No

49.1%

blackboot

06-28-2013, 04:47 PM

Prop 8: Gay marriages can resume in California, court rules

By Maura Dolan
June 28, 2013, 3:25 p.m.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday cleared the way for gay marriages to resume in California.

The court lifted its stay on an injunction which ordered state officials to stop enforcing Proposition 8. With the court's action, counties can now begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

A spokesman for the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had originally said it would takes the court at least 25 days to act after a Supreme Court ruling. Immediately afterward, Gov. Jerry Brown ordered his public health agency to advise the state's counties to "begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in California as soon as the 9th Circuit confirms the stay is lifted."

Opponents of same-sex marriage have argued that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's 2010 decision overturning Proposition 8 applied only to the two same-sex couples who challenged the ballot measure. But their enthusiasm for going to court to try to narrow the effect of the decision appeared to wane in the hours after the decision.

With Brown and Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris pledging to block Proposition 8 across California, the momentum for gay marriage was likely to hinder any further challenges.

California voters passed Proposition 8 in 2008, six months after the California Supreme Court ruled that gays had the right to wed. The state high court later ruled that the initiative was a valid state constitutional amendment but upheld the validity of an estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages that occurred before the election.

The Supreme Court ruled that ProtectMarriage, the sponsors of Proposition 8, lacked legal authority or standing to appeal Walker's ruling blocking the ballot initiative. The high court said Proposition 8's sponsors were not directly affected by Walker's ruling. Only state officials had the right to appeal, and they refused. That procedural decision wiped out the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' 2-1 ruling against Proposition 8, leaving only Walker's decision in place and affecting only California.

County clerks who preside over marriages said they were ready for same-sex weddings. Marriage licenses already are gender-neutral, and clerks began receiving calls Wednesday from gay couples wanting to schedule appointments.

Harris called on the 9th Circuit on Wednesday to lift its hold on Walker's ruling immediately. The attorney general said she believed that the appeals court had the authority to act quickly.

MsTinkerbelly

06-28-2013, 05:31 PM

Same-sex marriages resume in California after court gives go-ahead

By CNN Staff

updated 7:16 PM EDT, Fri June 28, 2013

California lifts same-sex marriage ban

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
A federal appeals court lifts an order banning same-sex marriages
It takes effect "immediately," according to the court order
The U.S. Supreme Court paved the way for the move with a ruling Wednesday

(CNN) -- The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that same-sex marriages can resume in California, a move that the Supreme Court paved the way for on Wednesday.

Three judges on the appeals court made it possible for local governments to issue marriage certificates for gay and lesbian couples with a few words: "The stay in the above matter is dissolved effective immediately."

Very soon after, California Attorney General Kamala Harris was already at San Francisco's city hall marrying couples, according to her office.

"I am thrilled that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted its stay to allow same-sex couples to legally marry in California," Harris said in a statement. "Gay and lesbian couples have waited so long for this day and for their fundamental right to marry. Finally, their loving relationships are as legitimate and legal as any other."

California's Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage in May 2008, ruling that the state's constitution gives "this basic civil right to (marry to) all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples."

But months later, 52% of voters backed Proposition 8 to once again restrict marriages so that they can only be between a man and a woman.

The measure put gay and lesbian marriages on hold in the state, but a federal appeals court later rule Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed an appeal of that federal court ruling on jurisdictional grounds. That meant that Friday's news -- and the resumption of same-sex marriages in the Golden State -- was expected, even if the timing wasn't fully known

Toughy

06-28-2013, 06:05 PM

I did not read all the posts since the SCOTUS ruling, so...

We all do realize that DOMA is NOT struck down? The only section of DOMA struck down is the Federal Recognition of legal civil same gender marriage. Individual states still do not have to recognize legal same gender civil marriage from another state. That means you cannot file joint state taxes and you are denied whatever state benefits there are when it comes to legal civil marriage in that state.

I believe there has been talk from Dems to introduce legislation to repeal DOMA entirely. We all know that will go nowhere in the House....maybe it would pass in the Senate.

We need registered voters and we need a 70% or greater turnout in 2014 to actually get anything done about anything.

MsTinkerbelly

06-28-2013, 06:44 PM

MsTinkerbelly

06-29-2013, 12:57 PM

I just watched clips of the two couples that represented the people in the case against prop hate get married, and I cried all the way through.

We have to keep fighting until we can all marry the person or persons we love.

13 States and counting!

*Anya*

06-30-2013, 06:20 PM

New York Times update today:

ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON —

Justice Anthony Kennedy of the Supreme Court denied on Sunday a request from Proposition 8 supporters in California to halt the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses in the nation’s most populous state.

Justice Kennedy turned away the request with no additional comment.

Same-sex marriage opponents had asked Justice Kennedy to step in on Saturday, a day after the federal appeals court in San Francisco allowed same-sex marriages to go forward. Numerous weddings were performed at San Francisco City Hall after the court decisions. The appeals ruling came a day after the Supreme Court declined to decide the California case, effectively allowing same-sex marriages in the state.

The opponents said the appeals court had acted about three weeks too soon. Proposition 8 supporters could continue their efforts to halt gay marriage by filing their request with another Supreme Court justice.

The Supreme Court decided the case on technical grounds, with the majority saying that it was not properly before the court. Because officials in California had declined to appeal a trial court’s decision against them, and because the proponents of the ban were not entitled to step into the state’s shoes to appeal the decision, the court said, it was powerless to issue a decision.

That left in place a trial court victory for two same-sex couples who had sought to marry.
■

PUBLISHED JUNE 30, 2013

MsTinkerbelly

06-30-2013, 09:43 PM

I only heard about the challenge now! I'm so glad you posted Anya(f)

MsTinkerbelly

07-01-2013, 07:57 AM

Delaware same-sex marriage law takes effect

July 1, 2013

By Michael K. Lavers on July 1, 2013

WILMINGTON, Del. — A Delaware lawmaker who came out during a debate over her state’s same-sex marriage bill earlier this year and her partner on Monday became the first couple to take advantage of the gay nuptials law.

State Sen. Karen Peterson (D-Stanton) and her partner, Vikki Bandy, converted their civil union into a marriage at the New Castle County Clerk of the Peace’s office in Wilmington.

“It’s exciting, both historically and personally,” Peterson told reporters after she and Bandy exchanged vows in a private ceremony. “I never thought in our lifetimes we would be getting married.”

Rehoboth Beach residents Chris Beagle and Eric Engelhart later on Monday will become the first gay couple in Sussex County to convert their civil union into a marriage. Joseph Daigle, II, and Daniel Cole will become the first same-sex couple who had not previously entered into a civil union to tie the knot in Delaware when they exchange vows in Wilmington later on Monday.

Clerks of the Peace in Delaware’s three counties will issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples on Monday, but no other same-sex weddings will take place on that day because the state did not waive the 24-hour waiting period for any other gay or lesbian couple.

13 states and D.C. now allow same-sex marriage.

Gays and lesbians in Minnesota and Rhode Island will begin to legally tie the knot on August 1.

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 26 found a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and struck down California’s Proposition 8 that had banned same-sex marriage. Gays and lesbians in the Golden State began to once again exchange vows on June 28 after the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals listed its stay on gay nuptials in response to the justices’ Prop 8 ruling

MsTinkerbelly

07-01-2013, 12:38 PM

Supreme Court Gay Marriage Rulings: Conservatives Have Learned to Love Marriage Equality
Tim Rosenberger
in
Politics
4 hours ago

Supreme Court Gay Marriage Rulings: Conservatives Have Learned to Love Marriage Equality

Nestled between booths for pro-life groups and conservative think tanks at this year’s College Republican National Convention was a bright red table, covered in candy and plastic megaphones and surrounded by students. Delegates grabbed megaphones as they entered the conference hall to begin voting and made small talk with the table’s organizers. While it would not have been surprising to see such a crowd of young conservatives flocking to a table for The Heritage Foundation or some like organization, these students were instead lending support to the organization Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry.

While suggestive of the future of the Republican Party’s social stances, this group was indicative of the groundswell of support for LGBT equality on the right side of the political spectrum. As of this writing, three sitting Republican senators support full marriage equality. While not an overwhelming number, it is significant to note that not one of these leaders supported marriage equality until a few months ago. Of greater significance were the pro-equality Supreme Court rulings of the past week. Both of these rulings depended on some Republican appointees crossing party lines. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion suggests that the court does view policies singling out gay individuals as discriminatory. Perhaps more important than the actual outcomes of the decisions, this precedent should shape legal outcomes across the country.

While Republican policy makers are moving slowly on this issue, those free from the pressures of holding political office seem even more ready to accept marriage equality. From the Cheney and McCain families to Laura Bush these giants of Republican politics will undoubtedly shape the opinions of their fellow conservatives even if they cannot directly impact policy.

Even Republican opponents of gay marriage seem to be accepting that their positions are losing ones. In his bitter dissent to the DOMA ruling, Justice Scalia all but admitted that gay marriage is inevitable. Elected Republicans are taking different tacks, but all seem to be avoiding coming off as overly zealous on the issue. Speaker John Boehner offered some calm remarks on the Supreme Court’s ruling that seemed resigned rather than inflammatory. When vetoing gay marriage for his state, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie rested his veto on wishing New Jersey voters to have a referendum on the issue. He significantly did not strongly condemn the idea or try to moralize his position. Even Tea Party firebrands like Rand Paul are taking decidedly neutral tacks. Paul, rather than strongly opposing gay marriage, hides behind his libertarian protestations for states’ rights.

Young Republicans have developed an interesting dichotomy which allows them to hold all traditional conservative positions, including being pro-life, while opposing the party’s position on gay marriage. Interestingly, they are doing this not because of a desire to drop a conservative value, but to apply conservative principals to an issue in a new way. Preventing government from defining love now holds a greater value than preserving the status quo. Helping all loving families to grow and succeed seems somehow more important than restricting what constitutes a family. The thoughtful approach young Republicans have taken on this issue bodes well for the future, not only of conservatism, but of our nation

MsTinkerbelly

07-03-2013, 12:41 PM

Christie 'Stands in the Way of Marriage Equality,' Sen. Buono Says

Legislators and gays rights advocates call for governor to 'step aside,' ask for Republicans to vote their conscience.

Posted by Elizabeth Alterman (Editor), July 3, 2013 at 09:37 am

Speaking from the front steps of the Westfield home of longtime couple Liz Flanagan and Nancy Wilkinson, Senate President Steve Sweeney (D-Gloucester) and Democratic gubernatorial nominee Senator Barbara Buono (D-Middlesex) called for Gov. Chris Christie to “step aside” and allow legislators to vote their conscience when it comes to marriage equality.

“My daughter Tessa came out years ago and for me, it’s not an abstract idea," Buono said. “For me, it’s about acceptance. For me, it’s about saying that she’s not less than. You know, this is a governor, one man in New Jersey, that stands in the way of marriage equality. One man who's saying that their love is just not as good as everyone else’s.”

Buono said it's time for Christie to "step out of the way of progress" and "release his hold on his legislative leaders and let them do the right thing. Let them vote their conscience."

Last week, the United States Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), allowing federal benefits to same-sex marriages. Union County advocates told Patch they were "overjoyed" by the decision.

One reason Buono and Sweeney chose Westfield as the location for the press conference is that it is home to Senate Minority Leader Tom Kean Jr. (R-Union) and Assembly Minority Leader Jon Bramnick (R-Union).

Sweeney and Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg, also in attendance, said it is now time for New Jersey to "uphold the constitution" and afford all people what they called basic civil and human rights.

In February 2012, the New Jersey Legislature passed legislation establishing marriage equality but Christie vetoed the legislation. Though two Republican senators voted in favor of marriage equality, making the final Senate vote 24-16, three more votes are needed to override the veto.

Christie has suggested letting voters decide on the issue but Buono took umbrage with the idea of placing "a basic human, civil right" on the ballot and called the very suggestion "offensive."

Troy Stevenson, executive director of Garden State Equality, said as it stands now, same-sex couples are being denied 1,138 federal rights and provisions that are afforded to their heterosexual, married counterparts.

"We are fighting every day to make sure we get the votes we need in both houses of the legislature," Stevenson said. "The debate is over. The debate is absolutely over. Civil unions are not and never will be equal to marriage, we know that, and it's time to override this veto."

Sweeney, calling the DOMA decision "a game changer," said that there are other Republican senators who want to vote for marriage equality but are afraid to go against Christie. When a reporter noted that two Republican senators had voted in favor of marriage equality, Sweeney said "as long it doesn't get to 27, that was the deal."

Buono bristled when asked by a reporter if she thought this issue could help her win the election. "I don't even know how you can ask that," she said, adding that for her it is "an emotional issue."

Sweeney quickly added, "This isn't about that," and said the gubernatorial candidate has been "a champion of this issue long before the campaign."

In closing, Buono reiterated that for her it is a matter of acceptance and of not being treated "like a second class citizen, and that this the message that is coming across loud and clear from this governor refusing to take action."

MsTinkerbelly

07-10-2013, 10:05 AM

ACLU brings fight for marriage equality to Pennsylvania

Emma Margolin
6:21 PM on 07/09/2013

The days of same-sex marriage bans may be coming to an end.

In the first federal lawsuit filed anywhere in the country since the Supreme Court handed down decisions in two landmark marriage equality cases, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, and volunteer counsel from a Philadelphia-based law firm on Tuesday formally challenged Pennsylvania’s law prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.

Like the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Supreme Court struck down two weeks ago, Pennsylvania’s statutory provision limits marriage to unions between one man and one woman, and prevents the state government from recognizing same-sex marriages performed where they are legal. The suit alleges that Pennsylvania’s law violates the fundamental right to marry, as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

“We only want what every married couple wants–to express our love and commitment in front of friends and family, and the security and protections that only marriage provides,” said Deb Whitewood, one of the 23 plaintiffs challenging the Pennsylvania provision, in a statement released by the ACLU. “Our life is built around our relationship and the family we have made,” she said of her partner of 22 years, Susan Whitewood, and their three children, Abbey, Katie, and Landon.

The two women had a “holy union” ceremony at their church in 1993 shortly before they each changed their last names to Whitewood, a combination of their surnames. In 2001, they entered into a civil union in Vermont. Yet Pennsylvania law treats them as “legal strangers,” writes the ACLU.

Currently, Pennsylvania is one of 35 states that prohibits same-sex marriage through a constitutional or statutory provision. But as with national trends, support for marriage equality among Pennsylvanians is on the rise. A recent survey from Public Policy Polling found an almost even split on the issue, with a net 14 point increase over the last year and a half in favor of legalizing gay marriage across the state.

While the main focus of this suit will be on Pennsylvania, it could lead the Supreme Court to rule on whether same-sex couples across the country have the constitutional right to marry–a question the justices declined to answer when they ruled the proponents of Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage, lacked standing to defend it.

Should Pennsylvania uphold its ban on same-sex marriage, this suit stands a chance at landing before the nation’s highest court.

“It’s pretty clear that the Supreme Court will at some point in the not too distant future want another crack at the issue,” said Witold Walczak, ACLU of Pennsylvania’s legal director, to MSNBC. “We have a strong legal case, and I think it could be a good vehicle for the Supreme Court to reconsider whether same-sex couples have a right to marry under the constitution.”

Similar challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage are already underway in Illinois, New Mexico, and Michigan, noted Walczak. The ACLU also announced on Tuesday that it would amend an existing adoption lawsuit in North Carolina to include a challenge to that state’s marriage laws. And James Esseks, director of the ACLU’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & AIDS Project, told the Washington Post that a suit against Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage would come “quite soon.”

“There was a huge amount of excitement and positive energy today,” said Walczak. “Pennsylvania is the birthplace of the constitution and the cradle of liberty, so it’s a fitting place to have a fight over the constitutional right to marry,” he added.

“Now the hard work begins.”

Wolfsong

07-11-2013, 08:41 PM

Ok.....I am so pissed off right now I don't even know where to start thinking this out. If you will remember some months ago I was grumpy because Andi and I are forced to pay extra federal taxes on health benefits because we are not legally married.

When employees elect health insurance coverage from their employers for their families, the majority of their employers contribute to at least half of the insurance coverage's cost. For employees with different-sex spouses, federal and state tax law do not require employers to report their contribution to the employee's or the employee's different-sex spouse as taxable wages earned — the value of the health insurance coverage can be excluded from the employee's gross income. Non-dependent same-sex partners and spouses (and their dependents) are treated differently under federal and most states' tax laws. The estimated value of the employer's financial contribution towards health insurance coverage for non-dependent same-sex partners must be reported as taxable wages earned.

So....at the beginning of this year we decided that she would get her health benefits through her job and I through mine. A pain in the ass to be sure but considerably less expensive for us. Previously, we elected to receive benefits from her job as the coverage was the same but less expensive (until they started taxing the crap out of us).

This morning I went online to transfer money from our checking to our savings account (I always move overtime and bonus pay to savings) to find that her deposit was about $700 less than what I'd expected it to be. I texted her to contact payroll and find out what was up. Sure enough, those jackasses took it in tax (Yup folks......$700 in taxes just for the health benefits). They told her that I had to submit proof that I was receiving benefits from another source before they would remove me......

Wait just a @#$%&%# second here.......I want to make sure that I was not hallucinating......... I have to submit proof that I am otherwise covered?

Ok.........fuck off

The the domestic partnership that the federal government refuses to recognize as a marriage and provide benefits for is real enough for you to tax though right? Is this some kind of a joke? They are going to give that money back and I am not going to provide proof of shit. According to more than half the states in the union we are not even recognized as dating.

.............fuck you you fuckin' fuckers!

MsTinkerbelly

07-12-2013, 04:56 PM

Michigan marriage equality lawsuit to be argued October 1; new filings in Illinois marriage challenges

July 11, 2013

By Scottie Thomaston

A scheduling conference in the lawsuit challenging Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban, DeBoer v. Snyder, took place yesterday, July 10 in federal district court. The federal judge declined to dismiss the case last week, but did not issue a final ruling or a schedule for further motions or arguments, putting the decision off until yesterday’s conference.

No final decision on the merits of the constitutional challenge to the ban was released yesterday, and the judge has set oral arguments for October 1. Challenges against same-sex marriage bans in Nevada and Hawaii are likely to see oral arguments in October as well, though probably at the end of the month, since an extension of time was sought to file briefs. Those cases are already in the appeals court, though, at the Ninth Circuit.

In Illinois, Lambda Legal has filed a motion for summary judgment in Darby v. Orr and Lazaro v. Orr. This is a request for a decision on the merits, (in the plaintiffs’ favor, in this case.) Their brief in support of summary judgment is much like the one they filed in the New Jersey case: both are state cases, both states have civil unions. In one section, they write:

Plaintiffs who obtained civil unions by license from illinois county clerks currently are denied a number of federal benefits and protections that would be available to them and their families if they could marry now that DOMA has been struck down.

The filing goes on to list specific ways civil unions deny same-sex couples equal protection under the law afforded to opposite-sex couples. There is no timeline for the court to act in the case.

MsTinkerbelly

07-15-2013, 12:32 PM

BREAKING: U.K. House of Lords Give Final Approval to Marriage Equality

The legislation now heads back to the House of Commons for final approval, before going to the Queen for her signature.

BY Sunnivie Brydum.

July 15 2013 12:07 PM ET

The House of Lords, the unelected upper chamber of the U.K. Parliament, offered its final approval to marriage equality legislation Monday, according to Bloomberg. Although the Lords did not register a vote today, the chamber previously approved the legislation by an overwhelming majority of 390 to 148.

The legislation, championed by Prime Minister David Cameron, now returns to the lower House of Commons, where members will vote on amendments proposed by the Lords. In May, the House of Commons voted in favor of marriage equality by a vote of 366 to 161, leaving advocates hopeful that the lower house will affirm the proposed law. If the House of Commons accepts the amendments, the bill will go to Queen Elizabeth for her signature, a process known as Royal Assent.

Once the law is enacted, England and Wales will become the tenth European jurisdiction to embrace marriage equality, according to the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Association — Europe. The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Portugal, and Iceland established marriage equality previously, and France enacted same-sex marriage earlier this year. That means 30% of Europeans now live in nations that support the freedom to marry, reports ILGA-Europe.

“Today, the land of Magna Carta sealed another historic transformation," said Gabi Calleja, cochair of ILGA-Europe's executive board in a statement. "Marriage is an institution which is dear and close to many people’s hearts, beliefs and lives. It was shaped and transformed over hundreds of years by different traditions, interpretations and customs. The debate leading to the adoption of the marriage equality law has shown that British society and its politicians have once again embraced change, to update the institution of marriage to that which is equally open and accessible to all, in the name of justice and human rights."

MsTinkerbelly

07-16-2013, 12:51 PM

State's top court lets same-sex marriages continue

Bob Egelko

Updated 9:40 am, Tuesday, July 16, 2013

The state Supreme Court refused Monday to stop the weddings of gay and lesbian couples in California, a development that indicated Proposition 8's sponsors have little chance of reviving the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.

The unanimous, one-sentence order denied the sponsors' request for an immediate halt to the marriages, while reserving judgment on their claim that Prop. 8 remains valid and enforceable statewide.

But their arguments for that claim are largely the same as those they advanced in their request for an emergency order stopping the marriages: that Gov. Jerry Brown had no authority to order all 58 county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and that a federal judge's ruling that declared Prop. 8 unconstitutional applied only to the two couples who sued to overturn the 2008 initiative.

Brown issued the order on June 28, two days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Prop. 8's sponsors, as private citizens unaccountable to the state, had no legal standing to represent California or its voters in defense of the measure in federal court.

With both Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris refusing to defend Prop. 8, which they considered unconstitutional, the ruling reinstated an August 2010 ruling by then-Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco that the ballot measure discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation and gender.

Although the suit by couples from Berkeley and Burbank was not a class action, Walker drafted his ruling to have statewide effect, prohibiting enforcement of Prop. 8 by state officials and everyone under their supervision. The state's high court ruled in 2004 that state officials, not county clerks, set qualifications for marriage licenses.

After unsuccessfully seeking an emergency stay from the U.S. Supreme Court, Prop. 8's sponsors sued Friday in the state Supreme Court, which had recognized their right to defend the measure in state courts. They argued that the 2008 initiative remains legally binding until struck down by an appellate court - a California constitutional requirement - and said the state's 58 county clerks had no obligation to obey Walker's order.

Some of the clerks "may very well disregard the order or at least raise some legitimate questions regarding the validity of these marriages," attorney Andrew Pugno said Monday in a final appeal for an immediate halt to the marriages while the court considers the case.

Acting for the state, Harris, in a court filing late Friday, said Prop. 8's sponsors were trying to get the state court to reinterpret Walker's ruling and inject uncertainty into issues the federal courts have resolved.

In response to Monday's order that let the marriages continue, Harris said her office will "continue to fight this effort to deny same-sex couples their constitutionally protected civil rights."

Attorney Austin Nimocks of Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian organization representing the Prop. 8 sponsors, said same-sex marriage opponents "will continue to urge the court to uphold the rule of law."

MsTinkerbelly

07-16-2013, 06:05 PM

The House of Commons just passed same-sex marriage, now on to the Queen for signature. Marriage could begin some time next Summer.

Congratulations!

Wolfsong

07-17-2013, 05:26 AM

MsTinkerbelly

07-17-2013, 09:20 AM

AP

Gay marriage legalized in Britain after queen gives royal stamp of approval

LONDON -- Britain has legalized gay marriage after Queen Elizabeth II gave her royal stamp of approval on Wednesday.

House of Commons Speaker John Bercow told lawmakers that the royal assent had been given — the day after the bill to legalize same-sex marriage in England and Wales cleared Parliament.

The queen's approval was a formality. It clears the way for the first gay marriages next summer.

The bill enables gay couples to get married in both civil and religious ceremonies in England and Wales. It also will allow couples who had previously entered into a civil partnership to convert their relationship to a marriage.

The Associated Press

MsTinkerbelly

07-17-2013, 10:02 AM

Jul

2013

2:34am, EDT

Costa Rica may get gay marriage after legislature's 'accidental' vote

By Andrew Mach, Staff Writer, NBC News

The Costa Rican legislature passed a bill this week that appears to legalize same-sex civil unions – although it might have been an accident.

Some lawmakers didn't realize until a day after Monday's vote that the language in a bill regarding young people may have offered a path to legalized same-sex marriage by expanding social rights for gay people and extending benefits to same-sex unions, according to the Tico Times, an English news website in San Jose.

The bill had previously defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, until a liberal lawmaker wrote into the bill new marriage language that extends “the right to recognition without discrimination contrary to human dignity.”

José María Villalta, a member of the leftist Broad Front Party who wrote the controversial language into the bill, said lawmakers simply didn't pay attention to the most up-to-date version before approving it, Tico Times reported.

"During the discussion in the first debate, we explained that the Law of Young People should be interpreted with this sense of opening to gays and no one objected."

Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla signed the bill into law Thursday, over the protests of conservatives who had called for her to veto it. Though an ardent supporter of traditional marriage in the past, Chinchilla told local reporters earlier this week she wouldn't oppose a court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, the Tico Times reported.

"We understand that the debate is over how some interpret the law and this alone is not sufficient for the executive to veto the law," Chinchilla said.

In Latin America, gay marriage is already legal in Argentina, Mexico City and some states of Brazil, and civil unions are allowed in Ecuador and Uruguay.

DapperButch

07-17-2013, 06:05 PM

MsTinkerbelly

07-18-2013, 12:36 PM

N.C. Readies Marriage Ban Challenge

Six couples have joined a legal challenge to the state's laws that discriminate against gay couples and families

BY Michelle Garcia.

July 10 2013 6:40 PM ET

Six gay and lesbian couples in North Carolina will join the legal challenge against their state's ban on marriage equality, particularly the right for same-sex couples to adopt children together.

The couples have partnered up with the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as its chapter in North Carolina, to amend an existing federal lawsuit, which was filed against the state last year. It challenges a state law that claims same-sex couples cannot be recognized as equal parents of children. The ACLU is also asking for an additional claim against Amendment One, the ballot measure that voters approved last year, that designates marriage only for heterosexual couples.

The lawsuit includes Marcie and Chantelle Fisher-Borne, a couple that was legally wed in Washington, D.C., in 2011, but their marriage is not recognized by state law. Each of the women birthed their children -- a 5-year-old girl and a 1-year-old boy -- and when their daughter was born, the couple met resistance from a hospital staff member who demanded their legal paperwork.

“Our children deserve the security of having both Marcie and me as legally recognized parents, and marriage is the best way for us to provide that to them” said Chantelle Fisher-Borne. “We declared our love and commitment to each other years ago, but the law in North Carolina does not recognize the life we have built together or allow us to share legal responsibility for the children we have raised together. We want to be married for many of the same reasons anyone else does – to do what’s best for our family, especially our children, and have our commitment to each other recognized by the law.”

On Tuesday the ACLU also announced a federal challenge to Pennsylvania’s marriage ban, as well as a joint challenge with Lambda Legal of Virginia’s marriage ban. The legal action also follows the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, thereby allowing the federal government to extend benefits and responsibilities that heterosexual couples receive through marriage.

“From President Obama and Senator Hagan’s endorsements to the recent landmark Supreme Court decision declaring the so-called Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, support for the freedom to marry has moved forward by leaps and bounds," said Chris Brook, Legal Director of the ACLU-NCLF. "Conversations are happening at dinner tables throughout our state with more and more North Carolinians agreeing that the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage should not be denied to loving and committed couples simply because they are gay or lesbian.”

Words

07-18-2013, 12:51 PM

iamkeri1

07-18-2013, 08:55 PM

Hmmmn ... think that gentleman is a little late in the development of his thinking. Royal procreation using "donor" sperm of one kind or another has probably already happened a time or two over the centuries, LOL.

Don't see that same sex marriage has much to do with a lesbian queen having a child through insemination. The British monarchy is rather notorious for having children outside of the bonds of matrimony. The pressure is on for ANY monarch to reproduce. Soon cloning will be an available option for either king or queen to reproduce without contribution from anyone other than themselves. Till then the "other" parent will be a problem. Are Royals from other countries likely to want to ship their sperm/eggs to another country for procreation by the monarch there? Hmmmn, THAT may already have happened as well. my my my!
Smooches,
Keri

Some idiot (Conservative of course) politician pointed out that there is now the possibility that we could one day have a lesbian queen provide us with a heir to the throne through artificial insemination.

He said it like it would be a bad thing! LOL...

Words

MsTinkerbelly

07-31-2013, 10:08 AM

Going Rogue for Marriage Equality

Christopher Moraff

July 31, 2013

Defying Pennsylvania law, Montgomery County's register of wills has begun issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Will this bold move help or hurt the cause?

Last week, Montgomery County, a sleepy suburb of Philadelphia, was thrust into the national spotlight when its elected register of wills, D. Bruce Hanes, put principle above policy and began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in defiance of Pennsylvania's long-standing ban on gay unions. Since July 24, Hanes has issued more than two dozen of the licenses. Thus far, two lesbian couples have used the licenses to tie the knot in the first officially sanctioned same-sex marriages in Pennsylvania history.

Hanes's pioneering effort—which materialized over the course of a single week after a lawyer representing two women contacted his office to inquire about obtaining a marriage license—has elevated Pennsylvania's stature as a gay-rights battleground and put Governor Tom Corbett on notice that, on the issue of same-sex marriage, the commonwealth is evolving with or without him. But by going it alone, is Hanes furthering the cause of marriage equality or endangering it?

Yesterday the governor, a Republican who opposes marriage equality, slapped Montgomery County with a lawsuit seeking to enjoin Hanes from issuing any more marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The filing also asks the court to invalidate any marriages that have already taken place. “As a result of the illegal issuance of marriage licenses by the clerk, it appears that same-sex couples are proceeding with marriage ceremonies that are not permitted by Pennsylvania law,” the petition reads. In a written statement, Montgomery County Solicitor Ray McGarry said the state's position “has serious flaws” and that until the matter is settled by the courts, the register of wills will continue to issue licenses to same-sex couples.

Hanes's move comes just weeks after the American Civil Liberties Union joined a Philadelphia law firm in challenging the state’s ban on gay marriage on behalf of nearly a dozen same-sex couples. In that case, newly minted Attorney General Kathleen Kane stated publicly that she would not defend the ban. Michael Clarke, the solicitor for the register of wills who advised Hanes to issue the licenses, said the attorney general's position—and her statement last month that Pennsylvania's Defense of Marriage law is “wholly unconstitutional”—figured prominently into his decision to advise Hanes to issue the licenses. “The way I saw it, the only way we could deny them a license would be on the grounds that they were women, and in our eyes that violates Pennsylvania's constitution, which says equal rights cannot be denied based on an individual's sex,” Clarke says

Legal scholars say that's a pretty solid argument, but it's up to the court to decide whether Hanes had the authority to act on it unilaterally. “Hanes is clearly right on the law. The question is does a local official have the right to follow the law rather than the government of which he is a part,” says Burton Caine, a professor of constitutional law at Temple University and a Montgomery County resident. "I believe that he does have the authority."

Jill Engle, a professor of clinical law at Penn State University, says that if it's determined that Hanes acted outside the law, then the licenses he issued would be de facto null and void. But she acknowledges that recent factors—such as the Supreme Court's ruling striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act and Attorney General Kane's refusal to defend Pennsylvania's own gay marriage ban—places the case in uncharted territory. “Under the strict letter of the state statute, of course, [these marriages] appear illegal,” she says. “That being said, Hanes’s point that one can interpret the state constitution to reach the opposite conclusion is persuasive, and more persuasive than it was a few months ago thanks to the Supreme Court's decision on the federal Defense of Marriage Act, on which our Pennsylvania statute was arguably based.”

The larger question is where Hanes’s move fits into the broader push for marriage equality in the state. Some gay-rights advocates are worried about what they see as a potential distraction from the main event in Pennsylvania—the ACLU case, Whitewood v. Corbett, which is scheduled for trial in United States District Court on September 30.

“I happen to think the best way to move is through the courts and to work within the legislature, and that's what we have been trying to do,” says Ted Martin, executive director of Equality Pennsylvania. Martin worries such a defiant stance at the county level could back opponents of marriage equality into a corner, which would only strengthen their resolve to fight. “For every action there is a reaction, and we just don't know what that's going to be.”

Malcolm Lazin, the founder of the Philadelphia-based Equality Forum takes a different view. He compares what's happening in Montgomery County with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision to issue thousands of marriage licenses to gay couples in 2004. “In one sense this was a political statement that took a concept that is getting a lot of attention and humanized it,” he says. “It helps to frame the legal issue.”

Philadelphia attorney Mark Aronchick, whose firm Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller is serving as co-counsel to the ACLU in its federal lawsuit, declined to comment specifically about the situation in Montgomery County, but his words seemed to contradict any claim that Hanes’s actions could compromise his own efforts. "This wasn't part of our case strategy, and it happened independent of us so we'll watch it and see where it goes,” he says. “I applaud all public officials who are taking steps to make marriage equality a reality in Pennsylvania.”

Whether Hanes's bold effort will prove successful remains to be seen. Similar moves in the past, however, have not typically met with success. While they are credited with laying the foundation for California's recent victory on gay marriage, all of the weddings officiated by Newsom were ultimately voided by the California Supreme Court. And in 2004, Mayor Jason West of New Paltz, New York, faced criminal prosecution after he defied state law and officiated over a series of same-sex marriages in his town. New York legalized same-sex marriage through legislation in 2011.

Yet the legal drama unfolding in Pennsylvania must be viewed within the context of the rapidly shifting dialogue on the issues of same-sex marriage and gay civil rights. Lazin thinks that when all is said and done, that may be a defining factor in its resolution. “We are in many ways a very conservative state, but having said that, there is a significant change in public opinion that increasingly favors LGBT civil rights,” he says. “The political climate has changed here and, particularly, the Republicans have changed their position. They are no longer going to be as proactive in fighting this.”

MsTinkerbelly

08-01-2013, 10:04 AM

Gay couples rush to wed as Minnesota, Rhode Island legalize same-sex marriage

By Patrick Condon, The Associated Press

MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. - Dozens of gay couples began tying the knot early Thursday morning at Minneapolis City Hall as Minnesota – along with Rhode Island – became the latest state to legalize same-sex marriage.

"I didn't expect to cry quite that hard," said a beaming Cathy ten Broeke, who with Margaret Miles was the first gay couple to be wed at City Hall.

After Miles and ten Broeke exchanged vows and rings just before midnight Wednesday, Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak had musicians kill a few minutes until the clock struck 12:01 a.m. Thursday, when the law went into effect.

Then the attending crowd burst into applause as Rybak pronounced Miles and ten Broeke married. The couple stood nearby embracing their 5-year-old son, Louie.

"We do," all three said to more cheers as they promised to be a family.

Rhode Island and Minnesota on Thursday became the 12th and 13th U.S. states to allow gay marriage, along with the District of Columbia.

In Minneapolis, 42 couples were expected to be married by Rybak and several Hennepin County judges in the hours before dawn.

Weddings were scheduled to start at the stroke of midnight at Minneapolis City Hall, St. Paul's Como Park, Mall of America's Chapel of Love and at county courthouses around the state. One group planned a cluster of weddings in a Duluth tavern.

"I don't think either of us ever thought we'd see this day," said Mike Bolin, of the Minneapolis suburb of Richfield, who was marrying Jay Resch, his partner of six years, at Minneapolis City Hall. "We met at low points in both of our lives, and to have arrived at this point — there's going to be a lot of tears."

Rhode Island was joining Minnesota on Thursday in becoming the 12th and 13th U.S. states to allow gay marriage, along with the District of Columbia. The national gay rights group Freedom to Marry estimates that about 30 percent of the U.S. population now lives in places where gay marriage is legal. The first gay weddings in Rhode Island were planned for later Thursday morning.

In Minnesota, budget officials estimated that about 5,000 gay couples would marry in the first year. Its enactment capped a fast turnabout on the issue in just over two years. After voters rejected a constitutional ban on gay marriage last fall, the state Legislature this spring moved to make it legal.

Rhode Island becomes the last New England state to allow same-sex marriage. Lawmakers in the heavily Catholic state passed the marriage law this spring, after more than 16 years of efforts by same-sex marriage supporters. Both Minnesota and Rhode Island will automatically recognize marriages performed in other states.

Bolin and Resch celebrated Wednesday night with several hundred others at Wilde Roast Cafe along the Mississippi River north of downtown Minneapolis. Many at the event planned to walk to City Hall for the mass nuptials.

Dayton proclaimed Aug. 1 to be "Freedom to Marry Day" in Minnesota.

Golden Valley-based General Mills Inc. donated Betty Crocker cakes for the event, which was also to feature performances by local musicians and services donated by wedding photographers, florists and other businesses.

Weddings were not limited to the Twin Cities. In St. Cloud, Stearns County court administrator Tim Roberts planned to marry a couple at 12:01 a.m. at the courthouse. "It feels historic. It's an honor to be a part of it," Roberts said. Midnight weddings were also planned for courthouses in Clay County, Polk County and elsewhere.

At Mall of America, Holli Bartelt and Amy Petrich from the southeastern Minnesota town of Wykoff were set to become the first couple married at the Chapel of Love. Owner Felicia Glass-Wilcox said she hoped to start the ceremony a few minutes early, so the vows could be pronounced seconds after midnight.

"We'd like for them to be able to say they are the very first married in the state, but for sure they'll be able to say they're one of the first," Glass-Wilcox said. She said the chapel had four more gay couples booked for weddings in the next five days.

Bartelt, 33, proposed to Petrich, 37, in April in a photo booth at the Bloomington mall. It was a few weeks before the Legislature approved the law, but Bartelt said she was confident by then that it would pass. She had been in contact with a mall employee about the proposal, who later suggested the couple could be first to get married at the chapel.

Bartelt, a health coach, planned to wear an ivory-colored dress, while Petrich, a baker for Mayo Clinic, was wearing an ivory suit. A group of about 50 family members and close friends were planning to join them, including Bartelt's 10-year-old son and 9-year-old daughter.

"Everybody deserves the right to be happy," said Bartelt. "That's really what it's all about. It's a big day for us, and a big day for Minnesota, and something I hope my kids look back on some day and say, 'Wow, we got to be part of that.'"

Metro

08-01-2013, 04:18 PM

Federal Judges Rule in Favor of Lesbian Widow

by Carrie Maxwell, Windy City Times

2013-08-01

Judge C. Darnell Jones II of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled July 29 that Jennifer Tobits is entitled to death benefits administered by her deceased wife Sarah Ellyn Farley's profit-sharing plan. In his ruling, Jones ordered that Farley's employer, Philadelphia-based law firm Cozen O'Connor P.C., pay Tobits the $41,000 in death benefits.

Jones' decision used the recent United States v Windsor Supreme Court ruling that struck down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act to award the benefits to Tobits. "Following the [Supreme] Court's ruling, the term 'spouse' is no longer unconstitutionally restricted to members of the opposite sex, but now rightfully includes those same-sex spouses in otherwise valid marriages," said Jones in his ruling.

Farley was a partner at the Cozen O'Connor P.C. law offices in Chicago. She died in 2010 at the age of 37 after a four year battle with a rare and aggressive form of cancer.

"I am overjoyed that the court has said my marriage to Ellyn deserves the same respect as everyone else's," said Tobits in a release. "Nothing can ever replace Ellyn, but it's a great tribute to her that the courts have rejected these challenges to our marriage and recognized our commitment to each other and the life we built together."

The case arose when Farley's parents, David and Joan, challenged the legality of their daughter's marriage to Tobits. Farley's parents argued that they should receive their daughter's death benefits because they were the surviving family members. They were represented by the Thomas More Society, an anti-gay legal organization based in Chicago.

Cozen O'Connor P.C. argued that DOMA prevented them from awarding the death benefits to Tobits and filed an action in the federal district court to determine who should receive the death benefits, Tobits or Farley's parents.

"We are pleased with the court's decision and intend to pay the money as soon as possible," said Lisa Haas, chief marketing officer of Cozen O'Connor P.C., told Windy City Times.

National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) Legal Director Shannon Minter, who is representing Tobits, said in a statement, "This decision is not only a victory for Jennifer and Ellyn, it is a victory for every married same-sex couple in the country. No longer can employers hide behind DOMA to deny equal benefits to some employees solely because their spouse is a person of the same sex."

"This decision makes clear that federal pension law protects same-sex spouses just as it does opposite-sex spouses," said attorney Teresa Renaker, who also represents Tobits, in a statement. "Under the rationale of this decision, employees can be confident that their hard-earned retirement benefits will be there for their spouses. Protecting the retirement security of spouses is an important part of ensuring that employees get equal benefits from their retirement plans."

Christopher Stoll, senior staff attorney for the NCLR, explained that due to this ruling employers will be required to treat same-sex spouses equally and he hopes that the decision will cause employers to take proactive steps to make sure that they are treating their employee's same-sex spouses fairly.

"We're thrilled to have helped Jennifer achieve this result. Anyone facing a similar situation should feel free to contact our legal helpline at 1-800-528-6257," said Stoll.

When reached for comment, representatives from the Thomas More Society did not respond to queries about the outcome of the case.

http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/lgbt/Federal-judges-rule-in-favor-of-lesbian-widow/43907.html

MsTinkerbelly

08-02-2013, 10:04 AM

Two Lesbian Couples Challenge Virginia's Marriage Equality Ban

Represented by the ACLU and Lambda Legal, four lesbian moms are suing the state of Virginia to recognize their marriages and families.

BY Sunnivie Brydum.

August 01 2013 1:49 PM ET

Two lesbian couples in Virginia have filed a federal class action lawsuit seeking to overturn the state's constitutional and statutory prohibitions on same-sex marriages and recognizing such unions performed outside of the state.

Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Virginia, and Lambda Legal, the case, known as Harris, et. al. v McDonnell, et. al., was filed today in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, according to a press release from the ACLU. The suit alleges that the state's ban on marriage equality and refusal to recognize legal same-sex marriages performed in other states results in the state sending a "purposeful message that they view lesbians, gay men, and their children as second-class citizens who are undeserving of the legal sanction, respect, protections, and support that heterosexuals and their families are able to enjoy through marriage."

The four lead plaintiffs are comprised of two lesbian couples with children, who represent a larger class action suit on behalf of all gay and lesbian Virginians who wish to marry. Christy Berghoff and Victoria Kidd, both 34, have been together for nine years, and married in 2011 in Washington, D.C., according to the ACLU. Berghoff is an Air Force veteran who currently works for the Department of Justice, while her wife Kidd runs a small business from their home, allowing her to serve as a stay-at-home mother to the couple's eight-month-old daughter, Lydia.

Joanne Harris, 37, and Jessi Duff, 33 are both native Virginians, who met through a mutual friend 11 years ago. Harris serves as the director of diversity at Mary Baldwin College, while Duff works for the state's child protective services systems. They have a four-year-old son named Jabari, who loves his Mommy and Momma DeeDee, but knows his parents aren't legally married like his friends' parents. Pointing to a picture of the couple's 2006 commitment ceremony, Jabari told the ACLU "Mommy and Momma DeeDee got married, and they really need to get married."

This latest filing marks the third federal challenge to a state ban on marriage equality filed by the ACLU since the Supreme Court issued its landmark rulings invalidating a key section of the so-called defense of marriage act and dismissing California's Proposition 8 on June 26. Earlier this month, the advocacy organization filed federal lawsuits to strike down anti-marriage equality laws in Pennsylvania and North Carolina. The Pennsylvania attorney general announced shortly thereafter that she will not defend the state's antigay law in court, because she believes "it to be wholly unconstitutional."

MsTinkerbelly

08-02-2013, 10:06 AM

RI lawmaker who fought for marriage equality marries his partner of 32 years

Clare Kim, @clarehkim
11:15 PM on 08/01/2013

For Rhode Island Rep. Frank Ferri, Thursday marked a long-awaited milestone for him and his partner of 32 years. After Rhode Island became the 13th state to legalize gay marriage, county clerks began issuing marriage licenses when their offices opened at 8:30am this morning.

Ferri and his longtime partner, Anthony Caparco, were one of four couples who waited outside Warwick City Hall starting 7:30 am. Ferri, who first testified in favor of marriage equality 15 years ago, is a Democratic state representative from Rhode Island who helped usher in legislation to legalize same-sex marriage. While Ferri has been an elected official for six years, he has advocated for marriage equality at the Statehouse for nearly two decades.

The couple finally wed late Thursday, the first day the law went into effect, and also the couple’s anniversary. Although the two men wed seven years ago when they vacationed in Vancouver, Canada, Ferri said on MSNBC’s The Last Word that being allowed to marry in their home state would be more meaningful to the couple.

“I know the train is out of the station and it’s going and it’s not stopping and it’s not coming back, said Ferri. “We have seen it here in New England. We know how people are opening their minds because so many couples like ourselves who are living their lives openly and honestly every day. I think that’s driving this and with the help of the president’s support and many legislatures, this is going to happen.”

Rhode Island is the final state in New England to allow gay marriage after it was approved by lawmakers on May 2. The law was signed into law on the same day by Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chaffee, who became one of the earliest prominent national proponents of same-sex marriage when he was a Republican senator. Chaffee, who ran as an Independent in 2010 and changed his party affiliation to Democrat in late May, made marriage equality a priority in his campaign.

The governor attended the couple’s wedding, which was officiated by House Speaker Gordon Fox, who is openly gay.

“It’s been a lot of work. It’s been a long road,” said Caparco. “It’s just an exciting day for us and the Speaker is thrilled to be officiating at our ceremony.”

Even though Rhode Island legally allowed domestic partnerships in 2002, a bill to legalize gay marriage was introduced every year since 1997.

“It’s still settling in. It’s a funny feeling to know that I don’t have to get out of bed tomorrow and advocate another day for gay marriage,” said Ferri to the Boston Globe. “I’ve been talking to so many people over so many years about it and trying to educate people. You know, every chance I got I was advocating for it, even if it was just in subtle ways. So, now it’s happened, it’s strange. Pinch me! It’s a really, really strange feeling.”

MsTinkerbelly

08-06-2013, 10:05 AM

Marriage Equality Takes Effect in Uruguay

August 5, 2013 by Eric Cameron, Digital Media Associate

Marriage equality takes effect in Uruguay today. Following Argentina, Uruguay is the second country in Latin America to have passed nationwide same-sex marriage legislation.

The legislation passed with strong majorities in the Uruguay House and Senate in April. President Jose Mujica signed the bill into law on May 3.

Uruguay joins the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Denmark and France in recognizing marriage equality nationwide. Marriage equality takes effect in New Zealand later this month and is expected to take force in England and Wales in 2014.

Brazil is just steps away from fully recognized marriage equality following a recent ruling by their National Council of Justice. Same-sex marriage is also recognized in parts of Mexico and in thirteen U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

Congratulations, Uruguay!

MsTinkerbelly

08-12-2013, 12:46 PM

Social Security Announces You Must Live In A Marriage Equality State To Collect Benefits – For Now

by Jean Ann Esselink on August 12, 2013

Saying they ”appreciate the public’s patience as we work through the legal issues to ensure that our policy is legally sound and clear,” the acting commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Carolyn Colvin, announced the agency has begun processing claims from same-sex couples and their children who reside in states that recognize same-sex marriages. The couples must be legally married. Couples in civil unions will not be eligible for benefits at this time.

The announcement went on to say the agency continues to work with the Justice Department, and expects to develop additional “policy and processing instructions” which they will implement in the next “weeks and months.”

The short press release ended by urging anyone who thinks they should be eligible for benefits to continue filing claims, to protect your eligibility in case new policies are adopted in the future.

Story Writer’s Note: My gut feeling is that this decision should be viewed as more of a “what can we do right away?” response than a “this is all we’re going to do” announcement. The government moves slowly. My sense is they wanted to show they were working on the new policy, not that they expect to deny everyone else forever.

MsTinkerbelly

08-15-2013, 12:38 PM

New Jersey judge hears marriage equality arguments

Emma Margolin
12:54 PM on 08/15/2013

Six couples in are in a New Jersey courtroom Thursday, challenging the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. New Jersey state Sen. Ray Lesniak was one of two dozen sponsors of a marriage equality bill, which passed the legislature, but was vetoed by the Gov. Chris Christie.

Six gay couples and their children headed back to a New Jersey courtroom Thursday, hoping that June’s landmark marriage equality rulings would reinvigorate their fight for the state to recognize same-sex marriage.

New Jersey is one of four states that allow civil unions, which entitle gay couples to spousal rights, but stops short of calling those unions “marriage.” The New Jersey state Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that same-sex couples could not be denied the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, so the state legislature passed a law allowing civil unions in response. In 2012, the New Jersey Assembly passed a bill that would have legalized same-sex marriage throughout the Garden State, but Republican Gov. Chris Christie swiftly vetoed it.

The couples filed suit in 2011, claiming that New Jersey’s marriage laws violated the 2006 state Supreme Court ruling that set a standard of equality for same-sex couples. Now, they argue, New Jersey is even more in the wrong.

Arguments on Thursday focused on the implications of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA,) which defined marriage as the union between a man and a woman for federal purposes. The DOMA ruling cleared the way for same-sex couples who were legally married to receive the same federal benefits given to heterosexual spouses. At issue is whether same-sex couples in civil unions should also receive federal benefits based on the ruling.

Marriage equality advocates argue that the DOMA decision does not apply to civil unions, meaning that those who receive state-level spousal benefits are not entitled to federal-level benefits. By that logic, New Jersey is now in violation of the 2006 state Supreme Court decision requiring that gay couples receive the same benefits as straight ones. The state would have to allow all couples to marry, regardless of sexual orientation, in order to comply with both U.S. and state Supreme Court decisions, they argue.

Christie’s administration disagrees, claiming that the full impact of the DOMA ruling is not yet clear, reports the New York Times. A lawyer for the state said Thursday that it was the federal government’s fault, not the state’s, if couples in civil unions were denied certain federal benefits, reports the Associated Press.

After hearing both arguments Thursday, the judge said she would not issue a ruling before September.

Thirteen states and the District of Columbia currently allow same-sex couples to marry. New Jersey is one of two in the Northeast that does not.

tndoc

08-15-2013, 01:49 PM

New Jersey judge hears marriage equality arguments

Emma Margolin
12:54 PM on 08/15/2013

Christie’s administration disagrees, claiming that the full impact of the DOMA ruling is not yet clear, reports the New York Times. A lawyer for the state said Thursday that it was the federal government’s fault, not the state’s, if couples in civil unions were denied certain federal benefits, reports the Associated Press.

.

One big reason he may never become president. i truly hope they rule in favor.

blackboot

08-19-2013, 10:58 AM

Star Advertiser: Special session is expected

A law that could assuage appeals courts is the goal, the governor tells Democrats

By Derrick DePledge

POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Aug 19, 2013

Gov. Neil Abercrombie said Sunday it is "very likely" there will be a special legislative session on gay marriage.

The governor, speaking to a Democratic Party of Hawaii gathering at Ward Warehouse, appealed for patience while his administration drafts a gay-marriage bill that can withstand a potential legal challenge from opponents.

"We're not necessarily going to agree on every aspect of how to move forward where justice and freedom and opportunity are concerned," the governor said. "But I think we can put together something that can achieve a solid majority, that will give us the opportunity to establish marriage equity in the state of Hawaii commensurate with the recent Supreme Court decisions, and will satisfy and resolve the issues that are presently before the appeals court on the mainland."

Asked by the Star-Advertiser afterward whether there will be a special session, Abercrombie said, "I think it's very likely."

Despite the governor's confidence, however, he cautioned that he is more concerned about drafting a legally sound bill than the timing of when a bill is passed into state law.

Blake Oshiro, the governor's deputy chief of staff, said he is working with the state attorney general's office on a draft and has been in discussions with state lawmakers. Oshiro said the administration wanted to avoid a repeat of the flawed civil unions law that was approved in 2011 and later had to be corrected.

Abercrombie and state House and Senate leaders have been circumspect about a special session on gay marriage since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that legally married gay couples are entitled to federal benefits. The rulings prompted gay rights activists, along with the state's congressional delegation and a growing number of the more liberal faith-based groups, to urge the state to act quickly.

Hawaii allows both gay and heterosexual couples to enter into civil unions and receive the same rights and benefits as marriage under state law, but federal law does not recognize civil unions. Gay couples have challenged the state's marriage law in federal court as unconstitutional, and the case is on appeal.

House and Senate leaders have said they do not have the two-thirds' support required under the state Constitution to call themselves back into special session, leaving the decision up to Abercrombie. The Senate has the votes for gay marriage, Senate leaders have said, but the vote count is much closer in the House.

Abercrombie has been waiting for a clear expression from the House that there are sufficient votes for a gay-marriage bill. House sources have said privately that they believe they have a majority but want a cushion for a special session.

"The House votes are really close right now," said House Majority Leader Scott Saiki (D, Downtown-Kakaako-McCully). "We are looking forward to meeting with the governor to discuss the language and mechanics of a bill."

Democrats hold overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate, and Abercrombie holds Washington Place, so activists in the party expect the Legislature and the governor to enact gay marriage either in special session or soon after the next session of the Legislature opens in January.

"Marriage is such a huge, volatile, emotional issue that it should be handled separately so that when we go into the regular session, we can focus on the more regular business," said Jo-Ann Adams, an attorney and gay rights activist. "This needs to be done. It creates a nice space between getting it done in a focused way and giving them time to then reorient and refocus on the rest of the government business. It gives some space for it to die down so people don't worry about any election repercussions, although we don't expect any."

MsTinkerbelly

08-21-2013, 10:08 AM

A New Zealand First: Equality at Cruising Altitude

One couple celebrates in the skies as New Zealand adds itself on Monday to the list of countries with marriage equality.

BY Michelle Garcia.

August 19 2013 2:28 AM ET

NEW ZEALAND — Lynley Bendall and Ally Wanikau of New Zealand seem to prefer intimate moments. Besides, the quiet couple of 13 years are raising three sprightly children, leaving little time or energy to plan for the pomp and circumstance of a large wedding. But their modesty and humanitarian spirit was what won them a very public wedding ceremony on an Air New Zealand flight from Queenstown to Auckland. Wanikau and Bendall were among the first same-sex couples to legally marry in New Zealand starting Monday, and they were definitely the first to be wed in the Kiwi skies.

Once the 9 a.m. flight, filled with family and friends, reached cruising altitude, Bendall and Wanikau proudly walked from the back of the plane to the front, where local legend Kim Jewel Elliot performed a ceremony. Elliot had presided over the couple's previous civil union and commitment ceremonies. During the ceremony, Elliot, who was dressed in traditional Maori ceremonial garments, acknowledged the millions of gay people around the world still fighting for marriage equality and LGBT rights.

"We send our support and strength to those who continue to advocate in all nations for the right for all of us to marry," she said, adding, "Now all deep loves can be freely and openly celebrated. From this day forward, all children in New Zealand can grow up knowing they can marry whomever they love."

Bendall and Wanikau, as well as their children, exchanged traditional Maori pendants made of jade stone instead of wedding bands.

Modern Family actor Jesse Tyler Ferguson and his husband, Justin Mikita, also newlyweds, were on board to toast the couple as they reached this milestone.

"A successful marriage requires you to fall in love many, many times — with the same person," Ferguson joked. "It was beautiful to watch you fall in love with each other again today."

To cap the ceremony, a choir on the plane sang the New Zealand's unofficial national anthem, "Pokarekare Ana," a traditional Maori song about two lovers who cannot be together. Members of New Zealand's Parliament shocked the world when they sang the song after voting to establish a marriage equality law in April.

Upon landing, the couple celebrated their special day in an airplane hangar at the Auckland airport with more champagne, a rainbow cake, and a performance by local singing group, Anika Boh & Hollie.

Air New Zealand, which coordinated the festivities, will also send the couple on a six-day honeymoon to Palm Springs, Calif. Lorraine Murphy, the airline's chief people officer, said it was a natural fit for the "progressive, daring," national carrier to ring in the new marriage equality law. Now New Zealand's neighbors to the east look to the small country as the arbiter for what is to come.

"I already know there are couples from Australia coming to New Zealand to marry," she said

MsTinkerbelly

08-21-2013, 12:48 PM

WHERE IT ALL STARTED

Hawaii May Pass Marriage Equality Bill This Fall

Twenty years ago, Hawaii was the place where marriage equality first emerged as a real possibility. Now it looks like the state may finally complete its wedding march. Democrats in the state legislature are meeting this week to determine if they have the votes to pass a marriage equality bill. Assuming that they do — and they represent the overwhelming majority in both houses — Gov. Neil Abercrombie will call a special session of the legislature this fall to pass the measure. Abercrombie told party members that the special session was “very likely” to happen.

“I think we can put together something that can achieve a solid majority, that will give us the opportunity to establish marriage equity in the state of Hawaii commensurate with the recent Supreme Court decisions, and will satisfy and resolve the issues that are presently before the appeals court on the mainland,” Abercrombie said.

In the meantime, proponents of marriage equality are building the support they need for success. The state’s two Senators and two Representatives issued a letter calling for marriage equality, and a group of two dozen religious leaders has also announced their backing for a marriage bill. Hawaii is one of four states that marriage supporters have targeted for passage of marriage equality laws by 2014.

It’s been a long journey for marriage equality in the Aloha State. In 1991, three couples sued Hawaii, claiming that their rights under the state constitution had been violated. A plurality of the state Supreme Court ultimately agreed that the state couldn’t withhold marriage licenses from them. The religious right ginned up its machinery, and a constitutional amendment was passed in 1998, making the case moot. At the beginning of 2012, the state formally recognized civil unions, in a bit of belated catch up. Passage of a marriage equality measure would complete the circle for the state and make it the fourteenth to legalize same-sex marriages

Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/hawaii-may-pass-marriage-equality-bill-this-fall-20130820/#ixzz2cdBBqMek

MsTinkerbelly

08-22-2013, 10:03 AM

TIMING THE KNOT

As Dying Lesbian Petitions To Wed Partner, NM County Clerk Begins Issuing Gay Marriage Licenses

Shortly after a terminally-ill woman from Pojoaque, New Mexico sought an emergency court order allowing her to legally marry her partner of 21 years in hopes that their three children would be protected, a clerk from Dona Ana County began issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

Jen Roper has a life-threatening form of brain cancer that has caused her health to severely deteriorate in the past few months. Together with the woman she considers her wife, Angelique Neuman, they have raised three kids, the eldest of whom is currently in basic training in the U.S. Army.

With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), Roper and Neuman filed the emergency order today. Then, unexpectedly, the clerk in Dona Ana County decided that the “state’s marriage statutes are gender neutral and do not expressly prohibit Dona Ana County from issuing marriage licenses to same-gender couples,” according to a statement obtained by the AP.

“Any further denial of marriage licenses to these couples violates the United States and New Mexico Constitution and the New Mexico Human Rights Act,” Ellins said. “Dona Ana County is upholding New Mexico law by issuing these marriage licenses, and I see no reason to make committed couples in Dona Ana County wait another minute to marry.”

County clerks usually face challenges when they take the law into their own hands like that, and the issue may ultimately have to be resolved in court. But for now, couples have immediately descended on Las Cruces, NM where they began receiving their marriage licenses. Dona Ana is the first county in New Mexico to effectively allow gay marriage, though a series of lawsuits are pending in the state on that very issue, including Roper’s and Neuman’s.

However, Geraldine Salazar, clerk of Santa Fe County where Roper and Neuman live, said she does not plan on following Dona Ana’s lead because of those lawsuits. Just yesterday, a gay couple from Santa Fe asked the New Mexico Supreme Court to to streamline the way they handle same-sex marriage lawsuits. Roper and Neuman hope to add their voice to the chorus of change taking New Mexico by storm.

“I want to know that my family will be protected if I pass away,” Roper said in a statement from the NCLR. “Angelique and I have been married in our hearts for 21 years and raised three wonderful children together. Because of my illness, we do not have the luxury of waiting years for the courts to decide whether loving, committed same-sex couples can marry in New Mexico. For us, the time is now.”

Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/new-mexico-gay-marriage-dying-lesbian-20130821/#ixzz2ciMHELKk

MsTinkerbelly

08-28-2013, 12:34 PM

August 28, 2013, 12:18 pm

Marriage Equality in New Mexico

By ANDREW ROSENTHAL

When arguing against same-sex marriage, opponents often stress that marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman.

But our laws, at least, often did not wade into the question of gender one way or another — until the 1990s, when anti-gay-marriage forces began lobbying state legislatures to revise state constitutions, and pushed the Defense of Marriage Act through Congress. More recently, in a smaller, but growing, number of states, marriage-equality advocates have succeeded in establishing — through the courts or legislative action or voter referendums — that all adults can marry the person of their choosing, regardless of gender.

Alone among the states, New Mexico never jumped on the definitional bandwagon. It never banned same-sex unions, and it never specifically permitted them, either. And in the absence of clarity, American standards of equality and non-discrimination won out.

Last week, the clerk of Dona Ana county decided to recognize same-sex unions. Then a judge in Santa Fe directed the clerk in that county to begin issuing marriage licenses. On Monday, a state judge ruled that marriage between couples of the same sex is entirely legal and ordered the clerk of Bernalillo County, which includes Albuquerque, to issue licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

The Associated Press reported that Judge Alan Malott “had been asked only to order that the state recognize, on her death certificate, a dying woman’s marriage Friday in Santa Fe to her longtime partner.”

But he went a step farther and said that New Mexico’s constitution bans discrimination in marriage against a particular group of citizens. The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico was, naturally, elated. Laura Schauer called the ruling “monumental.”

The ruling does not cover the rest of New Mexico’s counties, and so it seems inevitable that the New Mexico state legislature, which has Democratic majorities, and its Republican governor, Susana Martinez, are about to come under intense political fire from the far right to amend the constitution. They should resist.

MsTinkerbelly

08-29-2013, 02:18 PM

Same-sex couples can file joint tax returns, IRS says

Reuters

All legal same-sex marriages will be recognized for U.S. federal tax purposes, regardless of where the couple lives, government says.

WASHINGTON — All legal same-sex marriages will be recognized for U.S. federal tax purposes, the Obama administration said on Thursday, allowing gay couples to claim the same tax benefits that heterosexual couples do.

As expected after a landmark Supreme Court ruling in June, the U.S. Treasury and Internal Revenue Service said:

"The ruling applies regardless of whether the couple lives in a jurisdiction that recognizes same-sex marriage or a jurisdiction that does not recognize same-sex marriage."

MsTinkerbelly

09-03-2013, 02:20 PM

Gay troops prep for September marriage spree, put wedding parties on ice

By Bill Briggs, NBC News contributor

September marks nuptial season across part of the American military as gay and lesbian troops cash in new, Pentagon-granted leaves to tie the knot.

Starting Tuesday, the Pentagon is allowing gay troops to take travel leaves for up to seven days — or as many 10 days for those stationed abroad — as long as those service members live 100-plus miles away from a state that allows same-sex marriages.

Scores of service members are draining their savings just to pay for airfare, hotels and rental cars — common, logistical necessities for obtaining a marriage certificate in one of the 13 states where same-sex marriage is legal, advocates say.

While many of these unions may lack champagne-soaked celebrations, they are fueled by a practical brand of urgency: gaining immediate, military-family benefits, said Stephen Peters, executive director of the American Military Partner Association (AMPA).

After the Supreme Court’s decision to scrap the Defense of Marriage Act, leaders at the Department of Defense announced that same-sex spouses of military members would become eligible this month for an array of federal benefits previously offered only to heterosexual spouses, from housing to health care. At the same time, DOD authorized the special leaves for troops seeking same-sex marriages.

"This will provide accelerated access to the full range of benefits offered to married military couples throughout the Department, and help level the playing field between opposite-sex and same-sex couples seeking to be married," Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a Pentagon spokesman, said via email. "We do not have an estimate of how many people this will impact."

A week to wed

At least three service members who work with AMPA have all hatched similar marriage plans for this month: quick trips to California to obtain licenses during their authorized leaves with festive wedding parties to follow sometime next year — or beyond.

"For us, California is the easiest way to go," said Melissa Jones, an Army E-3 (private first class), based at Fort Hood, Texas. She and her girlfriend, Danielle Nelson, have booked a seven-day trip to San Diego later this month. "We’re going to pretty much just get it done at the county courthouse. We’re not going to have a ceremony out there. We’ll do that back here with family and friends."

To help pay for their flight and hotel room, Jones and Nelson, both 20, cashed in their large collection of loose change plus $450 in recent bingo winnings.

“Many of our families simply can’t afford the costs of traveling across the country to get married in addition to having a large, expensive ceremony,” said Peters, executive director of the AMPA. “Many can barely afford to travel to a city clerk’s office across the country, wait the required number of days for waiting periods, and finally take care of the paperwork, only to hope for a larger and more formal ceremony at a later date.

“This all boils down to the financial burden they face in having to travel across country — or around the world, for many — a challenge that heterosexual (military) couples are not forced to face in order to care for their family,” Peters added.

'Just for the paper'

Despite the initial costs, the military benefits Jones will gain through marriage will save her thousands of dollars in the long run.
A marriage license will allow Jones to qualify for "base allowance housing," under which the military subsidizes service members' off-base apartments so long as they are legally married or are raising a child or children. That alone saves the couple about $700 per month, Jones said. And as a military spouse, Nelson's college tuition will be federally covered, instantly saving her an additional $4,000 per semester.

If Nelson falls ill after she's married, she can receive her medical treatment at Ford Hood thanks to her new military-family identification card and the official military decal she'll receive for her car. Currently, she must pay for medications out of pocket. The couple has been together for a year and a half, meeting two months before Jones headed to basic training.

"A lot of the urgency of this is that we’re missing out on a lot of benefits," Jones said. "It's not like we’re doing it for the money, but it’s going to help pay for things. I’m 20 years old and I’m helping her pay for college. I also have a car loan and an apartment. We both have full-time jobs. But getting the benefits, she can stop working and can just focus on school.

"I wear (an engagement) ring. People are always asking: 'Are you married?' I’m like: 'Yes and no.' People don't understand that. So I tell them that I'm gay and I have go 1,500 miles away just to get married," Jones said. "It’s not like we’re not going to enjoy it while we're there. But it kind of is just for the paper."

MsTinkerbelly

09-05-2013, 10:03 AM

Pennsylvania judge promises quick ruling in marriage equality case

September 5, 2013fte

By Jacob Combs

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

After yesterday’s oral arguments in a case challenging whether a Pennsylvania county official acted improperly when he began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite the state’s ban on marriage equality, the judge hearing the case has promised to issue a speedy decision. From the AP:

Commonwealth Court Judge Dan Pellegrini said a central issue is “how power is allocated in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”

“What’s before us today is generally, ‘Who decides?’” Pellegrini told the full courtroom in Harrisburg at the start of oral arguments.

Pellegrini said he was not weighing the constitutionality of the same-sex marriage ban. But questions about its constitutionality arose repeatedly, and Pellegrini said he was concerned about the potential effect of his ruling on various levels of government.

There are several procedural issues in the case that Pellegrini must consider before issuing a final ruling. First, he must determine whether Pennsylvania’s Health Department has legal standing to seek a court order compelling the county official–D. Bruce Hanes–to stop issuing marriage licenses. In addition, the judge must decide whether Hanes is a ‘judicial officer.’ If he is, the state’s Supreme Court may be the only court with jurisdiction over the matter.

By the end of business on Tuesday of this week, Hanes had issued 164 licenses to same-sex couples. We’ll have full coverage of the ruling on EqualityOnTrial when it’s handed down

blackboot

09-09-2013, 05:32 PM

Hawaii Marriage Equality

Monday, September 9. Governor Neil Abercrombie just announced a special session of the Legislature being called on October 28th to pass Marriage Equality!

Here comes Hawaii!!!

MsTinkerbelly

09-10-2013, 12:47 PM

Wash. Native American Tribe Recognizes Marriage Equality

BY Sunnivie Brydum.

September 09 2013 6:15 PM ET

The Colville Tribal Council of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Nation voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to recognize same-sex marriages, according to The Wenatchee World. The ruling will extend to all of the tribe's more than 9,300 members, about half of whom live on the Colville Reservation in north-central Washington State, according to the World.

Council chairman Michael Finley told the paper that the tribe has long recognized and respected LGBT identities, usually referred to as two-spirit in the tribal vernacular. Last week's vote means two-spirited Colvilles will be treated equally and with respect, Finley said. The tribe had already permitted members in same-sex partnerships to add their spouse to their insurance and other benefits plans.

Although Washington State voters approved marriage equality last November, federally recognized Native American tribes are self-governed and aren't subject to state laws.

Several Native American tribes around the country have formally recognized same-sex marriages in recent years. In 2008 the Coquille Indian Tribe on the southern Oregon coast became the first Native American tribe to recognize marriage equality, and in 2011 the Suquamish Tribe in Suquamish, Wash., also approved marriage equality. In March of this year, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians in Michigan also began to recognize same-sex marriages, when it oversaw tribe member Tim LaCroix's marriage to his now-husband, Gene Barfield. The Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians in Michigan and the Santa Ysabel Tribe of California also recognize same-sex marriages, bringing the total number of U.S. tribes with formal marriage equality to six, according to Equality on Trial.

MsTinkerbelly

09-12-2013, 10:08 AM

2014 Marriage Equality Initiative Dropped in Arizona

Groups claim more time is needed to rally support for same-sex marriage in the state.

BY Jase Peeples.

September 10 2013 6:17 PM ET

An initiative campaign planning to put a ballot measure in favor of marriage equality in Arizona before voters in 2014 has been dropped, reports The Arizona Republic.

Equal Marriage Arizona, the primary group behind the initiative, says efforts were scuttled because key national advocacy groups withheld backing of the initiative for 2014 because they believed there would be a greater chance of winning in 2016.

“They didn’t feel like Arizona was ready for equal marriage in 2014,” said Equal Marriage Arizona cochair Erin Ogletree Simpson. “I’m just happy our effort has prompted a focus from the various groups to look at 2016 and start putting together a strategy.”

While Simpson expressed frustration about the wait, most advocacy groups agreed waiting until 2016 would provide the time necessary to rally support for the measure, which would amend the state’s constitution to legalize same-sex marriage. Because that is a presidential election year, voter turnout is likely to be higher than in 2014, and that would be beneficial as well, they said.

Arizona voters amended their constiution to ban same-sex marriage in 2008, approving Proposition 102, which stated, “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.”

MsTinkerbelly

09-16-2013, 10:06 AM

New Mexico Poised to Enact Marriage Equality

by Jessica Mason Pieklo, Senior Legal Analyst, RH Reality Check

September 9, 2013 - 9:54 am

The New Mexico Supreme Court ordered a hearing to resolve whether or not county clerks can move forward with issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Another state took a step forward toward ensuring marriage equality Friday as New Mexico’s highest court set an October 23 hearing date to determine whether marriage licenses can be issued to same-sex couples in the state.

The court issued the order a day after all 33 of New Mexico’s counties and clerks filed a petition asking the New Mexico Supreme Court to rule whether a district judge in Albuquerque was correct last week in holding it was unconstitutional to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples based on a 1972 voter-approved equal rights constitutional amendment that prohibits discrimination “on account of the sex of any person.”

The dispute arose late August when the Dona Ana County clerk determined, based on this summer’s rulings on the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 from the U.S. Supreme Court, that the county could issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Seven other counties have followed Dona Ana County in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, or are planning to.

Same-sex marriage is neither explicitly authorized nor prohibited in New Mexico. But current and previous state attorneys general have argued the state has a de facto ban on same-sex marriage because state statutes contain a marriage license application with sections for male and female applicants, as well as other statutory references to “husband” and “wife.” Lawmakers this year tried, and failed, to change the state constitution to explicitly recognize marriage equality. Previous attempts to ban same-sex marriage and to recognize domestic partnerships have also failed in the state.

A ruling from the New Mexico Supreme Court would set a precedent statewide for how county clerks are to proceed in issuing marriage licenses.

The fight for marriage equality in New Mexico stands in stark contrast to the battle over abortion access, currently underway in Albuquerque, where out-of-state protesters have descended on the city to try and push a local ban on abortions after 20 weeks. In August, anti-choice activists obtained enough signatures on a petition to ban the procedure at the local level and put the matter up to a city council vote. The Albuquerque campaign was first organized by members of Operation Rescue in 2010.

Parties have until September 23 to submit written arguments to the New Mexico Supreme Court. The court could issue a ruling immediately following arguments, though it is more likely it will take the matter under advisement and rule sometime later. But the early hearing date and quick response suggests the court’s interest in a quick resolution of the issue

MsTinkerbelly

09-23-2013, 12:40 PM

Costa Rican court dashes advocates hopes of marriage equality

September 23, 2013fte

By Jacob Combs

Marriage equality

LGBT advocates on Costa Rica who hoped that a law passed earlier this year might lead to civil unions for same-sex couples were dealt a blow last week when a court in the nation’s capitol ruled against them. The Tico Times reports:

A family court judge in San José has rejected a gay domestic partnership application in the first legal test of Costa Rica’s controversial reform to the Young Person Law.

Alberto González and Lorenzo Serrano discovered in July that San José Family Court Judge Jorge Arturo Marchena Rosabel had rejected their petition for a legally recognized domestic partnership. The two young men have been a couple for seven years and have lived together for six-and-half years.

“We knew that the result could be positive or negative. Honestly, because of the Young Person Law we thought it would go through but there you have it, it didn’t happen,” González told The Tico Times Friday.

The couple’s lawyer, Marco Castillo, president of LGBT organization Diversity Movement, said that they had already appealed the judge’s decision and are waiting for a response. The Supreme Tribunal of the Family Courts will hear the appeal.

The July modification of the Young Person Law added an amendment that common-law marriages must be granted without “discrimination contrary to human dignity.” González and Serrano applied for a domestic partnership–which would have provided them some, but not all of the rights of marriage–after the law was changed. In his ruling, Judge Marchena pointed to several other provisions in Costa Rican law that mandate that marriages and domestic partnerships are open only to different-sex couples

MsTinkerbelly

09-24-2013, 10:10 AM

LGBT Advocates File Briefs for New Mexico Marriage Equality

The ACLU and NCLR filed legal briefs urging the New Mexico Supreme Court to declare marriage equality the law of the land.

BY Sunnivie Brydum.

September 23 2013 7:10 PM ET

The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of New Mexico, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the law firm of Sutin, Theyer and Browne APC formally filed legal briefs with the state supreme court today, responding to a request from 33 county clerks who asked the Supreme Court to determine whether New Mexico recognizes the freedom to marry statewide.

On August 21, a clerk in Doña Ana County abruptly began issuing licenses to same-sex couples — though the decision was later challenged by Republican lawmakers, and county clerks throughout the state filed legal briefs seeking guidance from the state's highest court.

Later that month, a district judge in Santa Fe ruled that the state’s constitution did not preclude same-sex couples from marrying. A district judge in Bernalillo County affirmed this ruling, agreeing that denying marriage equality violates key provisions in the state’s constitution on equality and gender-based discrimination.

"We agree with the 33 county clerks who say New Mexico families need certainty," said Shannon Minter, NCLR's legal director in a press release today. "New Mexico lacks a state-wide, binding resolution on the question of whether same-sex couples can marry. The more than 1,000 same-sex couples who have legally married in New Mexico over the past several weeks need to know that their marriages are valid and respected."

Opening arguments in the lawsuit are scheduled to take place before the New Mexico Supreme Court on October 23

MsTinkerbelly

09-25-2013, 10:04 AM

Gay and lesbian couples sue for marriage equality and adoption rights in North Carolina
by John H. Tucker

Six same-sex couples are suing the state of North Carolina and Durham and Guilford county court officials as they seek to overturn the state Supreme Court's 2010 ban on second-parent adoptions and the state's prohibition on gay marriage.

They are being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation.

The second-parent adoption case, Fisher-Borne v. Smith, was filed in Greensboro last year and amended this summer to include a challenge to the gay marriage ban.

Here, the families speak about their lives and the lawsuit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Terri Beck, 50, is from Morrisville and works as a recruiter for Duke University. Four years ago she and her partner of 16 years, Leslie Zanaglio, adopted two brothers through the foster care system.

BECK: The two things that have kept Leslie and I together, and the key to our success, is our ability to communicate with each other and our sense of humor. We both have the same basic core values. Family comes first for us.

Our boys had a very, very difficult first few years of their lives. They came from a severely neglectful, abusive early childhood. When they came to us, my younger son, who was 6, didn't know how to chew. They needed the love and nurturing that Leslie and I felt, and feel today that can provide for them and have provided for them. In the four years they've been with us, they've been thriving in amazing ways.

I have no legal rights as their mom. In every other way, I'm their mom. To them, I'm their mom. So it was important for us to formally ask the courts through this lawsuit to recognize our family.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leigh Smith, a 39-year-old stay-at-home mom, and her partner, Crystal Hendrix, 41, an elementary school librarian, have two children, Quinn, 3 ½, and Joe, 18 months.

They met at a school where Smith was a kindergarten teacher and Hendrix, a librarian.

HENDRIX: There was a real instant friendship, and just that constant wanting to be around each other. I just loved the way Lee interacted with her kids at school and the way she treated them all just like they were her own.

After Quinn was born, we knew we wanted to have another one. I was getting older, so we ended up having them closer together. Not quite two years between them.

SMITH: Second-parent adoption is very important to me because I did not have the [parental rights], that if something were to happen to Crystal, they would remain with me. And because she has a conservative family, we have that fear, always, that if something were to happen, that they could go to live with someone that they don't know.

HENDRIX: My parents don't recognize Lee as the children's mother, and they don't recognize us as a couple. I have a very strained relationship with them, but if something were to happen to me, there is a possibility that my parents can end up raising our kids. That's not the way things should be. We felt it was our responsibility to our kids and to our relationship, but also to other families who were in similar situations.

SMITH: We want them to know that we're a family unit, and marriage does that. It pulls everyone and everything together.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dana Draa, 42, works at the VA with blind and visually impaired veterans. She is a veteran. Lee Knight Caffery, 38, is an attorney. They have two children. They held a commitment ceremony in 2007.

DRAA: I had always wanted children, but I never thought about having them myself. I was always going to adopt. Finally, I decided to have the children. One of the unique things about us, because we have donor-conceived children, Miller and Margo are actual full brother and sister.

I can tell you that being the non-birth mother, it's a scary prospect. It's something I felt passionate about in the sense of protection for the children. I wanted to make sure that if anything happened to Lee Knight—now, I have a great relationship with her family, but not having legal protections, you know, all bets are off. I really needed to do this to say that I had done all that I could do for not just my family but for other families like ours.

KNIGHT CAFFERY: I echo Dana's sentiments about making sure our family remains cohesive no matter what, but in the event that something very unlikely happened to me, my worst fear is that our children would be torn apart and taken away from her, and she's the only other parent they've ever known. Because I'm an attorney, I understand the significance of the legal arguments in discrimination and I always felt like this is part of my calling, to do legal advocacy work on the part of the gay and lesbian community.

I have always thought that sometime in our lifetime we would be able to be married. But I always thought we might be walking down the aisles in walkers or a wheelchair, and that our children would be long grown. And now I can see that it's a real possibility that we might be able to be a loving, real, legally recognized family long before that time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chantelle Fisher-Borne, 38, works as a consultant with nonprofits and charitable foundations. Her partner, Marcie Fisher-Borne, 38, is an assistant professor and teaches social work. They have been together 16 years and had a wedding in 2003. They are the parents of a 5-year-old and an 18-month-old.

MARCIE FISHER-BORNE: This amendment changes things, and will change things for more people in this state, if it has the outcome that we want. It's about my love for Chantelle, which has always been there. It's about my love for my children. And it's about an opportunity to do this for folks who can't. I know some folks who don't feel like they can be public for fear of their job, and for other reasons.

CHANTELLE FISHER-BORNE: Yeah, I think the irony of our situation is one of us each gave birth to our kids. I'm no less a parent to my Miley as I am to her Eli, and Marcie is no less a parent to Eli as she is to my Ellein. We know that. Our kids know that. What we are requesting is that the state acknowledge our relationships, as being a legal stranger to your own kids is unconscionable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shawn Long, 43, is an office manager at a nonprofit. His partner, Craig Johnson, 46, is a clinical program assistant at a pharmaceutical company. They have a son, Isaiah.

They met several years ago through the INDY's personal ads.

LONG: Initially, I was opposed to having kids. Craig was open to kids, but it wasn't a deal breaker. Over the course of many years, he wore me down until finally he was like, "All right, we're gonna look at getting a kid!" And it was great. I was a fool for waiting this long.

JOHNSON: Isaiah comes from the Cabarrus County Department of Human Services. We initially were matched with him, and we thought, "OK, yeah, sounds interesting, sounds possible." He was 5 when we met him. We spent a weekend in Cabarrus County with him and took him back to his family.

LONG: We took him to Discovery Place in Charlotte—great!

JOHNSON: We felt like this is a really good match. He gets along really well with us; we get along well with him. So we did another weekend and he stayed with us for a weekend in our house. He stayed one more weekend with us and we thought, "Yes, we're ready to go. This is the right decision."

The result was fantastic. Isaiah has multiple times asked about getting a sibling. We're very reluctant to do that because this match was so good. I'm really afraid that if we were to try that process again that we would not have such a positive experience.

LONG: He had a biological sister, but she was not in the foster care system, so we weren't able to find her and adopt her, which we initially wanted to do.

We both want to be parents to him. We were both foster parents. Craig is his adoptive parent; suddenly I'm nothing. Anytime we go anywhere, I have to have paperwork. If something happens, I have to worry about, "Do I have the paperwork? What will people say? Will there be some kind of challenge?"

And Isaiah has asked before, "When are you getting married? Can you get married yet? What does this mean, you're not married? Are you still with my dad?"

We're both his parents, we both take him to soccer, we take him to the doctor, we send him up to his room. He should be supported with all the rights and responsibilities that come with having a two-parent family.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shana Carignan, 30, works for a local HIV/AIDS nonprofit, and Megan Parker, 34, is a stay-at-home mom. They met five years ago. They have a son, Jax, who has special needs.

CARIGNAN: We really liked each other, and there was no denying it, so once we started dating, it was pretty obvious that we were falling in love.

PARKER: It was interesting because at the time, I cared for an older lady, Mary, with disabilities in my home. She lived there and I was her sole care provider, so she was always around. [Mary's] cognitive issues made her about the age range of between 5 and 7.

CARIGNAN: We just had a great rapport. We were always laughing together, the three of us. So, it was like a ready-made family, because we started spending so much time together, and then I ended up helping take care of Mary. Once our relationship progressed, we thought, "Well, we both want kids. We really like doing this together, we're both good at it, what's holding us back?"

PARKER: We knew we wanted to adopt, but when a special needs case came in, we knew we could do it. We had already seen Mary as an adult, so we had seen what it looked like further down the road.

CARIGNAN: And we saw what life she didn't have. Because she didn't have the resources and the parents that were really going to take care of her. Every day Jax amazes us, because he constantly is proving to the world that he can do more than anybody ever thought he could. It's an amazing feeling to be a part of that, to know we help parent this amazing kid, who has this awesome personality, this smart brain, begging to get out and be noticed by the world, and we helped him find that.

PARKER: Marriage equality, as well as second-parent adoption, would mean an equal playing field for our family. There's so much that's just denied to us, when we're just a regular family. By our marriage being legally recognized, it would just make things so much easier. And we have to do everything we can to protect everything that we've worked for and we live for.

CARIGNAN: Since Jax has special needs, we had to go to doctors and stay overnight in hospital visits, and because Megan is his only legal parent, I don't have the same rights, so I wasn't allowed to stay overnight with him.

I can't receive Shannon's benefits because her job doesn't offer them to same-sex partners, but they do offer them to a married spouse. And Jax cannot receive medical benefits. He has federal Medicaid because he was adopted through foster care, but he can't receive secondary insurance, which would be a huge benefit, because Medicaid will often deny things that secondary insurance can pick up. He can't receive that because she's not his legal parent. We ended up becoming advocates just by telling our story

Cin

09-26-2013, 11:31 AM

I don't suppose this is a marriage update, but i thought it was interesting. And it might reflect the changing times. One can hope.

George H.W. Bush Is Witness At Same-Sex Wedding Of Friends

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/09/26/226391963/george-h-w-bush-is-witness-at-same-sex-wedding-of-friends?ft=1&f=1001

MsTinkerbelly

09-26-2013, 12:38 PM

Cin

09-26-2013, 12:41 PM

I saw this earlier and thought the same as you basically...one person at a time!

LOL! Yes. It will take awhile at that rate but I got time. *grin*

MsTinkerbelly

09-27-2013, 08:01 AM

'We're outta here!': Gay couples in exile return to America post-DOMA decision

By Miranda Leitsinger, Staff Writer, NBC News

NEW YORK – The two men held a long embrace after a Manhattan city clerk pronounced them married at a City Hall ceremony. They had traveled 2,000 miles to get here, one more leg of a years-long journey to having their relationship legally recognized in the United States.

Richard Hurtado, a Texas native, and Hugo Rendon, a Mexican national, were married last Tuesday after living abroad for years, unable to reside as spouses in the States. But that changed in June, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act, which had denied recognition of same-sex marriages and prevented gay Americans from sponsoring their foreign spouses for citizenship. Now bi-national couples like Hurtado and Rendon, who had faced the choice of moving abroad or risking deportation for the foreign spouse, are coming back to America.

“This is the start of a new beginning,” said Rendon, 43, who called his wedding to Hurtado, 40, a “blessing.”

For six years, Hurtado and Rendon, both certified public accountants, have lived in the violent Mexican border town of Nuevo Laredo, where the couple escaped an attempted robbery last November. But they couldn’t leave Nuevo Laredo, where Rendon has family and an established business. “I felt like it was a never-ending fight,” Rendon said in Spanish of waiting for U.S. law to change.

The DOMA decision was heralded by gay rights advocates as a first step toward legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. A week after the ruling, the Department of Homeland Security said immigration visa applications for same-sex spouses would be treated the same as those for opposite-sex spouses.

That was welcome news for bi-national gay couples in the U.S., a group estimated to number more than 32,000, according to Williams Institute, a think tank based at the UCLA School of Law. The federal government does not track data on such couples living overseas. But Immigration Equality, an advocacy group for gays and lesbians, said 900 of the 3,000 online inquiries it received after the DOMA ruling came from couples outside the U.S.

Under the new immigration guidelines, a valid marriage in a foreign country or a U.S. state where same-sex marriages are legal will be accepted, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Processing of family visas – a first step toward qualifying for a green card – is taking about 11 months, the agency said.

The DOMA Project said at least 15 binational, same-sex couples it works with, including two overseas, have received green cards following the court’s ruling. U.S. immigration officials have identified about 100 visa applications for foreign same-sex spouses of U.S. citizens that had been rejected because of DOMA but were being reviewed anew. Any other previously denied applicants can request to re-open their case, officials said.

Gay Americans who moved overseas to join foreign partners say they gave up a lot in the process: well-paid jobs, spending time with aging parents and other family, and leaving behind homes and communities.

“Part of the enormous cruelty of the Defense of Marriage Act has been that it forces you out of your country and away from social ties,” said Derek Tripp, project associate for The DOMA Project, an advocacy group for binational, same-sex couples.

For Darlene Nichols and her Belgian wife, Marie Le Fevere de Ten Hove, living abroad meant postponing their dreams.

Nichols, 55, moved to Belgium four years ago to join her wife, 37, but had a hard time finding work because of the language barrier. She also couldn’t get certifications in her field, home health care and massage therapy, forcing her to take lower-paying jobs such as cleaning buses.

Nichols missed her daughter and two young grandchildren, but visa requirements in Belgium hindered travels home. “It’s not been a vacation,” she said of her time abroad.

Soon after the couple learned about the DOMA ruling, they flew to California to be married (they previously had a civil union in Belgium). The pair now lives with Nichols’ daughter in Texas as they transition back to the U.S. “Every day I think about how it’s held us back,” Nichols said. “I just don’t feel like I’m living my life.”

Theresa Ewadinger, an American living in Japan with her Japanese wife and their infant son, couldn’t agree more. Ewadinger, 43, has been teaching English, one of the only jobs available to her in a country that promotes hiring citizens over foreigners. But the job offered no possibility of promotion, no bonus and no retirement plan.

“We’re outta here!” Ewadinger said of leaving Japan. “I just see our world opening up so much.” The family plans a return to her home state of Texas, where Ewandinger plans to apply to graduate school.

But challenges remain for these couples. There are immigration requirements, such as proving to the government that their relationship is legitimate, plus the daunting task of rebuilding their lives back in the U.S.

The couples may also have to contend with anti-gay marriage groups, who have objected to the government’s decision to allow them to immigrate.

John Eastman, board chairman for the National Organization of Marriage, said his group hasn’t discussed legal action on the issue yet but doesn’t rule it out. The majority opinion in the DOMA case was “tied to the fact that states have been the primary place where marriage policy is decided,” he said. “The federal government now seems bent on imposing it on them.”

Such concerns are far off for Rendon and Hurtado, who plan to move across the border to Laredo, Texas, where Hurtado grew up. He will work on mending his relationship with his parents, who couldn’t understand why he would leave his family and move to a place known for cartel violence.

“I wanted to be with him, so I had to do it this way,” said Hurtado.

As the nervous grooms awaited their big moment at the Manhattan marriage bureau last Tuesday, they talked about the home they’ve created together – Hurtado cooks, Rendon cleans – and showed off their Yorkshire Terrier, Valentino, whom they call their kid.

Advertise | AdChoices

“We had a bit of everything,” highs and lows, Rendon said. But overall, “It’s been a beautiful journey.”

MsTinkerbelly

09-27-2013, 10:04 AM

Illinois AFL-CIO passes resolution backing marriage equality

by GoPride.com News Staff

Fri. September 27, 2013 8:12:28 AM : 0 Comments - start the discussion

Illinois Unites coalition applauds AFL-CIO for landmark support

Chicago, IL — The Illinois Chapter of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) passed a resolution Sept. 26 supporting the freedom to marry and urged the Illinois House of Representatives to pass Senate Bill 10 – the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act.

"As an organization, we speak out for fairness and justice where it is most needed. Gay and lesbian couples in Illinois shouldn't have to wait another moment to be afforded the tools they need to protect their families," said Michael Carrigan, President of the Illinois AFL-CIO. "It is time we pass the freedom to marry for all."

The resolution, which was passed by the Executive Board of the Illinois AFL-CIO, states "the Illinois AFL-CIO joins with leaders from the faith community, civil rights organizations, President Obama, our own unions and a growing majority of Americans in supporting marriage equality legislation that effectively protects religious freedom."

"Securing the freedom to marry for all is a defining human rights issue of our time," said Timothy Drea, Secretary Treasurer of the Illinois AFL-CIO. "We urge Illinois lawmakers to be on the right side of history and pass marriage equality."

Since the legislative session ended in May without the House considering the marriage bill, Illinois Unites for Marriage has been increasing its reach with numerous labor organizations expanding their roles in the campaign, including, AFSCME Council 31, Illinois Education Association, Illinois Federation of Teachers, Illinois Nurses Association, National Association of Social Workers - Illinois Chapter, Pride at Work Chicago, Service Employees International Union State Council, Unite Here Local 1, and United Food and Commercial Workers Local 881.

"We applaud the significant support from the AFL-CIO today. Their resolution helps us in our fight to strengthen the American family by extending the protections of marriage to gay and lesbian couples," said John Kohlhepp, Campaign Manager for Illinois Unites for Marriage.

iamkeri1

09-28-2013, 12:23 AM

A judge in New Jersey has ruled that the state has to allow same-sex couples to get married since the state would be depriving same-sex couples of rights granted to them by the federal government if the state were to continue to not allow same-sex marriage, according to the New York Times. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/nyregion/new-jersey-judge-rules-state-must-allow-gay-marriage.html)

Since the federal government recognizes same-sex marriage and doles out certain benefits to married couples Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson ruled that by banning same-sex marriage the state was violating the state constitution by denying equal benefits to same-sex couples, according to the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304526204579101511780772846.html). (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304526204579101511780772846.html)

"The ineligibility of same-sex couple for federal benefits is currently harming same-sex couple in New Jersey in a wide variety of contexts," Jacobsen wrote in her decision.

Gov. Chris Christie opposes same-sex marriage and has tried to convince the court to "reserve the name of marriage for heterosexual couples." John Hoffman, the acting attorney general for New Jersey, believes that it is the federal government, not New Jersey, who is guilty of denying rights to same-sex couples by not offering the benefits to couples in a civil union, NBC News (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/27/20722687-new-jersey-judge-orders-same-sex-marriage-statewide?lite) reports.

"Civil union partners who are federal employees living in New Jersey are ineligible for marital rights with regard to the federal pension system," Jacobson said. "All civil union partners who are employees working for businesses to which the Family and Medical Leave Act applies may not rely on its statutory protections for spouses, and civil union couples may not access the federal tax benefits that married couples enjoy."

Jacobsen was ruling on a lawsuit filed by six same-sex couples who argued that since the federal government will recognize same-sex marriages in states that legalize them it is unfair that the state of New Jersey only allow civil unions, according to NBC News.

"This news is thrilling," Hayley Gorenberg, Lambda Legal deputy legal director, said in a statement. "We argued that limiting lesbians and gay men to civil union is unfair and unconstitutional, and now the Court has agreed."

The ruling by the New Jersey court is the first to legalize same-sex marriage in response to the Supreme Court decision that struck down the Defense of Marriage act this past summer. State officials have been ordered to begin allowing same-sex marriage on Oct. 21, according to the Star-Ledger (http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/09/nj_superior_court_gay_marriage_ruling.html). (http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/09/nj_superior_court_gay_marriage_ruling.html)

MsTinkerbelly

10-01-2013, 12:51 PM

Prop. 8 Legal Team Sets Sights on Va. Marriage Ban

Ted Olson and David Boies, the bipartisan legal team that successfully argued against California's Proposition 8 at the Supreme Court, have signed on to a federal challenge to Virginia's ban on marriage equality.

BY Sunnivie Brydum.

September 30 2013 12:48 PM ET

The so-called odd couple — a conservative lawyer who represented George W. Bush and his liberal opponent who represented Al Gore in the contested 2000 election — who helped strike down California's Proposition 8 are now taking their legal prowess to Virginia to fight that state's prohibition on marriage equality.

Ted Olson and David Boies, the bipartisan legal team who successfully argued Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Prop. 8 case, at the Supreme Court, have signed on to a pending federal case that aims to strike down Virginia's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, the American Foundation for Equal Rights announced today.

The Virginia case, Bostic v. Rainey, was filed in the U.S. District Court for Virginia's Eastern District on behalf of two couples who contend that the Virginia Marriage Amendment, which prohibits gay and lesbian couples in Virginia from marrying, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. One of the couples, Timothy Bostic and Tony London, were denied a marriage license in July, while the secondary plaintiffs, Carol Schall and Mary Townley, married in California in 2008, have a 15-year-old daughter, and are asking Virginia to legally recognize their relationship.

The Equal Protection argument is, in part, the same logic Olson and Boies successfully advanced in the Prop. 8 case, where California voters rescinded the gay and lesbian couples' right to marry by ballot initiative in 2008. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively repealed Prop. 8 on a legal technicality, deciding that the official ballot proponents had no legal standing to defend the law after two sets of California governors and attorneys general declined to do so. When AFER enlisted Boies and Olson to fight California's marriage equality ban in 2009, no other mainstream LGBT organization was willing to mount the legal challenge.

But with two landmark rulings in favor of marriage equality at the Supreme Court this summer — both the Prop. 8 case and Windsor v. U.S., which struck down a key section of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act — and 13 states and the District of Columbia with legal marriage equality in place, the winds have shifted toward equality.

Olson, who lives in Virginia, said his state is an "attractive target" for a federal challenge that he hopes will establish a federal constitutional right to marry.

In their arguments against Prop. 8, Olson and Boies often cited the 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, which struck down bans on interracial marriage as unconstitutional. Because Virginia's marriage amendment not only bans same-sex marriage in the state but also the recognition of any legal same-sex marriages from other states, Olson said Virginia provides a good example to highlight the importance of establishing gay and lesbian Americans' to marry on a national basis.

"The more unfairly people are being treated, the more obvious it is that it's unconstitutional," Olson told the The Washington Post.

The American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal also filed a request for swift judgment in another federal case challenging Virginia's ban on marriage equality — this one filed in the U.S. District Court for Western Virginia, on behalf of two lesbian couples.

MsTinkerbelly

10-02-2013, 10:04 AM

Chris Christie tries to block marriage equality in New Jersey

Evan Puschak
9:59 PM on 10/01/2013

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie wants to block the state’s upcoming legalization of same-sex marriage.

Interim state Attorney General John Jay Hoffman said in a letter to the state Supreme Court on Monday that the Christie adminstration would seek a stay on the Superior Court’s ruling. If granted, the ruling may postpone marriage equality from kicking into effect on October 21. Hoffman also expressed a wish to bypass appellate courts and take the issue directly to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

On Friday, Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson ruled that New Jersey’s civil union laws did not provide LGBT individuals the same rights as married couples.

“The court, the legislature, and a super-majority of New Jerseyans all support the freedom to marry, but the governor seems intent on blocking New Jersey’s path to fairness, adding more delay now with his decision to appeal the trial court’s clear ruling,” Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, told MSNBC. “The New Jersey Supreme Court should swiftly take and affirm the marriage ruling, and should let couples begin marrying Oct. 21, as the trial court ordered.”

Christie’s move to appeal is just the latest step in his back-and-forth with gay rights advocates over the issue of same-sex marriage. Back in February, Christie vetoed a bill passed by the New Jersey legislature that legalized same-sex marriage. Personally against marriage equality, the governor was willing to let the matter go to a state referendum in November, yet unwilling to let “an issue of this magnitude and importance” be decided by elected officials.

Instead, Christie appointed an official to oversee same-sex couples’ complaints that civil union laws were not affording them all the legal rights and benefits of married couples. For gay rights advocates, this measure did not go far enough to ensure equality.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in June to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act gave the same-sex marriage movement in New Jersey new life. The majority’s ruling in that case, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated that same-sex married couples deserved the same benefits as any other married couple, but was confined to legal marriages. This primed New Jersey for the challenge to its system that led to Judge Jacobson’s ruling Friday.

The other factor in the ruling was a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling from 2006 (Lewis v. Harris), which required the state to extend all the rights of heterosexual unions to same sex unions, but stopped short of legalizing same-sex marriage.

“The issue of whether the state must act to change its statutory structure for civil unions and marriages is purely a legal one that depends upon the interaction of the Windsor [DOMA] decision with the mandates established by the New Jersey Supreme court in Lewis,” wrote Jacobson in her 53-page opinion, illuminating the crux of the issue.

The plaintiffs in the case, six same-sex couples represented by Garden State Equality and Lambda Legal, said that Windsor and Lewis don’t work in sync for gay couples. As NJ.com reported, over 1,000 tax and inheritance benefits extended by the DOMA decision to same-sex married couples were withheld from those couples in New Jersey, trapped behind civil union laws.

The attorneys argued that such civil union laws made same-sex couples “second class” citizens, and Judge Jacobson agreed. “Same-sex couples must be allowed to marry in order to obtain equal protection of the law under the New Jersey constitution,” she wrote.

Though they don’t agree with Christie’s appeal, New Jersey Democrats urged the state Supreme Court to fast-track the case, per the administration’s wishes. If the court decides quickly in favor of Jacobson’s ruling, same-sex couples won’t have to wait longer than October 21st to enjoy full marriage equality.

It’s unclear to what degree Gov. Christie’s repeated moves against same-sex marriage are politically motivated, intended to bolster his conservative credentials.

“Within the Republican universe, he’s actually pretty far out there already on gay marriage, saying he wants a referendum and that he’d honor the result if voters pass it,” said MSNBC’s Steve Kornacki. “In terms of positioning for the 2016 GOP race, that alone puts him on shaky ground, so if a court moves to legalize it, he risks giving opponents on the right ammunition if he does anything but challenge it.”

MsTinkerbelly

10-11-2013, 10:09 AM

Judge Says New Jersey Can Begin Allowing Same-Sex Marriages in Two Weeks

By KATE ZERNIKE

Published: October 10, 2013

A judge on Thursday cleared the way for same-sex marriages to start in New Jersey in two weeks, dismissing the state’s request to prevent the weddings until after an appeal of the court decision allowing them is completed.

“There is no ‘public interest’ in depriving a class of New Jersey residents their constitutional rights while appellate review is pursued,” wrote Judge Mary C. Jacobson of State Superior Court in Mercer County, who also wrote the decision last month that ordered the state to allow same-sex marriages. “On the contrary, granting a stay would simply allow the State to continue to violate the equal protection rights of New Jersey same-sex couples, which can hardly be considered a public interest.”

The state immediately requested that the appellate division grant a stay. It had already asked the New Jersey Supreme Court to hear the appeal on an expedited basis; the court has not said yet whether it will do so.

Judge Jacobson said in her opinion that the state had not demonstrated that its appeal was likely to be successful. And she denied the state’s argument that New Jersey would suffer “irreparable harm” if marriages began happening, ruling instead that the people harmed would be the same-sex couples who would have to wait even longer to gain access to the federal benefits that the United States Supreme Court guaranteed them in a decision in June.

Judge Jacobson noted that “until some indeterminate time when appeals have been resolved,” same-sex couples would remain ineligible for federal tax and retirement benefits and for spousal coverage under Medicare. And if one member of the couple was a noncitizen, the other would not be able to sponsor him or her for residency, forcing them to live apart.

Lawrence S. Lustberg, who argued the case before Judge Jacobson on behalf of Garden State Equality and six gay and lesbian couples and their children, praised the ruling.

“We’re very pleased with not just the ruling, but the opinion, which makes clear how our clients are being harmed by not being able to marry, and compares that with the lack of harm that’s experienced by the state if they can marry,” he said. “The harms to our clients are real. The harm to the state is theoretical.”

The couples had asked the court to hear their case on an expedited basis after the United States Supreme Court’s decision in June striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal benefits to couples in same-sex marriages.

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that the state had to grant same-sex couples the same rights and protections as heterosexual couples, but left it to the Legislature to decide how to do so. The Legislature passed a law allowing civil unions, but the couples sued again, arguing that civil unions did not give the same benefits as marriage.

The United States Supreme Court said its ruling extending federal benefits to same-sex couples was limited to legal marriages. Judge Jacobson ruled in September that for that reason, the state had to offer marriages, not simply civil unions, to allow same-sex couples equal benefits.

She ruled that the state had to start allowing marriages on Oct. 21. Mr. Lustberg said couples would begin applying for licenses that day, and marriages would take place after the state’s three-day waiting period. But first, the plaintiffs will have to respond to the state’s request to appeal the decision on the stay, by Tuesday.

Meanwhile, a parallel strategy is moving through the Democratic-led Legislature, which passed a new bill allowing same-sex marriage last year. It was vetoed by Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican who is considered a leading candidate for his party’s nomination for president in 2016.

The Legislature has until January to override that veto, and state and national gay rights groups have flooded the state with money and activists to help the override vote succeed. The bill includes a provision that would allow religious leaders to decline to perform same-sex marriages by citing a moral exception. Democrats have argued that if the court decides the issue, it would not allow such an exception, so it would be better to have the Legislature move first to establish same-sex marriage.

The Democrats need Republican votes to win the override, and many Republicans have been wary of crossing Mr. Christie. But in recent weeks, two Republicans who did not vote on the original bill said they would support the override, and one who voted against same-sex marriage said he would vote for it.

“At any moment, the court can step in and put a halt to all this, temporarily or permanently,” said Mike Premo, the campaign manager for New Jersey United for Marriage, which is leading the push for the override. “The safest, surest, quickest route to marriage equality still remains with the Legislature.”