PROP 8 TRIAL TRACKER...
 

Parenting getting a little more equal
By Adam Bink

This got buried a few days ago with all the news around the Tucson shooting, but there was an important court decision in Connecticut. The state Supreme Court ruled in Raftopol v. Ramey that the names of two men can be entered on the birth certificate of their child who was conceived with the help of a surrogate. According to ProudParenting.org, this is the first time in the history of the country that a state high court has acknowledged the legality of the parentage of two men. More:

Anthony Raftopol and Shawn Hargon, an American couple residing in Hungary, had a daughter through surrogacy, and were both recognized as her child’s legal father on the birth certificate. They then had twins in April 2008 through the same gestational surrogate and egg donor. When the couple petitioned the court to be named as the children’s legal parents, the court granted their petition. However, this time the Attorney General, acting on behalf of the Connecticut Department of Health, attempted to block the creation of the birth certificate, stating that parentage could only be established through conception, adoption or artificial insemination.

The Supreme Court rejected this claim, noting that according to the Department of Health’s argument, a child born to an infertile couple who had entered into a gestational agreement with egg and sperm donors and a gestational carrier would be born parentless.

It’s often said that the states are the test tubes, incubators, etc. of good public policy, and even more importantly, that having many states all come around on the same topic (adoption, marriage, etc) moves national opinion and national courts. Hopefully this ruling can set a precedent.

Concurrently, over the weekend, the State Department announced that passport forms for registering children in the future will contain gender-neutral questions about parents “Mother or Parent 1″ and “Father or Parent 2″

ANOTHER PROP 8 TRIAL TRACKER....
 

Coming out swinging in Rhode Island
By Adam Bink

According to the Providence Journal, NOM is launching a $100,000 ad campaign aimed at preventing the legislature and newly-inaugurated Gov. Chafee from legalizing the freedom to marry for same-sex couples.

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — The local chapter of the National Organization for Marriage is launching a $100,000 TV advertising campaign aimed at defeating the legalization of same-sex marriage in Rhode Island.

The first TV ad scheduled for airing on Tuesday will challenge “Governor Lincoln Chaffee’s claim to have a mandate to redefine marriage,” according to a news release issued by the group that misspelled new Governor Lincoln D. Chafee’s name.

“Lincoln Chaffee got just 36% of the vote in the recent election, and fewer popular votes than the Cool Moose Party’s candidate for Lieutenant Governor,” Christopher Plante, executive director of NOM-RI, said in the release. “Our message is that getting 36% of the vote is no mandate to redefine the institution of marriage for all of Rhode Island society.”

A colleague told me the ad was up on their YouTube Rhode Island page, but then was “removed by the user”. I’ll keep an eye on it and will post when it comes out. If anyone sees it, please drop in the comments.

As in New Hampshire, rest assured we’re keeping a close eye on things and finding constructive ways we can help. Of course, NOM will have to compete with one part of the calvary:

The NOM-RI ad began airing on the same day that Marriage Equality-RI plans an event at the State House, to deliver “thousands of postcards” supporting same-sex marriage to lawmakers as they arrive for 4 p.m. House and Senate sessions.

Joemygod...Congratulations Canada
 

Canada Celebrates 10 Years Of Marriage
Same-sex marriage became legal across Canada in July 2005. But that road to national equality began in ten years ago today in Toronto, when Joe Varnell and Kevin Bourassa were married in the Metropolitan Community Church, a ceremony that was later ruled legal when it was performed. Starting in 2003, with Ontario leading the way, province after province legalized same-sex marriage, ultimately resulting in the landmark Civil Marriage Act in 2005. Congratulations, Canada

Joemygod
 

The wheels here turn a little slower....

DOJ Files DOMA Defense

The Department of Justice yesterday filed its defense of the overturn of Section Three of the Defense of Marriage Act, which was ruled unconstitutional last July in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States.
A quote from the government's brief comes via Chris Geidner at Metro Weekly:
DOMA is supported by rationales that constitute a sufficient rational basis for the law. For example, as explained below, it is supported by an interest in maintaining the status quo and uniformity on the federal level, and preserving room for the development of policy in the states. When DOMA was enacted, the institution of marriage had long been understood as a formal relationship between a man and a woman, and state and federal law had been built on that understanding. But our society is evolving, and as is well-established, the “science of government . . . is the science of experiment.” Over the years, the prevailing concept of marriage has been challenged as unfair to a significant element of the population. Recently there has been a growing recognition that the prevailing regime is harmful to gay and lesbian members of our society.
Rather tepid, eh? Richard Socarides of the newly-formed Equality Matters responds.
"There are some improvements in tone in the brief, but the bottom line is the government continues to oppose full equality for its gay citizens. And that is unacceptable. The administration claims that it has a duty to defend the laws that are on the books. We simply do not agree. At the very least, the Justice Department can and should acknowledge that the law is unconstitutional."
And from GLAD, who won the case, we get this response via press release.
The government’s appeal follows a decision issued on July 8, 2010 by federal District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro in favor of GLAD’s plaintiffs, seven married couples and three widowers, who have been denied access to federal programs because of DOMA. In that decision, Judge Tauro concluded that DOMA is unconstitutional. “We see nothing really new in this brief, which reiterates many of the same arguments the government made in the District Court,” said Mary L. Bonauto, who is leading the DOMA team for GLAD. “We’re prepared to meet these arguments head-on, and bring to an end the discrimination that is suffered by married same-sex couples like our plaintiffs and that DOJ has admitted is caused by DOMA.”

SCOTUS
 

Yahoo...minutes ago

Court rejects appeal over DC gay marriage law

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from opponents of same-sex marriage who want to overturn the District of Columbia's gay marriage law.

The court did not comment Tuesday in turning away a challenge from a Maryland pastor and others who are trying to get a measure on the ballot to allow Washingtonians to vote on a measure that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Bishop Harry Jackson led a lawsuit against the district's Board of Elections and Ethics after it refused to put that initiative on the ballot. The board ruled that the ballot question would in effect authorize discrimination.

Last year, Washington began issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples and in 2009, it began recognizing gay marriages performed elsewhere

I reinterate what AnaLee said earlier:

GOD
BLESS
CANADA

Smooches,
Keri

from joemygod
 

NEW YORK: Sen. Thomas Duane To Introduce Marriage Equality Bill

Openly gay New York state Sen. Thomas Duane says that he will introduce a marriage equality bill with the aim of forcing a vote by this June.
"I think everyone is aware that we have to make the lives of New Yorkers better in every way - economically, as well as to provide equality to New York families," Duane said Monday. Although a similar bill was soundly defeated in the Senate in 2009, Duane and other supporters believe Gov. Cuomo's support can finally tilt the political landscape. Cuomo, whose favorable rating reached a soaring 70% in this week's Siena poll, called for the legalization of gay marriage in his State of the State address earlier this month. "I think the governor is starting in a strong political place with the people on his side and the wind at his back," said Ross Levi, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda. "That is helpful."

Duane faces a tough, tough battle. The GOP remains in control of the New York Senate and anti-gay Democrats such as Sen. Ruben Diaz continue to vow to thwart same-sex marriage. Led by openly gay Assemblyman Daniel O'Donnell, the state Assembly has approved marriage equality several times and would easily do so again.

RELATED: In what some consider a signal of his intent to force through same-sex marriage, this week Gov. Andrew Cuomo appointed Erik Bottcher to the newly created cabinet post of Special Assistant for Community Affairs.

PROP 8 TRIAL TRACKER
 

California federal judge rules DOMA lawsuit can proceed
By Adam Bink

Out late last night, another opportunity for victory in favor of equality in a California courtroom:

In a victory for gay rights advocates, a federal judge has ruled that state employees in California can sue for discrimination over the federal government’s exclusion of their same-sex spouses from a long-term health care program.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of Oakland denied an Obama administration request to dismiss the suit Tuesday and signaled that she is likely to overturn provisions of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits to same-sex couples.

There have been lots of opportunities presented in many different areas to chip away at this law. Health insurance is certainly one of the most profound. More:

President Obama has criticized the law, but his Justice Department is defending it in court. The administration says Congress was entitled to preserve the status quo in federal law while states debated the marriage issue.

But Wilken said the 1996 law actually changed the status quo by “robbing states of the power to allow same-sex civil marriages that will be recognized under federal law.”

She also rejected arguments that the law’s sponsors put forth in 1996, that the legislation was necessary to promote procreation and preserve heterosexual marriage.

“Marriage has never been contingent on having children,” Wilken said, and denying federal benefits to same-sex couples “does not encourage heterosexual marriage.”

She said sponsors’ “moral rejection of homosexuality” had been obvious in congressional debate. The U.S. Supreme Court has found that bias against gays is an unconstitutional justification for passing a law, Wilken noted.

Her statements paralleled the reasoning of the Massachusetts decision and a ruling in August by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco that struck down California’s ban on same-sex marriage.

Although Wilken considered only whether the suit over health insurance could proceed, her ruling “gives a pretty clear direction as to where she’s going,” said Claudia Center, lawyer for three UCSF employees and their spouses who sued to overturn the law.

Center said she would ask Wilken to certify the suit as a class action on behalf of all state employees with same-sex spouses or domestic partners. The judge did not decide whether domestic partners could challenge the law.

The couples sued in April over the California Public Employees’ Retirement System‘s refusal to enroll the spouses in a federally approved long-term care plan. State employees can buy coverage at below-market rates, use pretax dollars to pay premiums, and deduct future benefits from their taxes.

The California agency has refused to sign up same-sex spouses because the Defense of Marriage Act denies federal tax benefits to any state that covers them.

We will see how this proceeds alongside the Massachusetts case.

From joemygod
 

FRANCE: Constitutional Council To Hear Same-Sex Marriage Case

A lesbian couple's challenge to France's marriage laws will be heard this week by the Constitutional Council, the nation's highest court. Pink News reports:
Corinne Cestino and Sophie Haßlau launched the bid in May 2010 at the Tribunal de Grande instance of Reims to question the constitutionality of France’s position on gay marriage. The couple, a paediatrician and an English teacher, have four children and live together in a village outside Reims. They entered into a PACS, a civil union, ten years ago. On 16 November, the Court of Cassation referred the case to the highest constitutional authority in France, citing an “issue of constitutionality”, on Articles 75 and 144 of the Civil Code, which exclude the civil marriage of same sex.

A decision is expected by the end of the month. France currently offers civil unions and recognizes the same-sex marriages of foreigners, but not those of French citizens gay-married in other countries.

Joemygod...Go Hawaii
 

Hawaii Lawmakers Debate Civil Unions

JMG reader Todd writes to tip us that the Hawaii Senate has just begun debating a civil unions bill. Newly-elected Gov. Neil Abercrombie has promised to sign the bill, should it reach his desk. Last year both chambers of the Hawaiian legislature approved a civil unions bill, only to have it vetoed by then-Gov. Linda Lingle. Story developing...

Equality Hawaii: Dedicating To Securing Equality For Hawaii's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community
action.equalityhawaii.org
The Judiciary & Labor Committee of Hawaii's Senate passed SB232, a bill granting equal rights, benefits and responsibilities to same-sex and opposite-sex couples, today with a 3-2 vote!
:hangloose:

I hope this passes soon. Seems like all the states that have passed gay civil rights are in ."cold country" LOL. At last here will be a place for those of us who hate cold weather. Yah!!!
Smooches,
Keri

joemygod...Hawaii update
 

HAWAII: Civil Unions Bill Advances

Hawaii's civil unions bill yesterday squeaked out of committee and advanced for a vote by the full state Senate.
Senate Bill 232 passed the Senate Judiciary and Labor Committee by a 3-2 vote, after a hearing that lasted just over two hours. The bill now goes to the Senate floor for the second of three required votes by the full chamber. Sen. Clayton Hee, committee chairman, sought to keep the hearing moving by limiting testifiers to 1 1/2 minutes each, saying he did not believe anything material could be added to the discussion.

The bill may be introduced in the Hawaii House as early as today.

PROP 8 TRIAL TRACKER...Maryland
 

Moving forward in Maryland
By Adam Bink

Yesterday, legislation was formally introduced at a press conference in Annapolis to legalize the freedom to marry for same-sex couples. I didn’t have time to write about it the last two days, but some background via press release:

On January 25, 2011, Equality Maryland, along with Senate Majority Leader Rob Garagiola, House Majority Leader Kumar Barve, Senator Rich Madaleno, Senator Jamie Raskin, Delegate Ben Barnes, Delegate Keiffer Mitchell and community partners who support the freedom to marry for gay and lesbian couples in Maryland, will hold a press conference at the state capital to announce the introduction of the Religious Freedom & Civil Marriage Protection Act. This bill ends the exclusion of committed same sex couples from civil marriage and protects the religious freedom of churches and synagogues.

[...]

Speakers:

Majority Leader Rob Garagiola (District 15)

· Sen. Rich Madaleno (District 18)

· Sen. Jamie Raskin (District 20)

· Majority Leader Kumar Barve (District 17)

· Del. Benjamin Barnes (District 21)

· Del. Keiffer Mitchell, Jr. (District 44)

· Morgan Meneses-Sheets, Executive Director, Equality Maryland

· Sean Eldridge, Political Director, Freedom to Marry

· Melissa Goemann, Legislative Director, ACLU Maryland

· Maryland Representative from Catholics for Equality

· Representative from Maryland Black Family Alliance

· Representative from the Maryland NAACP

· Sister Jeannine Gramick, Maryland Coordination for National Coalition of American Nuns

· Frank DeBernardo, Executive Director, New Ways Ministry

· Rion Dennis, President, Progressive Maryland

An impressive and worthwhile lineup.

Concurrently, a new poll showed that 51% of Maryland residents support allowing same-sex couples to marry, with 44% opposed.

As we’re doing in New Hampshire with our Granite State Camp Courage trainings, teaching local supporters to organize in their communities, we’re looking to help as much as we can in Maryland, and more on that in the coming weeks.

joemygod...the fight in Iowa
 

Iowa GOP Narrowly Loses Senate Bid To Vote On Same-Sex Marriage Ban

This morning Iowa GOP state Sen. Kent Sorensen called for a suspension of chamber rules in order to force a vote on a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. His motion was narrowly defeated along party lines.
Sorenson asked all 50 senators to call up Senate Joint Resolution 8, a bill that would amend the Iowa Constitution to specify that marriage between one man and one woman is the only legal union valid or recognized in the state. Senate President Jack Kibbie (D-Emmetsburg) said “no,” but agreed to allow a vote on whether to suspend the rules and override his objection. Twenty-six Democrats voted “no” and 24 Republicans voted “yes.” The motion was defeated. Danny Carroll, chairman of the controversial Christian organization The Family Leader, told supporters in an e-mail Wednesday night that Sorenson was planning to “file numerous amendments and use any other tactic at his disposal” in order to force a vote on same-sex marriage. Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal has vowed to never allow such an amendment to come up for debate.

Gronstal: “It’s clearer than ever that Republicans will stop at nothing to take away the constitutional rights of Iowans. I hope that Republicans will join our efforts and focus their energy on helping Iowans recover from the worst national recession since World War II.”

joemygod...so sad
 

FRANCE: Constitutional Court Rules Ban On Same-Sex Marriage Is Legal

This morning France's highest court let stand a ban on same-sex marriage. The case had been brought by a lesbian couple raising four children.
In its decision, the Council noted that lawmakers had agreed that the "difference in situations of same-sex couples and couples made up of a man and a woman can justify a difference in treatment concerning family rights." "It is not up to the Constitutional Council to substitute its appreciation for that of lawmakers," the body said. It noted that its job is to simply rule on whether a measure abides by the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the French Constitution. In this case, it ruled that the articles in question are, indeed, "in conformity with the constitution." Cestino and Hasslauer have sought the right to wed. "It is not so much about getting married, but about having the right to get married," Cestino, a pediatrician, said in an interview this week. "So, that is what we are asking for: Just to be able, like anyone else, to choose to get married or not."

The court's ruling noted that France's parliament is free to make new laws on the issue

CIVIL UNIONS BILL PASSES HAWAII SENATE!

Today was a great day for equality as Hawaii's Senate passed SB 232, a civil unions bill, by a 19-6 vote.

The bill, which is identical to last session's HB 444 that was vetoed by Gov. Linda Lingle, provides that the equal rights and responsibilities of married couples in Hawaii be available to thousands of same-sex couples in the state.

The legislation now moves to Hawaii's House of Representatives, where action is expected to proceed next week.

ALOHA!

Thank you so much to those of you that take the time to post this information so we can all keep up with the progress in this area.

While I am happy for the progress that is being made, and while I freely admit that I never thought I would live long enough to see any of this happen, still I am frustrated that:

1) We have to move forward inch by inch, fought at every step by people who are already comfortably "endowed" with the rights they want to keep from us.
2) We are still seen as "different" than people of a heterosexual persuasion, less than human, and worthy of poor treatment, and
3) People still think that they get to vote on our !@#$%! rights instead of just "having" them like everyone else.

... and finally I am SOOOO f-ing sick of having our rights assailed (at least in the USA) by the Christian right. Why don't they use the money they use against us to support the children of the girls and women they talk out of having abortions, ('cause I know they could really use that help), or to do some actual good work that Jesus might actually approve of.

Smooches,
Keri

Prop 8
 

Illinois’ Gov. Quinn to sign civil unions legislation
By Adam Bink

In another episode of “elections matter”, Gov. Pat Quinn, re-elected in a not as tough as others but still tough fight this past November, will sign legislation enacting civil unions for same-sex couples today. And he’s doing it with some gusto. Via the Sun-Times (h/t AMERICABlog):

Gov. Quinn will enact legislation that will allow same-sex couples to enter into civil unions during a bill-signing ceremony Monday that could go down as one of the largest in state history.

The governor’s office has been publicizing the bill-signing for a week and expects as many as 1,000 people to show up at the ceremony, which will be held at the Chicago Cultural Center, 78 E. Washington St.

“We knew there was going to be a lot of interest in participating in what is a pretty historic moment. There’s only a limited number of states that allow civil unions, and a smaller amount that allow gay marriage,” Quinn spokeswoman Brie Callahan said.

“What we wanted to do was just make it as public as we could, and the response has been overwhelming,” she said.

[...]

“The turnout is going to be beyond anyone’s expectations,” said Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago), the bill’s chief House sponsor. “What people are saying to me is this is going to be a historic moment. I had a couple of women tell me they had waited 28 years for this and wanted to be there when it finally happens.

We should know our champions not just by pen to paper, but by the visibility they grant to our issues. Good for Gov. Quinn. And now the push for full equality at the state level will begin, too.

Great Britian...from joemygod
 

BRITAIN: Gay & Straight Couples Launch Challenge To Marriage Laws

Led by activist Peter Tatchell, on Wednesday eight British couples, four gay and four straight, will file a challenge to Britain's marriage and civil partnership laws with the European Court of Human Rights.
Peter Tatchell is coordinator of the Equal Love campaign, which seeks to end sexual orientation discrimination in both civil marriage and civil partnership law."Since November, four same-sex couples were refused marriage licenses at register offices in Greenwich, Northampton and Petersfield. Four heterosexual couples were also turned away when they applied for civil partnerships in Islington, Camden, Bristol and Aldershot," added Tatchell.

"All eight couples received letters of refusal from their register offices, which we are now using as the evidential basis to challenge in the European Court of Human Rights the UK's exclusion of gay couples from civil marriage and the prohibition of straight civil partnerships. Since there is no substantive difference in the rights and responsibilities involved in gay marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships, there is no justification for having two mutually exclusive and discriminatory systems.
The petitioners contend that Britain's "separate but equal" system violates the European Convention On Human Rights, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.

Prop 8 Trial Tracker---New Hampshire
 

New Hampshire marriage repeal bill introduced
By Adam Bink

Just today, as reported in the Concord Monitor, repeal language was introduced, which can be found here (and copied below). It’s every bit as nasty as you expected it to be.

The legislation does recognize marriages performed in the state since the freedom to marry became a reality, but any out of state marriage performed after the time at which this law would be enacted is not recognized. E.g., New Hampshire gay and lesbian couples cannot travel to Massachusetts and wed.

Per the article, a response from NH Freedom to Marry:

The New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition criticized Bates for focusing on gay marriage instead of the economy. “Rep. Bates has planted himself firmly, and proudly, on the fringes of American life,” Mo Baxley, executive director of New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition, said in a statement. “His need to divorce committed couples and to prevent other couples from getting married is strange. So much for family values.”

Bill text:

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eleven

AN ACT relative to the definition of marriage.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Marriage; Marriages Prohibited; Recognition of Out-of-State Marriages. RSA 457:1 – RSA 457:3 are repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

457:1 Purpose. The legislature finds and declares that:

I. Marriage is not a creature of statute but rather a social institution which predates organized government. As the United States Supreme Court has noted, marriage has roots that are “older than the Bill of Rights – older than our political parties, older than our school system.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965).

II. As many scholars and experts have noted, marriage, understood as the legal union of a man and a woman, serves and supports important social goods in which the government of New Hampshire has a compelling interest.

III. The vast majority of children are conceived by acts of passion between men and women – sometimes unintentionally. Because of this biological reality, New Hampshire has a unique, distinct, and compelling interest in promoting stable and committed marital unions between opposite-sex couples so as to increase the likelihood that children will be born to and raised by both of their natural parents. No other domestic relationship presents the same level of state interest.

IV. A child has a natural human right to the love, care and support of his or her own mother and father, whenever possible. Marriage is the primary social institution that promotes that ideal and encourages its achievement.

457:2 Marriages Prohibited; Men; Women.

I. No man shall marry his mother, father’s sister, mother’s sister, daughter, sister, son’s daughter, daughter’s daughter, brother’s daughter, sister’s daughter, father’s brother’s daughter, mother’s brother’s daughter, father’s sister’s daughter, mother’s sister’s daughter, or any other man.

II. No woman shall marry her father, father’s brother, mother’s brother, son, brother, son’s son, daughter’s son, brother’s son, sister’s son, father’s brother’s son, mother’s brother’s son, father’s sister’s son, mother’s sister’s son, or any other woman.

457:3 Recognition of Out-of-State Marriages. Every marriage legally contracted outside the state of New Hampshire, which would not be prohibited under RSA 457:2 if contracted in New Hampshire, shall be recognized as valid in this state for all purposes if or once the contracting parties are or become permanent residents of this state subsequent to such marriage, and the issue of any such marriage shall be legitimate. Marriages legally contracted outside the state of New Hampshire which would be prohibited under RSA 457:2 if contracted in New Hampshire shall not be legally recognized in this state. Any marriage of New Hampshire residents recognized as valid in the state prior to the effective date of this section shall continue to be recognized as valid on or after the effective date of this section.

2 Marriageable. Amend RSA 457:4 to read as follows:

457:4 Marriageable. No male below the age of 14 years and no female below the age of 13 years shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage [that is entered into by one male and one female], and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void. [No male below the age of 18 and no female below the age of 18 shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage between persons of the same gender, and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void.]

3 Marriage; Solemnization of Marriage. RSA 457:31 is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

457:31 Who May Solemnize. Marriage may be solemnized by a justice of the peace as commissioned in the state; by any minister of the gospel in the state who has been ordained according to the usage of his or her denomination, resides in the state, and is in regular standing with the denomination; by any member of the clergy who is not ordained but is engaged in the service of the religious body to which he or she belongs, resides in the state, after being licensed therefor by the secretary of state; within his or her parish, by any minister residing out of the state, but having a pastoral charge wholly or partly in this state; by judges of the United States appointed pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution; by bankruptcy judges appointed pursuant to Article I of the United States Constitution; or by United States magistrate judges appointed pursuant to federal law.

4 Solemnization of Marriage; Exceptions. RSA 457:37 is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

457:37 Exceptions. Nothing contained in this chapter shall affect the right of Jewish Rabbis residing in this state, or of the people called Friends or Quakers, to solemnize marriages in the way usually practiced among them, and all marriages so solemnized shall be valid. Jewish Rabbis residing out of the state may obtain a special license as provided by RSA 457:32.

5 Repeal. The following are repealed:

I. RSA 100-A:2-b, relative to marriage.

II. RSA 457:31-b, relative to solemnization of marriage; applicability.

III. RSA 457:45, relative to civil union recognition.

IV. RSA 457:46, relative to obtaining legal status of marriage.

6 Effective Date. This act shall take effect upon its passage.

Young Barbara Bush speaks out for NY marriage equality
 

Dub's daughter Barbara speaks out for marriage equity.

Here's the link - everything I found on youtube referred to another link. this one is from yahoo.

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/8725203/24038708

powerful testimony of a young Iowan man whose parents are lesbian
 

PROP 8 TRAIL TRACKER....
 

Bad news, and hope, in Iowa
“Is this heaven?

No, it’s Iowa.”

-Field of Dreams


By Adam Bink

It was another drinking from the firehose kind of day at Courage Inc., so I didn’t have a chance to write about this, but the Iowa House passed legislation to place a constitutional amendment stripping same-sex couples of the freedom to marry. The measure still is a long way from going anywhere, as it must be approved by the Senate and then approved in another legislative session after elections, but it is a defeat. The vote was 62-37 with one abstention.

A NOTE FROM ME (TINK)
The Video posted above from Soon was also posted with this story....didn't think we needed it twice!

Prop 8 Trial Tracker....
 

Top Maryland Republican announces support for the freedom to marry
By Adam Bink

Remarkable news today from Maryland. Earlier this year, Republican Senate Senate Minority Leader Allan Kittleman resigned from his post under pressure because of his pledge to introduce a civil unions bill.

Well, today Kittleman announced his is abandoning that plan and will support legislation to extend the freedom to marry to same-sex couples. Big, big news. This is the (former) leader of the opposition crossing party lines to support equality. His full statement, via the Washington Blade, is below.

STATEMENT BY SENATOR ALLAN H. KITTLEMAN ON SENATE BILL 116

I want to express my thoughts on SB 116, Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act. As most of you know, I have long supported equal rights for same sex couples. A few years ago, I voted in favor of allowing same sex couples the right to make medical decisions for each other.

This year, I decided to work on legislation that allowed civil unions for all couples – opposite sex and same sex couples. My goal was three-fold:

1. I wanted to ensure that same sex couples had the same rights and
responsibilities as married couples in Maryland;

2. I wanted to remove the government’s intervention in what most Marylanders
consider a religious institution (marriage); and

3. I wanted to develop a consensus on an issue that has been very divisive for many years.

In early January, I announced my proposal for civil unions for all couples. Somewhat surprisingly, I received much more criticism from people who wanted same sex marriage than those who oppose such marriages. I actually received quite a lot of messages and emails from Republicans supporting my decision.

A recent poll performed by Gonzales Research confirmed strong support for civil unions. The poll found that 62% of Maryland voters support civil unions. Of that amount, 73% of Democrats, 60% of Independents and 41.5% of Republicans support civil unions. This figure was higher than the support for same-sex marriage in Maryland.

According to the poll, 51% of Maryland voters support same-sex marriage. Of that amount, 65% of Democrats, 52.4% of Independents and 24% of Republicans support same-sex marriage.

Unfortunately, despite the support by a strong majority of Maryland voters, I did not receive any support from my Republican and Democrat senate colleagues. In fact, the Republican senate caucus yesterday voted to take a “caucus position” against same-sex marriage. My Republican colleagues have also made it very clear to me that they would not be supportive of my civil union legislation. I also did not receive any support from Republicans or Democrats in the House of Delegates.

Based upon the lack of support I have received for my civil union bill, it was evident that my legislation would not receive a favorable report from the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. With the deadline for submitting legislation approaching quickly and with the Committee hearing scheduled to be held on Tuesday, February 8th, I made the decision to forego my efforts to have civil unions for all couples in Maryland.

As I noted above, my primary goal has always been to ensure that same sex couples have the same rights and responsibilities as married couples currently have in Maryland. I see this issue as a civil rights issue. I was raised by a gentleman who joined with others in fighting racial discrimination in the 1950s and 1960s. Watching him fight for civil rights instilled in me the belief that everyone, regardless of race, sex, national origin or sexual orientation, is entitled to equal rights.

Consequently, with the civil union legislation no longer being a viable option, I was put in the position of deciding whether to support same-sex marriage or voting to continue the prohibition against same-sex marriage. As a strong proponent of personal and economic liberty/freedom, I simply could not, in good conscience, vote against SB 116.

I know that some may contend that since the Bible teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman, Maryland should continue to prohibit same sex marriage. First, let me state that I am a strong follower of Jesus Christ. I worked in youth ministries for many years. However, while my faith may teach that marriage is between a man and a woman, our government is not a theocracy. As the state senator from District 9, I represent everyone in my district, regardless of their faith. Therefore, while my spiritual
life is extremely important to me, it cannot be the sole basis for my decisions as a state senator.

I know that some will be upset with my decision to support SB 116 and I respect the fact that people have differing opinions on this issue. I carefully considered my decision.

I sought counsel from many people, including my family, clergy, advocates for both sides, fellow legislators and many others. These discussions were very helpful to me and I appreciate the time that those individuals took to talk with me. Ultimately, it was my strong feelings about civil rights that led me to decide to support SB 116.

WOW!!!

You go, Kittleman!!!

A very brave stance, considering the attitude of his party.

Smooches,
Keri

PROP 8 TRIAL TRACKER
 

CA Supreme Court may decide as early as next week on Prop 8 question
By Adam Bink

As originally reported in the LA Times, today the California Supreme Court Chief Justice told reporters that the Court could decide soon, as early as next week, on the questions submitted regarding standing. As many of you know, before it will decide on the merits and issue of standing, the 9th Circuit submitted a request for clarification to the CASC on whether proponents of ballot initiatives have standing to represent the state.

Stay tuned for some news as early as next week. Of course, here at P8TT, we keep true to our name as #1 Google result for “Prop 8 trial”, so we’ll be bringing you the best coverage possible.

joemygod...the worst could happen...
 

CALIFORNIA: State Supreme Court May Weigh In On Prop 8 Standing Next Week

Today the San Francisco Chronicle reports:
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakayue says the California Supreme Court will decide soon, maybe next week, on whether to enter the Proposition 8 gay marriage fray. The 9th U.S. Court of Appeals said last month that it cannot decide if the gay marriage ban is constitutional until the state high court weighs in on whether proposition sponsors have authority to defend the measure. A three-judge panel asked the California Supreme Court to decide if ballot proposition backers can step in to defend voter-approved initiatives in court when state officials refuse to do so. The panel suggested it would have to dismiss the case if there's no state high court input.
If I'm reading this right, the Court is going to decide if it wants to decide.

Hi Ms Tinkerbelly,
As always thank you for keeping us updated on this important case.

So am I right in my deduction that if the case is dismissed, that the 9th district circuit decision that Pro 8 is unconstitutional will stand? Meaning therefore that same sex marriage will be restored to legality in CA?

Thanks and smooches,
Keri

And now for some comic relief.

I know this is old, but I just saw (again) the commercial that spoofs that awful "Gathering Storm" commercial.

It's great.

The Governor and the Attorney General refused to defend Prop 8 in Court, and if the California Supreme Court decides lack of standing in the groups that ARE defending it, then the case would be thrown out. If that happens, Prop 8 would stand until we could once again VOTE on it. I believe that is the way it would happen...anyone?

I am a pretty positive person, but I think the case will be thrown out and we will be stuck with Prop 8 until the 2012 elections.

CRAP!!!
Thanks Tink, but
CRAP!!!
Smooches,
Keri

From joemygod...go Hawaii!
 

HAWAII: Civil Unions Advances In House

Last month Hawaii's civil unions bill passed in the state Senate. And last night an 11-2 vote moved the bill out of committee and to the full House for a vote expected to be made in the next week or so.
The state House Judiciary Committee voted last night to approve a civil-unions bill with amendments to ensure that the relationships are recognized in the tax code and are under the jurisdiction of family court. "It's still fast-tracked. I think the Senate now has the opportunity just to agree to these amendments that probably should have been considered when it was first passed," Rep. Gil Keith-Agaran (D, Kahului-Paia), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said after the 11-2 vote

Unmarry To Support Same-Sex Marriage

Video from last year's Unmarrying:

From the Prop 8 blog
 

Positive signs on marriage in New York, Maryland
By Adam Bink

Two good reports out this morning. One is from Julie at The Advocate, covering their NY beat as well as she always does. Gov. Cuomo’s remarks on the marriage bill, which is languishing in the Senate over uncertainty on the number of votes in hand, following his budget presentation at Hofstra University:

“I want to see it become the law of the state of New York and we’re going to take it up this session,” he said.

The comments marked the most specific to date from the Democrat about a timetable. In his state of the state address in January, he called for the bill to be passed “this year.”

The marriage equality bill has passed the assembly multiple times, but the measure failed in the senate in 2009 by a wide margin of 38–24, with no Republicans voting in favor. Senate majority leader Dean Skelos has promised not to block the bill from going to a vote.

According to The Journal News, when Cuomo was asked Wednesday what he was doing to get the bill passed in the Republican-controlled senate, he said, “We’re working very hard to pass it.”

A positive sign. For all of Gov. Paterson’s inabilities, I always gave him credit for being the most outspokenly pro-freedom to marry governor in every possible respect- actions, pressure, rhetoric. He relentlessly beat the drum harder than anyone. I’d love to see Gov. Cuomo follow in his footsteps.

In Maryland, Sen. Brochin, a previous opponent of the freedom to marry, announced his was switching to a yea vote. Statement from Equality Maryland and him following the hearings:

ANNAPOLIS, M.D., FEBRUARY 9, 2011–Senator Jim Brochin (D-42) held a press conference today where he announced that his support for marriage equality.

Statement from Equality Maryland, Morgan Meneses-Sheets, Executive Director

“Equality Maryland is proud of Senator Brochin’s declaration of support of civil marriage for gay and lesbian couples. His recent change of heart proves that when people have the facts, and hear the real life stories from loving and committed couples, hearts and minds can and do change. We welcome Senator Brochin to the growing coalition of elected officials from both sides of the aisle who have come to understand that ensuring equal treatment under the law is good public policy. There is no substitute for equality — and only civil marriage can confer the respect, protection and responsibility to same-sex couples in the same manner that it is conferred to opposite-sex couples.”

SENATOR BROCHIN’S STATEMENT RELEASED TO THE PRESS

After an almost 8-hour hearing on Tuesday, Senator Brochin found some of the opponents’ testimony on same-sex marriage (SB 116 – Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act) to be “troubling.” The Baltimore County Democrat had previously said he was against same-sex marriage, but is now reconsidering his stance.

“What I witnessed from the opponents of the bill was appalling.” Brochin said. “Witness after witness demonized homosexuals, vilified the gay community, and described gays and lesbians as pedophiles. I believe that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather people are born one way or another The proponents of the bill were straightforward in wanting to be simply treated as everyone else, and wanted to stop being treated as second-class citizens.

Brochin added, “For me, the transition to supporting marriage has not been an easy one, but the uncertainty, fear, and second-class status that gays and lesbians have to put up with is far worse and clearly must come to an end.”

This follows the former minority leader, Sen. Kittleman, announcing his switch to support the bill. The big mo’!

Update: One other note. I guess Maggie, who testified, only has herself and her cohorts to blame for Brochin’s switch, when you note how “witness after witness demonized homosexuals” etc. Good job, Maggie.

I was wrong! Read last couple of sentences
 

New chief justice says California Supreme Court will decide soon on entering Proposition 8 fray
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye discusses the possibility of weighing in on the federal appeal of Proposition 8 and her hope that a vacancy on the California Supreme Court be filled by a Southern California Latino.

Chief Justice of California Tani Cantil-Sakayue, pictured after swearing… (John G. Mabanglo / European Pressphoto Agency)February 03, 2011|By Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times
Reporting from San Francisco — Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said Wednesday that the California Supreme Court may decide "as soon as next week" whether to weigh in on the federal Proposition 8 appeal and expressed hope that a Southern California Latino would be chosen to succeed departing Justice Carlos R. Moreno.


In her first meeting with reporters since taking over for retired Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Cantil-Sakauye said she would meet with Gov. Jerry Brown on Friday and discuss the judicial branch budget and Moreno's successor.

Moreno, the only Democrat on the court, is leaving at the end of this month to make more money in the private sector. He was the sole justice on the court to vote to overturn Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that reinstated a ban on same-sex marriage.

Cantil-Sakauye said Moreno had been an important "ambassador" for the court and as a resident of Los Angeles, had ensured the court has a strong presence there. She said geographic and ethnic diversity are important to the court, and "it really would be helpful" if Moreno's successor shares his heritage and residency.

Brown has yet to reveal his leanings on the subject, but his advisors have been examining several Latino candidates, including law professors. The court also has no African-American justice.

Gay rights activists have bemoaned Moreno's departure at a time when the court is being asked to play another critical role in Proposition 8. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has asked the California high court to determine whether state law gives sponsors of initiatives the authority to defend them legally when state officials refuse to do so.

The state court has been highly deferential to initiatives in the past. If the court rules that initiative backers have special status under state law, the 9th Circuit would be more likely to rule on the constitutionally of Proposition 8.

Lawyers and law professors who have followed the case suspect that the 9th Circuit was prepared to dismiss the appeal by backers of Proposition 8 on the grounds that only state officials can challenge the trial court's ruling against the measure. Gay rights lawyers say such a ruling would mean Proposition 8's demise, but it would have no direct effect on same-sex marriage outside California

Hawaii State House Approves Landmark Bill To Protect Same-Sex Couples


Today was a great day for Hawaii as the Hawaii House of Representatives passed SB 232 SD1 HD1 by a 31 - 19 vote!

The bill provides that the equal rights and responsibilities of married couples in Hawaii be available to thousands of unmarried couples in the state ... including same-sex couples.


After minor changes were made by House members, the bill now heads back to the Senate for agreement on the amendments before heading to Gov. Neil Abercrombie for his signature. SB 232 SD1 passed the Hawaii Senate on Jan. 28 by a 19-6 vote.

Except for some technical corrections and implementation amendments, the bill is identical to HB 444, the civil unions bill passed in 2010. That bill passed the House and Senate with near supermajorities before Gov. Linda Lingle vetoed it. No override vote was held.

Fro joemygod...Go Colorado
 

COLORADO: Civil Unions Bill Introduced

Openly gay Colorado state Sen. Pat Steadman introduced his civil unions bill today. One Colorado reports via press release:

The Colorado Civil Unions Act provides committed gay and lesbian couples with critical legal protections and responsibilities, such as the ability to insure a partner, to inherit property, to take family leave to care for a partner, to visit a partner in the hospital, and to make medical and end-of-life decisions for a partner. “Civil unions will allow committed couples to share in the responsibilities and protections in Colorado law that most families take for granted. Our society is stronger when we promote personal responsibility and taking care of one another, and civil unions do just that,” said Senator Pat Steadman, sponsor of the bill. A key provision of the civil unions bill includes a religious exclusion. The bill explicitly protects freedom of religion by not requiring priests, ministers, rabbis, or other religious officials to certify a civil union. Religious leaders who want to certify a civil union may do so.
According to a just-released poll, 72% of Colorado voters support legal recognitions for gay couples. Steadman's bill is expected to pass easily in the Democratic majority state Senate, but the GOP-led state House will be another story.

Prop 8 Trial Tracker
 

The NYTimes on the indefendable DOMA
By Adam Bink

Amazing NYTimes editorial yesterday (bolding mine):

In Defense of Marriage, for All
The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act is indefensible — officially sanctioned discrimination against one group of Americans imposed during an election year. President Obama seems to know that, or at least he has called on Congress to repeal it. So why do his government’s lawyers continue to defend the act in court?

The law, signed by President Bill Clinton, denies married same-sex couples the federal benefits granted to other married couples, including Social Security survivor payments and the right to file joint tax returns. When December’s repeal of the noxious “don’t ask, don’t tell” law goes into effect, gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans will be able to serve openly in the military but may not be entitled to on-base housing or a spouse’s burial in a national cemetery.

Attorney General Eric Holder and Justice Department lawyers have sought to distance the administration from Congress’s justifications for the marriage act, one of which was to “encourage responsible procreation.”

But just last month, the department appealed two rulings by Joseph Tauro, a federal trial judge in Massachusetts, who found that the law’s denial of benefits to married same-sex couples could not pass constitutional muster. We did not agree with some of the judge’s reasoning. He said the marriage act exceeded Congress’s powers and infringed on the state’s right to regulate marriage — an approach that could undermine many of the biggest federal social programs, including the new health care law.

But the department’s appellate brief also recycled the flimsy argument that the law had a plausible purpose in trying to maintain the federal status quo while states debated the issue of same-sex marriage. This argument was peculiar since the law overturned the federal status quo, which was to recognize all legal marriages.

Two new lawsuits, filed in Connecticut and New York, challenging the Defense of Marriage Act now offer the president a chance to put the government on the side of justice. We urge him to seize it when the administration files its response, which is due by March 11. The executive branch’s duty to defend federal laws is not inviolate. This one’s affront to equal protection is egregious.

Now a comment from Adam Bink..(Prop 8 Blogger)
[...]

On the merits, this should be an easy call. A law focusing on a group that has been subjected to unfair discrimination, as gay people have been, is supposed to get a hard test. It is presumed invalid unless the government proves that the officials’ purpose in adopting the law advances a real and compelling interest. That sort of heightened scrutiny would challenge the administration’s weak argument for upholding the act. It would also make it more difficult to sustain other forms of anti-gay discrimination, including state laws that deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

By now, such blatant discrimination should be presumed to be unconstitutional, and the Justice Department should finally say so. If conservatives in Congress want to enter the case to argue otherwise, so be it.

A hard test is right. This law advances no compelling interest