10 Rights for Civil Partnerships vs. 1300 Rights with Marriage
 

joemygod
 

Washington State Gets Marriage Bill

Yesterday lawmakers in Washington state used the occasion of Valentine's Day to introduce a marriage equality bill, fulfilling the dire warnings of anti-gay activists who had predicted that the 2009 failure of Referendum 71 was a mere stepping-stone to full equality for gays.
This Valentine’s Day, Rep. Jim Moeller, D-Vancouver, and Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, said the night is darkest just before the dawn. "Over the past several years, the Legislature and the public together have been steadily building a bridge to equality for gay and lesbian families," said Moeller. He noted the passage of civil rights legislation in 2006 protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination in employment, housing, and financial transactions, and then three successive years of securing broader and broader domestic partnership rights -- which included successfully withstanding a hostile referendum challenge at the ballot in 2009.

"We've made tremendous progress since 1998," Murray said. "Gay and lesbian families in Washington now enjoy the same state spousal rights that their married straight friends enjoy – except for the name ‘marriage’. The recognition that their loving, lifelong commitment is no different from the loving, lifelong commitment of straight couples is the final step to achieving full equality. I believe the Legislature and the public are both ready to take that final step."

I might be a little more outraged because I am a United Methodist!
Here is the article...

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_N...ntent=FaceBook

When you're done and if you too are pissed....here is the email to the church where the "trial" is being held. I emailed the minister himself.

http://www.appfumc.org/staff_e-mail.htm

http://www.afer.org/news/la-times-ca...-sex-marriage/

California Supreme Court to decide tomorrow if they will hear arguments in Prop 8.

PROP 8 TRIAL TRACKER
 

BREAKING: California Supreme Court expected to deliver ruling today
By Adam Bink

According to the Los Angeles Times, today the California Supreme Court is expected to deliver a ruling today in the Prop 8 case. I’m told this could merely be a ruling on whether to accept the question submitted by the 9th Circuit or not… or could be a ruling on the standing issue, e.g. whether proponents of Prop 8 have standing, under state law, to represent the entire state of California when state officials decline to do so. Ultimately, though, the issue will be kicked back to the 9th Circuit.

We’ll have coverage and reaction as the ruling comes down.

Update: P8TT friend Karen Ocamb has the six letters submitted arguing the issue of standing over at LGBTPOV, for a good refresher.

Update2: Aside, while we’re waiting for this to come down, reminder to all we’re having our panel on new ways of organizing around LGBTQ equality using new media starting in 15 minutes or so, at 9 PST/12 EST. I’m co-moderating with Chris Geidner of Metro Weekly.

You can dial in at (712) 432-1001 using Access Code: 438365410#

And submit questions via questions@equalitythinking.org. If you’re a P8TTer, give a shout-out

From joemygod
 

***Note from Ms Tinkerbelly...this is why the Supreme Court needs to step in and protect us all***

INDIANA: House Approves Marriage Ban

The Indiana House today approved a proposed ballot measure which would enshrine a ban on same-sex marriage in the state constitution.

It now moves to the Senate, where such a ban has passed with little trouble in recent years. If it clears the Senate, then a separately-elected House and Senate must once again approve the ban in either 2013 or 2014. Then, voters would have the final say in a November 2014 referendum. “The basic unit of society is the family, and the cornerstone of the family is marriage. Marriage is, and should be, the union of one man and one woman,” said Rep. Eric Turner, R-Marion. Rep. Ralph Foley, R-Martinsville, said the ban would have no effect on Hoosiers’ ability to live with and love whomever they choose. “That loving friendship is a different relationship than a husband and wife, and we should recognize that in the law,” he said.

FROM PROP 8 TRIAL TRACKER...LONG (what a disappointing day-me)
 

CA Supreme Court decides it will answer question from 9th Circuit regarding Prop 8 standing
By Adam Bink

Just now, the California Supreme Court granted a request from the 9th Circuit to answer the question of whether proponents have standing under California law. As expected, they only said they decided whether to decide at all- and they decided they’d answer the question. Text:

The request, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that this court decide a question of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, is granted. For the purposes of briefing and oral argument, defendant-intervenors Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Mark A. Jansson, and ProtectMarriage.com (collectively “Proponents”) are deemed the petitioners in this court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(a)(6).) In order to facilitate expedited consideration and resolution of the issues presented, and to accommodate oral argument in this matter as early as September, 2011, the normal briefing schedule is shortened, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.68, as follows: The opening brief on the merits is to be served and filed on or before Monday, March 14, 2011. The answer brief on the merits is to be served and filed on or before Monday, April 4. A reply brief may be served and filed on or before Monday, April 18. Any person or entity wishing to file an amicus curiae brief must file an application for permission to file such brief, accompanied by the proposed brief, on or before Monday, May 2, 2011. Any party may serve and file an omnibus reply to any or all amicus curiae briefs on or before Monday, May 9, 2011. The court does not contemplate any extension of the above deadlines. Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Moreno, and Corrigan, JJ.

In response, Courage Campaign sent out the following e-mail from one of our members in San Francisco- Shane Mayer- who I think well expresses the frustration from lots of same-sex couples who want to get married in their home state from whom we’ve heard. Another day, another court decision (or lack thereof), and more waiting. It’s turned into, in essence, a waiting period to get married for same-sex couples across the state. In Shane’s case, his father was diagnosed with cancer last year. He’s okay, but what if he had to miss Shane and John’s wedding day while the courts dragged their feet?

If you’re part of a same-sex couple wanting to get married in California, or know someone who is, click here to tell your story. We at Courage Campaign are going to then work to get these stories out, so the public, and the courts, know who is waiting.

Update: A lot of folks have asked, will it really be until September or later until couples could marry? The answer is yes, according to Chris over at Metro Weekly. He points out if oral arguments are held “as early as” September, and then the 9th Circuit doesn’t get to rule on the case until October, that’s what we’re looking at. Which is why we’re collecting these stories of couples forced to wait.



Shane is a Courage Campaign member living in San Francisco. He and his fiance were disappointed and frustrated by today’s news and wanted to share their message below with you.
-Rick Jacobs

Dear Adam,

Today, the California Supreme Court didn’t even render a decision on the issue of standing in the Prop 8 case. They decided whether they were going to decide or not. The real decision could take months.

So I’m going public. I want the California Supreme Court to know just how many same-sex couples are waiting like me, so they step on the gas.

Are you part of a couple like me, or do you know a same-sex couple waiting to marry? If so, click here to tell your story. Our friends at Courage Campaign will get them out to the California Supreme Court and the media.

I’ve been engaged to my fiance John for some time now, and we keep waiting for the courts to stop kicking us around. Every time we get our hopes up over another court decision, they get shot down.

Look, my father got cancer this past year. We dodged a bullet and he’s fine, but what if he couldn’t see my wedding day because the 9th Circuit and the California Supreme Court are playing hot potato? Not to mention the couples who are going to get married in another state because it’s not legal in California.

It’s not fair to me, it’s not fair to John, and it’s not fair to the thousands of other couples like me. Click here to tell your story or that of someone you know.

Remember when Judge Walker’s decision came down and couples lined up to wed, only to see him put a stay on the decision? Remember when the 9th Circuit announced they would rule, only to kick the ball to the CA Supreme Court?

They don’t see us out here. And I’m tired of waiting.

So let’s help them understand. Click here to tell your story, or the story of someone you know.

My mom and dad met, fell in love and got married on their schedule, not on a court’s. Share your story, so we can build a case for the California Supreme Court to step on it. We need California to see more weddings in the future, instead of more heartbreak.

Thanks for all you do,

Shane

Some news to smile about:

British government reportedly set to introduce full gay marriage equality



http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/13...-gay-marriage/

joemygod...Hawaii moving forward!
 

Wednesday, February 16, 2011
HAWAII: Civil Unions Bill Passes Final Hurdle, Goes To Desk Of Governor

Just in from Equality Hawaii!
Equality Hawaii, the state's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, and the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest LGBT civil rights organization, today applauded the Hawaii legislature for approving civil unions for the second time in ten months. The bill, which was passed in its amended form today by the Hawaii Senate on an 18-5 vote, now heads to Gov. Neil Abercrombie for his signature. "We honor and thank the legislature today for their commitment to equality for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community in Hawaii, said Alan Spector, co-chair of Equality Hawaii. “For the second time in less than a year, legislators have dedicated themselves to providing dignity and respect to all families in the Aloha State."

HURRAY!!!!!!!!!

Smooches for equality,
Keri

Prop 8 Trial Tracker
 

The 24th vote in Maryland
By Adam Bink

Big news out- the Baltimore Sun reports Sen. Rosapepe just committed, via e-mail to his constituents, to voting for the bill extending the freedom to marry to same-sex couples. That means we have our 24 publicly committed votes to pass the State Senate. Fantastic.

Here’s his e-mail:

Thanks for contacting me to let me know of your support for SB 116, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act. I am writing to let you know that it was passed today by the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee and will be voted on the Senate floor next week.

I intend to vote for the bill as it was reported out of Committee with a strengthened conscience clause to respect the views of religious denominations which do not recognize same sex marriage. I don’t know what other amendments may be proposed on the Senate floor but will keep your concerns in mind as we consider them.

I appreciate so much the time you and many other constituents have taken to share with me your reasons for supporting the bill.

Please feel free to be in touch with me on issues of concern to you and whenever I can be of help.

For those who missed it, the bill passed out of the Judicial Proceedings Committee yesterday, 7-4. It will go to the Assembly. Thanks to all of you who made calls and organized here.

One by one the states grow up and realize no boogie man will be jumping out of the closet once same sex couples are allowed to marry.

Hell no! We're already OUT!

Sweet thoughts,
Ana

White House press secretary announces that the Obama administration has decided that it WILL NOT DEFEND DOMA IN ANY LEGAL ACTION!!!!

With lots of disclaimers they also state that they will continue to be a party in any action taken by any other party that wishes to defend DOMA so that a decision on its constitutionality can be made by the courts. Also they will continue to enforce DOMA until a court decides differently.

A small victory, but a significant one nonetheless.

Smooches,
Keri

Gov't drops defense of anti-gay marriage law

Associated Press Pete Yost, Associated Press – 33 mins ago
WASHINGTON – In a major policy reversal, the Obama administration said Wednesday it will no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriage.

Attorney General Eric Holder said President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. He noted that the congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act "contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships — precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution's)Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against."

The Justice Department had defended the act in court until now.

The move quickly drew praise from some Democrats in Congress but a sharp response from the spokesman for Republican John Boehner, the House Speaker.

"While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation," said Boehner's spokesman Michael Steel.

Holder's statement said, "Much of the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed" the Defense of Marriage Act. He noted that the Supreme Court has ruled that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct are unconstitutional and that Congress has repealed the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

At the White House, spokesman Jay Carney said Obama himself is still "grappling" with his personal view of gay marriage but has always personally opposed the Defense of Marriage Act as "unnecessary and unfair."

Holder wrote to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, that Obama has concluded the Defense of Marriage Act fails to meet a rigorous standard under which courts view with suspicion any laws targeting minority groups who have suffered a history of discrimination.

The attorney general said the Justice Department had defended the law in court until now because the government was able to advance reasonable arguments for the law based on a less strict standard.

At a December news conference, in response to a reporters' question, Obama revealed that his position on gay marriage is "constantly evolving." He has opposed such marriages and supported instead civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. The president said such civil unions are his baseline — at this point, as he put it.

"This is something that we're going to continue to debate, and I personally am going to continue to wrestle with going forward," he said.

On Wednesday, Holder said the president has concluded that, given a documented history of discrimination against gays, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny than the department had been applying in legal challenges to the act up to now.

The attorney general said the department will immediately bring the policy change to the attention of two federal courts now hearing separate lawsuits targeting the Defense of Marriage Act.

One case, in Connecticut, challenges the federal government's denial of marriage-related protections for federal Family Medical Leave Act benefits, federal laws for private pension plans and federal laws concerning state pension plans. In the other case in New york City, the federal government refused to recognize the marriage of two women and taxed the inheritance that one of the women left to the other as though the two were strangers. Under federal tax law, a spouse who dies can leave her assets, including the family home, to the other spouse without incurring estate taxes.

Wonderful news, and about time! (f)

PROP 8 TRIAL TRACKER....
 

Breaking: Olson and Boies file requests for the California Supreme Court to expedite Prop 8 case, and 9th Circuit to lift stay
By Adam Bink

This morning, Ted Olson and David Boies on behalf of the American Foundation for Equal Rights announced they are filing a request with the California Supreme Court to expedite the Perry v. Schwarzenegger (Prop 8) case and hear oral arguments by the end of May, before summer recess. They are also filing a “Motion to Vacate Stay Pending Appeal” with the 9th Circuit to lift the stay while the California Supreme Court takes its time. As you may recall, one week ago the California Supreme Court announced it would consider the question from the 9th Circuit regarding proponents’ standing, and would hear oral arguments in September.


As I posted here at the time, a six-month delay (with, I’m told, likely another few months until an actual decision) is an unacceptable delay.

In response to the news, Courage Campaign asked our members and you to submit your story or that of someone you know who is forced into hardship by waiting for the court to take its time. We collected a total of over 430 stories, are hosting a call for media later today to fulfill the purpose Shane described in the e-mail: get these stories out to the media and the courts.

Stories like Riverside’s Derence Kernek and his partner Ed, who have known each other for 40 years but Ed was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease this past year. They want to wed before Ed loses the ability to remember the occasion.

Stories like San Francisco’s Shane Mayer and John Quintana– engaged late last year, but Shane’s father was recently diagnosed with cancer and wants to be at his son’s wedding.

Stories like Riverside’s Sylvia, who is 72 and her partner and she were planning to marry until Prop 8 came along. They had been waiting as domestic partners for many years. Sylvia’s partner passed away last year while the case was winding its way through the courts.

Stories like Santa Rosa’s Erica Mikesh and her partner, Melissa, who thought about marrying prior to the passage of Prop 8, but decided they should decide on their own time when it’s right to marry, and never believed it would pass. Now they are being punished for their patience and for waiting.

These are the stories of what is happening out there while the California Supreme Court takes its time. Courage Campaign encourages the courts to grant the Olson/Boies requests to hold oral arguments by the end of May and lift the stay, and we will start to show the court, media, and public the human faces of what happens while they take over 6 months to move on the case.

Here's Boehner's response:
"While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the President will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation"

:explode:

Are you kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me!!!!!!????? All this asshole has done so far is slash jobs and try to abolish abortion. The current Republican party is lead by and financed by thoroughly disgusting people.

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2011/02/h...bill-into-law/

Aloha No ka Oi!

Obama to stop defending federal ban on gay marriage
 

WASHINGTON In a historic shift on gay rights, the Obama administration announced that it believes the Constitution forbids unequal treatment of gays and lesbians in almost all cases, and specifically when it comes to federal benefits for legally married same-sex couples.

Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter to Congress on Wednesday that the Justice Department would no longer oppose legal challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act. The act, which was passed by Congress in 1996, bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages or extending them the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

Holder said President Barack Obama had decided that discrimination against gays can no longer be accepted as reasonable. Laws that allow such discrimination "warrant heightened scrutiny" by officials and judges, he said, similar to the scrutiny that courts give to laws "targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination."

This new stance by the administration was hailed as a "monumental turning point in the quest for equality" by Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal, a gay-rights group in Los Angeles.

On Capitol Hill, Republicans were sharply critical. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, called the decision "deeply disturbing. President Obama's personal policies are trumping his presidential duty."

It comes just two months after Congress and Obama agreed to repeal the military's ban on openly gay service members.

Limited practical effect

The immediate practical effect of the announcement may be limited. Holder said the administration would continue to enforce the law until a final ruling is made, most likely by the Supreme Court.

In the longer term, even if the administration's view prevails it would not force states across the nation to grant equal marriage rights to gays and lesbians.

But Obama's position, if accepted by the courts, would prevent federal agencies, including the IRS, from discriminating against gays and lesbians who were legally married. Its legal rationale could also be used to challenge state bans on gay marriage as an unconstitutional violation of equal rights.

A Republican-led Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act to prevent one state's adoption of gay marriage from spreading nationwide. Usually, states are required to honor legal agreements made in another state, including marriage, under the "full faith and credit" clause in the Constitution. In enacting the law, Congress said neither the states nor the federal government were obliged to recognize a marriage other than "a legal union between one man and one woman."

But in recent years, the law has been challenged as a denial of equal rights by gays and lesbians who were legally married.

Until now, the Obama administration had taken the view that it had a duty to defend all laws, including discriminatory measures, if they could be justified as constitutional.

But Holder said the case of Windsor v. the United States forced the administration to confront, for the first time, the question of whether discrimination against gays and lesbians is presumed to be unconstitutional.

Unnecessary controversy?

In his letter to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, Holder said the Justice Department will not defend against Windsor's suit in New York or a similar suit in Connecticut. He said Congress may wish to appoint its own lawyers to defend the law.

A spokesman for Boehner criticized the White House. "While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that divides the nation," said Boehner aide Michael Steel.

Go Maryland! From the Prop 8 Trial Tracker
 

Maryland Senate passes bill legalizing freedom to marry for same-sex couples
By Adam Bink

Fantastic news in Maryland just now:

After about an hour of discussions from opposing views, Maryland’s State Senate voted 25-21 in favor of Senate Bill 116, The Civil Marriage Protection Act on Thursday, Feb. 24.

A House version of the bill is expected to be introduced in House committee tomorrow.

If signed into law, the bill would grant same-sex couples legal marriage rights in the state of Maryland, while also protecting the rights of religious institutions to handle issues of marriage however they see fit.

The marriage bill was written by Sen. Rich Madaleno (D-Montgomery), the only out gay member of Maryland’s Senate, and Sen. Jamie Raskin (D-Montgomery).

Maryland State Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr. allowed Senators to talk before declaring a vote at 6 p.m., with debates from each side limited to 30 minutes after the vote.

Onward to the Assembly

Prop 8 trial tracker
 

Two new Prop 8 developments, and Courage Campaign’s amicus curiae letter to the California Supreme Court
By Adam Bink

This afternoon, as noted in the comments on the previous thread, two moves in the Perry case.

The first is that Attorney General Kamala Harris on behalf of the state of California filed a motion with the 9th Circuit encouraging the Court, as the AFER team did, to lift the stay:

“For 846 days, Proposition 8 has denied equality under the law to gay and lesbian couples,” Attorney General Harris said. “Each and every one of those days, same-sex couples have been denied their right to convene loved ones and friends to celebrate marriages sanctioned and protected by California law. Each one of those days, loved ones have been lost, moments have been missed, and justice has been denied.”

A copy of her filing can be found here. There is no word from the 9th Circuit yet.

The second is that the California Supreme Court denied the motion to shorten time as submitted by the Olson/Boies/AFER legal time:

“The application of respondents Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo to shorten the briefing schedule and application to set oral argument for May 23, 2011 is denied.”

Disappointing and frankly outrageous, to say the least. The Court will drag its feet on this for at least 6 months while couples wait and some, especially those who are older and becoming ill (not to mention their families) will literally suffer waiting for the Court to take its time.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that the Court really doesn’t see us out here. They have their schedules and their timing. It makes me feel like other eras in our nation’s history- civil rights and AIDS and earning the right of women to vote- when we have to roll up our sleeves and PUSH to get them to notice people suffering. In this case, it’s the same-sex couples and their families- straight and LGBT- out here, literally dying while waiting for the Court to take 6 freaking months just to hear oral arguments.

Thanks for the update Ms. Tinkerbelly.

I share your sentiments entirely. It has been long enough already!

Boehner launches effort to defend gay marriage ban

Associated Press – 2 mins ago
WASHINGTON – House Speaker John Boehner says he's launching a legal defense of the federal law against gay marriage. The Ohio Republican announced Friday that he was convening a bipartisan legal advisory group to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. President Barack Obama has refused to defend the law signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996.

The leaders can instruct the House's non-partisan general counsel to take legal action on behalf of the chamber.

Attorney General Eric Holder has said that the Justice Department would continue to enforce the law but no longer would defend its constitutionality.

The Supreme Court has not ruled on the matter, but last year a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled the law unconstitutional.

**Note from me-Asshat!!!!!!

FROM PROP 8 TRAIL TRACKER
 

Tomorrow’s NYTimes editorializes for lifting the stay on Judge Walker’s Prop 8 ruling
By Adam Bink

Brilliant editorial. It dovetails exactly with what we’ve been arguing here:

Seven months have passed since Proposition 8, California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages, was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in San Francisco following a much-publicized trial that turned up no evidence to justify the measure’s denial of equal protection and due process.

Yet the 2008 initiative continues to inflict serious harm on same-sex couples and their families thanks to a court order that prevents gay men and lesbians from marrying in California while the case is being appealed. That stay should be lifted now.

The appeal was argued in December before a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. It could be many more months before the panel rules. In February, it asked the California Supreme Court to resolve a procedural question regarding the standing of the initiative’s sponsor to bring the appeal. The state’s top court has said it will not even hold a hearing on the issue until September, at the earliest.

In legal papers filed last week, lawyers challenging Proposition 8 took note of the “serious, lasting, and irreparable damage to gay men and lesbians who wish to marry” caused by this extended timetable and called on the federal court to lift its injunction.

The stay should never have been granted in the first place. Applying traditional legal criteria, the extraordinary relief of a stay is only warranted when the applicant makes a strong showing of likely success on the merits and of irreparable injury in the absence of a stay — two arguments that cannot be satisfied here.

As the trial judge’s ruling affirmed, the denial of marriage equality furthers no legitimate governmental aim. And defenders of Proposition 8 can point to no real injury they would suffer if gay men and lesbians are permitted to wed.

Every day same-sex couples are denied their right to marry is another day of injustice for them and their families. Couples who wish to wed knowing that the appellate court could decide to uphold Proposition 8’s ban should be allowed to take that chance.

Personally, I am just shaking my head. I’m not sure I could have written a better editorial myself. Our arguments are resonating. Our stories of discrimination- like Courage Campaign members Shane and John‘s on ABC News, and Ed and Derence‘s in The Washington Post, The Advocate, and many other places- are resonating in the media. And tomorrow, a huge section of this nation will read it.

If you haven’t given to our fundraiser to keep P8TT going and keep building our work to result in outcomes like these, we’re about $4,000 short. That’s 80 people giving $50. We’re making progress. Please contribute. And ask a few friends to. Even better, become a monthly donor. We’re making a difference

http://i833.photobucket.com/albums/z.../impatient.gif

we're still waiting...

FROM THE PROP 8 TRIAL TRACKER
 

Happy anniversary from DC
By Adam Bink

I picked up today’s copy of The Washington Post, to find a very fun article on the front of the local section:

Same-sex couples lead to marriage licenses doubling

An unusual thing happened on the way to the altar in the District over the past 12 months.

At least as many same-sex couples as heterosexual couples – and possibly more – appear to have applied for marriage licenses since gay marriage was legalized in the city last March.

The total number of applications more than doubled since the first same-sex couples lined up to get their licenses, from about 3,100 in the previous year to 6,600 during the past 12 months, said Leah H. Gurowitz, spokeswoman for D.C. Superior Court, which issues the licenses.

Although the court does not differentiate between same-sex and heterosexual couples in its record-keeping, in previous years the number of applications varied by only 100 or less. So virtually all the increase is due to same-sex couples, Gurowitz said.

Not everyone who got a marriage license lived in the District. Many couples came from Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Delaware and other states farther afield.

The court doesn’t keep track of how many couples actually wed. The licenses have no expiration date, and the only requirement is that the marriage be performed within District boundaries.

Wednesday is the first anniversary of the city’s first same-sex weddings.

And the fire and brimstone is raining down from the sky!

The article goes on to include some stories of couples and how their lives have (and haven’t) changed. The last paragraphs I found really telling. Here’s Rocky Galloway, who married his partner:

He said they have faced no discrimination or criticism for getting married. “It’s been interesting meeting people, like when we’re with the kids, and they assume that you are in a heterosexual relationship and you correct them and say ‘My partner is male.’ They get right through it,” he said. “That is to the credit of the advocacy groups and the people of D.C. and the fact that we are very transient and many, many cultures come to live in this area. We’re more open and embracing than some.”

He acknowledged that there are still detractors, those who believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman and gay unions should have another name.

“I understand what they are saying, but by giving it a different name, they would be making it different and there should be no difference,” he said. “When you call it something different, that makes it different. States and municipalities that have domestic partnership laws define those relationships as something different. With marriage, people understand the level of commitment involved. That’s what I love about the term ‘marriage equality’ – it is giving others the same rights.”

Brendon Ayanbadejo, Ravens Linebacker, Speaks In Favor Of Gay Marriage (VIDEO)

Brendan is an incredibly well spoken young man. Thank you to all who work to change attitudes against us.

Fortunately, as displayed in this clip, sometimes the opposition works against itself.
Smooches,
Couldn't get this to embed, so here's the link. American Family Assoc lawyers calls DOMA unconstitutional!
http://bit.ly/dDZJSq

Let's stand up for us!
 

I am so mad!! Prop 8 Trial Tracker
 

BREAKING: 9th Circuit denies motion to lift stay on Judge Walker’s Prop 8 ruling
By Adam Bink

Just came in: the 9th Circuit refused to accept the Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the stay pending appeal.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 03/23/2011 at 10:58:31 AM PDT and filed on 03/23/2011

Case Name: Kristin Perry, et al v. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al
Case Number: 10-16696
Document(s): Document(s)

Docket Text:
Filed order (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and N. RANDY SMITH) Having considered all of the factors set forth in Nken v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 1749, 1756 (2009), and all of the facts and circumstances surrounding Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the stay pending appeal, as well as the standard for vacatur set forth in Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 472 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2006), we deny Plaintiffs’ motion at this time.



The 9th Circuit decided that six months, likely more, to force couples to wait while the California Supreme Court drags its feet over summer recess, is acceptable. Including couples like Ed and Derence:


Even though there has been no harm caused to the state since 18,000+ couples married in 2008. Despite the benefit to businesses small and large. Despite the need for same-sex couples to be as equal as anyone else. Appalling

This is my guess about how this is gonna work.

As soon as the military gets the repeal of DADT implemented and gays and lesbians can serve openly, the CA Court will hand down it's ruling supporting same sex civil marriage.

Congress will then try to end DOMA.

ain't a dang thing gonna happen until the military actually changes.........

My thinking has been along the lines of Toughy's statement. We have to be valued as equal "persons" ( which repeal of DADT will do), before we as persons can be "allowed" to marry. Damned shame someone can be a first class officer and still be a second class citizen. ( That goes for any type of discrimination.)

Go Colorado! Prop 8 Trial Tracker
 

Colorado Senate passes legislation legalizing civil unions
By Adam Bink

Great news out of the Rocky Mountain State today:

The legislation moves to the House, where I’m told by sources in the state that it will be a tougher fight. Next week, Courage Campaign will be asking its members to contact their legislators.

If you’re in a committed, same-sex relationship in Colorado, or know a couple who is, please drop me a line at adam@couragecampaign.org. We’d like to work with you!

Prop 8 Trial Tracker
 

The mantle of family values belongs to those seeking to end DOMA
By Adam Bink

The New York Times ed board does this issue justice:

President Obama came to the right conclusion last month when he decided that the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal spousal benefits to married same-sex couples, is unconstitutional, and ended the government’s defense of the law in pending court cases. But that did not relieve Congress of its duty to renounce the bigotry behind the 1996 law and wipe it off the books.

More than 100 House Democrats, led by Jerrold Nadler of New York, John Conyers of Michigan and Barney Frank of Massachusetts, have introduced a bill calling for a repeal of the act. An identical repeal bill was offered in the Senate by Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Dianne Feinstein of California and Patrick Leahy of Vermont, all Democrats.

Getting the repeal bills through both chambers will not be easy. Republican leaders are continuing to pander and promote intolerance, declaring that they will step in for the administration to defend the act’s denial of equal protection in court either by formally intervening or filing an amicus brief using outside lawyers paid for by taxpayers. Mr. Leahy, who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, should schedule a hearing to call in couples to talk about the harm caused by the act to make clear that their marriages are deserving of full respect.

Republicans like to cast themselves as the protectors of “family values.” But that mantle properly belongs to President Obama and the Congressional Democrats committed to ending this atrocious law

joemygod
 

BREAKING: U.S. Immigration Puts Hold On All Binational Partner Deportations

Last week a New York immigration judge temporarily suspended the deportation of an Argentine lesbian while she and her wife contest her green card denial due to DOMA. Today U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services revealed that ALL such deportations are now on hold. Chris Geidner gets the big scoop at Metro Weekly:
Following up on reports from this weekend, Metro Weekly just received confirmation from Christopher Bentley, the spokesman for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, that cases of foreign partners who are married to a same-sex partner and would otherwise be eligible for a green card are on hold in light of questions about the continued validity of the Defense of Marriage Act. Bentley writes, "USCIS has issued guidance to the field asking that related cases be held in abeyance while awaiting final guidance related to distinct legal issues." He notes, however, "USCIS has not implemented any change in policy and intends to follow the President's directive to continue enforcing the law." The legal distinction means that although DOMA is still being enforced, the USCIS is using its discretion to hold off on denying green card applications where applicable.
An amazing development, largely thanks to the work of Immigration Equality and attorney Lavi Soloway, who was interviewed in today's episode of This Week In Prop 8.

Another reason it has to be marriage and it has to be at a Federal level...


Married Gay Couples ‘Refuse to Lie’ on Tax Forms
By TARA SIEGEL BERNARD

April 04, 2011

Courtesy of Equality Florida
The “Refuse to Lie” campaign was created gay activists who believe that the federal government should acknowledge same-sex marriage.

Some same-sex married couples are refusing to file their federal tax returns separately this tax season, as part of a movement demonstrating that they’re no longer content to quietly comply with the federal law that does not recognize same-sex marriage. And in some cases, these taxpayers will pay Uncle Sam more when they do so.

Same-sex couples who have married, or who have a legal status equivalent to marriage in certain states, must still file separate federal returns because the government — and therefore the Internal Revenue Service — defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman.

Using that definition, federal tax returns ask taxpayers to check one of five options under their filing status: single, married filing jointly, married filing separately, head of household or qualifying widow(er) with dependent child. Married same-sex partners typically file their own federal returns either as single or, if they qualify, as head of household, which has more favorable rates than the single filing status.

But many same-sex couples contend that filing as single amounts to lying about their marriage status, and that’s the message behind the “Refuse to Lie” campaign created by gay activists, which is timed to coincide with tax season.

“More people are refusing to lie on those forms, even though the government is telling them to,” said Nadine Smith, executive director of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender advocacy group Equality Florida, who plans on filing a joint return with her wife, Andrea. “It would be both dishonest and deeply humiliating to now disavow each other or our marriage and declare ourselves single on our tax form.”

Nina E. Olson, the national taxpayer advocate who acts as an ombudsman for the I.R.S., acknowledged the uncertainty surrounding federal taxation of same-gender spouses in an annual report to Congress. In the report, she said that taxpayers may take a filing position without penalty if there is “substantial authority” to do so, such as a court case that hasn’t been overruled by the United States Court of Appeals. And there happen to be two such cases, which are currently on appeal.

In July 2010, the Federal District Court in Massachusetts declared the Defense of Marriage Act — the federal law known as DOMA that defines marriage as between a man and a woman — as unconstitutional in two cases. They are now being appealed in the First Circuit. “Thus, there may be substantial authority for same-gender spouses to take certain tax positions as married as long as the Massachusetts district court’s opinions stands,” Ms. Olson said in the report.

The “Refuse to Lie” Web site warns same-sex couples of the risks of filing jointly, and explains different options to both adhere to the law while expressing that they disagree with it. One way to do that would be to put an asterisk by the “single” box, and then indicate at the bottom of the tax form that you are “only single under DOMA.” Another option, the site says, is to attach a note with a similar message.

The campaign also explains on its Web site how to file a joint return while avoiding penalties. In the first method, each partner would file their own single return and include an attachment stating that they’re married, and then file an amended return jointly. “Once the I.R.S. rejects the amended return, or if six months passes and they do nothing, the taxpayers who file an amended return have the right to file suit in Federal District Court claiming the refund,” the activists’ site said, adding that this option would avoid penalties because your original return would be filed according to the law.

Another method suggests filing two returns: one filed jointly (and showing the tax due on the joint return) and one filed as a single taxpayer (showing the tax due on that return). Pay whatever is due on the single return — which means you will not have underpaid — and then ask the I.R.S. which return to accept. But if the I.R.S. accepts the joint return and issues you a refund, “there is no way to know what will happen if you are later audited,” the site said.

“People who follow this example need to do so with a clear head about the decision they are making and that what could happen is unclear,” Ms. Smith, of Equality Florida, said. “It’s not without risk.”

But there’s another way to preserve your right to collect any refunds due to you if the law is eventually struck down. Patricia Cain, a professor at Santa Clara Law and an expert on sexuality and federal tax law, said that couples who would benefit from a joint filing — that is, couples who would pay less in taxes or receive refunds — can file a protective claim using I.R.S. Form 843. (File separate returns in accordance with the law, then attach the form to an amended joint return).

“If you state on Form 843 that your claim is based on the unconstitutionality of DOMA, which is an issue pending in current litigation, it is more likely that the I.R.S. will do nothing until the issue is finally determined,” she added. “And if DOMA is struck down as unconstitutional, you should be entitled to the refund on the amended return.”

Although she generally recommends that same-sex married couples file their own returns in accordance with the law, she said that couples living in Massachusetts might be able to better justify filing their returns jointly because of the two court cases there.

“The question is whether that is sufficient as substantial authority to avoid being assessed penalties if you were audited by the I.R.S. and found to have filed incorrectly,” Professor Cain said.

She also said that she knew some same-sex couples in several different states who had filed joint returns and received refunds. “It’s because the returns are handled by machines,” she said, adding that the 1040 forms don’t have any gender markers on them. “That doesn’t mean they won’t be audited sometime. But honestly, I think the I.R.S. has bigger fish to fry than figuring out where same-sex couples filed jointly.”

Taxpayers who don’t pay the proper amount of tax will be levied a 20 percent penalty on top of the amount of tax owed. An I.R.S. spokeswoman said the agency followed the federal Marriage Act and declined further comment.

But for Kate Kendell it’s about more than the money. Ms. Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said she and her wife, Sandy, who have been together for 18 years and have two children, are going to file as married this year (they married in California during the brief window in 2008 when same-sex marriage was permitted there).

“As a lawyer and a legal advocate for the L.G.B.T. community, I am often in a position to advise people to exercise great caution and to comply in most cases with the letter of the law, even when that means denying who we are,” she said. “This is my small way of saying, where we can, we are not going to play the game anymore.”

In their case, the move is going to cost the couple more than $5,000.

If you’re part of a same-sex couple and would like to file jointly, how far would you go to show that you disagree with the current law? And what does everyone else think about this effort?


Taken from: http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/...-on-tax-forms/

From the Prop 8 trial tracker
 

Judge Walker publicly comes out; never considered recusing himself
By Adam Bink

Very interesting and courageous comments from Judge Walker, who, for the first time, acknowledged that he is gay:

The U.S. judge who struck down California’s gay marriage ban never considered his own homosexuality as a reason to recuse himself from the case, he said on Wednesday.

Former U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who retired from the bench at the end of February, said it would not be appropriate for any judge’s sexual orientation, ethnicity, national origin or gender to stop them from presiding over a case.

“That’s a very slippery slope,” Walker said.

The talk to a handful of reporters was Walker’s first public comments to reporters about presiding over the lawsuit challenging to Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California. Walker struck down the ban as unconstitutional, and the case is currently on appeal.

It was also the first time Walker publicly acknowledged his own sexual orientation. Walker said he has been in a relationship with the man for 10 years. “He is a physician,” Walker said.

I agree on recusal. We can’t be assigning case after case to others because of different characteristics, but more to the point, judges must be nominated who can set their own personal characteristics aside and judge independently.

Not sure if this is political, unless of course you consider that everything having to do with same sex couples and marriage is political...


Country Star Chely Wright Announces Engagement to LGBT Advocate Lauren Blitzer



Out country singer Chely Wright has announced her engagement to LGBT advocate Lauren Blitzer, and the happy couple are set to be married this August in Connecticut. GLAAD congratulates the couple and wishes them the best!

http://glaadblog.org/wp-content/uplo...ad-220x300.jpg

Chely Wright at the 2nd Annual GLAAD Media Awards in Advertising
Wright, who is nominated this year for a GLAAD Media Award for her album Lifted Off The Ground, met Blitzer through their youth advocacy work and told People that “the freedom of being out and open about who I am allowed me to find and fall in love with Lauren, the most amazing woman I’ve ever known.”
Wright came out last May, the first major country music artist to do so, after feeling compelled to hide her orientation to avoid losing her fanbase. Wright told People last year that “nothing in my life has been more magical than the moment I decided to come out.”
Wright performed at the 21st Annual GLAAD Media Awards in San Francisco in 2010, take a look at this video of her amazing performance at last year’s awards show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...RviFJ7Pw#at=67

Happy news is always a good thing!! :)