what a great day for queer new yorkers

ALH
I have said exactly the same thing over the last few years since Florida banned domestic partnerships both for gay and hetero people in the last presidential election cycle.

My mother was a Canadian citizen. I have dual citizenship and have many times considered a move to Canada, where most of my remaining family still lives, and where I would gain not only full citizenship, but national health insurance. My weak excuse for not making this move is my unwillingness to return to cold weather. Seeking a warmer weather solution, I have researched Cali's domestic partnership act. It's wording reserves domestic partnership to same-sex couples, and promises all rights designated and accruing to hetero couples in a hetero marriage. I don't know if this is actually the practice, I only know what I have read. This partnership is so much better than anything available in Florida. While it is not "marriage" it is at least a legally recognized relationship, so I've been seriously considering a return to CA. Kind of chicken-shit on my part, but like you I have no immmediate plans for marriage. Yet whether or not we choose to marry, we should have that right.

As Mister Bent says "what does matter to me is equal protection under the law and the right to do dumb shit just like anyone else. End the marginalization."

Smooches.
Keri

I remember being a college student in the late 70's, demonstrating at the legislature for gay rights. What a long way we've come. I can hardly believe it! I did wake up feeling like it was a different world today. Of course, it isn't over yet. Most states do not recognize marriage equality, and there is still DOMA. I worry a little about the possibility of repeal. That doesn't look likely, but you never know.

My partner and I have been planning an October commitment ceremony. The invitations are already printed! Now we are considering the idea of a legal marriage. I'm glad that we *can* get married, but I'm not sure how I feel about it. I was previously married, for 20 years. The marriage wasn't so great, and the divorce was traumatic. I haven't been anxious to add that layer of complexity to a perfectly good relationship.

On the other hand, now that it's actually possible, it's easier for me to think about how we could make it work for us and our needs. Interesting how the mind works.

Dayum! The energy at this year's NYC Pride celebration was awesome. I've never seen such huge crowds, and everyone was just euphoric. I'm tired, happy, and content. Governor Coumo didn't do anything special as far as duplicating his signing ceremony, but he did arrive late!!! For the first time in my memory the Parade stepped off about 10 minutes late while we waited for him. All is forgiven, though. The Parade route was lined with hand lettered signs thanking him.

I'm still astonished that he managed to push the Marriage Equality bill through a Republican controlled Senate. It's worth noting that his predecessor failed to get a very similar bill through a Democratic controlled Senate.

Piggy backing on that...
 

Many of the signs read, "Thank you Governor Cuomo" and on the back "Promise kept."

He said he would do it, and he did.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a2...t/bfd/-1-2.jpg

WHOOT
 

Wasn't NY Pride AWESOME? I can't remember last time there was such a huge joyous crowd! Cheryl - you looked HOT! Mr. B - were you there??

:LGBTQFlag:

Yes, Just because a right is available to you does not mean you have to use it. Do what is best for each of you and the two of you as a couple. This legal development will, for you, provide an opportunity to evaluate the depth of your commitment, or at least the type of committment you will choose to make. Congratulations to you both. Be happy
Smooches,
Keri

Tessie,
I am so happy you have gained this right at last. I wish much joy to you and your partner in your future marriage. Congratulations!

:rrose::rrose::rrose::rrose::rrose::rrose:

Smooches,
Keri

From MoveOn.org
 

You were the perfect accompaniment to my posse. The boys adored you and are still talking about their *M* -- I never saw gay men fawn over a guy like they did you. Very cute actually.

Prop 8 trial tracker...inequality
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will Gov. Chafee veto it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the continuing updates! Much appreciated!

I personally think this one needs to be vetoed.

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

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

United Church of Christ Passes Two More LGBT Affirming Resolutions

http://glaadblog.org/wp-content/uplo...o2-226x300.gif

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

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


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

Article taken from: http://glaadblog.org/2011/07/06/unit...g-resolutions/

Dreaming of when marriage rights might appear in Florida
 

Published on Saturday, June 25, 2011 by FlaglerLive.comWhen Florida, Like New York State, Joins the Ranks of the Civilized on Gay Marriage


by Pierre Tristam

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

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

In light of that, THIS is really great news:

Dallas Morning News' Wedding Announcements Become Fully Inclusive

http://glaadblog.org/2011/07/06/dall...lly-inclusive/

From the Prop 8 Trial Tracker Blog
 

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

Big news out yesterday:

***ADVISORY***

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cute!
 

FROM THE PROP 8 TRIAL TRACKER....GOING ON NOW IN DC
 

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


By Adam Bink

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

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

Update: A live webcast can be found here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ed. note: Sen. Durbin just arrived.

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

Ed. note: Chairman Leahy is back.

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

He asks Murray a quick question and finishes.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

# # #

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

From the Prop 8 Trial Tracker
 

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

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

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

At the rate this is moving along, maybe California SHOULD vote on removing Prop 8 from the California Constitution in 2012....would be a lot faster!
:glasses:

YAY Kenneth Cole!!!

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/debor...s0fKfu7_61.jpg

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

Another!!!!!!!!!
 

Suquamish Native American Tribe Approves Same-Sex Marriage

http://unicornbooty.com/2011/08/suqu...-sex-marriage/

C00L! and totally cool photo!
Smooches,
Keri

From the prop 8 Trial Tracker blog
 

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

Via press release:

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

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

Proponents Not Harmed by Marriage Equality

DATE: Tuesday, September 6, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

Me in Blue

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

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

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

From the joemygod blog
 

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

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

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

From the PROP 8 Blog
 

First House Republican to Support DOMA Repeal
By Domingo Martinez

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


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

Cindy:bunchflowers:

Amazing!!
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OMFG!
 

It is amazing and mind-boggling!

Wow!

Great news!
 

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

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

[quote=Okiebug61;428640]There are no benefits to partners, DOMA needs to be overturned first.