Just saw this...lol

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

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

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

Keep your fingers and toes crossed!

From the Prop 8 blog
 

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

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

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

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

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

From the Prop 8 Blog
 

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

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

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

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


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

I want it both ways!!!
Smooches
Keri

Joemygod ...2 steps forward and then 3 back...
 

Michigan Bans Partner Benefits

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

Prop 8 Blog...
 

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Prop 8 Blog...Yay Hawaii and Delaware!!
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s to a great 2012

joemygod
 

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

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

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

One reason why Equality MATTERS!
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case, he said, is an important one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prop 8 Blog...very upsetting
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As we get into the general election cycle, I always fear these kinds of things- especially with same-sex marriage states. This year, because of a Democrat president running for re-election and all the Pea Party religious right wingers out there trying to put social conservative issues back on top, it is game on.

Frankly, this worries me with the upcoming Prop 8 SC decision- the right wing justices are going to be feeling their conservative juices even more than usual. No, I don't believe the SC really rules objectively.

It is really important to be active in this election cycle- get out there and volunteer!

From the Prop 8 Blog
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sherre Toler

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

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

From the prop 8 blog
 

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

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

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

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

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

Good news from the Prop 8 Blog
 

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

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

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

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

Prop 8 Blog...
 

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

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

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

Prop 8 Blog
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...the thing is, he did publicly support it in 1996 (or so)--it's on record...THEN he backtracked and de-evolved...

Cross posted...from the prop 8 blog
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prop 8 Blog...moving forward in Washington State
 

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

Thanks to Sagesse for posting this in Quick Hits.

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

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

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

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

more from washington
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

___

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

___

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

Prop 8 Blog...so much good news lately!!
 

Maryland governor introduces marriage equality bill
By Jacob Combs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maine is on the move! Prop 8 Blog
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prop 8 Blog
 

A small victory for LGBT couples in Australia
By Jacob Combs

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

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

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

Prop 8 Blog...Go Washington State!!
 

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

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

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

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

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

Prop 8 Blog...things are moving in Maryland
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prop 8 Blog...one more step for Washington State!
 

BREAKING: Washington Senate passes marriage equality bill
By Jacob Combs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goldman's Blankfein campaigns for gay marriage
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OMG OMG OMG
 

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

Just in from the courthouse:

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

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

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

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

our side won this debate--kinda awesome to watch
 

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

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

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

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