joemygod...food for thought
 

Libertarian Candidate Slams Obama

"Instead of insisting on equality as a U.S. Constitutional guarantee, the President has thrown this question back to the states. When the smoke clears, Gay Americans will realize the President’s words have gained them nothing today, and that millions of Americans in most states will continue to be denied true marriage equality . I guess the President is still more worried about losing Ohio, Colorado, North Carolina and Virginia than he is in doing the right thing. What is the President saying — that he would eat a piece of cake at a gay wedding if the state the happy couple lives in allows it ?. Where is the leadership? While I commend him for supporting the concept of gay marriage equality, I am profoundly disappointed in the President." - Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson

Do I dare read the comments? :/
 

Petition the DNC
 

The President cannot do a damn thing about DOMA except use his 'bully pulpit'. Obama is good on LGBTQ issues. He has actually done more than any other President to address our issues. I don't expect him to be perfect....hell Barney Frank is not perfect after all he was closeted for YEARS.

I don't get what Johnson is bitching about. It is leadership to be vocal about his views and how they have changed over the years........

(and oh please don't get me started on Gary Johnson former Gov of New Mexico)

It actually gives me hope that he just might stop worrying about being 'the angry black man' and do the right thing during his second and last term as President.

Breakthrough Conversation - Language Check in
 

RI governor signs order to recognize same-sex marriages performed out of state
 

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Rhode Island’s governor on Monday declared that the state will recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, giving gay couples the same rights as heterosexual ones when it comes to health insurance and a slew of other benefits.

The order signed by Gov. Lincoln Chafee in a Statehouse ceremony directs state agencies to recognize marriages performed out of state as legal and treat same-sex married couples the same as heterosexual ones.

Some gay couples married outside Rhode Island — where civil unions are allowed, but gay marriage is illegal — have not been afforded certain rights because state law is not clear on the subject.

In 2007, then-Attorney General Patrick Lynch issued an opinion in favor of recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages, but it was nonbinding. Chafee said his signing of the executive order is “following through” on that opinion.

The executive order is expected to have many real-world implications. Same-sex spouses of state employees and anyone covered by an insurance company regulated in Rhode Island will be entitled to health and life insurance benefits, gay rights advocates say.

Both partners in a same-sex couple will be able to list their names as parents on a child’s birth certificate, and same-sex couples will be entitled to sales tax exemptions on the transfer of property including vehicles.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...FPU_story.html

prop 8 Blog...
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bastards


Taxation of Domestic Partner Benefits

New from Illinois--prop 8 blog
 

Marriage equality lawsuit filed in Illinois
By Jacob Combs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prop 8 Blog
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Prop 8 Blog for those of us link challanged
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From prop 8 blog
 

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

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

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

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

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

2. What will the proponents do next?

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prop 8 Blog...Washington State fight
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is sad, the cost of same sex marriage.

FROM THE PROP 8 BLOG
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prop 8 Blog...not marriage news, but....
 

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

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

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

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

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

Mass. court recognizes Vermont civil unions
 

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

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

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

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

The SJC agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...--+Latest+news

This is working for me.....:-)
 

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

FROM THE PROP 8 BLOG---MAINE
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is huge!
 

PARTY PRIDE: DEM PLATFORM TO SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE

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

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

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

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


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

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

Keri has spoken. Make it so,

Smooches!

PROP 8 BLOG...NEWS FROM NEVADA
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“For me this is about fairness and equality.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

PROP 8 BLOG...MORE FROM NEVADA
 

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

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


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

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

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

Lambda Legal’s Tara Borelli comments:


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

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

Finally! prop 8 Blog...Democratic platform
 

Democrats approve marriage equality in party platform
By Jacob Combs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prop 8 Blog--Austrailia
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prop 8 Blog Tasmania, and New Zealand
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Prop 8 Blog...
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smooches,
Keri

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

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

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

T Y
Smooches,
Keri

FROM THE PROP 8 BLOG
 

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Here’s what happens next.

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

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

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

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

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

FROM SLATE
 

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

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

How soon? Likely within the year.


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

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