|
Nevada
Nevada Takes Another Step Toward Marriage Equality
The state Assembly approved a pro-equality constitutional amendment, but it faces another round of legislative and citizen votes. BY Trudy Ring. May 23 2013 6:41 PM ET The Nevada legislature advanced a measure today that would repeal the state’s anti–marriage equality constitutional amendment and replace it with one guaranteeing same-sex couples’ freedom to marry. The state Assembly approved the bill today by a vote of 27-14; the state Senate had passed it last month. Both houses will vote on it again in the 2015 legislative session, and if they approve it in exactly the same form, it will go before voters in 2016, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reports. All the no votes were from Republicans, but some GOP members supported the legislation, including Assemblywoman Michelle Fiore of Las Vegas. Addressing fellow lawmakers, she said, “When we started this floor session, I introduced my mother to this body, proudly. What is currently in our constitution does not allow her to get married. You see, my mom is gay. I love my mom with all my heart, and I am who I am today because of her guidance, influence, and how she raised me.” Marc Solomon, campaign director for the national group Freedom to Marry, released a statement in support of Nevada’s action, saying, “Lawmakers in Nevada took a huge step today toward undoing a discriminatory amendment that never should have been written into the state constitution and advancing the freedom to marry. We look forward to the day that Nevada couples join those in the 12 other marriage states in being able to make a lifelong commitment to the person they love.” |
Dallas, Texas
Floyd: Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings says he’ll back marriage-equality resolution
Jacquielynn Floyd jfloyd@dallasnews.com Published: 27 May 2013 10:30 PM Updated: 27 May 2013 11:49 PM After weeks of sidestepping the question, Mayor Mike Rawlings says he will vote next month in favor of a Dallas City Council resolution supporting the right of same-sex couples to marry. “I will vote for this resolution as written,” he told me during a conversation last week. “This is an important issue, and I did not want to turn this into a sound bite.” The resolution was proposed for council consideration last month by council member Scott Griggs, who said he has enough votes to get it passed. Rawlings didn’t exactly put on a poker face to conceal his irritation at the timing. Griggs’ announcement came less than two weeks before the May 11 elections, in which Griggs was running against fellow council member Delia Jasso for the same seat because of a redrawing of district boundaries. Jasso was among those who supported the amendment, but Rawlings suggested that Griggs — who ultimately won the race — wanted to shore up support among gay and lesbian residents in Oak Cliff. “To do this for what seem to be political reasons is not good judgment,” Rawlings said earlier this month. He characterized what he viewed as a symbolic debate on a divisive constitutional issue as a “misuse of the council’s time.” Griggs politely responded that he felt the issue was “timely” and “relevant” and that he looks forward to the resolution’s passage. Now, with council elections in the rearview mirror, Rawlings says he has decided to join the council majority supporting the measure. He’s not backing away from his insistence that marriage equality for same-sex couples isn’t something the Dallas City Council can confer. “There is no doubt in my mind that this is not a city issue,” he told me. “I was concerned that this was done right in the last weeks of the City Council races.” But he will sign, he says, because he personally supports marriage equality — even though (he adds, without breaking stride) he also does not want to pick a moral fight with people who believe same-sex marriage violates their personal religious convictions. “I want to honor their beliefs and their tradition of beliefs,” he said. “Trying to referee what I think is a cultural dialogue — I don’t think that’s my job description.” And don’t even get him started on the Mayors for Freedom to Marry initiative, which has enlisted 349 mayors in 35 states to sign a pledge promising to support marriage equality. “That’s a Grover Norquist thing,” he said dismissively, a reference to the conservative pioneer who launched a national effort to bind candidates and elected officials to no-new-taxes pledges. Rawlings has said repeatedly that he is “pledge-phobic” and dislikes the blunt, unnuanced tactic of pinning leaders down to broad rhetorical absolutes. Yet, he’ll support the Dallas resolution. He’ll sign — in part, he says, because his 25-year-old son has charged him with “talking out of both sides of his mouth” on the issue. Critics will no doubt say Rawlings is bowing to the inevitable, that he’s making a political calculation to support the measure now that a majority vote is assured. “This resolution, when passed, will be nothing more than a smile in our direction,” wrote Daniel Cates, a contributing columnist for the gay weekly Dallas Voice. It would have been more useful, Cates argued, had it come up months ago, when the state Legislature was early in its biennial session. I understand the impatience of people who say they’re tired of being insulted and reviled and denied what they view as basic rights. Political and social change surely seem slow when you’re the one waiting for them to happen. But there is a cultural change coming. Rawlings referred to it as an “arc of history,” an evolution in public opinion that’s shifting to recognize that gay Americans are equal and ordinary participants in the everyday life of our nation. When frightened opponents shout insults like “unnatural” and “depraved,” I can’t help but recall that other groups have heard the same when they asked to partake in the same rights and privileges as everybody else: women who wanted to vote, interracial couples who wished to marry, minorities who wanted the constitutional promise of equality to not be a lie. Rawlings, who is no dope, gets this. And whether his decision is personal or political or a little bit of both is really beside the point. He’ll sign. And it’s the right thing to do |
Illinois
Illinois Gay Marriage: LaShawn Ford Says He's No Longer Undecided On Marriage Equality Bill
Posted: 05/28/2013 5:10 pm EDT | Updated: 05/28/2013 5:11 pm EDT An Illinois representative formerly undecided on the state's marriage equality bill who'd been targeted by both marriage equality supporters and opponents said in an interview this week that he plans to vote yes on the legislation. State Rep. LaShawn Ford, a Democrat representing Oak Park and part of Chicago's West Side, told the Wednesday Journal in a Monday interview that he believes "the time has come" for legal same-sex marriage in Illinois. Ford partially credited his support for the bill to the respect he has for marriage equality bill's lead sponsor, state Rep. Greg Harris, a Chicago Democrat. "This will go down in history as an example of how to effect change in the world," Ford told the paper. Ford is one member of the state House's Black Caucus, which has been extensively lobbied by advocates on both sides of the issue in recent months. The 20 black members of the state House have long been identified as the key "swing" vote that could determine the fate of the pending bill, prompting the National Organization for Marriage and a group of socially conservative African-American ministers led by the Rev. James Meeks to target the lawmakers' constituents with robo-calls opposing same-sex marriage. Meanwhile, a competing group of black religious leaders has spoken out in favor of marriage equality in Illinois. With the state's spring legislative session set to end on Friday, the marriage equality bill must be passed by the House by that date or risk being delayed for many months more. Rep. Harris told the Windy City Times last week he will "absolutely" call the bill to a vote before the session's end. Harris has repeatedly stated in recent months he would not call for a vote on the bill in the House unless he was sure supporters had lined up the 60 votes they need for the measure's approval. As the state Senate has already OKed the bill in a Valentine's Day vote and Gov. Pat Quinn has vowed to sign it into law, the House vote is the only remaining obstacle to legal same-sex marriage in Illinois. |
FRANCE...Something to celebrate
First gay marriage celebrated in France Jerard Julien / Reuters By Catherine Bremer, Reuters MONTPELLIER, France - Two men married each other in the southern French city of Montpellier on Wednesday, in the first same-sex wedding in a country rocked by protests against and for the reform. Vincent Autin and Bruno Boileau exchanged vows in the city hall before the mayor, relatives and friends as dozens of riot police stood guard outside to ensure the ceremony was not interrupted by protesters. The two men, who have been together since they hit it off six years ago discussing music in an online forum, embraced to wild cheers from the audience of some 500 people and the strains of "Love and Marriage" by U.S. crooner Frank Sinatra. "It's a great pleasure for me to declare you married by law," said Montpellier Mayor Helene Mandroux as the couple, both dressed in dark suits, kissed and signed the marriage registry. The ceremony marked a symbolic end to months of debate that often overshadowed France's economic woes, sealing Socialist President Francois Hollande's reputation as a reformer despite bitter and continued opposition from Catholics and conservatives. Despite support for the reform in Montpellier, which boasts of being France's most gay-friendly town, officials scrapped plans to broadcast the wedding live on a giant TV screen and instead beamed it live online to the city's website. Moments before the men walked in, a smoke bomb was lobbed from outside into the perimeter of the city hall. Security guards rushed to investigate, but the wedding went ahead. An emotional Autin gave a brief speech to the audience, thanking his family, friends and government spokeswoman Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, a personal friend present at the ceremony. "Love each other, love us, love one another, because it's important," said Autin from a balcony to a crowd of hundreds of well-wishers outside the city hall, adding the next step would be a law allowing gay couples to adopt children. After the men exchanged a kiss, Mandroux signed the first ever marriage registry entry for two people of the same sex in France, a nation predominantly Roman Catholic but fiercely attached to the separation of church and state. Backed by a slim majority of French and feted by gay men and lesbians when it came into force this month, a law making France the 14th country to allow same-sex marriage has triggered street protests by conservatives, Catholics and extreme right-wingers. "This is a historic moment in your own lives... and a historic moment for our country," Mandroux told the ceremony. "We are building here together the society of tomorrow." Frigide Barjot, a pink-clad comedian who leads the anti-gay marriage movement, has urged her supporters to stay away from Wednesday's wedding and expressed concern at right-wingers who have hurled bricks, bottles and firecrackers during marches. On Sunday, a massive march in Paris was marred by violence. "I forbid militants from going to protest in Montpellier," Barjot told Reuters TV after hardliners in motorcycle helmets beat up a press photographer at a march against the reform in Paris on Sunday. Hundreds of the well-wishers outside city hall and many of the guests inside were dressed fancifully, with men in drag made up as nuns and others wearing gold and pink capes. "It's a fantastic day for us, for our generation and for the kids that will have proper homes because of this," said Lucile Dampierre, 24, a student and lesbian activist who was trying to get one of the seats reserved for members of the public. Earlier, French Interior Minister Manuel Valls pledged to toughen penalties for homophobic behavior, citing an increase in the number of threats against gay people on online forums. "Why do we need to toughen security? Because there are threats," he told i-Tele news TV. "It's likely that we'll have to harden penalties for homophobic speech and behavior by law." Organizers of the wedding in Montpellier, a bohemian city with a medieval university, took no chances. Between 50 and 100 police and gendarmes were deployed and ready to cordon off any potential protests. A few dozen members of the public were let in to the 500-seat function room alongside invited guests and dozens of journalists for the wedding of the year in Montpellier's futuristic new city hall, built in blue glass. Bruno's teary-eyed mother, Dominique Boileau, dressed in a short white dress and coral jacket, told reporters: "I cried when Hollande passed the law and I am still crying. I am proud of them." Homosexuality, still a crime in some 78 countries, has been legal in France since the Revolution, and the age of consent was lowered to that of heterosexual relations in 1981. Autin, 40, and Boileau, 29, were the first gay couple to apply to marry as President Hollande was pushing through the law, which grants equal marriage and adoption rights that go beyond existing rules for civil partnerships. Autin proposed by phoning Boileau at work in September in front of city officials who had just announced that Montpellier would host the first gay wedding. A surprised Boileau, put publicly on the spot via speakerphone, said yes. Since then, rallies that are partly fuelled by anger at the government over other issues like the economy appear to have eroded support for the gay marriage law; it now stands at 53 percent, with 47 percent opposed, reflecting a deep national division, particularly over the adoption rights it includes. Last week, one opponent of gay marriage shot himself dead at the altar of Paris's Notre Dame cathedral and on Sunday hundreds of thousands marched in the capital to demand the law's repeal. That evening, the jury at the Cannes Film Festival, along France's Mediterranean coast from Montpellier, handed top prize to an explicit, taboo-shattering love story between two women. |
Is Michigan next?
Michigan state senators introduce marriage equality bills
SDGLN Staff May 30th, 2013 DETROIT -- Michigan state senators late Wednesday proposed four pieces of legislation that would advance recognition of same-gender marriages in the state. Three of the bills specifically address same-gender relationship recognition in Michigan. An additional resolution calls on the federal government to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which restricts the federal government's recognition of same-gender marriages. Equality Michigan, the only statewide anti-violence and advocacy organization serving Michigan's LGBT communities, has been promoting such legislation since an amendment to the state's constitution strictly forbiding same-gender relationship recognition was passed in 2004. The organization has pledged to work with elected officials to begin the process towards reversing the harm caused to LGBT families by such discriminatory laws. "Michigan state Senators Warren, Johnson, Whitmer and Smith understand that a growing number of voters demand an end to the second-class treatment that LGBT families receive from our government. With these four pieces of legislation, Michigan's Senate Democratic elected officials have begun a conversation LGBT people have spent years preparing for and lifetimes suffering from the absence of," said Emily Dievendorf, managing director of Equality Michigan. "Earlier this month, we saw that 56% of Michigan voters support legal recognition of loving and committed LGBT couples. An increase of more than 10% over last year with most of that growth coming from Republicans and Independents. Now is the time for all sides to come together and discuss how Michigan can harness the economic and social gains other states are benefiting from as they end their government's harmful policies towards LGBT families," she said. Michigan Senate Joint Resolution W, introduced by Senator Rebekah Warren (D-Washtenaw), would allow Michigan voters to repeal the 2004 amendment to the state constitution banning same-gender relationship recognition by the government. Senate Resolution 64, introduced by Senator Bert Johnson (D-Wayne), calls on the federal government to repeal their Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Senate Bill 405, introduced by Senator Gretchen Whitmer (D-Ingham), would repeal legal limitations on same-gender relationships put in place prior to the 2004 constitutional ban. Finally, Senate Bill 406, introduced by Senator Virgil Smith (D-Wayne), would recognize same-gender marriages occurring in states where such relationships are already legally recognized. In addition to supporting the proposed legislation, the organization has been working on a long-term marriage equality strategy with national organizations, members of the Unity Michigan Coaliation such as ACLU of Michigan and Affirmations of Ferndale, and local grassroots organizations like MI Love and Vote Equal. Equality Michigan continues the push to amend Michigan's Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act to include protections for the LGBT communities. Updates on the organization's work are available on their website and blog. About Equality Michigan Equality Michigan has worked passionately for over 20 years to achieve full equality and respect for all people in Michigan regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression |
From the Advocate
Commentary
. Op-ed: On Day of Decision, How Will You React? When the Supreme Court issues its ruling this month, how we react will send a message to the country. BY Lucas Grindley. June 03 2013 2:35 AM ET If the Supreme Court says it's wrong how California has treated my husband and me, that it's wrong to pretend the wedding we had in our church in Washington, D.C., in 2010 was merely dress-up, then I don't know that I'm prepared for how I'll feel. Maybe it will be like getting married all over again. Maybe I'll have to hold back tears, like I did on my wedding day, because I'm the strong one. When the Supreme Court issues its much-anticipated ruling, as is expected to happen any day now, the media will predictably turn its cameras on LGBT people across the country and ask us how we feel. But when the reporter levies that expected question, what will we say? Those of us living in California might be cheering in the streets because Proposition 8 is overturned. Or we might be caught off guard while lining the sidewalks at a Pride celebration, like one in New York City where plaintiff Edie Windsor is a grand marshal. We'll surely applaud loudly as she passes by, a true hero, having challenged the Defense of Marriage Act and won. It might be hard to remember, though, that despite legitimate reason to celebrate, no matter the outcome at the Supreme Court, this isn't the end. Hardly anyone with legal expertise expects the justices will make a sweeping ruling that sends marriage equality throughout the country. Even if DOMA is struck down or if Californians can marry, we need only look to New York City and its recent spate of violent antigay attacks for a reminder that marriage equality won't solve all our problems. No matter what the Supreme Court says, Florida teen Kaitlyn Hunt will still be put on trial over her relationship with her girlfriend. Transgender people will still be barred from military service. The Boy Scouts will still fire gay scout leaders due to a senseless fear we will molest children. The Advocate has been keeping a somewhat informal "marriage census" as each new state in May recognized same-sex marriages. It attempts to show the rising tally of LGBT people who can now legally marry the person they love. With just 12 states plus the District of Columbia in our column, roughly 2.1 million of us are able to marry. It's sometimes easy to forget that hundreds of thousands of people are impacted by a law, or a judge's decision. Will those of us in California, where my D.C. marriage might suddenly become legal, be thinking of our gay and lesbian friends in Louisiana when the high court issues its ruling? Only if we try. I recently spoke with longtime activist Robin Tyler — who is one of the original plaintiffs in the suit that led, briefly, to marriage equality in California — about her and others' plan to revive a worthwhile idea called Day of Decision. After the Lawrence v. Texas ruling in 2003, Day of Decision actions happened in 50 U.S. cities. The Supreme Court had overturned precedent and ruled that gay sex couldn't be made illegal. A photo taken of two Chicago men holding a sign at one of the Lawrence v. Texas rallies seems almost prescient today. It read, "Supreme Court VICTORY today — ORGANIZE for FULL LGBT equality tomorrow!" A new website for the reemerged theme, DayOfDecision.org, proclaims that "When the Court Decides, We Must Act!" At the very least, we must act like the fight isn't over. In the event that the Supreme Court doesn't make marriage equality a reality nationwide, Day of Decision is calling for protests. The website is a coordinating tool. In some ways, protests strike me as a reminder to ourselves as much as to mainstream media that the ruling isn't a final "happy ending." It's actually not an ending at all. Whether you can protest on that day or make a poignant post on Facebook or answer a reporter's question with a longing for more action, do something on the Day of Decision that ensures we have many more "Days of Decision" to come. As always, the Supreme Court is unpredictable. Among the possible permutations of its judgment is a fairly bare-bones approach that makes same-sex marriage legal in some states but not others. The Obama administration has pushed for this idea, that marriage equality could be left for states to opt into. "On a practical level, a half-way decision could easily bitterly divide our community," the new Day of Decision website warns. "It’s not hard to see why: Imagine a country made up of 'blue' states that have marriage equality, oblivious to the sufferings of others, and the 'un-free' red states where LGBTs would be left to twist in the wind, without rights, perhaps for a generation or more." In pursuit of the very basic dream of getting married and starting a family, my partner and I decided to leave one of those "un-free" states. We said goodbye to friends and family, good jobs, the first home we bought together, and the Florida Gulf Coast where I'd grown up. We packed up the car and moved away. And I hope that when the Supreme Court issues its ruling, I will think of all the LGBT people who still live there |
News from the U.K.
U.K. House of Lords Gives Initial OK to Marriage Equality by 242 Votes
The peers rejected an effort to defeat the bill during its second reading, sending the legislation to a committee and report stage, before it returns to the House of Lords for a final vote. BY Sunnivie Brydum. June 04 2013 3:02 PM ET Following two days of debate, England's House of Lords has voted to move forward marriage equality legislation by a vast majority of 390-148. The peers voted down a proposal from Lord Geoffrey Dear that would have killed the bill on this, its second reading, according to The Guardian. Today's vote sends the pending legislation to a committee, after which it will be sent through the report stage, then returned to the House of Lords for third reading and final vote. If the bill passes each of those hurdles, it will be sent to the queen for her signature into law, also known as Royal Assent. Parliament's other chamber, the House of Commons, gave final approval to the legislation in May. During Monday's debate, Baroness Liz Barker came out for the first time as being in a same-sex relationship. Opening the first day of debate by declaring a personal interest in the issue, Barker, a Liberal Democrat, said, "Many years ago, I had the great good fortune to meet someone. She and I have loved each other ever since — that is, apart from the occasional spectacular argument, usually about driving or DIY." It was the first time Barker had publicly acknowledged her sexual orientation, according to British LGBT site PinkNews. Barker went on to express gratitude for a letter from a bishop that acknowledged the meaning of marriage has evolved over the years, placing the debate in a larger historical context. "What we are doing today does not undermine any existing or future marriage," said Barker. "It extends the status of marriage to gay men and lesbians who want to make a public commitment in the presence of their families and friends, and sometimes their co-religionists. It reflects the wishes of those people who today do not want just to tolerate lesbians and gay men; they want to celebrate and support them as people in their own right." Other members of the parliamentary chamber adopted similarly progressive tones, citing the importance of marriage equality for families and rejecting homophobic arguments that claimed the Parliament was trying to invalidate or "redefine" existing heterosexual marriages. Lord Patrick Jenkin, a former minister, told the House that his grandfather, a renowned scientist, taught him early in life that condemning people due to their sexual orientation is "as foolish" as condemning someone for having red hair. Jenkin also succinctly dismissed several antigay arguments advanced by other peers, saying many of them "reek of homophobia," reports PinkNews. Of course, not all peers were so eager to embrace marriage equality. Baroness Jill Knight, an 85-year-old Tory peer, put forth several stereotypes about gay people, saying they are "delightful" and "very artistic." But then Knight said that a "higher power" than any of the peers had "already decided that people are not equal," because some people are born bling, men can't bear a child, and women can't produce sperm. Knight also alleged that the bill would require schools to "teach homosexuality," despite strong "conscience clause"provisions included in the measure that would allow religious officials and institutions to decline to serve a gay or lesbian couple in conflict with their belief. Knight announced she would not support the bill. |
Arizona in the news....
Arizona: Org. Files for Marriage Equality Ballot Initiative
Some Arizona residents are waiting to hear what the Supreme Court will say, in an effort to establish legal marriage equality in their state. BY Michelle Garcia. June 18 2013 3:11 PM ET A campaign was launched Monday to repeal Arizona's ban on same-sex marriage through a ballot initiative in 2014, years after it was approved by 56% of the state's voters in 2008. The of Equal Marriage Arizona are working to gather 259,213 signatures to get their proposal to define marriage as a union between two adults, as opposed to one man and one woman, on next year's ballot, according to the The Arizona Republic. "The attitudes of this state, of the people of this state, have changed a lot," marriage advocate and business owner Warren Meyer told the Associated Press. "We believe that Arizonans are ready for equal marriage." Meyer and Log Cabin Republican chairwoman Erin Ogletree Simpson officially filed papers to launch the campaign on Monday with the Arizona Secretary of State's Office. They plan to wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on its two marriage equality cases, concerning the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8, before launching their signature campaign. Meyer said he anticipates a campaign with costs "in the millions" to spread the word and get people to sign the petition, and then to sway voters |
The wait for news continues...
The Supreme Court Will Return At 10 A.M. Tomorrow
The wait continues on two marriage equality cases argued before the Supreme Court in March. BY Sunnivie Brydum. June 24 2013 10:57 AM ET The Supreme Court did not issue rulings in either of two cases dealing with marriage equality today, but could do so Tuesday at 10 a.m. Eastern. In March, the Court heard arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Proposition 8 case, and U.S. v. Windsor, the challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act. Because the cases are contentious and were argued late in the term, many Court observers believe LGBT Americans won't get the much-awaited decision day until the last possible opportunity on the Court's calendar. Reporters at SCOTUSBlog expect the Court to add at least one more decision day this week, since the Court still has six decisions to announce before the end of its term this month. SCOTUSBlog expects the Court to announce a third decision day this week, likely scheduled for Wednesday or Thursday. |
Wednesday it is.....
U.S. Supreme Court to issue rulings in marriage equality cases Wednesday
Posted on 25 Jun 2013 at 10:11am The U.S. Supreme Court will issue rulings Wednesday in two marriage equality cases, California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act. Chief Justice John Roberts announced after three rulings Tuesday morning that the court would meet for its final day Wednesday at 9 a.m. CST to read its last three decisions. Wednesday is the 10th anniversary of when the court ruled that sodomy laws nationwide were unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas. Dallas’ LGBT community and allies will celebrate the marriage rulings at a Day of Decision rally Wednesday night at 7 p.m. at the Legacy of Love monument |
Michigan...
Michigan Moves Toward Marriage Equality
A package of four bills introduced today could bring marriage equality to the Great Lakes State. BY Sunnivie Brydum. June 24 2013 1:36 PM ET While the Supreme Court continues to deliberate over two marriage equality cases, Democratic lawmakers in Michigan are moving ahead with legislation to establish the freedom to marry. House Democrats today introduced a package of marriage equality bills that would amend the Michigan constitution to allow same-sex marriage, overturning a voter-approved ban from 2004, and would also allow Michigan to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, reports the Detroit Free Press. The package of legislation includes four bills, which would also amend the state's law on who may marry, and proposes a resolution calling on the U.S. Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. "My colleagues and I believe that Michigan cannot wait any longer to recognize marriage equality and allow all people the equal rights and benefits that married couples currently enjoy," said East Lansing Democrat Sam Singh, one of the key sponsors of the legislation. Singh is joined by fellow House Democrats Rudy Hobbs, Jeff Irwin, and Kate Segal in introducing the legislative package. "It’s time for Michigan to stop discriminating against the thousands of couples who want to marry and enjoy the same recognition and benefits for themselves and their children that come with marriage, and that my wife, Kathryn, and our kids enjoy," said Irwin in a statement announcing the bills. "The legislation that we propose today represents the next step in the fight to ensure all citizens are equal in Michigan." "The Democratic leaders who will introduce these marriage equality bills recognize the importance of Michigan standing on the right side of history in regards to the rights of our lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) citizens," said Emily Dievendorf, managing director of Equality Michigan, in a press release. "Michigan's voters will no longer tolerate second-class treatment of LGBT families. Enough is enough, and Representatives Singh, Hobbs, Irwin, and Segal deserve credit for helping lead the charge." |
The decisions will be announced soon, and I will be working without news until 9am PST.
Pins and needles folks, pins and needles. |
|
.DOMA Struck down
|
Lambda Legal BREAKING: Supreme Court declares section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. Details to come. |
By STEPHANIE CONDON / CBS NEWS/ June 26, 2013, 10:05 AM
Part of DOMA overturned... The gay rights movement saw a significant victory at the Supreme Court Wednesday, where the justices struck down part of a law barring federal benefits to married same-sex couples. In a 5-4 ruling, the court struck down a provision of the 17-year-old Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that denies federal benefits -- like Social Security benefits or the ability to file joint tax returns - to same-sex couples legally married. The impact of the DOMA case, United States v. Windsor, is clear for the nation's approximately 130,000 married same-sex couples. Section 3 of the law, the provision that was struck down, denies same-sex couples federal benefits. That provision impacts around 1,100 federal laws, including veterans' benefits, family medical leave and tax laws. |
|
SCOTUS drops Prop 8 case! Same-sex marriage can resume in California!
|
PROP 8 IS DEAD
Same Sex Marriage Can Resume in Calif
The U.S. Supreme Court decided Wednesday it will not take up a challenge to California's voter-approved Prop 8 -- a ban on same-sex marriage that landed before the Justices after years of legal battles. The ruling states the people who brought this case had no legal standing to bring the case to the Supreme Court The U.S. Supreme Court decided Wednesday it will not take up a challenge to California's voter-approved Prop 8 -- a ban on same-sex marriage that landed before the Justices after years of legal battles. The ruling states the people who brought this case had no legal standing to bring the case to the Supreme Court |
I am happy for my State, and for those in States where marriage equality reigns...but I know the fight is not over until everyone can enjoy the same sense of equality.
|
Nationwide energy
Quote:
STAND FOR MARRIAGE Follow breaking news and learn more about what decisions mean for two historic marriage equality cases at the Supreme Court. June 26, 2013 at 10:54 am Monumental Victories Reveal Two Tiers of Equality in America In recent years, California’s Proposition 8 and the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act became symbols of anti-LGBT discrimination around the country and around the world. Today, both crumbled. In a watershed moment in the fight for equality, the United States Supreme Court today ruled to return marriage equality to California and to strike down DOMA. The court ruled in the Prop 8 case on procedural grounds, not reaching a decision on the merits of Prop 8 or the broader question of whether the Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to marry the person you love. Marriages in California are expected to begin again soon. While a joyous milestone, these victories nonetheless throw into sharp relief the uneven progress for LGBT people around the country—a landscape where states like California are rapidly advancing toward equality, but progress in many other places remains stagnant. “Today’s historic decisions put two giant cracks in the dark wall of discrimination that separates committed gay and lesbian couples from full equality,” said HRC president Chad Griffin, who brought together the bipartisan legal team of Ted Olson and David Boies that brought the Proposition 8 case to the Supreme Court. “While we celebrate the victory for Californians today, tomorrow we turn our attention to the millions of LGBT people who don’t feel the reach of these decisions. From the Rocky Mountains to the heart of the South, it’s time to push equality forward until every American can marry the person they love and all LGBT people are guaranteed equal protection under the law.” HRC is committed to accelerating the progress of marriage equality through ongoing financial and strategic assistance to efforts in states around the country, including New Jersey, Hawaii, Oregon, Nevada and others. And with the Defense of Marriage Act gone, the organization is pushing hard to ensure that the Obama administration cuts through regulatory clutter and delivers the greatest number of benefits to the greatest amount of people. “These decisions underscore the emergence of two Americas. In one, LGBT citizens are nearing full equality. In the other, our community lacks even the most basic protections,” said Griffin. “Everywhere that injustice still prevails, we will fight for justice. And our message to those who cement their feet on the wrong side of history is that we will win.” For Full Story: http://humanrightscampaign.tumblr.co...of-equality-in |
Yes, Yes, and Yes!!!!!!
NO MORE DOMA!!! With DOMA being struck down this now means that legally married same-sex couples will now be afforded all Federal rights and protection. This would include Immigration law. Now legally married same-sex partners can immigrate to this country if they choose to. Honestly, I did lose hope in my country, USA about 10 years ago. Some of that belief was restored today. Prop 8 ruling restores marriage equality to same-sex couples in California. This is wonderful news. However, the struggle for full equality nation wide will continue. No one will be left behind. For our fellow queers, lesbians, gays, in states that do not recognized your humanity, yet, we will keep pushing forward. |
Quote:
:happyjump::clap::cheerleader: now...I just need to find a wife!!! lol |
Quote:
But, this is not the first time our courts make decisions that seem opposed to the constitution. DOMA was a perfect example. Until DOMA the Federal government left it up to the States to decide matters of marriage and divorce. Historically it came under "States Rights." Also, States would honor, recognize all marriages from any state and then afford legal status to their union when in a state that did not perform the marriage. All of that was not the case for interracial couples until Loving vs. Virginia in 1967. Now we shall see how each state decides to Queer marriages. There are still 37 states the define marriage as "One Man and One Woman." This past Sunday I did speak to a diverse group of people primarily made up of straight white middle and upper class and there was representation from Latino, African American, LGBTQ and poor people. I addressed Immigration Reform. I reminded them that Senator Marco Rubio was doing every thing he could to keep Immigration Reform out of the reach of Same-Sex couples and families during this latest change in our immigration laws. I am hoping the overruling of DOMA will now settle that particular immigration injustice. Our time is here. Never give up on humanity for all. Timeline for Interracial Marriage in USA: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/rac...y-Timeline.htm Timeline for LGBTQ Marriage in USA: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...95P07320130626 |
OMG...Hasn't the hate gone on long enough!
Kamala Harris On Prop 8 Decision: Same-Sex Marriages In California Should Begin Immediately
Posted: 06/26/2013 5:23 pm EDT California Attorney General Kamala Harris gave a triumphant press conference Wednesday morning in reaction to the Supreme Court's decision to effectively dismiss California's Proposition 8, which barred same-sex couples from marrying. In an exuberant speech delivered in downtown Los Angeles, Harris said that all 58 counties in California must abide by Northern California Judge Vaughn Walker's 2010 ruling that declared Prop 8 unconstitutional. She also strongly urged the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to lift the stay on same-sex marriages as soon as possible -- even before the usual 25-day waiting period until the Supreme Court clerk notifies the lower court of its judgement. "I am absolutely saying that if the 9th Circuit lifts its stay before the 25 days, that marriages can resume in California -- and shall resume in California," Harris said. "As soon as they lift that stay, marriages are on." In an emotional tribute to California's same-sex couples, Harris explained that even just one more day of unequal rights was one day too many. "Each one of those days that has passed has been a day that a family member who may have enjoyed and participated in a wedding ceremony may have passed away," she said. "Each day that has passed is a day that a baby may have been born -- and that California child, then, is in a situation where they don't have the full dignity that other children have when they look up and they ask, 'Why can't my mommies or my daddies be married also?'" "For that reason," she concluded, "I urge the 9th Circuit to lift the stay as quickly as possible." In a statement released just after the Supreme Court's ruling on Prop 8 Wednesday, California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) also put the onus on the 9th Circuit to lift the stay on same-sex marriages. "Same-sex Californians will not be able to marry until the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confirms the stay of the injunction, which has been in place throughout the appeals process, is lifted," Brown said in a statement. Even though Judge Walker found Prop 8 unconstitutional, he also issued a stay on same-sex marriage along with his ruling, acknowledging that the case could still live on in appeals. Unfortunately for Harris and same-sex couples who want to get married as soon as possible, the 9th Circuit has already confirmed that it will indeed wait for 25 days -- and even longer, if need be -- before lifting the stay on same-sex marriages. The court prefers to wait for the Supreme Court's ruling to become official and also wants to give Prop 8 proponents time to ask for a rehearing, the Associated Press reports. |
Only Section 3 of DOMA has been deemed unconstitutional. That clears the way for federal benefits to be given to all married people, yes. However, Section 2 is still in effect, thus States can still refuse to recognize same sex marriages that happened in another state.
The fight is far from over, people. We have just won one battle. The war is still going on, and we have not nearly won, yet. |
Not that people's religious books should have any bearing on civil marriage BUT...
|
Quite lengthy, but worth the read...
Marty Lederman Guest
Posted Wed, June 26th, 2013 11:32 pm Email Marty Bio & Post Archive » The fate of same-sex marriage in California after Perry Back before the oral arguments in Perry, I wrote a post explaining what might happen to same-sex marriage in California if the Supreme Court were to hold that the Proposition 8 sponsors did not have standing to appeal from Judge Vaughn Walker’s judgment of August 4, 2010. Now that that is indeed what has happened, what does it mean for the marriage rights of same-sex couples in California? The Supreme Court concluded that the judgment of the Ninth Circuit must be vacated, and remanded the case to the court of appeals “with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.” What about the district court judgment, however? In my previous post, I surmised that perhaps the Supreme Court would say something about the proper scope or application of the trial court’s judgment in the event the Court vacated the court of appeals’ decision. Not so: the Court majority is silent on the question of how Judge Walker’s injunction should be applied. Notably, however, in his dissenting opinion Justice Kennedy wrote that “the Court’s opinion today means that a single district court can make a decision with far-reaching effects that cannot be reviewed.” Judge Walker’s injunction — see page 136 of his opinion — therefore remains unchanged by the Supreme Court’s decision; it is in effect the law of the case. What does this mean, as a practical matter, for same-sex marriages in California? Let’s take the relevant questions in turn: 1. When will the injunction take effect? A: When the court of appeals lifts the stay that it imposed on the district court’s judgment. The Supreme Court’s mandate to the court of appeals will not be issued for at least 25 days. As far as I know, however, the court of appeals does not have to wait for the Supreme Court’s mandate in order to lift its stay of the trial court’s injunction. And Attorney General Harris apparently has asked the court of appeals to lift the stay as soon as possible. Therefore the trial court’s injunction will presumably go into effect on Monday, July 22d at the latest . . . and perhaps earlier. 2. Which state officials are bound by the injunction? A: Judge Walker’s injunction reads: “Defendants in their official capacities, and all persons under the control or supervision of defendants, are permanently enjoined from applying or enforcing Article I, § 7.5 of the California Constitution.” (Section 7.5 is Proposition 8, which provides: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”) The defendants who are bound by the injunction are six California officials—the County Clerks of Alameda County and Los Angeles County, the Governor, the Attorney General, the Director of the Department of Public Health & State Registrar of Vital Statistics, and the Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the Department of Public Health. The injunction clearly binds these six officials. Moreover, in a memorandum dated June 3, 2013, Attorney General Harris concluded that, under California law, all California County Clerks—officers who have responsibilities to issue marriage licenses and otherwise implement state marriage laws—are “under the control or supervision” of the Director of the Department of Public Health & State Registrar of Vital Statistics. In support of this conclusion, the Attorney General relied primarily upon language in the California Supreme Court opinion in Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco, 95 P.3d 459, 498 (Cal. 2004). I do not know enough about California law to assess whether the Attorney General’s opinion is correct that County Clerks are subject to the supervision of the Director of DPH . . . but assuming it is correct, then the injunction would also run against all California County Clerks, at least with respect to their function of issuing marriage licenses. 3. Which same-sex couples does the injunction protect? A: Well, it obviously benefits the two couples who sued in Perry — Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo. They will be able to obtain marriage licenses from the defendant Clerks of Alameda and Los Angeles Counties, respectively. What about the many other California same-sex couples who were not plaintiffs in the case? In my earlier post, I wrote that it is “not clear from the face of the injunction whether Judge Walker intended it to apply only to the defendants’ treatment of the two plaintiff couples, or whether Judge Walker instead intended to prohibit the defendants from denying marriage licenses to any same-sex couples in California.” But in the briefing subsequent to my post, all the parties appeared to agree that Judge Walker’s injunction was intended, and is best construed, to also guarantee non-party same-sex couples the right to receive California marriage licenses. Therefore I think it’s fair to assume the injunction will be interpreted, by public officials and courts alike, to protect all same-sex couples, not limited to the four named plaintiffs. As Lyle explains, that is certainly the view of the relevant California officials, including the Governor and the State Registrar, who have advised state officials accordingly. Did Judge Walker have the authority to issue such an injunction protecting non-parties? I don’t think he did, for the reasons I described in my previous post—primarily, that district court judges generally do not have the power to issue injunctions that protect persons other than the parties before them, absent a class action or a case in which a broader injunction is necessary to ensure that the plaintiffs receive complete relief. (On the other hand, not a single Justice on the Supreme Court uttered a word today to call into question the legality of the breadth of Judge Walker’s injunction, a fact that will certainly lend support to the counterargument that Judge Walker did not overreach in crafting the scope of the order, in the event that were to become an issue in further litigation.) But even if I were right about that legal proposition—that is to say, even if Judge Walker’s injunction should have been limited to the protection of the plaintiffs before him—so what? That injunction nevertheless governs the case, and it will be operative, regardless of whether it should have been more tailored. And in their briefs to the Supreme Court, both the private-party challengers of Prop 8 and the City and County of San Francisco stressed that no party (no party with standing, anyway) had challenged the scope of that injunction. Now that the injunction will finally go into effect, could there be a new challenge to the application of Judge Walker’s decision to non-party couples? If so, such a challenge presumably would come from either the named defendants (virtually inconceivable), or from a County Clerk who does not wish to issue a marriage license to a couple who were not plaintiffs in the Perry case. My tentative view is that such a County Clerk challenge is a very unlikely prospect, for several reasons: First, such a Clerk might be subject to the direction of the State Director of DPH as a matter of California law, and the Director might have the authority to forbid such a challenge and to direct the Clerk to issue the license. (Again, I am not sufficiently well-versed in California law to know for sure on this point.) Second, a motion by such a County Clerk for relief from the judgment as applied to non-party couples, presumably pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “must be made within a reasonable time,” according to Rule 60(c)(1). And it’s now been almost three years since the court issued the injunction. On the other hand, the injunction has been stayed most of that time, which might affect whether a motion now would be “reasonable.” (Any Rule 60 mavens out there who might know more about this?) [UPDATE: Thoughts from Howard Wasserman on this and related issues.] Third, and most importantly, why bother? A County Clerk knows that if he refuses to issue a marriage license, the couple in question could simply drive to another county to apply to a different Clerk. Moreover, such a Clerk thinking of challenging the scope of the injunction also knows that if that collateral attack were successful, the requesting couple could then bring their own constitutional lawsuit against the Clerk, and would almost certainly prevail on the merits in the district court and in the Ninth Circuit—especially in light of the Supreme Court’s decision today in Windsor. Even a successful challenge to the scope of Judge Walker’s injunction, therefore, would only (at best) delay an almost inevitable injunction against the Clerk in question. Hardly worth the candle, then. If I’m right that no Clerk is likely to challenge the application of the injunction to non-plaintiffs, or in any event that any such challenge is unlikely to be successful in permitting the Clerk to deny license applications in the long run, the result will be that County Clerks throughout California will be legally required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples . . . and most or all will be willing or required to do so by July 22d at the latest. Judge Kennedy, then, will have been proven correct that “the Court’s opinion today means that a single district court can make a decision with far-reaching effects that cannot be reviewed.” That is to say: Same-sex marriage in California is here to stay. And therefore, as of August 1, marriage equality will be a reality in the District of Columbia and thirteen states: California, Connecticut, Delaware (where a new law takes effect July 1), Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota (where a new law takes effect August 1), New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island (also Aug. 1), Vermont, and Washington. |
A group called Arkansans for Equality submitted paperwork to the Attorney General to see if the paperwork is legal so they can start gathering signatures to have an ammendment to overturn the ban on gay marriage on the ballot next year.
I think i explained that right. If i misunderstood i hope that Medusa or someone will correct me. |
Quote:
|
Arkansas
Arkansas reacts to same-sex marriage ruling 8:17 PM, Jun 26, 2013 Lisa Hutson LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (KTHV) - The U.S. Supreme Court made two historical rulings regarding same-sex marriage Wednesday. Legally married same-sex couples will now be able to receive the same federal benefits reserved only for heterosexual couples. Arkansas defined marriage as between one man and one woman back in 2004, and while today's decision doesn't change that, some advocates say it fueled the fire to make same-sex marriages legal in the natural state. "We've got support now from the Supreme Court, at least 5 of them, that marriage equality should happen or at least they shouldn't be denied federal benefits. I think that says something. We are moving forward as a country," said Trey Weir, co-founder of the Arkansas Initiative for Marriage Equality. Wednesday's decision will affect those same-sex couples legally married in one of the 10 states that recognize them, but it will not affect those living here in Arkansas. "Military benefits for same-sex spouses, social security survivor benefits, just a whole long list of benefits that are now available," said Weir. "A positive aspect to this ruling is that it does not create a constitutional basis for same-sex marriage itself. Now it just gives the benefits--the federal benefits--to same sex couples," added Sarah Bean with Arkansas Family Council. Beans said while the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, it's decision not to rule on Proposition 8 shows the states have all the power when it comes to same-sex marriage. "This is a state's decision. It's the state's rights. The states need to decide. I believe in 38 or 39 states, those states have made the decision that marriage should be between one man and one woman, and I'm glad the federal government is going to honor that. That is exactly what needs to happen," explained Bean. But, Weir believes the attitudes towards same-sex couples are changing and hopes Arkansas' law will too. "I think people are starting to understand that it's going to happen. People are bringing it to the dinner table. They are talking about it, and hopefully some hearts and minds will be changed," Weir concluded. Weir also said his team has drafted a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in Arkansas and plans to submit it to the Attorney General's office. They hope to get 200,000 signatures in order to get the measure on the 2016 ballot. Arkansas' congressmen and senators say they still support the amendment Arkansas voters approved in 2004 defining marriage as between a man and a woman |
|
LITTLE ROCK, AR (News Release) - Arkansans for Equality, a Non-Profit Organization supporting equality for all Arkansans, has submitted ballot language for the 2014 ballot to the Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel for the repeal of Amendment 83.
Amendment 83 denies marriage equality to all Arkansans by limiting same sex marriage, denying civil unions and not recognizing such marriages or unions from other states. "We are excited the United States Supreme Court has found DOMA unconstitutional. We applaud our federal government, and now we urge our state government to recognize equality for all Americans must mean equality for all Arkansans. In the Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers stated that all men have the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When all Americans share those same human rights, only then are we truly are free," says AFE Co-chair Judd Mann. Arkansans for Equality is a bipartisan organization founded in 2012. The organization's belief is that all individuals, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity should be treated equally under the law and in every environment. Language for Ballot Initiative to repeal Amendment 83 to the Arkansas Constitution: Popular Name: Repeal of Arkansas Marriage Amendment Title: Proposed Amendment to the Arkansas Constitution to Repeal Amendment 83, Which Limits the Definition of Marriage and Limits the Ability of the State of Arkansas to Recognize Civil Unions or Other Relationships Substantially Similar to Marriage; Which Limits the Rights of Arkansas Residents Married in Other Jurisdictions; Which Limits the Rights of Arkansas Residents Who Entered into Civil Unions in Other States; and Which Prevents Federal Laws Pertaining to the Rights of Married Persons being Applied in a Consistent Manner to Persons Living in Arkansas Who Were Married or Entered into Civil Unions Elsewhere; but Which Allows the Arkansas Legislature or Courts to Determine the Capacity of Persons to Marry, and to Regulate the Legal Rights, Obligations, Privileges and Immunities of Marriage, Subject to Federal Law. |
Look at the poll at the bottom.
LITTLE ROCK, AR - Wednesday, President Barack Obama became the first U.S. President to support gay marriage. While that news is not sitting well with some Arkansans, others say attitudes on same-sex marriage in Arkansas are changing.
Right now, Arkansas bans same-sex marriage by defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but, one state leader already says she sees attitudes changing. "I think it's a turning point, and I was very happy that President Obama did that," says State Representative Kathy Webb. Webb is the first openly gay elected official in Arkansas history. Wednesday's presidential announcement in support of same-sex marriage makes her proud. "All we want is to be treated equally, and I don't think that's something that's too much to ask," says Webb. "It was no surprise whatsoever when I saw on the news today that he indeed came out and said 'I support same-sex marriage,'" says Jerry Cox with the Family Council. The conservative Little Rock-based Family Council believes strongly marriage is between one man and one woman. "Not politically smart. At least, not for a state like Arkansas where three out of four people have already voted and said that they oppose same-sex marriage," says Cox of Obama's statement. However, in Webb's six years in the state legislature, she's seen support for same-sex marriage grow. "I think as people continue being more comfortable being themselves, you're gonna see attitudes in Arkansas really change," she says. The Family Council, though, doesn't see same-sex marriage acceptance coming to Arkansas any time soon. "If the values of people are becoming more liberal, it's not to a point where it's gonna be tipped in favor of same-sex marriage. And so, whether or not there's a trend or not, the only trend you can measure for sure, is the one where 31 states have already voted and said we think marriage ought to be the union of a man and a woman," says Cox. Q: Do you support same-sex marriage? Yes 50.9% No 49.1% |
Prop 8: Gay marriages can resume in California, court rules
By Maura Dolan June 28, 2013, 3:25 p.m. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday cleared the way for gay marriages to resume in California. The court lifted its stay on an injunction which ordered state officials to stop enforcing Proposition 8. With the court's action, counties can now begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses. A spokesman for the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had originally said it would takes the court at least 25 days to act after a Supreme Court ruling. Immediately afterward, Gov. Jerry Brown ordered his public health agency to advise the state's counties to "begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in California as soon as the 9th Circuit confirms the stay is lifted." Opponents of same-sex marriage have argued that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's 2010 decision overturning Proposition 8 applied only to the two same-sex couples who challenged the ballot measure. But their enthusiasm for going to court to try to narrow the effect of the decision appeared to wane in the hours after the decision. With Brown and Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris pledging to block Proposition 8 across California, the momentum for gay marriage was likely to hinder any further challenges. California voters passed Proposition 8 in 2008, six months after the California Supreme Court ruled that gays had the right to wed. The state high court later ruled that the initiative was a valid state constitutional amendment but upheld the validity of an estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages that occurred before the election. The Supreme Court ruled that ProtectMarriage, the sponsors of Proposition 8, lacked legal authority or standing to appeal Walker's ruling blocking the ballot initiative. The high court said Proposition 8's sponsors were not directly affected by Walker's ruling. Only state officials had the right to appeal, and they refused. That procedural decision wiped out the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' 2-1 ruling against Proposition 8, leaving only Walker's decision in place and affecting only California. County clerks who preside over marriages said they were ready for same-sex weddings. Marriage licenses already are gender-neutral, and clerks began receiving calls Wednesday from gay couples wanting to schedule appointments. Harris called on the 9th Circuit on Wednesday to lift its hold on Walker's ruling immediately. The attorney general said she believed that the appeals court had the authority to act quickly. |
Same-sex marriages resume in California after court gives go-ahead
By CNN Staff updated 7:16 PM EDT, Fri June 28, 2013 California lifts same-sex marriage ban STORY HIGHLIGHTS A federal appeals court lifts an order banning same-sex marriages It takes effect "immediately," according to the court order The U.S. Supreme Court paved the way for the move with a ruling Wednesday (CNN) -- The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that same-sex marriages can resume in California, a move that the Supreme Court paved the way for on Wednesday. Three judges on the appeals court made it possible for local governments to issue marriage certificates for gay and lesbian couples with a few words: "The stay in the above matter is dissolved effective immediately." Very soon after, California Attorney General Kamala Harris was already at San Francisco's city hall marrying couples, according to her office. "I am thrilled that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted its stay to allow same-sex couples to legally marry in California," Harris said in a statement. "Gay and lesbian couples have waited so long for this day and for their fundamental right to marry. Finally, their loving relationships are as legitimate and legal as any other." California's Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage in May 2008, ruling that the state's constitution gives "this basic civil right to (marry to) all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples." But months later, 52% of voters backed Proposition 8 to once again restrict marriages so that they can only be between a man and a woman. The measure put gay and lesbian marriages on hold in the state, but a federal appeals court later rule Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed an appeal of that federal court ruling on jurisdictional grounds. That meant that Friday's news -- and the resumption of same-sex marriages in the Golden State -- was expected, even if the timing wasn't fully known |
I did not read all the posts since the SCOTUS ruling, so...
We all do realize that DOMA is NOT struck down? The only section of DOMA struck down is the Federal Recognition of legal civil same gender marriage. Individual states still do not have to recognize legal same gender civil marriage from another state. That means you cannot file joint state taxes and you are denied whatever state benefits there are when it comes to legal civil marriage in that state. I believe there has been talk from Dems to introduce legislation to repeal DOMA entirely. We all know that will go nowhere in the House....maybe it would pass in the Senate. We need registered voters and we need a 70% or greater turnout in 2014 to actually get anything done about anything. |
Quote:
The fight continues! |
I just watched clips of the two couples that represented the people in the case against prop hate get married, and I cried all the way through.
We have to keep fighting until we can all marry the person or persons we love. 13 States and counting! |
New York Times update today:
ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON — Justice Anthony Kennedy of the Supreme Court denied on Sunday a request from Proposition 8 supporters in California to halt the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses in the nation’s most populous state. Justice Kennedy turned away the request with no additional comment. Same-sex marriage opponents had asked Justice Kennedy to step in on Saturday, a day after the federal appeals court in San Francisco allowed same-sex marriages to go forward. Numerous weddings were performed at San Francisco City Hall after the court decisions. The appeals ruling came a day after the Supreme Court declined to decide the California case, effectively allowing same-sex marriages in the state. The opponents said the appeals court had acted about three weeks too soon. Proposition 8 supporters could continue their efforts to halt gay marriage by filing their request with another Supreme Court justice. The Supreme Court decided the case on technical grounds, with the majority saying that it was not properly before the court. Because officials in California had declined to appeal a trial court’s decision against them, and because the proponents of the ban were not entitled to step into the state’s shoes to appeal the decision, the court said, it was powerless to issue a decision. That left in place a trial court victory for two same-sex couples who had sought to marry. ■ PUBLISHED JUNE 30, 2013 |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:32 PM. |
ButchFemmePlanet.com
All information copyright of BFP 2018