10 Rights for Civil Partnerships vs. 1300 Rights with Marriage
 

joemygod
 

Washington State Gets Marriage Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PROP 8 TRIAL TRACKER
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From joemygod
 

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

INDIANA: House Approves Marriage Ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Dear Adam,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for all you do,

Shane

Some news to smile about:

British government reportedly set to introduce full gay marriage equality



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

joemygod...Hawaii moving forward!
 

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

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

HURRAY!!!!!!!!!

Smooches for equality,
Keri

Prop 8 Trial Tracker
 

The 24th vote in Maryland
By Adam Bink

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

Here’s his e-mail:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hell no! We're already OUT!

Sweet thoughts,
Ana

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

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

A small victory, but a significant one nonetheless.

Smooches,
Keri

Gov't drops defense of anti-gay marriage law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wonderful news, and about time! (f)

PROP 8 TRIAL TRACKER....
 

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:explode:

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

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

Aloha No ka Oi!

Obama to stop defending federal ban on gay marriage
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Limited practical effect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unnecessary controversy?

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

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