Same-Sex Marriage Update

[MsTinkerbelly]

The NYTimes on the indefendable DOMA
By Adam Bink

Amazing NYTimes editorial yesterday (bolding mine):

In Defense of Marriage, for All
The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act is indefensible — officially sanctioned discrimination against one group of Americans imposed during an election year. President Obama seems to know that, or at least he has called on Congress to repeal it. So why do his government’s lawyers continue to defend the act in court?

The law, signed by President Bill Clinton, denies married same-sex couples the federal benefits granted to other married couples, including Social Security survivor payments and the right to file joint tax returns. When December’s repeal of the noxious “don’t ask, don’t tell” law goes into effect, gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans will be able to serve openly in the military but may not be entitled to on-base housing or a spouse’s burial in a national cemetery.

Attorney General Eric Holder and Justice Department lawyers have sought to distance the administration from Congress’s justifications for the marriage act, one of which was to “encourage responsible procreation.”

But just last month, the department appealed two rulings by Joseph Tauro, a federal trial judge in Massachusetts, who found that the law’s denial of benefits to married same-sex couples could not pass constitutional muster. We did not agree with some of the judge’s reasoning. He said the marriage act exceeded Congress’s powers and infringed on the state’s right to regulate marriage — an approach that could undermine many of the biggest federal social programs, including the new health care law.

But the department’s appellate brief also recycled the flimsy argument that the law had a plausible purpose in trying to maintain the federal status quo while states debated the issue of same-sex marriage. This argument was peculiar since the law overturned the federal status quo, which was to recognize all legal marriages.

Two new lawsuits, filed in Connecticut and New York, challenging the Defense of Marriage Act now offer the president a chance to put the government on the side of justice. We urge him to seize it when the administration files its response, which is due by March 11. The executive branch’s duty to defend federal laws is not inviolate. This one’s affront to equal protection is egregious.

Now a comment from Adam Bink..(Prop 8 Blogger)
[...]

On the merits, this should be an easy call. A law focusing on a group that has been subjected to unfair discrimination, as gay people have been, is supposed to get a hard test. It is presumed invalid unless the government proves that the officials’ purpose in adopting the law advances a real and compelling interest. That sort of heightened scrutiny would challenge the administration’s weak argument for upholding the act. It would also make it more difficult to sustain other forms of anti-gay discrimination, including state laws that deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

By now, such blatant discrimination should be presumed to be unconstitutional, and the Justice Department should finally say so. If conservatives in Congress want to enter the case to argue otherwise, so be it.

A hard test is right. This law advances no compelling interest

[Soon]

[MsTinkerbelly]

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."

[adorable]

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

[Corkey]

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

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

[MsTinkerbelly]

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

[MsTinkerbelly]

***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.

[MsTinkerbelly]

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."

[iamkeri1]

HURRAY!!!!!!!!!

Smooches for equality,
Keri

[MsTinkerbelly]

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.

[AnaLee]

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

[iamkeri1]

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

[MsTinkerbelly]

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.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by iamkeri1

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

Wonderful news, and about time!