Same-Sex Marriage Update

[Okiebug61]

[quote=Corkey;428659]

Originally Posted by Okiebug61

There are no benefits to partners, DOMA needs to be overturned first.

There should be no separation of our rights as humans.

[Corkey]

[quote=Okiebug61;428961]

Originally Posted by Corkey

There should be no separation of our rights as humans.

Well no there shouldn't, but there are laws on the books that need to be repealed, and until then there are no benefits to partners. So tell your Senator, your Congressperson they need to do as you ask not as they wish for a change.

[Okiebug61]

[quote=Corkey;429101]

Originally Posted by Okiebug61

Well no there shouldn't, but there are laws on the books that need to be repealed, and until then there are no benefits to partners. So tell your Senator, your Congressperson they need to do as you ask not as they wish for a change.

No worries! I am very active in making sure those that represent me know that I am for equal rights across the board.

[iamkeri1]

I found this amazingly beautiful video on the Equality Florida website.

I wish this woman would run for congress.
Smooches,
Keri

I was just going to give you the link and ask for help uploading it, but I found the video on youtube as well, so here (hopefully) it is

[MsTinkerbelly]

Prop 8 Repeal Fight May Go Forward

As Equality California is mired by internal turmoil and the loss of its second executive director in several months, another LGBT rights group says they are moving forward with plans to place a repeal of Proposition 8 on California's 2012 ballot. Rex Wockner reports:
Love Honor Cherish will submit language to the California attorney general by Friday for a ballot measure to overturn Prop 8. The attorney general will write a petition title and summary, and then LHC can collect voter signatures for 150 days. The group would need to collect valid signatures from 807,615 registered California voters. The initiative would amend the California Constitution to delete or overturn Prop 8, via which voters amended the Constitution in 2008 to re-ban same-sex marriage. The Los-Angeles-based organization's outreach director, Lester Aponte, said Oct. 11 that LHC already has launched efforts to build a statewide campaign structure.

[iamkeri1]

I guess this is an OK idea. However, it will limit legality of Lgbtq marriages to California. The decision regarding prop 8 that is already underway in the California Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of banning lgbts marriage will, it is my understanding, have broader, national effects. I live in Florida, where ANY recognition of glbtq couples is forbidden by law. My hopes lay in having these "banning" laws overturned in all states with the result that lgbtq marriages will be legalized nation wide.

That way I don't have to move to achieve equal rights.
Smooches,
Keri
I edited this to say that I understand the new petition will not stop the case currently in the Supreme Court in Cali. However, if the court decides that prop 8 was illegal in the first place, then the new petition is redundant.

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

Prop 8 Repeal Fight May Go Forward

As Equality California is mired by internal turmoil and the loss of its second executive director in several months, another LGBT rights group says they are moving forward with plans to place a repeal of Proposition 8 on California's 2012 ballot. Rex Wockner reports:
Love Honor Cherish will submit language to the California attorney general by Friday for a ballot measure to overturn Prop 8. The attorney general will write a petition title and summary, and then LHC can collect voter signatures for 150 days. The group would need to collect valid signatures from 807,615 registered California voters. The initiative would amend the California Constitution to delete or overturn Prop 8, via which voters amended the Constitution in 2008 to re-ban same-sex marriage. The Los-Angeles-based organization's outreach director, Lester Aponte, said Oct. 11 that LHC already has launched efforts to build a statewide campaign structure.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by iamkeri1

I guess this is an OK idea. However, it will limit legality of Lgbtq marriages to California. The decision regarding prop 8 that is already underway in the California Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of banning lgbts marriage will, it is my understanding, have broader, national effects. I live in Florida, where ANY recognition of glbtq couples is forbidden by law. My hopes lay in having these "banning" laws overturned in all states with the result that lgbtq marriages will be legalized nation wide.

That way I don't have to move to achieve equal rights.
Smooches,
Keri
I edited this to say that I understand the new petition will not stop the case currently in the Supreme Court in Cali. However, if the court decides that prop 8 was illegal in the first place, then the new petition is redundant.

I have very mixed feelings about putting this up to a vote again....but I know how it felt to have my equality RIPPED from me in one night. Maybe it was a false (only California) equality, but I grieved for weeks over the thought of that many fellow Californians voting to make me "less than". Oh they couldn't take my marriage away, but they made me belong to a seperate class of citizens my fellow queers could no longer join.

I can understand how the people behind the repeal would want to have Prop 8 removed from our Constitution...it is a stain upon this state (dramatic I know) and I too want to have it erased.

Is it the best idea? Probably not, but I get the NEED of people to actually try and do something.

[iamkeri1]

I feel your pain, MsT. I too grieved that loss when prop 8 passed. I am 63 years old, and even though I have dealt with sooooo much discrimination in my life, I could actually not believe that people could go to the polls and vote to take civil rights (that they hold dear themselves), away from other people; my people. It IS a stain upon our countries history that this has happened. I agree with you completely.

In 1988, after my then lover transitioned, we were able to legally marry. It was like being given a treasure that we had sought after our whole life. Our happiness was overwhelming, yet it was tinged with sadness as well. Our beloved gay friends had not yet gained this right that we treasured. We talked for months over whether it would be "right" for us to marry when they could not. In the end our desire to marry won out.

l know your joy at your own marriage is leavened with disappointment that other lgbtq folk can no longer exercise that right. You have to do what feels right to you. I wish you and those you work with success in getting the new proposition on the ballot and passed by an overwhelmong vote of the people. I hope a similar measure will soon be passed in Florida.
Smooches,
Keri

[MsTinkerbelly]

SLDN To Sue Over DOMA

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network will file a federal lawsuit on behalf of married gay military members impacted by DOMA.
The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network will argue that the federal Defense of Marriage Act violates the Fifth Amendment right to due process, in what the group says will be the first case of its kind. "That has never been done before," Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of SLDN, told The Huffington Post. Sarvis, who spoke about his group's plans at the OutServe Armed Forces Leadership summit here over the weekend, said the case would be brought by several currently serving members of the military who were married in the seven jurisdictions where same-sex marriages are legal. He declined to identify the plaintiffs. "We're looking at all the legal remedies available," Sarvis said, noting that the group also is working to change Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which governs the armed forces and defines marriage as between two individuals of the opposite sex.

[iamkeri1]

Due Process - that is an interesting take on it. Can't see how it would help with any long term legal precedent, but DOMA is fairly new, so it might have some application there. Blessings to them. Knock on every door. Maybe one will open (or fall over from the pressure) Worksfor me either way.

Thanks MsT!
Smooches,
Keri

[MsTinkerbelly]

DOMA: New lawsuit filed on behalf of gay and lesbian servicemembers
By Adam Bink

As noted in the comments by Greg in SLC, today a new lawsuit was filed on behalf of gay and lesbian servicemembers, challenging the Defense of Marriage Act. The lawsuit is being filed in district court in Boston (the same court that handed down the successful decision in Gill v. OPM). Michael Lavers from EDGE Media Network:

A group of gay and lesbian servicemembers and veterans filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act in a federal court in Boston on Thursday, Oct. 27.

The eight plaintiffs, who have 159 years of military service between them, maintain that DOMA specifically prohibits the military from offering their spouses the same family support and benefits that married heterosexual servicemembers automatically receive. These include on-base housing, health care, survivor benefits and burial rights at national cemeteries.

“The case we are bringing today is about one thing, plain and simple: It’s about justice for gay and lesbian servicemembers and their families,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, at a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, Oct. 27. “These couples are in long-term, committed and legally recognized marriages and the military shouldn’t be forced to turn their back on them because the federal government refuses to recognize their families.”

Among the plaintiffs is Capt. Steve Hill, an Army reservist who is stationed in Iraq who submitted a YouTube question about the end of the military’s ban on openly gay and lesbian servicemembers during a Republican presidential candidate debate in Florida last month.

Chief Warrant Officer Charlie Morgan returned to New Hampshire from Kuwait in August where she lives with her wife Karen Morgan and their four-year-old daughter. A full-time officer with the New Hampshire National Guard, Charlie Morgan was recently diagnosed with breast cancer after a recurrence. She pointed out that her inability to obtain a military identification card prevents her from taking her daughter on base to take advantage of the facilities and other services other married couples receive.

“We’re just looking to receive the same benefits and opportunities as our married heterosexual counterparts,” said Charlie Morgan as her wife stood by her side. “Time may not be on our side.”
The repeal of ’don’t ask, don’t tell’ became official on Sept. 20, but SLDN and other groups continue to stress that the end of the Clinton-era law is an important first step towards remedying long-standing inequalities against gay and lesbian servicemembers.

The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit a week before the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to debate a bill that would repeal DOMA. The White House announced earlier this year that it would no longer defend the Clinton-era statute, but House Republicans continue to back the law.

Retired Capt. Joan Darrah of Alexandria, Va., was a naval intelligence officer until she retired from the Navy in 2002. Seven of her colleagues died in the room in which she had been working in the Pentagon moments before American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the building on Sept. 11, 2001. Under DADT, Darrah said her partner of nearly 20 years, Lynne Kennedy, would not have been notified of her death.

[MsTinkerbelly]

By Kat Giantis MSN

That sound you hear? It's the institution of marriage banging its head against the wall and asking for mercy. A little more than two months after tying the knot in a ridiculously ostentatious, E!-sponsored ceremony, Kim Kardashian is giving Kris Humphries the heave-ho.


Following weeks of rift rumors, Kim, 31, filed for divorce on Monday, citing the usual "irreconcilable differences," according to legal papers obtained by TMZ.

Kim has retained go-to celebrity divorce attorney Laura Wasser to get her out of the 72-day-old marriage (and presumably enforce the ironclad prenup). In the divorce docs, she requests that no spousal support be awarded to the NBA player.

The date of separation is listed as Oct. 31, 2011.

"She wanted the fairy tale, and she got caught up in it all," a Kardashian konfidante tells People. "She felt like the pressure of the TV show just isn't what they could have handled."

According to TMZ, Kris thought they could work through their problems, and he didn't know Kim planned to pull the plug until Monday morning.

The reality starlet, whose first union to music producer Damon Thomas also ended in divorce, flew solo at a Halloween bash on Saturday, explaining to Us Weekly that Humphries, 26, was back home in Minnesota.

"It's always tough when you're apart," she said. "But we do what we can to try and spend time together and make that time for each other."

Last week, Kim admitted to People that married life hasn't been "ideal."


I suppose that this will be the "queers fault"...I mean, if it weren't for us, idiots like this might stay married longer than 2 months! Nah, probably not...

Cindy

[Gráinne]

Only in America, where most of the couples here on this site cannot legally marry, after only being together for a million years. And "they" say we ruin the institution of marriage?!

[Soon]

20 Couples That Put Kim Kardashian's Marriage To Shame

[MsTinkerbelly]

DOMA: Senate Judiciary Committee markup on Respect for Marriage Act begins today
By Adam Bink

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin the markup process on the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. All 10 committee Democrats publicly pledge support for the bill, though it’s not clear what amendments will be offered and whether that calculus could be changed.

Republicans are expected to exercise their prerogative to hold over the bill one week, which they have done on every committee bill this year. That means that today’s meeting will likely be about other business and Senators will make only brief remarks on the Respect for Marriage Act. Actual votes, including amendments if offered, are therefore expected to take place on Thursday, November 10th. Sen. Grassley, the ranking Republican, is expected to offer an amendment to strike Section 2 of the bill, which provides for the ability to retain federal rights for same-sex married couples no matter which state they reside in. There may be other amendments introduced shortly before the 10th. In short, no fireworks expected today, though I’ll update if that changes. Courage Campaign and our members are working with our allies in and outside of the Senate to ensure anti-LGBT amendments are not adopted by the committee and that we have a successful vote on the overall bill.

Whenever the vote happens, it will make headlines around the nation and serve as a chance to again move people’s hearts and mind on this issue, as well as educate the public, so the committee consideration should not be dismissed as a non-starter simply because we are short on the votes in the full Senate. As I wrote in this essay, we have a long way to go and every moment builds a majority for DOMA repeal

[MsTinkerbelly]

The California Supreme Court has until December 5th to rule on whether or not the groups that are fighting Judge Walker's decision to overturn Prop 8 have standing to do so. If they rule that they do not, Judge Walker's decision stands and marriage may resume, and if they do have standing then we move on and fight to have the Supreme court rule Prop 8 unconsitutional once more.

The Court might rule before that date, so if anyone sees something in the news please post!

[MsTinkerbelly]

How gay and lesbian servicemembers remain treated as second-class
By Adam Bink

Over at Talking Points Memo, Brian Beutler examines some cases:

Two weeks ago, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) neatly demonstrated the power of retail politics — and at the same time brought to light a legal conflict that has made the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell a bumpy affair.

Shaheen had intervened on behalf of a constituent named Charlie Morgan — an openly gay Chief Warrant Officer in the New Hampshire National Guard — who had just returned from a deployment in Kuwait, only to be forbidden by the military from bringing her spouse Karen to an event aimed at helping families deal with the transition back to life at home.

It’s unthinkable that a straight, married service member would have faced this kind of obstacle. But though Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell had been stricken from the books, and Morgan was allowed to serve openly, the Defense of Marriage Act still allowed the New Hampshire National Guard to deny her spouse authorization to attend the so-called Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program.

Shaheen took Morgan’s case straight to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the policy was quickly reversed — the Morgans were allowed to attend Yellow Ribbon event earlier this month.

But the problem isn’t limited to reintegration events or the New Hampshire National Guard. It’s happening nationwide — the ripples of an inherent tension between the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the continued existence of the Defense of Marriage Act. So advocates, politicians, and service members are handing megaphones to service members and their spouses who have suffered as a result of the conflict, to see the Defense of Marriage Act overturned by the courts or repealed by Congress.

“We’ve got a conflict here between the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act,” Shaheen told me in a telephone interview recently. “Until DOMA is repealed or stricken, they and their families will be caught in the middle.”

It’s the obverse of “Separate but Equal” — gay services members who no longer fear for their jobs but find themselves treated unequally under the law.

Shannon McLaughlin is an Army Major and JAG in the Massachusetts Air National Guard. She and her spouse Casey have 10 month old twins and decided recently that Casey should leave her teaching job — and the health benefits that came with it — to be a full-time parent.

“Babies are covered under my health insurance, but Casey is not,” McLaughlin told me in a phone interview Wednesday. “We went down to one income for the benefit of the children…but then we got whapped with an extra bill, which is over $700 a month…. My male counterpart who does the same job I does, his family’s covered, and we do the same work.”

Gay spouses are also denied housing privileges and ID cards providing access to discounted amenities and services.

Lt. Col. Victoria Hudson’s family faces a similar risk. Her wife Monika Poxon is insured, but lacks the safety net other military spouses have in the event that she leaves or loses her job.

“I have a child — my wife is the birth mother of my child,” Hudson told me. “I can add the child to the insurance if I want to, but I can’t add the mother. But if something happened to her job, and she lost her insurance, she’d have no safety net.

Joshua Snyder is married to army reservist, Capt. Steven Hill — who gained notoriety in September when he submitted a YouTube video questioning GOP presidential primary candidates about the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Snyder recalls listening while mortars landed within feet of Hill, who is currently deployed, while the two were speaking on Skype.

Hill was unscathed, but if he’d been injured or killed, Snyder wouldn’t find out through normal channels.

“There’s a lot more hoops to jump through…to make sure I’m the first contact,” he said. “There’s nothing automatic to make sure I’d be notified.”

Morgan, McLaughlin, Hudson, and Hill are among the plaintiffs in a federal district court lawsuit, filed late last week by the Servicemember’s Legal Defense Network, against Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki

[MsTinkerbelly]

New Jersey couples go back to court seeking marriage equality today
By Adam Bink

Today in Superior Court:

TRENTON — In the latest attempt to legalize gay marriage in New Jersey, same-sex couples are headed to court today to try to convince a judge their partnerships are more than civil unions.

The couples, defeated in their efforts last year to get the state Legislature to recognize same-sex marriages, turned to the courts to obtain what they say would be true marriage equality.

Superior Court Assignment Judge Linda Feinberg will hear arguments from Garden State Equality, a civil rights organization for same-sex couples, and the state Attorney General’s Office, which is defending New Jersey’s civil union law.

In a 2006 decision that stopped short of recognizing gay marriage, the state Supreme Court said legislators have to provide marriage-like rights to same-sex partners. It left the details of those rights up to the lawmakers. Later that year, legislators created civil unions, giving the same benefits of marriage but not using the term.

In January 2010, the state Senate defeated an effort to legalize same-sex marriage. Two months later, six same-sex couples went to the Supreme Court asking for the right to marry. But the state’s highest court declined to hear the issue and instead said the case has to work its way through the trial courts. That starts today with arguments before Feinberg.

This amid public support continuing to rise in the new Pew Center poll (though the numbers are less in support than in other surveys showing a majority).

[MsTinkerbelly]

Judge rules New Jersey lawsuit for marriage equality can proceed
By Adam Bink

Seth in Maryland in the comments notes the news. A big hearing this past week, and what came out of it:

If the law creating civil unions does not give same-sex couples the same protections as married heterosexual couples, it has to be examined as to whether it is constitutional, Mercer County Assignment Judge Linda Feinberg said during a hearing in Trenton this afternoon.

But in dismissing three counts of the complaint, Feinberg also said there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage under the state Constitution. One count of the suit — a claim that the civil union law does not give them equal protection — remains.

She noted same-sex couples complain civil unions, created in New Jersey in 2006, still don’t give them the same benefits as marriage in situations such as health benefits sharing and health care decisions.

“I don’t think that the court can remain silent and take no action if…the result is that those benefits are not equal in the protections,” Feinberg said

[Hollylane]

After attending a town hall meeting held by Basic Rights Oregon, I was very sad to receive an email today stating that B.R.O. will not pursue a ballot measure on marriage in 2012.

At the meeting, I felt like we were being herded into deciding not to put this on the ballot. The decision felt like it had already been made, and we were being convinced to agree with the deciders.


I also found it disheartening that I heard so many people saying:


"I don't want to put it on the ballot unless we have a guarantee that we will win"


There is nothing on any ballot that is guaranteed to win. What if other Civil Rights were not fought for because we couldn't be given a guarantee that they would win?



I am very disappointed.