Same-Sex Marriage Update

MsTinkerbelly · 07-10-2013, 10:05 AM

ACLU brings fight for marriage equality to Pennsylvania

Emma Margolin
6:21 PM on 07/09/2013

The days of same-sex marriage bans may be coming to an end.

In the first federal lawsuit filed anywhere in the country since the Supreme Court handed down decisions in two landmark marriage equality cases, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, and volunteer counsel from a Philadelphia-based law firm on Tuesday formally challenged Pennsylvania’s law prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.

Like the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Supreme Court struck down two weeks ago, Pennsylvania’s statutory provision limits marriage to unions between one man and one woman, and prevents the state government from recognizing same-sex marriages performed where they are legal. The suit alleges that Pennsylvania’s law violates the fundamental right to marry, as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

“We only want what every married couple wants–to express our love and commitment in front of friends and family, and the security and protections that only marriage provides,” said Deb Whitewood, one of the 23 plaintiffs challenging the Pennsylvania provision, in a statement released by the ACLU. “Our life is built around our relationship and the family we have made,” she said of her partner of 22 years, Susan Whitewood, and their three children, Abbey, Katie, and Landon.

The two women had a “holy union” ceremony at their church in 1993 shortly before they each changed their last names to Whitewood, a combination of their surnames. In 2001, they entered into a civil union in Vermont. Yet Pennsylvania law treats them as “legal strangers,” writes the ACLU.

Currently, Pennsylvania is one of 35 states that prohibits same-sex marriage through a constitutional or statutory provision. But as with national trends, support for marriage equality among Pennsylvanians is on the rise. A recent survey from Public Policy Polling found an almost even split on the issue, with a net 14 point increase over the last year and a half in favor of legalizing gay marriage across the state.

While the main focus of this suit will be on Pennsylvania, it could lead the Supreme Court to rule on whether same-sex couples across the country have the constitutional right to marry–a question the justices declined to answer when they ruled the proponents of Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage, lacked standing to defend it.

Should Pennsylvania uphold its ban on same-sex marriage, this suit stands a chance at landing before the nation’s highest court.

“It’s pretty clear that the Supreme Court will at some point in the not too distant future want another crack at the issue,” said Witold Walczak, ACLU of Pennsylvania’s legal director, to MSNBC. “We have a strong legal case, and I think it could be a good vehicle for the Supreme Court to reconsider whether same-sex couples have a right to marry under the constitution.”

Similar challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage are already underway in Illinois, New Mexico, and Michigan, noted Walczak. The ACLU also announced on Tuesday that it would amend an existing adoption lawsuit in North Carolina to include a challenge to that state’s marriage laws. And James Esseks, director of the ACLU’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & AIDS Project, told the Washington Post that a suit against Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage would come “quite soon.”

“There was a huge amount of excitement and positive energy today,” said Walczak. “Pennsylvania is the birthplace of the constitution and the cradle of liberty, so it’s a fitting place to have a fight over the constitutional right to marry,” he added.

“Now the hard work begins.”

Wolfsong · 07-11-2013, 08:41 PM

Ok.....I am so pissed off right now I don't even know where to start thinking this out. If you will remember some months ago I was grumpy because Andi and I are forced to pay extra federal taxes on health benefits because we are not legally married.

When employees elect health insurance coverage from their employers for their families, the majority of their employers contribute to at least half of the insurance coverage's cost. For employees with different-sex spouses, federal and state tax law do not require employers to report their contribution to the employee's or the employee's different-sex spouse as taxable wages earned — the value of the health insurance coverage can be excluded from the employee's gross income. Non-dependent same-sex partners and spouses (and their dependents) are treated differently under federal and most states' tax laws. The estimated value of the employer's financial contribution towards health insurance coverage for non-dependent same-sex partners must be reported as taxable wages earned.

So....at the beginning of this year we decided that she would get her health benefits through her job and I through mine. A pain in the ass to be sure but considerably less expensive for us. Previously, we elected to receive benefits from her job as the coverage was the same but less expensive (until they started taxing the crap out of us).

This morning I went online to transfer money from our checking to our savings account (I always move overtime and bonus pay to savings) to find that her deposit was about $700 less than what I'd expected it to be. I texted her to contact payroll and find out what was up. Sure enough, those jackasses took it in tax (Yup folks......$700 in taxes just for the health benefits). They told her that I had to submit proof that I was receiving benefits from another source before they would remove me......

Wait just a @#$%&%# second here.......I want to make sure that I was not hallucinating......... I have to submit proof that I am otherwise covered?

Ok.........fuck off

The the domestic partnership that the federal government refuses to recognize as a marriage and provide benefits for is real enough for you to tax though right? Is this some kind of a joke? They are going to give that money back and I am not going to provide proof of shit. According to more than half the states in the union we are not even recognized as dating.

.............fuck you you fuckin' fuckers!

MsTinkerbelly · 07-12-2013, 04:56 PM

Michigan marriage equality lawsuit to be argued October 1; new filings in Illinois marriage challenges

July 11, 2013

By Scottie Thomaston

A scheduling conference in the lawsuit challenging Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban, DeBoer v. Snyder, took place yesterday, July 10 in federal district court. The federal judge declined to dismiss the case last week, but did not issue a final ruling or a schedule for further motions or arguments, putting the decision off until yesterday’s conference.

No final decision on the merits of the constitutional challenge to the ban was released yesterday, and the judge has set oral arguments for October 1. Challenges against same-sex marriage bans in Nevada and Hawaii are likely to see oral arguments in October as well, though probably at the end of the month, since an extension of time was sought to file briefs. Those cases are already in the appeals court, though, at the Ninth Circuit.

In Illinois, Lambda Legal has filed a motion for summary judgment in Darby v. Orr and Lazaro v. Orr. This is a request for a decision on the merits, (in the plaintiffs’ favor, in this case.) Their brief in support of summary judgment is much like the one they filed in the New Jersey case: both are state cases, both states have civil unions. In one section, they write:

Plaintiffs who obtained civil unions by license from illinois county clerks currently are denied a number of federal benefits and protections that would be available to them and their families if they could marry now that DOMA has been struck down.

The filing goes on to list specific ways civil unions deny same-sex couples equal protection under the law afforded to opposite-sex couples. There is no timeline for the court to act in the case.

MsTinkerbelly · 07-15-2013, 12:32 PM

BREAKING: U.K. House of Lords Give Final Approval to Marriage Equality

The legislation now heads back to the House of Commons for final approval, before going to the Queen for her signature.

BY Sunnivie Brydum.

July 15 2013 12:07 PM ET

The House of Lords, the unelected upper chamber of the U.K. Parliament, offered its final approval to marriage equality legislation Monday, according to Bloomberg. Although the Lords did not register a vote today, the chamber previously approved the legislation by an overwhelming majority of 390 to 148.

The legislation, championed by Prime Minister David Cameron, now returns to the lower House of Commons, where members will vote on amendments proposed by the Lords. In May, the House of Commons voted in favor of marriage equality by a vote of 366 to 161, leaving advocates hopeful that the lower house will affirm the proposed law. If the House of Commons accepts the amendments, the bill will go to Queen Elizabeth for her signature, a process known as Royal Assent.

Once the law is enacted, England and Wales will become the tenth European jurisdiction to embrace marriage equality, according to the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Association — Europe. The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Portugal, and Iceland established marriage equality previously, and France enacted same-sex marriage earlier this year. That means 30% of Europeans now live in nations that support the freedom to marry, reports ILGA-Europe.

“Today, the land of Magna Carta sealed another historic transformation," said Gabi Calleja, cochair of ILGA-Europe's executive board in a statement. "Marriage is an institution which is dear and close to many people’s hearts, beliefs and lives. It was shaped and transformed over hundreds of years by different traditions, interpretations and customs. The debate leading to the adoption of the marriage equality law has shown that British society and its politicians have once again embraced change, to update the institution of marriage to that which is equally open and accessible to all, in the name of justice and human rights."

MsTinkerbelly · 07-16-2013, 12:51 PM

State's top court lets same-sex marriages continue

Bob Egelko

Updated 9:40 am, Tuesday, July 16, 2013

The state Supreme Court refused Monday to stop the weddings of gay and lesbian couples in California, a development that indicated Proposition 8's sponsors have little chance of reviving the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.

The unanimous, one-sentence order denied the sponsors' request for an immediate halt to the marriages, while reserving judgment on their claim that Prop. 8 remains valid and enforceable statewide.

But their arguments for that claim are largely the same as those they advanced in their request for an emergency order stopping the marriages: that Gov. Jerry Brown had no authority to order all 58 county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and that a federal judge's ruling that declared Prop. 8 unconstitutional applied only to the two couples who sued to overturn the 2008 initiative.

Brown issued the order on June 28, two days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Prop. 8's sponsors, as private citizens unaccountable to the state, had no legal standing to represent California or its voters in defense of the measure in federal court.

With both Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris refusing to defend Prop. 8, which they considered unconstitutional, the ruling reinstated an August 2010 ruling by then-Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco that the ballot measure discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation and gender.

Although the suit by couples from Berkeley and Burbank was not a class action, Walker drafted his ruling to have statewide effect, prohibiting enforcement of Prop. 8 by state officials and everyone under their supervision. The state's high court ruled in 2004 that state officials, not county clerks, set qualifications for marriage licenses.

After unsuccessfully seeking an emergency stay from the U.S. Supreme Court, Prop. 8's sponsors sued Friday in the state Supreme Court, which had recognized their right to defend the measure in state courts. They argued that the 2008 initiative remains legally binding until struck down by an appellate court - a California constitutional requirement - and said the state's 58 county clerks had no obligation to obey Walker's order.

Some of the clerks "may very well disregard the order or at least raise some legitimate questions regarding the validity of these marriages," attorney Andrew Pugno said Monday in a final appeal for an immediate halt to the marriages while the court considers the case.

Acting for the state, Harris, in a court filing late Friday, said Prop. 8's sponsors were trying to get the state court to reinterpret Walker's ruling and inject uncertainty into issues the federal courts have resolved.

In response to Monday's order that let the marriages continue, Harris said her office will "continue to fight this effort to deny same-sex couples their constitutionally protected civil rights."

Attorney Austin Nimocks of Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian organization representing the Prop. 8 sponsors, said same-sex marriage opponents "will continue to urge the court to uphold the rule of law."

MsTinkerbelly · 07-16-2013, 06:05 PM

The House of Commons just passed same-sex marriage, now on to the Queen for signature. Marriage could begin some time next Summer.

Congratulations!

Wolfsong · 07-17-2013, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfsong

Ok.....I am so pissed off right now I don't even know where to start thinking this out. If you will remember some months ago I was grumpy because Andi and I are forced to pay extra federal taxes on health benefits because we are not legally married.

When employees elect health insurance coverage from their employers for their families, the majority of their employers contribute to at least half of the insurance coverage's cost. For employees with different-sex spouses, federal and state tax law do not require employers to report their contribution to the employee's or the employee's different-sex spouse as taxable wages earned — the value of the health insurance coverage can be excluded from the employee's gross income. Non-dependent same-sex partners and spouses (and their dependents) are treated differently under federal and most states' tax laws. The estimated value of the employer's financial contribution towards health insurance coverage for non-dependent same-sex partners must be reported as taxable wages earned.

So....at the beginning of this year we decided that she would get her health benefits through her job and I through mine. A pain in the ass to be sure but considerably less expensive for us. Previously, we elected to receive benefits from her job as the coverage was the same but less expensive (until they started taxing the crap out of us).

This morning I went online to transfer money from our checking to our savings account (I always move overtime and bonus pay to savings) to find that her deposit was about $700 less than what I'd expected it to be. I texted her to contact payroll and find out what was up. Sure enough, those jackasses took it in tax (Yup folks......$700 in taxes just for the health benefits). They told her that I had to submit proof that I was receiving benefits from another source before they would remove me......

Wait just a @#$%&%# second here.......I want to make sure that I was not hallucinating......... I have to submit proof that I am otherwise covered?

Ok.........fuck off

The the domestic partnership that the federal government refuses to recognize as a marriage and provide benefits for is real enough for you to tax though right? Is this some kind of a joke? They are going to give that money back and I am not going to provide proof of shit. According to more than half the states in the union we are not even recognized as dating.

.............fuck you you fuckin' fuckers!

At my wife's request to end this quickly and in effort to avoid a domestic dispute I have capitulated, giving her copies of my medical cards. I still think there is a principle thing here that maybe I should have insisted we stand on. Considering that her company is gay-owned it seems more like preaching to the choir. Perhaps this will inspire them to dump ADP (and for other problems with them) have as the managing company for their payroll.

MsTinkerbelly · 07-17-2013, 09:20 AM

AP

Gay marriage legalized in Britain after queen gives royal stamp of approval

LONDON -- Britain has legalized gay marriage after Queen Elizabeth II gave her royal stamp of approval on Wednesday.

House of Commons Speaker John Bercow told lawmakers that the royal assent had been given — the day after the bill to legalize same-sex marriage in England and Wales cleared Parliament.

The queen's approval was a formality. It clears the way for the first gay marriages next summer.

The bill enables gay couples to get married in both civil and religious ceremonies in England and Wales. It also will allow couples who had previously entered into a civil partnership to convert their relationship to a marriage.

The Associated Press

MsTinkerbelly · 07-17-2013, 10:02 AM

Jul

2013

2:34am, EDT

Costa Rica may get gay marriage after legislature's 'accidental' vote

By Andrew Mach, Staff Writer, NBC News

The Costa Rican legislature passed a bill this week that appears to legalize same-sex civil unions – although it might have been an accident.

Some lawmakers didn't realize until a day after Monday's vote that the language in a bill regarding young people may have offered a path to legalized same-sex marriage by expanding social rights for gay people and extending benefits to same-sex unions, according to the Tico Times, an English news website in San Jose.

The bill had previously defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, until a liberal lawmaker wrote into the bill new marriage language that extends “the right to recognition without discrimination contrary to human dignity.”

José María Villalta, a member of the leftist Broad Front Party who wrote the controversial language into the bill, said lawmakers simply didn't pay attention to the most up-to-date version before approving it, Tico Times reported.

"During the discussion in the first debate, we explained that the Law of Young People should be interpreted with this sense of opening to gays and no one objected."

Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla signed the bill into law Thursday, over the protests of conservatives who had called for her to veto it. Though an ardent supporter of traditional marriage in the past, Chinchilla told local reporters earlier this week she wouldn't oppose a court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, the Tico Times reported.

"We understand that the debate is over how some interpret the law and this alone is not sufficient for the executive to veto the law," Chinchilla said.

In Latin America, gay marriage is already legal in Argentina, Mexico City and some states of Brazil, and civil unions are allowed in Ecuador and Uruguay.

DapperButch · 07-17-2013, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

AP

Gay marriage legalized in Britain after queen gives royal stamp of approval

LONDON -- Britain has legalized gay marriage after Queen Elizabeth II gave her royal stamp of approval on Wednesday.

House of Commons Speaker John Bercow told lawmakers that the royal assent had been given — the day after the bill to legalize same-sex marriage in England and Wales cleared Parliament.

The queen's approval was a formality. It clears the way for the first gay marriages next summer.

The bill enables gay couples to get married in both civil and religious ceremonies in England and Wales. It also will allow couples who had previously entered into a civil partnership to convert their relationship to a marriage.

The Associated Press

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/07/17...nd-is-now-law/

Stole the above link from Dakarti's posting on another thread.

MsTinkerbelly · 07-18-2013, 12:36 PM

N.C. Readies Marriage Ban Challenge

Six couples have joined a legal challenge to the state's laws that discriminate against gay couples and families

BY Michelle Garcia.

July 10 2013 6:40 PM ET

Six gay and lesbian couples in North Carolina will join the legal challenge against their state's ban on marriage equality, particularly the right for same-sex couples to adopt children together.

The couples have partnered up with the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as its chapter in North Carolina, to amend an existing federal lawsuit, which was filed against the state last year. It challenges a state law that claims same-sex couples cannot be recognized as equal parents of children. The ACLU is also asking for an additional claim against Amendment One, the ballot measure that voters approved last year, that designates marriage only for heterosexual couples.

The lawsuit includes Marcie and Chantelle Fisher-Borne, a couple that was legally wed in Washington, D.C., in 2011, but their marriage is not recognized by state law. Each of the women birthed their children -- a 5-year-old girl and a 1-year-old boy -- and when their daughter was born, the couple met resistance from a hospital staff member who demanded their legal paperwork.

“Our children deserve the security of having both Marcie and me as legally recognized parents, and marriage is the best way for us to provide that to them” said Chantelle Fisher-Borne. “We declared our love and commitment to each other years ago, but the law in North Carolina does not recognize the life we have built together or allow us to share legal responsibility for the children we have raised together. We want to be married for many of the same reasons anyone else does – to do what’s best for our family, especially our children, and have our commitment to each other recognized by the law.”

On Tuesday the ACLU also announced a federal challenge to Pennsylvania’s marriage ban, as well as a joint challenge with Lambda Legal of Virginia’s marriage ban. The legal action also follows the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, thereby allowing the federal government to extend benefits and responsibilities that heterosexual couples receive through marriage.

“From President Obama and Senator Hagan’s endorsements to the recent landmark Supreme Court decision declaring the so-called Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, support for the freedom to marry has moved forward by leaps and bounds," said Chris Brook, Legal Director of the ACLU-NCLF. "Conversations are happening at dinner tables throughout our state with more and more North Carolinians agreeing that the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage should not be denied to loving and committed couples simply because they are gay or lesbian.”

Words · 07-18-2013, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

AP

Gay marriage legalized in Britain after queen gives royal stamp of approval

LONDON -- Britain has legalized gay marriage after Queen Elizabeth II gave her royal stamp of approval on Wednesday.

House of Commons Speaker John Bercow told lawmakers that the royal assent had been given — the day after the bill to legalize same-sex marriage in England and Wales cleared Parliament.

The queen's approval was a formality. It clears the way for the first gay marriages next summer.

The bill enables gay couples to get married in both civil and religious ceremonies in England and Wales. It also will allow couples who had previously entered into a civil partnership to convert their relationship to a marriage.

The Associated Press

Some idiot (Conservative of course) politician pointed out that there is now the possibility that we could one day have a lesbian queen provide us with a heir to the throne through artificial insemination.

He said it like it would be a bad thing! LOL...

Words

iamkeri1 · 07-18-2013, 08:55 PM

Hmmmn ... think that gentleman is a little late in the development of his thinking. Royal procreation using "donor" sperm of one kind or another has probably already happened a time or two over the centuries, LOL.

Don't see that same sex marriage has much to do with a lesbian queen having a child through insemination. The British monarchy is rather notorious for having children outside of the bonds of matrimony. The pressure is on for ANY monarch to reproduce. Soon cloning will be an available option for either king or queen to reproduce without contribution from anyone other than themselves. Till then the "other" parent will be a problem. Are Royals from other countries likely to want to ship their sperm/eggs to another country for procreation by the monarch there? Hmmmn, THAT may already have happened as well. my my my!
Smooches,
Keri

Quote:

Originally Posted by Words

Some idiot (Conservative of course) politician pointed out that there is now the possibility that we could one day have a lesbian queen provide us with a heir to the throne through artificial insemination.

He said it like it would be a bad thing! LOL...

Words

MsTinkerbelly · 07-31-2013, 10:08 AM

Going Rogue for Marriage Equality

Christopher Moraff

July 31, 2013

Defying Pennsylvania law, Montgomery County's register of wills has begun issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Will this bold move help or hurt the cause?

Last week, Montgomery County, a sleepy suburb of Philadelphia, was thrust into the national spotlight when its elected register of wills, D. Bruce Hanes, put principle above policy and began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in defiance of Pennsylvania's long-standing ban on gay unions. Since July 24, Hanes has issued more than two dozen of the licenses. Thus far, two lesbian couples have used the licenses to tie the knot in the first officially sanctioned same-sex marriages in Pennsylvania history.

Hanes's pioneering effort—which materialized over the course of a single week after a lawyer representing two women contacted his office to inquire about obtaining a marriage license—has elevated Pennsylvania's stature as a gay-rights battleground and put Governor Tom Corbett on notice that, on the issue of same-sex marriage, the commonwealth is evolving with or without him. But by going it alone, is Hanes furthering the cause of marriage equality or endangering it?

Yesterday the governor, a Republican who opposes marriage equality, slapped Montgomery County with a lawsuit seeking to enjoin Hanes from issuing any more marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The filing also asks the court to invalidate any marriages that have already taken place. “As a result of the illegal issuance of marriage licenses by the clerk, it appears that same-sex couples are proceeding with marriage ceremonies that are not permitted by Pennsylvania law,” the petition reads. In a written statement, Montgomery County Solicitor Ray McGarry said the state's position “has serious flaws” and that until the matter is settled by the courts, the register of wills will continue to issue licenses to same-sex couples.

Hanes's move comes just weeks after the American Civil Liberties Union joined a Philadelphia law firm in challenging the state’s ban on gay marriage on behalf of nearly a dozen same-sex couples. In that case, newly minted Attorney General Kathleen Kane stated publicly that she would not defend the ban. Michael Clarke, the solicitor for the register of wills who advised Hanes to issue the licenses, said the attorney general's position—and her statement last month that Pennsylvania's Defense of Marriage law is “wholly unconstitutional”—figured prominently into his decision to advise Hanes to issue the licenses. “The way I saw it, the only way we could deny them a license would be on the grounds that they were women, and in our eyes that violates Pennsylvania's constitution, which says equal rights cannot be denied based on an individual's sex,” Clarke says

Legal scholars say that's a pretty solid argument, but it's up to the court to decide whether Hanes had the authority to act on it unilaterally. “Hanes is clearly right on the law. The question is does a local official have the right to follow the law rather than the government of which he is a part,” says Burton Caine, a professor of constitutional law at Temple University and a Montgomery County resident. "I believe that he does have the authority."

Jill Engle, a professor of clinical law at Penn State University, says that if it's determined that Hanes acted outside the law, then the licenses he issued would be de facto null and void. But she acknowledges that recent factors—such as the Supreme Court's ruling striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act and Attorney General Kane's refusal to defend Pennsylvania's own gay marriage ban—places the case in uncharted territory. “Under the strict letter of the state statute, of course, [these marriages] appear illegal,” she says. “That being said, Hanes’s point that one can interpret the state constitution to reach the opposite conclusion is persuasive, and more persuasive than it was a few months ago thanks to the Supreme Court's decision on the federal Defense of Marriage Act, on which our Pennsylvania statute was arguably based.”

The larger question is where Hanes’s move fits into the broader push for marriage equality in the state. Some gay-rights advocates are worried about what they see as a potential distraction from the main event in Pennsylvania—the ACLU case, Whitewood v. Corbett, which is scheduled for trial in United States District Court on September 30.

“I happen to think the best way to move is through the courts and to work within the legislature, and that's what we have been trying to do,” says Ted Martin, executive director of Equality Pennsylvania. Martin worries such a defiant stance at the county level could back opponents of marriage equality into a corner, which would only strengthen their resolve to fight. “For every action there is a reaction, and we just don't know what that's going to be.”

Malcolm Lazin, the founder of the Philadelphia-based Equality Forum takes a different view. He compares what's happening in Montgomery County with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision to issue thousands of marriage licenses to gay couples in 2004. “In one sense this was a political statement that took a concept that is getting a lot of attention and humanized it,” he says. “It helps to frame the legal issue.”

Philadelphia attorney Mark Aronchick, whose firm Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller is serving as co-counsel to the ACLU in its federal lawsuit, declined to comment specifically about the situation in Montgomery County, but his words seemed to contradict any claim that Hanes’s actions could compromise his own efforts. "This wasn't part of our case strategy, and it happened independent of us so we'll watch it and see where it goes,” he says. “I applaud all public officials who are taking steps to make marriage equality a reality in Pennsylvania.”

Whether Hanes's bold effort will prove successful remains to be seen. Similar moves in the past, however, have not typically met with success. While they are credited with laying the foundation for California's recent victory on gay marriage, all of the weddings officiated by Newsom were ultimately voided by the California Supreme Court. And in 2004, Mayor Jason West of New Paltz, New York, faced criminal prosecution after he defied state law and officiated over a series of same-sex marriages in his town. New York legalized same-sex marriage through legislation in 2011.

Yet the legal drama unfolding in Pennsylvania must be viewed within the context of the rapidly shifting dialogue on the issues of same-sex marriage and gay civil rights. Lazin thinks that when all is said and done, that may be a defining factor in its resolution. “We are in many ways a very conservative state, but having said that, there is a significant change in public opinion that increasingly favors LGBT civil rights,” he says. “The political climate has changed here and, particularly, the Republicans have changed their position. They are no longer going to be as proactive in fighting this.”

07-10-2013, 10:05 AM	#1
MsTinkerbelly Timed Out - TOS Drama How Do You Identify?: ... Preferred Pronoun?: ... Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: ... Posts: 6,573 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 30,737 Thanked 22,908 Times in 5,019 Posts Rep Power: 0	Pennsylvania ACLU brings fight for marriage equality to Pennsylvania Emma Margolin 6:21 PM on 07/09/2013 The days of same-sex marriage bans may be coming to an end. In the first federal lawsuit filed anywhere in the country since the Supreme Court handed down decisions in two landmark marriage equality cases, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, and volunteer counsel from a Philadelphia-based law firm on Tuesday formally challenged Pennsylvania’s law prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying. Like the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Supreme Court struck down two weeks ago, Pennsylvania’s statutory provision limits marriage to unions between one man and one woman, and prevents the state government from recognizing same-sex marriages performed where they are legal. The suit alleges that Pennsylvania’s law violates the fundamental right to marry, as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. “We only want what every married couple wants–to express our love and commitment in front of friends and family, and the security and protections that only marriage provides,” said Deb Whitewood, one of the 23 plaintiffs challenging the Pennsylvania provision, in a statement released by the ACLU. “Our life is built around our relationship and the family we have made,” she said of her partner of 22 years, Susan Whitewood, and their three children, Abbey, Katie, and Landon. The two women had a “holy union” ceremony at their church in 1993 shortly before they each changed their last names to Whitewood, a combination of their surnames. In 2001, they entered into a civil union in Vermont. Yet Pennsylvania law treats them as “legal strangers,” writes the ACLU. Currently, Pennsylvania is one of 35 states that prohibits same-sex marriage through a constitutional or statutory provision. But as with national trends, support for marriage equality among Pennsylvanians is on the rise. A recent survey from Public Policy Polling found an almost even split on the issue, with a net 14 point increase over the last year and a half in favor of legalizing gay marriage across the state. While the main focus of this suit will be on Pennsylvania, it could lead the Supreme Court to rule on whether same-sex couples across the country have the constitutional right to marry–a question the justices declined to answer when they ruled the proponents of Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage, lacked standing to defend it. Should Pennsylvania uphold its ban on same-sex marriage, this suit stands a chance at landing before the nation’s highest court. “It’s pretty clear that the Supreme Court will at some point in the not too distant future want another crack at the issue,” said Witold Walczak, ACLU of Pennsylvania’s legal director, to MSNBC. “We have a strong legal case, and I think it could be a good vehicle for the Supreme Court to reconsider whether same-sex couples have a right to marry under the constitution.” Similar challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage are already underway in Illinois, New Mexico, and Michigan, noted Walczak. The ACLU also announced on Tuesday that it would amend an existing adoption lawsuit in North Carolina to include a challenge to that state’s marriage laws. And James Esseks, director of the ACLU’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & AIDS Project, told the Washington Post that a suit against Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage would come “quite soon.” “There was a huge amount of excitement and positive energy today,” said Walczak. “Pennsylvania is the birthplace of the constitution and the cradle of liberty, so it’s a fitting place to have a fight over the constitutional right to marry,” he added. “Now the hard work begins.”

07-11-2013, 08:41 PM	#2
Wolfsong Member How Do You Identify?: Aw man....another label? Preferred Pronoun?: Boys will be boys Relationship Status: Married Join Date: May 2012 Location: 60south-side Posts: 576 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 529 Thanked 2,031 Times in 418 Posts Rep Power: 20231739	Ok.....I am so pissed off right now I don't even know where to start thinking this out. If you will remember some months ago I was grumpy because Andi and I are forced to pay extra federal taxes on health benefits because we are not legally married. When employees elect health insurance coverage from their employers for their families, the majority of their employers contribute to at least half of the insurance coverage's cost. For employees with different-sex spouses, federal and state tax law do not require employers to report their contribution to the employee's or the employee's different-sex spouse as taxable wages earned — the value of the health insurance coverage can be excluded from the employee's gross income. Non-dependent same-sex partners and spouses (and their dependents) are treated differently under federal and most states' tax laws. The estimated value of the employer's financial contribution towards health insurance coverage for non-dependent same-sex partners must be reported as taxable wages earned. So....at the beginning of this year we decided that she would get her health benefits through her job and I through mine. A pain in the ass to be sure but considerably less expensive for us. Previously, we elected to receive benefits from her job as the coverage was the same but less expensive (until they started taxing the crap out of us). This morning I went online to transfer money from our checking to our savings account (I always move overtime and bonus pay to savings) to find that her deposit was about $700 less than what I'd expected it to be. I texted her to contact payroll and find out what was up. Sure enough, those jackasses took it in tax (Yup folks......$700 in taxes just for the health benefits). They told her that I had to submit proof that I was receiving benefits from another source before they would remove me...... Wait just a @#$%&%# second here.......I want to make sure that I was not hallucinating......... I have to submit proof that I am otherwise covered? Ok.........fuck off The the domestic partnership that the federal government refuses to recognize as a marriage and provide benefits for is real enough for you to tax though right? Is this some kind of a joke? They are going to give that money back and I am not going to provide proof of shit. According to more than half the states in the union we are not even recognized as dating. .............fuck you you fuckin' fuckers! __________________ "I want a government small enough to fit inside the Constitution." (Harry Browne - 1933 - 2006.)

07-12-2013, 04:56 PM	#3
MsTinkerbelly Timed Out - TOS Drama How Do You Identify?: ... Preferred Pronoun?: ... Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: ... Posts: 6,573 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 30,737 Thanked 22,908 Times in 5,019 Posts Rep Power: 0	Moving forward Michigan marriage equality lawsuit to be argued October 1; new filings in Illinois marriage challenges July 11, 2013 By Scottie Thomaston A scheduling conference in the lawsuit challenging Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban, DeBoer v. Snyder, took place yesterday, July 10 in federal district court. The federal judge declined to dismiss the case last week, but did not issue a final ruling or a schedule for further motions or arguments, putting the decision off until yesterday’s conference. No final decision on the merits of the constitutional challenge to the ban was released yesterday, and the judge has set oral arguments for October 1. Challenges against same-sex marriage bans in Nevada and Hawaii are likely to see oral arguments in October as well, though probably at the end of the month, since an extension of time was sought to file briefs. Those cases are already in the appeals court, though, at the Ninth Circuit. In Illinois, Lambda Legal has filed a motion for summary judgment in Darby v. Orr and Lazaro v. Orr. This is a request for a decision on the merits, (in the plaintiffs’ favor, in this case.) Their brief in support of summary judgment is much like the one they filed in the New Jersey case: both are state cases, both states have civil unions. In one section, they write: Plaintiffs who obtained civil unions by license from illinois county clerks currently are denied a number of federal benefits and protections that would be available to them and their families if they could marry now that DOMA has been struck down. The filing goes on to list specific ways civil unions deny same-sex couples equal protection under the law afforded to opposite-sex couples. There is no timeline for the court to act in the case.

07-15-2013, 12:32 PM	#4
MsTinkerbelly Timed Out - TOS Drama How Do You Identify?: ... Preferred Pronoun?: ... Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: ... Posts: 6,573 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 30,737 Thanked 22,908 Times in 5,019 Posts Rep Power: 0	The U.K. BREAKING: U.K. House of Lords Give Final Approval to Marriage Equality The legislation now heads back to the House of Commons for final approval, before going to the Queen for her signature. BY Sunnivie Brydum. July 15 2013 12:07 PM ET The House of Lords, the unelected upper chamber of the U.K. Parliament, offered its final approval to marriage equality legislation Monday, according to Bloomberg. Although the Lords did not register a vote today, the chamber previously approved the legislation by an overwhelming majority of 390 to 148. The legislation, championed by Prime Minister David Cameron, now returns to the lower House of Commons, where members will vote on amendments proposed by the Lords. In May, the House of Commons voted in favor of marriage equality by a vote of 366 to 161, leaving advocates hopeful that the lower house will affirm the proposed law. If the House of Commons accepts the amendments, the bill will go to Queen Elizabeth for her signature, a process known as Royal Assent. Once the law is enacted, England and Wales will become the tenth European jurisdiction to embrace marriage equality, according to the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Association — Europe. The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Portugal, and Iceland established marriage equality previously, and France enacted same-sex marriage earlier this year. That means 30% of Europeans now live in nations that support the freedom to marry, reports ILGA-Europe. “Today, the land of Magna Carta sealed another historic transformation," said Gabi Calleja, cochair of ILGA-Europe's executive board in a statement. "Marriage is an institution which is dear and close to many people’s hearts, beliefs and lives. It was shaped and transformed over hundreds of years by different traditions, interpretations and customs. The debate leading to the adoption of the marriage equality law has shown that British society and its politicians have once again embraced change, to update the institution of marriage to that which is equally open and accessible to all, in the name of justice and human rights."

07-16-2013, 12:51 PM	#5
MsTinkerbelly Timed Out - TOS Drama How Do You Identify?: ... Preferred Pronoun?: ... Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: ... Posts: 6,573 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 30,737 Thanked 22,908 Times in 5,019 Posts Rep Power: 0	More from California State's top court lets same-sex marriages continue Bob Egelko Updated 9:40 am, Tuesday, July 16, 2013 The state Supreme Court refused Monday to stop the weddings of gay and lesbian couples in California, a development that indicated Proposition 8's sponsors have little chance of reviving the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. The unanimous, one-sentence order denied the sponsors' request for an immediate halt to the marriages, while reserving judgment on their claim that Prop. 8 remains valid and enforceable statewide. But their arguments for that claim are largely the same as those they advanced in their request for an emergency order stopping the marriages: that Gov. Jerry Brown had no authority to order all 58 county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and that a federal judge's ruling that declared Prop. 8 unconstitutional applied only to the two couples who sued to overturn the 2008 initiative. Brown issued the order on June 28, two days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Prop. 8's sponsors, as private citizens unaccountable to the state, had no legal standing to represent California or its voters in defense of the measure in federal court. With both Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris refusing to defend Prop. 8, which they considered unconstitutional, the ruling reinstated an August 2010 ruling by then-Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco that the ballot measure discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation and gender. Although the suit by couples from Berkeley and Burbank was not a class action, Walker drafted his ruling to have statewide effect, prohibiting enforcement of Prop. 8 by state officials and everyone under their supervision. The state's high court ruled in 2004 that state officials, not county clerks, set qualifications for marriage licenses. After unsuccessfully seeking an emergency stay from the U.S. Supreme Court, Prop. 8's sponsors sued Friday in the state Supreme Court, which had recognized their right to defend the measure in state courts. They argued that the 2008 initiative remains legally binding until struck down by an appellate court - a California constitutional requirement - and said the state's 58 county clerks had no obligation to obey Walker's order. Some of the clerks "may very well disregard the order or at least raise some legitimate questions regarding the validity of these marriages," attorney Andrew Pugno said Monday in a final appeal for an immediate halt to the marriages while the court considers the case. Acting for the state, Harris, in a court filing late Friday, said Prop. 8's sponsors were trying to get the state court to reinterpret Walker's ruling and inject uncertainty into issues the federal courts have resolved. In response to Monday's order that let the marriages continue, Harris said her office will "continue to fight this effort to deny same-sex couples their constitutionally protected civil rights." Attorney Austin Nimocks of Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian organization representing the Prop. 8 sponsors, said same-sex marriage opponents "will continue to urge the court to uphold the rule of law."

07-16-2013, 06:05 PM	#6
MsTinkerbelly Timed Out - TOS Drama How Do You Identify?: ... Preferred Pronoun?: ... Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: ... Posts: 6,573 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 30,737 Thanked 22,908 Times in 5,019 Posts Rep Power: 0	More from the U.K. The House of Commons just passed same-sex marriage, now on to the Queen for signature. Marriage could begin some time next Summer. Congratulations!

07-17-2013, 09:20 AM	#8
MsTinkerbelly Timed Out - TOS Drama How Do You Identify?: ... Preferred Pronoun?: ... Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: ... Posts: 6,573 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 30,737 Thanked 22,908 Times in 5,019 Posts Rep Power: 0	WAY TO GO! AP Gay marriage legalized in Britain after queen gives royal stamp of approval LONDON -- Britain has legalized gay marriage after Queen Elizabeth II gave her royal stamp of approval on Wednesday. House of Commons Speaker John Bercow told lawmakers that the royal assent had been given — the day after the bill to legalize same-sex marriage in England and Wales cleared Parliament. The queen's approval was a formality. It clears the way for the first gay marriages next summer. The bill enables gay couples to get married in both civil and religious ceremonies in England and Wales. It also will allow couples who had previously entered into a civil partnership to convert their relationship to a marriage. The Associated Press

07-17-2013, 10:02 AM	#9
MsTinkerbelly Timed Out - TOS Drama How Do You Identify?: ... Preferred Pronoun?: ... Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: ... Posts: 6,573 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 30,737 Thanked 22,908 Times in 5,019 Posts Rep Power: 0	Costa Rica Jul 2013 2:34am, EDT Costa Rica may get gay marriage after legislature's 'accidental' vote By Andrew Mach, Staff Writer, NBC News The Costa Rican legislature passed a bill this week that appears to legalize same-sex civil unions – although it might have been an accident. Some lawmakers didn't realize until a day after Monday's vote that the language in a bill regarding young people may have offered a path to legalized same-sex marriage by expanding social rights for gay people and extending benefits to same-sex unions, according to the Tico Times, an English news website in San Jose. The bill had previously defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, until a liberal lawmaker wrote into the bill new marriage language that extends “the right to recognition without discrimination contrary to human dignity.” José María Villalta, a member of the leftist Broad Front Party who wrote the controversial language into the bill, said lawmakers simply didn't pay attention to the most up-to-date version before approving it, Tico Times reported. "During the discussion in the first debate, we explained that the Law of Young People should be interpreted with this sense of opening to gays and no one objected." Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla signed the bill into law Thursday, over the protests of conservatives who had called for her to veto it. Though an ardent supporter of traditional marriage in the past, Chinchilla told local reporters earlier this week she wouldn't oppose a court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, the Tico Times reported. "We understand that the debate is over how some interpret the law and this alone is not sufficient for the executive to veto the law," Chinchilla said. In Latin America, gay marriage is already legal in Argentina, Mexico City and some states of Brazil, and civil unions are allowed in Ecuador and Uruguay.

07-18-2013, 12:36 PM	#11
MsTinkerbelly Timed Out - TOS Drama How Do You Identify?: ... Preferred Pronoun?: ... Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: ... Posts: 6,573 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 30,737 Thanked 22,908 Times in 5,019 Posts Rep Power: 0	North Carolina N.C. Readies Marriage Ban Challenge Six couples have joined a legal challenge to the state's laws that discriminate against gay couples and families BY Michelle Garcia. July 10 2013 6:40 PM ET Six gay and lesbian couples in North Carolina will join the legal challenge against their state's ban on marriage equality, particularly the right for same-sex couples to adopt children together. The couples have partnered up with the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as its chapter in North Carolina, to amend an existing federal lawsuit, which was filed against the state last year. It challenges a state law that claims same-sex couples cannot be recognized as equal parents of children. The ACLU is also asking for an additional claim against Amendment One, the ballot measure that voters approved last year, that designates marriage only for heterosexual couples. The lawsuit includes Marcie and Chantelle Fisher-Borne, a couple that was legally wed in Washington, D.C., in 2011, but their marriage is not recognized by state law. Each of the women birthed their children -- a 5-year-old girl and a 1-year-old boy -- and when their daughter was born, the couple met resistance from a hospital staff member who demanded their legal paperwork. “Our children deserve the security of having both Marcie and me as legally recognized parents, and marriage is the best way for us to provide that to them” said Chantelle Fisher-Borne. “We declared our love and commitment to each other years ago, but the law in North Carolina does not recognize the life we have built together or allow us to share legal responsibility for the children we have raised together. We want to be married for many of the same reasons anyone else does – to do what’s best for our family, especially our children, and have our commitment to each other recognized by the law.” On Tuesday the ACLU also announced a federal challenge to Pennsylvania’s marriage ban, as well as a joint challenge with Lambda Legal of Virginia’s marriage ban. The legal action also follows the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, thereby allowing the federal government to extend benefits and responsibilities that heterosexual couples receive through marriage. “From President Obama and Senator Hagan’s endorsements to the recent landmark Supreme Court decision declaring the so-called Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, support for the freedom to marry has moved forward by leaps and bounds," said Chris Brook, Legal Director of the ACLU-NCLF. "Conversations are happening at dinner tables throughout our state with more and more North Carolinians agreeing that the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage should not be denied to loving and committed couples simply because they are gay or lesbian.”

07-31-2013, 10:08 AM	#14
MsTinkerbelly Timed Out - TOS Drama How Do You Identify?: ... Preferred Pronoun?: ... Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: ... Posts: 6,573 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 30,737 Thanked 22,908 Times in 5,019 Posts Rep Power: 0	Pennsylvania Going Rogue for Marriage Equality Christopher Moraff July 31, 2013 Defying Pennsylvania law, Montgomery County's register of wills has begun issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Will this bold move help or hurt the cause? Last week, Montgomery County, a sleepy suburb of Philadelphia, was thrust into the national spotlight when its elected register of wills, D. Bruce Hanes, put principle above policy and began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in defiance of Pennsylvania's long-standing ban on gay unions. Since July 24, Hanes has issued more than two dozen of the licenses. Thus far, two lesbian couples have used the licenses to tie the knot in the first officially sanctioned same-sex marriages in Pennsylvania history. Hanes's pioneering effort—which materialized over the course of a single week after a lawyer representing two women contacted his office to inquire about obtaining a marriage license—has elevated Pennsylvania's stature as a gay-rights battleground and put Governor Tom Corbett on notice that, on the issue of same-sex marriage, the commonwealth is evolving with or without him. But by going it alone, is Hanes furthering the cause of marriage equality or endangering it? Yesterday the governor, a Republican who opposes marriage equality, slapped Montgomery County with a lawsuit seeking to enjoin Hanes from issuing any more marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The filing also asks the court to invalidate any marriages that have already taken place. “As a result of the illegal issuance of marriage licenses by the clerk, it appears that same-sex couples are proceeding with marriage ceremonies that are not permitted by Pennsylvania law,” the petition reads. In a written statement, Montgomery County Solicitor Ray McGarry said the state's position “has serious flaws” and that until the matter is settled by the courts, the register of wills will continue to issue licenses to same-sex couples. Hanes's move comes just weeks after the American Civil Liberties Union joined a Philadelphia law firm in challenging the state’s ban on gay marriage on behalf of nearly a dozen same-sex couples. In that case, newly minted Attorney General Kathleen Kane stated publicly that she would not defend the ban. Michael Clarke, the solicitor for the register of wills who advised Hanes to issue the licenses, said the attorney general's position—and her statement last month that Pennsylvania's Defense of Marriage law is “wholly unconstitutional”—figured prominently into his decision to advise Hanes to issue the licenses. “The way I saw it, the only way we could deny them a license would be on the grounds that they were women, and in our eyes that violates Pennsylvania's constitution, which says equal rights cannot be denied based on an individual's sex,” Clarke says Legal scholars say that's a pretty solid argument, but it's up to the court to decide whether Hanes had the authority to act on it unilaterally. “Hanes is clearly right on the law. The question is does a local official have the right to follow the law rather than the government of which he is a part,” says Burton Caine, a professor of constitutional law at Temple University and a Montgomery County resident. "I believe that he does have the authority." Jill Engle, a professor of clinical law at Penn State University, says that if it's determined that Hanes acted outside the law, then the licenses he issued would be de facto null and void. But she acknowledges that recent factors—such as the Supreme Court's ruling striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act and Attorney General Kane's refusal to defend Pennsylvania's own gay marriage ban—places the case in uncharted territory. “Under the strict letter of the state statute, of course, [these marriages] appear illegal,” she says. “That being said, Hanes’s point that one can interpret the state constitution to reach the opposite conclusion is persuasive, and more persuasive than it was a few months ago thanks to the Supreme Court's decision on the federal Defense of Marriage Act, on which our Pennsylvania statute was arguably based.” The larger question is where Hanes’s move fits into the broader push for marriage equality in the state. Some gay-rights advocates are worried about what they see as a potential distraction from the main event in Pennsylvania—the ACLU case, Whitewood v. Corbett, which is scheduled for trial in United States District Court on September 30. “I happen to think the best way to move is through the courts and to work within the legislature, and that's what we have been trying to do,” says Ted Martin, executive director of Equality Pennsylvania. Martin worries such a defiant stance at the county level could back opponents of marriage equality into a corner, which would only strengthen their resolve to fight. “For every action there is a reaction, and we just don't know what that's going to be.” Malcolm Lazin, the founder of the Philadelphia-based Equality Forum takes a different view. He compares what's happening in Montgomery County with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision to issue thousands of marriage licenses to gay couples in 2004. “In one sense this was a political statement that took a concept that is getting a lot of attention and humanized it,” he says. “It helps to frame the legal issue.” Philadelphia attorney Mark Aronchick, whose firm Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller is serving as co-counsel to the ACLU in its federal lawsuit, declined to comment specifically about the situation in Montgomery County, but his words seemed to contradict any claim that Hanes’s actions could compromise his own efforts. "This wasn't part of our case strategy, and it happened independent of us so we'll watch it and see where it goes,” he says. “I applaud all public officials who are taking steps to make marriage equality a reality in Pennsylvania.” Whether Hanes's bold effort will prove successful remains to be seen. Similar moves in the past, however, have not typically met with success. While they are credited with laying the foundation for California's recent victory on gay marriage, all of the weddings officiated by Newsom were ultimately voided by the California Supreme Court. And in 2004, Mayor Jason West of New Paltz, New York, faced criminal prosecution after he defied state law and officiated over a series of same-sex marriages in his town. New York legalized same-sex marriage through legislation in 2011. Yet the legal drama unfolding in Pennsylvania must be viewed within the context of the rapidly shifting dialogue on the issues of same-sex marriage and gay civil rights. Lazin thinks that when all is said and done, that may be a defining factor in its resolution. “We are in many ways a very conservative state, but having said that, there is a significant change in public opinion that increasingly favors LGBT civil rights,” he says. “The political climate has changed here and, particularly, the Republicans have changed their position. They are no longer going to be as proactive in fighting this.”