Tuesday, September 29, 2009

GOP wants public to vote on marriage - NJ.com

GOP wants public to vote on marriage - NJ.com

Mary Fuchs
STAR-LEDGER STAFF

Republican lawmakers and socially conservative activists yesterday renewed their push for a constitutional amendment so voters -- rather than lawmakers -- would decide whether gay marriage should be legal in New Jersey.

Momentum is slowly growing among Democrats in the Legislature to pass a bill allowing same-sex marriages during the lame duck session following the November general election.
Advertisement

But Republican lawmakers at a Statehouse news conference said they preferred an amendment on the 2010 November ballot that would propose changing the state's constitution to permit marriage only between a man and a woman.

Sen. Gerald Cardinale (R-Bergen) yesterday said Gov. Jon Corzine made a deal with another prominent lawmaker to vote on it during a lame-duck session that follows Election Day.

"I can say I know that there was a conversation between the governor and a key chairman because I was in the room. After, not before the election, was their determination," said Cardinale.

Responding to Cardinale's assertion, Democratic State Committee Chairman Joseph Cryan called it "perhaps the most ridiculous accusation in the gubernatorial race so far from the Republicans."

"The governor's on the record supporting fairness and equality for everyone," Cryan said. "In our state, there's no mystery to that."

During a forum at Rider University last week, Corzine said it's unlikely he would support a ballot question to decide the definition of marriage because he believes decisions on marriage equality should be made by elected officials.

"I understand this is a deeply divisive issue," Corzine said. "All people are created equal."

The lawmakers and advocates at the Statehouse news conference yesterday pointed to other states that have already limited marriage to heterosexual couples through constitutional amendments. "Thirty states, three-fifths of the United States, have voted to amend their state constitution to make marriage one man, one woman. And I sincerely believe that would happen here in New Jersey if the people had the right to vote," said Gregory Quinlan, Director of Government Affairs for New Jersey Family First.

"This is not like raising the sales tax one percent or lowering it one percent. This is a far deeper-reaching issue and it should be decided by the people," said Cardinale.

Garden State Equality, the leading advocate for gay marriage, criticized the lawmakers for renewing their efforts against gay marriage on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar.

Claire Heininger contributed to this report. Statehouse Bureau reporter Mary Fuchs may be reached at (609) 989-0341 or mfuchs@starledger.com.

Saturday, September 26, 2009

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Clinton speaks out on decision to support same-sex marriage « - Blogs from CNN.com

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Clinton speaks out on decision to support same-sex marriage « - Blogs from CNN.com

(CNN) — Former President Bill Clinton is speaking out about his decision to change his personal stance on same-sex marriage.

In an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, the former president said that while he still believes the issue should be left up to the states, he is no longer personally opposed to same-sex marriage as he once was.

"I was against the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage nation-wide, and I still think that the American people should be able to play this out in debates," Clinton said. "But me, Bill Clinton personally, I changed my position.

"I am no longer opposed to that," he added. "I think if people want to make commitments that last a lifetime, they ought to be able to do it."

The full interview will air on Anderson Cooper 360 at 10 p.m. ET.

Friday, September 25, 2009

Duane, Thompson Come Out Swinging on Bloomberg Comments

Gay City News > Duane, Thompson Come Out Swinging on Bloomberg Comments

BY PAUL SCHINDLER

In the wake of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s comments pegging the chances of gay marriage moving in Albany this fall at “zero, zero,” and charging that his Democratic opponent in the November 3 election is “afraid to go near any of these issues,” Senator Thomas K. Duane and City Comptroller William C. Thompson, Jr., have struck back hard.

“Once again Mike Bloomberg is talking out of both sides of his mouth,” Thompson’s campaign argued in an email to Gay City News. “The fact of the matter is Mike will stand up in press conferences and talk the talk but at the end of the day he never walks the walk. Mike Bloomberg has consistently supported the Republican Party and its anti-gay marriage agenda.”

Duane, an out gay Chelsea Democrat who is leading the efforts to win Senate approval for Governor David A. Paterson’s marriage equality bill, already passed by the Assembly, was more specific in his critique of Bloomberg.

“As far as I know, the mayor hasn’t been in on any discussions with Senate Democrats or with Senate Republicans on strategy for getting marriage passed,” he told Gay City News on September 24. “There have been people involved with his administration that I’ve talked with and others may have spoken to, but I don’t know of the mayor personally speaking to anyone.”

Duane said he continues to believe that the marriage equality bill has “an excellent chance” to move quickly. “I remain confident it will get done this fall,” he said.

Duane and Thompson were responding to comments Bloomberg made in a September 17 interview with Gay City News published online on September 20.

*
Duane challenged a central tenet of the mayor’s appeal to LGBT voters — that his strong financial backing of the State Senate Republicans, whose campaigns he has supported to the tune of as much as $2 million in the past two election cycles, allows him the leverage to round up GOP votes in favor of gay marriage.

Advocates across the board acknowledge that some Republicans will be needed to win approval in a closely divided 32-30 Senate in which Democrats have control by the smallest of margins.

“His offer to come testify is the easiest political commitment to make, but the time for hearings is past,” Duane said. “I held hearings on the bill years ago. I can’t say he’s expended much political capital on this.”

In casting doubt on the mayor’s commitment to the issue, Duane recalled that Bloomberg appealed a Manhattan district judge’s 2005 pro-marriage equality ruling, at the same time he first voiced support for the right of gay and lesbian couples to wed.

In his comments last week, Bloomberg said he “suspect[s]” Republican Senators Frank Padavan of Queens and Martin Golden of Brooklyn, who have aggressively fought movement toward gay marriage in the past, would vote yes “if it came down to it.”

Asked about the prospects of changing the minds of these two Republicans, Duane said, “I have everybody on my gettable list, however those two particular senators are not on anybody’s top priorities list.”

Bryan Gorman, Padavan’s director of public affairs, said that the mayor has not had any conversations with the senator about the marriage equality issue. A call requesting comment from Golden’s office about any discussions he has had with Bloomberg was not returned as of press time.

Thompson was responding to a different argument raised by the mayor — that the comptroller is avoiding discussion of his support for gay marriage as he focuses instead on pulling out his base in the African-American and other people of color communities. Several times during the September 17 interview, Bloomberg pointed to what he said is the social conservatism of the black and Latino communities.

The statement from the comptroller’s campaign distinguished Thompson’s record from the mayor’s by emphasizing his support for more comprehensive AIDS education, including classroom condom demonstrations, and his advocacy for two bills passed over Bloomberg’s veto, but never implemented — one that would require contractors doing significant business with the city to offer their gay employees the same partner rights given to married couples, and another establishing anti-bullying policies in city schools protecting specific groups, including gay, lesbian, and transgendered students. (Last year, the Bloomberg administration rolled out its own program to combat harassment in the schools.)

The Thompson campaign also noted the comptroller’s success, as head of the city employee pension funds, in forcing 75 companies in which New York invests to adopt workplace fairness policies encompassing sexual orientation and gender identity, an effort for which he received the Champion Award from Out and Equal Workplace Advocates, an LGBT non-profit.

Duane’s optimism on the prospects for enacting the marriage bill this year was echoed by other advocates.

“We don’t agree with Mayor Bloomberg’s statement that marriage equality does not have a chance of coming up for a vote this fall,” Alan Van Capelle, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, the LGBT community’s lead lobbying group in Albany, told Gay City News in an email message. “The mayor is focused on New York City and his race for re-election, and not on the details involved in moving the marriage bill forward in Albany. We know from the work that we do daily on this issue that marriage equality is still very much in play in 2009.”

Van Capelle’s comments included a hint of pique at the mayor for talking down marriage equality’s prospects at a critical juncture in the legislative process.

“The mayor’s statements were disappointing,” he wrote. “Nobody ever thinks we will win and in the end we always do.”

Duane sounded less concerned about the impact of Bloomberg’s words.

“Regardless of what the mayor says, we will move forward full steam ahead and his comments won’t change that,” the senator said.

Christine Quinn, the out lesbian speaker of the City Council, who has traveled to Albany several times this year to lobby senators on marriage equality, told Gay City News, “I disagree with the mayor. I do believe that there is a real potential and a very real potential in the near future.”

Quinn was cautious, however, about making a specific prediction of favorable Senate action this year.

“If I knew exactly when” the measure would move, “I would probably know who was going to win the trifecta at Belmont,” she said, but added, “I don’t see any reason to think that there is not potential to have this vote.”

Quinn said she recently met with John Sampson, the Brooklyn Democrat who now heads up the majority caucus in the Senate.

“He was overall very supportive of the issue,” she said. “Obviously in the position he’s in, he’s counting votes.”

Asked whether Bloomberg offering a negative assessment concerned her, Quinn said, “People have to answer questions honestly."

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Gay marriage gone wrong creates Catch-22

not having legal recognition of marriage can lead to many problems one not having the right to divorce. Unfortuately with marriage comes divorce.


TheStar.com | GTA | Gay marriage gone wrong creates Catch-22

Daniel Dale
Staff Reporter

Trapped in a bad marriage?

Sorry, really. But you've got nothing on Larissa Chism and Tara Ranzy, a divorce-seeking Indiana couple doomed to live unhappily ever after and after and after by a legal Catch-22.

Chism, a psychiatrist, and Ranzy, an educator, wed in Toronto in January 2005. In March of this year, they filed a divorce petition.

In many respects, their case was rubber-stamp simple. They had no children; they had already divided their property; neither was pregnant. Unfortunately, an eagle-eyed court employee noticed the one complicating fact in their one-page joint submission: Larissa and Tara are both women's names. Indiana does not grant or recognize same-sex marriages.

And so, a court there ruled Sept. 4, Chism and Ranzy cannot end their marriage because their marriage does not exist.

Nor can they simply return to Toronto to obtain a quickie divorce here, as one prominent Indiana social conservative suggested to the Indianapolis Star. Ontario, like same-sex-marriage-granting Massachusetts, requires one spouse to be a resident for a year or more before a divorce can be approved.

"There's no way in this world that people can do that," said David Eppley, a Boston divorce lawyer with homosexual clients who co-chairs the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association.

In 2007, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, a state that does not grant same-sex marriages, denied divorce to a lesbian couple married in Massachusetts.

Even American same-sex couples actually allowed divorce do not have the same rights as heterosexuals: rules covering alimony and other financial matters are comparatively punitive.

Denied fairness in divorce, Eppley said, same-sex couples do not have true marriage equality even if they are permitted to wed.

"Divorce," he said with a chuckle, "is one of the great benefits of marriage."

For Chism and Ranzy, who did not respond to requests for comment yesterday, the road forward is murky. Ranzy's lawyer, Karen Jensen, said Ranzy does not plan to appeal; Jensen declined to discuss the couple's plans for the future.

If the two women seek to marry again, said Janson Wu, an attorney at the New England legal organization Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), their inability to terminate their marriage will pose serious problems: a second marriage with the first still on the books would make them law-violating bigamists.

In his ruling on the Indiana case, Marion Superior Court Commissioner Jeffrey Marchal appeared to acknowledge the apparent absurdity of the situation.

"As the state of Indiana has chosen to prohibit same-sex marriage as a matter of public policy," he wrote, "it might logically follow that Indiana would have a policy interest in granting same-sex divorce. However, the General Assembly has not enacted a statute which confers upon the courts the authority to dissolve same-sex marriages in the same manner as marriages between a man and a woman."

Sympathetic to the practical difficulties the ruling would cause the couple, Marchal then declared the marriage "null and void." He hoped, apparently, that those three words would make life easier for Chism and Ranzy outside Indiana.

Eppley scoffed at this suggestion. Courts in other jurisdictions, he said, would not consider such a declaration binding.

"Thank you so much for telling me my relationship is `null and void,'" he said sarcastically.

"That solves my problem. Yes, thank you, appreciate that."

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

GOPers Can Be Swayed on Gay Marriage | Advocate.com

GOPers Can Be Swayed on Gay Marriage | Advocate.com





A powerful and well-produced commercial can make even hardwired Republicans more sympathetic to the cause of marriage equality, according to a new study.

Released by the group Truth and Hope, a liberal grassroots group, the study looked at the effects of targeted marriage equality advertisements on a group of voters. Researchers surveyed 851 self-declared Democrats, Republicans, and independents and found that the majority of all parties reported that an ad supportive of marriage equality was effective.

The commercial in question featured a heterosexual baby-boomer couple speaking fondly of their gay son, his partner, and the gay couple's children.

"It may not be the family we imagined," the older man said, "but it is the family we know and love. We wouldn't change it for anything."

While Democrats and independents described "happiness" and "inspiration" as the emotions they most experienced after seeing the ad, Republicans described "disturbed" and "happiness" as the two most prominent emotions they felt after seeing the ad. While Republicans are clearly not yet comfortable with same-sex marriage, emotions like "anger" and "embarrassment" ranked lower than positive feelings like "inspiration."

Another good sign, according to Truth and Hope, is that 58% of Republicans described the ad as "extremely" or "somewhat" effective.

"The fact that one in five Republicans expressed happiness, and that the effectiveness rating [was] over 50% with all three parties shows that we are on target with our message," said Eugene Hedlund, founder and chair of TruthandHope.org. "Now it becomes our task to take this message to the airwaves, beginning in Maine where Frank Schubert is trying to take equality away from its citizens, just as he did in California in 2008."

Iowa Same-Sex Marriage Poll: 92% Say It Hasn't Impacted Their Lives

Iowa Same-Sex Marriage Poll: 92% Say It Hasn't Impacted Their Lives

One of the most common arguments against marriage equality is that the legalization of gay marriage threatens the institution of traditional marriage. But a recent poll conducted by the Des Moines Register finds that 92% of Iowans believe that "gay marriage has brought no real change to their lives." The study comes just months after the Iowa Supreme Court's unanimous decision to overturn a 10-year-old ban on same-sex marriage.

The poll finds that Iowans are evenly split in their attitudes toward same-sex marriage.




Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/21/poll-92-of-iowans-believe_n_293539.html

Census: 150,000 gay marriages reported | ProudParenting.com

Census: 150,000 gay marriages reported | ProudParenting.com

Nearly 150,000 same-sex couples reported being in marriage relationships last year, many more than the number of actual weddings and civil unions, according to the first U.S. census figures released on same-sex marriages.

About 27 percent of the estimated 564,743 total gay couples in the United States said they were in a relationship akin to "husband" and "wife," according to the Census Bureau tally provided to The Associated Press. That's compared with 91 percent of the 61.3 million total opposite-sex couples who reported being married.

A consultant to the Census Bureau estimated there were roughly 100,000 official same-sex weddings, civil unions and domestic partnerships in 2008.

Analysts said the disparities are probably a reflection of same-sex couples in committed relationships who would get married if they could in their states. The numbers are also an indicator of the count to come in the 2010 census, a tally that could stir a state-by-state fight over same-sex marriage, gay adoption and other legal rights.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Leonard Link: New DOJ Brief Defending Constitutinality of DOMA in Gill v. OPM

Leonard Link: New DOJ Brief Defending Constitutinality of DOMA in Gill v. OPM



The U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, has filed its motion to dismiss in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, Case No. 1:09-cv-10309 (JLT) (U.S.Dist.Ct., D. Mass.), the constitutional challenge to Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act filed in federal court in Boston last winter by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD). The brief that DOJ filed on September 18 in support of the motion seems to come from a different universe from the brief they filed in June seeking dismissal of a DOMA challenge on the West Coast. Indeed, comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.

Last spring, DOJ first argued that the Smelt case should be dismissed for lack of standing, because the married couple who filed that case did not allege any specific harm they had suffered due to DOMA. DOJ won the motion to dismiss on that ground. But their brief went on to make the outrageous claim that the case should also be dismissed on the merits because DOMA was not discriminatory, but merely an attempt by Congress to be "neutral" in a contentious national debate over same-sex marriage. DOJ’s brief generated most of the public ire, however, in its response to the challenge to Section 2 of DOMA, relieving states of any obligation to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, and that section is not involved in the Gill case in Boston.

This time out, DOJ does make some narrowly-focused standing arguments concerning some of GLAD’s plaintiffs, but they are almost beside the point, because there is no dispute that several of the plaintiffs do have standing to raise a constitutional challenge to DOMA due to their exclusion from federal rights and benefits. All of the plaintiffs are either same-sex couples who married in Massachusetts or the surviving spouses of same-sex partners who they had married there, and in each case they had applied for some federal benefits or sought to exercise some federal rights unsuccessfully because of DOMA. DOJ argues that one of the plaintiffs’ cases must be dismissed because only the federal court of claims based in the District of Columbia has jurisdiction over the particular claim. As to another, they demonstrate convincingly that the particular plaintiff’s federal agency employer, the Postal Service, was not a participant in the particular benefits program about which she was complaining.

But turning to the merits, DOJ’s argument is quite straight-forward. After conceding that the Act discriminates and that the Administration is seeking its repeal, the brief nonetheless defends it as constitutional on minimalist grounds. Pointing out that at the time it was passed, no state authorized same-sex marriage and the enactment was provoked by concerns about a pending same-sex marriage lawsuit in Hawaii, DOJ argues that Congress could have rationally reacted to an unsettled situation regarding this new potential social phenomenon by preserving the status quo until the states had worked out a uniform approach to the issue. Making the argument that Congress could rationally believe it was sensible to have one standard for eligibility for federal rights and benefits throughout the nation, DOJ argues that in Section 3 Congress could have decided to preserve existing eligibility rules by adopting a uniform definition of marriage for the federal government. This way, eligibility for federal benefits would not differ from state to state.

DOJ argues that this proposed rational basis would be sufficient to satisfy the "rational basis" test of judicial review, under which statutes are presumed to be constitutional and the burden is on the challenger to prove that there is no non-discriminatory rationale for the statute. LGBT rights groups have been arguing in the courts that a more demanding level of judicial review should pertain to gay rights cases, due to the history of anti-gay discrimination, which illustrates that gays have frequently been the targets of blatantly discriminatory government policies. In cases involving other groups, the Supreme Court has indicated that such a history might require heightened scrutiny of equal protection claims.

The problem here is that the Supreme Court’s rather opaque opinion in Romer v. Evans, the 1996 ruling overturning Colorado’s anti-gay Amendment 2 which is the only equal protection ruling in favor of gay plaintiffs ever issued by the Supreme Court, has left the impression with lower courts that the "rational basis" test is the appropriate test for evaluating anti-gay legislation. The Romer decision was written against a context of national controversy about the constitutionality of the anti-gay military policy as well as same-sex marriage, and it is likely that the Supreme Court was looking for a way to decide that case without significantly affecting the constitutional status of these other issues, which may help to explain why Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s opinion for the Court takes the approach that it did. It was possible for the Court to invalidate Amendment 2 by holding that it failed even the least stringent standard of judicial review, the rational basis test, without saying anything about whether some stricter standard of review might be appropriate for cases involving other anti-gay legislation. Arguably, if a discriminatory statute lacks even a rational basis, there is no need to undertake more stringent review and the Court can avoid deciding whether more stringent review might apply. Avoiding deciding constitutional issues that need not be decided is a central tenet of judicial restraint.

This was, of course, not a holding that anti-gay legislation does not merit a higher standard of review, but merely a ruling that Amendment 2 would fall to the lowest standard of review, because the Court saw the amendment as a product of pure animus against gay people, and had previously held in cases on other subjects that pure animus against a particular class of people is never a legitimate basis for discriminatory legislation.

Unfortunately, however, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, which would have jurisdiction over any appeal of GLAD’s case from the Massachusetts District Court, issued a ruling last year holding that in light of Romer v. Evans it concluded that the rational basis test was the appropriate standard for evaluating an equal protection challenge to the military "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy. The court’s opinion in that case, Cook v. Gates, is itself somewhat elusive on the point, but seems to take the position that inasmuch as the Supreme Court did not adopt a higher standard of review in Romer and avoided discussing the equal protection issue in Lawrence, the 1st Circuit would follow the lead of other circuit courts in using the rational basis standard.

Thus, District Judge Joseph L. Touro, before whom this case is pending in Boston, is arguably bound by 1st Circuit precedent to use the rational basis test in deciding this motion to dismiss. The argument about national uniformity advanced by DOJ in support of its motion is just the kind of argument that usually wins a rational basis case, given the presumption of constitutionality. It is possible that GLAD can, in its responding brief, find support in the legislative history for the argument that animus played a significant role in the enactment of DOMA, or can persuade the court that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s discussion of equal protection in her concurring opinion in Lawrence shows that gay rights cases merit "more searching scrutiny" which requires a trial rather than disposition by motion to dismiss.

Of course, this case was planned to go to the appellate level in any event, so a dismissal by Judge Touro will merely hasten its progress by propelling it to the First Circuit more quickly. Touro could easily conclude that in light of First Circuit precedent, a trial can be avoided for now, and that the place to hold the purely legal argument about whether heightened scrutiny applies is at the court of appeals.

One point about the DOJ brief which is worthy of comment is its extensive textual footnote 10, which disavows any reliance on the argument that DOMA is justified under the reprehensible "responsible procreation and child-rearing" theory, a theory that has been at the heart of the same-sex marriage cases that have been decided adversely over the past few years. "Since the enactment of DOMA," says the brief, "many leading medical, psychological, and social welfare organizations have issued policies opposing restrictions on lesbian and gay parenting upon concluding, based on numerous studies, that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents." The brief also notes in this footnote that "Justice Scalia acknowledged in his dissent [in Lawrence v. Texas] that encouraging procreation would not be a rational basis for limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples under the reasoning of the Lawrence majority opinion – which, of course, is the prevailing law – because ‘the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.’ Thus, the government does not believe that DOMA can be justified by interests in ‘responsible procreation’ or ‘child-rearing.’"

This footnote, which cites half a dozen professional sources for its factual assertions, is clearly the result of meetings that gay rights groups held with Civil Division attorneys after the uproar over last June’s DOMA brief in the Smelt case in California. Indeed, the DOJ reply brief in Smelt, filed shortly before the court granted the DOJ dismissal motion in that case on procedural grounds, already backed away from the worst arguments from the original brief, and disavowed these same arguments.

Is this new DOJ brief so "weak" in defending DOMA that it is giving up the game in hopes that the court will strike it down, saving the administration the effort to get it repealed by Congress? I don’t think so. In fact, in retreating from the more outrageous approach of the earlier brief, this brief actually lands on a facially plausible, non-discriminatory rationale for DOMA.

A handful of states allows same-sex marriage, while almost all of the rest ban it by constitutional amendment or statute, so it is plausible to assert that if Congress desired a national standard for eligibility for benefits, it could have believed that the way to preserve uniformity as of 1996 was to take the then-existing definition of marriage in every state and adopt it as the federal standard. I would argue, given the historical context, that this sudden, rather belated concern with uniformity in administering programs that in many cases were decades old was clearly sparked by a desire to exclude same-sex couples from eligibility just in case same-sex marriages became legal anywhere, and thus it embodied a discriminatory motive, but in rational basis cases it is unusual for the court to look behind the face of the statute at such arguments. (Under Justice O’Connor’s "more searching scrutiny" standard, I think such evidence clearly becomes relevant, but O’Connor’s statement comes from a concurring opinion, not the Court’s opinion, although it is itself a synthesis of prior decisions by the Court in cases involving other groups, so it was "nothing new.")

Bottom line: I suspect Judge Touro will find it convenient based on the DOJ arguments to dismiss the lawsuit, GLAD will promptly appeal, the issue of appropriate level of review will be joined in the First Circuit, where the Cook v. Gates decision might also be invoked as binding in a three-judge panel but could be open to debate through en banc review. And, of course, ultimately there will be no final judgment in this case until the Supreme Court decides it, and there are too many imponderables about who may be sitting on the high court by then to make any prognostications on the merits now. Justice O’Connor is retired. Will any other member of the Court embrace the idea that at least "more searching scrutiny" than the ordinary rational basis test provides is appropriate in gay rights cases?

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Gender & Sexuality Law Blog » Blog Archive » Majority Support for Marriage Equality Just Around the Corner

Gender & Sexuality Law Blog » Blog Archive » Majority Support for Marriage Equality Just Around the Corner

A majority of Americans could support same-sex marriage within five years regardless of whether state courts legalize such unions, a new study by Columbia Law Professor Nathaniel Persily and New York University Professor Patrick J. Egan have found.

The study estimates that 42 percent of the public now supports legalizing same-sex marriage, the highest level ever.

“If current trends continue, a majority of Americans will support same-sex marriage by the year 2014,” the authors write. “While majority support does not always lead to movement in policy, the tone of the national debate would likely change significantly if support for gay marriage can no longer be written off as a minority viewpoint.”

The findings first appeared this week in The Polling Report.

The study analyzed polls on same-sex marriage involving more than 50,000 respondents taken between 1996 — when President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act that defined marriage as being exclusively between a man and woman — and this year. They also analyzed whether polls were influenced by high-profile state-court rulings on same-sex marriage.

The data revealed:

• All states have had considerable increases in support of same-sex marriage, regardless of high-court rulings for or against gay couples.
• In states where same-sex marriage cases have reached the top courts, residents support same-sex marriage at higher levels than in states with no court rulings.

• The three states that have had pro-gay decisions in place the longest – Massachusetts, Vermont and New Jersey – have had steeper rises in support of gay marriage than the national average.

In states like Connecticut and Iowa, where high courts more recently legalized same-sex marriage, the study found it is too soon to tell whether those rulings would shift public opinion. However, the authors found it is reasonable to conclude that residents “tend to adapt” to such court decisions and support same-sex marriage.

“Of course, it’s likely that state high courts have anticipated how public opinion would react to their decisions and issue rulings with this in mind,” Persily and Egan wrote.

Friday, September 18, 2009

With mixed feelings, Obama Justice Department defends Defense of Marriage Act - Local News Updates - The Boston Globe

Justice Dept. says "...law is discriminatory and should be repealed." then says---->Dept. is "...defending the statute because the law is "constitutionally permissible".
We still live in a country where discrimination is "constitutionally permissible".?????



With mixed feelings, Obama Justice Department defends Defense of Marriage Act - Local News Updates - The Boston Globe

By Martin Finucane and Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff

A reluctant Justice Department is defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act in a Boston court, even though President Obama is opposed to the law.

"As the president has stated previously, this administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal," the government said in a court filing today. "Consistent with the rule of law, however, the Department of Justice has long followed the practice of defending federal statutes as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of their constitutionality, even if the department disagrees with a particular statute aas a policy matter, as it does here."

The federal law defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Six same-sex couples and three men whose husbands have died -- one of the deceased was retired congressman Gerry E. Studds -- have filed a lawsuit claiming the law treats them like second-class citizens and is unconstitutional.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

VIDEO: Gay dads finally get married after 26 years - Topix

Send this to those who you are having trouble changing their minds about Marriage Equality if this doesn't change it nothing will.


VIDEO: Gay dads finally get married after 26 years - Topix

ays daughter Chelsea: "I'm the proud 16 year old daughter of same sex-parents. Because of twisted laws my parents couldn't get married until last October after 26 years of being together. I hope to be able to change some peoples ideas about same-sex marriage because of my unique point of view. This is my speech from my parents wedding."

In the video, Chelsea speaks at her parents union ceremony. With a quiver in her voice, she says, "What marriage really is is love blossoming between two individuals and a promise that what they have together can only get better. Marriage is a bond between two people that love each other so much that their hearts are bursting with joy and love and compassion for each other; and no one can tell them that they don't belong together and they shouldn't love each other."

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Legislators seek repeal of federal marriage law

Legislators seek repeal of federal marriage law

(09-16) 04:00 PDT Washington - -- Impatient with the piecemeal approach to gay rights adopted by Democratic leaders, 90 House liberals, including Oakland Rep. Barbara Lee, introduced a bill Tuesday to repeal the central federal law governing same-sex couples.

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act denies federal marriage benefits to such couples, including Social Security, estate and other tax laws and spousal immigration rights.

Leading the effort is Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., who said that when the law was signed by former President Bill Clinton 13 years ago, same-sex marriage was hypothetical, but today tens of thousands of gay and lesbian couples are legally married under the laws of four states.

The repeal, called the Respect for Marriage Act, would affect 18,000 same-sex couples married in California last year before voters approved Proposition 8, which overrode a state Supreme Court decision granting them marriage rights.

"Discrimination against committed couples and stable families is terrible federal policy," Nadler said.

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont now marry same-sex couples, and New Hampshire will begin doing so in January. Voters in Maine will decide in November whether to allow same-sex marriage there.

The Respect for Marriage Act would allow all legally married same-sex couples access to what advocates say are more than 1,000 marital benefits under federal law.

The law was passed during an election year when Clinton and many Democrats in Congress feared a voter backlash. Clinton issued a statement Tuesday saying, "the fabric of our country has changed, and so should this policy."

President Obama has said he would sign a law repealing the act, but many activists have been disappointed that he has not moved to revoke the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays in the military, allowing gays and lesbians to be dismissed on his watch.

Notably absent from the repeal bill's sponsors is Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., an openly gay member of Congress who usually takes the lead on gay rights legislation. Frank and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco prefer a more incremental approach that they believe has a better chance of enactment, including a hate crimes bill that passed the House in April and a bill to prohibit workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

The repeal would not impose same-sex marriage on any state. But it would allow couples living in states that do not recognize their marriages access to federal benefits. Nadler said repeal would simply return jurisdiction over marriage law to the states where it has traditionally resided.

Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said the speaker wants the law repealed but is "focused on legislative items that we can enact into law now."

In California, gay activists are split about whether to mount another ballot-box challenge to Prop. 8 in next year's elections for governor and Congress, or in 2012, the next presidential election.

Chronicle staff writer Joe Garofoli contributed to this report. E-mail Carolyn Lochhead at clochhead@sfchronicle.com.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/15/MN6M19NHTS.DTL#ixzz0RH9BAgEF

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Choosing equality for Maine and its marriages - Bangor Daily News

Excellent commentary

Choosing equality for Maine and its marriages - Bangor Daily News


By Emily Cain

There is only one conclusion in Rev. Bob Emrich’s Sept. 2 column, “Same-sex marriage would be harmful to society,” that I totally agree with: The vote on Question 1 on Nov. 3 will be one of the most important Mainers ever cast.

On Nov. 3 we will decide whether we maintain the Maine tradition of neighbors who live and let live, or if we will adopt the position of Rev. Emrich and his supporters that if you disagree with how your neighbors are living their lives, you have a right, even an obligation, to interfere with their personal decisions.

We will decide whether we will embrace Rev. Emrich’s vision of a Maine where there is one set of rules for him and his supporters and another for Mainers with whom he disagrees. Or will we maintain the Maine tradition my neighbors and I support, that everyone should be treated equally under the law.

This referendum is about children and families, but I disagree with Rev. Emrich's assessment of what is at stake. For Emrich, gender and sexual orientation determine who will be a good parent. In fact, every reputable children’s advocacy organization agrees that love and support are what children need most. As Dr. Daniel Summers of the American Academy of Pediatrics testified at the April hearing in Augusta: “It is the quality of parenting that predicts children’s psychological and social adjustment, not the parents’ sexual orientation or gender.” He added that children raised by same-sex couples “do not differ in any important respect from those raised by heterosexual parents.”

All Maine people love their children. But in his crusade to deny marriage equality to thousands of Mainers, Rev. Emrich completely ignores the rights, responsibilities and protections that marriage automatically bestows on couples and on their children. Do we really want to deny these benefits to any Maine child because his or her parents are a same-sex couple?

In his determination to impose his views on everyone else, Rev. Emrich simply disregards the severe hardship and injustice that a repeal of Maine’s marriage equality law would impose on our neighbors, co-workers and family members denied the right to marry.

There are thousands of loving same-sex couples in Maine who have made commitments to one another, many for decades. Marriage equality honors these commitments and acknowledges them under the law. Without marriage equality, Maine law does not recognize these couples as a legal pair. They cannot file taxes jointly, access health insurance as a family or inherit property when one partner dies without the hardship of crushing taxes.

Contrary to Rev. Emrich’s apocalyptic view, marriage equality will make Maine families stronger, extend vital rights and protections to the children of the couples who marry and uphold core Maine values of fairness, equality and personal freedom. Let's not forget Massachusetts. New government statistics show Massachusetts with the lowest divorce rate in the country, down to 2 divorces per 1,000 residents, a drop from 2.2 before 2004 when same-sex couples began marrying. This is down to pre-World War II levels. Obviously, the dire predictions about the downfall of society have not come to pass and thousands of families there are stronger as a result.

In the Maine where my neighbors and I live and work, we look out for one another. We don’t judge one another's personal decisions and we don’t insist on imposing our views on everyone else. Above all, in our Maine, we treat everybody the same, especially when it comes to the law.

On Nov. 3, I have faith that fair-minded Mainers will choose to uphold our long-standing traditions of live and let live, of fairness for all and of the right of every Mainer to marry the person they love. I am confident that they will vote No on 1 to protect Maine equality.

Rep. Emily Cain, D-Orono, is House Chair of the Appropriations and Financial Affairs Committee.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Census Count of Same-Sex Couples Will Be Focus of Lobbying, Debate - washingtonpost.com

Census Count of Same-Sex Couples Will Be Focus of Lobbying, Debate - washingtonpost.com



When the U.S. Census Bureau counts same-sex married couples next year, demographers expect hundreds of thousands to report they are spouses -- even though legal same-sex weddings in the United States number in the tens of thousands.

Gay advocates say they plan to use "A Census that Reflects America's Population," as the Census Bureau calls its plan to report same-sex marriage statistics, to push for legislative and policy initiatives, while groups opposed to same-sex marriage weigh a counteroffensive.

Particularly at the state and local levels, gay advocacy groups say census data on income for same-sex couples will show the need for more protections against job discrimination. Statistics on households with children will help them challenge laws limiting gay adoptions and legal guardianship. With raw numbers to illustrate the need, it will be easier to demand services, they say.

"Why does the census ask if people are young or old, black or white, married or single?" said Joe Salmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, which promotes civil rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. "It's because we want to understand if the country is meeting the public-policy needs of those Americans. That's particularly so for LGBT Americans."

Click link above for full story

Saturday, September 12, 2009

Gay couples bring a bit of a boost to Iowa - Kansas City Star

Gay couples bring a bit of a boost to Iowa - Kansas City Star

By RICK MONTGOMERY
The Kansas City Star
Breaking News



GREENFIELD, Iowa | By getting married, a St. Louis couple brought a tiny measure of economic development last week to this hilly, corn-covered place.

Two quiet nights at the Brass Lantern, a bed-and-breakfast off Iowa 92. Dinner at the Old Hotel Restaurant. A chocolate wedding cake, locally bought.

Did it matter to the cashiers that the out-of-state visitors who came to be wed — Sherrill Wayland and her partner of 15 years — were of the same gender?

The wedding and accompanying legal certificate will not matter to Wayland’s home state of Missouri — nor to any of Iowa’s neighbor states.

Yet from those states hundreds of couples have funneled into Hawkeye country, with open checkbooks, for same-sex nuptials.

“It mattered for us to be able to choose a place in the Midwest that felt like home,” Wayland said.

It mattered, also, to the silver-haired owners of the Brass Lantern, Terry and Margie Moore. Ordained ministers who had never officiated a same-sex wedding, they hope to keep their romantic-getaway business going by welcoming couples of all kinds.

Across Iowa, a growing network of wedding planners, caterers, florists, photographers and even local chambers of commerce are with them.

“Sherrill asked over the phone if I’d be willing to preside over a same-sex ceremony…and I said, ‘Of course!’ ” said Terry Moore, 69.

His wife, 70, thought it wise to promote their inn on Web sites geared toward those who would appreciate the inn’s welcoming atmosphere. Now the inn has three other same-sex couples booked — all from out of state, including Kansas City.

Statewide, an estimated 45 percent of the same-sex marriages since April involved visitors, according to data compiled by the Iowa Vital Statistics Bureau.

As of late July, three months after the Iowa Supreme Court struck down a ban on such marriages, at least 37 couples had traveled in from Missouri — the third-leading state contributing to Iowa same-sex ceremonies, behind Illinois (more than 57 couples) and Nebraska (more than 38).

Exact numbers are difficult to know, as many couples opt not to specify gender on marriage licenses. Applications for the certificates have been changed to indicate Party A and Party B rather than bride and groom.

Cities are a draw

The majority of gays or lesbians wishing to get hitched flock to urban areas — Des Moines, Davenport, Council Bluffs and the university town of Iowa City, county records show.

Others go country: Greenfield’s Brass Lantern, which the Moores acquired in 1995, is linked by two-lane roads to the heart-tugging “Bridges of Madison County” region.

Never mind that the hamlet is in the conservative congressional district of U.S. Rep. Steve King. When the state’s high court made same-sex marriages legal, he issued a blistering condemnation and warned that Iowa could turn into “gay marriage mecca.”

The state is hardly Vegas for the gay and it may never be, given the early data on out-of-staters venturing in to wed.

An economic-impact study in April by UCLA’s Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and Policy projected the new law over the next three years could draw as many as 55,000 same-sex couples from across the nation, each spending about $2,500.

In the first three months, however, marriage licenses for out-of-state couples of the same sex totaled no more than 500. Many counties along the borders saw a rush of license applications in the weeks after the ruling, but interest leveled off as the summer wore on.

National ripples may be felt from New Jersey, Virginia

National ripples may be felt from New Jersey, Virginia

Deb Price | Posted: Saturday, September 12, 2009 7:55 am | 1 Comment

Kicking off his re-election bid last June, Gov. Jon Corzine passionately described a vision for New Jersey that includes giving "people the freedom to marry whomever they love."

Corzine's high-profile embrace of same-sex marriage demonstrates how politicians' calculations are changing. A growing number see supporting gay rights - slowly also marriage - as a campaign booster.

In the other state with a gubernatorial election this November, Virginia, gay issues also have emerged in a telling way.

There, Republican Bob McDonnell, a Pat Robertson protege, was knocked back on his heels when The Washington Post published his 93-page graduate thesis, which in 1989 attacked working women, single moms and gays, and claimed "every level of government should statutorily and procedurally prefer married couples over cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators. The cost of sin should fall on the sinner not the taxpayer."

McDonnell wrote his thesis, "The Republican Party's Vision for the Family," at 34, shortly before entering politics, and says he's changed many of his views. But under "protecting families," his website says he "believes marriage is the union between one man and one woman" and boasts that while in the state legislature, he was the "chief sponsor and author" of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Both 2009 gubernatorial races are barn-burners: The Cook Political Report calls each a "tossup." The Rothenberg Political Report agrees on Virginia's open-seat battle, but gives the edge to the GOP in New Jersey.

For gay Americans, the outcome of the races very well could be felt at the national level: If Democrats remain on the defense over health care and then lose both governorships, President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats will be less likely to address the ban on open gays in the military and Uncle Sam's discrimination against gay couples married by their home states.

In New Jersey, Corzine and Republican challenger Chris Christie offer voters a sharp contrast. Visitors clicking on "Shared Values" on Christie's campaign website learn that the candidate says "marriage should be exclusively between one man and one woman. ... If a bill legalizing same-sex marriage came to my desk as governor, I would veto it. If the law were changed by judicial fiat, I would be in favor of a constitutional amendment."

Corzine is a longtime gay rights supporter - as a U.S. senator, then as governor. In 2006, he signed civil union legislation into law. (Corzine preferred civil unions for gay couples until a state commission reported that civil unions failed to end unequal treatment.) Under his leadership, New Jersey extended paid family leave to gay couples and added gender identity to state anti-discrimination laws.

New Jersey will be fascinating to watch, even after Election Day. The legislature might well pass a marriage bill during a lame duck session, even if Corzine loses. He could sign it into law before the state's window of opportunity closes.

Steven Goldstein, head of the gay Garden State Equality, says, "I wouldn't trade where we're positioned with where (the foes of gay marriage) are positioned."

In Virginia, both candidates oppose gay marriage, but Democrat Creigh Deeds favors a range of gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans protections. State Sen. Deeds is a co-sponsor of legislation to ban job discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Adam Ebbin, the only openly gay member of the Virginia House of Delegates, says, "Creigh Deeds has evolved as a person and legislator on gay issues: With Deeds as governor, LGBT Virginians can move forward."

Deeds told Virginia Partisans, a gay Democratic club, that he supports adoption rights for same-sex partners and repealing the 2006 state ban on gay marriage and similar unions.

When Virginia and New Jersey choose between competing visions of the future, their decisions will likely be felt far beyond their borders.

Deb Price of the Detroit News writes the first nationally syndicated column on gay issues.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Suicide among LGBT youth is a preventable epidemic - Washington Blade: Gay and Lesbian News, Entertainment, Politics and Opinion

I take this diversion from marriage equality to bring you a special message on gay youth

Suicide among LGBT youth is a preventable epidemic - Washington Blade: Gay and Lesbian News, Entertainment, Politics and Opinion

We must advocate for places, programs and policies that prioritize safety

By CHARLES ROBBINS
Sep. 11, 2009
WHEN TWO 11-YEAR-OLD boys died by suicide in April of this year after enduring relentless anti-gay bullying at their separate schools, shocked citizens across the country were forced to come to terms with an uncomfortable but blatant epidemic.

The hallways of schools, homes, churches and other places where all young people should be able to safely learn and grow are plagued with its tragic prevalence. Youth who identify as or are perceived to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or questioning struggle with depression and thoughts of suicide at a disproportionately high rate as a result of the increased risk factors sexual minorities face.

According to a Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Survey published in 2007, LGBTQ youth are up to four times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers.

Perhaps more off-putting than this distressing fact is that only 14 states even bother to collect sexual orientation data in their Youth Risk Behavior Surveys. The remaining 72 percent of states ignore the opportunity to obtain vital information about a subculture of young people who are already all too often left without the support networks and resources they desperately need. As disheartening stories such as Carl Walker-Hoover’s and Jaheem Herrera’s (the two 11-year-old boys) surface more frequently, the harsh realities force us to address the preventable nature of these tragedies.

THIS WEEK, WE recognize National Suicide Prevention Week, and are reminded that when young people have a safe place or person to turn to in times of crisis, suicide is preventable. In fact, a 2006 survey released in “Psychology in the Schools” found that sexual minority adolescents who believed they had one school staff member with whom they could discuss problems were only one-third as likely to report making multiple suicide attempts than those without that support. Lower victimization rates and suicides among sexual minority youth also have been linked with supportive resources such as the availability of non-academic counseling, anti-bullying policies and peer support groups. Therefore, we know that when we foster safe and accepting environments to begin with, and effectively intervene when warning signs arise, we can absolutely empower young people to live.

The logistical process of ensuring that all young people, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, remain safe and have access to the mental health resources they need, can seem intimidating. Yet, reaching out to youth and alerting them that resources exist is the simplest and most important step.

Call volume on The Trevor Project’s helpline reached an all-time high this summer. In the month of June alone, nearly 2,500 calls were fielded from despondent youth across the country. Nine of those callers required emergency “rescue” services to be deployed for help. But we know that despite this recent influx in calls, the tremendous need has always existed. The difference is that more young people know about our helpline now. For a parent, teacher, friend or peer to reach out and tell someone who is struggling about our services is so simple, but it is a gesture often overlooked.

THE BROADER STEPS to preventing suicide among all youth require people and communities to advocate for the safer, more inclusive environments they need. We must push for local and federal policies and mandates that provide young people with access to appropriate resources and educate them about suicide prevention and the potentially life-threatening impacts of language and behavior.

On a national level, the Safe Schools Improvement Act could potentially give schools the final push they need to implement anti-bullying policies and prevention programs that protect all students.

National Suicide Prevention Week will come and go this year. Unfortunately, for many LGBTQ young people, thoughts of depression, feelings of isolation and helplessness or hopelessness will not. As they yearn to simply be accepted and supported, we must advocate for places, programs and policies that prioritize their safety and well-being.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

DOMA Repeal Bill Coming Next Week | Advocate.com

DOMA Repeal Bill Coming Next Week | Advocate.com

DOMA Repeal Bill Coming Next Week

Rep. Jerrold Nadler will introduce legislation to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act next week.
By Kerry Eleveld

The Advocate has learned that Democratic representative Jerrold Nadler of New York will be introducing legislation to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act next Tuesday. A Democratic aide confirmed that a press conference to announce the bill will be held September 15 at 11 a.m. at the House Triangle.

The source said the bill currently has just over 50 cosponsors, but Congressman Nadler’s office has not yet officially circulated a letter to his fellow House members.

Nadler told the Bay Area Reporter in July that the bill would amount to a full repeal of DOMA, including Section 2, which advises states to disregard same-sex marriages that have been legally performed in other states, and Section 3, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

President Barack Obama supported full repeal of the legislation as a candidate and has reiterated that support in the White House. “I believe it's discriminatory, I think it interferes with states' rights, and we will work with Congress to overturn it,” Obama said of the 1996 law during an Oval Office signing ceremony in June.

California to recognize out of state same-sex marriages - Lez Get Real

NOW will Arnold sign it??????

California to recognize out of state same-sex marriages - Lez Get Real



9/10/09-by Paula BrooksSacramento-state-capital-house1
Late yesterday the California State Legislature approved by a 23 to 14 vote, a bill that will require California to validate and recognize same-sex marriages performed outside the state prior to November 5, 2008, when Proposition 8 ended same sex-marriage in the Golden State.

Senate Bill 54, authored by Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), clarifes California family law to explicitly recognize marriages of same-sex couples performed out-of-state prior to November 5, 2008. The bill would also explicitly recognize marriages of same-sex couples performed out-of-state after that date as carrying all the same rights and responsibilities that spouses receive although without the designation of marriage.

“We are grateful that our elected leaders have passed this vital bill, which provides much needed clarity for same-sex couples married out of state who deserve to know where their families stand,” said Geoff Kors, Executive Director for Equality California in a statement, “Ultimately, however, restoring the freedom to marry is the only way to ensure that all Californians are treated with true equality under the law.”

In response to the Legislature’s approval of SB 54, the California Family Council also issued a statement:

The California Legislature’s majority continues its disregard for the expressed will of their constituents and the state Constitution which affirms traditional marriage’s definition. Article I, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution specifically states “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” SB 54 explicitly violates California’s Constitution.

“The Legislature’s approval of SB 54 demonstrates the Legislature’s contempt and lack of respect for their constituents,” stated Everett Rice CFC’s Legislative Coordinator. “In 2000 and 2008, the voters expressed their desire to protect traditional marriage at the ballot box. They emphatically affirmed that marriage should retain its historical definition and identity. Nonetheless, our elected representatives choose to yield to the demands of special-interest groups over the values of those who elected them.”

Senate Bill 54 will now go to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who will have an opportunity to sign the bill into law.

Maine’s Bishop Malone loves us Gays… but - Lez Get Real

Hypocrisy at its height

Maine’s Bishop Malone loves us Gays… but - Lez Get Real

9/10/09- by Paula brooksRichardMalone
Bishop Richard Malone of Portland, Maine says he loves us LGBT’s and he is not simply being a bigot for opposing same sex-marriage in Maine…

“Our opposition to same-sex marriage is not an instance of unjust discrimination or animosity towards homosexual persons. In fact, the Catholic Church teaches emphatically that individuals and society must respect the basic human dignity of all persons, including those with a homosexual orientation.”

Of course that did not stop the Bishop from putting up $100,000 in church funds to overturn the Maine Marriage Equality law despite urging Maine’s 200,000 Catholics to tighten their belts and suck it up because he is closing five churches in his diocese due to deficits and the high cost of maintaining them up…

Oh yeah Bishop Malone also wants all you Maine Catholics to remember to shell out for the bishop favorite cause this next Sunday… a “special collection”… for promoting bigotry against LGBT’s.

click link to sse video

Monday, September 7, 2009

New York Gets Active on Behalf of Marriage Rights

Here is ESPA's events for the month. We need to push for a vote and victory for marriage equality this month

Queers United: New York Gets Active on Behalf of Marriage Rights

Monday, September 7, 2009
New York Gets Active on Behalf of Marriage Rights

New York's Governor David Patterson a strong ally committed to equality has signaled that a vote on marriage may come as early as this month! The Empire State Pride Agenda will be holding events throughout the state in an effort to re-engage people to pressure the legislature.

Below is a list of events and opportunities to help out through the state:

Buffalo

Labor Parade and Picnic – Buffalo AFL-CIO
Date: Monday, September 7
Time: Noon- 2 PM
Location: Parade begins at the corner of Abbott and Stevenson; picnic is at Cazenovia Park, Buffalo
Action: Volunteers will help circulate materials and collect letters in support of marriage and GENDA.
Contact: Todd Plank, (518) 271-2420 or (585) 880-2508, tplank@prideagenda.org

Music is Art Festival
Date: Saturday, September 12
Time: 10 AM - 10 PM
Location: Grounds outside the Albright Knox Gallery at 1285 Elmwood Ave., Buffalo
Action: Volunteers will help circulate materials and collect letters in support of marriage and GENDA.
Contact: Todd Plank, (518) 271-2420 or (585) 880-2508, tplank@prideagenda.org

Rainbow Pride Conference
Date: Saturday, September 12 and 13
Time: 11 AM - 8 PM
Location: Chautauqua Institute at 1 Ames Ave, Chautauqua
Action: Volunteers will help circulate materials and collect letters in support of marriage and GENDA.
Contact: Todd Plank, (518) 271-2420 or (585) 880-2508, tplank@prideagenda.org

Buffalo IMPACT Meeting
Date: Tuesday, September 15
Time: 6 PM
Location: Pride Center of WNY, 206 South Elmwood Ave., Buffalo
Contact: Todd Plank, (518) 271-2420 or (585) 880-2508, tplank@prideagenda.org

Primary Election Day - Polling Locations
Date: Tuesday, September 15
Time: TBA
Location: TBA
Action: Volunteers will help circulate materials and collect letters in support of marriage and GENDA.
Contact: Todd Plank, (518) 271-2420 or (585) 880-2508, tplank@prideagenda.org

Pride in the Pulpit Faith & Lay Leader Breakfast
Date: Wednesday, September 30
Time: 8:30 PM
Location: Unitarian Universalist Church of Buffalo, 695 Elmwood Ave., Buffalo
Contact: Todd Plank, (518) 271-2420 or (585) 880-2508, tplank@prideagenda.org

Capital District

Primary Election Day - Polling Locations
Date: Tuesday, September 15
Time: TBA
Location: TBA
Action: Volunteers will help circulate materials and collect letters in support of marriage and GENDA.
Contact: Ejay Carter, (518) 472-3330 ext 306 or ecarter@prideagenda.org

Phone Banking
Date: Wednesday-Friday, September 16, 17 and 18
Time: 5 – 8 PM
Location: TBD, Capital District Area
Action: Volunteers will phonebank constituents in key senate target districts to urge them to call their pivotal, crucial and influential Senators.
Contact: Sheilah Sable, (518) 472-3330 ext 303 or ssable@prideagenda.org

Larkfest
Date: Saturday, September 19
Time: 10 AM - 5:30 PM
Location: TBA (Larkfest takes place on Lark Street), Albany
Action: Volunteers will help circulate materials and collect letters in support of marriage and GENDA.
Contact: Ejay Carter, (518) 472-3330 ext 306 or ecarter@prideagenda.org

Capital District IMPACT Meeting
Date: Wednesday, September 23
Time: 6 PM
Location: Conference Room at the AFLCIO Headquarters, 100 Swan Street, Albany
Contact: Ejay Carter, (518) 472-3330 ext 306 or ecarter@prideagenda.org

Troy Night Out
Date: Friday, September 25
Time: 5 -7 PM
Location: River Street, Troy
Action: Volunteers will help circulate materials and collect letters in support of marriage and GENDA.
Contact: Ejay Carter, (518) 472-3330 ext 306 or ecarter@prideagenda.org

Central NY

New York State Fair
Date: Sunday, August 27 – Monday, September 7 (Volunteers needed to assist Stonewall Committee on all days; Pride Agenda will specifically staff the booth on September 3 from 10 AM - 2 PM)
Time: 10 AM -10 PM all days
Location: Stonewall Committee Booth, New York State Fair Grounds, 581 State Fair Blvd., Syracuse
Action: Volunteers are needed to help circulate materials and collect letters in support of marriage and GENDA at the Stonewall Committee Booth on all days of the State Fair. Check in With Stonewall Committee on all days except September 3, when the Pride Agenda will be staffing the booth.
Contact: Ejay Carter, (518) 472-3330 ext 306 or ecarter@prideagenda.org

Long Island

Pride in the Pulpit Community Meeting
Date: Wednesday, September 9
Time: 6:30 PM
Location: Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Huntington, 109 Browns Rd., Huntington
Contact: Joanna Solmonsohn, (212) 627-0305 ext 103, (516) 993-4623 or jsolmonsohn@prideagenda.org; or Kate McDonough, (212) 627-0305 or kmcdonough@prideagenda.org

LIRR Visibility Activity
Date: Wednesday, September 9
Time: 7 -8:30 AM
Location: Ronkonkoma Train Station, Smithtown Ave. and Railroad Ave.
Action: Volunteers will circulate materials and collect letters in support of marriage.
Contact: Joanna Solmonsohn, (212) 627-0305 ext 103, (516) 993-4623 or jsolmonsohn@prideagenda.org

LIRR Visibility Activity
Date: Thursday, September 10
Time: 7 AM -8:30 AM
Location: Hicksville Train Station, Newbridge Rd. and West Barclay St.
Action: Volunteers will circulate materials and collect letters in support of marriage.
Contact: Joanna Solmonsohn, (212) 627-0305 ext 103, (516) 993-4623 or jsolmonsohn@prideagenda.org

Further volunteer opportunities will be scheduled on Long Island shortly. Please contact Joanna Solmonsohn, (212) 627-0305 ext 103, (516) 993-4623 or jsolmonsohn@prideagenda.org to learn more about how you can get involved.

New York City

NYC Pride in Our Union Committee Meeting
Date: Tuesday, September 8
Time: 6:30 PM
Location: SEIU 1199, 330 W. 42nd Street, Meeting Room, 7th Floor, New York City
Contact: Sheilah Sable, (518) 472-3330 ext 303 or ssable@prideagenda.org

Express Bus Letter Collection
Date: Wednesday, September 9
Time: 6 – 8 PM
Location: 23rd Street & Madison Avenue (Midtown)
Action: Volunteers will help collect letters in support of marriage.
Contact: Matthew Brunner, (212) 627-0305 or mbrunner@prideagenda.org

Express Bus Letter Collection
Date: Thursday, September 10
Time: 6 – 8 PM
Location: TBD
Action: Volunteers will help collect letters in support of marriage.
Contact: Matthew Brunner, (212) 627-0305 or mbrunner@prideagenda.org

NYC Labor Day March
Date: Saturday, September 12
Time: 11 AM
Location: Near 5th Avenue and 44th Street
Action: Volunteers will be collecting letters in support of marriage and GENDA.
Contact: Matthew Brunner, (212) 627-0305 or mbrunner@prideagenda.org

Primary Election Day - Polling Locations
Date: Tuesday, September 15
Time: TBA
Location: TBA
Action: Volunteers will help circulate materials and collect letters in support of marriage and GENDA.
Contact: Kate McDonough, (212) 627-0305 ext 106 or kmcdonough@prideagenda.org

Pride in the Pulpit Faith Leaders of Color Meeting
Date: Wednesday, September 16
Time: 6 PM
Location: Middle Collegiate Church, 50 East 7th Street, Social Hall
Contact: Kate McDonough, (212) 627-0305 ext 106 or kmcdonough@prideagenda.org

Phone Banking
Date: Wednesday, September 16
Time: 5:30 – 8:30 PM
Location: TBD
Action: Volunteers will phonebank constituents in key senate target districts to urge them to call their pivotal, crucial and influential Senators.
Contact: Kate McDonough, (212) 627-0305 ext 106 or kmcdonough@prideagenda.org

Phone Banking
Date: Thursday, September 17 and Monday, September 21
Time: 5:30– 8:30 PM
Location: Empire State Pride Agenda office, 16 W 22nd St., 2nd Fl
Action: Volunteers will phonebank constituents in key senate target districts to urge them to call their pivotal, crucial and influential Senators.
Contact: Kate McDonough, (212) 627-0305 ext 106 or kmcdonough@prideagenda.org

Staten Island

Letter Collecting at Q Bar and Grill
Date: Friday, September 4
Time: 7:30 – 10 PM
Location: Q LGBT Night Club, 632 Midland Avenue, Staten Island
Action: Volunteers will help collect letters in support of marriage.
Contact: Matthew Brunner, (212) 627-0305 or mbrunner@prideagenda.org

Brooklyn

West Indian Parade/Carnival
Date: Monday, September 7
Time: 9:30 AM – 1 PM
Location: Buffalo Avenue & Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn
Action: Volunteers will help collect letters in support of marriage and GENDA.
Contact: Matthew Brunner, (212) 627-0305 or mbrunner@prideagenda.org

Queens

Clergy Breakfast
Come for a discussion on LGBT equality & expanding the LGBT faith-based movement in Queens.
Date: Tuesday, September 22
Time: 8:30 AM
Location: Church of the Redeemer, 30-14 Crescent Street, Astoria
Contact: Matthew Brunner, (212) 627-0305 or mbrunner@prideagenda.org

Rochester

Museum of Science
Date: Tuesday, September 8
Time: 5 – 6 PM
Location: 657 East Ave., Rochester
Action: Volunteers will help circulate materials and collect letters in support of marriage and GENDA.
Contact: Todd Plank, (518) 271-2420 or (585) 880-2508, tplank@prideagenda.org

Clothesline Art Festival
Date: Saturday and Sunday, September 12 and 13
Time: Saturday, 10 AM - 6 PM;, Sunday, 10 AM - 5 PM
Location: Memorial Art Gallery of U of R, 500 University Ave., Rochester
Action: Volunteers will help circulate materials and collect letters in support of marriage and GENDA.
Contact: Todd Plank, (518) 271-2420 or (585) 880-2508, tplank@prideagenda.org

Primary Election Day - Polling Locations
Date: Tuesday, September 15
Time: TBA
Location: TBA
Action: Volunteers will help circulate materials and collect letters in support of marriage and GENDA.
Contact: Todd Plank, (518) 271-2420 or (585) 880-2508, tplank@prideagenda.org

Rochester IMPACT Meeting
Date: Wednesday, September 16
Time: 6:30 PM
Location: Downtown United Presbyterian Church, 121 North Fitzhugh St., Rochester
Contact: Todd Plank, (518) 271-2420 or (585) 880-2508, tplank@prideagenda.org

Pride in the Pulpit Faith & Lay Leader Breakfast
Date: Tuesday, September 22
Time: 8:30 AM
Location: First Universalist Church of Rochester, 150 South Clinton Ave., Rochester
Contact: Todd Plank, (518) 271-2420 or (585) 880-2508, tplank@prideagenda.org

Southern Tier

Labor Picnic in Stewart Park
Date: Monday, September 7
Time: Noon – 2 PM
Location: Stewart Park, Gardner Parkway, Ithaca
Action: Volunteers will help circulate materials and collect letters in support of marriage and GENDA.
Contact: Ejay Carter, (518) 472-3330 ext 306 or ecarter@prideagenda.org

Letter Collecting in Finger Lakes Region
Date: Saturday, September 12
Time: TBA
Location: Cayuga Lake
Action: Volunteers will help circulate materials and collect letters in support of marriage and GENDA.
Contact: Ejay Carter, (518) 472-3330 ext 306 or ecarter@prideagenda.org

Primary Election Day - Polling Locations
Date: Tuesday, September 15
Time: TBA
Location: TBA
Action: Volunteers will help circulate materials and collect letters in support of marriage and GENDA.
Contact: Ejay Carter, (518) 472-3330 ext 306 or ecarter@prideagenda.org

SPECTRA’s 6th Annual Film Event
Date: Saturday, September 19
Time: 5:00 - 7 PM
Location: Corning Museum of Glass (Auditorium), 1 Museum Way, Corning
Action: Volunteers will help circulate materials and collect letters in support of marriage and GENDA.
Contact: Ejay Carter, (518) 472-3330 ext 306 or ecarter@prideagenda.org

Ithaca Apple Harvest Festival
Date: Friday and Saturday, September 25-26
Time: Noon-6:30 PM
Location: Commons, Ithaca
Action: Volunteers will help circulate materials and collect letters in support of marriage and GENDA.
Contact: Ejay Carter, (518) 472-3330 ext 306 or ecarter@prideagenda.org

YouTube - National Equality March

YouTube - National Equality March

Saturday, September 5, 2009

Diocese of Portland asks for more money to fight Marriage Equality - Lez Get Real

isn't this a basis for loss of tax exemption.

Diocese of Portland asks for more money to fight Marriage Equality - Lez Get Real

9/5/09-by Paula Brooks
Maine’s Catholic church continues on in the fight against same sex marriage.

Today, Bishop Richard Malone appealed to members of the Diocese of Portland to take up a special second collection next weekend in support Stand For Marriage Maine, the group leading the effort to repeal Maine’s same sex marriage law.

Bishop Richard Malone also noted in his appeal that Stand For Marriage Maine would be holding a big rally Sunday, September 13 at the Augusta Civic Center and those who want to attend must get free tickets through their church.

In other news… Last week the Bishop also said the Diocese of Portland plans to close five churches in Maine due to a declining and aging Catholic population, as well as other deficits the Church is facing.

The Bishop said the church just can’t keep the buildings up and running anymore.

Two churches in Lewiston, two in Biddeford, and another in Saco are to be shut down.

So I guess you won’t be able get your free Stand For Marriage Maine big anti gay marriage rally tickets at those locations….

New bill will be introduced to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act

Thank you Jerry

New bill will be introduced to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act

New York Congressman Jerry Nadler is expected to introduce a bill in the next few weeks that would either fully or partially repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), according to Politico. The bill, which would require the Federal government to recognize same-sex marriages, is expected to get dozens of co-sponsors, but it has yet to be seen just how much of DOMA the bill will actually repeal.

DOMA states that the Federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages, and basically denies same-sex couples 1,138 rights that opposite-sex couples enjoy, including Social Security survivor payments. DOMA also allows individual states to choose how they define the word marriage. Currently under DOMA, states can choose not to recognize same-sex marriages, even if the marriages were legally performed in another state. Proposition 8 would have never been introduced if DOMA did not exist.

The bill could repeal the entire Defense of Marriage Act, or it could focus on solely repealing Section 2, the portion that denies federal recognition. With so much controversy over same-sex marriage, it would probably be ‘easier’ for Congress to pass a bill that only repealed the federal section, and continued to allow individual states to choose how they define marriage.

Interesting turning points have occurred recently in regards to DOMA. Former President Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA into law, spoke out in support of a repeal. So did Bob Barr, the author of the discriminatory law. Even President Obama called for a repeal of DOMA during his campaign; however earlier this year the Department of Justice, under his administration defended the law. The initial brief by the DOJ vigorously defended DOMA to the point where it compared same-sex marriage to incest and underage marriage. The uproar from the public resulted in the DOJ rewording and downplaying their arguments, using words that were less harsh

Governor Paterson aims to push bill on gay marriage during special session

Governor Paterson aims to push bill on gay marriage during special session

BY Glenn Blain
DAILY NEWS ALBANY BUREAU



ALBANY - Gay marriage will be on the state Senate's agenda as early as this month if Gov. Paterson gets his way.

In an interview with the Advocate, Paterson said he intends to put the bill legalizing same-sex marriage on the agenda when he calls the Legislature back into session to deal with the state's $2.1 billion budget deficit.

"I am anticipating a special session and I am anticipating this is one of the issues that we will address," Paterson told the gay and lesbian magazine.

A date for the special session has not been set but most lawmakers expect it to be held later this month or in early October.

Paterson spokeswoman Marissa Shorenstein confirmed that the governor intends to place the bill on the session's agenda.

Under state law, Paterson sets the agenda for any special session he calls but he cannot force lawmakers to vote on legislation. They can simply table whatever measures they don't like.

The Assembly passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in May, but its fate in the Democrat-controlled Senate remains uncertain.

A handful of conservative Democratic senators and most Republicans oppose it.

Senate President Malcolm Smith (D-Queens) is a supporter of the bill but does not want to bring it up for a vote until it has enough support to pass.

"Our position hasn't changed," Smith spokesman Austin Shafran said Friday. "We are supportive of the legislation but there is no indication that there are enough votes to pass it."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/09/05/2009-09-05_governor_paterson_aims_to_push_bill_on_gay_marriage_when_legislators_return.html#ixzz0QEiIdiuz

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Anti-same-sex marriage referendum qualifies for Maine ballot.

Think Progress » Anti-same-sex marriage referendum qualifies for Maine ballot.

Anti-same-sex marriage referendum qualifies for Maine ballot.

In May, Maine Gov. John Baldacci (D) signed legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in the state, saying “you can’t allow discrimination to stand when it’s raised to your level.” Opponents of same-sex marriage immediately vowed to pursue a public referendum to overturn the law. Maine election officials announced today that the ant-gay activists have succeeded in putting the law on the November ballot:

Election officials announced Wednesday that gay marriage foes surpassed the threshold of signatures necessary to put the state law on the November ballot, setting the stage for a furious, two-month campaign that’ll determine whether the number of states allowing same-sex nuptials shrinks to five.

Maine’s gay marriage law was supposed to go into effect on Sept. 12, but it was put on hold while the secretary of state’s office verified the number of signatures. With the signatures validated, Gov. John Baldacci on Wednesday signed a formal proclamation putting the gay marriage law to a statewide vote Nov. 3.

“I fully support this legislation and believe it guarantees that all Maine citizens are treated equally under our state’s civil marriage laws,” Baldacci said. “But I also have a constitutional obligation to set the date for the election once the secretary of state has certified that enough signatures have been submitted.”

Gay Marriage Foes Suffer Defeat In Iowa | On Top Magazine :: Gay & Lesbian News, Entertainment, Commentary & Travel

Oh well Maggie! that is 90k less you have to fight in Maine with

Gay Marriage Foes Suffer Defeat In Iowa | On Top Magazine :: Gay & Lesbian News, Entertainment, Commentary & Travel

Gay Marriage Foes Suffer Defeat In Iowa
By Carlos Santoscoy
Published: September 02, 2009

Gay marriage foes suffered a setback Tuesday with the defeat of Republican Stephen Burgmeier in Iowa.

Democrat Curt Hanson narrowly won the special election to fill the seat left vacant when Democratic Representative John Whitaker was tapped to serve as the Iowa director of the Farm Service Agency, The Iowa Independent reported.

The race was the first since the Iowa Supreme Court legalized gay marriage on April 3, and anti-gay marriage groups lobbied hard on behalf of Burgmeier.

At least three groups that oppose gay marriage supported Burgmeier: Everyday America, the Iowa Family Policy Center, and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).

NOM, the nation's largest and most vociferous group opposing gay marriage, placed the heaviest bet, spending $90,000 in television and radio ads on the Republican. The group called the campaign Reclaim Iowa.

The race between the two men is a harbinger of politics to come in Iowa as Republicans continue to obsess about the court's ruling. All five leading Republicans hoping to win the governor's mansion in 2010 oppose gay marriage. Republican frontrunner Bob Vander Plaats has pledged he would sign an executive order placing a stay on gay marriages and force a public vote on the issue, if elected. Rod Roberts, an Iowa State Representative, has called for the ouster of the seven justices, three of which will be up for retention in 2010.

“Vote no on retention of those three judges coming up in 2010 and you will have a say,” Roberts told a crowd of Dallas County Republicans last week.

NOM aspires to repeat last year's successful repeal of legalized gay marriage in California with a voter-approved gay marriage ban, Proposition 8. Iowa, however, unlike states such as California, does not allow voters to initiate a constitutional amendment. Amendments must be approved by legislators before heading to voters. Leaving anti-gay groups with the daunting task of altering the composition of the Democratically-led Legislature before they can begin the legislative process.

Democrats hailed their victory, while Republican downplayed their loss.

“Democrats have been successful in the last two election cycles and tonight because we have recruited great candidates, followed through on the promises we've made and are governing the state responsibly,” Iowa Democratic Party Chair Michael Kiernan said in a statement.

“While we are disappointed,” Matt Strawn, party chair of the Republican Party, said, “the fact that Republicans nearly won a solid [Iowa Governor] Culver-Obama legislative district shows that Iowans are not pleased with the status quo and one-party rule in Des Moines.”

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Ben & Jerry’s Renames Legendary Flavor to Celebrate Freedom to Marry

thank Ben and Jerry

Ben & Jerry’s Renames Legendary Flavor to Celebrate Freedom to Marry

BURLINGTON, Vt.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Ben & Jerry’s, known for its euphoric ice cream flavors and dedication to social justice, celebrates the beginning of the freedom to marry for gay and lesbian couples in Vermont with the symbolic renaming of its well-known ice cream flavor “Chubby Hubby” to “Hubby Hubby.” In partnership with Freedom to Marry, Ben & Jerry’s aims to raise awareness of the importance of marriage equality and, to show its support, will serve “Hubby Hubby” sundaes in Vermont Scoop Shops throughout the month of September.

Ben & Jerry’s has a long history of commitment to social justice, including gay rights. Its partnership with Freedom to Marry, a national leader in the movement for marriage equality, aims to raise awareness of the importance of marriage equality and to encourage other states to follow the blazing trails of Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Maine. Freedom to Marry promotes the national conversation about why marriage equality matters and brings together partner organizations into a larger whole – a shared civil rights campaign.

“At the core of Ben & Jerry’s values, we believe that social justice can and should be something that every human being is entitled to,” said Walt Freese, Chief Executive Officer of Ben & Jerry’s. “From the very beginning of our 30 year history, we have supported equal rights for all people. The legalization of marriage for gay and lesbian couples in Vermont is certainly a step in the right direction and something worth celebrating with peace, love and plenty of ice cream.”

To kick off the celebration, Ben & Jerry’s and Freedom to Marry will be publicly supporting the first marriages of gay and lesbian couples in Vermont and raising awareness for marriage equality and how to take action by driving consumers to freedomtomarry.org. By logging onto the site, people can show their support, sign a Marriage Resolution Petition, have conversations about why marriage matters and learn more about how they can support the cause.

“It’s not polite to talk with your mouth full, but the most important thing that all us ice cream lovers can do to support the freedom to marry is speak with the people we know about why marriage matters and the need to end marriage discrimination in every state”,” said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry. “Thanks to Ben & Jerry’s, starting those needed conversations has never been sweeter – and thanks to Freedom to Marry, we all now have a great excuse to eat more ice cream.”

For more information on why marriage equality matters and to take action in your state, please log on to freedtomarry.org. To find your local Ben & Jerry’s Scoop Shop or learn more about Ben & Jerry’s social mission, log onto www.Facebook.com/benjerry. Also, don’t forget to visit us on www.benjerry.com.