Md. attorney general backs gay marriage bill -- baltimoresun.com

Md. attorney general backs gay marriage bill -- baltimoresun.com

By Laura Smitherman | Sun reporter
8:37 PM EST, February 14, 2008

Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler has become the most prominent official in Maryland to endorse gay marriage, telling state legislators Thursday that he believes the current ban on same-sex unions amounts to discrimination.

"It would be hard for me to have this job knowing there is something so wrong in our society," Gansler told the Senate panel considering a bill to legalize gay marriage. "I just think it's wrong to discriminate against any people because they think differently or because of their sexual orientation." ............................

Click link to story

California groups aiming for gay marriage ban amendment

San Jose Mercury News - California groups aiming for gay marriage ban amendment

By Lisa Leff
Associated Press
Article Launched: 02/14/2008 03:01:37 PM PST


SAN FRANCISCO - As California's highest court prepares to take up a case seeking to legalize same-sex marriage, two groups that failed to get gay marriage bans on the state ballot two years ago are trying again, one with backing from a prominent Christian conservative organization.
The groups, ProtectMarriage.com and VoteYesMarriage.com, have filed ballot language with the California Secretary of State that would, if approved by voters, amend the California Constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman regardless of how the Supreme Court rules.

They have until late April to gather signatures from 694,354 voters to qualify the measures for the November election and have begun circulating petitions, fundraising and recruiting volunteers through Southern California churches.

The Supreme Court has scheduled a March 4 hearing for oral arguments in four cases brought by 15 same-sex couples, the city of San Francisco and a gay rights group challenging state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.

The lawsuits grew out of the monthlong wedding spree that took place in San Francisco four years ago when Mayor Gavin Newsom directed employees to grant marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, an act of civil disobedience eventually halted by the high court.

Although the groups opposed to same-sex marriage launched marriage amendment campaigns in 2005, they


fell far short of collecting enough signatures. There is much more money and organization behind their efforts now, according to advocates on both sides of the issue.
"The very fact that this is in front of the Supreme Court, I think, will highlight the need for voters to take the issue away from the courts period," said Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com.

By enshrining the two laws that already prevent gays from marrying in the state Constitution, both amendments would overrule the justices if they decide the current statutes are an unconstitutional violation of the civil rights of same-sex couples. The court is expected to issue it's ruling by early June.

The VoteYesMarriage initiative would go a step further, however, by prohibiting the state from granting gays the spousal rights and tax benefits of marriage, as it already has by allowing gays to register as domestic partners. If it passed, those rights would be eliminated.

As was the case in 2005, the philosophical differences between the two groups has them competing for support among the same voters and conservative activists, as well as facing the prospect of a confusing and divisive campaign if both measures make it on the ballot.

Lined up behind ProtectMarriage are the widow and political allies of the late state Sen. William J. "Pete" Knight, who sponsored a 2000 ballot initiative approved by voters that strengthened the state's ban on gay unions. Proposition 22 is one of the laws that will be before the Supreme Court next month.

According to campaign finance reports, the group last year raised just under $130,000 dollars in donations, most of it from Focus on the Family, the Colorado Springs-based evangelical organization founded by Dr. James Dobson, and from the National Organization for Marriage, a Princeton, N.J.-based group established to fight gay marriage in that state.

The money has helped ProtectMarriage hire paid signature gatherers to supplement the volunteers being recruited by a coalition of pastors in San Diego County formed to back the amendment.

VoteYesMarriage, which is headed by veteran activist Randy Thomasson, raised $84,000 last year, some of which it has spent placing ads in religious newspapers urging readers to help their pastors "know the difference between a true and a false marriage amendment."

Both groups say they have poll results showing that only their amendment would be approved at the ballot box.

So far, no state court has joined Massachusetts in recognizing marriage as a civil right. Along with California, Connecticut and Iowa also have cases pending on whether allowing gays to enter into civil unions and domestic partnerships provides a legal equivalent to getting married.

Gay marriage proponents are gearing up for a fierce and expensive fight, said Geoffrey Kors, executive director of the gay rights group Equality California. With the court case pending, they opted not to ask the Legislature this year to pass a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, as it has done twice before only to have the measures vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

While 19 states have amended their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage, both opponents and supporters recognize California, home to more same-sex couples than any other state and historically a gay rights pioneer, as a crucial win or loss in their column, Kors said.

If one or both of the amendments wind up on the November ballot, "this will be an election like we haven't seen before on this issue," he said

Evan Wolfson: Today is Freedom to Marry Day - Just Don't Say "Gay Marriage"! - Politics on The Huffington Post

Evan Wolfson: Today is Freedom to Marry Day - Just Don't Say "Gay Marriage"! - Politics on The Huffington Post

As Americans across the country celebrate Freedom to Marry Day today, seizing the opportunity to have conversations with family members, friends, and coworkers about the importance of ending same-sex couples' exclusion from marriage, hopefully they'll talk a lot about gay couples and why marriage matters -- without saying "gay marriage" and "same-sex marriage." Same-sex couples, their kids and loved ones, and those of us who favor equal justice in America are not working to win "gay marriage." We are working to win the freedom to marry, ending the current unfair denial of marriage to those who are already doing the work of marriage in their own lives.


Phrases such as "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage" imply that same-sex couples are asking for something other than marriage. They imply that same-sex couples deserve something different or lesser than the security, protections, safety-net, and respect that married couples cherish. (PDF) And they play into the right-wing's fear-mongering that gay people are a threat to marriage, that equality and inclusion would somehow unacceptably "redefine" the law (in a country dedicated to those very values), and that "Defense of Marriage" is the answer to committed couples seeking to participate in a precious institution.

Marriage is not defined by who is excluded from it, and gay people are not the first to challenge its denial. This year we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the first court ruling striking down race restrictions on who could marry whom. In Perez v. Sharp, the California Supreme Court held that "the essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage with the person of one's choice." The court explained that "human beings are bereft of worth and dignity by a doctrine that would make them as interchangeable as trains"; when you are denied the freedom to marry the person precious and irreplaceable to you, it's not like you can just catch the next one.

Fittingly, as we mark the 60th anniversary of that courageous court decision, other couples now stand before the same court which will hear argument on March 4, 2008. Those couples are not seeking "gay marriage," any more than Mrs. Perez sought "black marriage," or her husband sought "Latino marriage." They all claim, and deserve, marriage itself, the freedom to marry, which the U.S Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, noted "has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

As we speak out about why marriage matters and how the denial of marriage harms couples and kids, undermining our nation's commitment to fairness and freedom, we've seen states move in the right direction, but falling short of equality. States such as California, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, and Vermont have created new legal mechanisms, called partnership or civil union, to provide parallel legal protections and responsibilities for gay people and their families. These new mechanisms - "gay marriage" - are better than nothing, but no substitute for marriage itself (PDF). Happily, in each of these states the debate continues and awareness is deepening that the work is not done, civil unions don't work, separate is not equal, and it's time to finish the job of ending exclusion from marriage, not just repackaging it.

Even without clear terminology always prevailing, people are getting it. Public support for marriage equality is growing faster than ever before. In just over 10 years, according to the Gallup poll, support for marriage equality has jumped almost 20 percentage points, while those against fairness decreased 15 percentage points in the same time period. Imagine the rate of progress we could see if people understood this not as creating "gay marriage," but, rather, ending the denial of the "freedom to marry" and letting couples committed to one another in life share the legal commitment of marriage.

Freedom to Marry Day, February 12th, aptly falls in the midst of Freedom to Marry Week, February 10-16. It's one more chance for gay and non-gay people to reach out to their circles - families, friends, co-workers, neighbors, and fellow citizens -- and make the ask that moves people to action. Freedom to Marry Week is held every year, right around President Lincoln's Birthday and Valentine's Day, and Freedom to Marry provides tools and ideas (PDF) to help everyone find a way to connect and make a difference.

Much as we want people to understand that the words gay and marriage do belong together, we don't want "gay marriage." It's the freedom to marry that matters - for all of us - and the way to secure it is by talking to others. And it's the personal ask - each one of us raising our voice and not just assuming that those around us are there, or can't get there - that makes all the difference. Turn to the people in your life now, and say, "Happy Freedom to Marry Week!"

Marriage Equality NY celebrates 10 years

EDGE New York City :: News :: Local

Marriage Equality New York celebrates 10 years
by Michael K. Lavers
EDGE Mid-Atlantic Regional Editor
Wednesday Feb 13, 2008



MENY members have set their sites on pushing a marriage bill through the state Senate in 2009.
As activists continue their push for marriage for same-sex couples in the Empire State, lesbian comedienne Julie Goodman and the Gender Offenders joined more than 60 activists, politicos and others who celebrated Marriage Equality New York’s 10th anniversary at Bamboo 52 in Hell’s Kitchen on Feb. 11.

MENY executive director Cathy Marino-Thomas praised the progress she feels her organization has made over the last decade.

"It’s been a long, hard road but we’re starting to see the fruit of our labors," she told EDGE New York. "When we started, nobody was talking about marriage for gender neutral families. Now everybody’s talking about it."

Former MENY board member Michael Sabatino agreed. He and his partner of nearly 30 years, Robert Voorheis, were married in Canada in 2003 shortly after the country extended marriage to gays and lesbians. Sabatino said he feels MENY has succeeded in keeping marriage for same-sex couples in the forefront.

"This grassroots organization kept everything focused," he said. "It is not going to stop until we reach our goal."

Connie Ress, James Loney and Jesús Lebrón co-founded MENY in 1998 - then President Bill Clinton had signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law two years earlier and many activists in New York and elsewhere remains somewhat skeptical the issue could gain any traction.

Since MENY’s inception, however, marriage for same-sex couples has emerged as a dominant issue for a number of organizations in New York and across the country. Openly gay state Sen. Tom Duane [D-Chelsea] first introduced a bill in the Senate to extend marriage to gay and lesbian New Yorkers in 2001. Assemblyman Dick Gottfried [D-Chelsea] followed suit in the Assembly in 2002.

Governor Eliot Spitzer introduced the bill last April and the Democratic-controlled Assembly passed it by an 85 to 61 vote. The Senate, led by Majority Leader Joseph Bruno [R-Saratoga Springs], successfully blocked the bill a few weeks later.

In addition to legislative developments, various courts have ruled on the issue. State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan found New York’s effective ban on marriage for same-sex couples violated the state Constitution in a Feb. 2005. The New York State Court of Appeals upheld the ban on marriage for same-sex couples in a July 2006 ruling but an appellate court in Rochester ruled earlier this month the state should recognize marriages of same-sex couples legally performed in Canada.

Loney said he remains proud of his role in co-founding MENY. He added the current debate in Albany and in the state’s courts have proven initial naysayers wrong.

"We, as founders, feel everyone is a suffragette," Loney said. "We’re telling the world we’re here and we’re not going anywhere."

Marino-Thomas added she and other MENY members and supporters will continue their efforts to secure passage of a marriage bill in the Senate next year. She predicted same-sex couples will soon be able to marry in the Empire State.

"In 10 years, I want to see MENY disbanded," Marino-Thomas said. "In 10 years, I don’t want there to be a need for MENY because we will be married."

Michael K. Lavers is the Mid-Atlantic editor for EDGE Publications. His blog Boy in Bushwick can be found at www.boyinbushwick.blogspot.com

A Hopeful Precedent

GayCityNews - A Hopeful Precedent


By: PAUL SCHINDLER
02/07/2008
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendlyWith an appellate court ruling in hand, gay and lesbian couples statewide legally married in other jurisdictions can have their unions recognized by New York State - that is so long as another appellate court or the state's highest, the Court of Appeals, does not come to a different conclusion.


"This is a victory for families, it's a victory for fairness, and it's a victory for human rights," said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, in a written statement. Jeffrey Wicks, the attorney who prevailed on behalf of a married lesbian couple against Monroe Community College in Rochester, was an NYCLU cooperating attorney.

According to Susan Sommer, a staff attorney at Lambda Legal, four other similar cases are making their way through New York courts, with the potential to confirm or challenge the Rochester result.

Duke Funderburke's 2006 challenge to the Long Island school system that denied spousal health coverage to his husband, whom he married in Canada in 2004 after more than 40 years together, was recently heard by the 2nd Appellate Department in Brooklyn. The retiree lost at trial, and since then the state Department of Civil Service, which provides a health plan for 800 local government bodies, ordered them all to recognize same-sex spouses, and Funderburke received a settlement as well. But Lambda is seeking to have the original bad ruling vacated or reversed.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a right-wing, anti-gay litigation group, has filed three lawsuits against same-sex marriage recognition-against the Westchester County executive, the state comptroller's office, and the state Civil Service Department. Both Westchester County and the comptroller's office won at the trial level. Briefs have been filed in the 2nd Department on Alliance's appeal of the Westchester ruling, but arguments have not yet been heard, and the group has also served notice that it will appeal the comptroller's victory in the 3rd Department in Albany.

Alliance has also filed suit upstate against the Civil Service change announced in the midst of the Funderburke case.

The state attorney general's office has filed amicus briefs or briefs on behalf of the affected state agencies in each case, arguing that same-sex marriages legally entered into elsewhere should be recognized by New York.

The principle affording recognition to out-of-state marriage, however, has not been held by New York appellate courts to offer spousal rights to civil union partners from other states.

Couple asks court to overturn gay marriage ban

The Denver Post - Couple asks court to overturn gay marriage ban


Couple asks court to overturn gay marriage ban
By The Denver Post

Article Last Updated: 02/11/2008 05:54:47 PM MST


A lesbian couple who were charged last year when they staged a sit-in protest after being denied a marriage license have filed a motion asking the court to throw out Colorado's constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Kate Burns and Sheila Schroeder of Englewood contend the ban violates their federal and Colorado constitutional rights.

Burns said the ban, known as Amendment 43 that was approved by voters in 2006, "deprives certain Coloradans of their right to equal protection under the law, and improperly blurs the line between church and state."

The two women were cited for trespassing for their protest in the Denver clerk's office. Trial is set for Feb. 13.

Ariz. Leaders Mull Gay Marriage Ban Anew - Topix

Ariz. Leaders Mull Gay Marriage Ban Anew - Topix

by Paul Davenport
Associated Press
Tuesday Feb 12, 2008

Republican lawmakers on Monday proposed asking voters in November to amend the Arizona Constitution to ban same-sex marriage in the state, which was the first to turn down such a measure.

The proposal was backed by 16 of 30 state senators, and an identical proposal was introduced in the House. Both chambers would have to approve the measure in a vote for it to be included on the ballot.

Under the amendment, "only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.’’ The proposal comes after Arizona voters narrowly rejected a similar measure in November 2006.

The previous measure included the same definition but also contained wording that was interpreted as prohibiting government recognition of civil unions or domestic partnerships. Seven other states approved amendments that day.

Opponents of the 2006 measure in Arizona focused much of their campaign on the additional wording’s reach. A leading backer of both measures said the new one should be considered a "consensus measure’’ because it is intended solely to bar recognition of same-sex marriage.

"This amendment is about bringing Arizonans together on an issue enjoying widespread agreement _ that marriage is a union of one man and one woman,’’ said Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, an advocacy group for social conservatives.

Arizona already has a state law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. That law withstood a 2003 court challenge, but supporters of an amendment said changing the Constitution would provide a strong legal shield.

State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, a Phoenix Democrat who led the opposition campaign to the 2006 measure, said she opposes the new proposal.

"I don’t think it’s needed. I don’t think it’s necessary,’’ she said. "We’ve already had this fight a couple of times.’’

The ballot measure proposal comes as a state commission prepares to review rule changes proposed by the administration of Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano that would provide health care and other employee benefits to the domestic partners of state government employees and retirees, no matter their gender.