GLAD, ACLU File Lawsuits Challenging DOMA

Suzanne & Geraldine Ardis are married and
raising three boys in Clinton, CT.

Interesting news on the civil rights front. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) arefiling lawsuits today challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on behalf of same-sex married couples from New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut and New York.

The New York Times reports in ("Gay Couples To Sue U.S. Over Marriage Law"):

The two new lawsuits, which involve plaintiffs from New York, Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire, expand the attack geographically and also encompass more of the 1,138 federal laws and regulations that the Defense of Marriage Act potentially affects — including the insurance costs amounting to several hundred dollars a month in the case of Ms. Pedersen and Ms. Meitzen, and a $350,0000 estate tax payment in the A.C.L.U. case.

The civil liberties union filed suit on behalf of Edith S. Windsor, whose spouse, Thea C. Spyer, died last year of aortic stenosis. The two women, New Yorkers who had been together for 44 years, married in Toronto in 2007. New York officially recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states. Had the two been man and wife, there would have been no federal estate tax to pay.

“It’s just so unfair,” said Ms. Windsor, who is 81.

Taken together, said Mary Bonauto, the director of the Civil Rights Project for the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the cases show same-sex couples “are falling through the safety net other people count on.”

Traditionally, Ms. Bonauto noted, the federal government has left the definition of marriage to the states. “The federal government has respected those determinations, except in the instance of gay and lesbian couples marrying,” she said. The result, she said, is a violation of constitutional guarantees of equal protection.

GLAD does not play. Many people expect them to win their other lawsuit challenging DOMA, Gill v. OPM,  which is currently before the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals with GLAD winning at the circuit court level. That lawsuit was on behalf of same-sex couples who have been married in Massachusetts for at least 5 years.

State Of Same-Sex Couple Recognition in U.S.

hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Now There Are 5 States With Gay Marriage

In New Hampshire, same-sex couples can now get married. There are now five states, New Hampshire, Vermont, Iowa, Connecticut and Massachusetts, where marriage equality is the law of the land. The District of Columbia is likely to join them in a few weeks, and there's an outside chance that New Jersey may enact marriage equality, too, but it must happen before January 19th and a new Republican Governor is inaugurated.

Other than that, in 2010 most of the action in LGBT rights will be happening at the federal level.

From the New York Times coverage of New Hampshire marriage equality, this excerpt stood out for me:

The marriage law grants no new rights to gays, who two years ago won the right to civil unions, but it eliminates the separate status so both heterosexual and homosexual couples will be considered married.

Democratic Gov. John Lynch, who personally opposes gay marriage, signed the legislation after lawmakers passed key language affirming religious rights. The law spells out that churches and religious groups can't be forced to officiate at gay marriages or provide other services.

Through late December, 40 gay couples had applied for marriage licenses valid for 90 days, said Stephen Wurtz, acting director of the state division of vital records. In 2009, 188 civil unions were performed with eight licenses still outstanding. Forty-two civil unions have been dissolved, though some were performed in Vermont. In 2008, 621 civil unions were performed.

Some couples -- like Burr, 51, and Blair, 46 -- plan to wed quickly. A few may gather at the Statehouse to ring in the New Year by exchanging vows in a general celebration. Others want to wait to honor non-legally binding commitment anniversaries from years past.

[...]

Burr and Blair said New Hampshire's marriage law, while important, does not grant them full equality.

''We're halfway there,'' Blair said. ''We got the state rights. We had civil unions. Now we have marriage. But until we get full equal rights under the federal law, we'll never be there. We'll never be truly equal.''

Look at the small numbers involved--in what way can someone else's marriage affect yours? There are still an estimated 18,000 legally married same-sex couples in California (I am in one of them), which is more gay marriages than any other state. If the argument by heterosexual supremacists is true, please explain what impact all these couples have on marriages around the country?

BREAKING NEWS: Governator Signs Marriage Bill SB 54

This is huge news. The Governor, after twice vetoing marriage equality bills in 2005 and 2007 has signed Mark Leno's SB 54 into law.

From Equality California's press release:

The Marriage Recognition and Family Protection Act, also signed today, holds that same-sex couples married before the passage of Proposition 8 must be recognized as married spouses in California, regardless of whether they married in California or in another state or nation. In addition, the new statute also confirms that same-sex couples married outside of California after November 5, 2008, must be given all of the rights, protections and responsibilities of married spouses under California law, with the sole exception of the designation of "marriage."

"We are grateful that the Governor has signed this critical bill, which provides much needed protections for same-sex couples who have legally married out of state, or will in the future, and who deserve to be treated like any other married couple," Kors said. "This bill will allow same-sex couples to get married in other states and countries and ensure they are treated equally under the law when they return to California. Ultimately, however, restoring the freedom to marry is the only way to ensure that all Californians receive the dignity and respect that comes with marriage."

"When California offered marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2008, spouses who were already married in another state or country were prohibited from re-marrying in California," said Senator Leno. "Now those couples and their families are in limbo because their rights and protections under law are not clear. This new law will ensure that same-sex couples are protected by existing California law that recognizes all marriages equally, regardless of where they are performed."

The heterosexual supremacists are going to lose their **** over this one.

VIDEO: Another Maine No on 1 / Maine Equality Ad

I'm not a fan of this ad. I think it is reasonable to attempt to convince voters who are opposed to gay marriage but also embrace a "live and let live" philosophy to vote no on Question 1. I think it is important to point out to such voters that same-sex marriage will have no impact on their lives, which bolsters their laissez-faire attitudes on this issue.

The ad I want to see is one in which people from states where marriage has been legal for awhile, like Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont tell the camera what impact same-sex marriage has had on their lives. In Iowa, we know 92% of respondents said it had no impact on their lives.

Bill To Repeal DOMA Introduced

Yesterday, U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and more than ninety other congressmembers introduced the Respect for Marriage Act (H.R. 3567) in Washington, D.C. which would repeal 1996's Defense of Marriage Act.

According to The Advocate there are currently 92 Congressmembers who voted for that bill and who are still in Congress now:

Sanford Bishop (D-AL)
Rick Boucher (D-VA)
Corrine Brown (D-FL)
James Clyburn (D-SC)
Jerry Costello (D-IL)
Elijah Cummings (D-MD)
Norman Dicks (D-WA)
John Dingell (D-MI)
Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)
Chet Edwards (D-TX)
Bart Gordon (D-TN)
Gene Green (D-TX)
Tim Holden (D-PA)
Steny Hoyer (D-MD)
Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)
Paul Kanjorski (D-PA)
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
Dale Kildee (D-MI)
Sander Levin (D-MI)
Daniel Lipinski (D-IL)
Alan Mollohan (D-WV)
John Murtha (D-PA)
Richard Neal (D-MA)
James Oberstar (D-MN)
David Obey (D-WI)
Solomon Ortiz (D-TX)
Collin Peterson (D-MN)
Earl Pomeroy (D-ND)
Nick Rahall (D-WV)
Bobby Rush (D-IL)
Ike Skelton (D-MO)
John Spratt (D-SC)
Bart Stupak (D-MI)
John Tanner (D-TN)
Gene Taylor (D-MS)
Peter Visclosky (D-IN)

Spencer Bachus (R-AL)
Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD)
Joe Barton (R-TX)
Brian Bilbray (R-CA)
John Boehner (R-OH)
Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Dave Camp (R-MI)
Michael Castle (R-DE)
Howard Coble (R-NC)
Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL)
David Dreier (R-CA)
John Duncan Jr. (R-TN)
Vernon Ehlers (R-MI)
Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ)
Elton Gallegly (R-CA)
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
Ralph Hall (R-TX)
Doc Hastings (R-WA)
Wally Herger (R-CA)
Pete Hoekstra (R-MI)
Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
Bob Inglis (R-SC)
Sam Johnson (R-TX)
Walter Jones (R-NC)
Pete King (R-NY)
Jack Kingston (R-GA)
Tom Latham (R-IA)
Steven LaTourette (R-OH)
Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
John Linder (R-GA)
Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ)
Frank Lucas (R-OK)
John McHugh (R-NY)
Buck McKeon (R-CA)
John Mica (R-FL)
Sue Myrick (R-NC)
Thomas Petri (R-WI)
George Radanovich (R-CA)
Harold Rogers (R-KY)
Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
Ed Royce (R-CA)
James Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
John Shadegg (R-AZ)
Chris Smith (R-NJ)
Lamar Smith (R-TX)
Mark Souder (R-IN)
Cliff Stearns (R-FL)
Mac Thornberry (R-TX)
Todd Tiahrt (R-KS)
Fred Upton (R-MI)
Zach Wamp (R-TN)
Ed Whitfield (R-KY)
Frank Wolf (R-VA)
Don Young (R-AK)

There are at least 5 members of the Congressional Black Caucus who voted for DOMA who are still in Congress. Let's hope that now that there are legally married same-sex couples in California, Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut and Vermont these elected officials will see the error of their ways and support Rep. Nadler's bill to correct their mistake from 13 years ago.

President Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA into law, is one of several former supports of the bill who now support H.R. 3567 and said so in a statement released yesterday.

“Throughout my life I have opposed discrimination of any kind,” Clinton said, according to Nadler. “When the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, gay couples could not marry anywhere in the United States or the world for that matter. Thirteen years later, the fabric of our country has changed, and so should this policy."

Vermont Same Sex Marriages Start Today!

Same-sex marriages begin tomorrow in Vermont, the fifth state in the Union to allow them, after Massachusetts (May 17, 2004), California (June 16, 2008), Connecticut (November 13, 2008), and Iowa (April 27, 2009). Due to California's Proposition 8, as of September 1, 2009 there will only be four states where same-sex couples CAN get legally married.

Depending on the disposition of Question 1 in Maine's special election on Tuesday November 3, starting January 1, 2010 there will be either five or six states where same-sex couples can get married, since New Hampshire's marriage equality law goes into effect on that date and whether Maine still has marriage equality will depend on the results of the November election.

And Franken Makes 60...

Al Franken was officially declared the winner of the November 2008 Minnesota Senate race on Tuesday by 312 votes, after that state's supreme court unanimously rejected Norm Coleman's lawsuit.

The win means that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will now have the votes of 60 people caucusing with the Democrats, although this includes two independents (Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont) as well as Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

Since it takes 60 votes to end debate and proceed to a majority vote in the 100-member Senate, many Democrats are celebrating Franken's win of the Minnesota seat after a long 8 months. However, the Democrats have had 59 votes since January and still they have not been able to pass truly progressive legislation.

It can't hurt the attempt to pass LGBT legislation, but I think the significance of the "60 vote barrier" has been overstated.

Census Announces It Will Count Same-Sex Married Couples

Great news about the 2010 Census! Following up on Wednesday's badly received announcement that the Obama administration was directing all federal agencies to include same-sex domestic partners in previously optional employment benefits like relocation reimbursement, the Bureau of the Census has announced that they will include same-sex married couples in the 2010 count of all Americans.

This is big news, and an exciting day for academics and my friends at the Williams Institute at UCLA Law School.

The New York Times reported:

Steve Jost, a spokesman for the Census Bureau, said same-sex couples would be counted, “and they ought to report the way they see themselves,” adding, “In the normal process of reports coming out after the census of 2010, I think the country will have a good data set on which to discuss this phenomenon that is evolving in this country.”

Same-sex couples could not be married in the United States during the last decennial count. But last year, after two states had approved same-sex marriages, the bureau said those legal marriages would go uncounted because the federal Defense of Marriage Act prevented the government from recognizing them.

Interestingly, by the time the Census gets underway in March 2010, there will exist married same-sex couples in at least 7 states, and possibly 9. Right now, there are legally married gay and lesbian couples in Massachusetts, California, Connecticut and Iowa with Vermont and Maine having laws that go into effect in September 2009 and New Hampshire has a law that goes into effect January 1, 2010. The legislative battles over legal same-sex marriage in New Jersey and New York may have been resolved by then as well.

Rea Carey, executive director of The Task Force sent around a list of Frequently Asked Questions:

Why should I care about the Census?

The U.S. Census creates an essential portrait of our nation, every ten years. This data is used to determine the appropriate number of seats in the House of Representatives. It provides key population numbers for Congress and the Administration to determine how federal dollars flow to the states and the data is used by researchers, advocates and policy makers to develop reports, social service programs, and make critical policy decisions. Accordingly, the Census has a big impact on the political power and economic security of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people.

Since 1990, when the Census added the “unmarried partner” designation on its form, people in same-sex relationships have provided the first visible record of our partnerships in the history of our nation. This data has been very important in countering misconceptions about the LGBT community. For instance, the 2000 Census showed that same-sex couples live in nearly every county in the nation, and that Black and Latino same-sex couples are raising children at nearly the rates of their heterosexual peers, while earning lower incomes.

Is there a sexual orientation or gender identity question on the 2010 Census?

No. Two Reasons:

(1) Questions on the Census take years to advocate for, and must be funded by the passage of legislation through Congress. We are just emerging from the anti-LGBT years of the Bush administration, when this was impossible.

(2) There are only 5 questions on the 2010 Census. They are big, general questions that give over-arching demographic information about every single household in the U.S. They pertain to:

Age

Sex

Race/Ethnicity

Relationship

Tenure (rent/own your home)

While we cannot as individual LGBT people make our sexual orientation or gender identity visible on the 2010 Census form, those of us who are partnered can check the “unmarried partner” box, and those couples that have legally married can check the “husband or wife” box.

A note for bi/multi-racial couples: It is not widely known that the race of the household member who fills out the Census form determines the racial designation of a family in one of the Census’ major statistical tables. Given that people of color are often undercounted by the Census, couples or families may want to consider having a person of color identify as household member #1 when filling out the form for a family.

How do I know that the government won’t use this information to target me or my family for discrimination?

The Census must ensure absolute confidentiality of these records in order to carry out its monumental task every ten years. There is no record of any LGBT individual or family being persecuted for checking the “unmarried partner” box.

Another interesting thought experiment is how many states do you think will have gay marriage in 2020? Ten? Twenty? All 50 (51)?

DC Council Passes Bill Recognizing Gay Marriages

The Washington D.C. City Council voted unanimously (and then voted again with only Marion Barry opposed) to recognize gay marriages from other jurisdictions where it is legal.

This means that U.S. couples married in California (between June and November 2008) Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont (after September 1, 2009) will have their relationships recognized if they move to the District of Columbia.

Same-sex couples Getting Married in Iowa Today

Today is the day that Iowa's historic (and unanimous) Varnum v. Brien decision goes into effect and same-sex couples will be allowed to start getting married.

Iowa joins Massachusetts (May 17, 2004), California (June 15, 2008) and Connecticut (November 13, 2008). California's marriages were suspended after the passage of Proposition 8 on November 4, 2008. Vermont will start allowing same-sex couples to get married on September 1, 2009.

CT Legislature Passes Bill Codifying Marriage Ruling

Joe.My.God is reporting that the state legislature of Connecticut has completed action on a bill to codify that state's landmark Kerrigan ruling that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage by the availability of civil unions was unconstitutional. Republican governor Jodi Rell has said that she will sign the bill once it reaches her desk.

Interestingly, the bill that was passed in Connecticut Wednesday night was similar to a bill enacted by the Vermont legislature a mere two weeks ago by overriding the veto of that state's Republican governor Jim Douglas.

According to The Day:

”Public opinion has rapidly surpassed the position that many legislators hold,” said Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, the co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee and an architect of the codification bill. “There's no doubt that the vast majority of Connecticut citizens are more than comfortable with equal rights for same-sex couples, and it doesn't undermine their lives.”

And even some of the fiercest opponents of the marriage bill were expressing satisfaction with the exemptions it carves out for churches and religious groups, like the Knights of Columbus and Catholic Charities, which sought to preserve the right to refuse to serve gay couples hoping to reserve wedding facilities or to arrange adoptions.

[...]

Religious groups warned that the bill would infringe on religious freedom and did win a late bipartisan compromise, as sponsors agreed to modify the proposal to more explicitly exempt church-affiliated groups from some provisions. The language closely mirrors that in a bill recently passed in Vermont, overriding a gubernatorial veto to legalize same-sex marriage in that state. The language expressly permits churches and related organizations - including church-owned venues and adoption agencies - to continue to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation as long as the specific services that discriminate do not receive funding from the state or federal government.

When raving homophobe Maggie Gallagher from the National Organization for Marriage debated Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese on CNN after the Vermont bill was enacted and the hilarious NOM-sponsored "Gathering Storm" ad was released she tried to get Solmonese to agree to support the "religious exemption provisions in the Vermont statute" and he demurred.

I was initially suspicious of these "religious exemption" but if they really just apply to specific services that do not receive state or federal funding then I am probably okay with that.

The problem is that the opponents of marriage equality often try to blur the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage (Dennis Prager appeared on CNN earlier this week and did exactly that while debating Perez Hilton), going as far to say insane things like if gay marriage passes preachers will be forced to marry gay people in their churches and other nonsense.

As Maine and New Hampshire continue their legislative debates of marriage bills it should be interesting to see where they land on this religious exemption question.

NYT Op-Ed: Make NY The Next Gay Marriage State

For the second time in a week, the New York Times has editorialized in favor of passing legislation ending same-sex couples exclusion from marriage in New York State:

A Mission for Gov. Paterson

Gay men and lesbians across the country have had plenty to celebrate in recent days. Last week, the Iowa Supreme Court granted same-sex couples the right to marry. Days later, the Vermont Legislature agreed that that state should sanction same-sex marriage. Now, Gov. David Paterson of New York has restated his promise to push for this decent and important change in the marriage laws of New York State.

This is a basic civil right that has been denied to New York’s gay residents for too long. Many have been forced to go to Connecticut or Massachusetts for an official marriage certificate. If that is not enough of an argument for Mr. Paterson, it could also give him a much-needed political, as well as moral, win. The governor’s poll numbers are at historic lows, in part because people worry that he does not have enough discipline and backbone to succeed at Albany’s tough politics.

Mr. Paterson seemed to back into the subject of same-sex marriage, at first. Instead of a major news conference, which would have been fully justified given the importance of the moment, he mentioned his decision on a radio show as he was touring the state handing out stimulus money. He did, however, restate his view the next day while making it clear that it was time for his fellow Democrats in the State Senate to stop stalling and to prepare to put the issue to the floor — to be debated and then voted up or down.

This is a radical idea in Albany where a bill rarely gets to the floor unless its passage is assured. As Mr. Paterson noted in Rochester this week: “It’s like professional wrestling. You know who’s going to win before the match starts.” For that reason, some gay-rights advocates have expressed alarm about letting such an important bill get to the Senate floor before being assured that it would pass. They should take heart from what happened in 2007 when the Assembly did exactly that.

The same-sex marriage bill went to the Assembly floor that June with few predictions that it would pass. That brought out members, the press and staff members to watch one of the best and most pointed debates in recent memory. At one point, Assemblywoman Teresa Sayward, a Republican and devout Catholic from upstate, spoke of how she and her son had struggled with his identity as a gay man and how she had finally told him to be who he is, not who people wanted him to be.

Her story helped carry the vote, 85-to-61. This year, the Assembly is expected to pass a same-sex marriage bill by an even wider margin.

So far, Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, who also supports same-sex marriage, has not warmed to the idea of a free debate and open vote on the issue. He needs all 32 Democratic votes and one Democrat — Senator Rubén Díaz Sr. of the Bronx — openly opposes the bill. But there are undoubtedly some Republicans who would favor such progress for the state. Mr. Smith’s spokesman has dismissed the idea of an open vote as “empty rhetoric.”

That is alarmingly backward. Mr. Paterson and Mr. Smith could both enhance their standing by getting this bill to the Senate floor and by encouraging a full public debate that should make New York the next state to legalize same-sex marriage.

I completely agree that one does not always have to wait until passage of legislation is assured before having the legislative vote and debate. That is the clear sign of a dysfunctional system.

Now There Are 3: Iowa Court Unanimously Rules For Marriage

The blogosphere is all a-Twitter with the news that the Iowa Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that the state's marriage laws are unconstitutional!

Pam Spaulding has the full text of the decision in Varnum v. Brien, which will go into effect on Friday April 24.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert B. Hanson, Judge.

Defendant appeals from district court summary judgment ruling holding state statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman unconstitutional. AFFIRMED.

Roger J. Kuhle and Michael B. O'Meara, Assistant County Attorneys, for appellant.

Dennis W. Johnson of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Des Moines, and Camilla B. Taylor and Kenneth D. Upton, Jr. of Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, for appellees.

...CADY, Justice.

In this case, we must decide if our state statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the Iowa Constitution, as the district court ruled. On our review, we hold the Iowa marriage statute violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the district court.

[...]

The plaintiffs produced evidence to demonstrate sexual orientation and gender have no effect on children raised by same-sex couples, and same-sex couples can raise children as well as opposite-sex couples. They also submitted evidence to show that most scientific research has repudiated the commonly assumed notion that children need opposite-sex parents or biological parents to grow into well-adjusted adults. Many leading organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, and the Child Welfare League of America, weighed the available research and supported the conclusion that gay and lesbian parents are as effective as heterosexual parents in raising children.

[...]

When individuals invoke the Iowa Constitution's guarantees of freedom and equality, courts are bound to interpret those guarantees. In carrying out this fundamental and vital role, "we must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding." M'Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 407, 4 L. Ed. 579, 602 (1819). It speaks with principle, as we, in turn, must also. See State v. Wheeler, 34 P.3d 799, 807 (Wash. 2001) (Sanders, J., dissenting).

Let's hope that Chief Justice Ronald George doesn't want to be seen as head of a court less progressive than Iowa's! The California Supreme Court is still considering it's decision on whether Proposition 8 is an unconstitutional revision of the Califirnia constitution.

It is very clear now where the historical trend on same-sex marriage is going. Last night the 150 member State House of Representatives of Vermont voted 95-52 (5 votes shy of a veto-proof majority) to approve a marriage equality bill that had passed the State Senate 26-4. As Evan Wolfson wrote recently, which side of history do you want to be on?

Never before has the Court allowed a fundamental right to be voted away from a targeted minority. Never before has the Court taken the invitation of a lawyer, such as Prop 8's Ken Starr, to set a precedent that, as Starr repeatedly conceded, would put no state constitutional limitation on a future majority's ability to vote away protections against race or sex discrimination or cherished freedoms such as speech, worship, or, yes, the freedom to marry — the "essence" of which, the California Supreme Court explained in 1948 when it became the first court in the U.S. with the courage to strike down race restrictions on marriage, is the right "to join in marriage with the person of one's choice," the person who to you may be "irreplaceable." Imagine what California and our country would look like today had that court flinched in the face of the 90% disapproval of the then-majority. Imagine what the Constitution would look like if a mere majority could always cement inequality or a selective denial of fundamental rights into it, without even the procedural protection of the deliberative revision process the people themselves set forth.

[...]

At various civil rights moments in American history, the courts' vital role in enforcing equal protection, and judges themselves, have come under tremendous pressure. Recall, for instance, the "Impeach Earl Warren" billboards following Brown v. Board of Education, the vitriol against the California Supreme Court when it had to strike down a 1964 constitutional change that undermined protections against race-discrimination, and the Rovian campaign of intimidation waged against so-called "activist judges" these past 8 Bush years. Its shining moment in standing up against such intimidation, in addition to its right result on marriage and equal citizenship for lesbian and gay Americans, was why I and millions cheered the Court's courage and clarity in 2008. In Marriage Cases, we saw a court do its job, and do it right.

Unlike right-wing opponents of equality, who denounce and seek to punish courts for doing their job, I criticize only when they flinch or fail to do it. If the Court, and if this Chief Justice, vote to uphold Prop 8's damaging blow to American constitutional principles, it will be a terrible mistake, failing their obligation under and to the California Constitution. If in so doing, they compound that mistake by selling short, or sidling away from, the truths set forth so powerfully in Chief Justice George's 2008 ruling — the fundamental nature of the freedom to marry, the way in which exclusion from marriage itself denies equality and imposes the stigma of second-class citizenship — they will do a powerful disservice to the people, to the Constitution, and to history, which for the moment still ranks them alongside the judges who struck down race discrimination and the subordination of women in marriage in the face of the passions of the moment, and were vindicated. Failure of judgment and duty now will tarnish their own legacy, wreak real harm on gay people and their loved ones, and shatter the faith of millions in the courts and their legitimate and crucial role in our constitutional system.

Please don't divorce us!

NYT Op-Ed Calls For "Gay Marriage Compromise"

Today's New York Times carries an op-ed written by Jonathan Rauch and David Blankenhorn which proposes a compromise on gay marriage:

Whatever our disagreements on the merits of gay marriage, we agree on two facts. First, most gay and lesbian Americans feel they need and deserve the perquisites and protections that accompany legal marriage. Second, many Americans of faith and many religious organizations have strong objections to same-sex unions. Neither of those realities is likely to change any time soon.

Further sharpening the conflict is the potential interaction of same-sex marriage with antidiscrimination laws. The First Amendment may make it unlikely that a church, say, would ever be coerced by law into performing same-sex wedding rites in its sanctuary. But religious organizations are also involved in many activities outside the sanctuary. What if a church auxiliary or charity is told it must grant spousal benefits to a secretary who marries her same-sex partner or else face legal penalties for discrimination based on sexual orientation or marital status? What if a faith-based nonprofit is told it will lose its tax-exempt status if it refuses to allow a same-sex wedding on its property?

[...]

Gay couples have concerns of their own. Most, of course, want the right to marry, and nothing less. But federal recognition of same-sex marriage — leave aside what you think about the merits — is not likely in the near future. The federal Defense of Marriage Act forbids it. Barack Obama and most other Democratic presidential candidates opposed gay marriage. And most Americans continue to oppose it.

At the same time, federal law links many important perquisites to marital status, including Social Security survivor benefits, tax-free inheritance, spousal immigration rights and protections against mutual incrimination. All of these benefits are currently denied to same-sex couples, even those living in states that permit same-sex marriage or civil unions. But these same benefits could be conferred by federally recognized civil unions.

Jonathan Rauch is openly gay and a supporter of same-sex marriage, although a relatively conservative one. He first came to my attention over a decade ago for his opposition to hate crimes laws and his support for marriage equality primarily due to its "civilizing impact" on potentially promiscuous homosexuals, especially gay men. David Blankenhorn is the founder and head of the Institute for American Values (for which he makes over a quarter-million dollars a year, primarily from ultra-conservative Republican financial sources) who posed as a "liberal Democrat" in a controversial Los Angeles Times op-ed that opposed marriage equality during last year's Proposition 8 battle.

What the Blankenhorn-Rauch compromise proposes is federal recognition of same-sex relationships (including already legal CT and MA marriages and civil unions/domestic partnerships in states like CA, OR, WA, NJ, VT, ME as well as DC) in exchange for stronger religious exemptions in state discrimination laws that will be preempted by this proposed federal legislation.

My first response to this proposal was to scream "bullsh*t" but then someone pointed out to me that is not really about how religions deal with civil marriage but about how religious institutions accomodate (or are accomodated by) anti-discrimination laws.

I actually might go along with this "compromise" if they throw in very strong federal anti-discrimination language based on sexual orientation and gender identity in areas of credit, education, public accomodations, housing and employment.

However, from Utah, we know how well the other side treats a "middle of the road" (common ground) initiative, so I doubt anyone else will go for this "compromise," even the Obama administration.

In the end (as usual) Rauch's piece will go to support the arguments by the opponents of LGBT people, in this case it bolsters their argument that marriage for same-sex couples infringes on their religious liberties.

Pam Spaulding has a similar view.

Marriage Equality To Begin Nov 10 in Connecticut

Joe.My.God has the details of the date which the Connecticut marriage case Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health will go into effect: Monday November 10.

The Hartford Courant report from Tuesday October 28

Figuring out the wording on marriage licenses is just one of many details state and local officials, attorneys, justices of the peace, clergy and others are sorting through as same-sex couples across the state prepare for their weddings — which could come as soon as early next month.

[...]

The parties in the case now have 10 days to file motions asking the justices to reconsider their decision. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who defended the state in the Kerrigan case, said Monday that he does not expect any of the parties to ask for reconsideration.

It will then be up to the Superior Court to issue the orders to town clerks and public health departments that give them the go-ahead to distribute marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

[Bennet] Klein [an attorney with Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders or GLAD] said once the new marriage licenses are in place, same-sex couples could start marrying by Nov. 10.

Congratulations to Connecticut! Now, I hope everyone who agrees with that decision will do more than hope that marriage will be available to same-sex couples in California by donating or v0lunteering to defeat Proposition 8!

CT Supreme Court Rules IN FAVOR of Marriage Equality

The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled in Kerrigan et al v. Commissioner of Public Health et al that Connecticut's statutory civil unions are not the same as marriage.

An excerpt:

Even though the right to marry is not enumerated in
our constitution, it long has been deemed a basic civil
right. E.g., Loving v. Virginia, supra, 388 U.S. 12
(‘‘[m]arriage is one the basic civil rights of man’’ [internal
quotation marks omitted]); Skinner v. Oklahoma
ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S. Ct. 1110, 86
L. Ed. 1655 (1942) (same). Although we traditionally
have viewed that right as limited to a union between a
man and a woman, ‘‘if we have learned anything from
the significant evolution in the prevailing societal views
and official policies toward members of minority races
and toward women over the past half-century, it is that
even the most familiar and generally accepted of social
practices and traditions often mask unfairness and
inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated
by those not directly harmed by those practices
or traditions. It is instructive to recall in this regard
that the traditional, well-established legal rules and
practices of our not-so-distant past (1) barred interracial
marriage, (2) upheld the routine exclusion of
women from many occupations and official duties, and
(3) considered the relegation of racial minorities to
separate and assertedly equivalent public facilities and
institutions as constitutionally equal treatment.’’ In re
Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal. 4th 853–54.

Like these once prevalent views, our conventional
understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary
appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional
protection. Interpreting our state constitutional
provisions in accordance with firmly established equal
protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion
that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise
qualified same sex partner of their choice. To decide
otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional
principles to gay persons and another to all others. The guarantee of equal protection under the law, and our obligation to uphold that command, forbids us
from doing so. In accordance with these state constitutional
requirements, same sex couples cannot be denied
the freedom to marry.

And now there are three! (Massachusetts, California and Connecticut.) New York (and New Jersey) will probably happen in 2009.

The U.S. First Openly Gay, Black State Representative

Connecticut State Representative Jason Bartlett became the nation's first openly gay, African American state representative on Tuesday after coming out publicly in an article appearing in the Dansbury News Times.

Pam's House Blend, Joe.My.God and other blogs covered the story and the National Black Justice Coalition has an exclusive interview with the nation's most prominent Black and openly gay elected official on its website.

Bartlett was elected in 2006 on his third run for public office and has endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. He is 41 years old and has two sons, 19 and 21.