Amendment To Ban Marriage, Civil Unions and DPs In Iowa Introduced

Despite recent poll results showing only one-third of voters nationally support no legal recognition for same-sex couples, Republicans in Iowa have introduced a measure which would not only overturn marriage equality in that state (which has been in effect since April 2009) but also prevent any state legal recognition of same-sex couples whatsoever.

One Iowa is the group defending equal marriage rights for all Iowans. They distributed a press release:

DES MOINES – An amendment that seeks to exclude gay couples from marriage was introduced in the Iowa Statehouse today. The bill (House Joint Resolution 6) seeks to amend the Iowa Constitution to exclude gay and lesbian couples from the freedom to marry. If passed through the legislature in two consecutive General Assemblies, the issue could be on the ballot as soon as 2013.

“Amending the Iowa Constitution to exclude gay couples will harm thousands of Iowa families,” said One Iowa Executive Director Carolyn Jenison. “Marriage says ‘we’re a family’ like nothing else and is an important way we care for those we love. Writing discrimination into the Constitution will only divide us at a time when we need to work together to tackle common concerns. Iowans expect their elected officials to focus on issues that matter to everyone, like creating jobs, providing educational opportunities, and improving healthcare. Going backward on equal rights sends the wrong message.”

HJR6 goes beyond marriage, and would ban civil unions, domestic partnerships, and any other legal recognition of same-sex couples.

“This bill intends to forever strip basic protections from loving and committed gay couples,” Jenison said. “It goes against Iowa’s cherished tradition of protecting equal rights for all. Now is the time for Iowans to come together and send a clear message to their legislators that discrimination has no place in Iowa’s Constitution. Our legislators should continue to uphold Iowa’s long-held value of equal rights for all.”

One Iowa is the state’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) advocacy organization, committed to full equality for LGBT individuals, including the freedom to marry.

# # #

Maryland Likely To Legalize Marriage Equality

Maryland is starting to garner mainstream attention as the next state which marriage equality advocates are predicting will be the one to enact a law ending discrimination.

Maryland is poised to become the sixth state to recognize same-sex marriage as proponents say they believe they have enough support to pass such a measure in the upcoming legislative session.

The expansion of gay rights appears to have gained significant traction as Maryland's General Assembly begins its 90-day session Wednesday. Not only are Democrats optimistic about their chances of approving same-sex marriage, but a leading Republican, sensing momentum on the issue, has instead countered with a proposal to grant civil unions to gay couples.

Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley has publicly stated that he would sign a marriage bill into law. Maryland then would join Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington, D.C., in sanctioning same-sex marriages.

Interestingly, the top Republican in the State Senate has now proffered a civil unions bill which would provide all the state-sanctioned rights and responsibilities of marriage except for the word marriage and call that relationship a civil union, in response to the momentum for full marriage equality.

"Civil unions would grant the same rights as marriage, but just shift the role of something that is viewed as a religious institution to something more secular," [State Senator Allan] Kittleman said. "I just really believe, it is more the libertarian in me, that government needs to be out of something that is religious. The disagreement we have in society on gay marriage is from the religious aspects of it."

Calling same-sex relationships anything other than marriage is a nonstarter for gay rights advocates.

[...]

Six states -- California, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington -- currently grant same-sex couples all the same rights as marriages, short of the designation. Four other states -- Colorado, Hawaii, Maine and Wisconsin -- offer lesser levels of protections for gay couples.

[...]

Even if same-sex marriage eventually becomes law in Maryland, opponents could collect 55,000 signatures and force a referendum on the subject in 2012.

Equality Maryland and its allies are expecting such a referendum to be held and said they are hopeful that it will be the first time that a same-sex marriage law is approved in a statewide popular vote.

Proposition 8 Take 2 in 2012, perhaps in a state where up to 30% of the population is African-American. Should be interesting. Maryland also has the largest number of openly gay or lesbian elected officials, at least two of whom are also Black.

NH GOP Apparently Delaying Attempt To End Marriage Equality

New Hampshire Republicans, who possess veto-proof majorities in both houses of the legislature, have apparently decided not to attempt to repeal that state's marriage equality law in 2011. The Democratic Governor John Lynch signed a marriage equality bill into law June 3, 2009 which went info effect January 1, 2010. He had vowed to veto any attempt to repeal the measure. In the 2010 election the National Organization for Marriage strongly supported Lynch's opponent and supported Republican state legislative candidates.

The Associated Press reports:

"House Republican Leader D.J. Bettencourt confirmed to The Associated Press on Wednesday that jobs and the economy will be the top priorities on an agenda to be announced Thursday. Bettencourt says there's widespread agreement that social issues will have to take a back seat."

The New Hampshire Freedom To Marry Coalition responded:

“We are pleased again to hear the House majority leader say that gay marriage is not a priority this legislative session. Voters want their legislators to focus on the economy; they did not send people to Concord to rehash marriage equality. But we heard some wiggle room in today’s remarks, leaving the door open to bring up a repeal of marriage equality in the coming weeks. We are continuing our efforts to educate and engage all Granite Staters as planned to show that it’s not the role of government to take away rights from New Hampshire citizens and families.”

Evan Wolfson Easily Wins Marriage Debate at Economist.com

Evan Wolfson has easily won his online debate over marriage equality with the odious Maggie Gallagher over at Economist.com. MadProfessah mentioned the interesting event a few weeks ago. Over 1,000 thoughtful comments were posted from people all over the world, and the results are 63% voted in favor of the motion "This house believes gay marriage should be legal."

The Economist Hosts Online Debate On Marriage

The Economist magazine endorsed marriage equality in 1996, well before any country in the world allowed same-sex couples to possess an identical marital status to heterosexual couples. This week they are hosting an online debate on the proposition "This house believes that gay marriage should be legal" with my friend Evan Wolfson, founder and executive director of Freedom To Marry arguing in favor of the motion and Maggie Gallagher, founder of the National Organization for Marriage, opposed.

The comments are very interesting and there is an online poll (currently vastly in favor of marriage equality).

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Celebrity Friday: VP Biden Says Marriage Is "Inevitable"

Vice President Joe Biden made news this morning on ABC's Good Morning America by declaring that it is "inevitable" that a national consensus on marriage equality will be reached.

Joe.My.God quotes:

“I think the country’s evolving,” he said. “And I think you’re going to see, you know, the next effort is probably going to be to deal with so called DOMA [Defence of Marriage Act].” DOMA prohibits federal government from recognising gay marriage, meaning that even if states allow the practice, gay couples still cannot access federal benefits. Mr Biden added that attitudes had changed to openly gay soldiers and that consensus was beginning to turn in favour of gay marriage. He said that gay troops were now “widely accepted” and “the same thing is happening now in regard to the issue of marriage.”

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.

Gigantic Pew Poll Confirms Public Opinion Shift Towards Marriage Equality

More good news on the polling front for supporters of marriage equality. A new Pew Research poll of nearly 6,000(!) Americans again reveals the extent of the rapidity of the shift in public opinion towards marriage equality.

There are several points to highlight from these results, but the  main ones are:

For the first time in 15 years of Pew Research Center polling, fewer than half oppose same-sex marriage.

[..] 

There are substantial age and generational differences in opinions about same-sex marriage. Millennials, born after 1980, favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally by a 53%-to-39% margin. Support for gay marriage among Millennials has changed little in recent years, but is up from 2004 when opinion was more divided.

Among Gen Xers (born 1965 to 1980), 48% now favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally while 43% are opposed. Support is up from 2009 when 41% favored this and 50% were opposed, but is on par with levels in 2001.

There is less support for same-sex marriage among Baby Boomers -- those born 1946 to 1964 -- than among younger age groups. Currently, 38% favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally while 52% are opposed. Still, support among Baby Boomers has increased over the past year (from 32%).

The Silent Generation (born 1928 to 1945) continues to oppose same-sex marriage; just 29% favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally while 59% are opposed. Even among the Silent Generation, however, there is somewhat more support than in 2009 (23% favor) and substantially greater support than in 2003, when just 17% backed gay marriage.

[...]

Whites are now evenly divided over gay marriage; in polls conducted this year, 44% of non-Hispanic whites favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally and 46% are opposed. In three surveys between August 2008 and August 2009, 39% of non-Hispanic whites favored same-sex marriage compared with 52% who were opposed.

By contrast, blacks continue to oppose same-sex marriage by a wide margin. In 2010, just 30% of non-Hispanic blacks favor gay marriage while 59% are opposed. From 2008 to 2009, 28% of blacks favored same-sex marriage and 62% were opposed.

The sub group breakdowns are summarized in the following table.

Simpsons laugh: Ha-ha! The heterosexual supremacists must be shaking in their boots.

State of the LGBT Movement's Advocacy Organizations

Chris Geidner at Metro Weekly has done the LGBT community a great service by writing the article "State of Play," continuing the great tradition of the Washington Blade in listing and summarizing the staff sizes and annual budgets of the largest or most visible LGBT organizations in the country.

Unfortunately, he only focused only on the organizations which are involved in the fight over "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," not every LGBT organization of national significance like the Washington Blade used to.

The main things to note are the relative sizes of Human Rights Campaign ($37 million, 142 employees), Lambda Legal ($15.6 million, 85 employees) and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force ($8.6 million, 47 employees) which are probably the three largest LGBT advocacy organizations in the country, with the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation either in 3rd or 4th place.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

WATCH: Cynthia Nixon Kicks NOM Butt For Marriage Equality

At the New Yorker festival this weekend there was a panel with the odious Brian Brown of NOM, Cynthia Nixon (Miranda on Sex in the City) along with other notables like Perry v. Schwarzenegger super-lawyer David Boies making the case for and against same-sex marriage.

Nixon demolishes the argument that gay and lesbian couples who want to marry are seeking to "redefine marriage" by saying something like: "When women got the vote, it did not redefine voting. When African-Americans were able to sit at lunch counters and get served it did not redefine eating out. Opening up marriage to same-sex couples will not redefine marriage!"

Watch the video yourself to see what she said exactly.

NYT Analyzes Majority Marriage Equality State Distribution

The New York Times analyzed the latest polls on marriage equality and demonstrated that there are numerous states where marriage equality has support significantly over 50%. The main point of the article is to demonstrate the rapid change in public opinion over time, comparing 1994-1996 (when the Defense of Marriage Act was debated and signed into law) to 2010. This is illustrated in an interactive graphic produced by the Times.

Today, 17 states are over that line (more if you consider the CNN estimate correct that just over 50 percent of the country supports gay marriage).

In 2008, the year Proposition 8 was approved, just under half of Californians supported same-sex marriage,. Today, according to polls, more than half do. A similar shift has occurred in Maine, where same-sex marriage legislation was repealed by ballot measure in 2009.

In both New York and New Jersey, where state legislatures in the past have defeated proposals to allow same-sex marriage, a majority now support it.

And support for same-sex marriage has increased in all states, even in relatively conservative places like Wyoming and Kentucky. Only Utah is still below where national support stood in 1996.

Among the five states that currently allow same-sex marriage, Iowa is the outlier. It is the only one of those states where support falls below half, at 44 percent.

The authors Andrew Gelman, Jeffrey Lax and Justin Phillips are using a statistical technique to interpolate statewide poll results from national surveys.

Freedom To Marry Returns To California...August 18

The Freedom to Marry returns to California...soon. There are multiple (unconfirmed) reports that Judge Vaughn Walker has lifted the stay on his decision striking down Proposition 8.

The official word is now that the judge has indeed ruled that the losers in Perry v. Schwarzenegger are denied a motion for stay but has stayed his own decision in this matter until Wednesday August 18th at 5pm.

Judge Walker's Final Order Lifting Stay on Prop 8 Ruling

538 Claims Marriage Equality Support Accelerating

Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com has analyzed the polling on public support for marriage equality and notes that there appears to be an acceleration in the rate at which support for legal recognition for gay and lesbian couples is increasing.

Something to bear in mind is that it's only been fairly recently that gay rights groups -- and other liberals and libertarians -- shifted toward a strategy of explicitly calling for full equity in marriage rights, rather than finding civil unions to be an acceptable compromise. While there is not necessarily zero risk of backlash resulting from things like court decisions -- support for gay marriage slid backward by a couple of points, albeit temporarily, after a Massachusetts' court's ruling in 2003 that same-sex marriage was required by that state's constitution -- it seems that, in general, "having the debate" is helpful to the gay marriage cause, probably because the secular justifications against it are generally quite weak.

In mathematical terms we we would say that the second derivative (the rate of the rate of increase) is positive, but you can just notice that there is an uptick in the blue graph at the end.

But no matter how you analyze it, it shows that the National Organization for Marriage will be out of business soon. Hurray!

CNN Poll Shows National Majority Supports Marriage Equality

A spanking new CNN poll (released today) shows that a majority of Americans support marriage equality. However, as one can see from the excerpt above, there are slight variations in this "majority" support depending on how the question is asked.

The first question asks "Do you think gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law as valid?" while the second question asks "Do you think gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law as valid?" Notice the support is higher in the second question. It's easier to say yes to something that SHOULD be true, as opposed to the first question which is asking for the respondent's evaluation of current law.

Note this interesting little nugget:

The gap widens dramatically when age is taken into account. Nearly six in ten Americans under the age of 50 say gay rights are protected under the Constitution. Only 38 percent of Americans over the age of 50 say the same thing.

"This is one of the few instances when independents side with one party rather than falling in between the Dems and the GOP," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. "56 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of Independents think the Constitution conveys the right to marry to same-sex couples. Only a quarter of all Republicans agree."

It should also be noted that the support for marriage equality (among the larger sample) is not above the margin of error of the poll.

Oh, and in other horrifying political opinion news, 49% of Americans think that birthright citizenship guaranteed by the 14th Amendment should be repealed (51% oppose it). Oy vey!

ABA Endorses Marriage Equality

The American Bar Association endorsed marriage equality at its national conference today. The ABA passed the following resolution:

"RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges state, territorial, and tribal governments to eliminate all of their legal barriers to civil marriage between two persons of the same sex who are otherwise eligible to marry."

Evan Wolfson of Freedom To Marry noted:

"The American Bar Association, the largest voluntary professional organization in the world, has strongly declared that there is no good reason to continue excluding same sex couples from marriage. With today's resolution, the ABA embraces our nation's promise of liberty and equal protection under the law and signals a growing consensus in America's legal profession that marriage is a fundamental right that belongs to every citizen."

Another big win for marriage equality!

Montana Same-sex Couples Sue State For Recognition

The Montana ACLU sued the state today on behalf of seven same-sex couples to obtain state recognition of their families under the law.

From the press release:

Beause there is a constitutional amendment in Montana barring marriage for same-sex couples, the couples in the lawsuit are seeking the protection of state-recognized domestic partnerships, similar to those in place in several other states.

"Mary Anne and I are part of a family unit, bonded by love and mutual respect and a desire to share in a close relationship that benefits not only us, as partners, but our wider family and the entire community," said Jan Donaldson, a Helena nurse, of her 27-year relationship with her partner, pediatric neurologist Mary Anne Guggenheim. "We depend on one another, in all aspects of our life together. We want to be able to do that with grace and dignity and to feel secure that our relationship will be respected. We want our relationship to be recognized for what it clearly is – a loving commitment of responsibility worthy of security and protection by the state."

Montana law automatically grants married opposite-sex couples safeguards upon which they can depend in times of need. But, under Montana law, it is possible for same-sex couples to be barred from visiting their partners in the hospital and to be left out of conversations about emergency medical care. Montana inheritance laws refuse to recognize same-sex couples, and can leave surviving partners with nothing if their partners die without valid wills. Today's lawsuit seeks a mechanism such as the domestic partnership laws adopted by several other states to provide similar protections for committed same-sex couples.

"It's unfair for same-sex couples who have made commitments and formed families to be treated by the state like legal strangers," said Betsy Griffing, Legal Director for the ACLU of Montana. "Lesbian, gay and bisexual Montanans are valuable and productive members of society who should be treated fairly if their partner is in the hospital or dies without a will."

Hat/tip to TowleRoad

DC High Court Rejects Marriage Referendum By 5-4 Vote

The nation's capital's highest court, the D.C. Court of Appeals rejected (by a frighteningly close) 5-4 vote an effort by the National Organization for Marriage and other heterosexual supremacists to force a vote on that jurisdiction's recently enacted marriage law.

Law Dork Chris Geidner has the best coverage:

The D.C. Court of Appeals issued its awaited decision in Bishop Harry Jackson's appeal of the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics's decision that his proposed marriage initiative was an improper subject of an initiative. In a 5-4 decision, the court held that the Human Rights Act limitation in District law, which prohibits initiatives or referendums that would violation the Human Rights Act, is permissible. In light of that ruling, all 9 judges agreed that the proposed marriage initiative would violate the Human Rights Act and is, thus, not permitted.

In the absence of a successful appeal, then, D.C. marriage equality, which went into effect earlier this year, cannot be subject to an iniative.

He also quotes from the decision itself (Jackson v. D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics):

In the most important conclusion to be made by the court, it held:

The Charter amendment that established the right to initiative must be read in conjunction with the Home Rule Act, which, although conferring on the Council broad legislative authority, makes clear that the legislative authority is subject to limits implied by the United States Constitution and to the enumerated limits [set out by Congress.] Since [the section defining the initiative right in the District] obviously could not and did not remove those limits, it cannot be read as expressing the entire scope of restrictions on the initiative right. Rather, [the section] does not purport to address, and is ambiguous as to, whether there are other limitations on the right to initiative (and referendum). The Human Rights Act safeguard[, which prohibits initiatives that would violate the Human Rights Act] is not inconsistent with that ambiguous language.

Id. at 21. Four of the judges of the court disagreed with this conclusion, in an opinion written by Judge John Fisher. He was joined by Chief Judge Eric Washington and Judges Stephen Glickman and Kathryn Oberly.

It should be noted that all 9 judges agreed that the proposed marriage referendum (limiting marriage to between one man and one woman), like Proposition 8, would violate the D.C. Human Rights Act.

Suck it, NOM!

Argentina Enacts Marriage Equality!

After 15 hours of debate, the Argentine Senate passed the marriage equality bill 33-27 at 4:05am local time.

From the AP:

Same-sex civil unions have been legalized in Uruguay and some states in Mexico and Brazil. Colombia's Constitutional Court granted same-sex couples inheritance rights and allowed them to add their partners to health insurance plans. Mexico City went further, legalizing gay marriage and launching tourism campaigns to encourage foreigners to come and wed.

[...]

Gay activists in neighboring Chile hope Argentina's milestone will improve chances for a gay marriage lawcurrently in committee in their own Congress.

"Argentina's political class has provided a lesson to the rest of Latin America," said Rolando Jimenez in Santiago. "We hope our own countries and political parties will learn that the human rights of sexual minorities are undeniable."

Activists in Paraguay plan to propose a similar law to the senate in October, said Martin Viveros of the group Somosgay. And in Uruguay, gays unsatisfied with the partial rights that come through civil unions are preparing legislation that would replace references to "man and woman" with "spouse" throughout the civil code.

[...]

The president, who helped the law's chances by bringing two senators opposed to gay marriage with her on a state visit to China, spoke out from there against the Catholic Church's campaign and the tone she said some religious groups have taken.

"It's very worrisome to hear words like 'God's war' or 'the devil's project,' things that recall the times of the Inquisition," she said.

That may play well in Argentina's socially liberal capital, where many of the country's gays and lesbians live, but could be costly in the conservative provinces. Some opposition leaders accused Fernandez and her husband Nestor Kirchner, who lobbied hard for passage, of trying to gain votes in next year's presidential elections, when the former president is expected to run again.

Congratulations to Argentina! I may just have to change my travel plans for my 20th anniversary next January. We were thinking of visiting South Africa, but maybe we should return to South America instead!

hat/tip to Rex Wockner

HI Gov Lingle (R) Vetoes Civil Unions Bill

I just got back in the country and one of the first news stories I hear is that Republican Governor of Linda Lingle of Hawaii, who has been divorced twice, has vetoed her state's civil union bill.

Joe.My.God has posted the video of Lingle's statement and also has great coverage of reactions from LGBT organizations.

Here is the full text of her statement:

After months of listening to Hawaii’s citizens express to me in writing and in person their deeply held beliefs and heartfelt reasons for supporting or opposing the Civil Unions Bill, I have made the decision to veto HB 444.

I have been open and consistent in my opposition to same gender marriage and find that HB 444 is essentially marriage by another name. However, I want to be clear that my personal opinion is not the basis for my decision against allowing this legislation to become law. Neither is my veto based on my religious beliefs or on the political impact it might have on me or anyone else of either political party in some future election.

I am vetoing this bill because I have become convinced that this issue is of such significant societal importance that it deserves to be decided directly by all the people of Hawaii.

The subject of this legislation has touched the hearts and minds of our citizens as no other social issue of our day. It would be a mistake to allow a decision of this magnitude to be made by one individual or a small group of elected officials. And while ours is a system of representative government it also is one that recognizes that, from time to time, there are issues that require the reflection, collective wisdom and consent of the people and reserves to them the right to directly decide those matters. This is one such issue.

The legislative maneuvering that brought HB 444 to an 11th hour vote, on the final day of the session, via a suspension of the rules, after legislators lead the public to believe that the bill was dead, was wrong and unfair to the public they represent. After eight years of observing members of the Majority Party manipulate the legislative process when it suits them, I initially accepted their actions as business as usual. That was wrong too.

There has not been a bill I have contemplated more or an issue I have thought more deeply about during my nearly eight years as governor than HB 444 and the institution of marriage. After listening to those both for and against HB 444 I have gained a new appreciation for just how deeply people of all ages and backgrounds feel on this matter, and how significantly they believe the issue will affect their lives.

Few could be unmoved by the poignant story told to me in my office by a young, Big Island man who recounted the journey he had taken to bring himself to tell his very traditional parents that he was gay. I was similarly touched by the mother who in the same office expressed anguish at the prospect of the public schools teaching her children that a same gender marriage was equivalent to their mother and father’s marriage.

In addition to meeting in person with citizens of differing opinions, I have read legal memos on both sides of the issue, some urging me to veto the bill because of unintended consequences and guaranteed years of court battles while others urged support for what they consider a legally sound bill that grants long overdue civil rights. But in the end, it wasn’t the persuasiveness of public debates, the soundness of legal arguments, or the volume of letters and emails that convinced me to reach this decision. It was the depth of emotion felt by those on both sides of the issue that revealed to me how fundamental the institution of marriage is to our community. It is as fundamental to those who support marriage between two people of the same gender as it is to those who support marriage only between one man and one woman.

This is a decision that should not be made by one person sitting in her office or by members of the Majority Party behind closed doors in a legislative caucus, but by all the people of Hawaii behind the curtain of the voting booth.

As difficult as the past few weeks have been, I am comfortable with my decision while knowing full well that many will be disappointed by it. And while some will disagree with my decision to veto this bill, I hope most will agree that the flawed process legislators used does not reflect the dignity this issue deserves, and that a vote by all the people of Hawaii is the best and fairest way to address an issue that elicits such deeply felt emotion by those both for and against.

I have done my very best to reach a reasoned decision in a manner that brings honor to the political process and that I hope a majority of people believe reflects the values of Hawaii.

Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom To Marry and previoulsyco-counsel in the landmark 1993 Hawaii marriage case Baehr v. Lewin called Lingle's statement "profoundly disingenuous" and called for the state legislature to over-ride the veto of HB444. Other groups announced plans to sue Hawaii (again).

VIDEO: Freedom To Marry