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.

# # #

Iowa Rejects 3 Supreme Court Justices Who Legalized Marriage Equality

This is a heartbreaking loss for the LGBT side and supporters of an independent judiciary. After the National Organization of Marriage spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, three Justices of the 7-member Iowa Supreme Court who supported last year's unanimous Varnum v. Brien decision legalizing marriage equality have been voted out of office by Iowa voters.

A joint statement from the judges:

It was our great privilege to serve the people of Iowa for many years. Throughout our judicial service we endeavored to serve the people of Iowa by always adhering to the rule of law, making decisions fairly and impartially according to the law, and faithfully upholding the constitution.

We wish to thank all of the Iowans who voted to retain us for another term. Your support shows that many Iowans value fair and impartial courts. We also want to acknowledge and thank all the Iowans, from across the political spectrum and from different walks of life, who worked tirelessly over the past few months to defend Iowa's high-caliber court system against an unprecedented attack by out-of-state special interest groups.

Finally, we hope Iowans will continue to support Iowa's merit selection system for appointing judges. This system helps ensure that judges base their decisions on the law and the Constitution and nothing else. Ultimately, however, the preservation of our state's fair and impartial courts will require more than the integrity and fortitude of individual judges, it will require the steadfast support of the people.

Chief Justice Marsha Ternus

Associate Justice Michael Streit

Associate Justice David Baker

Very sad news.

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

hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Grinnell College Names Openly Gay, Black Male President

An amazing good news story out of the blue just in time for Black History Month: the first openly gay, Black male college president! Grinnell College announced today that it has selected Raynard S. Kington, M.D., M.B.A., Ph.D. as the 13th president of the 146-year-old liberal arts college based in rural Iowa. Dr. Kington had been serving as the deputy director of the National Institutes of Health since 2003 and served as Acting Director of the federal agency for a year, until Dr. Francis Collins was confirmed by the United States Senate in August 2009.

From the official college press release:

Dr. Kington was unanimously elected by the trustees after an extensive nationwide search by a 14-member Presidential Search Committee, including representatives from the trustees, faculty, administration, student body and alumni. The committee considered a diverse pool of more than 200 candidates with remarkable talents and accomplishments from large and small public and private institutions as well as multiple academic disciplines. The trustees noted Dr. Kington’s exceptional record of achievement at NIH and at the RAND Corporation, including his leadership, policy direction and coordination of NIH biomedical research and research training programs at NIH’s 27 institutes and centers, and his community-based leadership and research in Los Angeles, Calif.

[...]

Dr. Kington’s personal example underscores his commitment to educational excellence. At the age of 16, he entered a combined undergraduate-medical school program at the University of Michigan that allowed him to earn his B.S. when he was 19 and his M.D. when he was just 21 years old. He completed his residency in internal medicine at Michael Reese Medical Center in Chicago and was appointed a Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholar at the University of Pennsylvania. While there, he completed his M.B.A. and Ph.D. with a concentration in health policy and economics at The Wharton School.

“I am absolutely delighted to join the Grinnell community and excited about the tremendous possibilities awaiting this distinguished college,” said Dr. Kington. “My entire career to date has been a reflection of the three core values of Grinnell: the pursuit of academic excellence, the advancement of a diverse community and the promotion of social justice. For those fortunate enough to attend a top-tier liberal arts college, particularly one with Grinnell’s wonderful heritage, the experience can be transformative. It opens the pathway to a life where students become citizens who make a difference in the world and improve society for the benefit of us all. I can think of no more gratifying opportunity than to lead Grinnell College as it strives to build on this tradition, and I am eager to get started.”

[...]

Dr. Kington; his partner, Peter T. Daniolos M.D., a child psychiatrist at Children’s National Medical Center and George Washington University; and their two young children plan to move to Grinnell during the summer and occupy the president’s home at the college.

Interestingly, nowhere in the press release does it mention Dr. Kington's race or sexual orientation. I also find it interesting as to whether Grinnell was able to recruit such an academic star to rural Iowa because it is one of the few states where Dr. Kington and his partner can be married and be fully guaranteed that their family will be treated equally under state law?

Openly gay (or lesbian) college presidents are not that unusual any more. Way back in 2007, I blogged about the 11 known at the time. I suspect the number is appreciably higher now. The real breakthrough here is 1) It's Iowa! and 2) Kington is Black and gay (and a parent and possibly a Republican).

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.

92% of Iowans Say Gay Marriage Doesn't Affect Their Lives

What was the big deal again? In a poll released today about Iowan voter attitudes about gay marriage the number 92 jumped out of this summary of the results:

Forty-one percent say they would vote for a [constitutional amendment to] ban [same-sex marriage], and 40 percent say they would vote to continue gay marriage. The rest either would not vote or say they are not sure.

[...]

The overwhelming majority of Iowans - 92 percent - say gay marriage has brought no real change to their lives.

[...]

The poll shows that 26 percent of Iowans favor April's unanimous court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, 43 percent oppose it and 31 percent don't care much or are not sure.

Despite the 43 percent opposition to the ruling, 61 percent of Iowans say other issues will influence their decision on whether to vote to retain Iowa Supreme Court justices in the 2010 elections.

The margin of error was plus or minus 3.5 percentage points and the poll was conducted of 803 Iowans from September 14-16 by a Des Moines based firm.

Gee, what a surprise! Nearly 5 months after gay marriage became legal in Iowa, 92% of respondents basically said it had no impact on their lives. I hope heterosexual supremacists like the Nationak Organization for Marriage are reading these results and gnashing their teeth.

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.

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)?

Gay Marriage Tipping Point Reached?

Kevin Drum and Joe.My.God both blogged about the above graph from Andrew Gelman at FiveThirtyEight.com in the last few days. The key paragraphs are:

Jeff Lax and Justin Phillips put together a dataset using national opinion polls from 1994 through 2009 and analyzed several different opinion questions on gay rights. Here I'm going to talk about their estimates of state-by-state trends in support for gay marriage.

In the past fifteen years, gay marriage has increased in popularity in all fifty states. No news there, but what was a surprise to me is where the largest changes have occurred. The popularity of gay marriage has increased fastest in the states where gay rights were already relatively popular in the 1990s.

In 1995, support for gay marriage exceeded 30% in only six states: New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, California, and Vermont. In these states, support for gay marriage has increased by an average of almost 20 percentage points. In contrast, support has increased by less than 10 percentage points in the six states that in 1995 were most anti-gay-marriage--Utah, Oklahoma, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Idaho.

These are definitely important and interesting observations, but digging deeper, there is even more.

Most other commenters did not also discuss this even more interesting graph, which shows the current percentage of people who, when polled who support marriage for same-sex couples and/or civil unions.

Looking closely at the dark red dots, notice that marriage for same-sex couples is basically only legal in the states where it is above 50 percent. The three states which have marriage (within margin of error) at 50 percent but do not have marriage equality right now are Rhode Island, California and New York.

Clearly, a state to look at closely at in the future is Iowa which legalized marriage equality though a unanimous court decision in April.

Other interesting data to include here would be to indicate the states which have comprehensive non-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation (and gender identity).

VIDEO: Prof. Tobias Wolff vs Maggie Gallagher

Maine Gov Signs Marriage Bill Into Law!!

Pam's House Blend is reporting that Governor Jim Baldacci, Democrat of Maine, has signed LD 1020 into law, making Maine the 5th state in the United States to end the exclusion of same-sex couples from civil marriage. Maine becomes the third state this year (after Iowa and Vermont) to enact same-sex marriage, with New Hampshire, New Jersey and even New York expected to follow by the end of the year.

Here's Baldacci's statement on why he signed Maine's marriage equality bill into law:

“I have followed closely the debate on this issue. I have listened to both sides, as they have presented their arguments during the public hearing and on the floor of the Maine Senate and the House of Representatives. I have read many of the notes and letters sent to my office, and I have weighed my decision carefully,” Governor Baldacci said. “I did not come to this decision lightly or in haste.”

“I appreciate the tone brought to this debate by both sides of the issue,” Governor Baldacci said. “This is an emotional issue that touches deeply many of our most important ideals and traditions. There are good, earnest and honest people on both sides of the question.”

“In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions,” Governor Baldacci said. “I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.”

“Article I in the Maine Constitution states that ‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person’s civil rights or be discriminated against.’”

“This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of Church and State,” Governor Baldacci said.

“It guarantees that Maine citizens will be treated equally under Maine’s civil marriage laws, and that is the responsibility of government.”

“Even as I sign this important legislation into law, I recognize that this may not be the final word,” Governor Baldacci said. “Just as the Maine Constitution demands that all people are treated equally under the law, it also guarantees that the ultimate political power in the State belongs to the people.”

“While the good and just people of Maine may determine this issue, my responsibility is to uphold the Constitution and do, as best as possible, what is right. I believe that signing this legislation is the right thing to do,” Governor Baldacci said.

From your mouth to California Chief Justice Ronald George's ears. The California Supreme Court is expected to rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 by June 3, and it rumored that it may announce its decision as soon as Thursday May 7th or Monday May 11th. MadProfessah has his money on Thursday May 21.

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.

Iowa Governor Does Not Support Amending Constitution

Iowa Governor, Democrat Chet Culver finally released a statement on his reaction to Varnum v. Brien, the unanimous Iowa State Supreme Court case that ended the exclusion of same-sex coupels from marriage which was released on Friday April 3rd.

Here it is:

DES MOINES – Governor Chet Culver today issued the following statement after reviewing the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision in Varnum v. Brien:

“I have carefully reviewed the Iowa Supreme Court's unanimous decision on civil marriage and discussed it with the Attorney General.

“Let me begin by saying that I recognize that the issue of same-gender civil marriage is one that evokes strongly held beliefs and strong emotions both for and against. These beliefs and feelings need to be respected. I hope that the views of those on all sides will be treated respectfully and will not be subjected to name-calling or fear-mongering, but instead will lead to rational discussion.

“At the outset, I want to emphasize that the question before the Iowa Supreme Court was one of civil marriage only – a state-recognized legal status constituting a civil contract. Civil marriage always has been, and will continue to be, separate from religious marriage that takes place in churches and places of worship.

“As I have stated before, I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. This is a tenet of my personal faith. The Iowa Supreme Court’s decision has, in fact, reaffirmed that churches across Iowa will continue to have the right to recognize the sanctity of religious marriage in accordance with their own traditions and church doctrines. The Supreme Court’s decision does not require that churches recognize marriages between persons of the same gender or officiate over such unions. The Court does not have, nor should any court ever have, that kind of power over our religious lives. Our churches and places of worship are free to decide for themselves, as they were before, who may enter the sacred covenant of marriage. As the Supreme Court’s decision states, ‘The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past.’

“Yet, the Supreme Court of Iowa, in a unanimous decision, has clearly stated that the Constitution of our state, which guarantees equal protection of the law to all Iowans, requires the State of Iowa to recognize the civil marriage contract of two people of the same gender. The Court also concluded that the denial of this right constitutes discrimination. Therefore, after careful consideration and a thorough reading of the Court’s decision, I am reluctant to support amending the Iowa Constitution to add a provision that our Supreme Court has said is unlawful and discriminatory.

“As Governor, I must respect the authority of the Iowa Supreme Court, and have a duty to uphold the Constitution of the State of Iowa. I also fully respect the right of all Iowans to live under the full protection of Iowa’s Constitution.

“I urge Iowans who hold beliefs on all sides of this issue to exhibit respect and good will. Our state faces many serious challenges. We are in the midst of a serious economic recession. Tens of thousands of our fellow Iowans are without work. We have suffered the worst natural disasters and most difficult recovery our state has ever faced. We must join together and redouble our efforts to work toward solutions that will help Iowans in this time of uncertainty. That is where, I believe, my focus and energies should lie.

“Let us not lose sight of the fact that we are all Iowans, all neighbors, united in the promise and faith of a brighter future for our state. Let us all work together toward that common goal.”

That's how ya do it!

White House Responds To Iowa Decision

Washington correspondent for The Advocate Kerry Eleveld posted the official White House response to the Iowa marriage ruling:

"The President respects the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, and
continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it
comes to the issue of marriage. Although President Obama supports civil
unions rather than same-sex marriage, he believes that committed gay and
lesbian couples should receive protection under the law."

Pam Spaulding was quick to note the deficiencies of this statement:

So, let's see...it should be left to the states so that as gay couples travel across state lines, they are married, not married, civil unioned, domestic partnered...yeah that sounds like equal protection under the law. Oh wait -- the press release didn't use the word EQUAL, did it?

Can the President elaborate on this position with reasoning that excludes anything related to "God is in the mix"? The Iowa Supreme Court brilliantly torched using religion as an excuse to discriminate, so our Constitutional scholar president needs to come up with a better sham excuse. And as massaged as you know that short paragraph was, the omission of the word equal was purposeful.

I hope some enterprising reporter asks the President whether he believes gay and lesbian couples deserve equal protection of the laws of the United States and the state in which they reside.

A few hours later, they sent a new statement which includes the world "equal."

"The President respects the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage. Although President Obama supports civil unions rather than same-sex marriage, he believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive equal rights under the law."

Now that's more like it! But does he really mean it?

Best Analysis of IOWA Marriage Decision

Art Leonard over at Leonard Link and for New York City's Gay City News analyzes the Iowa Marriage case in a brilliant (if not concise!) fashion:

This is the first time that a state supreme court has unanimously concluded that same-sex couples have an equal right with different-sex couples to marry as a matter of state constitutional law. Prior same-sex marriage victories have all come from closely divided courts, as have the defeats.

Since the Polk County Recorder was the defendant in this case, it was that county's attorney, not the Iowa attorney general, who argued the state's position.

The beautifully and clearly written opinion by Justice Mark Cady stands as a strong rebuke to the bizarre plurality opinion produced by Judge Robert Smith of the New York Court of Appeals in the 2006 ruling in Hernandez v. Robles, which rejected the right of same-sex couples to marry here.

Cady's opinion also built on the important 2008 opinions from California Chief Justice Ronald George and Connecticut Justice Richard N. Palmer. Cady cited and quoted from George and Palmer, but made many important contributions in helping to explain why the court reached its decision.

The court decided to treat this as an equal protection case concerning a statute that discriminates based on sexual orientation. The plaintiffs had challenged on both gender and sexual orientation discrimination grounds, and the trial judge had seen this as a gender discrimination case, but the court decided to cut through the semantics and get to the heart of the matter: the challenged law, enacted as part of the surge in state so-called Defense of Marriage Acts during the 1990s, was intended to exclude gay people from marrying.

Cady opened his opinion with a brief civics lesson on the three branches of government fundamental to American constitutional law and the role of the courts in dealing with claims that statutes are unconstitutional. He reviewed highlights of Iowa equal protection precedents, including rulings recognizing the equality rights of black people more than two decades before the Civil War, an 1873 decision questioning the constitutionality of racial segregation -- more than 80 years before the US Supreme Court came to that point in Brown v. Board of Education -- and Iowa's distinction as the first state in the nation to strike down the exclusion of women from the legal profession, in 1869.

Getting to the nub of the marriage equality question, he wrote, "This issue comes to us with the same importance as our landmark cases of the past. The same-sex-marriage debate waged in this case is part of a strong national dialogue centered on a fundamental, deep-seated, traditional institution that has excluded, by state action, a particular class of Iowans. This class of people asks a simple and direct question: How can a state premised on the constitutional principle of equal protection justify exclusion of a class of Iowans from civil marriage?"

[...]

This reasoning is a direct rejection of the methodology used by state courts that have embraced the "channeling procreation" theory as a justification for providing marriage only to different-sex couples -- especially the absurd contention by New York Court of Appeals Judge Robert Smith that because same-sex couples can only have children through "intentional actions" (such as donor insemination, surrogacy, or adoption), there is no need to dangle the benefits of marriage in front of them in order to "channel" their procreative activities. Different-sex couples, in contrast, according to Smith's argument, often bear children with no planning, and so need to be steered toward a stable family structure.

Given the Iowa court's framing of the issue, Polk County's case collapsed like a house of cards, since none of the justifications it offered could possibly meet the test of substantially advancing a legitimate governmental objective. Cady quickly demolished the county's argument that maintaining or preserving traditional marriage could qualify as the necessary justification.

"A specific tradition sought to be maintained cannot be an important governmental objective for equal protection purposes," he wrote, "when the tradition is nothing more than the historical classification currently expressed in the statute being challenged. When a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective and the classification to further that objective, the equal protection analysis is transformed into the circular question of whether the classification accomplishes the governmental objective, which objective is to maintain the classification."

[...]

Iowa's court was not ready to embrace the halfway measures suggested by the New Jersey and Vermont Supreme Courts, which led to the enactment of civil union laws in those states.

"A new distinction based on sexual orientation," Cody wrote, "would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution."

Accordingly, the portion of the Iowa Code "limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage."

This is just an excerpt. You should really do yourself a favor and read the whole thing yourself.