Illinois Governor Pat Quinn (D) has announced that the recently passed (House vote 61-52 Senate vote 32-24)  Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act will be signed into law early in the new year, and the measure will go into effect on July 1, 2011.

On that date, Illinois will join California, Oregon, Washington, New Jersey and Nevada as the 6th state with a state-based scheme to comprehensively recognize and protect same-sex couples under state law as extensively as they can without giving them access to marriage.

Previously New Hampshire, Connecticut and Vermont had civil unions but have since enacted marriage equality. Iowa, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia also allow same-sex couples to marry.

EU Rules All Member Nations Must Recognize Civil Partnerships

There is good news from Europe today on the relationship recognition front, via Joe.My.God.

Pink Paper reports:

The European Parliament has declared that civil documents – birth and death certificates, marriage certificates, etc. – must be recognised the same in every European Union nation.

That means countries that don't allow same-sex marriage or civil unions are expected to recognise such unions from countries that do.

On 23 November, the Parliament said it "strongly supports plans to enable the mutual recognition of the effects of civil status documents" and "stresses the need to ensure mutual recognition" of them.

The next step is for the European Commission to propose ways to achieve mutual recognition of all partnerships and marriages throughout the EU.

"This is a great development for the many couples and families who see their fundamental rights diminished every day when crossing a border inside the EU," said Ulrike Lunacek, co-president of the European Parliament Intergroup on LGBT Rights.

Co-President Michael Cashman said the statement adopted by the Parliament "follows the Commission's assertion in September that freedom of movement must be guaranteed for all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation."

"Claims that mutual recognition will undermine national sovereignty are plain wrong; it won't affect national marriage or partnership laws, but simply recognize civil unions that already exist," Cashman said.

Member nations of the European Union are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Currently seeking to join the EU are Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Iceland, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey.

Same-sex marriage is legal in Belgium, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. Elsewhere, it is legal in Argentina, Canada, South Africa, Mexico City, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington, D.C.

Interestingly, in most of the countries which have civil partnerships (which are basically like the civil unions and comprehensive domestic partnerships in the United States) they are restricted to be accessed by same-sex couples only.

Illinois House Passes Civil Unions Bill 61-52!

The Illinois House of Representatives passed a civil unions bill by a vote of 61-52 on Tuesday afternoon, with swift passage expected in the more liberal Illinois State Senate by the end of the day and SB 1617 ending up on Governor Pat Quinn's desk shortly thereafter.

Chicago Pride covered the story thusly:

Openly gay Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago), who co-sponsored SB 1716, started his opening statement at 5:17 p.m on Tuesday. "Once in every generation," he said, "legislatures across the country have a chance to advance the cause of liberty and justice for all."

The Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act (SB 1716) which passed to cheers in the chamber with a 61-52 majority vote, received support from the Democratic leadership in Springfield, including Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives Michael Madigan (D-Chicago), Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) and Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn, who was present.


[...]


Conservative groups, including the Catholic Conference of Illinois and Washington D.C.-based National Organization for Marriage (NOM), lobbied hard against the bill.

The bill does not recognize same-sex marriages, but will provide the same spousal rights to same-sex partners when it comes to surrogate decision-making for medical treatment, survivorship, adoptions, and accident and health insurance.

California, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington have passed laws allowing same sex civil unions. Same-sex couples can marry in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington D.C. and Iowa.

Congratulations to Illinois! I think it is quite amusing that heterosexual supremacists are now left making the counterfactual claim that "civil unions are identical to marriage" and are thus opposing measures that many in the LGBT community reject as "separate but unequal."

Fight Over Ill. Civil Unions Bill Coming Next Week

Illinois is quickly becoming the site for a legislative battle royale next week over LGBT equality as the State Legislature is expected to take up Senate Bill 1617, a bill to enact civil unions (also known as comprehensive domestic partnerships).

The bill is expected to come up for a vote on Tuesday November 30th and recently elected Democratic Governor Pat Quinn has agreed to sign the measure into law.

The expected opposition to the civil rights legislation from heterosexual supremacists and religious theocrats is starting to emerge:

The head of Chicago's Roman Catholic archdiocese Monday portrayed legislation authorizing civil unions between gay and lesbian couples as an initiative that would ''change the nature of marriage'' and urged state lawmakers to reject it.

''Everyone has a right to marry, but no one has the right to change the nature of marriage,'' Cardinal Francis George said in a statement. ''Marriage is what it is and always has been, no matter what a Legislature decides to do; however, the public understanding of marriage will be negatively affected by passage of a bill that ignores the natural fact that sexual complementarity is at the core of marriage.''

Note the words "sexual complementarity" being described as a "natural fact" at the "core of marriage" by the man of faith. He is trying to combine the tautological argument against marriage equality (marriage is defined as only between a man and a woman) with the gender confusion argument ("who will be the wife?"). Of course, both of these arguments can be easily refuted by the easily discernible fact that marriage in 2010 is not based on subordination of women and that there are tens of thousands of legally married same-sex couples in the United States.

But the openly LGBT sponsors of Senate Bill1617 say it best:

The proposal, pushed by Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago) and Rep. Deb Mell (D-Chicago), would grant new spousal rights to same-sex partners in a civil union, putting them on par legally with heterosexual married couples when it comes to surrogate decision-making for medical treatment, survivorship, adoptions and accident and health insurance, for example.

But Harris said the legislation does nothing to change the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, which currently is spelled out in state law.

''I'd say either he is being misinformed about the state of the law in Illinois or they're trying to make more of it than there really is,'' Harris said in response to George's statements.

A portion of Senate Bill 1716 explicitly states that the proposal is not intended to ''interfere with or regulate the religious practice of any religious body.'' The bill goes on to state that religious bodies are ''free to choose whether or not to solemnize or officiate a civil union."

It should be interesting to see if Equality Illinois can prevail over NOM next week.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

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).

SCOTUS Rules 8-1 To Support R-71 Names Disclosure

The Supreme Court has ruled 8-1 in the case of Doe v. Reed that heterosexual supremacist petition signers in Washington who placed Referendum 71 (which would have repealed a comprehensive domestic partnership statute) on the ballot have no implicit First Amendment expectation of privacy, affirming last year's excellent 9th Circuit appellate decision.

Washington Families Standing Together, the organization that managed the campaign to defend the domestic partnership law by approving Referendum 71 issued a statement:

The Court has made clear today that public disclosure requirements are an important means of making sure measures are not put on the ballot by fraudulent means or mistake.

“Public disclosure thus helps ensure that the only signatures counted are those that should be, and that the only referenda placed on the ballot are those that garner enough valid signatures. Public disclosure also promotes transparency and accountability in the electoral process to an extent other measures cannot. In light of the foregoing, we reject plaintiffs’ argument and conclude that public disclosure of referendum petitions in general is substantially related to the important interest of preserving the integrity of the electoral process.”

This 8- 1 ruling by the highest court in the land is a significant defeat for those who have sought to enshrine discrimination into law at the ballot box. Nowhere is the integrity and transparency of elections more important than where the ballot box is being used in an attempt to take away fundamental rights. Nowhere is it more important for the public to know that attempts to affect the lives of their fellow citizens by promoting ballot measures are free from fraud and error. Perhaps no other group has witnessed its rights put up for public vote more than LGBT Americans. Social conservatives have used ballot measures in state after state, over more than 30 years, to keep LGBT Americans from being able to adopt children, to marry and even to be protected from discrimination in housing and employment.

This is the third loss for these groups in our state over the past year as they tried to repeal legislation ensuring that all families are treated equally under Washington State law. First the State PDC said no when these same groups tried to hide their donors. Then voters approved Referendum 71, retaining the law, by more than 53%. Now the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against the proponents’ attempt to undermine disclosure laws.

With regard to the assertion by the anti-gay groups that they would be harmed if petition signatures were subject to public disclosure, as Justice Stevens said in his concurring opinion,

“Any burden on speech that petitioners posit is speculative as well as indirect. For an as-applied challenge to a law such as the PRA to succeed, there would have to be a significant threat of harassment directed at those who sign the petition that cannot be mitigated by law enforcement measures.”

The Supreme Court has in the past allowed narrow exemptions to public disclosure where there’s a clear minority party that has suffered both official and societal retaliation by the majority and where there is strong evidence that such disclosure presents a serious threat. With regard to Referendum 71, however, the groups making this claim were not the minority, but to the contrary, were the ones trying to diminish the rights of the minority. They will be hard pressed to convince a judge the record here is otherwise.

In an amicus brief provided to the Supreme Court in Doe v. Reed, a group of political scientists reported that not only was the assertion of alleged harassment unsubstantiated in Washington State, but the plaintiffs did not present a single verified threat to any signer of a ballot measure petition in any state in any election. As their brief said, “More than a million names of signers of petitions for referenda and initiatives opposing gay marriage have been posted on the Internet, yet there is no evidence that any of these signers has faced any threat of retaliation or harassment by reason of that disclosure.”

WAFST applauds today’s decision and thanks all those who filed briefs and supported our collective efforts as we fought over the last year to protect the rights of all Washingtonians.

Congratulations to Washington State, this is a big loss for the heterosexual supremacist haters like National Organization for Marriage.

Hawaii Legislature Sends Civil Unions Bill To Gov

The Hawaii Assembly completed work on HB444 by approving the measure by a vote of 31-20 months after rejecting the measure almost exactly three months ago. The bill passed the Senate by a veto-proof majority and in 2009 had passed the House by a veto-proof majority. Republican Governor Linda Lingle has not said whether she would sign the bill into law or not.
If HB444 does become law, Hawaii would join Oregon, Washington, California, New Jersey and Nevada who have comprehensive "everything but marriage" statutes.

Presidential Memo On Hospital Visitation Rights

Last night the big news was that President Obama signed a memorandum ordering the Secretary of Health & Human Services to derive a rule which will prevent hospitals which get Medicare and Medicaid funds from preventing same-sex partners from visiting their spouses or partners in hospitals.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

SUBJECT: Respecting the Rights of Hospital Patients to Receive Visitors and to Designate Surrogate Decision Makers for Medical Emergencies

There are few moments in our lives that call for greater compassion and companionship than when a loved one is admitted to the hospital. In these hours of need and moments of pain and anxiety, all of us would hope to have a hand to hold, a shoulder on which to lean -- a loved one to be there for us, as we would be there for them.

Yet every day, all across America, patients are denied the kindnesses and caring of a loved one at their sides -- whether in a sudden medical emergency or a prolonged hospital stay. Often, a widow or widower with no children is denied the support and comfort of a good friend. Members of religious orders are sometimes unable to choose someone other than an immediate family member to visit them and make medical decisions on their behalf. Also uniquely affected are gay and lesbian Americans who are often barred from the bedsides of the partners with whom they may have spent decades of their lives -- unable to be there for the person they love, and unable to act as a legal surrogate if their partner is incapacitated.

For all of these Americans, the failure to have their wishes respected concerning who may visit them or make medical decisions on their behalf has real consequences. It means that doctors and nurses do not always have the best information about patients' medications and medical histories and that friends and certain family members are unable to serve as intermediaries to help communicate patients' needs. It means that a stressful and at times terrifying experience for patients is senselessly compounded by indignity and unfairness. And it means that all too often, people are made to suffer or even to pass away alone, denied the comfort of companionship in their final moments while a loved one is left worrying and pacing down the hall.

Many States have taken steps to try to put an end to these problems. North Carolina recently amended its Patients' Bill of Rights to give each patient "the right to designate visitors who shall receive the same visitation privileges as the patient's immediate family members, regardless of whether the visitors are legally related to the patient" -- a right that applies in every hospital in the State. Delaware, Nebraska, and Minnesota have adopted similar laws.

My Administration can expand on these important steps to ensure that patients can receive compassionate care and equal treatment during their hospital stays. By this memorandum, I request that you take the following steps:

1. Initiate appropriate rulemaking, pursuant to your authority under 42 U.S.C. 1395x and other relevant provisions of law, to ensure that hospitals that participate in Medicare or Medicaid respect the rights of patients to designate visitors. It should be made clear that designated visitors, including individuals designated by legally valid advance directives (such as durable powers of attorney and health care proxies), should enjoy visitation privileges that are no more restrictive than those that immediate family members enjoy. You should also provide that participating hospitals may not deny visitation privileges on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. The rulemaking should take into account the need for hospitals to restrict visitation in medically appropriate circumstances as well as the clinical decisions that medical professionals make about a patient's care or treatment.

2. Ensure that all hospitals participating in Medicare or Medicaid are in full compliance with regulations, codified at 42 CFR 482.13 and 42 CFR 489.102(a), promulgated to guarantee that all patients' advance directives, such as durable powers of attorney and health care proxies, are respected, and that patients' representatives otherwise have the right to make informed decisions regarding patients' care. Additionally, I request that you issue new guidelines, pursuant to your authority under 42 U.S.C. 1395cc and other relevant provisions of law, and provide technical assistance on how hospitals participating in Medicare or Medicaid can best comply with the regulations and take any additional appropriate measures to fully enforce the regulations.

3. Provide additional recommendations to me, within 180 days of the date of this memorandum, on actions the Department of Health and Human Services can take to address hospital visitation, medical decisionmaking, or other health care issues that affect LGBT patients and their families. This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

You are hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

This is a pretty dramatic step since it will impact the rights of LGBT citizens in every single state (including you, Alabama!) and should quiet down some of the grumbling by LGBT activists unhappy at the glacial progress at passing ENDA and ending DADT.

Ari Shapiro on NPR pointed out that after President Johnson signed Medicare into law in 1965, he had to issue a similar memorandum prohibiting hospitals which received federal funds from discriminating on the basis of race.

Turbo Tax Asks About Same-Sex Marriage

I found this at the blog Sociological Images but I thought it was especially appropriate for today.

UPDATE 17:47 04/15/2010: Reader Bryan Blumberg points out that in California TurboTax will also ask if you were in a Registered Domestic Partnership (RDP):
Pretty cool!

ACTION: Vote for Rock For Equality Video!

The above video is one of 15 finalists in the YouTube's Nonprofit DoGooder Video Awards. The winning video will be featured on the homepage of YouTube.com. The video, called "What Kind Of Planet Are We On?," merges science fiction with a story about the heartbreak of the surviving spouse of a same-sex couple (even legally married ones) being denied access to federal social security benefits thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act, just because of the gender of the recipients.

VOTE NOW!

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

hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Rep. Maxine Waters Co-sponsors UAFA!

Great news on the LGBT immigration front: key Congresswoman Maxine Waters has agreed to co-sponsor the Uniting All Families Act (H.R. 1024)!

According to Rod 2.0:

The ]Los Angeles] California Democrat becomes the 121st House member to cosponsor, reports Immigration Equality. "Waters sits on the House Judiciary Committee and its Immigration Subcommittee. She brings the number of Democrats on the Immigration Subcommittee who are current UAFA cosponsors to seven out of ten, and the number of Demorcrats on the full Judiciary Committee to 18 out of 24. UAFA has more cosponsors in the House than any other piece of immigration legislation."

Reminder: MadProfessah sits on the board of directors of Immigration Equality. I commend Congresswoman Waters for taking a meaningful step towards supporting equality for all people. Our nation's immigration laws are based on the principal of uniting families, and I'm pleased that she agrees that should include same-sex couples like Shirley Tan and Jay Mercado and thousands of others in similar situations in the United States.

YOU can look at the ActOnPrinciples banner on this blog to contact your congressperson on UAFA and other LGBT related legislation.

BREAKING NEWS: HI Civil Unions Bill Killed

Whoa! Another stunning defeat for LGBT activists on the question of relationship recognition has apparently occurred in Hawaii a few hours ago:

HONOLULU – Equality Hawaii, the state’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, and the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBT civil rights organization, today denounced the Hawaii State House for failing to take up and pass HB 444 SD1, the state Civil Unions bill. The bill would have provided that the equal rights and responsibilities of married couples in Hawaii are afforded to thousands of non-married couples in the state. The House voted by voice vote to postpone the bill indefinitely, effectively killing the bill for the session.

“We’re sorely disappointed that the Hawaii State House refused to take action on the Civil Unions bill,” said Tambry Young, Co-Chair of Equality Hawaii. “Today, the House put its own political interests before the interests of Hawaii’s families and that’s bad policy and bad politics. We pledge that this fight is not over, and we will continue in our efforts to see true equality in our state.”

The decision by the House comes on the heels of swift action in the Senate which saw the bill pass by an 18-7 vote on January 22. House Speaker Calvin Say suggested earlier in the week that the House may not be willing to reconsider the bill if the majority could not garner enough votes to override a possible veto from the Governor. The Governor has never made a veto threat on the topic of Civil Unions.

“We’re stunned that the Hawaii State House would act contrary to their previous position of strongly supporting this bill,” said Joe Solmonese, President of the Human Rights Campaign. “We thank all those who advocate for equality in the Aloha State, especially our friends in the legislature and Equality Hawaii. We have been a proud partner with Hawaii’s fair-minded residents for decades and will continue to stand by their side in the struggle for equality.”

“This fight is not over and we will ultimately prevail,” said Alan Spector, Legislative Affairs Co-Chair for Equality Hawaii. “It is simply unfathomable that politics and election considerations would supersede honor, integrity and common-sense. Today, these Representatives did not represent their constituent’s families – shame on them.”

Just a week ago Hawaii's State Senate has passed HB444 by a veto-proof majority and the battle in the House was expected to be about whether the vote would be veto proof, not whether it would come to a vote or pass.

Presumably, once the Democrats realized that they did not have the votes to actually enact the legislation they decided to kill the bill completely.

Hawaii Senate Passes Civil Unions Bill 18-7

Big news from Hawai'i! The State Senate passed a bill to allow both same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples to enter into civil unions by a veto-proof majority of 18-7.

The bill would allow same-sex and heterosexual couples to enter into civil unions and receive the same rights, benefits and responsibilities as marriage under state law.

The state House passed a civil-unions bill last session that would only apply to same-sex couples. House leaders have said they would wait and see what the Senate vote was before deciding whether to move forward on the Senate version of the bill.

[...]

State House Speaker Calvin Say, D-20th (St. Louis Heights, Palolo Valley,Wilhelmina Rise), said majority Democrats will likely meet on Monday in private caucus to decide how to proceed. Say said one of the factors will be whether the House can muster a two-thirds' majority -- 34 of 51 lawmakers -- to override a veto. The House voted 33 to 17 last session on civil unions, with one lawmaker absent. Say described the vote count now as close.

Say, who supports civil unions, said he would recommend that the House not attempt to address a technical flaw in the Senate version and decide simply whether to send the bill to the governor.

The bill has a technical flaw which claims that if enacted, it would go into effect on January 1, 2010. If the House does pass it by a veto-proof majority without amending it, the State Attorney General has issued an opinion saying that the bill is still constitutional.

Republican Governor Linda Lingle has refused to say whether she would veto the bill or not.

Hat/tip to Rod 2.0.

Federal DP Bill Advances To US Senate Floor

According to HRC Backstory, the United States Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, S.1102, (also known as DPBO) by a vote of 10-6 (8-1 official in-person vote) to the Senate floor, with five Republicans and Democrat David Pryor of Arkansas voting against the bill and Chairman Joe Lieberman ("Independent") and Ranking Member Susan Collins (Republican of Maine) voting in favor along with all the other Democrats on the committee.

The companion bill in the House which is sponsored by lesbian Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (Democrat of Wisconsin), H.R. 2517, is also pending on the floor of that body after having passed the House Committee on Oversight and Government Management on November 18th.

HRC sent out a press release lauding the Senate Committee action:

“Today’s markup in the Senate is an important step toward guaranteeing equal compensation for lesbian and gay workers serving our government at home and abroad,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “DPBO recognizes that equal pay for equal work is a value fundamental to American opportunity. We thank Chairman Lieberman for his leadership in ushering this important legislation through Congress.”

The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (DPBO) was introduced in the 111th Congress by Chairman Lieberman and Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) in the Senate and by Congresswomen Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) in the House. DPBO would provide the same family benefits to lesbian and gay federal civilian employees as are already provided to employees with different-sex spouses. To receive benefits, employees would have to submit an affidavit of eligibility for benefits with the Office of Personnel Management, certifying that the employee and domestic partner meet necessary criteria, as provided in the Act.

DPBO would bring employment practices in the federal government in line with those of America’s largest and most successful corporations. Nearly 60% of Fortune 500 companies provide domestic partner benefits to their employees. In addition, 23 states, the District of Columbia, and over 150 local governments make benefits available to public employees and their same-sex partners. A May 2000 poll conducted by the Associated Press found that a majority of Americans favor the extension of health insurance coverage to same-sex partners. In addition, this legislation has been endorsed by the American Federation of Government Employees, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Harvard University, National Treasury Employees Union and United Church of Christ.

Looks like DPBO will make it to the President's desk before ENDA. Oh my bad, I forgot, there's been no progress on LGBT rights in the Obama Administration because Barack Obama hates "teh gays." STFU!

WA State Comprehensive DP Law Now In Effect!

The Approval of Referendum 71 was made official Thursday December 3rd. From the official blog of the Washington State Secretary of State:

Referendum 71, placed on the ballot by foes of same-sex marriage, was approved by a margin of more than 110,000 votes, or more than 6 percentage points. National media describe it as the country’s first voter-approved domestic partnership or “everything-but-marriage” law.

The new law had been on hold pending the public vote, and will now go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday, 30 days after the Nov. 3 General Election. The law is Senate Bill 5688 and applies to state-registered domestic partners, both same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples where at least one partner is 62 or older.

Congratulations, Washington! Now California (2005), Oregon (2008), Nevada (2009), and Washington (2009), as well as Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire have eliminated as many disparities between how the state treats opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples under state law. On the west coast we tend to call these laws "comprehensive domestic partnership" statutes. On the east coast they call them civil unions. Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont have now passed marriage equality laws (NH's goes into effect January 1) and New Jersey may join them very soon.

Federal DP benefits Bill Passes House Committee

The White House Media Affairs Office just sent out a press release featuring John Berry, the openly gay head of the Office of Personnel Management, lauding the movement of the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act:

OPM Director John Berry lauds passage of Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act through House Committee on Oversight and Government Management

Bill provides essential recruitment tool for the Federal government

Washington, DC – Earlier today, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Management approved H.R. 2517, the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009, sponsored by Representative Tammy Baldwin. The measure extends benefits to the domestic partners of Federal employees, including participation in the Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) Program, retirement and survivor benefits, relocation reimbursements and other benefits currently offered to spouses of Federal employees. The Committee also adopted an amendment offered by Chairman Edolphus Towns that made changes to the legislation to ensure proper implementation.

“I want to commend the Committee for approving the Domestic Partnership Benefits Act,” said U.S. Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry. “This is an essential recruitment tool as we seek the best and the brightest to tackle the many challenges America faces.”

Berry also said: “This is a positive step that helps the federal government to better compete with other employers for top talent. President Obama has stated clearly that this is an issue of equality. But just as important, youth today, LGBT or not, see this benefit as a litmus test for determining high quality employers. The Administration looks forward to continuing its work with lawmakers as the House and the Senate move toward enactment of this bill.”

OPM oversees human resources and benefits policies for over 1.9 million Federal civil servants and 2.5 million retirees and survivor annuitants.

But I guess nothing positive is happening on LGBT rights in this Administration so we might as well as boycott them. Not.

Today is Approved Referendum 71 Day in Seattle!

This is pretty cool. The City of Seattle is declaring today, November 14, 2009, Approved Referendum 71 day. [Note the change in tense from Approve to Approved]

Whereas, civil rights and liberties have long been values of the City of Seattle; and

Whereas, the council recognized the importance of the extended domestic partnership law by endorsing the Approve Referendum 71 Campaign; and

Whereas, equality for all Seattleites is important and has a lasting effect on the city; and

Whereas, the LGBT community is an important and integral part of what makes the City of Seattle a great place to live, work, and go to school; and

Whereas, the historic vote to approve Referendum 71 in Washington State sends a message to the rest of the country that the rights and responsibilities afforded to heterosexual married couples are now available to same-sex domestic partners registered with Washington State, and provides important protections to all Washington families; and

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED THAT THE SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL DECLARES NOVEMBER 14, 2009 TO BE VICTORY, REFERENDUM 71 APPROVED DAY IN THE CITY OF SEATTLE.

Referendum 71 Update: Victory Mathematically Certain

The latest tallies on Referendum 71 from the Washington State Secretary of State election results page show that the good guys are ahead 593,956 (51.65%) Approve to 556,090 (48.35%) Reject with 394,282 ballots still to be counted! However, mathematically there is almost no chance that Referendum 71 will be rejected when all the votes are tallied.

The current margin of victory is 37,876 votes. However, 129,000 of the outstanding ballots are from King county which is approving Referendum 71 at a 66%-34% rate that will be a net gain of another 42,000 votes. The rest of the state will not be able to overcome that margin unless they sustain a margin of 58% Reject for ALL of the non King County votes. In order to actually surpass the boost from the uncounted King County ballots combined with the current lead of 37,876 the outstanding non-King county 265,000 ballots would have to be rejecting Referendum 71 at a rate of 65%.

That simply is NOT going to happen. We won!!

Having a statewide vote to approve a comprehensive domestic partnership bill affirmatively is a huge leap forward for the LGBT equality movement. I would note that the last time LGBTs won a statewide vote it was in 2006 when Arizonan's defeated an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment so homophobic it would also have outlawed domestic partnerships. That initiative was rejected in 2006 and then a marriage-only measure was approved by voters in 2008.

I think this makes it clear that states that have anti-marriage constitutional amendments or do not have marriage equality yet should move forward in enacting comprehensive domestic partnership statutes and not be afraid of facing the voters.

Referendum 71 Has Big Leads In Recent Polls

Washington Families Standing Together, the group protecting that state's comprehensive domestic partnership laws, released a poll showing a very strong lead for the Approve Referendum 71 side.

Approve: 53%
Reject: 36%
Undecided: 11%

This is a poll of 500 likely voters. Additionally, the Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality at the University of Washington conducted a poll of 724 voters with margin of error of +/-3.6 points which shows registered voters approve referendum 71 56% to 39%, while likely voters it's leading 57% to 38% and among those who have already voted Referendum 71 is ahead 55% to 45%.