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.

# # #

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 Same-Sex Marriage Debate In One Picture

Hat/tip to student Hanna White.

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.

AP Poll: Majority of Americans Support Marriage Equality

A new nationwide poll from Associated Press of 1000+ individuals (pdf) is yet another poll to confirm Maggie Gallagher's worst nightmare: "A majority of Americans support marriage equality."

The headline is that in response to the question "Should the Federal Government give legal recognition to marriages between couples of the same sex, or not?" 52 percent say yes, 46 percent say no.

This is now the second poll in as many months which indicate majority support for marriage equality. Last month, the CNN poll similarly showed majority support for marriage equality (again 52 percent yes, 42 percent no) when the question was "Do you think gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law as valid?"

It should also be noted that as recently as May 2010, Gallup showed that there was majority opposition to marriage equality nationwide (44% yes 53% no) in response to the question "Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"

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

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!

Federal Judge Rules Prop 8 Unconstitutional

This is a very big win.

Decision To Strike Down Prop 8

Prop 8 Decision Day Rally in Downtown LA

Interview With Dave Fleischer: Prop 8 Report Author

Dave Fleischer is the author of the 509-page Prop 8 Report which was released publicly on Tuesday. I have known Dave for years and he agreed to this on the record interview with MadProfessah.com.

MadProfessah: What are the main results or ideas you want people to gain from this report?

Dave Fleischer:
* The No on 8 campaign made a smart decision to invest in research. As a result, for the first time ever, in any campaign, the LGBT community has daily tracking polling that measures increases and decreases in our support as voters were being exposed to the anti-gay opposition campaign. This is far superior to episodic polls taken when voters are considering the question out of context and have not recently been exposed to the vile but effective opposition campaign. The No on 8 tracking polling by Lake allows us to correlate voter movement to significant changes in the political environment including but not limited to strategic decisions made by the competing campaigns. That's why this report is the first report ever to seriously evaluate why we struggle to compete in these campaigns. It provides evidence that allows us to consider and evaluate the wide range of competing hypotheses offered by a wide variety of observers. Up until now, we just had the hypotheses, not the data. Now, we have significant data. With the data, we are able to reject some hypotheses, confirm others, and notice areas where we need more information. We are on our way to learning more about the electoral reality in which we are operating.

* Based on the data, we know why we lost. We lost because in the final six weeks, when TV ads from both campaigns saturated the airwaves, almost 700,000 votes switched sides and decided to oppose same-sex marriage. It seems fair to me to conclude that Yes on 8 outcampaigned us in the final six weeks. We went from even to losing in the final six weeks. And it's fair to give Yes on 8 credit for what they accomplished, because we lost the most ground by far among the exact group of voters they targeted: parents.

* No on 8 regained some of the ground we lost, but only when we directly rebutted the opposition fear-mongering. "O'Connell" was No on 8's belated rebuttal of the pernicious Yes on 8 ads that exploited and stimulated anti-gay prejudice by making people fear that kids were in danger. The effectiveness of the "O'Connell" ad, while limited, suggests that we can successfully rebut the longstanding lies, at least among some voters. And the fact that it improved the situation compared to how we were doing when we were avoiding the issue makes it clear that avoidance serves us poorly. When the opposition attacks the character of LGBT people, we have to rebut immediately, directly, and clearly.

* As we prepare to go back to the ballot, we have to commit ourselves to gaining insight into how to rebut those attacks effectively. We still have so much to learn; after all, does "O'Connell" represent the best we can do? We simply don't yet know. We need to try out, in real world circumstances that simulate the campaign, what rebuttals help us most with most of the voters who are susceptible to the opposition fear-mongering. Luckily, we have a great immediate opportunity to enlarge our learning, when we canvass. From my point of view, when we are canvassing, this leads to a practical imperative: we should talk about kids to as many voters as we can; test different messages to see what works; and consider the canvass an investment in qualitative research, the largest, longest focus group in social science history. My concern is that if we don't do this -- if we don't talk about kids now, when the stakes are low -- we will be tempted once again to avoid the issue in an campaign, when the stakes are so high. Then history will repeat itself, to our detriment.

MP: How long did the report take to research and write and who paid for it?

DF: 18 months. Paid for by the LGBT Mentoring Project. No money solicited from nor did any come from CA individuals or organizations or the No on 8 campaign on anyone evaluated in the report.

MP: When do you think we should return to the ballot to overturn Proposition 8?

DF: We should return to the ballot when we have a decent chance to win. So we have homework to do. Should only choose the year when we have finished the homework. That could be 2012, or a different year. To me, what's relevant is: have we done our homework?

MP: One of the key findings is in wrong-way voting. Apparently there were 6% of voters who voted No who opposed marriage equality as opposed to 4% of Yes voters who supported marriage equality. Thus there's a net gain of 2 percentage points for the No side. Can you explain how confident you are of this result?

DF: Very confident. The Lake polling data and our methodology to interpret it are all laid in out detail in the report in a special appendix. [Appendix K]

We acknowledge all of the limitations of the data. But here's what we calculate:

* approx 1.525 million people were wrong-way voters

* of those, 875,000 voted No and opposed same-sex marriage

* and 650,000 voted Yes though they favored same-sex marriage

* the difference, 225,000 voters, made the margin closer by approx. 450,000 votes

FYI, David Binder's polling during the No on 8 campaign, commissioned by the No on 8 campaign, corroborated Lake. In the one poll where he asked questions you could use to gauge wrong-way voting, conducted Sept. 2-4, he found that

* 13% of the voters who found same-sex marriage acceptable said they'd vote Yes, and

* 19% of the voters who found same-sex marriage unacceptable said they'd vote No.

This is a less reliable measure of wrong-way voting than because a) it was further in advance of election day, and some voters self-correct; and b) Binder's question gave three options to respondents, so the middle group is sizeable and there's no way to tell if any of them were likely to wrong-way vote. But Binder's finding here is consistent with the idea that our side was the likely net beneficiary of wrong-way voting.

And of course Binder's May 2009 attempt to gauge wrong-way voting is very unlikely to be of any value. Polls are best at detecting wrong-way voting as or before people vote, not afterwards, especially not six months afterwards, when accurate recollection of their confusion is unlikely.

You will also enjoy looking at Lewis & Gossett, cited in the Prop 8 Report. Their excellent paper analyzing the Field and PPIC data uses regression analysis to compare the plausibility of four competing hypotheses to explain the failure of the two polls to gauge what was happening. They make a compelling case for wrong-way voting as the most probable explanation.

MP: What do you say to people that your source of daily tracking poll data by Celinda Lake ends 5 days before the election and the election could have been decided in that time frame?

DF: The Lake data is the best data we have on Prop 8, and the best data set our community has ever had on any of these ballot measures. That said, it is imperfect in a variety of ways, including the one you mention. There could have been significant changes in voter opinion in those final days. The Lake data would of necessity not reveal that. However, to the extent that the Binder tracking polling data in the final days tell us anything, they do not suggest massive voter movement or anything other than trivial voter movement. See the charts in the report with Binder data and Lake data side by side and you'll see what I mean. Binder tracked until election day (but he didn't start until much much later than Lake, when most of the big movement had long occurred).

Thanks, Dave!

POLL: 29% to 22% Think Prop 8 Was Bad For State

There's a new poll out from the Public Religion Research Institute that confirms that a majority of Californians support marriage equality right now. Additionally, the poll of 3,351 adults (including 350 African Americans and 200 Latino Protestants) asked about the 2008 ballot initiative Proposition 8. A stunning 45% of respondents said that it had no impact on the sate, while 29% said the measure's passage was bad for the state while 22% said it was good for the state.

Some other key findings of the report:

• One-in-four Californians report that their views on rights for gay and lesbian people has become more supportive over the last five years, compared to only 8% who say they have become more opposed. Among religious groups, ethnic minority groups showed slightly more overall movement than white religious groups. Among black Protestants, twice as many report becoming more supportive as report becoming more opposed (27% vs. 13%); among Latino Catholics, that ratio is 3-to-1 (31% more supportive vs. 9% more opposed) over this period.

• If another vote similar to Proposition 8 were held tomorrow, a majority (51%) say they would vote to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry, compared to 45% who say they would vote to keep same-sex marriage illegal.

• There are major religious groups on both sides of the debate over same-sex marriage in California. Solid majorities of Latino Catholics and white mainline Protestants say they would vote to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry, while solid majorities of white evangelical Protestants, Latino Protestants, and African American Protestants say they would vote to keep same-sex marriage illegal.

The PPRI poll joins other major polls which also show majority support for marriage equality in the state of California.

Field Poll Confirms Majority Support for Marriage Equality

New polling from the Field Poll confirms that a majority of Californians support marriage equality, 51% to 42%.

READ Gill v. OPM Decision Striking Down DOMA

A big day for supporters of marriage equality today! A federal judge struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in two cases, Gill v. OPM and Massachusetts v. DHHS today. The first case was filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) on behalf of seven same-sex couples who are married in Massachusetts and would like the federal government to recognize that status. The second case was filed by former Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Here's the text of the Gill decision:

2010-07-08 Gill v. OPM Case Striking Down DOMA Sec. 3

Here's the text of the Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services case:

DOMA decision in Mass AG case

Iceland Lesbian PM Marries Her Partner

You may recall that Iceland made history last year by electing an openly lesbian prime minister and made an even bigger bang by enacting a gay marriage bill unanimously a few weeks ago.

Yesterday, these two stories combined when PM Johanna Sigurdadottir married her partner Jonina Leosdottir, the first day gay marriage became legal in the country she leads.

Sigurdardottir, in her late 60s, formally married writer Jonina Leosdottir after the couple submitted a demand for their civil union to be transformed into a marriage, the RUV broadcaster said.

Iceland's parliament on June 12 unanimously adopted legislation allowing gay marriage, in a law that came into effect on Sunday.

Homosexual couples could previously enter into a civil partnership and benefit from the same rights as heterosexual couples, but this had not been considered a formal marriage.

Sigurdardottir, born in 1942, took power in February 2009. She has lived with Ledsdottir, who is in her 50s, for several years and the couple entered a civil union in 2002.

Congratulations to the newly-weds! Hat/tip to TowleRoad.

Prop 8 Supporters Ask Federal Judge To End 18,000 Marriages

Wow. The uber heterosexual supremacist Charles Cooper, the attorney for the defendants in the federal Proposition 8 trial Perry v. Schwarzenegger, has taken one more egregious shot at LGBT people: he asked the federal judge to not only uphold the state constitutional ban on marriage equality but apply it retroactively to strip state recognition of the estimate 18,000 same-sex couples who got married between June 15, 2008 and November 5, 2008.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

As the trial over California's prohibition on same-sex marriage enters its final stage today, the ban's sponsors are urging the judge to go a step further and revoke state recognition of the marriages of 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who wed before voters passed Proposition 8.

Such an order would honor "the expressed will of the people," backers of the November 2008 ballot measure said Tuesday in their final written filing before Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker.

Andrew Pugno, an attorney for Prop. 8's backers, said in an interview that the sponsors aren't asking Walker to nullify the 18,000 marriages, but only to rule that government agencies, courts and businesses no longer have to recognize the couples as married.

So, they are basically asking the courts to divorce me and my husband in the eyes of the state of California. That's pretty deep.

You can follow coverage of the final day of this historic trial at multiple locations:

FireDogLake

Pam's House Blend

The Advocate

VIDEO: Freedom To Marry

Judge Walker Issues Questions In Prop 8 Trial

Judge Vaughn Walker has issued questions for the litigants in Perry v. Schwazenegger to answer during closing arguments which are scheduled for tomorrow, Wednesday June 16th. Some of the questions are fascinating:

What empirical data, if any, supports a finding that legal recognition of same-sex marriage reduces discrimination against gays and lesbians?

What are the consequences of a permanent injunction against enforcement of Proposition 8? What remedies do plaintiffs propose?

If the evidence of the involvement of the LDS and Roman Catholic churches and evangelical ministers supports a finding that Proposition 8 was an attempt to enforce private morality, what is the import of that finding?

The court has reserved ruling on plaintiffs' motion to exclude Mr Blankenhorn's testimony. If the motion is granted, is there any other evidence to support a finding that Proposition 8 advances a legitimate governmental interest?

Why is legislating based on moral disapproval of homosexuality not tantamount to discrimination? See Doc #605 at 11 ("But sincerely held moral or religious views that require acceptance and love of gay people, while disapproving certain aspects of their conduct, are not tantamount to discrimination."). What evidence in the record shows that a belief based in morality cannot also be discriminatory? If that moral point of view is not held and is disputed by a small but significant minority of the community, should not an effort to enact that moral point of view into a state constitution be deemed a violation of equal protection?

What does it mean to have a "choice" in one's sexual orientation? See e g Tr 2032:17-22; PX 928 at 37

Very interesting questions, eh? I believe the Williams Institute could provide data which answers the first question. The answer to #2 should be very, very important. If the judge wants to know the answer to #3, he should watch 8: The Mormon Proposition, the documentary on the LDS church's involvement in the Proposition 8 electoral battle. I believe it's irrelevant whether some people claim to have a choice in their sexual orientation. Most people clearly do NOT choose their sexual orientation, and obviously constitutional rights do not go away because the issue in question is a choice, since most people's religion is a choice.

A full list of the Judge's questions can be seen here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/32724803/Doc-677

Iceland Parliament Unanimously Passes Marriage Bill

Iceland, which is the first major country to have an openly gay leader, lesbian Johanna Sigurdardottir, became the first country to enact a marriage equality without any opposition when the Parliament voted 49-0 to pass a bill eliminating gender distinctions in marriage law in Iceland.

From the Iceland Review

Althingi parliament passed a bill of laws yesterday stating that all citizens are to have access to the same marriage laws, regardless of their sexual preference. In all, 49 MPs voted for the laws but 14 MPs were absent.

Instead of the words “man and woman,” the law now reads “two individuals”. This means that gay people can now get married in churches and in civil ceremonies.

The law will go into effect on June 27th.

National Support For Marriage Equality At 44%

Gallup has released a new poll which shows that opposition to marriage equality has fallen slightly, but is still a majority position in the United States, nationally.

These results are based on Gallup's Values and Beliefs Poll, which has tracked attitudes toward legal same-sex marriage annually since 2004. When Gallup first asked about the legality of gay marriage in a 1996 poll, 68% of Americans were opposed and 27% in favor.

Since that time, support has increased among the major political and ideological subgroups, though more among those on the left of the political spectrum than among those on the right. Currently, a majority of Democrats favor legal gay marriage, as do a majority of moderates and liberals, with liberals the most supportive of these groups, at 70%.

[...]

Over time, Americans have become more accepting of legal same-sex marriage, and a growing number of subgroups now show majority support for it. However, religious and conservative segments of the U.S. population remain largely opposed -- even though their support for gay marriage has also increased in recent years. Because religious and conservative groups are larger than nonreligious and left-leaning groups in the United States, overall, more Americans remain opposed to, rather than in favor of, same-sex marriage.

The rate of increase in support for marriage equality from 1996 to 2010 has not been uniform among sub-groups, of course. Moderate voters have had the largest increase in support (24 points, to 56%), with conservatives having the smallest (11 points, to 25%).


The poll was conducted May 3-6,2010 off 1,029 adults 18 years or older using random-digit dialing. It has a margin of error of ±4 percentage points.