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.

# # #

POLL: 1/3 Of Americans Deny Gays' Equal Relationship Rights

Interesting poll results from PPP for DailyKos.com on legal recognition of same-sex relationships:

Public Policy Polling for Daily Kos. 1/14-16. Registered voters. MoE 3.1% (No trend lines)

Which of the following best describes your opinion on gay marriage: gay couples should be allowed to legally marry, or gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry, or there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship.

         Marry  Civil unions  Neither
All         34       31         33

Dem         53       24         20
Rep         11       35         52
Ind         37       34         27

Lib         78       10         12
Mod         40       38         20
Con          8       32         57

Tea Party   17       30         52
Non-TP      42       30         27

White       33       30         35
Black       32       30         30
Latino      47       32         22

18-29       52       13         33
30-45       37       31         29
46-65       31       36         31
65+         23       34         42

Notice that nearly two-thirds of respondents either support full marriage equality or civil unions for same-sex couples. A majority of Democrats support marriage equality while a functionally equal majority of Republicans support no legal recognition for a gay couple's relationship. This is limited government?

Markos says that PPP will be polling on marriage equality every four weeks in 2011, which should provide some interesting longitudinal data on attitudes of Americans on the question of how same-sex couples should be recognized under the law.

SCOTUS Ends NOM's Attempt To Force Vote on DC Marriage

Ha! The Supreme Court of the United States has refused to hear a challenge to a D.C. Court of Appeals ruling which prevents any ballot measure that would violate the D.C. Human Rights Act.

The result means that the National Organization for Marriage will be unable to ever eliminate D.C.'s marriage equality law. This is also an excellent affirmation of the idea that the human rights of others should not be up for a vote, a principle of law in the District of Columbia since 1979.

Chris Geidner over at PoliGlot has the call:

With no comment, the court decision (pdf) puts an end to Jackson's effort to stop the 2009 marriage equality law in D.C. Today's court action in Jackson v. D.C. Board of Elections, however, provides no precedent for elsewhere and represents no view on the merits of the request.

[...]

For D.C., though, the action puts an end to the legal questions remaining for marriage equality here.

Jackson had been appealing the D.C. Court of Appeals ruling in July upholding the decision by the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics that Jackson's proposed marriage initiative was an improper subject of an initiative.

In the July 5-4 decision, the court then held that the Human Rights Act (HRA) limitation in District law, which prohibits initiatives or referendums that would violate the HRA, is permissible. In light of that ruling, all 9 judges of the D.C. court agreed that the proposed marriage initiative would violate the HRA and is, thus, not permitted.

Calling the issue a "relatively obscure matter of law," longtime District gay rights activist [and MadProfessah friend] Bob Summersgill told Metro Weekly, "This was not about the merits of marriage, it was whether the council in 1979 had the authority to restrict initiatives and referenda from violations of the Human Rights Act."

[...]

Summersgill said that the reason for the HRA limitation is that "DC's original council was, by and large, made up of civil rights activists. They firmly believed that a human right is not something that should be subject to popular vote."

Maryland Likely To Legalize Marriage Equality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

[...]

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

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

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

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."

Celebrity Friday: Lincoln Chafee

The Governor of Rhode Island, Independent Lincoln Chafee, is 2011's first Celebrity Friday for his call for the legislature to enact marriage equality during his inaugural address this week.

According to the transcript (and video):

"I urge the General Assembly to quickly consider and adopt this legislation. When marriage equality is the law in Rhode Island, we honor our forefathers who risked their lives and fortune in the pursuit of human equality. Rhode Island today must be as welcoming to all as [the state's founder] Roger Williams intended it to be. Mark my words, these two actions will do more for economic growth in our state than any economic development loan."

Hat/tip to TowleRoad

Australia: A Female, Atheist Prime Minister & Marriage Equality Majority

The current Prime Minister of Australia is Julia Gillard. She is 49-years-old, unmarried and a confirmed atheist. She became Prime Minister when she became the leader of her party after the previous head (then current Prime Minister Kevin Rudd) lost the confidence of the Labour party.

Surprisingly, she is opposed to marriage equality for same-sex couples, even though a vast majority of Australians now support equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.

78% of Australians believe there should be a conscience vote on allowing same-sex couples to marry, according to a national opinion poll released today.

The poll also found an increase in support for marriage equality with 62% of Australians supporting the reform, up from 60% last year.

[...] 

The Galaxy poll also showed that 80% of Australians aged between 18 and 24 support same-sex marriage and 72% of households with children aged under 18 were also in favour. 74% of Labor voters and 48% of Coalition voters support equality. 

Support for a conscience vote is uniformly high with 80% of Labor voters and 75% of Coalition voters supporting it.

Ireland Approves Same-sex Civil Partnerships

From La Figa comes the news that Ireland has enacted a same-sex civil partnerships law that goes into effect on January1. Apparently one has to pay €150 to register one's union and wait 3 months so the first gay civil partnership ceremony will not occur until April 1, 2011.

Irish Justice Minister Dermot Ahern signed the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act of 2010 (which had been passed by the Irish Parliament on July 19 2010) on December 23rd and said:

Gay couples, whose relationships have not previously been given legal recognition by the State, may now formalise their relationships in the eyes of the law and society at large. Their relationships will be legally recognised and protected.

Congrats, Eire!

Celebrity Friday: VP Biden Says Marriage Is "Inevitable"

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

Joe.My.God quotes:

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

The Same-Sex Marriage Debate In One Picture

Hat/tip to student Hanna White.

WATCH: The Prop 8 Oral Arguments Before 9th Circuit

Part 1:




Part 2:

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.

These Three Men Will Decide Fate Of Proposition 8

Hawkins	Smith	Reinhardt

The 3-member panel for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals who will hear oral arguments on Monday December 6th in the federal Proposition 8 case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, has been announced. It consists of the most liberal member of the gigantic 26-member 9th Circuit, Hon. Stephen Reinhardt (appointed by Carter in 1980), a moderate jurist named Hon. Michael Daly Hawkins (appointed by Clinton in 1994) and a right-wing ideologue, N. Randy Smith (appointed by George W. Bush in 2007).

Most commenters think that the make-up of the panel indicates a likely 2-1 decision in favor of the good guys (supporters of marriage equality), which will probably get appealed to an 11-member panel of the 9th Circuit called an en banc panel. From there, it's direct to the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the land.

Prop 8 Federal Appeal Will Be Televised On Dec. 6!

On Monday December 6th at 10am, A 3-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, also known as the federal Proposition 8 lawsuit. On August 4th, openly gay federal District Court judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8 violated the United States Constitution.

These facts have been known for awhile. The new information is that apparently the oral arguments in the Perry appeal will now be televised by C-SPAN and local channel KGO. This is a big deal, because the lower court was intended to be broadcast as well but the heterosexual supremacists defending Proposition 8 objected and appealed all the way to the United States Supreme Court who overruled Judge Walker and banned the broadcasting of the oral arguments just days before the trial was scheduled to begin this past January.

Here are the details of the hearing on Monday, which will be in two 2-hour segments. The first session will be on whether the Proposition 8 propnents have "standing" to actually continue defending the statue, since the official parties to the lawsuit (the Governor and Attorney General) have refused to defend the voter-passed initiative in court. The second hour will be about the constitutionality of Proposition 8 itself.

Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk:KKW): The Court orders that oral argument in these appeals be conducted in the following manner: The argument shall be divided into two hour-long sessions, with a brief recess in between. In the first hour, the parties shall address each appellant’s standing and any other procedural matters that may properly be raised. In the second hour, the parties shall address the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

During the first hour, the Hollingsworth defendants-intervenors-appellants (“Proponents”) shall first have 15 minutes, and the Imperial County movants-appellants shall next have 15 minutes in which to present their opening arguments regarding standing and other procedural issues. The Perry plaintiffs-appellees shall then have 30 minutes in which to respond. Any time reserved by either appellant may be used for rebuttal, but only one rebuttal argument may be made and that by either appellant.

During the second hour, the Proponents shall first have 30 minutes to present their opening argument on the merits of the constitutional question. The Perry plaintiffs-appellees shall then have 15 minutes, and the plaintiff-intervenor-appellee City and County of San Francisco shall have the next 15 minutes, in which to respond. Any time reserved by the Proponents may be used for rebuttal.

No later than November 24, 2010, the parties shall advise the Court of any objection they have to the allocation of time within each hour or of any reallocation of time within each hour that they wish to propose, by electronically filing letters with the Clerk of the Court. If any party wishes to give its full allotted time within either hour to an amicus curiae, it may request that the Court reallocate that time accordingly. Otherwise, no motions for leave to participate in oral argument by amici curiae will be entertained.. [7545517]

The names of the judges who will hear the appeal have not been released yet. Whoever loses at this level will appeal to the United States Supreme Court, who may or may not accept the case.

Celebrity Friday: Roderick Ireland

MA Gov. Deval Patrick (left) with Chief Justice-designate Roderick L. Ireland

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, the only Black governor in the country, has nominated Roderick Ireland to be the first Black Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Patrick was re-elected to a second final term as Governor on Tuesday November 3rd, and announced the nomination of Ireland to replace retiring Chief Justice Margaret Marshall. Marshall is well-known for writing the 4-3 majority opinion in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health which ended the state's prohibition on same-sex couples from marrying, the first state Supreme Court to do so in the United States in 2003.

Ireland voted with the majority and Patrick is also a strong supporter of marriage equality and LGBT rights. His teenaged daughter came out as a lesbian while he was governor and he marched with her in a gay rights parade.

GLAD, ACLU File Lawsuits Challenging DOMA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Chart of the Day: Atheists Are Strongest Supporter of Marriage Equality

Here is a chart from the October 11th edition of The Economist which indicates that atheists/agnostics are the strongest supporters in America for marriage equality, citing Pew Research Center polling data.

San Francisco Files Brief Opposing Prop 8

San Francisco's Brief Opposing Prop 8

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.