I only heard about the challenge now! I'm so glad you posted Anya(f)

A happy day in Delaware
 

Delaware same-sex marriage law takes effect


July 1, 2013


By Michael K. Lavers on July 1, 2013



WILMINGTON, Del. — A Delaware lawmaker who came out during a debate over her state’s same-sex marriage bill earlier this year and her partner on Monday became the first couple to take advantage of the gay nuptials law.

State Sen. Karen Peterson (D-Stanton) and her partner, Vikki Bandy, converted their civil union into a marriage at the New Castle County Clerk of the Peace’s office in Wilmington.

“It’s exciting, both historically and personally,” Peterson told reporters after she and Bandy exchanged vows in a private ceremony. “I never thought in our lifetimes we would be getting married.”

Rehoboth Beach residents Chris Beagle and Eric Engelhart later on Monday will become the first gay couple in Sussex County to convert their civil union into a marriage. Joseph Daigle, II, and Daniel Cole will become the first same-sex couple who had not previously entered into a civil union to tie the knot in Delaware when they exchange vows in Wilmington later on Monday.

Clerks of the Peace in Delaware’s three counties will issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples on Monday, but no other same-sex weddings will take place on that day because the state did not waive the 24-hour waiting period for any other gay or lesbian couple.

13 states and D.C. now allow same-sex marriage.

Gays and lesbians in Minnesota and Rhode Island will begin to legally tie the knot on August 1.

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 26 found a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and struck down California’s Proposition 8 that had banned same-sex marriage. Gays and lesbians in the Golden State began to once again exchange vows on June 28 after the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals listed its stay on gay nuptials in response to the justices’ Prop 8 ruling

Supreme Court Gay Marriage Rulings: Conservatives Have Learned to Love Marriage Equality
Tim Rosenberger
in
Politics
4 hours ago


Supreme Court Gay Marriage Rulings: Conservatives Have Learned to Love Marriage Equality


Nestled between booths for pro-life groups and conservative think tanks at this year’s College Republican National Convention was a bright red table, covered in candy and plastic megaphones and surrounded by students. Delegates grabbed megaphones as they entered the conference hall to begin voting and made small talk with the table’s organizers. While it would not have been surprising to see such a crowd of young conservatives flocking to a table for The Heritage Foundation or some like organization, these students were instead lending support to the organization Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry.

While suggestive of the future of the Republican Party’s social stances, this group was indicative of the groundswell of support for LGBT equality on the right side of the political spectrum. As of this writing, three sitting Republican senators support full marriage equality. While not an overwhelming number, it is significant to note that not one of these leaders supported marriage equality until a few months ago. Of greater significance were the pro-equality Supreme Court rulings of the past week. Both of these rulings depended on some Republican appointees crossing party lines. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion suggests that the court does view policies singling out gay individuals as discriminatory. Perhaps more important than the actual outcomes of the decisions, this precedent should shape legal outcomes across the country.

While Republican policy makers are moving slowly on this issue, those free from the pressures of holding political office seem even more ready to accept marriage equality. From the Cheney and McCain families to Laura Bush these giants of Republican politics will undoubtedly shape the opinions of their fellow conservatives even if they cannot directly impact policy.

Even Republican opponents of gay marriage seem to be accepting that their positions are losing ones. In his bitter dissent to the DOMA ruling, Justice Scalia all but admitted that gay marriage is inevitable. Elected Republicans are taking different tacks, but all seem to be avoiding coming off as overly zealous on the issue. Speaker John Boehner offered some calm remarks on the Supreme Court’s ruling that seemed resigned rather than inflammatory. When vetoing gay marriage for his state, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie rested his veto on wishing New Jersey voters to have a referendum on the issue. He significantly did not strongly condemn the idea or try to moralize his position. Even Tea Party firebrands like Rand Paul are taking decidedly neutral tacks. Paul, rather than strongly opposing gay marriage, hides behind his libertarian protestations for states’ rights.

Young Republicans have developed an interesting dichotomy which allows them to hold all traditional conservative positions, including being pro-life, while opposing the party’s position on gay marriage. Interestingly, they are doing this not because of a desire to drop a conservative value, but to apply conservative principals to an issue in a new way. Preventing government from defining love now holds a greater value than preserving the status quo. Helping all loving families to grow and succeed seems somehow more important than restricting what constitutes a family. The thoughtful approach young Republicans have taken on this issue bodes well for the future, not only of conservatism, but of our nation

I was married 5 years ago today...some still can't
 

Christie 'Stands in the Way of Marriage Equality,' Sen. Buono Says

Legislators and gays rights advocates call for governor to 'step aside,' ask for Republicans to vote their conscience.

Posted by Elizabeth Alterman (Editor), July 3, 2013 at 09:37 am


Speaking from the front steps of the Westfield home of longtime couple Liz Flanagan and Nancy Wilkinson, Senate President Steve Sweeney (D-Gloucester) and Democratic gubernatorial nominee Senator Barbara Buono (D-Middlesex) called for Gov. Chris Christie to “step aside” and allow legislators to vote their conscience when it comes to marriage equality.


“My daughter Tessa came out years ago and for me, it’s not an abstract idea," Buono said. “For me, it’s about acceptance. For me, it’s about saying that she’s not less than. You know, this is a governor, one man in New Jersey, that stands in the way of marriage equality. One man who's saying that their love is just not as good as everyone else’s.”

Buono said it's time for Christie to "step out of the way of progress" and "release his hold on his legislative leaders and let them do the right thing. Let them vote their conscience."

Last week, the United States Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), allowing federal benefits to same-sex marriages. Union County advocates told Patch they were "overjoyed" by the decision.

One reason Buono and Sweeney chose Westfield as the location for the press conference is that it is home to Senate Minority Leader Tom Kean Jr. (R-Union) and Assembly Minority Leader Jon Bramnick (R-Union).


Sweeney and Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg, also in attendance, said it is now time for New Jersey to "uphold the constitution" and afford all people what they called basic civil and human rights.


In February 2012, the New Jersey Legislature passed legislation establishing marriage equality but Christie vetoed the legislation. Though two Republican senators voted in favor of marriage equality, making the final Senate vote 24-16, three more votes are needed to override the veto.

Christie has suggested letting voters decide on the issue but Buono took umbrage with the idea of placing "a basic human, civil right" on the ballot and called the very suggestion "offensive."


Troy Stevenson, executive director of Garden State Equality, said as it stands now, same-sex couples are being denied 1,138 federal rights and provisions that are afforded to their heterosexual, married counterparts.

"We are fighting every day to make sure we get the votes we need in both houses of the legislature," Stevenson said. "The debate is over. The debate is absolutely over. Civil unions are not and never will be equal to marriage, we know that, and it's time to override this veto."


Sweeney, calling the DOMA decision "a game changer," said that there are other Republican senators who want to vote for marriage equality but are afraid to go against Christie. When a reporter noted that two Republican senators had voted in favor of marriage equality, Sweeney said "as long it doesn't get to 27, that was the deal."

Buono bristled when asked by a reporter if she thought this issue could help her win the election. "I don't even know how you can ask that," she said, adding that for her it is "an emotional issue."

Sweeney quickly added, "This isn't about that," and said the gubernatorial candidate has been "a champion of this issue long before the campaign."

In closing, Buono reiterated that for her it is a matter of acceptance and of not being treated "like a second class citizen, and that this the message that is coming across loud and clear from this governor refusing to take action."

Pennsylvania
 

ACLU brings fight for marriage equality to Pennsylvania

Emma Margolin
6:21 PM on 07/09/2013



The days of same-sex marriage bans may be coming to an end.

In the first federal lawsuit filed anywhere in the country since the Supreme Court handed down decisions in two landmark marriage equality cases, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, and volunteer counsel from a Philadelphia-based law firm on Tuesday formally challenged Pennsylvania’s law prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.

Like the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Supreme Court struck down two weeks ago, Pennsylvania’s statutory provision limits marriage to unions between one man and one woman, and prevents the state government from recognizing same-sex marriages performed where they are legal. The suit alleges that Pennsylvania’s law violates the fundamental right to marry, as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

“We only want what every married couple wants–to express our love and commitment in front of friends and family, and the security and protections that only marriage provides,” said Deb Whitewood, one of the 23 plaintiffs challenging the Pennsylvania provision, in a statement released by the ACLU. “Our life is built around our relationship and the family we have made,” she said of her partner of 22 years, Susan Whitewood, and their three children, Abbey, Katie, and Landon.

The two women had a “holy union” ceremony at their church in 1993 shortly before they each changed their last names to Whitewood, a combination of their surnames. In 2001, they entered into a civil union in Vermont. Yet Pennsylvania law treats them as “legal strangers,” writes the ACLU.

Currently, Pennsylvania is one of 35 states that prohibits same-sex marriage through a constitutional or statutory provision. But as with national trends, support for marriage equality among Pennsylvanians is on the rise. A recent survey from Public Policy Polling found an almost even split on the issue, with a net 14 point increase over the last year and a half in favor of legalizing gay marriage across the state.

While the main focus of this suit will be on Pennsylvania, it could lead the Supreme Court to rule on whether same-sex couples across the country have the constitutional right to marry–a question the justices declined to answer when they ruled the proponents of Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage, lacked standing to defend it.

Should Pennsylvania uphold its ban on same-sex marriage, this suit stands a chance at landing before the nation’s highest court.


“It’s pretty clear that the Supreme Court will at some point in the not too distant future want another crack at the issue,” said Witold Walczak, ACLU of Pennsylvania’s legal director, to MSNBC. “We have a strong legal case, and I think it could be a good vehicle for the Supreme Court to reconsider whether same-sex couples have a right to marry under the constitution.”

Similar challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage are already underway in Illinois, New Mexico, and Michigan, noted Walczak. The ACLU also announced on Tuesday that it would amend an existing adoption lawsuit in North Carolina to include a challenge to that state’s marriage laws. And James Esseks, director of the ACLU’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & AIDS Project, told the Washington Post that a suit against Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage would come “quite soon.”

“There was a huge amount of excitement and positive energy today,” said Walczak. “Pennsylvania is the birthplace of the constitution and the cradle of liberty, so it’s a fitting place to have a fight over the constitutional right to marry,” he added.

“Now the hard work begins.”

Moving forward
 

Michigan marriage equality lawsuit to be argued October 1; new filings in Illinois marriage challenges

July 11, 2013


By Scottie Thomaston

A scheduling conference in the lawsuit challenging Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban, DeBoer v. Snyder, took place yesterday, July 10 in federal district court. The federal judge declined to dismiss the case last week, but did not issue a final ruling or a schedule for further motions or arguments, putting the decision off until yesterday’s conference.

No final decision on the merits of the constitutional challenge to the ban was released yesterday, and the judge has set oral arguments for October 1. Challenges against same-sex marriage bans in Nevada and Hawaii are likely to see oral arguments in October as well, though probably at the end of the month, since an extension of time was sought to file briefs. Those cases are already in the appeals court, though, at the Ninth Circuit.

In Illinois, Lambda Legal has filed a motion for summary judgment in Darby v. Orr and Lazaro v. Orr. This is a request for a decision on the merits, (in the plaintiffs’ favor, in this case.) Their brief in support of summary judgment is much like the one they filed in the New Jersey case: both are state cases, both states have civil unions. In one section, they write:


Plaintiffs who obtained civil unions by license from illinois county clerks currently are denied a number of federal benefits and protections that would be available to them and their families if they could marry now that DOMA has been struck down.

The filing goes on to list specific ways civil unions deny same-sex couples equal protection under the law afforded to opposite-sex couples. There is no timeline for the court to act in the case.

The U.K.
 

BREAKING: U.K. House of Lords Give Final Approval to Marriage Equality

The legislation now heads back to the House of Commons for final approval, before going to the Queen for her signature.

BY Sunnivie Brydum.

July 15 2013 12:07 PM ET


The House of Lords, the unelected upper chamber of the U.K. Parliament, offered its final approval to marriage equality legislation Monday, according to Bloomberg. Although the Lords did not register a vote today, the chamber previously approved the legislation by an overwhelming majority of 390 to 148.

The legislation, championed by Prime Minister David Cameron, now returns to the lower House of Commons, where members will vote on amendments proposed by the Lords. In May, the House of Commons voted in favor of marriage equality by a vote of 366 to 161, leaving advocates hopeful that the lower house will affirm the proposed law. If the House of Commons accepts the amendments, the bill will go to Queen Elizabeth for her signature, a process known as Royal Assent.

Once the law is enacted, England and Wales will become the tenth European jurisdiction to embrace marriage equality, according to the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Association — Europe. The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Portugal, and Iceland established marriage equality previously, and France enacted same-sex marriage earlier this year. That means 30% of Europeans now live in nations that support the freedom to marry, reports ILGA-Europe.

“Today, the land of Magna Carta sealed another historic transformation," said Gabi Calleja, cochair of ILGA-Europe's executive board in a statement. "Marriage is an institution which is dear and close to many people’s hearts, beliefs and lives. It was shaped and transformed over hundreds of years by different traditions, interpretations and customs. The debate leading to the adoption of the marriage equality law has shown that British society and its politicians have once again embraced change, to update the institution of marriage to that which is equally open and accessible to all, in the name of justice and human rights."

More from California
 

State's top court lets same-sex marriages continue



Bob Egelko

Updated 9:40 am, Tuesday, July 16, 2013

The state Supreme Court refused Monday to stop the weddings of gay and lesbian couples in California, a development that indicated Proposition 8's sponsors have little chance of reviving the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.

The unanimous, one-sentence order denied the sponsors' request for an immediate halt to the marriages, while reserving judgment on their claim that Prop. 8 remains valid and enforceable statewide.

But their arguments for that claim are largely the same as those they advanced in their request for an emergency order stopping the marriages: that Gov. Jerry Brown had no authority to order all 58 county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and that a federal judge's ruling that declared Prop. 8 unconstitutional applied only to the two couples who sued to overturn the 2008 initiative.

Brown issued the order on June 28, two days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Prop. 8's sponsors, as private citizens unaccountable to the state, had no legal standing to represent California or its voters in defense of the measure in federal court.

With both Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris refusing to defend Prop. 8, which they considered unconstitutional, the ruling reinstated an August 2010 ruling by then-Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco that the ballot measure discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation and gender.

Although the suit by couples from Berkeley and Burbank was not a class action, Walker drafted his ruling to have statewide effect, prohibiting enforcement of Prop. 8 by state officials and everyone under their supervision. The state's high court ruled in 2004 that state officials, not county clerks, set qualifications for marriage licenses.

After unsuccessfully seeking an emergency stay from the U.S. Supreme Court, Prop. 8's sponsors sued Friday in the state Supreme Court, which had recognized their right to defend the measure in state courts. They argued that the 2008 initiative remains legally binding until struck down by an appellate court - a California constitutional requirement - and said the state's 58 county clerks had no obligation to obey Walker's order.

Some of the clerks "may very well disregard the order or at least raise some legitimate questions regarding the validity of these marriages," attorney Andrew Pugno said Monday in a final appeal for an immediate halt to the marriages while the court considers the case.

Acting for the state, Harris, in a court filing late Friday, said Prop. 8's sponsors were trying to get the state court to reinterpret Walker's ruling and inject uncertainty into issues the federal courts have resolved.

In response to Monday's order that let the marriages continue, Harris said her office will "continue to fight this effort to deny same-sex couples their constitutionally protected civil rights."

Attorney Austin Nimocks of Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian organization representing the Prop. 8 sponsors, said same-sex marriage opponents "will continue to urge the court to uphold the rule of law."

More from the U.K.
 

The House of Commons just passed same-sex marriage, now on to the Queen for signature. Marriage could begin some time next Summer.

Congratulations!

Fuckin' Fuckers Update.....
 

At my wife's request to end this quickly and in effort to avoid a domestic dispute I have capitulated, giving her copies of my medical cards. I still think there is a principle thing here that maybe I should have insisted we stand on. Considering that her company is gay-owned it seems more like preaching to the choir. Perhaps this will inspire them to dump ADP (and for other problems with them) have as the managing company for their payroll.

WAY TO GO!
 

AP

Gay marriage legalized in Britain after queen gives royal stamp of approval



LONDON -- Britain has legalized gay marriage after Queen Elizabeth II gave her royal stamp of approval on Wednesday.

House of Commons Speaker John Bercow told lawmakers that the royal assent had been given — the day after the bill to legalize same-sex marriage in England and Wales cleared Parliament.

The queen's approval was a formality. It clears the way for the first gay marriages next summer.

The bill enables gay couples to get married in both civil and religious ceremonies in England and Wales. It also will allow couples who had previously entered into a civil partnership to convert their relationship to a marriage.

The Associated Press

Costa Rica
 

Jul

2013

2:34am, EDT

Costa Rica may get gay marriage after legislature's 'accidental' vote

By Andrew Mach, Staff Writer, NBC News

The Costa Rican legislature passed a bill this week that appears to legalize same-sex civil unions – although it might have been an accident.

Some lawmakers didn't realize until a day after Monday's vote that the language in a bill regarding young people may have offered a path to legalized same-sex marriage by expanding social rights for gay people and extending benefits to same-sex unions, according to the Tico Times, an English news website in San Jose.

The bill had previously defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, until a liberal lawmaker wrote into the bill new marriage language that extends “the right to recognition without discrimination contrary to human dignity.”

José María Villalta, a member of the leftist Broad Front Party who wrote the controversial language into the bill, said lawmakers simply didn't pay attention to the most up-to-date version before approving it, Tico Times reported.

"During the discussion in the first debate, we explained that the Law of Young People should be interpreted with this sense of opening to gays and no one objected."

Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla signed the bill into law Thursday, over the protests of conservatives who had called for her to veto it. Though an ardent supporter of traditional marriage in the past, Chinchilla told local reporters earlier this week she wouldn't oppose a court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, the Tico Times reported.

"We understand that the debate is over how some interpret the law and this alone is not sufficient for the executive to veto the law," Chinchilla said.

In Latin America, gay marriage is already legal in Argentina, Mexico City and some states of Brazil, and civil unions are allowed in Ecuador and Uruguay.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/07/17...nd-is-now-law/

Stole the above link from Dakarti's posting on another thread.

North Carolina
 

N.C. Readies Marriage Ban Challenge

Six couples have joined a legal challenge to the state's laws that discriminate against gay couples and families

BY Michelle Garcia.

July 10 2013 6:40 PM ET


Six gay and lesbian couples in North Carolina will join the legal challenge against their state's ban on marriage equality, particularly the right for same-sex couples to adopt children together.

The couples have partnered up with the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as its chapter in North Carolina, to amend an existing federal lawsuit, which was filed against the state last year. It challenges a state law that claims same-sex couples cannot be recognized as equal parents of children. The ACLU is also asking for an additional claim against Amendment One, the ballot measure that voters approved last year, that designates marriage only for heterosexual couples.

The lawsuit includes Marcie and Chantelle Fisher-Borne, a couple that was legally wed in Washington, D.C., in 2011, but their marriage is not recognized by state law. Each of the women birthed their children -- a 5-year-old girl and a 1-year-old boy -- and when their daughter was born, the couple met resistance from a hospital staff member who demanded their legal paperwork.

“Our children deserve the security of having both Marcie and me as legally recognized parents, and marriage is the best way for us to provide that to them” said Chantelle Fisher-Borne. “We declared our love and commitment to each other years ago, but the law in North Carolina does not recognize the life we have built together or allow us to share legal responsibility for the children we have raised together. We want to be married for many of the same reasons anyone else does – to do what’s best for our family, especially our children, and have our commitment to each other recognized by the law.”

On Tuesday the ACLU also announced a federal challenge to Pennsylvania’s marriage ban, as well as a joint challenge with Lambda Legal of Virginia’s marriage ban. The legal action also follows the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, thereby allowing the federal government to extend benefits and responsibilities that heterosexual couples receive through marriage.

“From President Obama and Senator Hagan’s endorsements to the recent landmark Supreme Court decision declaring the so-called Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, support for the freedom to marry has moved forward by leaps and bounds," said Chris Brook, Legal Director of the ACLU-NCLF. "Conversations are happening at dinner tables throughout our state with more and more North Carolinians agreeing that the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage should not be denied to loving and committed couples simply because they are gay or lesbian.”

Some idiot (Conservative of course) politician pointed out that there is now the possibility that we could one day have a lesbian queen provide us with a heir to the throne through artificial insemination.

He said it like it would be a bad thing! LOL...

Words

Hmmmmmn
 

Hmmmn ... think that gentleman is a little late in the development of his thinking. Royal procreation using "donor" sperm of one kind or another has probably already happened a time or two over the centuries, LOL.

Don't see that same sex marriage has much to do with a lesbian queen having a child through insemination. The British monarchy is rather notorious for having children outside of the bonds of matrimony. The pressure is on for ANY monarch to reproduce. Soon cloning will be an available option for either king or queen to reproduce without contribution from anyone other than themselves. Till then the "other" parent will be a problem. Are Royals from other countries likely to want to ship their sperm/eggs to another country for procreation by the monarch there? Hmmmn, THAT may already have happened as well. my my my!
Smooches,
Keri

Pennsylvania
 

Going Rogue for Marriage Equality

Christopher Moraff

July 31, 2013


Defying Pennsylvania law, Montgomery County's register of wills has begun issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Will this bold move help or hurt the cause?

Last week, Montgomery County, a sleepy suburb of Philadelphia, was thrust into the national spotlight when its elected register of wills, D. Bruce Hanes, put principle above policy and began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in defiance of Pennsylvania's long-standing ban on gay unions. Since July 24, Hanes has issued more than two dozen of the licenses. Thus far, two lesbian couples have used the licenses to tie the knot in the first officially sanctioned same-sex marriages in Pennsylvania history.

Hanes's pioneering effort—which materialized over the course of a single week after a lawyer representing two women contacted his office to inquire about obtaining a marriage license—has elevated Pennsylvania's stature as a gay-rights battleground and put Governor Tom Corbett on notice that, on the issue of same-sex marriage, the commonwealth is evolving with or without him. But by going it alone, is Hanes furthering the cause of marriage equality or endangering it?

Yesterday the governor, a Republican who opposes marriage equality, slapped Montgomery County with a lawsuit seeking to enjoin Hanes from issuing any more marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The filing also asks the court to invalidate any marriages that have already taken place. “As a result of the illegal issuance of marriage licenses by the clerk, it appears that same-sex couples are proceeding with marriage ceremonies that are not permitted by Pennsylvania law,” the petition reads. In a written statement, Montgomery County Solicitor Ray McGarry said the state's position “has serious flaws” and that until the matter is settled by the courts, the register of wills will continue to issue licenses to same-sex couples.

Hanes's move comes just weeks after the American Civil Liberties Union joined a Philadelphia law firm in challenging the state’s ban on gay marriage on behalf of nearly a dozen same-sex couples. In that case, newly minted Attorney General Kathleen Kane stated publicly that she would not defend the ban. Michael Clarke, the solicitor for the register of wills who advised Hanes to issue the licenses, said the attorney general's position—and her statement last month that Pennsylvania's Defense of Marriage law is “wholly unconstitutional”—figured prominently into his decision to advise Hanes to issue the licenses. “The way I saw it, the only way we could deny them a license would be on the grounds that they were women, and in our eyes that violates Pennsylvania's constitution, which says equal rights cannot be denied based on an individual's sex,” Clarke says

Legal scholars say that's a pretty solid argument, but it's up to the court to decide whether Hanes had the authority to act on it unilaterally. “Hanes is clearly right on the law. The question is does a local official have the right to follow the law rather than the government of which he is a part,” says Burton Caine, a professor of constitutional law at Temple University and a Montgomery County resident. "I believe that he does have the authority."

Jill Engle, a professor of clinical law at Penn State University, says that if it's determined that Hanes acted outside the law, then the licenses he issued would be de facto null and void. But she acknowledges that recent factors—such as the Supreme Court's ruling striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act and Attorney General Kane's refusal to defend Pennsylvania's own gay marriage ban—places the case in uncharted territory. “Under the strict letter of the state statute, of course, [these marriages] appear illegal,” she says. “That being said, Hanes’s point that one can interpret the state constitution to reach the opposite conclusion is persuasive, and more persuasive than it was a few months ago thanks to the Supreme Court's decision on the federal Defense of Marriage Act, on which our Pennsylvania statute was arguably based.”

The larger question is where Hanes’s move fits into the broader push for marriage equality in the state. Some gay-rights advocates are worried about what they see as a potential distraction from the main event in Pennsylvania—the ACLU case, Whitewood v. Corbett, which is scheduled for trial in United States District Court on September 30.

“I happen to think the best way to move is through the courts and to work within the legislature, and that's what we have been trying to do,” says Ted Martin, executive director of Equality Pennsylvania. Martin worries such a defiant stance at the county level could back opponents of marriage equality into a corner, which would only strengthen their resolve to fight. “For every action there is a reaction, and we just don't know what that's going to be.”

Malcolm Lazin, the founder of the Philadelphia-based Equality Forum takes a different view. He compares what's happening in Montgomery County with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision to issue thousands of marriage licenses to gay couples in 2004. “In one sense this was a political statement that took a concept that is getting a lot of attention and humanized it,” he says. “It helps to frame the legal issue.”

Philadelphia attorney Mark Aronchick, whose firm Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller is serving as co-counsel to the ACLU in its federal lawsuit, declined to comment specifically about the situation in Montgomery County, but his words seemed to contradict any claim that Hanes’s actions could compromise his own efforts. "This wasn't part of our case strategy, and it happened independent of us so we'll watch it and see where it goes,” he says. “I applaud all public officials who are taking steps to make marriage equality a reality in Pennsylvania.”

Whether Hanes's bold effort will prove successful remains to be seen. Similar moves in the past, however, have not typically met with success. While they are credited with laying the foundation for California's recent victory on gay marriage, all of the weddings officiated by Newsom were ultimately voided by the California Supreme Court. And in 2004, Mayor Jason West of New Paltz, New York, faced criminal prosecution after he defied state law and officiated over a series of same-sex marriages in his town. New York legalized same-sex marriage through legislation in 2011.

Yet the legal drama unfolding in Pennsylvania must be viewed within the context of the rapidly shifting dialogue on the issues of same-sex marriage and gay civil rights. Lazin thinks that when all is said and done, that may be a defining factor in its resolution. “We are in many ways a very conservative state, but having said that, there is a significant change in public opinion that increasingly favors LGBT civil rights,” he says. “The political climate has changed here and, particularly, the Republicans have changed their position. They are no longer going to be as proactive in fighting this.”

Happy day!!
 

Gay couples rush to wed as Minnesota, Rhode Island legalize same-sex marriage


By Patrick Condon, The Associated Press

MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. - Dozens of gay couples began tying the knot early Thursday morning at Minneapolis City Hall as Minnesota – along with Rhode Island – became the latest state to legalize same-sex marriage.

"I didn't expect to cry quite that hard," said a beaming Cathy ten Broeke, who with Margaret Miles was the first gay couple to be wed at City Hall.

After Miles and ten Broeke exchanged vows and rings just before midnight Wednesday, Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak had musicians kill a few minutes until the clock struck 12:01 a.m. Thursday, when the law went into effect.

Then the attending crowd burst into applause as Rybak pronounced Miles and ten Broeke married. The couple stood nearby embracing their 5-year-old son, Louie.

"We do," all three said to more cheers as they promised to be a family.

Rhode Island and Minnesota on Thursday became the 12th and 13th U.S. states to allow gay marriage, along with the District of Columbia.

In Minneapolis, 42 couples were expected to be married by Rybak and several Hennepin County judges in the hours before dawn.

Weddings were scheduled to start at the stroke of midnight at Minneapolis City Hall, St. Paul's Como Park, Mall of America's Chapel of Love and at county courthouses around the state. One group planned a cluster of weddings in a Duluth tavern.

"I don't think either of us ever thought we'd see this day," said Mike Bolin, of the Minneapolis suburb of Richfield, who was marrying Jay Resch, his partner of six years, at Minneapolis City Hall. "We met at low points in both of our lives, and to have arrived at this point — there's going to be a lot of tears."

Rhode Island was joining Minnesota on Thursday in becoming the 12th and 13th U.S. states to allow gay marriage, along with the District of Columbia. The national gay rights group Freedom to Marry estimates that about 30 percent of the U.S. population now lives in places where gay marriage is legal. The first gay weddings in Rhode Island were planned for later Thursday morning.

In Minnesota, budget officials estimated that about 5,000 gay couples would marry in the first year. Its enactment capped a fast turnabout on the issue in just over two years. After voters rejected a constitutional ban on gay marriage last fall, the state Legislature this spring moved to make it legal.

Rhode Island becomes the last New England state to allow same-sex marriage. Lawmakers in the heavily Catholic state passed the marriage law this spring, after more than 16 years of efforts by same-sex marriage supporters. Both Minnesota and Rhode Island will automatically recognize marriages performed in other states.

Bolin and Resch celebrated Wednesday night with several hundred others at Wilde Roast Cafe along the Mississippi River north of downtown Minneapolis. Many at the event planned to walk to City Hall for the mass nuptials.

Dayton proclaimed Aug. 1 to be "Freedom to Marry Day" in Minnesota.

Golden Valley-based General Mills Inc. donated Betty Crocker cakes for the event, which was also to feature performances by local musicians and services donated by wedding photographers, florists and other businesses.

Weddings were not limited to the Twin Cities. In St. Cloud, Stearns County court administrator Tim Roberts planned to marry a couple at 12:01 a.m. at the courthouse. "It feels historic. It's an honor to be a part of it," Roberts said. Midnight weddings were also planned for courthouses in Clay County, Polk County and elsewhere.

At Mall of America, Holli Bartelt and Amy Petrich from the southeastern Minnesota town of Wykoff were set to become the first couple married at the Chapel of Love. Owner Felicia Glass-Wilcox said she hoped to start the ceremony a few minutes early, so the vows could be pronounced seconds after midnight.

"We'd like for them to be able to say they are the very first married in the state, but for sure they'll be able to say they're one of the first," Glass-Wilcox said. She said the chapel had four more gay couples booked for weddings in the next five days.

Bartelt, 33, proposed to Petrich, 37, in April in a photo booth at the Bloomington mall. It was a few weeks before the Legislature approved the law, but Bartelt said she was confident by then that it would pass. She had been in contact with a mall employee about the proposal, who later suggested the couple could be first to get married at the chapel.

Bartelt, a health coach, planned to wear an ivory-colored dress, while Petrich, a baker for Mayo Clinic, was wearing an ivory suit. A group of about 50 family members and close friends were planning to join them, including Bartelt's 10-year-old son and 9-year-old daughter.

"Everybody deserves the right to be happy," said Bartelt. "That's really what it's all about. It's a big day for us, and a big day for Minnesota, and something I hope my kids look back on some day and say, 'Wow, we got to be part of that.'"

Virginia
 

Two Lesbian Couples Challenge Virginia's Marriage Equality Ban

Represented by the ACLU and Lambda Legal, four lesbian moms are suing the state of Virginia to recognize their marriages and families.

BY Sunnivie Brydum.

August 01 2013 1:49 PM ET

Two lesbian couples in Virginia have filed a federal class action lawsuit seeking to overturn the state's constitutional and statutory prohibitions on same-sex marriages and recognizing such unions performed outside of the state.

Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Virginia, and Lambda Legal, the case, known as Harris, et. al. v McDonnell, et. al., was filed today in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, according to a press release from the ACLU. The suit alleges that the state's ban on marriage equality and refusal to recognize legal same-sex marriages performed in other states results in the state sending a "purposeful message that they view lesbians, gay men, and their children as second-class citizens who are undeserving of the legal sanction, respect, protections, and support that heterosexuals and their families are able to enjoy through marriage."

The four lead plaintiffs are comprised of two lesbian couples with children, who represent a larger class action suit on behalf of all gay and lesbian Virginians who wish to marry. Christy Berghoff and Victoria Kidd, both 34, have been together for nine years, and married in 2011 in Washington, D.C., according to the ACLU. Berghoff is an Air Force veteran who currently works for the Department of Justice, while her wife Kidd runs a small business from their home, allowing her to serve as a stay-at-home mother to the couple's eight-month-old daughter, Lydia.

Joanne Harris, 37, and Jessi Duff, 33 are both native Virginians, who met through a mutual friend 11 years ago. Harris serves as the director of diversity at Mary Baldwin College, while Duff works for the state's child protective services systems. They have a four-year-old son named Jabari, who loves his Mommy and Momma DeeDee, but knows his parents aren't legally married like his friends' parents. Pointing to a picture of the couple's 2006 commitment ceremony, Jabari told the ACLU "Mommy and Momma DeeDee got married, and they really need to get married."

This latest filing marks the third federal challenge to a state ban on marriage equality filed by the ACLU since the Supreme Court issued its landmark rulings invalidating a key section of the so-called defense of marriage act and dismissing California's Proposition 8 on June 26. Earlier this month, the advocacy organization filed federal lawsuits to strike down anti-marriage equality laws in Pennsylvania and North Carolina. The Pennsylvania attorney general announced shortly thereafter that she will not defend the state's antigay law in court, because she believes "it to be wholly unconstitutional."

Congratulations!
 

RI lawmaker who fought for marriage equality marries his partner of 32 years

Clare Kim, @clarehkim
11:15 PM on 08/01/2013

For Rhode Island Rep. Frank Ferri, Thursday marked a long-awaited milestone for him and his partner of 32 years. After Rhode Island became the 13th state to legalize gay marriage, county clerks began issuing marriage licenses when their offices opened at 8:30am this morning.

Ferri and his longtime partner, Anthony Caparco, were one of four couples who waited outside Warwick City Hall starting 7:30 am. Ferri, who first testified in favor of marriage equality 15 years ago, is a Democratic state representative from Rhode Island who helped usher in legislation to legalize same-sex marriage. While Ferri has been an elected official for six years, he has advocated for marriage equality at the Statehouse for nearly two decades.

The couple finally wed late Thursday, the first day the law went into effect, and also the couple’s anniversary. Although the two men wed seven years ago when they vacationed in Vancouver, Canada, Ferri said on MSNBC’s The Last Word that being allowed to marry in their home state would be more meaningful to the couple.

“I know the train is out of the station and it’s going and it’s not stopping and it’s not coming back, said Ferri. “We have seen it here in New England. We know how people are opening their minds because so many couples like ourselves who are living their lives openly and honestly every day. I think that’s driving this and with the help of the president’s support and many legislatures, this is going to happen.”


Rhode Island is the final state in New England to allow gay marriage after it was approved by lawmakers on May 2. The law was signed into law on the same day by Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chaffee, who became one of the earliest prominent national proponents of same-sex marriage when he was a Republican senator. Chaffee, who ran as an Independent in 2010 and changed his party affiliation to Democrat in late May, made marriage equality a priority in his campaign.

The governor attended the couple’s wedding, which was officiated by House Speaker Gordon Fox, who is openly gay.

“It’s been a lot of work. It’s been a long road,” said Caparco. “It’s just an exciting day for us and the Speaker is thrilled to be officiating at our ceremony.”

Even though Rhode Island legally allowed domestic partnerships in 2002, a bill to legalize gay marriage was introduced every year since 1997.

“It’s still settling in. It’s a funny feeling to know that I don’t have to get out of bed tomorrow and advocate another day for gay marriage,” said Ferri to the Boston Globe. “I’ve been talking to so many people over so many years about it and trying to educate people. You know, every chance I got I was advocating for it, even if it was just in subtle ways. So, now it’s happened, it’s strange. Pinch me! It’s a really, really strange feeling.”

Uruguay
 

Marriage Equality Takes Effect in Uruguay

August 5, 2013 by Eric Cameron, Digital Media Associate


Marriage equality takes effect in Uruguay today. Following Argentina, Uruguay is the second country in Latin America to have passed nationwide same-sex marriage legislation.

The legislation passed with strong majorities in the Uruguay House and Senate in April. President Jose Mujica signed the bill into law on May 3.

Uruguay joins the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Denmark and France in recognizing marriage equality nationwide. Marriage equality takes effect in New Zealand later this month and is expected to take force in England and Wales in 2014.

Brazil is just steps away from fully recognized marriage equality following a recent ruling by their National Council of Justice. Same-sex marriage is also recognized in parts of Mexico and in thirteen U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

Congratulations, Uruguay!

Social Security--non equality
 

Social Security Announces You Must Live In A Marriage Equality State To Collect Benefits – For Now

by Jean Ann Esselink on August 12, 2013


Saying they ”appreciate the public’s patience as we work through the legal issues to ensure that our policy is legally sound and clear,” the acting commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Carolyn Colvin, announced the agency has begun processing claims from same-sex couples and their children who reside in states that recognize same-sex marriages. The couples must be legally married. Couples in civil unions will not be eligible for benefits at this time.

The announcement went on to say the agency continues to work with the Justice Department, and expects to develop additional “policy and processing instructions” which they will implement in the next “weeks and months.”

The short press release ended by urging anyone who thinks they should be eligible for benefits to continue filing claims, to protect your eligibility in case new policies are adopted in the future.

Story Writer’s Note: My gut feeling is that this decision should be viewed as more of a “what can we do right away?” response than a “this is all we’re going to do” announcement. The government moves slowly. My sense is they wanted to show they were working on the new policy, not that they expect to deny everyone else forever.

New Jersey
 

New Jersey judge hears marriage equality arguments

Emma Margolin
12:54 PM on 08/15/2013

Six couples in are in a New Jersey courtroom Thursday, challenging the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. New Jersey state Sen. Ray Lesniak was one of two dozen sponsors of a marriage equality bill, which passed the legislature, but was vetoed by the Gov. Chris Christie.



Six gay couples and their children headed back to a New Jersey courtroom Thursday, hoping that June’s landmark marriage equality rulings would reinvigorate their fight for the state to recognize same-sex marriage.

New Jersey is one of four states that allow civil unions, which entitle gay couples to spousal rights, but stops short of calling those unions “marriage.” The New Jersey state Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that same-sex couples could not be denied the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, so the state legislature passed a law allowing civil unions in response. In 2012, the New Jersey Assembly passed a bill that would have legalized same-sex marriage throughout the Garden State, but Republican Gov. Chris Christie swiftly vetoed it.

The couples filed suit in 2011, claiming that New Jersey’s marriage laws violated the 2006 state Supreme Court ruling that set a standard of equality for same-sex couples. Now, they argue, New Jersey is even more in the wrong.

Arguments on Thursday focused on the implications of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA,) which defined marriage as the union between a man and a woman for federal purposes. The DOMA ruling cleared the way for same-sex couples who were legally married to receive the same federal benefits given to heterosexual spouses. At issue is whether same-sex couples in civil unions should also receive federal benefits based on the ruling.

Marriage equality advocates argue that the DOMA decision does not apply to civil unions, meaning that those who receive state-level spousal benefits are not entitled to federal-level benefits. By that logic, New Jersey is now in violation of the 2006 state Supreme Court decision requiring that gay couples receive the same benefits as straight ones. The state would have to allow all couples to marry, regardless of sexual orientation, in order to comply with both U.S. and state Supreme Court decisions, they argue.

Christie’s administration disagrees, claiming that the full impact of the DOMA ruling is not yet clear, reports the New York Times. A lawyer for the state said Thursday that it was the federal government’s fault, not the state’s, if couples in civil unions were denied certain federal benefits, reports the Associated Press.

After hearing both arguments Thursday, the judge said she would not issue a ruling before September.

Thirteen states and the District of Columbia currently allow same-sex couples to marry. New Jersey is one of two in the Northeast that does not.

One big reason he may never become president. i truly hope they rule in favor.

New Zealand...from the Advocate
 

A New Zealand First: Equality at Cruising Altitude

One couple celebrates in the skies as New Zealand adds itself on Monday to the list of countries with marriage equality.

BY Michelle Garcia.

August 19 2013 2:28 AM ET


NEW ZEALAND — Lynley Bendall and Ally Wanikau of New Zealand seem to prefer intimate moments. Besides, the quiet couple of 13 years are raising three sprightly children, leaving little time or energy to plan for the pomp and circumstance of a large wedding. But their modesty and humanitarian spirit was what won them a very public wedding ceremony on an Air New Zealand flight from Queenstown to Auckland. Wanikau and Bendall were among the first same-sex couples to legally marry in New Zealand starting Monday, and they were definitely the first to be wed in the Kiwi skies.

Once the 9 a.m. flight, filled with family and friends, reached cruising altitude, Bendall and Wanikau proudly walked from the back of the plane to the front, where local legend Kim Jewel Elliot performed a ceremony. Elliot had presided over the couple's previous civil union and commitment ceremonies. During the ceremony, Elliot, who was dressed in traditional Maori ceremonial garments, acknowledged the millions of gay people around the world still fighting for marriage equality and LGBT rights.

"We send our support and strength to those who continue to advocate in all nations for the right for all of us to marry," she said, adding, "Now all deep loves can be freely and openly celebrated. From this day forward, all children in New Zealand can grow up knowing they can marry whomever they love."

Bendall and Wanikau, as well as their children, exchanged traditional Maori pendants made of jade stone instead of wedding bands.

Modern Family actor Jesse Tyler Ferguson and his husband, Justin Mikita, also newlyweds, were on board to toast the couple as they reached this milestone.

"A successful marriage requires you to fall in love many, many times — with the same person," Ferguson joked. "It was beautiful to watch you fall in love with each other again today."

To cap the ceremony, a choir on the plane sang the New Zealand's unofficial national anthem, "Pokarekare Ana," a traditional Maori song about two lovers who cannot be together. Members of New Zealand's Parliament shocked the world when they sang the song after voting to establish a marriage equality law in April.

Upon landing, the couple celebrated their special day in an airplane hangar at the Auckland airport with more champagne, a rainbow cake, and a performance by local singing group, Anika Boh & Hollie.

Air New Zealand, which coordinated the festivities, will also send the couple on a six-day honeymoon to Palm Springs, Calif. Lorraine Murphy, the airline's chief people officer, said it was a natural fit for the "progressive, daring," national carrier to ring in the new marriage equality law. Now New Zealand's neighbors to the east look to the small country as the arbiter for what is to come.

"I already know there are couples from Australia coming to New Zealand to marry," she said

Hawaii...More news
 

WHERE IT ALL STARTED

Hawaii May Pass Marriage Equality Bill This Fall


Twenty years ago, Hawaii was the place where marriage equality first emerged as a real possibility. Now it looks like the state may finally complete its wedding march. Democrats in the state legislature are meeting this week to determine if they have the votes to pass a marriage equality bill. Assuming that they do — and they represent the overwhelming majority in both houses — Gov. Neil Abercrombie will call a special session of the legislature this fall to pass the measure. Abercrombie told party members that the special session was “very likely” to happen.

“I think we can put together something that can achieve a solid majority, that will give us the opportunity to establish marriage equity in the state of Hawaii commensurate with the recent Supreme Court decisions, and will satisfy and resolve the issues that are presently before the appeals court on the mainland,” Abercrombie said.

In the meantime, proponents of marriage equality are building the support they need for success. The state’s two Senators and two Representatives issued a letter calling for marriage equality, and a group of two dozen religious leaders has also announced their backing for a marriage bill. Hawaii is one of four states that marriage supporters have targeted for passage of marriage equality laws by 2014.

It’s been a long journey for marriage equality in the Aloha State. In 1991, three couples sued Hawaii, claiming that their rights under the state constitution had been violated. A plurality of the state Supreme Court ultimately agreed that the state couldn’t withhold marriage licenses from them. The religious right ginned up its machinery, and a constitutional amendment was passed in 1998, making the case moot. At the beginning of 2012, the state formally recognized civil unions, in a bit of belated catch up. Passage of a marriage equality measure would complete the circle for the state and make it the fourteenth to legalize same-sex marriages


Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/hawaii-may-pa...#ixzz2cdBBqMek

Why it matters that we continue the fight...
 

TIMING THE KNOT

As Dying Lesbian Petitions To Wed Partner, NM County Clerk Begins Issuing Gay Marriage Licenses

Shortly after a terminally-ill woman from Pojoaque, New Mexico sought an emergency court order allowing her to legally marry her partner of 21 years in hopes that their three children would be protected, a clerk from Dona Ana County began issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

Jen Roper has a life-threatening form of brain cancer that has caused her health to severely deteriorate in the past few months. Together with the woman she considers her wife, Angelique Neuman, they have raised three kids, the eldest of whom is currently in basic training in the U.S. Army.

With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), Roper and Neuman filed the emergency order today. Then, unexpectedly, the clerk in Dona Ana County decided that the “state’s marriage statutes are gender neutral and do not expressly prohibit Dona Ana County from issuing marriage licenses to same-gender couples,” according to a statement obtained by the AP.

“Any further denial of marriage licenses to these couples violates the United States and New Mexico Constitution and the New Mexico Human Rights Act,” Ellins said. “Dona Ana County is upholding New Mexico law by issuing these marriage licenses, and I see no reason to make committed couples in Dona Ana County wait another minute to marry.”

County clerks usually face challenges when they take the law into their own hands like that, and the issue may ultimately have to be resolved in court. But for now, couples have immediately descended on Las Cruces, NM where they began receiving their marriage licenses. Dona Ana is the first county in New Mexico to effectively allow gay marriage, though a series of lawsuits are pending in the state on that very issue, including Roper’s and Neuman’s.

However, Geraldine Salazar, clerk of Santa Fe County where Roper and Neuman live, said she does not plan on following Dona Ana’s lead because of those lawsuits. Just yesterday, a gay couple from Santa Fe asked the New Mexico Supreme Court to to streamline the way they handle same-sex marriage lawsuits. Roper and Neuman hope to add their voice to the chorus of change taking New Mexico by storm.

“I want to know that my family will be protected if I pass away,” Roper said in a statement from the NCLR. “Angelique and I have been married in our hearts for 21 years and raised three wonderful children together. Because of my illness, we do not have the luxury of waiting years for the courts to decide whether loving, committed same-sex couples can marry in New Mexico. For us, the time is now.”


Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/new-mexico-ga...#ixzz2ciMHELKk

NEW MEXICO!!
 

August 28, 2013, 12:18 pm

Marriage Equality in New Mexico

By ANDREW ROSENTHAL


When arguing against same-sex marriage, opponents often stress that marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman.

But our laws, at least, often did not wade into the question of gender one way or another — until the 1990s, when anti-gay-marriage forces began lobbying state legislatures to revise state constitutions, and pushed the Defense of Marriage Act through Congress. More recently, in a smaller, but growing, number of states, marriage-equality advocates have succeeded in establishing — through the courts or legislative action or voter referendums — that all adults can marry the person of their choosing, regardless of gender.

Alone among the states, New Mexico never jumped on the definitional bandwagon. It never banned same-sex unions, and it never specifically permitted them, either. And in the absence of clarity, American standards of equality and non-discrimination won out.

Last week, the clerk of Dona Ana county decided to recognize same-sex unions. Then a judge in Santa Fe directed the clerk in that county to begin issuing marriage licenses. On Monday, a state judge ruled that marriage between couples of the same sex is entirely legal and ordered the clerk of Bernalillo County, which includes Albuquerque, to issue licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

The Associated Press reported that Judge Alan Malott “had been asked only to order that the state recognize, on her death certificate, a dying woman’s marriage Friday in Santa Fe to her longtime partner.”

But he went a step farther and said that New Mexico’s constitution bans discrimination in marriage against a particular group of citizens. The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico was, naturally, elated. Laura Schauer called the ruling “monumental.”

The ruling does not cover the rest of New Mexico’s counties, and so it seems inevitable that the New Mexico state legislature, which has Democratic majorities, and its Republican governor, Susana Martinez, are about to come under intense political fire from the far right to amend the constitution. They should resist.

Federal tax news
 

Same-sex couples can file joint tax returns, IRS says

Reuters

All legal same-sex marriages will be recognized for U.S. federal tax purposes, regardless of where the couple lives, government says.


WASHINGTON — All legal same-sex marriages will be recognized for U.S. federal tax purposes, the Obama administration said on Thursday, allowing gay couples to claim the same tax benefits that heterosexual couples do.

As expected after a landmark Supreme Court ruling in June, the U.S. Treasury and Internal Revenue Service said:

"The ruling applies regardless of whether the couple lives in a jurisdiction that recognizes same-sex marriage or a jurisdiction that does not recognize same-sex marriage."

MILITARY NEWS
 

Gay troops prep for September marriage spree, put wedding parties on ice


By Bill Briggs, NBC News contributor

September marks nuptial season across part of the American military as gay and lesbian troops cash in new, Pentagon-granted leaves to tie the knot.

Starting Tuesday, the Pentagon is allowing gay troops to take travel leaves for up to seven days — or as many 10 days for those stationed abroad — as long as those service members live 100-plus miles away from a state that allows same-sex marriages.

Scores of service members are draining their savings just to pay for airfare, hotels and rental cars — common, logistical necessities for obtaining a marriage certificate in one of the 13 states where same-sex marriage is legal, advocates say.

While many of these unions may lack champagne-soaked celebrations, they are fueled by a practical brand of urgency: gaining immediate, military-family benefits, said Stephen Peters, executive director of the American Military Partner Association (AMPA).

After the Supreme Court’s decision to scrap the Defense of Marriage Act, leaders at the Department of Defense announced that same-sex spouses of military members would become eligible this month for an array of federal benefits previously offered only to heterosexual spouses, from housing to health care. At the same time, DOD authorized the special leaves for troops seeking same-sex marriages.

"This will provide accelerated access to the full range of benefits offered to married military couples throughout the Department, and help level the playing field between opposite-sex and same-sex couples seeking to be married," Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a Pentagon spokesman, said via email. "We do not have an estimate of how many people this will impact."

A week to wed

At least three service members who work with AMPA have all hatched similar marriage plans for this month: quick trips to California to obtain licenses during their authorized leaves with festive wedding parties to follow sometime next year — or beyond.

"For us, California is the easiest way to go," said Melissa Jones, an Army E-3 (private first class), based at Fort Hood, Texas. She and her girlfriend, Danielle Nelson, have booked a seven-day trip to San Diego later this month. "We’re going to pretty much just get it done at the county courthouse. We’re not going to have a ceremony out there. We’ll do that back here with family and friends."

To help pay for their flight and hotel room, Jones and Nelson, both 20, cashed in their large collection of loose change plus $450 in recent bingo winnings.

“Many of our families simply can’t afford the costs of traveling across the country to get married in addition to having a large, expensive ceremony,” said Peters, executive director of the AMPA. “Many can barely afford to travel to a city clerk’s office across the country, wait the required number of days for waiting periods, and finally take care of the paperwork, only to hope for a larger and more formal ceremony at a later date.

“This all boils down to the financial burden they face in having to travel across country — or around the world, for many — a challenge that heterosexual (military) couples are not forced to face in order to care for their family,” Peters added.

'Just for the paper'

Despite the initial costs, the military benefits Jones will gain through marriage will save her thousands of dollars in the long run.
A marriage license will allow Jones to qualify for "base allowance housing," under which the military subsidizes service members' off-base apartments so long as they are legally married or are raising a child or children. That alone saves the couple about $700 per month, Jones said. And as a military spouse, Nelson's college tuition will be federally covered, instantly saving her an additional $4,000 per semester.

If Nelson falls ill after she's married, she can receive her medical treatment at Ford Hood thanks to her new military-family identification card and the official military decal she'll receive for her car. Currently, she must pay for medications out of pocket. The couple has been together for a year and a half, meeting two months before Jones headed to basic training.

"A lot of the urgency of this is that we’re missing out on a lot of benefits," Jones said. "It's not like we’re doing it for the money, but it’s going to help pay for things. I’m 20 years old and I’m helping her pay for college. I also have a car loan and an apartment. We both have full-time jobs. But getting the benefits, she can stop working and can just focus on school.

"I wear (an engagement) ring. People are always asking: 'Are you married?' I’m like: 'Yes and no.' People don't understand that. So I tell them that I'm gay and I have go 1,500 miles away just to get married," Jones said. "It’s not like we’re not going to enjoy it while we're there. But it kind of is just for the paper."

Pennsylvania
 

Pennsylvania judge promises quick ruling in marriage equality case

September 5, 2013fte

By Jacob Combs

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials


After yesterday’s oral arguments in a case challenging whether a Pennsylvania county official acted improperly when he began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite the state’s ban on marriage equality, the judge hearing the case has promised to issue a speedy decision. From the AP:


Commonwealth Court Judge Dan Pellegrini said a central issue is “how power is allocated in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”

“What’s before us today is generally, ‘Who decides?’” Pellegrini told the full courtroom in Harrisburg at the start of oral arguments.

Pellegrini said he was not weighing the constitutionality of the same-sex marriage ban. But questions about its constitutionality arose repeatedly, and Pellegrini said he was concerned about the potential effect of his ruling on various levels of government.

There are several procedural issues in the case that Pellegrini must consider before issuing a final ruling. First, he must determine whether Pennsylvania’s Health Department has legal standing to seek a court order compelling the county official–D. Bruce Hanes–to stop issuing marriage licenses. In addition, the judge must decide whether Hanes is a ‘judicial officer.’ If he is, the state’s Supreme Court may be the only court with jurisdiction over the matter.

By the end of business on Tuesday of this week, Hanes had issued 164 licenses to same-sex couples. We’ll have full coverage of the ruling on EqualityOnTrial when it’s handed down

Hawaii Marriage Equality

Monday, September 9. Governor Neil Abercrombie just announced a special session of the Legislature being called on October 28th to pass Marriage Equality!

Here comes Hawaii!!!

Washington State...Native American news
 

Wash. Native American Tribe Recognizes Marriage Equality


BY Sunnivie Brydum.

September 09 2013 6:15 PM ET

The Colville Tribal Council of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Nation voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to recognize same-sex marriages, according to The Wenatchee World. The ruling will extend to all of the tribe's more than 9,300 members, about half of whom live on the Colville Reservation in north-central Washington State, according to the World.

Council chairman Michael Finley told the paper that the tribe has long recognized and respected LGBT identities, usually referred to as two-spirit in the tribal vernacular. Last week's vote means two-spirited Colvilles will be treated equally and with respect, Finley said. The tribe had already permitted members in same-sex partnerships to add their spouse to their insurance and other benefits plans.

Although Washington State voters approved marriage equality last November, federally recognized Native American tribes are self-governed and aren't subject to state laws.

Several Native American tribes around the country have formally recognized same-sex marriages in recent years. In 2008 the Coquille Indian Tribe on the southern Oregon coast became the first Native American tribe to recognize marriage equality, and in 2011 the Suquamish Tribe in Suquamish, Wash., also approved marriage equality. In March of this year, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians in Michigan also began to recognize same-sex marriages, when it oversaw tribe member Tim LaCroix's marriage to his now-husband, Gene Barfield. The Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians in Michigan and the Santa Ysabel Tribe of California also recognize same-sex marriages, bringing the total number of U.S. tribes with formal marriage equality to six, according to Equality on Trial.

Arizona...a step back?
 

2014 Marriage Equality Initiative Dropped in Arizona

Groups claim more time is needed to rally support for same-sex marriage in the state.

BY Jase Peeples.

September 10 2013 6:17 PM ET


An initiative campaign planning to put a ballot measure in favor of marriage equality in Arizona before voters in 2014 has been dropped, reports The Arizona Republic.

Equal Marriage Arizona, the primary group behind the initiative, says efforts were scuttled because key national advocacy groups withheld backing of the initiative for 2014 because they believed there would be a greater chance of winning in 2016.

“They didn’t feel like Arizona was ready for equal marriage in 2014,” said Equal Marriage Arizona cochair Erin Ogletree Simpson. “I’m just happy our effort has prompted a focus from the various groups to look at 2016 and start putting together a strategy.”

While Simpson expressed frustration about the wait, most advocacy groups agreed waiting until 2016 would provide the time necessary to rally support for the measure, which would amend the state’s constitution to legalize same-sex marriage. Because that is a presidential election year, voter turnout is likely to be higher than in 2014, and that would be beneficial as well, they said.

Arizona voters amended their constiution to ban same-sex marriage in 2008, approving Proposition 102, which stated, “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.”

New Mexico news
 

New Mexico Poised to Enact Marriage Equality


by Jessica Mason Pieklo, Senior Legal Analyst, RH Reality Check

September 9, 2013 - 9:54 am

The New Mexico Supreme Court ordered a hearing to resolve whether or not county clerks can move forward with issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.


Another state took a step forward toward ensuring marriage equality Friday as New Mexico’s highest court set an October 23 hearing date to determine whether marriage licenses can be issued to same-sex couples in the state.

The court issued the order a day after all 33 of New Mexico’s counties and clerks filed a petition asking the New Mexico Supreme Court to rule whether a district judge in Albuquerque was correct last week in holding it was unconstitutional to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples based on a 1972 voter-approved equal rights constitutional amendment that prohibits discrimination “on account of the sex of any person.”

The dispute arose late August when the Dona Ana County clerk determined, based on this summer’s rulings on the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 from the U.S. Supreme Court, that the county could issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Seven other counties have followed Dona Ana County in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, or are planning to.

Same-sex marriage is neither explicitly authorized nor prohibited in New Mexico. But current and previous state attorneys general have argued the state has a de facto ban on same-sex marriage because state statutes contain a marriage license application with sections for male and female applicants, as well as other statutory references to “husband” and “wife.” Lawmakers this year tried, and failed, to change the state constitution to explicitly recognize marriage equality. Previous attempts to ban same-sex marriage and to recognize domestic partnerships have also failed in the state.

A ruling from the New Mexico Supreme Court would set a precedent statewide for how county clerks are to proceed in issuing marriage licenses.

The fight for marriage equality in New Mexico stands in stark contrast to the battle over abortion access, currently underway in Albuquerque, where out-of-state protesters have descended on the city to try and push a local ban on abortions after 20 weeks. In August, anti-choice activists obtained enough signatures on a petition to ban the procedure at the local level and put the matter up to a city council vote. The Albuquerque campaign was first organized by members of Operation Rescue in 2010.

Parties have until September 23 to submit written arguments to the New Mexico Supreme Court. The court could issue a ruling immediately following arguments, though it is more likely it will take the matter under advisement and rule sometime later. But the early hearing date and quick response suggests the court’s interest in a quick resolution of the issue

Sad news from Costa Rica
 

Costa Rican court dashes advocates hopes of marriage equality

September 23, 2013fte

By Jacob Combs

Marriage equality


LGBT advocates on Costa Rica who hoped that a law passed earlier this year might lead to civil unions for same-sex couples were dealt a blow last week when a court in the nation’s capitol ruled against them. The Tico Times reports:


A family court judge in San José has rejected a gay domestic partnership application in the first legal test of Costa Rica’s controversial reform to the Young Person Law.

Alberto González and Lorenzo Serrano discovered in July that San José Family Court Judge Jorge Arturo Marchena Rosabel had rejected their petition for a legally recognized domestic partnership. The two young men have been a couple for seven years and have lived together for six-and-half years.

“We knew that the result could be positive or negative. Honestly, because of the Young Person Law we thought it would go through but there you have it, it didn’t happen,” González told The Tico Times Friday.

The couple’s lawyer, Marco Castillo, president of LGBT organization Diversity Movement, said that they had already appealed the judge’s decision and are waiting for a response. The Supreme Tribunal of the Family Courts will hear the appeal.

The July modification of the Young Person Law added an amendment that common-law marriages must be granted without “discrimination contrary to human dignity.” González and Serrano applied for a domestic partnership–which would have provided them some, but not all of the rights of marriage–after the law was changed. In his ruling, Judge Marchena pointed to several other provisions in Costa Rican law that mandate that marriages and domestic partnerships are open only to different-sex couples

More from New Mexico
 

LGBT Advocates File Briefs for New Mexico Marriage Equality

The ACLU and NCLR filed legal briefs urging the New Mexico Supreme Court to declare marriage equality the law of the land.

BY Sunnivie Brydum.

September 23 2013 7:10 PM ET


The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of New Mexico, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the law firm of Sutin, Theyer and Browne APC formally filed legal briefs with the state supreme court today, responding to a request from 33 county clerks who asked the Supreme Court to determine whether New Mexico recognizes the freedom to marry statewide.

On August 21, a clerk in Doña Ana County abruptly began issuing licenses to same-sex couples — though the decision was later challenged by Republican lawmakers, and county clerks throughout the state filed legal briefs seeking guidance from the state's highest court.

Later that month, a district judge in Santa Fe ruled that the state’s constitution did not preclude same-sex couples from marrying. A district judge in Bernalillo County affirmed this ruling, agreeing that denying marriage equality violates key provisions in the state’s constitution on equality and gender-based discrimination.

"We agree with the 33 county clerks who say New Mexico families need certainty," said Shannon Minter, NCLR's legal director in a press release today. "New Mexico lacks a state-wide, binding resolution on the question of whether same-sex couples can marry. The more than 1,000 same-sex couples who have legally married in New Mexico over the past several weeks need to know that their marriages are valid and respected."

Opening arguments in the lawsuit are scheduled to take place before the New Mexico Supreme Court on October 23