Decision still to come. Should be soon.

today's rulings
 

In the U.S. marriage rights are decided by each state. It is each state’s “right” to decide upon and enact it’s own laws pertaining to marriage and divorce. That is why each state has different marriage and divorce requirements.

In 1996 a judge in the state of Hawaii ruled that gays and lesbians had the right to the same treatment under state marriage laws as everyone else. This groundbreaking ruling sent bigots and their elected representatives nationwide into a frenzy.

One of the few ways the federal government controls marriage rights is by deciding the ways in which the federal government interacts with married people as decided by the states. Federal law states that the agencies of the federal government (IRS, Social Security, Veterans Admin, etc etc) must treat marriages from each state equally, regardless of the ways states have decided to implement those laws.
And that each state must also recognize marriages from other states, even if those marriages were formed under different requirements (for example some states have a waiting period or residency requirement to get married, some- like Nevada with its booming Las Vegas wedding business- do not.) According to federal law a drunken marriage in las vegas or a marriage to an incarcerated death row serial killer is treated equally to a marriage in a state where those marriages would not be legally allowed due to state law. The federal government must treat marriages from each state equally, and each state must recognize marriages from other states, even if those marriages would not be permitted in that state. Most of the federal laws relating to this equality are the result of lawsuits based on states laws which forbid marriages based on race, even into the 1970s.

Hawaii’s groundbreaking same sex marriage legal ruling was ultimately undermined and delayed by various legal and political wranglings. But the national terror among bigots that states would be required, under federal law, to recognize legal marriages from other states EVEN IF THEY WERE GAY ONES resulted in Bill “free willy” Clinton enacting an amendment to the US Constitution (!!!) stating that the federal government would NOT recognize any state marriages between gays, even if a state legalized such a marriage (the feds could not outlaw states legalizing gay marriage because specific marriage laws are decided by each state). And that the federal government would NOT require all states to recognize marriages from other states if those marriages did not involve the new federal marriage standard of one man one woman. This constitutional amendment was called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Over 30 states also adopted state constitutional amendments stating that those states also will not recognize same sex marriages from other states or allow same sex marriages. Since these state amendments are purely discriminatory, they are (very slowly) being challenged and struck down one by one.

In some states gay marriage has been won, not through the courts, but through the legislature. This was the case in Hawaii, where the lawmakers passed a law legalizing civil unions through the political process rather than wait for the courts to inevitably order it. Yesterday the kooky-ass Hawaiian governor unilaterally VETOED the law that their legislature agreed upon. The same thing happened in Vermont after the legislature passed gay marriage through the political process, rather than in the courts. The kooky VT Governor vetoed it, then the legislature overrode the veto in special session. The legislature in Hawaii has declined to reconvene to override the kooky governor’s veto, because they are on the golf course, and they know that Lingle is a sitting duck wacko who will soon be gone and they will simply pass the damn thing again next session. This weirdo bigot Lingle actually invited the judge who wrote the original decision 17 years ago (which said that Hawaii marriage laws were discriminatory against gays and lesbians) to her press conference announcing her veto. Serious issues, lady, serious issues…

So wacko Lingle’s veto decision came yesterday.

And then HA HA HA today- The DOMA law which enshrined anti-gay bigotry in the US Constitution was OVERTURNED in federal court today on the grounds that it is DISCRIMINATORY. HAHAHAHAHA. Fuck you Lingle!
It was actually two decisions which came down today in federal court, based on two lawsuits filed in massachucetts, one filed by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) and one filed by Saint Martha Coakley, the attorney general of the state of massachucets. Each challenged DOMA on different grounds, the GLAD one filed on behalf of gay and lesbian married federal workers who were denied equal rights and benefits (family medical leave, social security, etc) by the federal government, and the Coakley one on the grounds that the federal government is infringing on the STATES RIGHTS of Massachusetts by forcing the state to discriminate against it’s own citizens and by discriminating against the STATE by unfair federal dispersal of various entitlement funds (COBRA- which is a federal program which subsidizes medical insurance costs for employers – but not for gay employees!) etc. Both lawsuits were somehow lumped together under the same judge and he issued rulings -STRONG STRONG rulings in both today.
“In his opinion, Tauro found that DOMA didn't even survive rational basis review, which is the least exacting form of constitutional scrutiny” National Law Review: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?i...f_Marriage_Act

The next decision being awaited is the Walker decision on the Prop 8 lawsuit which will decide whether california’s prop 8 law is constitutional. Because his online legal docket is blank for the rest of the month of July an imminent decision is being speculated- but that’s not certain, he can take as long as he wants.

Both the DOMA rulings today and the Prop 8 Walker decision (whichever way it goes) will ultimately be appealed to and decided by the supreme court. While today’s DOMA ruling definitely gives Walker more legal ammunition to overturn Prop 8, the real hope is that these DOMA rulings will reach the US Supreme Court before the prop 8 case, because the legal precendent set by the overturning of DOMA will lend immeasurable credence to the arguments in the prop 8 challenge.

The reason is that the prop 8 case does not address any of the clear financial ways in which the federal gov discriminates against gay marriage. The prop 8 case merely argues that civil unions are discriminatory because they are SOCIALLY inferior to marriages. Since civil unions confer all the same STATE rights as marriage, social discrimination is the only basis on which inequity can be argued on the state level. The blatant and outrageous ways in which civil unions are not equivielnt to marriage (taxes, social security, agricultural subsidies, etc etc ) are all FEDERAL marriage entitlements, which under DOMA are illegal anyway so that is a moot point in arguing for marriage over civil union on a state level. If SCOTUS overturns DOMA based on the two rulings today BEFORE the prop 8 case gets to SCOTUS, all the financial discrimination will be applicable to the prop 8 case and it can be argued on much more concrete ground than social discrimination.
At least that’s how I understand todays rulings and things going forward. Hope it made sense! If I see a good re-cap explaining things better I will post it.

All in All, The BEST NEWS we’ve had in 17 years.
I am very happy.
I am loving watching the ‘phobes and the religious reich squirm as they now attempt to support federal power and argue against the very state rights that they have been embracing for the last 50 years. :)

link to today's ruling
 

From the Prop 8 blog
 

US Federal Judge In Massachusetts Rules Part of DOMA Is Unconstitutional
by Robert Cruickshank

UPDATE: Here’s the PDF of the ruling, via GLAD. Original post begins here:

As we await the ruling from Judge Vaughn Walker on Perry v. Schwarzenegger, we just received word about a decision in two marriage equality suits. A federal judge in Massachusetts just ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law passed in 1996 that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriage and enables states to withhold recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states, is unconstitutional.

The ruling in the cases, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services and Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, does not strike down DOMA in its entirety. But what it does appear to do is to remove the ban on the federal government’s recognition of same-sex marriage.

Bay Windows, New England’s largest GLBT newspaper, provides a very useful overview:

In an enormous victory for same-sex marriage, a federal judge in Boston today (Thursday, July 8) ruled, in two separate cases, that a critical part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.

In one challenge brought by the state of Massachusetts, Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that Congress violated the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when it passed DOMA and took from the states decisions concerning which couples can be considered married. In the other, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, he ruled DOMA violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services, Tauro considered whether the federal law’s definition of marriage — one man and one woman — violates state sovereignty by treating some couples with Massachusetts’ marriage licenses differently than others. In Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), a gay legal group, asked Tauro to consider whether DOMA violates the right of eight same-sex couples to equal protection of the law.

Adam Bink at Open Left offers the key section from Judge Tauro’s ruling in Commonwealth:

This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status. The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and, in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment. For that reason, the statute is invalid.

In other words, Judge Tauro’s ruling in Commonwealth is that the 10th Amendment prevents Congress from defining marriage, a right that the states held until 1996. It should be noted that there is considerable precedent, including Loving v. Virginia, giving the US Supreme Court the right to overturn bans on certain kinds of marriage, so this case should not be construed to limit the federal courts’ ability to provide for marriage equality.

The other suit, Gill v. OPM, further establishes that Section 3 of DOMA was passed with discriminatory intent and is invalid. The outcome of that suit would appear to mandate that the federal government provide benefits to couples in a same-sex marriage that is sanctioned by the state. This may lead to same-sex spouses being able to file a joint return with the IRS, something that has been denied to them (including the 18,000 same-sex couples married in California between May and November 2008) under DOMA.

Early reaction is in from Evan Wolfson at Freedom to Marry:

Today’s historic ruling strikes down federal marriage discrimination enacted under the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” in 1996. DOMA created two classes of marriage – those the federal government respects and some it doesn’t – denying married same sex couples and their families equal treatment and depriving them of the crucial safety-net that marriage brings. In Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management, eight married same-sex couples and three widowers, represented by the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, demonstrated that federal marriage discrimination harms gay and lesbian couples who are trying to make ends meet and protect their families.

Today’s ruling affirms what we have long known: federal discrimination enacted under DOMA is unconstitutional. The decision will be appealed and litigation will continue. But what we witnessed in the courtroom cannot be erased: federal marriage discrimination harms committed same-sex couples and their families for no good reason. Today’s ruling provides increased momentum to the national movement to end exclusion from marriage and Freedom to Marry’s Roadmap to secure the freedom to marry nationwide. The crucial work of changing hearts and minds and winning the freedom to marry in more states is more urgent than ever as we build on today’s momentum and encourage other decision-makers to do the right thing and end exclusion from marriage.

We’ll have more updates as we learn more about the ruling and its likely implications. It will be interesting to see what, if any, bearing this ruling has on Judge Walker’s decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

UPDATE 2: More from Judge Tauro’s decision:

But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA’s passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it “prevent[s] children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure,” when afforded equal recognition under federal law.

Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out in his dissent to Lawrence v. Texas, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country.

This is a very sensible and effective response to the silly argument that same-sex marriage somehow limits or undermines heterosexual procreation.

Adam Bonin has a good analysis up over at Daily Kos.

A key upcoming question is whether the Obama Administration will appeal this decision. It would be wise of them to not do so.

Rumor of Prop. 8 ruling brings attorneys, media to S.F. courthouse [Updated]

July 8, 2010 | 7:28 pm

Television trucks, attorneys and a few members of the public congregated at the federal courthouse in San Francisco on Thursday afternoon, waiting for a verdict in the Proposition 8 same-sex marriage trial.

But as the sun set, no ruling had come.

A rumor swept through the blogosphere and San Francisco City Hall on Thursday that U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker planned to issue his long-awaited ruling on whether Proposition 8, which banned same sex marriage in California, violates the U.S. Constitution.

But Walker’s chambers were closed Thursday and expected to be closed Friday, and he had not told any of the parties in the closely watched case that a ruling was coming.

Lawyers in the case said they doubted the rumor was true.
“I would be amazed,” said Andy Pugno, an attorney for the proponents of Proposition 8.

[Updated, 8:02 p.m.: A previous version of this post misspelled Pugno's last name as Pugo.]

-- Jessica Garrison in Los Angeles and Maura Dolan in San Francisco

We need more str8t allies like this. Thanks for the article, Corkey.

From the Prop 8 blog---oh course! LOL
 

IRS Ruling Is A Recognition of Fact
by Brian Leubitz

While this might not have been on everybody’s radar, the IRS kicked down a huge decision for California same-sex couples. But PLR-149319-09 (PDF) has some big importance to California registered domestic partners and same-sex married couple. Long story short, the IRS is now recognizing California’s community property rules. And that’s big. Really big.

Let’s start from the beginning. I’m no accountant, but bear with me as I try to recall my tax class in law school. Basically, California, like many Western states, has a default rule for marriage that any property acquired (other than through inheritance) is treated as “community property” between the two married spouses. For California same-gender couples that got married in 2008, these community property rules apply unless you have opted out through contract (a “pre-nup”). Also, in 2006 and 2007, the legislature passed, and the Governor signed, two pieces of legislation that granted registered domestic partnerships the same rights and responsibilities of marriage, with community property first being excluded for tax purposes in 2006, and then being completely folded in to the RDP in 2007.

Of course, the problem here is that under the so-called “Defense of Marriage” Act, the federal government was not supposed to recognize any marriage not between a man and a woman. Thus, we had a real pickle on our hands. Under California property law, the property was community property, half belonged to both partners. But how that property got there was anybody’s guess. Just off the top of my head, there are a number of ways the federal government could have handled the issue:

1) Ignored community property between same gender couples entirely. Sure, it would cause conflicts with state tax issues, but who cares, according to the Yes on 8 folks, this is a future of civilization thing here.
2) Acknowledge the community property, treating it as a gift between two unrelated partners for federal tax purposes. This would have been very bad for same-gender couples. Basically, couples would have had to pay gift tax on any difference in income over $13,000 (or so, depending on what the gift tax is that year). That would get pricy fast.
3) Acknowledge the community property, but treat it as earned jointly. Basically, each partner, for tax purposes, earned half of the income. This would be far more favorable and basically treat community property the same for all couples.

I’ll let you read PLR-149319-09 (PDF) on your own if you’d like to, but long story short, the IRS went for #3. Once they went over the law, it seems obvious, but these things rarely are obvious before hand. And that’s the case here. The IRS first relied on past precedent to first say that the federal goverment defers to the states to determine property law (U.S. v. Mitchell) and then to say that California community property law determines who owns what for California couples (US v Malcolm). Finally, the IRS simply stated that once California treated property as community property, the IRS would do so as well.

Now, in practical terms, what does this mean? Well, say you are a couple where one partner earns substantially more than the other. You’ll have noticed that your California tax bills went down with community property. Now the same will apply to the federal government. For example, say “Adam” earns $50,000 as a public school teacher. His husband “Bill” earns $150,000 as a investment hot-shot or something. (No comment on our society’s priorities there.) Under this new law, each would report income of $100,000. For a variety of reasons in the tax code, that’s going to be advantageous. Now, I’m not a tax lawyer, and this isn’t specific advice. If this is something that might apply, ask whomever prepares your taxes or some other tax professional.

There is one wrinkle in here. Technically, the IRS “private letter ruling” specifically addresses registered domestic partnerships, and uses that language. However, the ruling is entirely directed at the concept of community property, which applies in the same way for the 2008 marriages. In theory, it should be handled the same way, but theory often gets you audited.

Just in.....
 

Argentina legalizes gay marriage in historic vote

AP By MICHAEL WARREN, Associated Press Writer Michael Warren, Associated Press Writer – 14 mins ago
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina – Argentina legalized same-sex marriage Thursday, becoming the first country in Latin America to declare that gays and lesbians have all the legal rights, responsibilities and protections that marriage brings to heterosexual couples.

After a marathon debate in Argentina's senate, 33 lawmakers voted in favor, 27 against and 3 abstained in a vote that ended after 4 a.m. Since the lower house already approved it and President Cristina Fernandez is a strong supporter, it becomes law as soon as it is published in the official bulletin, which should happen within days.

The law is sure to bring a wave of marriages by gays and lesbians who have found Buenos Aires to be a welcoming place to live. But same-sex couples from other countries shouldn't rush their Argentine wedding plans, since only citizens and residents can wed in the country, and the necessary documents can take months to obtain. While it makes some amendments to the civil code, many other aspects of family law will have to be changed.

The approval came despite a concerted campaign by the Roman Catholic Church and evangelical groups, which drew 60,000 people to march on Congress and urged parents in churches and schools to work against passage. Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio led the campaign, saying "children need to have the right to be raised and educated by a father and a mother."

Nine gay couples had already married in Argentina after persuading judges that the constitutional mandate of equality supports their marriage rights, although their validity was later challenged by other judges. Congressional passage now removes that doubt.

As the debate stretched on for nearly 16 hours, large crowds held rival vigils through the frigid night outside the Congress building. When the final vote came, cheers and hugs broke out among the bill's supporters, with police keeping them separate from frustrated opponents who prayed and held rosaries.

"Marriage between a man and a woman has existed for centuries, and is essential for the perpetuation of the species," insisted Sen. Juan Perez Alsina, who is usually a loyal supporter of the president but gave a passionate speech against gay marriage inside the Senate chamber.

But Sen. Norma Morandini, another member of the president's party, compared the discrimination closeted gays face to the oppression imposed by Argentina's dictators decades ago.

"What defines us is our humanity, and what runs against humanity is intolerance," she said.

Same-sex civil unions have been legalized in Uruguay and some states in Mexico and Brazil. Colombia's Constitutional Court granted same-sex couples inheritance rights and allowed them to add their partners to health insurance plans. Mexico City went further, legalizing gay marriage and launching tourism campaigns to encourage foreigners to come and wed.

Argentina now becomes the first country in Latin America to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide, granting gays and lesbians all the same rights and responsibilities that heterosexuals have. These include many more rights than civil unions, including adopting children and inheriting wealth.

Gay rights advocates said Argentina's historic step adds momentum to similar efforts around the world.

"Today's historic vote shows how far Catholic Argentina has come, from dictatorship to true democratic values, and how far the freedom to marry movement has come, as twelve countries on four continents now embrace marriage equality," said Evan Wolfson, who runs the U.S. Freedom to Marry lobby.

Wolfson urged U.S. lawmakers to stand up "for the Constitution and all families here in the United States. America should lead, not lag, when it comes to treating everyone equally under the law."

Gay activists in neighboring Chile hope Argentina's milestone will improve chances for a gay marriage law currently in committee in their own Congress.

"Argentina's political class has provided a lesson to the rest of Latin America," said Rolando Jimenez in Santiago. "We hope our own countries and political parties will learn that the human rights of sexual minorities are undeniable."

Activists in Paraguay plan to propose a similar law to the senate in October, said Martin Viveros of the group Somosgay. And in Uruguay, gays unsatisfied with the partial rights that come through civil unions are preparing legislation that would replace references to "man and woman" with "spouse" throughout the civil code.

But many Argentines remain firmly opposed to the idea of gay marriage. Teacher Eduardo Morales, for one, said the law was concocted by Buenos Aires residents who are out step with the views of the country.

"They want to convert this city into the gay capital of the world," said Morales, of San Luis province.

Ines Franck, director of the group Familias Argentinas, said the legislation cuts against centuries of tradition.

Opposing the measure "is not discrimination, because the essence of a family is between two people of opposite sexes," he said. "Any variation goes against the law, and against nature."

The president, who helped the law's chances by bringing two senators opposed to gay marriage with her on a state visit to China, spoke out from there against the Catholic Church's campaign and the tone she said some religious groups have taken.

"It's very worrisome to hear words like 'God's war' or 'the devil's project,' things that recall the times of the Inquisition," she said.

That may play well in Argentina's socially liberal capital, where many of the country's gays and lesbians live, but could be costly in the conservative provinces. Some opposition leaders accused Fernandez and her husband Nestor Kirchner, who lobbied hard for passage, of trying to gain votes in next year's presidential elections, when the former president is expected to run again.

The vote came after Sen. Daniel Filmus urged fellow lawmakers to show the world how much Argentina has matured.

"Society has grown up. We aren't the same as we were before," he said.

NATE SILVER: 250 Million People Live In Jurisdictions With Full Marriage Equality
 

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_t6rV3U9ZEH...riagechart.png


Silver:


The big spike you see in 2008 is California recognizing gay marriage through the courts, and then un-recognizing it through the passage of Proposition 8. Right now, it's possible to marry your same-sex partner in Buenos Aires, in Mexico City, in Ames, Iowa, and in Pretoria, South Africa, but not in San Francisco. With countries like Argentina and Portugal now recognizing same-sex marriages, however, the global trajectory has returned to its slow-but-steady upward pace.

Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere.. but it's a good bit of news...

http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2010/07/...news-July-2010

This is the first time I have ever seen the words "...butch point of view," in the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/us...1&ref=weddings

Do you see my love, NOM? A beautiful “Gathering Storm” rains on NOM’s parade in New York

By Eden James

Wow. You’ve got to hand it to the equality movement.

Our collective response to the NOM Tour just keeps getting better and better with each tour stop.

First, the Equality Maine and GLAD organizers of the Maine counter-rally to NOM actually attracted more people to their event than NOM’s kickoff event on Wednesday (102 to 76 by our hand-count). Then the New Hampshire counter-rally organizers held a brilliant “silent witness” event across the street from the Manchester event on Thursday.

And now the amazing Albany organizers, led by several wonderful organizations, have taken counter-protesting to a whole new level, surrounding the NOM event with one of the most brilliant actions I have ever seen.

Check out the gathering storm of rainbow umbrellas held aloft by equality movement activists silenting protesting NOM while asking a simple question adorned to their t-shirt:

“Do you see my love?”

NOM Executive Director Brian Brown (above) doesn’t look too happy, does he?
How could he? It’s fair to say that Albany turned into yet another NOM FAIL, due to the beauty of creative counter-protest and the paltry NOM attendance (Danny hand-counted 57 attendees).

Courage staffers Danny and Robert will be writing up their reports later, but for now, take note of this Albany protest. One thing is for sure — local organizers at subsequent counter-protests are going to have a hard time topping this poignant and powerful action. Can’t wait to see what they can do.

Again, here are the amazing organizations that made this counter-protest possible today (from a press release):

Marriage Equality New York
In Our Own Voices
Capital District Gay & Lesbian Community Council
Albany Queer Rising
HomoRadio on WRPI 91.5fm
Empire State Pride Agenda
Freedom to Marry
Courage Campaign
Social Responsibilities Council of the First Unitarian Universalist Society of Albany
Upper Hudson Planned Parenthood
Eleanor Roosevelt Democratic Club (ERDC)
New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) Capital Region Chapter
Albany Law School Civil Liberties Union
Choices Counseling & Consulting/The Institute for Gender, Relationships, Identity & Sexuality
GAES Magazine: Gay Arts, Entertainment & Lifestyle
The Women’s Building
Christians Responding with Equality, Diversity and Openness (CREDO) of the Capital District
National Organization for Women (NOW) Albany Area Chapter
Capital District Area Labor Federation

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_t6rV3U9ZEH...AlbanyFail.jpg

Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner talks about marriage equality
 

To begin with, I am a bit surprised about the tone, the tenor, and the content the dialogue has taken. The truth is that it's worrisome to listen to expressions such as 'God's Battle', 'The Work of the Devil', things which actually bring us back to the times of the Inquisition, to Medieval times, it seems to me. Particularly coming from those who should promote peace, tolerance, diversity and dialogue. Or at least that's what they've always said in their statements. And all of a sudden [we have] this aggressive language, this dismissive language invoking 'natural law' arguments...
...and to bring it back to our own history, when the civil code was approved, Velez Sarsfield takes - just as he took from the Roman and French civil codes in his notes about different laws - he takes 'marriage' from Canon law. That's why they could only get married through the church! There was no possibility, in Argentina, for people to get married in a civil registry.

When immigration began - there are many people who are not Catholic, who are not affiliated with any religion, or are anarchists, or Communists, or are Jewish ot Muslim - and it turns out that the only way they could get married was through Catholic rites. And so, a reform to the civil code was proposed, which was incorporated in 1888, through which 'civil marriages' were created. [EDIT]

I sincerely believe what's being presented before the current norm is something that the community already has. I believe it's fair - it's fair - to recognize this right for minorities. And I believe it would be a terrible distortion of democracy if the majorities - the actions of those majorities - denied rights to those minorities...

But what worries me the most is the tone in which these issues are being discussed, invoking questions such as the Devil, or the war...I heard someone talk about 'God's War'! As if we were still in the time of the Crusades! I can just imagine Roland going to conquer the Holy Sepulcher! Th truth is I don't believe this is good...

It's not good because it establishes, as a society, a place which I don't think any of us wants to have. We are all willing to debate, discuss, dissent, but do it with a rational frame, without stigmatizing others because they think differently, and, fundamentally, also without violating the constitution [EDIT]

...eh, but in reality I don't think it's a question that should be taken lightly. We are talking about whether we are going to be a society which recognizes the rights of minorities. This is the axis. Or if we are going to require that when someone signs official paperwork, instead of writing an ID, they should write "gay" or "lesbian" so some public official can say "Yes, I will see you", "I won't see you", "You have the right to in-vitro fertilization", "No, you don't have the rights"...

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/...riage-equality

A Summer for Gay Rights

This is shaping up as the summer of gay rights in the courts. The twin victories last week from the US District Court in Massachusetts striking down as unconstitutional key portions of the anti-gay "Defense of Marriage Act" and the eagerly anticipated decision in the federal Proposition 8 case in California have made for enormous excitement in the legal and civil rights communities.

We are at a tipping point in which the federal courts appear finally willing to recognize and more aggressively enforce civil rights for gay and lesbian Americans. Much as they did for African Americans a generation ago.

In the Proposition 8 gay marriage case especially (Perry v. Schwarzenegger), lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies have made a comprehensive and overwhelming case for basic fairness and full equality. Their opponents, on the other hand, presented no credible expert testimony and made arguments so flimsy -- and at times even patently false - that a ruling in their favor appears highly unlikely. The decision is expected soon.

Despite all this, there remains some marginalized skepticism from some unusual critics.

The Brookings Institution's Jonathan Rauch recently wrote in The New York Times that while he personally supports equal marriage rights (and is, in fact a married gay man), he nonetheless thinks it is bad public policy for the courts to enforce such rights, suggesting that we should instead let the political process bring about equality, as and when the country is ready for it.

Rauch's argument stems from a comment (which he completely misappropriates) by Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, who said, "The Supreme Court, of course, has the responsibility of ensuring that our government never oversteps its proper bounds or violates the rights of individuals. But the court must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people."

Rauch himself admits that the comment was not in any way a reference to gay marriage - in fact it had nothing to do with the issue. Kagan was speaking broadly about the role of the Supreme Court, historically and today - a role which led to such landmark civil rights victories as Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia.

The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart also has a piece in which he argues that the political environment is not yet ripe for full equality and that the potential backlash against any pro-equality court decision could be so great that the gay-rights movement might be set back by years, even decades.

Capehart's position is that since 30 states currently outlaw gay marriage, the Supreme Court would never stick its neck out to overrule what he claims is the popular view.

But here's another statistic: at the time that the Supreme Court struck down the remaining state laws banning interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia, the Gallup Poll found that some 72% of Americans were opposed to interracial marriage. At one time or another, 37 states had passed anti-miscegenation laws. When civil rights are being infringed, "sticking out its neck" to protect minority rights is not only something the Supreme Court does, it is one of the primary reasons for the Court's existence.

Both Rauch and Capehart are ignoring not only our political history, but the history of civil rights advances through court rulings. Importantly, there is now an emerging consensus among gay rights advocates that these cases, including the one brought by Olson and Boies on behalf of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, can succeed and that the timing is right.

In the two Massachusetts cases, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro (a Republican appointee) concluded that the anti-gay marriage law was so blatantly unconstitutional that he issued summary judgments in favor of the plaintiffs.

While the scope of those cases was somewhat narrow - having to do with the denial of federal benefits for gay couples whose marriages had been fully recognized in the states where they live - the rulings were broad in their implications.

The court cited Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan's famous words (in dissent at the time) that our constitution "neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens," and though the decision does not say, in so many words, that states should be required to recognize same-sex marriage, it systematically undercuts all the arguments that anti-equality groups have used to date - including "harm to the children," "procreation as the goal of marriage," and preservation of the status quo - concluding that "the constitution
will not abide a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group."

These words make for trailblazing precedent, even if they are not now binding.

Let's be clear: this is not an argument about public opinion polls, political environments, or even what motivates the anti-gay movement - we're talking about a basic civil right.

As lead counsel Ted Olson said in his summation, "This case is about marriage and equality. The fundamental constitutional right to marry has been taken away from the plaintiffs, and tens of (if not hundreds of) thousands of similarly situated Californians. Their state has rewritten its constitution in order to place them into a special disfavored category where their most intimate personal relationships are not valid, not recognized and second rate."

In cases like this, our history tells us that the courts are the most appropriate, effective and productive battlefields.

Richard Socarides, an attorney, was White House Special Assistant during the Clinton Administration and senior advisor on gay rights.

IRELAND: President Signs Civil Unions Bill Into National Law
 

Civil Partnership Bill signed into law

CHARLIE TAYLOR

Mon, Jul 19, 2010

The Civil Partnership Bill, which provides legal recognition for same-sex couples in Ireland for the first time, has today been signed into law.

The Bill was signed into law by President Mary McAleese at Áras an Uachtaráin this morning

It extends marriage-like benefits to gay and lesbian couples in the areas of property, social welfare, succession, maintenance, pensions and tax.

The act also offers additional rights and protections for other cohabiting couples including a redress scheme for financially dependent long-term cohabitants on the end of a relationship.

Announcing the signing of the Bill today, Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern described it as "one of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation to be enacted since independence."

"This Act provides enhanced rights and protections for many thousands of Irish men and women. Ireland will be a better place for its enactment," he said.

"It is of tremendous social significance, for the couples who can now register as partners, for their friends and families - ultimately, for all of us," Mr Ahern added.

Changes to the tax and social welfare code will be made in the next finance and social welfare Bills. The Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 is expected to be commenced when those changes take effect. The first civil registrations for same-sex couples are likely to take place early next year.

The Bill was approved by the Seanad by 48 votes to 4 at 6.30pm on Friday July 9th, having completed its passage though the Dáil the previous week.The legislation was widely supported in both the Dáil and Seanad.

The Green Party this afternoon welcomed the singing into law of the Bill.

"Today is a good day for all Irish citizines. This Act is a significant step forward and a stepping stone towards greater equality in our society, said the party's justice spokesman Trevor Sargent.

"I look forward to the first ceremonies that will be held under this Act from next January. They mark an important venture for our society for which we have waited far too long,” he added.

© 2010 irishtimes.com

BATTLEGROUND IN HAWAII

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/15/17291/6252

BRITAIN: Top Government Deputy Promises Full Marriage Equality
 

Deputy Lib Dem leader Simon Hughes says government will allow gay couples to marry

By Jessica Geen • July 19, 2010 - 18:00


Simon Hughes, the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, has said that the government will give gay couples the right to civil marriage.

He predicted that the change would be made before the next general election.

Mr Hughes said a consultation would take place in the coalition government on taking civil partnership to the next level.

Speaking in a video interview, he said: "It would be appropriate in Britain in 2010, 2011, for there to be the ability for civil marriage for straight people and gay people equally.

"That's different of course from faith ceremonies which are matters for the faith communities… they have to decide what recognition to give.

“The state ought to give equality. We’re halfway there. I think we ought to be able to get there in this parliament.”

Currently, gay couples in the UK can have a civil partnership, which is not called marriage. They may not have a religious ceremony.

However, the coalition government is coming under increasing pressure to provide full marriage equality as other countries around the world make the step.

Prime minister David Cameron is on record saying that he will consider the change, while the most senior gay Tory, Nick Herbert, told PinkNews.co.uk on Saturday: “Well as you know, what David Cameron and George Osborne said just before the election was that gay marriage is something that we should look at, in time.”

“It's not something we've got immediate plans to change, but we recognise that there are views that say that the name is important.”

Will You Marry Me?
 

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BDOOvu5luk"]YouTube- July 15, 2010 (English-language subtitles)[/nomedia]

Freedom to Marry
 

Freedom to Marry is "the leading campaign working to win marriage nationwide." They "partner with a diverse range of organizations and supporters across the country to end the exclusion of same-sex couples from the responsibilities, protections, and commitment of marriage." The founder, Evan Wolfson, was co-counsel in the historic Hawaii marriage case, argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, served in the Peace Corps in West Africa, and is the author of Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality and Gay People's Right to Marry.

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/ has articles from all over the world and an interactive US map, where you can click on a state and be shown the status of equal marriage, what organizations are actively working on equal marriage, and related blogs and resources.

I don't get why he was asked to move--is this not a violation of his (the videographer's) rights to be there in the public space?

MONTANA: State Sued By ACLU On Behalf Of Seven Gay Couples
 

ACLU: Donaldson and Guggenheim v. Montana

Seven committed same-sex couples have sued the state of Montana for failing to offer legal protections to same-sex couples and their families in violation of the Montana Constitution’s rights of privacy, dignity and the pursuit of life’s basic necessities and its guarantees of equal protection and due process. The goal of this lawsuit is to see that same-sex couples are able to protect their families with the same kind of legal protections that the State offers to different-sex couples through marriage.

Because there is a constitutional amendment in Montana barring marriage for same-sex couples, this lawsuit is not seeking marriage. The couples in the suit are seeking the protection of state-recognized domestic partnerships.

Russian Marriage Ban Appealed to European Union
 

http://towleroad.typepad.com/.a/6a00...59c786f970c-pi
A Russian lesbian couple appealed to the European Court of Human Rights on Wednesday after a registry office in Moscow declined to register their same-sex marriage.

When Irina Fet and Irina Shipitko, who have tried to get married since 2009, were turned away, it hardly came as a surprise in a country where the crime of homosexuality was removed from the books in 1993, and where homophobia remains high and often turns to violence.

"A complaint [on same-sex marriage] was lodged against Russia," gay activist Nikolai Alexeyev said.

"We admit that the Russian law system [currently] forbids same-sex marriage but we hope that after the European Court's ruling, our country will be obliged to change its laws," he said.

Alexeyev said that in rejecting to register the marriage, the Tverskoi registry office in Moscow violated Articles 8 and 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

He said he was confident of a positive outcome and referred to a recent Strasbourg Court ruling over a complaint from an Austrian same-sex couple.
"The Court acknowledged that same-sex marriages are protected under Article 8 of the European Convention and Article 12 doesn't cover just heterosexual marriages," he said.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100721/159899084.html

Americas Support For Marriage
 

Tell NOM to Denounce Call to Murder Gay Couples
 

more updates
 

Just to add - NOM's last stop on their hate tour is Aug 15th in DC. I hope with the start of school for Bratboy, we are able to attend - these ppl make my head (and heart) want to explode.

HAWAII LAWSUIT SEEKS EQUAL RIGHTS FOR GAY COUPLES
 

By MARK NIESSE
Associated Press Writer
HONOLULU -- Six gay couples in Hawaii are filing a lawsuit Thursday asking for the same rights as married couples, three weeks after Gov. Linda Lingle vetoed a same-sex civil unions measure.

The lawsuit doesn't seek the titles of "marriage" or "civil unions" for gay partners. Instead, it requests that the court system extend them the benefits and responsibilities of marriage based on the Hawaii Constitution's prohibition against sex discrimination.

"We continue to be discriminated against," said plaintiff Suzanne King, who has been in a relationship with her partner for 29 years. "We're a family unit, and we live our lives just like everyone else, but we aren't treated the same."

The legal action in state court comes as a response to the Republican governor's veto July 6, when she said voters should decide whether to reserve marriage for couples of a man and a woman.

Five other states and the District of Columbia permit same-sex marriage. Five more states essentially grant the rights of marriage to same-sex couples without authorizing marriage itself.

Hawaii passed the nation's first "defense of marriage" constitutional amendment in 1998, giving the state's legislature the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples. The amendment is silent on civil unions and rights for same-sex couples.

Most Hawaii residents don't want the government to endorse equal rights for gay couples, said Garret Hashimoto, chairman for the Hawaii Christian Coalition.

"I feel insulted. They keep bringing up Martin Luther King, black rights and women's sufferage. This is not about that. This is about two males or two females practicing sex," he said. "It's behavior. It's no different from smokers or drinkers."

The office of Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett declined comment Wednesday because it hadn't yet been served with the lawsuit.

The state grants some rights to gay couples through its reciprocal beneficiaries system.

But they lack the same legal priviledges and obligations of adoption, child support, alimony and access to family court, said Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel for Lambda Legal, which is bringing the case along with the American Civil Liberties Union.

"This case is not about marriage. It's about the right of same-sex couples to at least have a system that is understandable and complete," Pizer said. "The state's equality guarantee at least has to mean same-sex couples should have the same rights and responsibilities, even if it's segmented off into a system that isn't as respected, understood and revered as marriage."

The case likely won't be settled until it reaches the Hawaii Supreme Court, or if state lawmakers and the next governor approve a new civil unions bill, Pizer said.





Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/2...#ixzz0v4c0d6PM
SIZE]

He feels insulted?!?!?!?!?

Diminishing our relationships to how we fuck. Awesome. So evolved. Dickhead.

At times, I am still astonished as to the utter stupidity that rolls out.

Perhaps he should have said " it's no different than heterosexuals... just practicing sex"