Same-Sex Marriage Update

[AnaLee]

God
Bless
Canada!!!

[Leigh]

I'm proud to be canadian

[MsTinkerbelly]

Parenting getting a little more equal
By Adam Bink

This got buried a few days ago with all the news around the Tucson shooting, but there was an important court decision in Connecticut. The state Supreme Court ruled in Raftopol v. Ramey that the names of two men can be entered on the birth certificate of their child who was conceived with the help of a surrogate. According to ProudParenting.org, this is the first time in the history of the country that a state high court has acknowledged the legality of the parentage of two men. More:

Anthony Raftopol and Shawn Hargon, an American couple residing in Hungary, had a daughter through surrogacy, and were both recognized as her child’s legal father on the birth certificate. They then had twins in April 2008 through the same gestational surrogate and egg donor. When the couple petitioned the court to be named as the children’s legal parents, the court granted their petition. However, this time the Attorney General, acting on behalf of the Connecticut Department of Health, attempted to block the creation of the birth certificate, stating that parentage could only be established through conception, adoption or artificial insemination.

The Supreme Court rejected this claim, noting that according to the Department of Health’s argument, a child born to an infertile couple who had entered into a gestational agreement with egg and sperm donors and a gestational carrier would be born parentless.

It’s often said that the states are the test tubes, incubators, etc. of good public policy, and even more importantly, that having many states all come around on the same topic (adoption, marriage, etc) moves national opinion and national courts. Hopefully this ruling can set a precedent.

Concurrently, over the weekend, the State Department announced that passport forms for registering children in the future will contain gender-neutral questions about parents “Mother or Parent 1″ and “Father or Parent 2″

[MsTinkerbelly]

Coming out swinging in Rhode Island
By Adam Bink

According to the Providence Journal, NOM is launching a $100,000 ad campaign aimed at preventing the legislature and newly-inaugurated Gov. Chafee from legalizing the freedom to marry for same-sex couples.

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — The local chapter of the National Organization for Marriage is launching a $100,000 TV advertising campaign aimed at defeating the legalization of same-sex marriage in Rhode Island.

The first TV ad scheduled for airing on Tuesday will challenge “Governor Lincoln Chaffee’s claim to have a mandate to redefine marriage,” according to a news release issued by the group that misspelled new Governor Lincoln D. Chafee’s name.

“Lincoln Chaffee got just 36% of the vote in the recent election, and fewer popular votes than the Cool Moose Party’s candidate for Lieutenant Governor,” Christopher Plante, executive director of NOM-RI, said in the release. “Our message is that getting 36% of the vote is no mandate to redefine the institution of marriage for all of Rhode Island society.”

A colleague told me the ad was up on their YouTube Rhode Island page, but then was “removed by the user”. I’ll keep an eye on it and will post when it comes out. If anyone sees it, please drop in the comments.

As in New Hampshire, rest assured we’re keeping a close eye on things and finding constructive ways we can help. Of course, NOM will have to compete with one part of the calvary:

The NOM-RI ad began airing on the same day that Marriage Equality-RI plans an event at the State House, to deliver “thousands of postcards” supporting same-sex marriage to lawmakers as they arrive for 4 p.m. House and Senate sessions.

[suebee]

Refusing same-sex marriage is unconstitutional rules Saskatchewan high court | Sympatico.ca News LINK

[MsTinkerbelly]

Canada Celebrates 10 Years Of Marriage
Same-sex marriage became legal across Canada in July 2005. But that road to national equality began in ten years ago today in Toronto, when Joe Varnell and Kevin Bourassa were married in the Metropolitan Community Church, a ceremony that was later ruled legal when it was performed. Starting in 2003, with Ontario leading the way, province after province legalized same-sex marriage, ultimately resulting in the landmark Civil Marriage Act in 2005. Congratulations, Canada

[MsTinkerbelly]

The wheels here turn a little slower....

DOJ Files DOMA Defense

The Department of Justice yesterday filed its defense of the overturn of Section Three of the Defense of Marriage Act, which was ruled unconstitutional last July in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States.
A quote from the government's brief comes via Chris Geidner at Metro Weekly:
DOMA is supported by rationales that constitute a sufficient rational basis for the law. For example, as explained below, it is supported by an interest in maintaining the status quo and uniformity on the federal level, and preserving room for the development of policy in the states. When DOMA was enacted, the institution of marriage had long been understood as a formal relationship between a man and a woman, and state and federal law had been built on that understanding. But our society is evolving, and as is well-established, the “science of government . . . is the science of experiment.” Over the years, the prevailing concept of marriage has been challenged as unfair to a significant element of the population. Recently there has been a growing recognition that the prevailing regime is harmful to gay and lesbian members of our society.
Rather tepid, eh? Richard Socarides of the newly-formed Equality Matters responds.
"There are some improvements in tone in the brief, but the bottom line is the government continues to oppose full equality for its gay citizens. And that is unacceptable. The administration claims that it has a duty to defend the laws that are on the books. We simply do not agree. At the very least, the Justice Department can and should acknowledge that the law is unconstitutional."
And from GLAD, who won the case, we get this response via press release.
The government’s appeal follows a decision issued on July 8, 2010 by federal District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro in favor of GLAD’s plaintiffs, seven married couples and three widowers, who have been denied access to federal programs because of DOMA. In that decision, Judge Tauro concluded that DOMA is unconstitutional. “We see nothing really new in this brief, which reiterates many of the same arguments the government made in the District Court,” said Mary L. Bonauto, who is leading the DOMA team for GLAD. “We’re prepared to meet these arguments head-on, and bring to an end the discrimination that is suffered by married same-sex couples like our plaintiffs and that DOJ has admitted is caused by DOMA.”

[iamkeri1]

I reinterate what AnaLee said earlier:

GOD
BLESS
CANADA

Smooches,
Keri

Originally Posted by AnaLee

God
Bless
Canada!!!

[MsTinkerbelly]

NEW YORK: Sen. Thomas Duane To Introduce Marriage Equality Bill

Openly gay New York state Sen. Thomas Duane says that he will introduce a marriage equality bill with the aim of forcing a vote by this June.
"I think everyone is aware that we have to make the lives of New Yorkers better in every way - economically, as well as to provide equality to New York families," Duane said Monday. Although a similar bill was soundly defeated in the Senate in 2009, Duane and other supporters believe Gov. Cuomo's support can finally tilt the political landscape. Cuomo, whose favorable rating reached a soaring 70% in this week's Siena poll, called for the legalization of gay marriage in his State of the State address earlier this month. "I think the governor is starting in a strong political place with the people on his side and the wind at his back," said Ross Levi, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda. "That is helpful."

Duane faces a tough, tough battle. The GOP remains in control of the New York Senate and anti-gay Democrats such as Sen. Ruben Diaz continue to vow to thwart same-sex marriage. Led by openly gay Assemblyman Daniel O'Donnell, the state Assembly has approved marriage equality several times and would easily do so again.

RELATED: In what some consider a signal of his intent to force through same-sex marriage, this week Gov. Andrew Cuomo appointed Erik Bottcher to the newly created cabinet post of Special Assistant for Community Affairs.

[MsTinkerbelly]

California federal judge rules DOMA lawsuit can proceed
By Adam Bink

Out late last night, another opportunity for victory in favor of equality in a California courtroom:

In a victory for gay rights advocates, a federal judge has ruled that state employees in California can sue for discrimination over the federal government’s exclusion of their same-sex spouses from a long-term health care program.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of Oakland denied an Obama administration request to dismiss the suit Tuesday and signaled that she is likely to overturn provisions of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits to same-sex couples.

There have been lots of opportunities presented in many different areas to chip away at this law. Health insurance is certainly one of the most profound. More:

President Obama has criticized the law, but his Justice Department is defending it in court. The administration says Congress was entitled to preserve the status quo in federal law while states debated the marriage issue.

But Wilken said the 1996 law actually changed the status quo by “robbing states of the power to allow same-sex civil marriages that will be recognized under federal law.”

She also rejected arguments that the law’s sponsors put forth in 1996, that the legislation was necessary to promote procreation and preserve heterosexual marriage.

“Marriage has never been contingent on having children,” Wilken said, and denying federal benefits to same-sex couples “does not encourage heterosexual marriage.”

She said sponsors’ “moral rejection of homosexuality” had been obvious in congressional debate. The U.S. Supreme Court has found that bias against gays is an unconstitutional justification for passing a law, Wilken noted.

Her statements paralleled the reasoning of the Massachusetts decision and a ruling in August by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco that struck down California’s ban on same-sex marriage.

Although Wilken considered only whether the suit over health insurance could proceed, her ruling “gives a pretty clear direction as to where she’s going,” said Claudia Center, lawyer for three UCSF employees and their spouses who sued to overturn the law.

Center said she would ask Wilken to certify the suit as a class action on behalf of all state employees with same-sex spouses or domestic partners. The judge did not decide whether domestic partners could challenge the law.

The couples sued in April over the California Public Employees’ Retirement System‘s refusal to enroll the spouses in a federally approved long-term care plan. State employees can buy coverage at below-market rates, use pretax dollars to pay premiums, and deduct future benefits from their taxes.

The California agency has refused to sign up same-sex spouses because the Defense of Marriage Act denies federal tax benefits to any state that covers them.

We will see how this proceeds alongside the Massachusetts case.

[MsTinkerbelly]

FRANCE: Constitutional Council To Hear Same-Sex Marriage Case

A lesbian couple's challenge to France's marriage laws will be heard this week by the Constitutional Council, the nation's highest court. Pink News reports:
Corinne Cestino and Sophie Haßlau launched the bid in May 2010 at the Tribunal de Grande instance of Reims to question the constitutionality of France’s position on gay marriage. The couple, a paediatrician and an English teacher, have four children and live together in a village outside Reims. They entered into a PACS, a civil union, ten years ago. On 16 November, the Court of Cassation referred the case to the highest constitutional authority in France, citing an “issue of constitutionality”, on Articles 75 and 144 of the Civil Code, which exclude the civil marriage of same sex.

A decision is expected by the end of the month. France currently offers civil unions and recognizes the same-sex marriages of foreigners, but not those of French citizens gay-married in other countries.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Hawaii Lawmakers Debate Civil Unions

JMG reader Todd writes to tip us that the Hawaii Senate has just begun debating a civil unions bill. Newly-elected Gov. Neil Abercrombie has promised to sign the bill, should it reach his desk. Last year both chambers of the Hawaiian legislature approved a civil unions bill, only to have it vetoed by then-Gov. Linda Lingle. Story developing...

[blackboot]

Equality Hawaii: Dedicating To Securing Equality For Hawaii's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community
action.equalityhawaii.org
The Judiciary & Labor Committee of Hawaii's Senate passed SB232, a bill granting equal rights, benefits and responsibilities to same-sex and opposite-sex couples, today with a 3-2 vote!