Same-Sex Marriage Update

[MsTinkerbelly]

HAWAII: Civil Unions Advances In House

Last month Hawaii's civil unions bill passed in the state Senate. And last night an 11-2 vote moved the bill out of committee and to the full House for a vote expected to be made in the next week or so.
The state House Judiciary Committee voted last night to approve a civil-unions bill with amendments to ensure that the relationships are recognized in the tax code and are under the jurisdiction of family court. "It's still fast-tracked. I think the Senate now has the opportunity just to agree to these amendments that probably should have been considered when it was first passed," Rep. Gil Keith-Agaran (D, Kahului-Paia), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said after the 11-2 vote

[betenoire]

Unmarry To Support Same-Sex Marriage

In support of same sex marriage and the freedom to love, Central Park’s Bethesda Fountain will be the site for a massive “unwedding” this Sunday, February 13th.

Video from last year's Unmarrying:

Reverend Billy officiated a ceremony to unmarry heterosexual couples until all people have the right to be married. This took place on February 14, 2010 (Valentine's Day) in Central Park at the Bethesda Fountain.
UnMarriage Until GayMarriage

[MsTinkerbelly]

Positive signs on marriage in New York, Maryland
By Adam Bink

Two good reports out this morning. One is from Julie at The Advocate, covering their NY beat as well as she always does. Gov. Cuomo’s remarks on the marriage bill, which is languishing in the Senate over uncertainty on the number of votes in hand, following his budget presentation at Hofstra University:

“I want to see it become the law of the state of New York and we’re going to take it up this session,” he said.

The comments marked the most specific to date from the Democrat about a timetable. In his state of the state address in January, he called for the bill to be passed “this year.”

The marriage equality bill has passed the assembly multiple times, but the measure failed in the senate in 2009 by a wide margin of 38–24, with no Republicans voting in favor. Senate majority leader Dean Skelos has promised not to block the bill from going to a vote.

According to The Journal News, when Cuomo was asked Wednesday what he was doing to get the bill passed in the Republican-controlled senate, he said, “We’re working very hard to pass it.”

A positive sign. For all of Gov. Paterson’s inabilities, I always gave him credit for being the most outspokenly pro-freedom to marry governor in every possible respect- actions, pressure, rhetoric. He relentlessly beat the drum harder than anyone. I’d love to see Gov. Cuomo follow in his footsteps.

In Maryland, Sen. Brochin, a previous opponent of the freedom to marry, announced his was switching to a yea vote. Statement from Equality Maryland and him following the hearings:

ANNAPOLIS, M.D., FEBRUARY 9, 2011–Senator Jim Brochin (D-42) held a press conference today where he announced that his support for marriage equality.

Statement from Equality Maryland, Morgan Meneses-Sheets, Executive Director

“Equality Maryland is proud of Senator Brochin’s declaration of support of civil marriage for gay and lesbian couples. His recent change of heart proves that when people have the facts, and hear the real life stories from loving and committed couples, hearts and minds can and do change. We welcome Senator Brochin to the growing coalition of elected officials from both sides of the aisle who have come to understand that ensuring equal treatment under the law is good public policy. There is no substitute for equality — and only civil marriage can confer the respect, protection and responsibility to same-sex couples in the same manner that it is conferred to opposite-sex couples.”

SENATOR BROCHIN’S STATEMENT RELEASED TO THE PRESS

After an almost 8-hour hearing on Tuesday, Senator Brochin found some of the opponents’ testimony on same-sex marriage (SB 116 – Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act) to be “troubling.” The Baltimore County Democrat had previously said he was against same-sex marriage, but is now reconsidering his stance.

“What I witnessed from the opponents of the bill was appalling.” Brochin said. “Witness after witness demonized homosexuals, vilified the gay community, and described gays and lesbians as pedophiles. I believe that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather people are born one way or another The proponents of the bill were straightforward in wanting to be simply treated as everyone else, and wanted to stop being treated as second-class citizens.

Brochin added, “For me, the transition to supporting marriage has not been an easy one, but the uncertainty, fear, and second-class status that gays and lesbians have to put up with is far worse and clearly must come to an end.”

This follows the former minority leader, Sen. Kittleman, announcing his switch to support the bill. The big mo’!

Update: One other note. I guess Maggie, who testified, only has herself and her cohorts to blame for Brochin’s switch, when you note how “witness after witness demonized homosexuals” etc. Good job, Maggie.

[MsTinkerbelly]

New chief justice says California Supreme Court will decide soon on entering Proposition 8 fray
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye discusses the possibility of weighing in on the federal appeal of Proposition 8 and her hope that a vacancy on the California Supreme Court be filled by a Southern California Latino.

Chief Justice of California Tani Cantil-Sakayue, pictured after swearing… (John G. Mabanglo / European Pressphoto Agency)February 03, 2011|By Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times
Reporting from San Francisco — Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said Wednesday that the California Supreme Court may decide "as soon as next week" whether to weigh in on the federal Proposition 8 appeal and expressed hope that a Southern California Latino would be chosen to succeed departing Justice Carlos R. Moreno.


In her first meeting with reporters since taking over for retired Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Cantil-Sakauye said she would meet with Gov. Jerry Brown on Friday and discuss the judicial branch budget and Moreno's successor.

Moreno, the only Democrat on the court, is leaving at the end of this month to make more money in the private sector. He was the sole justice on the court to vote to overturn Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that reinstated a ban on same-sex marriage.

Cantil-Sakauye said Moreno had been an important "ambassador" for the court and as a resident of Los Angeles, had ensured the court has a strong presence there. She said geographic and ethnic diversity are important to the court, and "it really would be helpful" if Moreno's successor shares his heritage and residency.

Brown has yet to reveal his leanings on the subject, but his advisors have been examining several Latino candidates, including law professors. The court also has no African-American justice.

Gay rights activists have bemoaned Moreno's departure at a time when the court is being asked to play another critical role in Proposition 8. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has asked the California high court to determine whether state law gives sponsors of initiatives the authority to defend them legally when state officials refuse to do so.

The state court has been highly deferential to initiatives in the past. If the court rules that initiative backers have special status under state law, the 9th Circuit would be more likely to rule on the constitutionally of Proposition 8.

Lawyers and law professors who have followed the case suspect that the 9th Circuit was prepared to dismiss the appeal by backers of Proposition 8 on the grounds that only state officials can challenge the trial court's ruling against the measure. Gay rights lawyers say such a ruling would mean Proposition 8's demise, but it would have no direct effect on same-sex marriage outside California

[blackboot]

Hawaii State House Approves Landmark Bill To Protect Same-Sex Couples


Today was a great day for Hawaii as the Hawaii House of Representatives passed SB 232 SD1 HD1 by a 31 - 19 vote!

The bill provides that the equal rights and responsibilities of married couples in Hawaii be available to thousands of unmarried couples in the state ... including same-sex couples.


After minor changes were made by House members, the bill now heads back to the Senate for agreement on the amendments before heading to Gov. Neil Abercrombie for his signature. SB 232 SD1 passed the Hawaii Senate on Jan. 28 by a 19-6 vote.

Except for some technical corrections and implementation amendments, the bill is identical to HB 444, the civil unions bill passed in 2010. That bill passed the House and Senate with near supermajorities before Gov. Linda Lingle vetoed it. No override vote was held.

[MsTinkerbelly]

COLORADO: Civil Unions Bill Introduced

Openly gay Colorado state Sen. Pat Steadman introduced his civil unions bill today. One Colorado reports via press release:

The Colorado Civil Unions Act provides committed gay and lesbian couples with critical legal protections and responsibilities, such as the ability to insure a partner, to inherit property, to take family leave to care for a partner, to visit a partner in the hospital, and to make medical and end-of-life decisions for a partner. “Civil unions will allow committed couples to share in the responsibilities and protections in Colorado law that most families take for granted. Our society is stronger when we promote personal responsibility and taking care of one another, and civil unions do just that,” said Senator Pat Steadman, sponsor of the bill. A key provision of the civil unions bill includes a religious exclusion. The bill explicitly protects freedom of religion by not requiring priests, ministers, rabbis, or other religious officials to certify a civil union. Religious leaders who want to certify a civil union may do so.
According to a just-released poll, 72% of Colorado voters support legal recognitions for gay couples. Steadman's bill is expected to pass easily in the Democratic majority state Senate, but the GOP-led state House will be another story.

[MsTinkerbelly]

The NYTimes on the indefendable DOMA
By Adam Bink

Amazing NYTimes editorial yesterday (bolding mine):

In Defense of Marriage, for All
The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act is indefensible — officially sanctioned discrimination against one group of Americans imposed during an election year. President Obama seems to know that, or at least he has called on Congress to repeal it. So why do his government’s lawyers continue to defend the act in court?

The law, signed by President Bill Clinton, denies married same-sex couples the federal benefits granted to other married couples, including Social Security survivor payments and the right to file joint tax returns. When December’s repeal of the noxious “don’t ask, don’t tell” law goes into effect, gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans will be able to serve openly in the military but may not be entitled to on-base housing or a spouse’s burial in a national cemetery.

Attorney General Eric Holder and Justice Department lawyers have sought to distance the administration from Congress’s justifications for the marriage act, one of which was to “encourage responsible procreation.”

But just last month, the department appealed two rulings by Joseph Tauro, a federal trial judge in Massachusetts, who found that the law’s denial of benefits to married same-sex couples could not pass constitutional muster. We did not agree with some of the judge’s reasoning. He said the marriage act exceeded Congress’s powers and infringed on the state’s right to regulate marriage — an approach that could undermine many of the biggest federal social programs, including the new health care law.

But the department’s appellate brief also recycled the flimsy argument that the law had a plausible purpose in trying to maintain the federal status quo while states debated the issue of same-sex marriage. This argument was peculiar since the law overturned the federal status quo, which was to recognize all legal marriages.

Two new lawsuits, filed in Connecticut and New York, challenging the Defense of Marriage Act now offer the president a chance to put the government on the side of justice. We urge him to seize it when the administration files its response, which is due by March 11. The executive branch’s duty to defend federal laws is not inviolate. This one’s affront to equal protection is egregious.

Now a comment from Adam Bink..(Prop 8 Blogger)
[...]

On the merits, this should be an easy call. A law focusing on a group that has been subjected to unfair discrimination, as gay people have been, is supposed to get a hard test. It is presumed invalid unless the government proves that the officials’ purpose in adopting the law advances a real and compelling interest. That sort of heightened scrutiny would challenge the administration’s weak argument for upholding the act. It would also make it more difficult to sustain other forms of anti-gay discrimination, including state laws that deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

By now, such blatant discrimination should be presumed to be unconstitutional, and the Justice Department should finally say so. If conservatives in Congress want to enter the case to argue otherwise, so be it.

A hard test is right. This law advances no compelling interest