Same-Sex Marriage Update

[MsTinkerbelly]

Washington judge releases final ballot language for marriage equality initiative
By Jacob Combs

Yesterday, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Thomas McPhee released his decision on the final wording for Referendum 74, the proposed ballot measure to either uphold or overturn Washington’s recently passed marriage equality law. Judge McPhee’s decision, which is final and cannot be appealed, is a victory for marriage advocates because it removes language about the law’s intent to “redefine marriage” and instead opts for more neutral wording. Supporters of the initiative will now have to collect 120,577 signatures by June 6 to qualify it for the November election.

Here is the finalized ballot language for Referendum 74:

Ballot Title:
The legislature passed Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6239 concerning marriage for same-sex couples, modified domestic-partnership law, and religious freedom [and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill].

This bill would allow same-sex couples to marry, preserve domestic partnerships only for seniors, and preserve the right of clergy or religious organizations to refuse to perform, recognize, or accommodate any marriage ceremony.

Should this bill be

___ Approved

___ Rejected

Ballot Measure Summary:
This bill allows same-sex couples to marry, applies marriage laws without regard to gender, and specifies that laws using gender-specific terms like husband and wife include same-sex spouses. After 2014, existing domestic partnerships are converted to marriages, except for seniors. It preserves the right of clergy or religious organizations to refuse to perform or recognize any marriage or accommodate wedding ceremonies. The bill does not affect licensing of religious organizations providing adoption, foster-care, or child-placement

[iamkeri1]

Wow! That seems to me to be a very clearly stated referendum. I don't think it should be on the ballot at all - rights being inalienable and all that, but at least people voting on the referendum will be able to clearly understand what they are voting for/against. Two things will work toward samesex marriage being passed.

1 people are more likely to vote for the first choice.
2 people are more likely to vote FOR a referendum than against it.

Have all available body parts crossed hoping that it passes.
Smooches,
Keri

[MsTinkerbelly]

Denmark set to legalize marriage equality by summer
By Jacob Combs

Helle Thorning-Schmidt, the center-left prime minister of Denmark, announced this week that his government plans to introduce draft legislation that will bring marriage equality to the country on June 15. From BNO News:

Denmark was the first country in the world to legalize same-sex unions in 1989 but, despite a generally tolerant society towards homosexuality, politicians repeatedly rejected bills to legalize same-sex marriage. The previous Danish government also rejected a same-sex marriage bill last year.

But Thorning said the Danish government will submit a draft legislation on Wednesday which will allow same-sex couples to get married at both City Hall and the Church of Denmark if they find a priest who is willing to perform the wedding. Although some church leaders have spoken out against same-sex marriage, previous surveys have suggested that as many as 70 percent of priests are willing to marry same-sex couples.

Thorning-Schmidt called the bill “a big step forward” and a “natural” progresion for her country. After the introduction of the civil union bill in 1989, gay couples in Denmark enjoyed the same rights as straght couples, but were not allowed to be married in a religious ceremony. In 1997, the Church of Denmark allowed religious leaders to bless gay unions and in 2009, gay couples won the right to adopt children.

The legislation is expected to pass, making Denmark the 11th country with marriage equality. The other 10 are Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden

[MsTinkerbelly]

ITALY: Supreme Court Rules That Gay Couples Are Entitled To "Family Life"

The Italian Supreme Court today issued a ruling that gay activists say may help clear the road for same-sex marriage.
In its first case regarding a gay couple who wed abroad, the Supreme Court rejected their appeal to be recognized legally in Italy yet said the two men still had the "right to a family life". "Today's Supreme Court judgement is important," said Fabrizio Marrazzo, spokesman for activist group Gay Center. "The ruling says that gay couples must also enjoy the same legal rights as any heterosexual couple. The words are clear and sharp. Parliament and the government must give an answer".

[Blade]

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...amendment.html

Long article

[Blade]

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...-proposed.html

This much is clear: There’s a lot of confusion over the so-called “marriage amendment” on the May 8 primary ballot.
Everything from what it’s called to what it would do has been disputed. Poll results released Thursday show solid support for the referendum – until the pollsters explained to the potential voters what it proposes.
For instance, 7 percent of those surveyed thought it would legalize gay marriage, instead of the opposite.
For something as serious as amending the state constitution, that seems like a problem.
The survey by Public Policy Polling shows the amendment passing with 58 percent in favor and 38 percent opposed.
In January, the polling firm reported 56 percent in favor and 34 percent opposed; so the gap is narrowing ever so slightly.
But the poll found only about one-third of the respondents actually know what the amendment would do.
The proposal has often been referred to by the shorthand “marriage amendment,” but it goes beyond marriage.
If approved, it would secure in the state’s constitution a prohibition against legally recognizing gay marriage – as well as civil unions between same-sex couples and domestic partnerships between couples of the opposite sex.
According to census figures, there were 223,000 couples in domestic partnerships in North Carolina in 2010. Only 12 percent of those were same-sex couples.
The PPP poll showed 28 percent of voters think the amendment only bans gay marriage. But when told that it also prohibits civil unions, support drops to 41 percent in favor and 42 percent opposed.
Thirty-four percent acknowledged that they really don’t know what it means.
Alex Miller, co-chairman of the anti-amendment group Protect All N.C. Families, said the poll shows that people will vote against the amendment if they understand it. He said proof that the proposal is vague is in the official explanation of the amendment, which notes that the potential ramifications of the law would have to be settled in court.
“What I’m afraid of is the supporters of this amendment will be able to essentially sneak it in past the people of North Carolina and put it into our constitution, and once the majority understands its effects it will be too late,” Miller said.
But Rep. Paul “Skip” Stam, the Republican majority leader in the state House and one of the authors of the amendment, says it’s not as complicated as opponents say.
“Their objection is that they know it will not do the things they are alleging,” Stam wrote in an email Thursday. “The confusion comes from their own unwillingness to address the marriage amendment on its own terms.”
John Robinson of the Elon University Poll found similar uncertainties in a poll conducted earlier this month in partnership with The News & Observer and ABC11.
“It’s very clear they, in varying degrees, support some kind of legal recognition for same-sex couples, but there’s confusion over how they would vote on the amendment,” Robinson said.
Robinson also points out that there is a kind of confusing double-negative about the issue: If you oppose gay marriage you’re for the amendment, and if you support it you’re against it.
Even what to call the amendment is controversial.
People have come to refer to it as “Amendment One,” although that’s not what it will be titled on the ballot. There, it really doesn’t have an official name at all, other than “constitutional amendment.”
The PPP survey of 1,191 likely primary voters was an automated phone poll taken between March 23 and Sunday. It has a margin of error of 2.8 percent.

[MsTinkerbelly]

In new lawsuit, DOMA is challenged as it applies to immigration rights
By Scottie Thomaston

Immigration Equality has filed a new lawsuit challenging the Defense of Marriage Act as it applies to the immigration rights of gay and lesbian bi-national couples. The complaint, notes the reasons that the Defense of Marriage Act treats same sex couples dealing with immigration issues particularly harshly:


The discriminatory impact of DOMA is particularly acute in the immigration context. For immigration purposes, whether the federal government recognizes a couple’s marriage can determine whether a family may remain in the United States and live together, or may be torn apart.

The group’s press release says:


Five lesbian and gay couples filed suit today in the Eastern District of New York, challenging Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prevents lesbian and gay American citizens from sponsoring their spouses for green cards. The lawsuit, filed on the couples’ behalf by Immigration Equality and the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, alleges that DOMA violates the couples’ constitutional right to equal protection.

“Solely because of DOMA and its unconstitutional discrimination against same-sex couples,” the lawsuit states, “these Plaintiffs are being denied the immigration rights afforded to other similarly situated binational couples.” Were the Plaintiffs opposite-sex couples, the suit says, “the federal government would recognize the foreign spouse as an ‘immediate relative’ of a United States citizen, thereby allowing the American spouse to petition for an immigrant visa for the foreign spouse, and place [them] on the path to lawful permanent residence and citizenship.”

The complaint asserts that keeping families together is not only the highest priority for the plaintiffs who are in long term same sex relationships, but it’s also considered the highest government priority and commitment to family values is repeatedly affirmed in our laws. Because of DOMA, these and other families could be ripped apart:


Each of the Plaintiff couples were legally married, and there is no question that each couple’s marriage is recognized in the jurisdiction in which the American spouse resides. For example, Frances Herbert and Takako Ueda were lawfully married in 2011 in Vermont. Thus, if Takako were a man instead of a woman, she would have already been recognized as an “immediate relative,” allowing her to attain lawful permanent residence and to remain in the United States.

Immigration Equality notes on their website the administration’s rather arbitrary enforcement of DOMA as it pertains to immigration – they’ve stopped some deportations but allowed others – and explains their case:


Over the course of the past year, the Obama Administration has refused to approve – or even hold — green card applications filed by our families. As a result, couples are facing separation and exile … and we will not sit idly by as the federal government keeps tearing families apart.

There is no question that DOMA is unconstitutional. We know it; the Obama Administration knows it; and the families who feel its impact know it most of all. It is time to end this law, and Immigration Equality and our families will do just that.

On April 2nd, we filed suit on behalf of five lesbian and gay couples, challenging Section 3 of DOMA, which prevents lesbian and gay American citizens from sponsoring their spouses for green cards. The lawsuit, filed on the couples’ behalf by Immigration Equality and the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, alleges that DOMA violates the couples’ constitutional right to equal protection.

This is not the first lawsuit that has alleged DOMA is unconstitutional as applied to immigration rights. In California, Lui v. Holder was thrown out because the judge said Adams v. Howerton is controlling precedent. In Illinois, Revelis v. Napolitano is awaiting further action.

The lawsuit is called Blesch v. Holder

[Cin]

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

In new lawsuit, DOMA is challenged as it applies to immigration rights

I have my fingers crossed. It might be pie in the sky right now, but I would love someday for my wife and I to be able to choose where we want to live.

[MsTinkerbelly]

President Obama opposes anti-gay Amendment 1 in North Carolina
By Scottie Thomaston

This is news:


“While the president does not weigh in on every single ballot measure in every state, the record is clear that the President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same sex couples,” said Cameron French, his North Carolina campaign spokesman.

“That’s what the North Carolina ballot initiative would do – it would single out and discriminate against committed gay and lesbian couples – and that’s why the President does not support it.”

Equality activists in North Carolina have been pressing the President and the First Lady to publicly oppose the amendment, and the number of people in opposition is growing. Recently, Wooledge noted that the fight in NC is winnable. This move by the president is very welcome and could help steer the conversation in a more positive direction for the equality side.

Hopefully this is also a sign of more changes to come. North Carolina is a battleground state, and the Democratic National Convention will be held there this year

Maybe someone up the campaign food chain finally figured out there’s no harm in pointing out that discrimination placed in a state constitution is simply wrong. It’s not like we’re asking for an endorsement of marriage equality. He’s got that problem as well — related to the platform — with many of his fellow Dems calling for marriage equality language to be added to it, but that’s not the same issue for North Carolina.

If people are that uptight about that frank and earnest statement of opposition to Amendment One stated above, the President shouldn’t have expected to win over those votes anyway.

[Soon]

She’s a Sens fan, her girlfriend’s a Leafs fan and their marriage proposal during NHL game was adorable (VIDEO)l

[iamkeri1]

What a great video. Made me smile. Despite the slow progress, there has still been LOTS of progress in my lifetime. Thanks for the reminder.
Smooches,
Keri

[MsTinkerbelly]

Repeal of marriage equality in New Hampshire fails
By Scottie Thomaston

Marriage equality was retained in New Hampshire today:


Today, the Republican-controlled House in New Hampshire failed to pass one of seven bill attempts that would have killed same-sex civil marriage equality. The vote failed 133-202. Democratic Governor John Lynch, who signed the 2009 bill legalizing same-sex marriage into law, would have vetoed HB 437, sponsored by Republican David Bates, an attempt to disenfranchise thousands of same-sex couples along with gay, lesbian, and bisexual citizens who in the future might wish to marry. It was unclear if the GOP would have been able to assemble enough votes to override the Governor’s veto.

Good As You has a bit more.

And Wooledge at Daily Kos:


The vote failed, 202 to 133 according to Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) legal group, tweeting from the state house.

A 74% Republican house
It failed to even pass, let alone reach a veto-sustaining majority it would have needed to get around Gov. John Lynch’s desk. The failure to even sustain a majority of House members votes can only be seen as a crushing defeat to religious right’s grip on the agenda of the Republican party, which controls 74% of the seats in the NH house. The party should have been easily been able to reach 50% +1.

NOM and other groups had been pushing to repeal marriage rights for gay couples, and they were delivered a huge upset. And fairness and moral correctness wins again

[MsTinkerbelly]

Obama administration considering a marriage equality endorsement before November’s election
By Jacob Combs

It looks as if President Obama’s storied “evolution” on marriage equality may finally be entering an end stage, reports Chris Johnson of the Washington Blade, citing an inside source in a piece published today about the administration’s movement towards a full endorsement of equality. From the Blade:

The chances that Obama will make such an announcement before the election are looking better than in previous months as the issue receives growing media attention and voters in a handful of states face ballot initiatives this year.

An informed source, who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity, said “active conversations” are taking place between the White House and the campaign about whether Obama should complete his evolution on marriage and that the chances of him making an announcement are about 50-50.

According to the source, the administration would like to unveil another major pro-LGBT initiative before the November election, and an endorsement of marriage equality could fit the bill. But concerns persist on how an endorsement of same-sex marriage would play in four or five battleground states.

As always, this battleground state/swing voter argument is what marriage advocates run up against when it comes to the President’s evolution. The Obama campaign worries that a marriage announcement could alienate socially conservative Democrats as well as the independents who will no doubt be so important to his reelection. These are valid concerns in the abstract, but the real question is: do they really line up with reality?

Elections are fuzzy creatures at best, so guessing how different factors would affect them is an inexact science. Still, I think a persuasive argument can be made that an endorsement of marriage equality would likely have little negative effect on Obama’s reelection, and would in fact have a significant positive effect.

First, as polling continues to demonstrate that support for marriage equality is strong and growing, some of the most significant gains on the issue have been among independents. A PPP poll from earlier this month showed that independent voters had shifted in just two years since 2009 from opposing marriage equality by a 52/46 margin to supporting it by a 57/36 margin. A Field poll in California in early March also showed inroads amongst indepdents, with a full 56 percent supporting the freedom to marry. Even more significantly, a recent Wall Street Journal poll conducted nationally showed that support for marriage had increased dramatically in several unexpected demographic groups, most significantly blue-collar voters, which experienced a 20 percent jump in the last two years, and African-Americans, which experienced an 18 percent increase. A majority of Hispanics aged 18 to 34 also voiced support.

These opinion shifts show that marriage equality is quickly becoming a winning issue for pro-equality candidates even among constituencies that have been historically hesitant about the issue. Most of the voters who would oppose Obama for a pro-marriage position would oppose him anyways on other issues. As these various polls demonstrate, a marriage announcement would likely do little harm to the President’s standing amongst independents and important Democratic voters.

In truth, though, what the Blade article truly demonstrates is the fact that many of us in the marriage equality community have known and been frustrated by for years. That the administration is considering when and how a marriage announcement should be made shows that Obama already supports marriage equality, at least privately. What this means is that LGBT advocates end up frustrated with him for his glacial pace at adopting a position that they know will come eventually, and anti-marriage forces no doubt acknowledge the same facts and oppose Obama for what they know will be his future position. In that way, the evolution stance is a lose-lose situation, and it has the added damage of allowing GOP candidates and pundits to make the specious claim that they share the same views as the President when it comes to marriage equality.

If Obama were to make his marriage announcement before the election, it would no doubt give him a big boost of support going into the fall. It would energize the young Democratic base, who look at this issue as a fundamental rights question of paramount importance. It would excite and motivate LGBT voters (and, even more importantly, donors), who have been frustrated with the President but would no doubt respond to a huge position shift on one of their central issues. And it would draw a better distinction with the eventual GOP nominee, who will be one of several men who have espoused far-right anti-LGBT views throughout the primary campaign that are out of touch with the majority of Americans.

The one hitch: an ENDA executive order. On Tuesday, the Labor and Justice departments cleared an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The order is named after the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill that would prohibit such discrimination amongst private employers but which failed to pass Congress. With this ENDA order close to being ready for signature, the Obama administration could make ENDA its pre-November LGBT action as opposed to marriage equality. “My feeling is you’ll get one, you won’t get both before Election Day,” said the source quoted by the Washington Blade.

An ENDA victory would have a big impact, and would provide long-overdue rights to LGBT individuals who work for the government and for federal contractors. It would not, however, have the same electoral value as a marriage announcement. Supporting marriage equality before the election would put Obama in a much stronger position to make it a reality in his second term as president