Same-Sex Marriage Update

[MsTinkerbelly]

Small but significant: Obama becomes first president to use “marriage equality” in public
By Jacob Combs

Speaking earlier this week at a New York fundraiser hosted by Ricky Martin at the Rubin Museum of Art, President Obama became the first sitting president to use the term “marriage equality” in a public speech. Referring to the pride he feels for passing the Lilly Ledbetter Act (which gives women greater opportunities to seek legal action for equal pay), Obama spoke about his belief that all citizens in the United States should be treated equally:

The first bill I signed, the Lilly Ledbetter Act — a simple proposition — equal pay for equal work. I don’t want my daughters treated differently than my sons. That’s the reason why we’re fighting for comprehensive immigration reform — because I believe that a child who’s here, raised with our kids, playing with our kids, has as much talent as our kids, the notion that somehow they would not have the capacity, the ability to proclaim themselves Americans and to fulfill their American Dream — that’s not who we are and that’s not what we’re about.

The announcement I made last week about my views on marriage equality — same principle. The basic idea — I want everybody treated fairly in this country. We have never gone wrong when we expanded rights and responsibilities to everybody. That doesn’t weaken families; that strengthens families. It’s the right thing to do.

This may seem like a small, semantic technicality, but it’s actually a highly significant moment. The truth is that when it comes to advocating for marriage rights for gay and lesbian individuals, language matters. Polls conducted in states across the country find that respondents are far more likely to respond that they support such rights when they are presented as “marriage equality” as opposed to “gay marriage.” Having to put any adjective in front of the word marriage, whether it be “gay” or “same-sex,” inherently brands the concept as something other than ‘just’ marriage, or some specific subset of marriage.

In truth, though, gays and lesbians aren’t trying to get “gay married.” We’re trying to get married the same way that heterosexual couples are allowed to. In a much deeper sense, using the term “marriage equality” as opposed to “gay marriage” gets to the root of the marriage debate: what we are seeking is not a new right and not a special right, but rather equal access to the already existent and constitutionality fundamental right to marry that all individuals should enjoy.

So when President Obama uses the term “marriage equality,” it may not make headlines. But it’s a big moment that shows just how far we’ve come, and what an important ally we now have on our side

[Wolfsong]

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

[B][SIZE="5"]In truth, though, gays and lesbians aren’t trying to get “gay married.” We’re trying to get married the same way that heterosexual couples are allowed to. In a much deeper sense, using the term “marriage equality” as opposed to “gay marriage” gets to the root of the marriage debate: what we are seeking is not a new right and not a special right, but rather equal access to the already existent and constitutionality fundamental right to marry that all individuals should enjoy.

Two weeks ago my wife and I received a letter from ADP (who administrates our paychecks). It said that because we had a recognized dependent, which is a non-spouse or dependent child who is covered by insurance benefits, AND the federal government does not recognize domestic partnerships and/or civil unions, we will be required to pay income taxes on those benefits in the amount of $500 taken out twice a year. Yesterday I checked the bank deposits. It was $250 short.

I think I am preaching to the choir here but........there isn't even anyone that I can complain to about this. What are we supposed to do? Throw our dildos in Boston harbor? Whoo hoo that'll show 'em.

Bastards


Taxation of Domestic Partner Benefits

[MsTinkerbelly]

Marriage equality lawsuit filed in Illinois
By Jacob Combs

Today, Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Illinois will each file a lawsuit contending that the state’s refusal to grant marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples violates the equal protection and due process rights of those couples under the state’s constitution. Activists in the state, who successfully shepherded a civil unions bill into law last year, had been pursuing a legislative strategy, but a House bill that was introduced earlier this year was removed from consideration in the middle of the session. While there are no plans to abandon their legislative push, marriage equality advocates in the state believe that a more feasible path to marriage rights in the state might be through the judicial system.

“We feel like we’re at a tipping point,” said Camilla Taylor, a Lambda Legal attorney who headed up a similar case that led to the legalization of gay marriage in Iowa. “You reach a point where you can no longer tell these families that they should hold off. You lack the justification when we reach a national moment, when it’s clear that our time is now.” After President Barack Obama announced his support for marriage equality earlier this month, Illinis Gov. Pat Quinn announced his endorsement as well.

The two suits will be filed on behalf of 25couples from across Illinois, all of whom attempted to obtain a marriage license from the Cook County clerk’s office and were denied due to an Illinois law that states, “A marriage between 2 individuals of the same sex is contrary to the public policy of this State.” Intriguingly, the office of David Orr, the Cook County Clerk, released a statement today that read: “The time is long past due for the state of Illinois to allow county clerks to issue marriage license to couples who want to make their commitment. I hope these lawsuits are the last hurdle to achieving equal marriage rights for all.”

The two Illinois lawsuits resemble In re Marriage Cases, the series of consolidated lawsuits that were filed in California after the state enacted a domestic partnership law. In that case’s landmark ruling, the California Supreme Court held that marriage is a fundamental right under the state constitution and that withholding only the title of ‘marriage’ from gay couples while providing them all of the rights and privileges accorded to married couples violated their equal protection rights. That ruling would lead to the passage of Proposition 8, followed by the Prop 8 trial.

It is unclear at this point whether or not Gov. Quinn will defend Illinois’s mini-DOMA in court. As with the other marriage equality cases being argued throughout the country, Prop8TrialTracker.com will have more news and analysis of the new Illinois lawsuits as they progress through the courts.

[MsTinkerbelly]

..Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional
By DENISE LAVOIE | Associated Press – 11 mins ago....BOSTON (AP)

— A federal appeals court Thursday declared that the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutionally denies federal benefits to married gay couples, a groundbreaking ruling all but certain to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In its unanimous decision, the three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the 1996 law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman deprives gay couples of the rights and privileges granted to heterosexual couples.

The court didn't rule on the law's more politically combustible provision, which said states without same-sex marriage cannot be forced to recognize gay unions performed in states where it's legal. It also wasn't asked to address whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marry.

The law was passed at a time when it appeared Hawaii would legalize gay marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004.

The court, the first federal appeals panel to deem the benefits section of the law unconstitutional, agreed with a lower level judge who ruled in 2010 that the law interferes with the right of a state to define marriage and denies married gay couples federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns.

The 1st Circuit said its ruling wouldn't be enforced until the U.S. Supreme Court decides the case, meaning that same-sex married couples will not be eligible to receive the economic benefits denied by DOMA until the high court rules.

That's because the ruling only applies to states within the circuit, including Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire and Puerto Rico. Only the Supreme Court has the final say in deciding whether a law passed by Congress is unconstitutional.

Although most Americans live in states where the law still is that marriage can only be the union of a man and a woman, the power to define marriage had always been left to the individual states before Congress passed DOMA, the appeals court said in its ruling.

"One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage," Judge Michael Boudin wrote for the court. "Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress' denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest."

During arguments before the court last month, a lawyer for gay married couples said the law amounts to "across-the-board disrespect." The couples argued that the power to define and regulate marriage had been left to the states for more than 200 years before Congress passed DOMA.

An attorney defending the law argued that Congress had a rational basis for passing it in 1996, when opponents worried that states would be forced to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. The group said Congress wanted to preserve a traditional and uniform definition of marriage and has the power to define terms used to federal statutes to distribute federal benefits.

Since DOMA was passed in 1996, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, including Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maryland, Washington state and the District of Columbia. Maryland and Washington's laws are not yet in effect and may be subject to referendums.

Last year, President Barack Obama announced the U.S. Department of Justice would no longer defend the constitutionality of the law. After that, House Speaker John Boehner convened the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to defend it. The legal group argued the case before the appeals court.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the Boston-based legal group that brought one of the lawsuits on behalf of gay married couples, said the law takes one group of legally married people and treats them as "a different class" by making them ineligible for benefits given to other married couples.

"We've been working on this issue for so many years, and for the court to acknowledge that yes, same-sex couples are legally married, just as any other couple, is fantastic and extraordinary," said Lee Swislow, GLAD's executive director.

Two of the three judges who decided the case Thursday were Republican appointees, while the other was a Democratic appointee. Boudin was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, while Judge Juan Torruella was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. Chief Judge Sandra Lynch is an appointee of President Bill Clinton

[MsTinkerbelly]

Illinois Attorney General announces support for marriage equality lawsuits
By Jacob Combs

The upcoming court battle in Illinois over the constitutionality of civil unions and the state’s prohibition on marriage equality looks like it promises to be an intriguing and unusual one. Earlier this week, Lambda Legal and the ACLU of Illinois announced that they were simultaneously filing two lawsuits, Darby v. Orr and Lazaro v. Orr, arguing that the civil unions the state began offering to gay and lesbian couples last year infringe upon those couples’ equal protection rights under the Illinois Constitution.

David Orr, who is the official government defendant in both lawsuits by virtue of his position as Cook County Clerk, is himself a supporter of marriage equality: in a statement released by his office last week, Orr wrote of his “hope [that] these lawsuits are the last hurdle to achieving equal marriage rights for all.” Because of Orr’s position, it seems unlikely that he will elect to put forward any strong defense of the status quo once the cases make their way to court.

In another twist, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan announced over the weekend her plans to intervene in the two marriage cases–on the side of the plaintiffs. Usually, state Attorneys General intervene in court cases when state laws are challenged in order to support those statutes, or, as in the case of Proposition 8 and California Attorney General Kamala Harris (like her predecessor Jerry Brown), they choose to opt out of such lawsuits if they do not support the law in question. Madigan, however, believes that Illinois’s civil unions law does not in fact adequately protect equal protection rights, and plans to intervene on behalf of Lambda Legal and the ACLU in both cases.

With both Orr and Madigan expressing support for the lawsuits, it’s an open question now as to who will actually defend the constitutionality of the civil unions law in court. David Orr would normally be represented in court by Anita Alvarez, the state attorney for Cook County, but it is unclear if the Democratic attorney will opt to defend the law, especially after Madigan’s announcement.

In California, when both the Governor and Attorney General declined to support Proposition 8 in court, the constitutional amendment’s official backers intervened in court to defend it. In Illinois, however, there are no ballot proponents to stand up for the civil unions law (since it was enacted legislatively and not by a popular vote), and Democrats control both chambers of the legislature. It will be interesting to see who steps forward to defend the law, and if the courts decide to allow them to do so

[Wolfsong]

I have to revise my stance on this issue and admit my realization that my position, at least in this issue, was terribly short-sighted. In the beginning, I supported state's right to vote and determine for themselves.

On many issues I opt for state's rights over Federal involvement. Who am I to tell someone a thousand miles away how to live their lives? It is my contention that the Federal goverment has been trying to change America from the Constitutional Republic that we are supposed to be to a Democracy since the 1950's....but that is a discussion for it's own thread.

In this case I see very clearly that we are going to remain disadvantaged until gay marriage is viewed as a legitimate civil rights issue by all, and addressed and approved by the federal goverment. Civil Unions are merely a bone tossed to get both sides to shut-up. Give Civil Unions the same legal rights as marriage and I don't give a damn what it's called....but it will shut me up.

[suebee]

Court will not rehear proposition 8 case.