Same-Sex Marriage Update

[iamkeri1]

Toughy, not intended as an attack on you, just a sign of my own frustration.

I am sick of the constant ass-kissing of the Christian Right that has become a requirement for the passing of almost any law these days. Why do we constantly have to reassure them that they will be allowed to continue to discriminate against us and that the law will continue to support that discrimination? Churches/religions, whatever that choose to not follow federal law regarding civil rights, (for example, churches are exempt from handicapper accessibility laws under both the 1973 Handicapper Civil Rights Act, and the ADA) should lose their tax exempt status.
The consitution allows no law which prohibits the free exercise of religion, but it doesn't say we have to pay for their prejudices. This would not only clear things up regarding religious objections to marriage equality, it would resolve all the issues over birth control, abortion etc that are so contentious in the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare), and other civil rights conflicts as well. There are hundreds; don't want to list them here .

"Of course, pastor, bishop, rabbi, imam, monk, or whatever you call yourself, we would not even consider forcing you to obey any law that would interfere with the practice of your belief. Go right ahead and refuse to cover birth control under your health care, and don't hesitate at all to keep your doors locked to queers, it's all good. In fact we, the Federal Government, want help you maintain the purity of your beliefs. We will, therefore, immediately stop giving you the special religious tax exemptions that might make you feel dependent upon the government, as well government funding for any programs you maybe running. We are sure this heathen money has been a distraction for your followers. Removing it will free you up to generate income for your group in whatever way is allowable under your faith principles"


Should the suggestions above fail to find congressional approval, here's my easy solution. Take legal marriage completely out of the hands of the church" and place the transaction of this legal contract where it belongs - in the courthouse.

ALL marriages are to be performed by the state through whatever vehicle currently required by a particular state for hets who chose a civil ceremony; Judges, justices of the peace, notary publics, etc. Since religion has been taken out of it and all individuals have equal protection under the law, queers will of course be granted marriage licenses and the ability to marry civilly. Churches may continue to perform whatever religious ceremony they now provide for their followers. BUT these are religious ceremonies only with no legality attached. If you haven't been married civilly by the state, you ain't married legally. If religious leaders wish to maintain the autonomy of their religions, they shouldn't be providing legal services like signing and filing or marriage licenses.

Keri has spoken. Make it so,

Smooches!

Originally Posted by Toughy

Seems to me the addition of the word 'civil' makes it very clear that this has no effect on what organized religion does or does not about gay marriage.

I think it should read something like this: 'any two consenting adults may be issued a civil marriage license'. It certainly goes a long way towards equality for gender/sex variant individuals.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Nevada’s marriage equality lawsuit: could it be bigger than the Prop 8 trial?
By Jacob Combs

This morning, at 9 a.m. Pacific time, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada will hear arguments in Sevcik v. Sandoval, a marriage equality lawsuit filed by a group of committed gay and lesbian couples challenging the constitutionality of the state’s domestic partnership law. And although the Sevcik case may not make big news headlines the way that the Prop 8 trial has throughout its journey through the courts, it may end up being a even more important decision in the long-term fight for full federal LGBT equality.

Beverly Sevcik and Mary Baranovich of Carson City, the lead plaintiffs in Sevcik who are represented in court by Lambda Legal, have been together for more than 40 years, and have raised three children together. Along with the seven other couples included in the filing, Sevcik and Baranovich argue that Nevada’s domestic partnership law, which provides gay and lesbian couples with many of the rights and responsibilities of marriage without the title itself, violate their equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution.

As I wrote in April when the case was announced, the Sevcik case is certainly a sibling case to the Prop 8 trial, Perry v. Brown, in that argues that laws denying gays and lesbians full legal recognition of their committed relationships is a practice abhorrent to the federal constitution. Unlike the Prop 8 case, however, in which lawyers argued that gays and lesbians have a fundamental right to marriage (a right that the Supreme Court has recognized as fundamental, albeit not explicitly for gay couples, many times in the past), the Sevcik case focuses only on making an equal protection claim.

Tomorrow’s hearing may not be a headliner because it is somewhat procedural: the court will consider two motions, one filed by Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval seeking to dismiss the lawsuit (citing the antiquated Supreme Court case Baker v. Nelson, which we’ve written about before on this site), and another by the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, the main proponent of the state ballot initiative that banned marriage equality in Nevada. In its brief, the Coalition seeks to intervene in the lawsuit as a defendant.

Three years ago, though, the Prop 8 case itself had similarly modest beginnings. Today, it is a major lawsuit followed closely by the media, and it will most likely garner even more headlines this fall when the Supreme Court decides whether or not to take up the case for review in its next term. If it does, the stage will be set for a landmark ruling that would huge ramifications for gay and lesbian couples across the United States.

But there are many court-watchers, myself included, who believe that the Supreme Court will in fact decline to review the Prop 8 case, opting to put off until a later date any decision on the issue of whether or not there is fundamental right to marry for gay and lesbian couples. If that were to occur, the Ninth Circuit’s narrow ruling, which expressly limits its effect (and its legal reasoning) to California only, would stand. That would be a major victory, since it would bring equality back to the nation’s largest state and the thousands of gay and lesbian couples whose relationships are currently treated as second-class in California.

But once Prop 8 is history, the central question of the Perry lawsuit, the one the Supreme Court may likely choose to avoid answering, will remain: is it constitutional for gay couples’ relationships to be denied the same recognition and respect as straight couples? And just as importantly, what is the road to equality for gays and lesbians who are not living in states like California, where public opinion is by and large favorable to marriage equality? When the American Foundation for Equal Rights filed the Prop 8 lawsuit in 2009, they made clear that their goal was nothing less than full federal marriage equality: they wanted their case to be the marriage equivalent of Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down anti-sodomy laws across the country.

If Perry doesn’t end up being a sweeping victory for the LGBT equality movement like Lawrence was, that future landmark case will still be waiting in the wings. Besides Sevcik, there is only one other case in the country regarding a federal right to marriage that is currently making its way through the court system, Jackson v. Abercrombie, in which a district court judge ruled just this week against gay couples seeking full equality in the state. If either case makes its way to the Supreme Court, it won’t do so for several years, by which time the marriage equality situation in America may look quite different, with more states offering marriage rights and, potentially, a Supreme Court decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act.

Today’s hearing in Sevcik v. Sandoval is important because it is an incremental step in a larger legal and socio-political movement that looks likely to outlast the Prop 8 trial. And while it may not make headlines today, it just might make history some day soon.

[blackboot]

Senior U.S. District Judge Alan Kay upheld today Hawaii laws banning same-sex marriages-By Ken Kobayashi-The Star-Advertiser-Hawaii-Aug 08, 2012 -

"The judge issued a 117-page decision which throws out the lawsuit filed by a lesbian couple and a gay man who contended the state laws violate the U.S. Constitution due process and equal protection provisions.

Kay ruled in favor of state Health Director Loretta Fuddy and the Hawaii Family Forum, and against the three plaintiffs and Gov. Neil Abercrombie, who contended the law violated the Constitution.

Hawaii’s marriage laws reserving marriage to a man and a woman “are not unconstitutional,” Kay said.

“Nationwide, citizens are engaged in a robust debate over this divisive social issue,” he said.

“If the traditional institution of marriage is to be restructured, as sought by plaintiffs, it should be done by a democratically-elected legislature or the people through a constitutional amendment, not through judicial legislation that would inappropriately preempt democratic deliberation regarding whether or not to authorize same-sex marriage.”

Abercrombie said he “respectfully” disagrees and will join in an appeal of the ruling.

“To refuse individuals the right to marry on the basis of sexual orientation or gender is discrimination in light of our civil unions law,” he said.

“For me this is about fairness and equality.”

John D’Amato, lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he will appeal to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The lawsuit was filed last year on behalf of Natasha Jackson and Janin Kleid, who were denied a marriage license here, and by Gary Bradley, against Abercrombie and Fuddy.

Abercrombie, however, agreed that the law violated the constitutional protections, which resulted Attorney General David Louie’s office providing one team to represent the governor and another representing Fuddy, who defended the marriage laws.

Kay earlier allowed the Hawaii Family Forum, a Christian organization, to intervene in the case and defend the laws.

He heard more than two hours of arguments in the case on July 24.

In his decision, Kay granted requests by Fuddy and the forum to immediately rule in their favor without the case going to trial. He rejected the plaintiffs’ request for a ruling declaring the marriage laws unconstitutional."

[MsTinkerbelly]

BREAKING: Federal judge agrees to hear Nevada marriage equality lawsuit
By Scottie Thomaston

A hearing was held today in Nevada on two motions in Sevcik v. Sandoval, Lambda Legal’s marriage equality lawsuit. The judge has just agreed that the case can proceed:


(Las Vegas, August 10, 2012)—The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada today agreed to hear a lawsuit brought by Lambda Legal on behalf of eight same-sex couples challenging Nevada’s law banning marriage for same-sex couples.

Gov. Brian Sandoval, joined by Carson City Clerk-Recorder Alan Glover, had moved to dismiss the case. Today, the Court agreed to hear that motion at the same time as hearing argument in the parties’ motion for summary judgment.

The two motions discussed in the hearing today were: (1) a motion to intervene by the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, and (2) a motion to dismiss by Governor Brian Sandoval based on Baker v. Nelson. Prop 8 Trial Tracker reader Greg in SLC attended the hearing, and he noted in a comment that, “Nevada district court right now. Hearing has ended. Judge seems clearly conservative. He was skeptical of entering any expert testimony to support plaintiffs. Mary and Beverly are dear beautiful people, as are the other plaintiffs we met. Next court date on this case set for Monday after thanksgiving in Reno, NV.”

Lambda Legal’s Tara Borelli comments:


“This is an important first step in bringing the freedom to marry to Nevada,” said Lambda Legal Staff Attorney Tara Borelli. “These loving couples, burdened by the stigma of Nevada’s marriage ban, will have the chance to demonstrate in court that their relationships and their families are worthy of equal dignity and respect.”

We will have more as this story develops, and see this post for an introduction to our continuing coverage of this trial.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Democrats approve marriage equality in party platform
By Jacob Combs

This Saturday, the Democratic Party’s full platform committee, a body of around 120 Democrats, approved draft platform language that includes a full-fledged endorsement of marriage equality. The marriage language was accepted without dissent and with little debate, a sign of just how established the position has become in the party since President Obama announced his personal support of marriage equality in May.

Last Thursday, BuzzFeed’s Chris Geidner exclusively reported on the draft platform language established by the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee, which read:

We support the right of all families to have equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law. We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference.

We oppose discriminatory federal and state constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny equal protection of the laws to committed same-sex couples who seek the same respect and responsibilities as other married couples. We support the full repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act.

Also included in the draft language (and also reported by Geidner) is an endorsement of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit hiring and firing based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and language regarding bullying and support for LGBT youth. The platform’s immigration reform section was amended as well to include new language which reads: “the administration has said that the word ‘family’ in immigration includes LGBT relationships in order to protect binational families threatened with deportation.”

The approved platform will be sent to delegates for a final vote at the Democratic National Convention, which will take place in Charlotte, North Carolina from September 3-6

[MsTinkerbelly]

South Australia likely to move towards marriage equality along with Tasmania
By Jacob Combs

Earlier this month, I wrote that Tasmania looked likely to become the first Australian state to offer equal marriage rights to gays and lesbians following a speech by Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings to her party conference vowing to introduce marriage equality legislation in the government’s next term. This week, South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill followed Giddings’s lead, according to The Australian, telling a rally in Adelaide that he will push for marriage equality in his state:

On the steps of Parliament House, Mr Weatherill said he would support a Greens bill and allow Labor MPs a conscience vote.

“People should be entitled to express their own identity in any way they wish and the law shouldn’t become a barrier to prevent them from doing that,” he said.”So, from my perspective, it’s a simple question of the dignity of the individual.

“People should be entitled to express their identity in any way they wish and the law shouldn’t get in the way.”

Also this week, Prime Minister Julia Gillard surprised Australia’s LGBT community by agreeing to deliver the keynote speech at a national meeting of the Australian Christian Lobby, an anti-gay group that has made statements in the past comparing gays and lesbians to pedophiles and Nazis.

Marriage equality at the national level in Australia faces a major hurdle in Prime Minister Gillard, who opposes equal marriage rights even though her majority Labor Party changed its platform last year to include marriage equality. Because of Australia’s parliamentary system, it is incredibly difficult for marriage legislation to pass without Gillard’s stamp of approval, which is why state-level governments are stepping in to be at the forefront of LGBT equality in the country.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Tasmania’s lower house passes marriage equality, New Zealand bill survives first vote
By Jacob Combs

While marriage equality may be on hold at the federal level in Australia right now, the issue is moving apace in a few of the state legislatures. Sky News reports today that the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2012 “sailed” through Tasmania’s lower house, the Legislative Assembly, paving the way for an upper house vote to allow full marriage equality in the state. From Sky News:

Labor and Greens members and onlookers, including Australian Marriage Equality chief Alex Greenwich, erupted into applause as the bill was passed.

Liberal Leader Will Hodgman was the lone voice against the bill, saying his team was united in believing marriage was between a man and a woman, and a matter for the commonwealth.

For the first time in the state’s history, a bill in the lower house was co-sponsored, by Ms Giddings and Greens Leader Nick McKim.

‘I do not believe that the personal moral disapproval that some individuals may feel towards same-sex marriage is a valid reason to allow discrimination to continue in the 21st century,’ Ms Giddings said.

The bill’s fate in Tasmania’s upper house is uncertain: 13 of the 15 independents in the chamber have not yet taken a position on it. Intriguingly, Tasmania was the last state in Australia to decriminalize homosexuality, which it did in 1997. Legislators in South Australia look likely to make it the next state after Tasmania to make a move towards full marriage equality.

Meanwhile, in New Zealand, legislators passed a marriage equality in the first of three votes by an overwhelming margin of 80 to 40. The bill needed only a simple majority, so the AP notes that the numbers are a good sign of the bill’s future success. A poll of lawmakers just this week found only a slim majority of 61 members said they would vote for the bill. Notably, politicians in New Zealand cited President Obama’s May announcement in support of marriage equality as a reason for moving forward with legislation in their country:

The proposed changes can be directly traced to Obama’s declaration in May in support of gay marriage. That prompted center-right Prime Minister John Key to break his long silence on the issue by saying he was “not personally opposed” to the idea. Then lawmaker Louisa Wall, from the opposition Labour Party, put forward a bill she had previously drafted.

“If I’m really honest, I think the catalyst was around Obama’s announcement, and then obviously our prime minister came out very early in support, as did the leader of my party, David Shearer,” Wall told The Associated Press. “The timing was right.”