Same-Sex Marriage Update

[MsTinkerbelly]

I only heard about the challenge now! I'm so glad you posted Anya

[MsTinkerbelly]

Delaware same-sex marriage law takes effect


July 1, 2013


By Michael K. Lavers on July 1, 2013



WILMINGTON, Del. — A Delaware lawmaker who came out during a debate over her state’s same-sex marriage bill earlier this year and her partner on Monday became the first couple to take advantage of the gay nuptials law.

State Sen. Karen Peterson (D-Stanton) and her partner, Vikki Bandy, converted their civil union into a marriage at the New Castle County Clerk of the Peace’s office in Wilmington.

“It’s exciting, both historically and personally,” Peterson told reporters after she and Bandy exchanged vows in a private ceremony. “I never thought in our lifetimes we would be getting married.”

Rehoboth Beach residents Chris Beagle and Eric Engelhart later on Monday will become the first gay couple in Sussex County to convert their civil union into a marriage. Joseph Daigle, II, and Daniel Cole will become the first same-sex couple who had not previously entered into a civil union to tie the knot in Delaware when they exchange vows in Wilmington later on Monday.

Clerks of the Peace in Delaware’s three counties will issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples on Monday, but no other same-sex weddings will take place on that day because the state did not waive the 24-hour waiting period for any other gay or lesbian couple.

13 states and D.C. now allow same-sex marriage.

Gays and lesbians in Minnesota and Rhode Island will begin to legally tie the knot on August 1.

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 26 found a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and struck down California’s Proposition 8 that had banned same-sex marriage. Gays and lesbians in the Golden State began to once again exchange vows on June 28 after the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals listed its stay on gay nuptials in response to the justices’ Prop 8 ruling

[MsTinkerbelly]

Supreme Court Gay Marriage Rulings: Conservatives Have Learned to Love Marriage Equality
Tim Rosenberger
in
Politics
4 hours ago


Supreme Court Gay Marriage Rulings: Conservatives Have Learned to Love Marriage Equality


Nestled between booths for pro-life groups and conservative think tanks at this year’s College Republican National Convention was a bright red table, covered in candy and plastic megaphones and surrounded by students. Delegates grabbed megaphones as they entered the conference hall to begin voting and made small talk with the table’s organizers. While it would not have been surprising to see such a crowd of young conservatives flocking to a table for The Heritage Foundation or some like organization, these students were instead lending support to the organization Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry.

While suggestive of the future of the Republican Party’s social stances, this group was indicative of the groundswell of support for LGBT equality on the right side of the political spectrum. As of this writing, three sitting Republican senators support full marriage equality. While not an overwhelming number, it is significant to note that not one of these leaders supported marriage equality until a few months ago. Of greater significance were the pro-equality Supreme Court rulings of the past week. Both of these rulings depended on some Republican appointees crossing party lines. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion suggests that the court does view policies singling out gay individuals as discriminatory. Perhaps more important than the actual outcomes of the decisions, this precedent should shape legal outcomes across the country.

While Republican policy makers are moving slowly on this issue, those free from the pressures of holding political office seem even more ready to accept marriage equality. From the Cheney and McCain families to Laura Bush these giants of Republican politics will undoubtedly shape the opinions of their fellow conservatives even if they cannot directly impact policy.

Even Republican opponents of gay marriage seem to be accepting that their positions are losing ones. In his bitter dissent to the DOMA ruling, Justice Scalia all but admitted that gay marriage is inevitable. Elected Republicans are taking different tacks, but all seem to be avoiding coming off as overly zealous on the issue. Speaker John Boehner offered some calm remarks on the Supreme Court’s ruling that seemed resigned rather than inflammatory. When vetoing gay marriage for his state, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie rested his veto on wishing New Jersey voters to have a referendum on the issue. He significantly did not strongly condemn the idea or try to moralize his position. Even Tea Party firebrands like Rand Paul are taking decidedly neutral tacks. Paul, rather than strongly opposing gay marriage, hides behind his libertarian protestations for states’ rights.

Young Republicans have developed an interesting dichotomy which allows them to hold all traditional conservative positions, including being pro-life, while opposing the party’s position on gay marriage. Interestingly, they are doing this not because of a desire to drop a conservative value, but to apply conservative principals to an issue in a new way. Preventing government from defining love now holds a greater value than preserving the status quo. Helping all loving families to grow and succeed seems somehow more important than restricting what constitutes a family. The thoughtful approach young Republicans have taken on this issue bodes well for the future, not only of conservatism, but of our nation

[MsTinkerbelly]

Christie 'Stands in the Way of Marriage Equality,' Sen. Buono Says

Legislators and gays rights advocates call for governor to 'step aside,' ask for Republicans to vote their conscience.

Posted by Elizabeth Alterman (Editor), July 3, 2013 at 09:37 am


Speaking from the front steps of the Westfield home of longtime couple Liz Flanagan and Nancy Wilkinson, Senate President Steve Sweeney (D-Gloucester) and Democratic gubernatorial nominee Senator Barbara Buono (D-Middlesex) called for Gov. Chris Christie to “step aside” and allow legislators to vote their conscience when it comes to marriage equality.


“My daughter Tessa came out years ago and for me, it’s not an abstract idea," Buono said. “For me, it’s about acceptance. For me, it’s about saying that she’s not less than. You know, this is a governor, one man in New Jersey, that stands in the way of marriage equality. One man who's saying that their love is just not as good as everyone else’s.”

Buono said it's time for Christie to "step out of the way of progress" and "release his hold on his legislative leaders and let them do the right thing. Let them vote their conscience."

Last week, the United States Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), allowing federal benefits to same-sex marriages. Union County advocates told Patch they were "overjoyed" by the decision.

One reason Buono and Sweeney chose Westfield as the location for the press conference is that it is home to Senate Minority Leader Tom Kean Jr. (R-Union) and Assembly Minority Leader Jon Bramnick (R-Union).


Sweeney and Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg, also in attendance, said it is now time for New Jersey to "uphold the constitution" and afford all people what they called basic civil and human rights.


In February 2012, the New Jersey Legislature passed legislation establishing marriage equality but Christie vetoed the legislation. Though two Republican senators voted in favor of marriage equality, making the final Senate vote 24-16, three more votes are needed to override the veto.

Christie has suggested letting voters decide on the issue but Buono took umbrage with the idea of placing "a basic human, civil right" on the ballot and called the very suggestion "offensive."


Troy Stevenson, executive director of Garden State Equality, said as it stands now, same-sex couples are being denied 1,138 federal rights and provisions that are afforded to their heterosexual, married counterparts.

"We are fighting every day to make sure we get the votes we need in both houses of the legislature," Stevenson said. "The debate is over. The debate is absolutely over. Civil unions are not and never will be equal to marriage, we know that, and it's time to override this veto."


Sweeney, calling the DOMA decision "a game changer," said that there are other Republican senators who want to vote for marriage equality but are afraid to go against Christie. When a reporter noted that two Republican senators had voted in favor of marriage equality, Sweeney said "as long it doesn't get to 27, that was the deal."

Buono bristled when asked by a reporter if she thought this issue could help her win the election. "I don't even know how you can ask that," she said, adding that for her it is "an emotional issue."

Sweeney quickly added, "This isn't about that," and said the gubernatorial candidate has been "a champion of this issue long before the campaign."

In closing, Buono reiterated that for her it is a matter of acceptance and of not being treated "like a second class citizen, and that this the message that is coming across loud and clear from this governor refusing to take action."

[MsTinkerbelly]

ACLU brings fight for marriage equality to Pennsylvania

Emma Margolin
6:21 PM on 07/09/2013



The days of same-sex marriage bans may be coming to an end.

In the first federal lawsuit filed anywhere in the country since the Supreme Court handed down decisions in two landmark marriage equality cases, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, and volunteer counsel from a Philadelphia-based law firm on Tuesday formally challenged Pennsylvania’s law prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.

Like the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Supreme Court struck down two weeks ago, Pennsylvania’s statutory provision limits marriage to unions between one man and one woman, and prevents the state government from recognizing same-sex marriages performed where they are legal. The suit alleges that Pennsylvania’s law violates the fundamental right to marry, as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

“We only want what every married couple wants–to express our love and commitment in front of friends and family, and the security and protections that only marriage provides,” said Deb Whitewood, one of the 23 plaintiffs challenging the Pennsylvania provision, in a statement released by the ACLU. “Our life is built around our relationship and the family we have made,” she said of her partner of 22 years, Susan Whitewood, and their three children, Abbey, Katie, and Landon.

The two women had a “holy union” ceremony at their church in 1993 shortly before they each changed their last names to Whitewood, a combination of their surnames. In 2001, they entered into a civil union in Vermont. Yet Pennsylvania law treats them as “legal strangers,” writes the ACLU.

Currently, Pennsylvania is one of 35 states that prohibits same-sex marriage through a constitutional or statutory provision. But as with national trends, support for marriage equality among Pennsylvanians is on the rise. A recent survey from Public Policy Polling found an almost even split on the issue, with a net 14 point increase over the last year and a half in favor of legalizing gay marriage across the state.

While the main focus of this suit will be on Pennsylvania, it could lead the Supreme Court to rule on whether same-sex couples across the country have the constitutional right to marry–a question the justices declined to answer when they ruled the proponents of Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage, lacked standing to defend it.

Should Pennsylvania uphold its ban on same-sex marriage, this suit stands a chance at landing before the nation’s highest court.


“It’s pretty clear that the Supreme Court will at some point in the not too distant future want another crack at the issue,” said Witold Walczak, ACLU of Pennsylvania’s legal director, to MSNBC. “We have a strong legal case, and I think it could be a good vehicle for the Supreme Court to reconsider whether same-sex couples have a right to marry under the constitution.”

Similar challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage are already underway in Illinois, New Mexico, and Michigan, noted Walczak. The ACLU also announced on Tuesday that it would amend an existing adoption lawsuit in North Carolina to include a challenge to that state’s marriage laws. And James Esseks, director of the ACLU’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & AIDS Project, told the Washington Post that a suit against Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage would come “quite soon.”

“There was a huge amount of excitement and positive energy today,” said Walczak. “Pennsylvania is the birthplace of the constitution and the cradle of liberty, so it’s a fitting place to have a fight over the constitutional right to marry,” he added.

“Now the hard work begins.”

[Wolfsong]

Ok.....I am so pissed off right now I don't even know where to start thinking this out. If you will remember some months ago I was grumpy because Andi and I are forced to pay extra federal taxes on health benefits because we are not legally married.

When employees elect health insurance coverage from their employers for their families, the majority of their employers contribute to at least half of the insurance coverage's cost. For employees with different-sex spouses, federal and state tax law do not require employers to report their contribution to the employee's or the employee's different-sex spouse as taxable wages earned — the value of the health insurance coverage can be excluded from the employee's gross income. Non-dependent same-sex partners and spouses (and their dependents) are treated differently under federal and most states' tax laws. The estimated value of the employer's financial contribution towards health insurance coverage for non-dependent same-sex partners must be reported as taxable wages earned.

So....at the beginning of this year we decided that she would get her health benefits through her job and I through mine. A pain in the ass to be sure but considerably less expensive for us. Previously, we elected to receive benefits from her job as the coverage was the same but less expensive (until they started taxing the crap out of us).

This morning I went online to transfer money from our checking to our savings account (I always move overtime and bonus pay to savings) to find that her deposit was about $700 less than what I'd expected it to be. I texted her to contact payroll and find out what was up. Sure enough, those jackasses took it in tax (Yup folks......$700 in taxes just for the health benefits). They told her that I had to submit proof that I was receiving benefits from another source before they would remove me......

Wait just a @#$%&%# second here.......I want to make sure that I was not hallucinating......... I have to submit proof that I am otherwise covered?


Ok.........fuck off


The the domestic partnership that the federal government refuses to recognize as a marriage and provide benefits for is real enough for you to tax though right? Is this some kind of a joke? They are going to give that money back and I am not going to provide proof of shit. According to more than half the states in the union we are not even recognized as dating.


.............fuck you you fuckin' fuckers!

[MsTinkerbelly]

Michigan marriage equality lawsuit to be argued October 1; new filings in Illinois marriage challenges

July 11, 2013


By Scottie Thomaston

A scheduling conference in the lawsuit challenging Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban, DeBoer v. Snyder, took place yesterday, July 10 in federal district court. The federal judge declined to dismiss the case last week, but did not issue a final ruling or a schedule for further motions or arguments, putting the decision off until yesterday’s conference.

No final decision on the merits of the constitutional challenge to the ban was released yesterday, and the judge has set oral arguments for October 1. Challenges against same-sex marriage bans in Nevada and Hawaii are likely to see oral arguments in October as well, though probably at the end of the month, since an extension of time was sought to file briefs. Those cases are already in the appeals court, though, at the Ninth Circuit.

In Illinois, Lambda Legal has filed a motion for summary judgment in Darby v. Orr and Lazaro v. Orr. This is a request for a decision on the merits, (in the plaintiffs’ favor, in this case.) Their brief in support of summary judgment is much like the one they filed in the New Jersey case: both are state cases, both states have civil unions. In one section, they write:


Plaintiffs who obtained civil unions by license from illinois county clerks currently are denied a number of federal benefits and protections that would be available to them and their families if they could marry now that DOMA has been struck down.

The filing goes on to list specific ways civil unions deny same-sex couples equal protection under the law afforded to opposite-sex couples. There is no timeline for the court to act in the case.

[Wolfsong]

Originally Posted by Wolfsong

Ok.....I am so pissed off right now I don't even know where to start thinking this out. If you will remember some months ago I was grumpy because Andi and I are forced to pay extra federal taxes on health benefits because we are not legally married.

When employees elect health insurance coverage from their employers for their families, the majority of their employers contribute to at least half of the insurance coverage's cost. For employees with different-sex spouses, federal and state tax law do not require employers to report their contribution to the employee's or the employee's different-sex spouse as taxable wages earned — the value of the health insurance coverage can be excluded from the employee's gross income. Non-dependent same-sex partners and spouses (and their dependents) are treated differently under federal and most states' tax laws. The estimated value of the employer's financial contribution towards health insurance coverage for non-dependent same-sex partners must be reported as taxable wages earned.

So....at the beginning of this year we decided that she would get her health benefits through her job and I through mine. A pain in the ass to be sure but considerably less expensive for us. Previously, we elected to receive benefits from her job as the coverage was the same but less expensive (until they started taxing the crap out of us).

This morning I went online to transfer money from our checking to our savings account (I always move overtime and bonus pay to savings) to find that her deposit was about $700 less than what I'd expected it to be. I texted her to contact payroll and find out what was up. Sure enough, those jackasses took it in tax (Yup folks......$700 in taxes just for the health benefits). They told her that I had to submit proof that I was receiving benefits from another source before they would remove me......

Wait just a @#$%&%# second here.......I want to make sure that I was not hallucinating......... I have to submit proof that I am otherwise covered?


Ok.........fuck off


The the domestic partnership that the federal government refuses to recognize as a marriage and provide benefits for is real enough for you to tax though right? Is this some kind of a joke? They are going to give that money back and I am not going to provide proof of shit. According to more than half the states in the union we are not even recognized as dating.


.............fuck you you fuckin' fuckers!

At my wife's request to end this quickly and in effort to avoid a domestic dispute I have capitulated, giving her copies of my medical cards. I still think there is a principle thing here that maybe I should have insisted we stand on. Considering that her company is gay-owned it seems more like preaching to the choir. Perhaps this will inspire them to dump ADP (and for other problems with them) have as the managing company for their payroll.