Same-Sex Marriage Update

[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.

[MsTinkerbelly]

BREAKING: U.K. House of Lords Give Final Approval to Marriage Equality

The legislation now heads back to the House of Commons for final approval, before going to the Queen for her signature.

BY Sunnivie Brydum.

July 15 2013 12:07 PM ET


The House of Lords, the unelected upper chamber of the U.K. Parliament, offered its final approval to marriage equality legislation Monday, according to Bloomberg. Although the Lords did not register a vote today, the chamber previously approved the legislation by an overwhelming majority of 390 to 148.

The legislation, championed by Prime Minister David Cameron, now returns to the lower House of Commons, where members will vote on amendments proposed by the Lords. In May, the House of Commons voted in favor of marriage equality by a vote of 366 to 161, leaving advocates hopeful that the lower house will affirm the proposed law. If the House of Commons accepts the amendments, the bill will go to Queen Elizabeth for her signature, a process known as Royal Assent.

Once the law is enacted, England and Wales will become the tenth European jurisdiction to embrace marriage equality, according to the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Association — Europe. The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Portugal, and Iceland established marriage equality previously, and France enacted same-sex marriage earlier this year. That means 30% of Europeans now live in nations that support the freedom to marry, reports ILGA-Europe.

“Today, the land of Magna Carta sealed another historic transformation," said Gabi Calleja, cochair of ILGA-Europe's executive board in a statement. "Marriage is an institution which is dear and close to many people’s hearts, beliefs and lives. It was shaped and transformed over hundreds of years by different traditions, interpretations and customs. The debate leading to the adoption of the marriage equality law has shown that British society and its politicians have once again embraced change, to update the institution of marriage to that which is equally open and accessible to all, in the name of justice and human rights."

[MsTinkerbelly]

State's top court lets same-sex marriages continue



Bob Egelko

Updated 9:40 am, Tuesday, July 16, 2013

The state Supreme Court refused Monday to stop the weddings of gay and lesbian couples in California, a development that indicated Proposition 8's sponsors have little chance of reviving the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.

The unanimous, one-sentence order denied the sponsors' request for an immediate halt to the marriages, while reserving judgment on their claim that Prop. 8 remains valid and enforceable statewide.

But their arguments for that claim are largely the same as those they advanced in their request for an emergency order stopping the marriages: that Gov. Jerry Brown had no authority to order all 58 county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and that a federal judge's ruling that declared Prop. 8 unconstitutional applied only to the two couples who sued to overturn the 2008 initiative.

Brown issued the order on June 28, two days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Prop. 8's sponsors, as private citizens unaccountable to the state, had no legal standing to represent California or its voters in defense of the measure in federal court.

With both Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris refusing to defend Prop. 8, which they considered unconstitutional, the ruling reinstated an August 2010 ruling by then-Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco that the ballot measure discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation and gender.

Although the suit by couples from Berkeley and Burbank was not a class action, Walker drafted his ruling to have statewide effect, prohibiting enforcement of Prop. 8 by state officials and everyone under their supervision. The state's high court ruled in 2004 that state officials, not county clerks, set qualifications for marriage licenses.

After unsuccessfully seeking an emergency stay from the U.S. Supreme Court, Prop. 8's sponsors sued Friday in the state Supreme Court, which had recognized their right to defend the measure in state courts. They argued that the 2008 initiative remains legally binding until struck down by an appellate court - a California constitutional requirement - and said the state's 58 county clerks had no obligation to obey Walker's order.

Some of the clerks "may very well disregard the order or at least raise some legitimate questions regarding the validity of these marriages," attorney Andrew Pugno said Monday in a final appeal for an immediate halt to the marriages while the court considers the case.

Acting for the state, Harris, in a court filing late Friday, said Prop. 8's sponsors were trying to get the state court to reinterpret Walker's ruling and inject uncertainty into issues the federal courts have resolved.

In response to Monday's order that let the marriages continue, Harris said her office will "continue to fight this effort to deny same-sex couples their constitutionally protected civil rights."

Attorney Austin Nimocks of Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian organization representing the Prop. 8 sponsors, said same-sex marriage opponents "will continue to urge the court to uphold the rule of law."

[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.

[MsTinkerbelly]

AP

Gay marriage legalized in Britain after queen gives royal stamp of approval



LONDON -- Britain has legalized gay marriage after Queen Elizabeth II gave her royal stamp of approval on Wednesday.

House of Commons Speaker John Bercow told lawmakers that the royal assent had been given — the day after the bill to legalize same-sex marriage in England and Wales cleared Parliament.

The queen's approval was a formality. It clears the way for the first gay marriages next summer.

The bill enables gay couples to get married in both civil and religious ceremonies in England and Wales. It also will allow couples who had previously entered into a civil partnership to convert their relationship to a marriage.

The Associated Press

[MsTinkerbelly]

Jul

2013

2:34am, EDT

Costa Rica may get gay marriage after legislature's 'accidental' vote

By Andrew Mach, Staff Writer, NBC News

The Costa Rican legislature passed a bill this week that appears to legalize same-sex civil unions – although it might have been an accident.

Some lawmakers didn't realize until a day after Monday's vote that the language in a bill regarding young people may have offered a path to legalized same-sex marriage by expanding social rights for gay people and extending benefits to same-sex unions, according to the Tico Times, an English news website in San Jose.

The bill had previously defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, until a liberal lawmaker wrote into the bill new marriage language that extends “the right to recognition without discrimination contrary to human dignity.”

José María Villalta, a member of the leftist Broad Front Party who wrote the controversial language into the bill, said lawmakers simply didn't pay attention to the most up-to-date version before approving it, Tico Times reported.

"During the discussion in the first debate, we explained that the Law of Young People should be interpreted with this sense of opening to gays and no one objected."

Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla signed the bill into law Thursday, over the protests of conservatives who had called for her to veto it. Though an ardent supporter of traditional marriage in the past, Chinchilla told local reporters earlier this week she wouldn't oppose a court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, the Tico Times reported.

"We understand that the debate is over how some interpret the law and this alone is not sufficient for the executive to veto the law," Chinchilla said.

In Latin America, gay marriage is already legal in Argentina, Mexico City and some states of Brazil, and civil unions are allowed in Ecuador and Uruguay.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

AP

Gay marriage legalized in Britain after queen gives royal stamp of approval



LONDON -- Britain has legalized gay marriage after Queen Elizabeth II gave her royal stamp of approval on Wednesday.

House of Commons Speaker John Bercow told lawmakers that the royal assent had been given — the day after the bill to legalize same-sex marriage in England and Wales cleared Parliament.

The queen's approval was a formality. It clears the way for the first gay marriages next summer.

The bill enables gay couples to get married in both civil and religious ceremonies in England and Wales. It also will allow couples who had previously entered into a civil partnership to convert their relationship to a marriage.

The Associated Press

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/07/17...nd-is-now-law/

Stole the above link from Dakarti's posting on another thread.

[Words]

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

AP

Gay marriage legalized in Britain after queen gives royal stamp of approval



LONDON -- Britain has legalized gay marriage after Queen Elizabeth II gave her royal stamp of approval on Wednesday.

House of Commons Speaker John Bercow told lawmakers that the royal assent had been given — the day after the bill to legalize same-sex marriage in England and Wales cleared Parliament.

The queen's approval was a formality. It clears the way for the first gay marriages next summer.

The bill enables gay couples to get married in both civil and religious ceremonies in England and Wales. It also will allow couples who had previously entered into a civil partnership to convert their relationship to a marriage.

The Associated Press

Some idiot (Conservative of course) politician pointed out that there is now the possibility that we could one day have a lesbian queen provide us with a heir to the throne through artificial insemination.

He said it like it would be a bad thing! LOL...

Words