Same-Sex Marriage Update

[MsTinkerbelly]

By GEOFF MULVIHILL -AP

TRENTON, New Jersey — New Jersey lawmakers gave their blessing to legalizing gay marriage for the first time Monday as the state Senate passed a bill that would allow nuptials for same-sex couples. Gov. Chris Christie has said he will veto such legislation.

..The Senate's vote sends the bill to the Assembly, which is expected to pass it Thursday.

Six states and Washington, D.C., allow gay marriage, and Washington state will join that list when Gov. Christine Gregoire signs legislation legalizing same-sex marriage Monday.

New Jersey's governor, a Republican, announced his veto intentions last month. He has said he does not believe marriage laws should be changed, but he does support New Jersey's civil union law, which grants gay couples the legal protections of marriage.

Christie said he wants to put a change in the definition of marriage to a public vote.

But gay rights groups oppose a referendum. They see gay marriage as a civil rights matter and argue that it should not be up to the masses to protect the rights of a minority group.

Five years ago, New Jersey's state Supreme Court ruled that gay couples should have the same rights as married heterosexual couples. In response, the Legislature created civil unions.

Gay rights advocates say that because the civil union designation is hard to understand and still treats committed gays differently from married couples, the courts should eliminate civil unions and recognize gay marriage. A lawsuit seeking to do that is in the state court system.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Love Honor Cherish cancels Prop 8 ballot repeal initiative
By Jacob Combs

Last night, some big Prop 8 news came out of California as Love Honor Cherish, which had begun the process to collect signatures and place a repeal of Prop 8 on the November ballot, announced that it is canceling that effort. In an email to its supporters, LHC wrote:

Following last week’s victory in the 9th Circuit, we are now hopeful that weddings of gay and lesbian couples will resume by the end of this year, or even, at the end of this month. And what an incredible day that will be when gays and lesbians are able to marry again in California!

In the meantime, our “backup plan” to put the repeal of Prop 8 on the ballot this November is no longer feasible. Although we have had success so far–our wonderful volunteers, significant donor commitments, our campaign office, and support from numerous leaders and organizations around the state–collecting the 807,615 valid signatures required will likely not happen by mid-April as required to qualify for the November 2012 ballot.

We would need more than $1.5 million in donor commitments to hire a paid signature gathering firm to assist us in this massive effort. In view of the 9th Circuit victory and the narrowness of the ruling, making Supreme Court review less likely, raising the additional funds needed is now not realistic. And, as we have stated, we had no illusions that the initiative could qualify based solely on our statewide volunteer signature gathering effort

[iamkeri1]

(((Miss T,)))
I know you were committed to this proposition. I hope you are not too disappointed about the decision to halt the process. From your lips to God's ears that Cali folk will be back in the marriage business by years end.
Smooches,
Keri

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by iamkeri1

(((Miss T,)))
I know you were committed to this proposition. I hope you are not too disappointed about the decision to halt the process. From your lips to God's ears that Cali folk will be back in the marriage business by years end.
Smooches,
Keri

I was really crushed by the people of California voting in Prop 8...I spent weeks grieving for the slap. Ideally I would love for people to change their minds, vote Prop 8 down and have a Kumbaya moment where we are all as one, but pffffttt that one is never going to happen and no one should get to vote on my civil rights anyway.

I firmally believe that even if everyone has to wait a while, the Government is going to have to force this issue for it to be something that is available to all that want it. I'm already married in my State, but Federal recognition and the benefits that go along with marriage are what I am really after.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Marriage equality opponents file referendum paperwork in Washington
By Jacob Combs

As expected, opponents of marriage equality have filed paperwork in Washington state to put a referendum of the state’s recently passed marriage bill on the November ballot. SeatllePI reports:

Opponents of same-sex marriage, seeking to force a referendum on Washington’s new law, filed the paperwork in Olympia about three hours after Gov. Chris Gregoire signed marriage equality into law.

They have until June 6, a political D-Day for collecting and submitting 120,577 valid voter signatures to put marriage equality on the November ballot. The right of same-sex couples to wed would be blocked until voters decide the issue.

…

Sponsors of Referendum 73 include groups at the right end of the political spectrum such as Concerned Women for America and the National Organization for Marriage. The campaign is being mounted under the banner of a group called Preserve Marriage Washington. Backholm predicted that the campaign will be “expensive”, with estimates in the $2-4 million range for each side.

Conservatives forced a statewide referendum in 2009 in a bid to roll back the a domestic partner law, nicknamed “Everything but Marriage,” after it was passed by the Washington Legislature. Voters by a 53-47 percent margin voted to sustain the rights of domestic partners.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Maryland’s marriage equality bill heads to full House after passing committee vote
By Jacob Combs

Yesterday, two Maryland House of Delegates committees which heard testimony on a proposed marriage equality bill last Friday voted as a joint body to advance the bill to a full House vote. The joint committee vote required a majority of the 45 legislators to move the bill to the House; it passed 25-18.

As the Baltimore Sun reported, yesterday’s vote did hold a few surprises. Delegate Robert Costa, who represents a conservative area in Anne Arundel County, took supporters of marriage equality by surprise when he voted yes, becoming the only Republican so far to do. Del. Sam Arora, whose relationship with the LGBT community has been on rocky ground, abstained from the vote. Arora included marriage equality in his platform when he ran for office, garnering cash and political support from progressives and the LGBT community, co-sponsored last year’s marriage equality bill, and then later issued a statement saying he had changed his mind about marriage rights but would still vote for the bill.

Last year, two delegates who had co-sponsored the legislation, Jill Carter of Baltimore and Tiffany Alston of Prince George’s County, stunned supporters by dropping their support for the measure. Alston voted against moving the bill out of committee this year, and also introduced an amendment that would delay the bill’s effective date to allow for a voter referendum before it would go into effect. That measure failed. Carter has not co-sponsored the bill this year, saying her support for marriage equality had “diminished,” but did vote to move it to the House floor.

Supporters of the bill have expressed optimism, saying they believed House leaders would move the measure to a full floor vote only if they thought it could pass. Last year, the Judiciary committee, which was the only one to hear testimony on a marriage equality bill, voted to send it to the full House, only to have it sent back to committee when support dried up, killing the measure. This year, only 11 of the 21 Jucidiary committee members voted in favor of the bill, although 15 of the 23 members on the health committee, a majority, voted yes.

What does this all mean? Essentially, if marriage equality does come up for a full House vote in Maryland this year, which it looks like it will, it’s going to be a very close vote that will probably come down to the few legislators still sitting on the fence. If you live in Maryland or know anyone who does, it’s time to contact those representatives! Maryland could be another win for 2012, but it’s going to be an uphill battle getting there

[iamkeri1]

Did they request a stay so that marriages will not be able to take place while the opponents seek signatures to get it on the ballot or it is defeated at the polls?
Smooches,
Keri

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

Marriage equality opponents file referendum paperwork in Washington
By Jacob Combs

As expected, opponents of marriage equality have filed paperwork in Washington state to put a referendum of the state’s recently passed marriage bill on the November ballot. SeatllePI reports:

Opponents of same-sex marriage, seeking to force a referendum on Washington’s new law, filed the paperwork in Olympia about three hours after Gov. Chris Gregoire signed marriage equality into law.

They have until June 6, a political D-Day for collecting and submitting 120,577 valid voter signatures to put marriage equality on the November ballot. The right of same-sex couples to wed would be blocked until voters decide the issue.

…

Sponsors of Referendum 73 include groups at the right end of the political spectrum such as Concerned Women for America and the National Organization for Marriage. The campaign is being mounted under the banner of a group called Preserve Marriage Washington. Backholm predicted that the campaign will be “expensive”, with estimates in the $2-4 million range for each side.

Conservatives forced a statewide referendum in 2009 in a bid to roll back the a domestic partner law, nicknamed “Everything but Marriage,” after it was passed by the Washington Legislature. Voters by a 53-47 percent margin voted to sustain the rights of domestic partners.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by iamkeri1

Did they request a stay so that marriages will not be able to take place while the opponents seek signatures to get it on the ballot or it is defeated at the polls?
Smooches,
Keri

The 9th Circut Court left the stay in place until their Mandate could be put into effect, or until another appeal was filed by the other side.
From post 881:
UPDATE 1: From the ruling, p. 80, footnote 27:
“The stay pending appeal issued by this court on August 16, 2010 remains in effect pending issuance of the mandate.”
UPDATE 2: The National Center for Lesbian Rights’s senior attorney, Chris Stoll, shares his thoughts with us on the next steps of the trial:
The stay is still in effect. Footnote 27 the opinion says that the previously issued stay remains in effect pending issuance of the mandate. Mandate issues 7 days after the deadline for filing a petition for rehearing expires, or 7 days after petition for rehearing is denied, whichever is later. I expect that the proponents will ask for a further stay from 9th Circuit, and if that is not granted, they will ask the Supreme Court

[MsTinkerbelly]

Civil union bill passes Colorado House panel
By Jacob Combs

Yesterday, the Colorado Senate Judiciary Committee voted 5-2 to advance a civil union bill to the Senate floor. One Republican joined the committee’s four democrats to vote yes on the measure. The bill is expected to pass the Democrat-controlled Senate, but its passage is unclear in the House, where Republicans hold a majority by a margin of one vote. From the Washington Post:

The bill addresses parental rights and child support when a same-sex couple separates. The bill would also grant same-sex couples other rights similar to what exist in a traditional marriage, such as the ability to be involved in their partner’s medical and end-of-life decisions. It also would enhance inheritance and property rights.

Colorado banned marriage equality in 2006, when voters amended the state constitution to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples. Last year, a similar bill passed the Senate, only to be killed in a House committee on a party-line vote. Rep. Mark Ferrandino, a gay legislator who supported the 2011 bill, told reporters that he was confident the measure would have passed a full house vote. This year could prove differently, with more Republicans in the state expressing support for the measure. Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper also mentioned the bill in his State of the State speech in January, urging lawmakers to pass it and provide protections for Colorado’s gay and lesbian couples

[MsTinkerbelly]

Marriage equality bills to be considered today in New Jersey, Maryland legislatures
By Jacob Combs

Starting at 1 p.m. EST, the New Jersey General Assembly will debate and then vote on the marriage equality bill that passed the state’s Senate on Monday. The Assembly is expected to pass the bill, which Gov. Chris Christie has promised to veto. A link to the Assembly’s media stream can be found here.

Also today, the Maryland House of Delegates will begin debate on a proposed marriage equality bill, which passed out of a joint House committee on Tuesday. A procedural move in the House on Wednesday delayed consideration of the bill until today to buy more time for supporters to lobby legislators. Debate was scheduled to begin this morning, but was pushed back to a special session late this afternoon which will begin at 5:30 p.m. EST. Audio of the session will be available here. A final vote in the House could occur later this week.

We’ll have updates here on P8TT when the votes occur in either state!

UPDATE: The Baltimore Sun reports that a second GOP lawmaker has announced his support for marriage equality in Maryland:

Del. Wade Kach, a Baltimore County Republican, told The Sun this morning that he will switch his vote and throw his support behind Gov. Martin O’Malley’s bill to legalize same-sex marriage.

Kach said the change in heart came after considerable deliberation. He plans to put out a statement at 10:15 a.m.

The move puts O’Malley closer to the 71 votes he needs for passage in the 141-member chamber, but it is still unclear that supporters have the numbers they need. Lawmakers will begin debating the marriage bill this morning. A final vote could come as soon as Friday.

Kach’s decision is stunning since he voted against the same-sex marriage bill in committee on Monday night and is a co-sponsor of a different measure that would define marriage as between a man and a woman

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by iamkeri1

Did they request a stay so that marriages will not be able to take place while the opponents seek signatures to get it on the ballot or it is defeated at the polls?
Smooches,
Keri

Oh jeez, you were asking about Washington! I believe that the side wishing to force a vote has until June to gather enough signatures to put it to a vote to repeal it in November. I think they call it a referendum.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by iamkeri1

Did they request a stay so that marriages will not be able to take place while the opponents seek signatures to get it on the ballot or it is defeated at the polls?
Smooches,
Keri

At the earliest, Marriage cannot begin until the legislature finishes their session...I think that is June as well.

[MsTinkerbelly]

New Jersey Assembly passes marriage equality bill
By Jacob Combs

Updated at 6:15 to reflect accurate vote count–apparently one assembly member’s button was broken during the vote.

In a late afternoon vote, the New Jersey General Assembly passed marriage equality on a vote of 42-33. The measure passed the Senate earlier this week by a 24-16 margin. The bill now goes to the desk of Gov. Chris Christie, who has promised to veto it.
The Washington Post reports on supporters’ next move should Christie keep true to his veto threat:

The bill would need several Republican votes in each house to override the governor; Christie himself essentially guaranteed that that won’t happen.

With that in mind, Democrats who identified same-sex marriage as their No. 1 priority for the two-year legislative session that began in January have adopted a longer view. They say there’s no rush for an override vote, especially because the Legislature has been unsuccessful in every prior attempt to override Christie, most notably to reinstate a surcharge on millionaires.

Instead, they plan to bide their time in hopes that support for gay marriage — currently 52-42 percent in New Jersey, according to one recent voter poll — will continue to grow.

“Civil rights is incremental, civil rights is long range, and you take one achievement at a time,” said Steven Goldstein, head of the state’s largest gay rights group, Garden State Equality.

In case same-sex couples can’t win gay marriage through legislation, they have engaged in a parallel fight in the courts. Seven gay couples and several of their children have sued, claiming that the state’s civil union law doesn’t work as intended

[iamkeri1]

Any chance that a supreme court justice (preferably Thomas or Scalia) will retire (or die) before prop 8 is advanced to the supreme court? The new justice might not vote due to "newness", but at least one of the bad old votes would be gone.

I can dream can't I
Smooches,
Keri

[suebee]

Same-sex marriage law change in Canada addresses divorce. Link here.

[*Anya*]

Excellent documentary on the case of Virginia couple Richard and Mildred Loving, an interracial couple arrested, jailed and banished from Virginia for marrying in the 1950's.

As I listen to it, I can't help but replace interracial with gay and realize I am listening to the same exact excuses for not allowing lesbians and gays to marry.

Their love was not illegal. Their marriage was, a violation of Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act banning interracial marriage.

Richard and Mildred Loving were both sent to jail, charged criminally, convicted of felonies and banished from Virginia, the harsh beginning of a nine-year journey in which the couple would fight all the way to the Supreme Court, for the right to go home as husband and wife. 18 other states also had similar laws.

June 12,1967, the Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, struck down the laws banning interracial marriage:

"Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the state"

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/02/1...#storylink=cpy

[Gaige]

RANDALLSTOWN, Md. (WJZ)– Same-sex couples are one step closer to walking down the aisle legally in Maryland. The Civil Marriage Protection Act narrowly passed in the House of Delegates.

The bill will now head over to the Senate where it is expected to pass just as it did last year. But both sides believe it will then go to referendum in November so it could be Maryland voters who make the final call.

If voters approve the measure, the earliest a gay couple could wed in Maryland is January when the law would go into affect.

[MsTinkerbelly]

West Virginia legislator introduces civil unions bill
By Jacob Combs

Delegate John Doyle, a Democrat, has introduced a bill in the West Virginia House to provide gay and lesbian couples with the same legal rights and protections as their heterosexual counterparts. The AP reports:

Delegate John Doyle says he introduced the bill Thursday to start a conversation about family equality. The Jefferson County Democrat says that gay and lesbian couples should have the same safety net to deal with the death of a parent or the loss of a job as married couples.

Fairness WV, which advocates on behalf of the gay, lesbian and transgender community, says this is the first time a civil union bill has been introduced in the West Virginia Legislature.

Doyle also sponsored a bill that would prohibit workplace and housing discrimination based on sexual orientation. That bill has not advanced since it was introduced

[MsTinkerbelly]

The problem with Gov. Christie’s veto
By Jacob Combs

Yesterday, just like he promised to, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie vetoed the marriage equality bill that passed the state legislature earlier this week.

Along with his veto, Christie has called for a referendum on the issue in November while simultaneously issuing insert-foot-here arguments suggesting that African-American civil rights leaders would have been “happy” to have a referendum on their rights. While the governor has accused Democrats in the New Jersey Legislature of political theater, the truth is that either both sides of the issue in New Jersey are guilty of that charge, or neither are.

Supporters of the bill are taking a long-term strategy towards bringing marriage equality to the Garden State with a plan to gain enough support by 2014 to override the governor’s veto with a 2/3 vote in both houses of the legislature. Assembly Democrats have stated that they would have had two more votes in favor of marriage equality if two Republican members who were on vacation had taken part in Thursday’s vote. That means supporters will have to court 10 more votes in the Assembly and three more in the Senate to override the veto.

Christie’s calculus on the issue is not difficult to ascertain. As Steven Goldstein, Chair of Garden State Equality, said in a statement:

[Christie] won’t veto the bill because he’s anti-gay. He’ll veto the bill because the 2016 South Carolina Republican Presidential primary electorate is anti-gay. And if I get flooded with letters now from Charleston, so be it.

But despite Gov. Christie’s perhaps wise political choice regarding his future career, his veto threat may in fact be an dereliction of the duty pertaining to his current career. As Tobias Wolff, Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania, astutely pointed out in an e-mail to Prop8TrialTracker.com’s Adam Bink:

The New Jersey Supreme Court decided, unanimously, that same-sex couples are entitled to fully equal treatment under the New Jersey Constitution. Experience has demonstrated that civil unions fail to provide that fully equal treatment. In enacting a marriage equality bill, the New Jersey legislature is fulfilling a constitutional mandate from the State’s highest court.

The case that Professor Wolff is referring to is Lewis v. Harris, a 2006 decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court that gay and lesbian couples in the state were entitled to the same equal protection as heterosexual couples. In its ruling, the court stated:

We have decided that our State Constitution guarantees that every statutory right and benefit conferred to heterosexual couples through civil marriage must be made available to committed same-sex couples. Now the Legislature must determine whether to alter the long accepted definition of marriage.

This week, the Legislature did just that, determining that keeping the term ‘marriage’ from gay and lesbian couples is an unfair burden on those couples’ relationships. In 2008, a Civil Union Review Commission comprised of clergy, lawyers, lawmakers and marriage equality activists unanimously recommended that New Jersey provide marriages to same-sex couples, saying that “civil unions will not be recognized by the general public as the equivalent of marriage in New Jersey.”

By vetoing the marriage equality bill that the New Jersey legislature passed this week, Gov. Christie has expressly reneged on his constitutional responsibility to confer “every statutory right and benefit” to same-sex couples, and he has thwarted the power of the Legislature, provided by the state’s Supreme Court in 2006, to make the decision to provide the equal rights that Lewis mandated.

With his conditional veto, Christie is clearly trying to have it both ways on the issue of marriage equality. In his statement, the governor said, “I have been just as adamant that same-sex couples in a civil union deserve the very same rights and benefits enjoyed by married couples — as well as the strict enforcement of those rights and benefits.” He also called for creating an ombudsman position that would look into complaints lodged by couples that they have been discriminated against despite having entered into civil unions.

But as Judge Stephen Reinhardt so eloquently put it in his ruling striking down California’s Proposition 8 at the 9th Circuit, it is impossible to claim that gay and lesbian couples in civil unions deserve “the very same rights and benefits” as couples in marriages, while simultaneously arguing that they do not have the right to the term ‘marriage.’ The math here is not complex: either gay couples have all the same rights as straight couples, or they have all the same rights minus one–the right to call their unions what they really are.

Gov. Christie’s veto is not merely a matter of personal choice or a difference of opinion. It is one man, disagreeing with other two branches of government in his state, making a conscious decision to withhold equal protection from a class of its citizens

[MsTinkerbelly]

What tomorrow’s (today) 9th Circuit deadline means for the Prop 8 case
By Jacob Combs

Tomorrow (today), February 21, marks a big deadline in the Prop 8 case that those of us who have been counting the days since the 9th Circuit’s decision have been eagerly anticipating: the last day that the proponents of Prop 8 can file a petition for rehearing with the 9th Circuit. The proponents have 14 days from the initial decision to do so, meaning that if they do not request an en banc review of the February 7 decision with a larger panel of the appeals court, the 3-judge panel’s ruling will be the last word at this level of appeal.

At this point, there’s no reason to speculate whether or not the proponents will actually file for a rehearing tomorrow, as they may be waiting until the last moment to do so. One question that is probably on many minds though is what happens to the stay depending on the proponents’ actions tomorrow.

In its ruling on February 7, the 9th Circuit wrote that the mandate (that is, the official notice of the decision) will not go into effect until 7 days after the deadline for a rehearing petition expires, or 7 days after a rehearing is denied. What that means is that the 9th Circuit’s stay on Judge Walker’s ruling striking down Proposition 8 will be lifted 7 days after tomorrow’s deadline (February 28), should the proponents choose not to file for rehearing. If the proponents do file for a rehearing, the stay is automatically extended until that rehearing is either denied or it is accepted and then ruled on, both of which could take some time.

Even if the proponents do not file for a rehearing tomorrow, however, it’s important to note that it is only the 3-judge panel’s initial stay that will expire on the 28th. Regardless of what they do tomorrow, the proponents have a full 90 days following the decision to seek Supreme Court review. Should they choose not to petition for rehearing, the proponents could still request an extension of the stay from the 9th Circuit pending Supreme Court review. Should that request be denied, they could petition the Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy, who is responsible for petitions from the 9th Circuit, could then either grant a stay on his own or refer it to the full court.

Tomorrow is certainly an important day no matter how the proponents of Prop 8 decide to act, because it gives us insight into their strategy moving forward. Nonetheless, it is too soon to say when marriages could resume in California