Same-Sex Marriage Update

[blackboot]

Abercrombie: Hawaii law on marriage denies constitutional rights to same-sex couples
www.therepublic.com --Audrey McAvoy Associated Press



"HONOLULU — Gov. Neil Abercrombie told a federal court Tuesday that Hawaii's existing marriage law denies federal constitutional rights to same-sex couples who want to marry.

His stance on the issue came as his health director, Loretta Fuddy, told the same court that she would fight to uphold Hawaii's existing law because her department is charged with implementing laws passed by the Legislature.

Both issued their opinions in responses to a lawsuit filed last year by two women who want to marry and not simply join in a civil union. Abercrombie signed Hawaii's civil union legislation into law last year. It allows same-sex and opposite-sex couples to enter into a civil union with the same state rights and responsibilities as traditional marriage.

But the governor said state law as it stands is unequal.

"Under current law, a heterosexual couple can choose to enter into a marriage or a civil union. A same-sex couple, however, may only elect a civil union. My obligation as governor is to support equality under law. This is inequality, and I will not defend it," he said in a statement.

His filing to U.S. District Court in Honolulu said "there is no legitimate reason to deny otherwise qualified couples the ability to marry simply because they are of the same sex."

HONOLULU — Gov. Neil Abercrombie is telling a federal court Hawaii 's existing marriage law denies federal constitutional rights to same-sex couples who want to marry.
Fuddy said she decided to defend the lawsuit after consulting with the governor.

"The Department of Health is charged with implementing the law as passed by the Legislature. Absent any ruling to the contrary by competent judicial authority regarding constitutionality, the law will be enforced. Because I am being sued for administering the law, I will also defend it," she said.

Natasha Jackson and Janin Kleid of Kapolei sued the state in December, saying they are being denied their constitutional right to marry. They argue they need to be married in order to get certain federal benefits.

Jackson was unable to get insurance coverage for Kleid under the federal Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, or COBRA, because they weren't married. Their lawsuit alleged that the couple has remained true to one another and steadfast during their four-year relationship even as they have suffered serious health problems and lost jobs.

John D'Amato, the attorney for Jackson and Kleid, said the governor's position was courageous.

"I think it represents a sea change in Hawaii politics to have a leader of his stature to come out so directly and say this is just wrong. It's just wrong to continue to deny same-sex couples the right to marry," D'Amato said.

The governor's filing won't have a practical significance because the health department will continue to uphold the law, D'Amato said. As for the lawsuit, D'Amato said it wouldn't hurt but it also wouldn't help as U.S. District Court Judge Alan Kay will be ruling on the issue and he's not constrained by the governor's remarks."

[iamkeri1]

The voice of each person who speaks out against injustice deserves to be heard. Kudos to the Governor!!!
Smooches,
Keri

[Blade]

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...-marriage.html

N.C. takes center stage in gay marriage battle
BY LYNN BONNER
lbonner@newsobserver.com
BY LYNN BONNER The News and Observer
Posted: Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2012
Modified: Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2012 Tracy Hollister with Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Raleigh speaks against the gay-marriage amendment at Monday's Wake County Board of Commissioners' meeting. The meeting drew a big crowd as the anti-gay marriage amendment and the Tea Party-backed opposition to the county's sustainability were on the agenda.
More Information
Get the latest political news at our Under the Dome blog

These terms apply to both heterosexual and same-sex couples who live together but aren't married. Such status gives certain rights to couples - both opposite-sex and same-sex - in regard to health care, child custody and power of attorney if they live in communities that legally recognize such unions. Neither status confers any of the federal benefits of marriage because the Defense of Marriage Act stipulates that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
In states or cities and counties that do not recognize domestic partnerships or civil unions couples may draw up legal documents that cover the same ground but those agreements may be ignored by hospitals and courts.


States across the country in the last three weeks started moving toward allowing same-sex couples to marry, while North Carolina is looking to catch a wave that crested eight years ago by asking voters to approve a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions.
Six states and Washington, D.C., now allow same-sex marriage. The Washington state legislature passed a law earlier this month making it the seventh state. The Maryland legislature is expected to send a bill allowing same-sex marriage to the governor by the end of this week. In both states, opponents have said they will push for a voter referendum.
Now the focus is on North Carolina with supporters looking for another victory for a constitutional ban. Opponents are hoping that North Carolina will be the first Southern state to say no to a ban.
"The movement toward securing rights for same-sex couples has been flying ahead at breakneck speed," said Roger Hartley, an associate professor of political science at Western Carolina University. But that change is also facing strong resistance, he said.
Earlier this month, the Pew Research Center released a national poll taken in October that showed the public was almost evenly divided on the issue: 46 percent of those surveyed favored allowing gays and lesbians to marry and 45 percent were opposed. Other national polls taken last year by Gallup and CNN showed a slim majority - 51 percent - in favor of same-sex marriage for the first time.
In North Carolina, opinion polls show a majority of residents support some type of legal recognition for same-sex couples, whether it be civil unions or marriage. Amendment opponents see this as evidence that the proposed constitutional ban - which would also prohibit civil unions and domestic partnership - runs counter to changing attitudes.
In the people's hands
Amendment supporters say the legalization of same-sex marriage in other states is added proof that North Carolina needs voters to define marriage in the constitution.
"By pushing this decision to the people, it gets it out of the minds and hands of the legislature and one activist judge who can do anything about it at any time," said Rep. Dale Folwell, a Winston-Salem Republican who is running for lieutenant governor.
Thirty states have already approved constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. North Carolina is the only state in the Southeast without one. Proposed amendments will appear on ballots here and in Minnesota in the May 8 primary
A handful of states passed such amendments before 2002. But the big push peaked after the 2003 Massachusetts court ruling that said its constitution guaranteed equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. Twenty-three of the 30 states that have amendments passed them between 2004 and 2006.
Amendments have passed in every state that's put them on the ballot.
North Carolina would have had its amendment up for a vote back when most other states were doing it, Folwell said, except that the Democratic-controlled legislature buried the bills. Republicans now control both chambers in North Carolina.
About a dozen states that passed constitutional amendments or laws barring same-sex marriage still recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships.
Nevada, Oregon and Wisconsin passed constitutional same-sex marriage bans, but legislatures in those states later voted to allow civil unions or to confer legal rights to domestic partners.
No civil unionsThe North Carolina amendment would close off recognition of domestic partnerships or civil unions for gay or heterosexual couples. The only way to legalize civil unions or domestic partnerships if the amendment passes would be for voters to approve another constitutional amendment.
Tami Fitzgerald, founding member of the pro-referendum committee, said the amendment is meant to "settle the issue once and for all" and prevent courts or advocates of same-sex marriage from one day using civil unions or domestic partnerships to push for full marriage rights.
"It's what I'd call a camel's nose under the tent," she said. "Civil unions and domestic partnerships are marriage substitutes. It gives all the rights of marriage. They just don't go all the way."
A U.S. Census Bureau survey estimates that there are more than 198,000 households in North Carolina where partners are unmarried.
More than 91 percent of those households are heterosexual couples living together.
"That's one of the reasons why this amendment is so bad, it takes away any sort of legal recognition of unmarried couples - that's straight or gay unmarried couples," said Stuart Campbell, executive director of Equality North Carolina, a gay-rights advocacy group.
Losing benefitsAmendment foes argue that children being raised by unmarried parents will lose health insurance coverage offered by municipalities that provide domestic partner benefits. The amendment will jeopardize other laws that recognize legal relationships between unmarried couples, they say.
Amendment proponents call those objections scare tactics. "The amendment does not change the existing policy of the state of North Carolina at all that's been there for the last 340 years," said House Majority Leader Paul Stam, an Apex Republican.
Changes in attitudes make it less likely that voters will want to keep the state tied to 300-year-old policies, said Brent Childers, executive director of Faith in America, a North Carolina-based organization that fights what it calls "religious-based bigotry" against gays.
Childers said public opinion of homosexuality is changing, just as opinions changed on segregation and women's rights.
"The polling shows that we have reached a tipping point where a majority of Americans no longer consider homosexuality immoral conduct," he said. "I honestly believe there's an awakening happening in the American public."
Fitzgerald said all the patchwork of state laws points to the need for a federal marriage amendment that would codify the definition of marriage in the U.S. Constitution that would resolve "a clear clash of values."
North Carolina voters will have their say on a state amendment on May 8.
Copyright 2012 The News and Observer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Bonner: 919-829-4821

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...#storylink=cpy

[MsTinkerbelly]

Breaking: California district court rules DOMA unconstitutional
By Jacob Combs

Today marked another major milestone in the path to getting rid of the Defense of Marriage Act, as Judge Jeffrey White of the Northern District of California struck down DOMA in the case Golinski v. OPM.

Judge White, a Bush appointee, determined that DOMA should be considered under the more critical heightened scrutiny measure (as the Justice Department recommended last year), but also noted that several courts have found that the provision would not even pass the more deferential rational basis test. In his decision, Judge White wrote:

The Court finds that neither Congress’ claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further.

Today’s decision is significant because it joins Judge Joseph Tauro’s joint decisions in the 2010 cases Massachusetts v. HHS and Gill v. OPM striking down DOMA in Massachusetts district court. That case is now on appeal in the First Circuit, and it is likely that today’s decision will be appealed in the Ninth Circuit.

These DOMA challenges can only mean good news for the Prop 8 case, especially now that that case may be delayed if considered for rehearing in the Ninth Circuit. If Judge Tauro’s decision is upheld on appeal, it would essentially cause a circuit split, making it more likely (especially on top of the fact that Judge White’s decision may also be making its way through the appeals process) that the Supreme Court would take the case. In striking down DOMA, the Supreme Court would not have to make any deliberation on an inherent constitutional right to marriage equality, and could rely on a states’ rights argument that might appeal to the court’s more conservative wing. A Supreme Court opinion striking down DOMA would almost certainly be referenced in a defense of Judge Walker’s Prop 8 decision, not to mention the fact that it would make a win in the Prop 8 case even more consequential, since gay and lesbian couples in California would be able to enjoy full federal marriage rights.

In an email to P8TT, Jon Davidson, Legal Director of Lambda Legal, had this to say about today’s decision:

I would say that between the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, the ruling we obtained yesterday reinstating our New Jersey marriage case, the passage of marriage equality in Washington, the passage of a marriage equality bill through the legislature in New Jersey, and the passage of a marriage equality bill through the Maryland House, this latest victory over DOMA shows that we have passed the tipping point. February 2012 will go down in history as the month marriage equality became unstoppable

[MsTinkerbelly]

Breaking: Maryland Senate passes marriage equality
By Jacob Combs

Tonight, the Maryland Senate debated and passed a bill to bring marriage equality to the state by a vote of 25-22. The measure passed the House of Delegates earlier this week by a vote of 72-67. Last year, the bill passed the state Senate by a margin of 25-21, but was withdrawn from the floor of the House of Delegates as support evaporated at the last minute.

The bill will now head to the desk of Gov. Martin O’Malley’s, who supports it. Opponents of marriage equality in the state have promised to collect signatures to put the issue up for a voter referendum in November. Maryland would be the fifth state to have a ballot question on marriage equality this year, provided opponents of Washington state’s recently passed marriage vote succeed in their signature collection effort.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Marriage equality ballot initiative approved in Maine
By Jacob Combs

It’s official: marriage is going to be on the ballot this November in Maine. Bloomberg reports:

Secretary of State Charles E. Summers Jr. verified more than 85,000 of the 105,000 signatures submitted last month, said Barbara Redmond, his deputy secretary. About 57,000 names were required, according to EqualityMaine, the Portland-based gay- rights group leading the coalition that collected them.

“Same-sex couples want to marry for the same reasons other couples want to marry: because they love each other and want to spend their lives together,” Betsy Smith, EqualityMaine’s executive director, said in a statement. “There’s no question that momentum is growing for same-sex marriage in Maine.”

It will be the second time Mainers confront the issue at the ballot box. In 2009, voters rejected by 53 percent to 47 percent a law permitting gay marriage that was championed by Democratic lawmakers and signed by then-Governor John Baldacci, also a Democrat. In 2010, Republicans won control of both legislative chambers and the governor’s seat for the first time since 1966.

If the measure passed, Maine would become the first state (or one of the first, depending on what happens on election day in other states) to approve marriage equality in a popular vote. Advocates will spend the next nine months educating Maine voters and building momentum on the road to election day

[Nat]

Received this email today:

Thank you for contacting me regarding President Barack Obama’s decision to order the Department of Justice (DOJ) to discontinue defending the Defense of Marriage Act (P.L. 104—199). I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this important matter.

I strongly oppose President Obama's decision to instruct the DOJ to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. The President has elected to make this ill-informed decision based on political motivation, rather than defending a statute that was passed by Congress, signed into law by previous Administrations, and broadly supported by the American people. I firmly believe that both President Obama and his Administration have an obligation to defend and uphold federal law, regardless of personal ideology, and you may be certain that I will continue to monitor this matter closely.

As you may know, in 1996 Congress overwhelmingly passed—and former President Bill Clinton signed into law—the Defense of Marriage Act. This federal law defines marriage as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife"—I firmly support this position.

Under the laws, traditions, and customs of all fifty states, marriage has historically been defined as the union of a man and a woman. However, judicial rulings—and outright lawlessness by local officials in some states—have threatened traditional marriage and moved this debate onto the national stage. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas provides lower courts with the leverage needed to invalidate traditional marriage laws. And the first major assault on traditional marriage came in Goodridge v. Mass. Dept. of Health, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court—citing the Lawrence decision—overturned that state's traditional marriage law. Since this time, other activist state courts have followed Massachusetts' lead. In light of these judicial trends, constitutional scholars on both sides of the aisle agree that the Defense of Marriage Act and similar state laws are now in peril. I believe that judges should strictly interpret the law and avoid the temptation to legislate from the bench or color their rulings with personal ideology.

I appreciate the opportunity to represent Texans in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator

[MsTinkerbelly]

Wow, just wow.

[Blade]

http://obsdailyviews.blogspot.com/20...dems-sway.html

[MsTinkerbelly]

OHIO: Gay Activists Work To Place Repeal Of Marriage Ban On November Ballot

Activists in Ohio have launched a drive to place a repeal of the same-sex marriage ban on the November ballot.

The Freedom to Marry Coalition expects to file more than 1,700 signatures of registered Ohio voters; 1,000 valid signatures are required in the first step of placing a constitutional issue before Ohio voters this fall or possibly next year. The proposal would change the Ohio Constitution — amended in 2004 to block same-sex marriage — to say that the state and political jurisdictions define marriage as “a union of two consenting adults, regardless of gender.” It also would stipulate that “no religious institution shall be required to perform or recognize a marriage.”
The proposed amendment will be submitted to Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine today.

[MsTinkerbelly]

ANNAPOLIS, Maryland — Maryland's governor signed a measure legalizing gay marriage Thursday, joining seven other states.

..Gov. Martin O'Malley, a Democrat, signed the bill a week after its final passage in the Legislature. The law is scheduled to take effect in January 2013.

However, opponents — backed by many churches — are expected to petition the law to a referendum on the November ballot.

"Religious freedom was the very reason for our state's founding and at the heart of religious freedom is the freedom of individual conscience," O'Malley said just before adding his signature to the legislation, referring to the state's origins as a British colony that was a haven for Catholics.

Referendum organizers need to collect almost 56,000 signatures to put the measure before voters and are expected to rely heavily on churchgoers who oppose same-sex marriage as a matter of faith, to reach that goal. Even gay marriage advocates expect the referendum to end up on the ballot.

Six states and the Washington capital district already recognize gay marriages. The state of Washington has also legalized gay marriage, and its law takes effect in June. Voters there are expected to petition the measure to referendum this November.

Maine legalized the unions for same-sex couples in 2009, but later that year became the only state overturn a such a law passed by a legislature

[MsTinkerbelly]

Efforts underway to reverse Ohio ban on same-sex marriage?
By Adam Bink

This went unnoticed, but a Thursday piece in the Columbus Dispatch reports signature-gathering for a ballot question in November or soon after (an effort which apparently came about inspired by the 9th Circuit ruling in the Prop 8 trial case):

A proposed constitutional amendment to undo Ohio’s 2004 same-sex marriage ban will be submitted today to Attorney General Mike DeWine.

The Freedom to Marry Coalition expects to file more than 1,700 signatures of registered Ohio voters; 1,000 valid signatures are required in the first step of placing a constitutional issue before Ohio voters this fall or possibly next year.

The proposal would change the Ohio Constitution — amended in 2004 to block same-sex marriage — to say that the state and political jurisdictions define marriage as “a union of two consenting adults, regardless of gender.” It also would stipulate that “no religious institution shall be required to perform or recognize a marriage.”

Tim Hagan, former Cuyahoga County commissioner, Democratic candidate for governor in 2002 and co-chairman of the campaign, called it “the most-significant civil-rights act since 1964. I don’t know how one human being can look at another human being and say, ‘You don’t have the same rights.’

“I have a sister who’s gay. I have close friends who are gay,” Hagan said. “But this is not just a gay issue. This is an issue for all of us who believe strongly in human rights.”

Phil Burress, of the Cincinnati-based group Citizens for Community Values, said that if same-sex marriage supporters put the issue on the ballot this fall “they can kiss (President Barack) Obama goodbye.” Burress’ group was instrumental in passing the 2004 amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman, an issue credited by some with helping President George W. Bush to win a second term.

“I guess they’re feeling their oats because seven states have same-sex marriage,” Burress said. “ They’re going to have their hands full. We’re prepared to meet them on the field of battle.”

If DeWine approves the ballot language of the proposed amendment, it will be sent to the Ohio Ballot Board, which would determine whether the proposal can be placed on the ballot as one or multiple issues.

At that point, the Freedom to Marry Coalition can begin the task of collecting the 385,253 valid signatures required to put the issue on the statewide ballot. That could happen in November or next year, campaign officials indicated.

Hagan acknowledged that overturning the ban will be a “challenge,” but he said he thinks there has been a “fundamental shift” in public opinion since 62 percent of Ohio voters supported the 2004 amendment.

[...]The Freedom to Marry Coalition sprang up this year after a federal appeals court ruled that a same-sex marriage ban in California was unconstitutional.

Dozens of elected officials and candidates, most of them Democrats, signed on in support of the coalition, including Columbus Mayor Michael B. Coleman, Columbus City Council President Andrew J. Ginther, Franklin County Commissioner John O’Grady and Michael F. Curtin, former editor of The Dispatch and now a Democratic candidate for the 17th District in the Ohio House.

[MsTinkerbelly]

What’s in a word: the ‘redefinition’ of marriage
By Jacob Combs

As the Seattle Times reports, Judge Thomas McPhee of Thurston County heard arguments yesterday at a 9 a.m. hearing regarding the proposed language of Washington’s Referendum 74, the ballot initiative to repeal the state’s marriage equality bill that was signed into law last month.

In Washington state, it falls to the Solicitor General’s office (part of the Attorney General’s office) to keep ballot language understandable, brief and impartial. When the proposed lagnaguge to Referendum 74 was released in Febraury, parties on both sides of the issue filed briefs in opposition with the court. The most significant language battle, however, has come down to one word: “redefine.”

In the Solicitor General’s February proposal, the ballot language read:

This bill would REDEFINE MARRIAGE to allow same-sex couples to marry, modify existing domestic-partnership laws, allow clergy to refuse to solemnize or recognize marriages and religious organizations to refuse to accommodate marriage celebrations.

In opposing this language, marriage equality advocates in Washington have argued that the phrase “redefine marriage” does not even appear in the marriage bill that passed the legislature last month, and is in fact a politically charged buzzword used by anti-marriage equality forces to obfuscate the issue. (Try googling ‘redefine marriage’ and seeing what kind of sites show up.)

Although the Attorney General’s office has sided with the opponents of marriage equality on this point, there’s reason to be hopeful that Judge McPhee will not approve the proposed language. Washington law states that a ballot initiative should ”not — to the extent reasonably possible — create prejudice either for or against the measure.” Because of this, it is likely that he could rule the ballot’s wording must be more neutral. Judge McPhee’s ruling, when released, will be final.

As always, it’s important to note how much of an impact one word can have when it comes to marriage equality. The reason opponents of marriage equality like to use the word “redefine” is that it makes marriages between gays and lesbians seem distinct from those between heterosexual couples. It walls off marriage behind a semantic barrier, making equal rights sound like extra rights. Although it has been said before, it begs repeating that allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry is no more a “redefinition” of marriage than extending the vote to women was a “redefinition” of the right to vote. Words matter, and the language of Referendum 74 will no doubt have a big impact come November.

[Blade]

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...d-not-ban.html

A majority of North Carolinians are opposed to the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages that will be on the May 8 ballot, even as they remain skeptical about gay marriages, according to a new Elon University/Charlotte Observer poll.
Although the rest of the South, often referred to as the Bible Belt, has adopted such a ban, the survey found 54 percent of Tar Heel residents interviewed opposed the constitutional amendment. It found that 38 percent supported it.

This poll suprised me, though it was not a poll of registered voters. ALL NC registered voters need to get out and vote May 8th.

[Strappie]

Minnesota has a vote on this come November! It will take a miracle!

[MsTinkerbelly]

Wall Street Journal poll shows shift in marriage equality attitudes among unexpected groups
By Jacob Combs

A Sunday article in the Wall Street Journal titled “Democrats Pressure Obama on Gay Marriage” highlights the possibly impending showdown between President Obama and Democratic party leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Antonio Villaraigosa regarding the formal inclusion of marriage equality in the party’s platform. But what is perhaps most surprising and encouraging in the Journal‘s piece is a poll showing that not only is support for marriage at an all time high, it has also increased dramatically among some unexpected and significant groups:

The most-recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll suggests that views on gay marriage are shifting faster than for any other hot-button social issue in recent memory, pollsters say.

Forty-nine percent of Americans now say they approve of gay marriage, up from 40% shortly after Mr. Obama took office in 2009. Mr. Obama’s stated stance makes him part of the 8% of respondents who are unsure how they feel about gay marriage, according to the poll released last week.

The poll showed the biggest jump among blue-collar voters and African Americans, two key Democratic constituencies. Support among blue-collar voters jumped 20 percentage points to 49%. African-American support for gay marriage rose from 32% to 50%. More than half of Hispanics and voters aged 18 to 34 also voiced support. Mr. Obama’s advisers have closely watched the changing views among African-Americans and Hispanics.

If these trends hold up, this could be big news for the marriage movement, not just in terms of the President’s position but also the greater political landscape itself. African-American, Hispanic and blue-collar voters are important to the President’s reelection strategy, but if support for marriage among those groups is growing, a choice by the President to fully endorse marriage equality becomes much less risky.

More importantly, it means that the political majority that favors marriage is not only growing, but becoming more diverse. It is both rare and thrilling to be living in a time when attitudes on this issue are changing so quickly in the direction of equal rights and justice. President Obama isn’t the only one losing ground for his justification about staying out of the marriage debate. As attitudes continue to change, politicians across the political spectrum will lose that justification as well

[MsTinkerbelly]

PA Marriage Ban Bill Pulled

Pennsylvania's proposed ban on the recognition of all same-sex relationships was abruptly withdrawn this morning shortly prior to its scheduled hearing before a state House committee.
News broke a few minutes ago that the House State Government Committee will delay its vote on HB 1434, known as the “Marriage Protection” amendment, proposed by State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler). The legislation, which drew intense criticism from gay rights advocates, would establish an amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution that would redefine marriage as “the legal union of only one man and one woman.” Metcalfe currently serves as the State Government Committee chair.
The bill will likely resurface in a marriage-specific form.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Maine ballot measure on marriage equality clears hurdle, polls show voters likely to approve it
By Jacob Combs

The Kennebec Journal reports that the Maine House of Representatives today voted unanimously to indefinitely postpone a citizen initiative that would bring marriage equality to the state, freeing the measure to go directly to the ballot in November. The bill now heads to the state Senate, which is expected to take the same action.

In addition to that good news, a PPP poll from last week shows strong support for the measure going into the election, with 54 percent of respondents saying they support marriage equality and only 41 percent saying they oppose it. When presented with the exact ballot language (regarding “marriage licenses for same-sex couples that protects religious freedom by ensuring that no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs”), respondents supported the measure by a margin of 47 percent to 32 percent.

Moreover, the PPP vote found that while Democrats and Republicans in the state had not experienced any significant changes in opinion since 2009 (when voters repealed Maine’s marriage equality law), there has been a marked shift in opinion among independent voters. In 2009, independents opposed marriage equality by a 52/46 margin; in this year’s poll, they support it by a 57/36 margin. That’s a remarkable and dramatic development in only three years, and one that could likely make the difference come election day.

As always, these numbers should be viewed cautiously: the election is several months away, and things will change as the campaign heats up. Nevertheless, PPP’s poll didn’t find the even split that many past polls have found in states considering ballot measures on marriage; rather, Maine’s numbers seem to support a clear momentum in favor of marriage. When looked at in the context of the the state’s diocese’s decision not to campaign against marriage, Maine is beginning to look like a possible game changer in November.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Washington judge releases final ballot language for marriage equality initiative
By Jacob Combs

Yesterday, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Thomas McPhee released his decision on the final wording for Referendum 74, the proposed ballot measure to either uphold or overturn Washington’s recently passed marriage equality law. Judge McPhee’s decision, which is final and cannot be appealed, is a victory for marriage advocates because it removes language about the law’s intent to “redefine marriage” and instead opts for more neutral wording. Supporters of the initiative will now have to collect 120,577 signatures by June 6 to qualify it for the November election.

Here is the finalized ballot language for Referendum 74:

Ballot Title:
The legislature passed Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6239 concerning marriage for same-sex couples, modified domestic-partnership law, and religious freedom [and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill].

This bill would allow same-sex couples to marry, preserve domestic partnerships only for seniors, and preserve the right of clergy or religious organizations to refuse to perform, recognize, or accommodate any marriage ceremony.

Should this bill be

___ Approved

___ Rejected

Ballot Measure Summary:
This bill allows same-sex couples to marry, applies marriage laws without regard to gender, and specifies that laws using gender-specific terms like husband and wife include same-sex spouses. After 2014, existing domestic partnerships are converted to marriages, except for seniors. It preserves the right of clergy or religious organizations to refuse to perform or recognize any marriage or accommodate wedding ceremonies. The bill does not affect licensing of religious organizations providing adoption, foster-care, or child-placement

[iamkeri1]

Wow! That seems to me to be a very clearly stated referendum. I don't think it should be on the ballot at all - rights being inalienable and all that, but at least people voting on the referendum will be able to clearly understand what they are voting for/against. Two things will work toward samesex marriage being passed.

1 people are more likely to vote for the first choice.
2 people are more likely to vote FOR a referendum than against it.

Have all available body parts crossed hoping that it passes.
Smooches,
Keri