Same-Sex Marriage Update

[Cyclopea]

Post Updates Here...

[Cyclopea]

The New York State Senate is debating Same-Sex Marriage at this very moment, and Same Sex Marriage in New York State will be decided TODAY.

Here is a link to the live feed:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_377020.html

The vote is going to be very very close.

According to the NYTimes:

"If the measure passes on Wednesday, it would probably become law quickly and would be nearly impossible to reverse. New York does not have a referendum process that allows voters to overturn an act of the Legislature.
The State Assembly has already approved the legislation, and Gov. David A. Paterson has said he will immediately sign the bill once it makes it to his desk."

New Yorkers, it's not too late to CALL (518) 455-2800 , or EMAIL http://www.nysenate.gov/senators YOUR SENATORS.

This is IT folks!

[Cyclopea]

Dear New Yorker,
This is it. The Marriage Equality Act is being debated on the floor of the New York State Senate today. (You can watch it live at http://www.nysenate.gov/blogs/...

We've been waiting for this day for a long time, and it's my hope that a majority of our senators in Albany will make the right decision and cast their votes for marriage equality.

Right now, I'm in Albany after having met with senators on both sides of the fence - and I can report that our leaders in the Senate are working very hard to get the votes. Governor David Paterson, Senator Tom Duane, Assemblymember Danny O'Donnell and every one of our allies in Albany deserve our appreciation for getting us this far.

We need to keep pushing, though. Please call or write your state senator now and urge them to vote for this bill. You can find contact info. for your state senator at http://www.nysenate.gov/senators.

It's my hope that marriage equality will soon be looked back upon as a great accomplishment that all New Yorkers achieved together.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Christine C. Quinn
Speaker
New York City Council

[Cyclopea]

Vote breakdown from NY1.com:

Here is the overall breakdown, with 32 votes needed for the bill to pass:

Would Vote "Yes" 23 (All Democrats)
Would Vote "No" 24 (5 Democrats, 19 Republicans)
Undecided / Unavailable / Won't Say 15 (4 Democrats, 11 Republicans)

Here is the breakdown by senator:

Would Vote "Yes"
Eric Adams, D-Brooklyn
Neil Breslin, D-Delmar
Martin Dilan, D-Brooklyn
Thomas Duane, D-Manhattan
Pedro Espada, D-Bronx
Ruth Hassell-Thompson, D-Bronx/Westchester [was "Undecided" in June]
Craig Johnson, D-Nassau
Jeffrey Klein, D-Bronx/Westchester
Liz Krueger, D-Manhattan
Velmanette Montgomery, D-Brooklyn
Suzi Oppenheimer, D-Westchester
Kevin Parker, D-Brookyn
Bill Perkins, D-Manhattan
John Sampson, D-Brooklyn [was "Undecided" in June]
Diane Savino, D-Staten Island/Brooklyn
Eric Schneiderman, D-Manhattan/Bronx
Jose Serrano, D-Bronx/Manhattan
Malcolm Smith, D-Queens
Daniel Squadron, D-Brooklyn/Manhattan
Toby Ann Stavisky, D-Queens
Andrea Stewart-Cousins, D-Westchester
Antoine Thompson, D-Buffalo
David Valesky, D-Oneida [was "Undecided" in June]

Would Vote "No"
Darrel Aubertine, D-Cape Vincent
John DeFrancisco, R-Syracuse
Ruben Diaz, D-Bronx
Hugh Farley, R-Niskayuna
John Flanagan, R-Suffolk
Martin Golden, R-Brooklyn
Shirley Huntley, D-Queens
Joseph Griffo, R-Rome
Andrew Lanza, R-Staten Island
William Larkin, R-Cornwall
Kenneth LaValle, R-Suffolk
Thomas Libous, R-Binghamton
Elizabeth Little, R-Queensbury
Carl Marcellino, R-Nassau/Suffolk
George Maziarz, R-Newfane
George Onorato, D-Queens
Frank Padavan, R-Queens/Bronx/Nassau
Michael Ranzenhofer, R-Amherst
James Seward, R-Milford
Dean Skelos, R-Nassau
William Stachowski, D-Buffalo
Dale Volker, R-Depew
George Winner, R-Elmira
Catharine Young, R-Olean

Undecided / Unavailable / Won't Say
Joseph Addabbo, D-Queens
James Alesi, R-East Rochester
John Bonacic, R-Mt. Hope
Brian Foley, D-Suffolk
Charles Fuschillo, R-Nassau/Suffolk
Kemp Hannon, R-Nassau
Owen Johnson, R-Suffolk
Carl Kruger, D-Brooklyn [was "No" in June]
Vincent Leibell, R-Westchester
Roy McDonald, R-Saratoga
Hiram Monserrate, D-Queens
Thomas Morahan, R-Rockland
Michael Nozzolio, R-Seneca Falls
Joseph Robach, R-Greece
Stephen Saland, R-Poughkeepsie

[MsTinkerbelly]

It failed to pass the Senate by quite a large margin.

[PearlsNLace]

OH, thats terribly disappointing. NY, Im really sorry to hear that.

[Blade]

WASHINGTON In a historic shift on gay rights, the Obama administration announced that it believes the Constitution forbids unequal treatment of gays and lesbians in almost all cases, and specifically when it comes to federal benefits for legally married same-sex couples.

Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter to Congress on Wednesday that the Justice Department would no longer oppose legal challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act. The act, which was passed by Congress in 1996, bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages or extending them the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

Holder said President Barack Obama had decided that discrimination against gays can no longer be accepted as reasonable. Laws that allow such discrimination "warrant heightened scrutiny" by officials and judges, he said, similar to the scrutiny that courts give to laws "targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination."

This new stance by the administration was hailed as a "monumental turning point in the quest for equality" by Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal, a gay-rights group in Los Angeles.

On Capitol Hill, Republicans were sharply critical. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, called the decision "deeply disturbing. President Obama's personal policies are trumping his presidential duty."

It comes just two months after Congress and Obama agreed to repeal the military's ban on openly gay service members.

Limited practical effect

The immediate practical effect of the announcement may be limited. Holder said the administration would continue to enforce the law until a final ruling is made, most likely by the Supreme Court.

In the longer term, even if the administration's view prevails it would not force states across the nation to grant equal marriage rights to gays and lesbians.

But Obama's position, if accepted by the courts, would prevent federal agencies, including the IRS, from discriminating against gays and lesbians who were legally married. Its legal rationale could also be used to challenge state bans on gay marriage as an unconstitutional violation of equal rights.

A Republican-led Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act to prevent one state's adoption of gay marriage from spreading nationwide. Usually, states are required to honor legal agreements made in another state, including marriage, under the "full faith and credit" clause in the Constitution. In enacting the law, Congress said neither the states nor the federal government were obliged to recognize a marriage other than "a legal union between one man and one woman."

But in recent years, the law has been challenged as a denial of equal rights by gays and lesbians who were legally married.

Until now, the Obama administration had taken the view that it had a duty to defend all laws, including discriminatory measures, if they could be justified as constitutional.

But Holder said the case of Windsor v. the United States forced the administration to confront, for the first time, the question of whether discrimination against gays and lesbians is presumed to be unconstitutional.

Unnecessary controversy?

In his letter to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, Holder said the Justice Department will not defend against Windsor's suit in New York or a similar suit in Connecticut. He said Congress may wish to appoint its own lawyers to defend the law.

A spokesman for Boehner criticized the White House. "While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that divides the nation," said Boehner aide Michael Steel.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Maryland Senate passes bill legalizing freedom to marry for same-sex couples
By Adam Bink

Fantastic news in Maryland just now:

After about an hour of discussions from opposing views, Maryland’s State Senate voted 25-21 in favor of Senate Bill 116, The Civil Marriage Protection Act on Thursday, Feb. 24.

A House version of the bill is expected to be introduced in House committee tomorrow.

If signed into law, the bill would grant same-sex couples legal marriage rights in the state of Maryland, while also protecting the rights of religious institutions to handle issues of marriage however they see fit.

The marriage bill was written by Sen. Rich Madaleno (D-Montgomery), the only out gay member of Maryland’s Senate, and Sen. Jamie Raskin (D-Montgomery).

Maryland State Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr. allowed Senators to talk before declaring a vote at 6 p.m., with debates from each side limited to 30 minutes after the vote.

Onward to the Assembly

[MsTinkerbelly]

Two new Prop 8 developments, and Courage Campaign’s amicus curiae letter to the California Supreme Court
By Adam Bink

This afternoon, as noted in the comments on the previous thread, two moves in the Perry case.

The first is that Attorney General Kamala Harris on behalf of the state of California filed a motion with the 9th Circuit encouraging the Court, as the AFER team did, to lift the stay:

“For 846 days, Proposition 8 has denied equality under the law to gay and lesbian couples,” Attorney General Harris said. “Each and every one of those days, same-sex couples have been denied their right to convene loved ones and friends to celebrate marriages sanctioned and protected by California law. Each one of those days, loved ones have been lost, moments have been missed, and justice has been denied.”

A copy of her filing can be found here. There is no word from the 9th Circuit yet.

The second is that the California Supreme Court denied the motion to shorten time as submitted by the Olson/Boies/AFER legal time:

“The application of respondents Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo to shorten the briefing schedule and application to set oral argument for May 23, 2011 is denied.”

Disappointing and frankly outrageous, to say the least. The Court will drag its feet on this for at least 6 months while couples wait and some, especially those who are older and becoming ill (not to mention their families) will literally suffer waiting for the Court to take its time.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that the Court really doesn’t see us out here. They have their schedules and their timing. It makes me feel like other eras in our nation’s history- civil rights and AIDS and earning the right of women to vote- when we have to roll up our sleeves and PUSH to get them to notice people suffering. In this case, it’s the same-sex couples and their families- straight and LGBT- out here, literally dying while waiting for the Court to take 6 freaking months just to hear oral arguments.

[Jess]

Thanks for the update Ms. Tinkerbelly.

I share your sentiments entirely. It has been long enough already!

[MsTinkerbelly]

Boehner launches effort to defend gay marriage ban

Associated Press – 2 mins ago
WASHINGTON – House Speaker John Boehner says he's launching a legal defense of the federal law against gay marriage. The Ohio Republican announced Friday that he was convening a bipartisan legal advisory group to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. President Barack Obama has refused to defend the law signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996.

The leaders can instruct the House's non-partisan general counsel to take legal action on behalf of the chamber.

Attorney General Eric Holder has said that the Justice Department would continue to enforce the law but no longer would defend its constitutionality.

The Supreme Court has not ruled on the matter, but last year a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled the law unconstitutional.

**Note from me-Asshat!!!!!!

[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.