Same-Sex Marriage Update

[MsTinkerbelly]

Gay and lesbian couples sue for marriage equality and adoption rights in North Carolina
by John H. Tucker


Six same-sex couples are suing the state of North Carolina and Durham and Guilford county court officials as they seek to overturn the state Supreme Court's 2010 ban on second-parent adoptions and the state's prohibition on gay marriage.

They are being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation.

The second-parent adoption case, Fisher-Borne v. Smith, was filed in Greensboro last year and amended this summer to include a challenge to the gay marriage ban.

Here, the families speak about their lives and the lawsuit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Terri Beck, 50, is from Morrisville and works as a recruiter for Duke University. Four years ago she and her partner of 16 years, Leslie Zanaglio, adopted two brothers through the foster care system.

BECK: The two things that have kept Leslie and I together, and the key to our success, is our ability to communicate with each other and our sense of humor. We both have the same basic core values. Family comes first for us.

Our boys had a very, very difficult first few years of their lives. They came from a severely neglectful, abusive early childhood. When they came to us, my younger son, who was 6, didn't know how to chew. They needed the love and nurturing that Leslie and I felt, and feel today that can provide for them and have provided for them. In the four years they've been with us, they've been thriving in amazing ways.

I have no legal rights as their mom. In every other way, I'm their mom. To them, I'm their mom. So it was important for us to formally ask the courts through this lawsuit to recognize our family.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leigh Smith, a 39-year-old stay-at-home mom, and her partner, Crystal Hendrix, 41, an elementary school librarian, have two children, Quinn, 3 ½, and Joe, 18 months.

They met at a school where Smith was a kindergarten teacher and Hendrix, a librarian.

HENDRIX: There was a real instant friendship, and just that constant wanting to be around each other. I just loved the way Lee interacted with her kids at school and the way she treated them all just like they were her own.

After Quinn was born, we knew we wanted to have another one. I was getting older, so we ended up having them closer together. Not quite two years between them.

SMITH: Second-parent adoption is very important to me because I did not have the [parental rights], that if something were to happen to Crystal, they would remain with me. And because she has a conservative family, we have that fear, always, that if something were to happen, that they could go to live with someone that they don't know.

HENDRIX: My parents don't recognize Lee as the children's mother, and they don't recognize us as a couple. I have a very strained relationship with them, but if something were to happen to me, there is a possibility that my parents can end up raising our kids. That's not the way things should be. We felt it was our responsibility to our kids and to our relationship, but also to other families who were in similar situations.

SMITH: We want them to know that we're a family unit, and marriage does that. It pulls everyone and everything together.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dana Draa, 42, works at the VA with blind and visually impaired veterans. She is a veteran. Lee Knight Caffery, 38, is an attorney. They have two children. They held a commitment ceremony in 2007.

DRAA: I had always wanted children, but I never thought about having them myself. I was always going to adopt. Finally, I decided to have the children. One of the unique things about us, because we have donor-conceived children, Miller and Margo are actual full brother and sister.

I can tell you that being the non-birth mother, it's a scary prospect. It's something I felt passionate about in the sense of protection for the children. I wanted to make sure that if anything happened to Lee Knight—now, I have a great relationship with her family, but not having legal protections, you know, all bets are off. I really needed to do this to say that I had done all that I could do for not just my family but for other families like ours.

KNIGHT CAFFERY: I echo Dana's sentiments about making sure our family remains cohesive no matter what, but in the event that something very unlikely happened to me, my worst fear is that our children would be torn apart and taken away from her, and she's the only other parent they've ever known. Because I'm an attorney, I understand the significance of the legal arguments in discrimination and I always felt like this is part of my calling, to do legal advocacy work on the part of the gay and lesbian community.

I have always thought that sometime in our lifetime we would be able to be married. But I always thought we might be walking down the aisles in walkers or a wheelchair, and that our children would be long grown. And now I can see that it's a real possibility that we might be able to be a loving, real, legally recognized family long before that time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chantelle Fisher-Borne, 38, works as a consultant with nonprofits and charitable foundations. Her partner, Marcie Fisher-Borne, 38, is an assistant professor and teaches social work. They have been together 16 years and had a wedding in 2003. They are the parents of a 5-year-old and an 18-month-old.

MARCIE FISHER-BORNE: This amendment changes things, and will change things for more people in this state, if it has the outcome that we want. It's about my love for Chantelle, which has always been there. It's about my love for my children. And it's about an opportunity to do this for folks who can't. I know some folks who don't feel like they can be public for fear of their job, and for other reasons.

CHANTELLE FISHER-BORNE: Yeah, I think the irony of our situation is one of us each gave birth to our kids. I'm no less a parent to my Miley as I am to her Eli, and Marcie is no less a parent to Eli as she is to my Ellein. We know that. Our kids know that. What we are requesting is that the state acknowledge our relationships, as being a legal stranger to your own kids is unconscionable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shawn Long, 43, is an office manager at a nonprofit. His partner, Craig Johnson, 46, is a clinical program assistant at a pharmaceutical company. They have a son, Isaiah.

They met several years ago through the INDY's personal ads.

LONG: Initially, I was opposed to having kids. Craig was open to kids, but it wasn't a deal breaker. Over the course of many years, he wore me down until finally he was like, "All right, we're gonna look at getting a kid!" And it was great. I was a fool for waiting this long.

JOHNSON: Isaiah comes from the Cabarrus County Department of Human Services. We initially were matched with him, and we thought, "OK, yeah, sounds interesting, sounds possible." He was 5 when we met him. We spent a weekend in Cabarrus County with him and took him back to his family.

LONG: We took him to Discovery Place in Charlotte—great!

JOHNSON: We felt like this is a really good match. He gets along really well with us; we get along well with him. So we did another weekend and he stayed with us for a weekend in our house. He stayed one more weekend with us and we thought, "Yes, we're ready to go. This is the right decision."

The result was fantastic. Isaiah has multiple times asked about getting a sibling. We're very reluctant to do that because this match was so good. I'm really afraid that if we were to try that process again that we would not have such a positive experience.

LONG: He had a biological sister, but she was not in the foster care system, so we weren't able to find her and adopt her, which we initially wanted to do.

We both want to be parents to him. We were both foster parents. Craig is his adoptive parent; suddenly I'm nothing. Anytime we go anywhere, I have to have paperwork. If something happens, I have to worry about, "Do I have the paperwork? What will people say? Will there be some kind of challenge?"

And Isaiah has asked before, "When are you getting married? Can you get married yet? What does this mean, you're not married? Are you still with my dad?"

We're both his parents, we both take him to soccer, we take him to the doctor, we send him up to his room. He should be supported with all the rights and responsibilities that come with having a two-parent family.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shana Carignan, 30, works for a local HIV/AIDS nonprofit, and Megan Parker, 34, is a stay-at-home mom. They met five years ago. They have a son, Jax, who has special needs.

CARIGNAN: We really liked each other, and there was no denying it, so once we started dating, it was pretty obvious that we were falling in love.

PARKER: It was interesting because at the time, I cared for an older lady, Mary, with disabilities in my home. She lived there and I was her sole care provider, so she was always around. [Mary's] cognitive issues made her about the age range of between 5 and 7.

CARIGNAN: We just had a great rapport. We were always laughing together, the three of us. So, it was like a ready-made family, because we started spending so much time together, and then I ended up helping take care of Mary. Once our relationship progressed, we thought, "Well, we both want kids. We really like doing this together, we're both good at it, what's holding us back?"

PARKER: We knew we wanted to adopt, but when a special needs case came in, we knew we could do it. We had already seen Mary as an adult, so we had seen what it looked like further down the road.

CARIGNAN: And we saw what life she didn't have. Because she didn't have the resources and the parents that were really going to take care of her. Every day Jax amazes us, because he constantly is proving to the world that he can do more than anybody ever thought he could. It's an amazing feeling to be a part of that, to know we help parent this amazing kid, who has this awesome personality, this smart brain, begging to get out and be noticed by the world, and we helped him find that.

PARKER: Marriage equality, as well as second-parent adoption, would mean an equal playing field for our family. There's so much that's just denied to us, when we're just a regular family. By our marriage being legally recognized, it would just make things so much easier. And we have to do everything we can to protect everything that we've worked for and we live for.

CARIGNAN: Since Jax has special needs, we had to go to doctors and stay overnight in hospital visits, and because Megan is his only legal parent, I don't have the same rights, so I wasn't allowed to stay overnight with him.

I can't receive Shannon's benefits because her job doesn't offer them to same-sex partners, but they do offer them to a married spouse. And Jax cannot receive medical benefits. He has federal Medicaid because he was adopted through foster care, but he can't receive secondary insurance, which would be a huge benefit, because Medicaid will often deny things that secondary insurance can pick up. He can't receive that because she's not his legal parent. We ended up becoming advocates just by telling our story

[Cin]

I don't suppose this is a marriage update, but i thought it was interesting. And it might reflect the changing times. One can hope.

George H.W. Bush Is Witness At Same-Sex Wedding Of Friends

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...ds?ft=1&f=1001

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

I don't suppose this is a marriage update, but i thought it was interesting. And it might reflect the changing times. One can hope.

George H.W. Bush Is Witness At Same-Sex Wedding Of Friends

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...ds?ft=1&f=1001

I saw this earlier and thought the same as you basically...one person at a time!

[Cin]

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

I saw this earlier and thought the same as you basically...one person at a time!

LOL! Yes. It will take awhile at that rate but I got time. *grin*

[MsTinkerbelly]

'We're outta here!': Gay couples in exile return to America post-DOMA decision


By Miranda Leitsinger, Staff Writer, NBC News

NEW YORK – The two men held a long embrace after a Manhattan city clerk pronounced them married at a City Hall ceremony. They had traveled 2,000 miles to get here, one more leg of a years-long journey to having their relationship legally recognized in the United States.

Richard Hurtado, a Texas native, and Hugo Rendon, a Mexican national, were married last Tuesday after living abroad for years, unable to reside as spouses in the States. But that changed in June, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act, which had denied recognition of same-sex marriages and prevented gay Americans from sponsoring their foreign spouses for citizenship. Now bi-national couples like Hurtado and Rendon, who had faced the choice of moving abroad or risking deportation for the foreign spouse, are coming back to America.

“This is the start of a new beginning,” said Rendon, 43, who called his wedding to Hurtado, 40, a “blessing.”

For six years, Hurtado and Rendon, both certified public accountants, have lived in the violent Mexican border town of Nuevo Laredo, where the couple escaped an attempted robbery last November. But they couldn’t leave Nuevo Laredo, where Rendon has family and an established business. “I felt like it was a never-ending fight,” Rendon said in Spanish of waiting for U.S. law to change.

The DOMA decision was heralded by gay rights advocates as a first step toward legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. A week after the ruling, the Department of Homeland Security said immigration visa applications for same-sex spouses would be treated the same as those for opposite-sex spouses.

That was welcome news for bi-national gay couples in the U.S., a group estimated to number more than 32,000, according to Williams Institute, a think tank based at the UCLA School of Law. The federal government does not track data on such couples living overseas. But Immigration Equality, an advocacy group for gays and lesbians, said 900 of the 3,000 online inquiries it received after the DOMA ruling came from couples outside the U.S.

Under the new immigration guidelines, a valid marriage in a foreign country or a U.S. state where same-sex marriages are legal will be accepted, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Processing of family visas – a first step toward qualifying for a green card – is taking about 11 months, the agency said.

The DOMA Project said at least 15 binational, same-sex couples it works with, including two overseas, have received green cards following the court’s ruling. U.S. immigration officials have identified about 100 visa applications for foreign same-sex spouses of U.S. citizens that had been rejected because of DOMA but were being reviewed anew. Any other previously denied applicants can request to re-open their case, officials said.

Gay Americans who moved overseas to join foreign partners say they gave up a lot in the process: well-paid jobs, spending time with aging parents and other family, and leaving behind homes and communities.

“Part of the enormous cruelty of the Defense of Marriage Act has been that it forces you out of your country and away from social ties,” said Derek Tripp, project associate for The DOMA Project, an advocacy group for binational, same-sex couples.

For Darlene Nichols and her Belgian wife, Marie Le Fevere de Ten Hove, living abroad meant postponing their dreams.

Nichols, 55, moved to Belgium four years ago to join her wife, 37, but had a hard time finding work because of the language barrier. She also couldn’t get certifications in her field, home health care and massage therapy, forcing her to take lower-paying jobs such as cleaning buses.

Nichols missed her daughter and two young grandchildren, but visa requirements in Belgium hindered travels home. “It’s not been a vacation,” she said of her time abroad.

Soon after the couple learned about the DOMA ruling, they flew to California to be married (they previously had a civil union in Belgium). The pair now lives with Nichols’ daughter in Texas as they transition back to the U.S. “Every day I think about how it’s held us back,” Nichols said. “I just don’t feel like I’m living my life.”

Theresa Ewadinger, an American living in Japan with her Japanese wife and their infant son, couldn’t agree more. Ewadinger, 43, has been teaching English, one of the only jobs available to her in a country that promotes hiring citizens over foreigners. But the job offered no possibility of promotion, no bonus and no retirement plan.

“We’re outta here!” Ewadinger said of leaving Japan. “I just see our world opening up so much.” The family plans a return to her home state of Texas, where Ewandinger plans to apply to graduate school.

But challenges remain for these couples. There are immigration requirements, such as proving to the government that their relationship is legitimate, plus the daunting task of rebuilding their lives back in the U.S.

The couples may also have to contend with anti-gay marriage groups, who have objected to the government’s decision to allow them to immigrate.

John Eastman, board chairman for the National Organization of Marriage, said his group hasn’t discussed legal action on the issue yet but doesn’t rule it out. The majority opinion in the DOMA case was “tied to the fact that states have been the primary place where marriage policy is decided,” he said. “The federal government now seems bent on imposing it on them.”

Such concerns are far off for Rendon and Hurtado, who plan to move across the border to Laredo, Texas, where Hurtado grew up. He will work on mending his relationship with his parents, who couldn’t understand why he would leave his family and move to a place known for cartel violence.

“I wanted to be with him, so I had to do it this way,” said Hurtado.

As the nervous grooms awaited their big moment at the Manhattan marriage bureau last Tuesday, they talked about the home they’ve created together – Hurtado cooks, Rendon cleans – and showed off their Yorkshire Terrier, Valentino, whom they call their kid.






Advertise | AdChoices







“We had a bit of everything,” highs and lows, Rendon said. But overall, “It’s been a beautiful journey.”

[MsTinkerbelly]

Illinois AFL-CIO passes resolution backing marriage equality

by GoPride.com News Staff

Fri. September 27, 2013 8:12:28 AM : 0 Comments - start the discussion

Illinois Unites coalition applauds AFL-CIO for landmark support

Chicago, IL — The Illinois Chapter of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) passed a resolution Sept. 26 supporting the freedom to marry and urged the Illinois House of Representatives to pass Senate Bill 10 – the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act.

"As an organization, we speak out for fairness and justice where it is most needed. Gay and lesbian couples in Illinois shouldn't have to wait another moment to be afforded the tools they need to protect their families," said Michael Carrigan, President of the Illinois AFL-CIO. "It is time we pass the freedom to marry for all."

The resolution, which was passed by the Executive Board of the Illinois AFL-CIO, states "the Illinois AFL-CIO joins with leaders from the faith community, civil rights organizations, President Obama, our own unions and a growing majority of Americans in supporting marriage equality legislation that effectively protects religious freedom."

"Securing the freedom to marry for all is a defining human rights issue of our time," said Timothy Drea, Secretary Treasurer of the Illinois AFL-CIO. "We urge Illinois lawmakers to be on the right side of history and pass marriage equality."

Since the legislative session ended in May without the House considering the marriage bill, Illinois Unites for Marriage has been increasing its reach with numerous labor organizations expanding their roles in the campaign, including, AFSCME Council 31, Illinois Education Association, Illinois Federation of Teachers, Illinois Nurses Association, National Association of Social Workers - Illinois Chapter, Pride at Work Chicago, Service Employees International Union State Council, Unite Here Local 1, and United Food and Commercial Workers Local 881.

"We applaud the significant support from the AFL-CIO today. Their resolution helps us in our fight to strengthen the American family by extending the protections of marriage to gay and lesbian couples," said John Kohlhepp, Campaign Manager for Illinois Unites for Marriage.

[iamkeri1]

A judge in New Jersey has ruled that the state has to allow same-sex couples to get married since the state would be depriving same-sex couples of rights granted to them by the federal government if the state were to continue to not allow same-sex marriage, according to the New York Times.

Since the federal government recognizes same-sex marriage and doles out certain benefits to married couples Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson ruled that by banning same-sex marriage the state was violating the state constitution by denying equal benefits to same-sex couples, according to the Wall Street Journal.

"The ineligibility of same-sex couple for federal benefits is currently harming same-sex couple in New Jersey in a wide variety of contexts," Jacobsen wrote in her decision.

Gov. Chris Christie opposes same-sex marriage and has tried to convince the court to "reserve the name of marriage for heterosexual couples." John Hoffman, the acting attorney general for New Jersey, believes that it is the federal government, not New Jersey, who is guilty of denying rights to same-sex couples by not offering the benefits to couples in a civil union, NBC News reports.

"Civil union partners who are federal employees living in New Jersey are ineligible for marital rights with regard to the federal pension system," Jacobson said. "All civil union partners who are employees working for businesses to which the Family and Medical Leave Act applies may not rely on its statutory protections for spouses, and civil union couples may not access the federal tax benefits that married couples enjoy."

Jacobsen was ruling on a lawsuit filed by six same-sex couples who argued that since the federal government will recognize same-sex marriages in states that legalize them it is unfair that the state of New Jersey only allow civil unions, according to NBC News.

"This news is thrilling," Hayley Gorenberg, Lambda Legal deputy legal director, said in a statement. "We argued that limiting lesbians and gay men to civil union is unfair and unconstitutional, and now the Court has agreed."

The ruling by the New Jersey court is the first to legalize same-sex marriage in response to the Supreme Court decision that struck down the Defense of Marriage act this past summer. State officials have been ordered to begin allowing same-sex marriage on Oct. 21, according to the Star-Ledger.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Prop. 8 Legal Team Sets Sights on Va. Marriage Ban

Ted Olson and David Boies, the bipartisan legal team that successfully argued against California's Proposition 8 at the Supreme Court, have signed on to a federal challenge to Virginia's ban on marriage equality.

BY Sunnivie Brydum.

September 30 2013 12:48 PM ET

The so-called odd couple — a conservative lawyer who represented George W. Bush and his liberal opponent who represented Al Gore in the contested 2000 election — who helped strike down California's Proposition 8 are now taking their legal prowess to Virginia to fight that state's prohibition on marriage equality.

Ted Olson and David Boies, the bipartisan legal team who successfully argued Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Prop. 8 case, at the Supreme Court, have signed on to a pending federal case that aims to strike down Virginia's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, the American Foundation for Equal Rights announced today.

The Virginia case, Bostic v. Rainey, was filed in the U.S. District Court for Virginia's Eastern District on behalf of two couples who contend that the Virginia Marriage Amendment, which prohibits gay and lesbian couples in Virginia from marrying, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. One of the couples, Timothy Bostic and Tony London, were denied a marriage license in July, while the secondary plaintiffs, Carol Schall and Mary Townley, married in California in 2008, have a 15-year-old daughter, and are asking Virginia to legally recognize their relationship.

The Equal Protection argument is, in part, the same logic Olson and Boies successfully advanced in the Prop. 8 case, where California voters rescinded the gay and lesbian couples' right to marry by ballot initiative in 2008. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively repealed Prop. 8 on a legal technicality, deciding that the official ballot proponents had no legal standing to defend the law after two sets of California governors and attorneys general declined to do so. When AFER enlisted Boies and Olson to fight California's marriage equality ban in 2009, no other mainstream LGBT organization was willing to mount the legal challenge.

But with two landmark rulings in favor of marriage equality at the Supreme Court this summer — both the Prop. 8 case and Windsor v. U.S., which struck down a key section of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act — and 13 states and the District of Columbia with legal marriage equality in place, the winds have shifted toward equality.

Olson, who lives in Virginia, said his state is an "attractive target" for a federal challenge that he hopes will establish a federal constitutional right to marry.

In their arguments against Prop. 8, Olson and Boies often cited the 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, which struck down bans on interracial marriage as unconstitutional. Because Virginia's marriage amendment not only bans same-sex marriage in the state but also the recognition of any legal same-sex marriages from other states, Olson said Virginia provides a good example to highlight the importance of establishing gay and lesbian Americans' to marry on a national basis.

"The more unfairly people are being treated, the more obvious it is that it's unconstitutional," Olson told the The Washington Post.

The American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal also filed a request for swift judgment in another federal case challenging Virginia's ban on marriage equality — this one filed in the U.S. District Court for Western Virginia, on behalf of two lesbian couples.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Chris Christie tries to block marriage equality in New Jersey

Evan Puschak
9:59 PM on 10/01/2013


New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie wants to block the state’s upcoming legalization of same-sex marriage.

Interim state Attorney General John Jay Hoffman said in a letter to the state Supreme Court on Monday that the Christie adminstration would seek a stay on the Superior Court’s ruling. If granted, the ruling may postpone marriage equality from kicking into effect on October 21. Hoffman also expressed a wish to bypass appellate courts and take the issue directly to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

On Friday, Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson ruled that New Jersey’s civil union laws did not provide LGBT individuals the same rights as married couples.

“The court, the legislature, and a super-majority of New Jerseyans all support the freedom to marry, but the governor seems intent on blocking New Jersey’s path to fairness, adding more delay now with his decision to appeal the trial court’s clear ruling,” Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, told MSNBC. “The New Jersey Supreme Court should swiftly take and affirm the marriage ruling, and should let couples begin marrying Oct. 21, as the trial court ordered.”

Christie’s move to appeal is just the latest step in his back-and-forth with gay rights advocates over the issue of same-sex marriage. Back in February, Christie vetoed a bill passed by the New Jersey legislature that legalized same-sex marriage. Personally against marriage equality, the governor was willing to let the matter go to a state referendum in November, yet unwilling to let “an issue of this magnitude and importance” be decided by elected officials.

Instead, Christie appointed an official to oversee same-sex couples’ complaints that civil union laws were not affording them all the legal rights and benefits of married couples. For gay rights advocates, this measure did not go far enough to ensure equality.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in June to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act gave the same-sex marriage movement in New Jersey new life. The majority’s ruling in that case, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated that same-sex married couples deserved the same benefits as any other married couple, but was confined to legal marriages. This primed New Jersey for the challenge to its system that led to Judge Jacobson’s ruling Friday.

The other factor in the ruling was a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling from 2006 (Lewis v. Harris), which required the state to extend all the rights of heterosexual unions to same sex unions, but stopped short of legalizing same-sex marriage.

“The issue of whether the state must act to change its statutory structure for civil unions and marriages is purely a legal one that depends upon the interaction of the Windsor [DOMA] decision with the mandates established by the New Jersey Supreme court in Lewis,” wrote Jacobson in her 53-page opinion, illuminating the crux of the issue.

The plaintiffs in the case, six same-sex couples represented by Garden State Equality and Lambda Legal, said that Windsor and Lewis don’t work in sync for gay couples. As NJ.com reported, over 1,000 tax and inheritance benefits extended by the DOMA decision to same-sex married couples were withheld from those couples in New Jersey, trapped behind civil union laws.

The attorneys argued that such civil union laws made same-sex couples “second class” citizens, and Judge Jacobson agreed. “Same-sex couples must be allowed to marry in order to obtain equal protection of the law under the New Jersey constitution,” she wrote.

Though they don’t agree with Christie’s appeal, New Jersey Democrats urged the state Supreme Court to fast-track the case, per the administration’s wishes. If the court decides quickly in favor of Jacobson’s ruling, same-sex couples won’t have to wait longer than October 21st to enjoy full marriage equality.

It’s unclear to what degree Gov. Christie’s repeated moves against same-sex marriage are politically motivated, intended to bolster his conservative credentials.

“Within the Republican universe, he’s actually pretty far out there already on gay marriage, saying he wants a referendum and that he’d honor the result if voters pass it,” said MSNBC’s Steve Kornacki. “In terms of positioning for the 2016 GOP race, that alone puts him on shaky ground, so if a court moves to legalize it, he risks giving opponents on the right ammunition if he does anything but challenge it.”

[MsTinkerbelly]

Judge Says New Jersey Can Begin Allowing Same-Sex Marriages in Two Weeks

By KATE ZERNIKE

Published: October 10, 2013

A judge on Thursday cleared the way for same-sex marriages to start in New Jersey in two weeks, dismissing the state’s request to prevent the weddings until after an appeal of the court decision allowing them is completed.


“There is no ‘public interest’ in depriving a class of New Jersey residents their constitutional rights while appellate review is pursued,” wrote Judge Mary C. Jacobson of State Superior Court in Mercer County, who also wrote the decision last month that ordered the state to allow same-sex marriages. “On the contrary, granting a stay would simply allow the State to continue to violate the equal protection rights of New Jersey same-sex couples, which can hardly be considered a public interest.”

The state immediately requested that the appellate division grant a stay. It had already asked the New Jersey Supreme Court to hear the appeal on an expedited basis; the court has not said yet whether it will do so.

Judge Jacobson said in her opinion that the state had not demonstrated that its appeal was likely to be successful. And she denied the state’s argument that New Jersey would suffer “irreparable harm” if marriages began happening, ruling instead that the people harmed would be the same-sex couples who would have to wait even longer to gain access to the federal benefits that the United States Supreme Court guaranteed them in a decision in June.

Judge Jacobson noted that “until some indeterminate time when appeals have been resolved,” same-sex couples would remain ineligible for federal tax and retirement benefits and for spousal coverage under Medicare. And if one member of the couple was a noncitizen, the other would not be able to sponsor him or her for residency, forcing them to live apart.

Lawrence S. Lustberg, who argued the case before Judge Jacobson on behalf of Garden State Equality and six gay and lesbian couples and their children, praised the ruling.

“We’re very pleased with not just the ruling, but the opinion, which makes clear how our clients are being harmed by not being able to marry, and compares that with the lack of harm that’s experienced by the state if they can marry,” he said. “The harms to our clients are real. The harm to the state is theoretical.”

The couples had asked the court to hear their case on an expedited basis after the United States Supreme Court’s decision in June striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal benefits to couples in same-sex marriages.

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that the state had to grant same-sex couples the same rights and protections as heterosexual couples, but left it to the Legislature to decide how to do so. The Legislature passed a law allowing civil unions, but the couples sued again, arguing that civil unions did not give the same benefits as marriage.

The United States Supreme Court said its ruling extending federal benefits to same-sex couples was limited to legal marriages. Judge Jacobson ruled in September that for that reason, the state had to offer marriages, not simply civil unions, to allow same-sex couples equal benefits.

She ruled that the state had to start allowing marriages on Oct. 21. Mr. Lustberg said couples would begin applying for licenses that day, and marriages would take place after the state’s three-day waiting period. But first, the plaintiffs will have to respond to the state’s request to appeal the decision on the stay, by Tuesday.

Meanwhile, a parallel strategy is moving through the Democratic-led Legislature, which passed a new bill allowing same-sex marriage last year. It was vetoed by Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican who is considered a leading candidate for his party’s nomination for president in 2016.

The Legislature has until January to override that veto, and state and national gay rights groups have flooded the state with money and activists to help the override vote succeed. The bill includes a provision that would allow religious leaders to decline to perform same-sex marriages by citing a moral exception. Democrats have argued that if the court decides the issue, it would not allow such an exception, so it would be better to have the Legislature move first to establish same-sex marriage.

The Democrats need Republican votes to win the override, and many Republicans have been wary of crossing Mr. Christie. But in recent weeks, two Republicans who did not vote on the original bill said they would support the override, and one who voted against same-sex marriage said he would vote for it.

“At any moment, the court can step in and put a halt to all this, temporarily or permanently,” said Mike Premo, the campaign manager for New Jersey United for Marriage, which is leading the push for the override. “The safest, surest, quickest route to marriage equality still remains with the Legislature.”

[MsTinkerbelly]

Mich. judge expected to rule today on gay-marriage ban
Tresa Baldas, Detroit Free Press 12:45 p.m. EDT October 16, 2013
Lawsuit began as challenge to Michigan ban on adoption by unmarried couples.

DETROIT — A federal judge is expected to decide the fate Wednesday of Michigan's ban on gay marriage, either giving two women the right to pursue their dream of having a family or upholding the state's position that only men and women can marry and have children.

The issue has landed in the hands of U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman, who in June refused to toss out a lesbian couple's lawsuit challenging the state's ban on adoption by unmarried couples. Friedman, citing the June U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized legally married gay couples, concluded the plaintiffs are "entitled to their day in court and they shall have it."

That day is today.

At 2:30 p.m., a hearing on the matter is scheduled before Friedman, who is expected to decide on the constitutionality of Michigan's ban on gay marriage and determine whether or not the state is unlawfully discriminating against two nurses who want to get married and adopt each others' children.

If Friedman lifts the ban without issuing a stay, same-sex marriage would be legal in Michigan until, and unless, a higher court overturns it. If he doesn't, the status quo remains: no gay marriage in Michigan.

"We're cautiously optimistic that a ruling will come," said Dana Nessel, one of four lawyers representing the plaintiffs. "When you have waited this long for some semblance of equality, you kind of want it right now. You don't want to wait any longer."

Whatever Friedman decides, an appeal will follow from either side. The state has vowed a vigorous fight to uphold the 2004 voter-approved constitutional amendment that defined marriage as "the union of one man and one woman."

The state argues it has "legitimate state interests" in defining marriage as such.

“When you have waited this long for some semblance of equality, you kind of want it right now. You don't want to wait any longer.”
— Dana Nessel, lawyer representing the same-sex plaintiffs
"Michigan supports natural procreation and recognizes that children benefit from being raised by parents of each sex who can then serve as role models of the sexes both individually and together in matrimony," the state has argued in court documents.

The state also argues that Michigan voters have spoken on the issue of gay marriage and that their decision should stand.

"There is no fundamental right to marry a person of the same sex, and nothing in the U.S. Constitution requires or permits federal courts to invalidate a state's decision defining civil marriage as the union of one man and one woman," the state wrote in court documents.

The case involves April DeBoer, 42, and Jayne Rowse, 48, who in January 2012 challenged the state's ban on same-sex adoption. They later decided also to take on the the state's ban on gay marriage, which 59% of voters approved in 2004.

The plaintiffs argue the ban unlawfully violates their right under the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution to get married and adopt each others' children. Rowse has two preschool-aged boys; DeBoer has a 3-year-old girl. They also argue the state has no rational basis for denying them the right to get married and adopt kids.

Meanwhile, Nessel believes that gay and lesbian community in Michigan has suffered long enough from discrimination. She believes a ruling favoring her clients could trigger long overdue positive changes for gays and lesbians the state that she contends has among the worst records for gay and lesbian rights.

"You can't go lower than what we have," Nessel said. "This is why it's so important for us to have a federal court ruling on this because the Legislature is not doing anything to protect this very vulnerable population of people

“One Detroit lawyer in a black robe doesn't have the legitimate constitutional or moral authority to overturn the will of millions of Michigan voters.”
— Gary Glenn, American Family Association of Michigan
"It's very critical that we have a federal court step in and say, 'No, you cannot use your laws to discriminate against what has historically been an unpopular segment of society," she said.

To date, 14 states have legalized gay marriage, according to ProCon.org, a nonprofit and nonpartisan group that researches controversial issues. Another 35 states, including Michigan, have gay marriage bans through either laws or constitutional amendments. Only one state, New Mexico, has no law legalizing or banning same-sex marriage.

The New Jersey Supreme Court said it will soon decide whether gays can marry there, and a Utah federal judge in December will hear arguments about that state's ban.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two landmark same-sex marriage rulings: one directed the federal government to provide equal treatment to same-sex spouses, the other allowed gay marriages in California to resume.

In a 5-4 ruling, the nation's highest court struck down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal benefits to gay couples married under state law. The court found that gay couples married in states where it's legal must receive the same health, tax, and other benefits offered to their heterosexual counterparts.

However, the high court rulings haven't deterred Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette from fighting to uphold the state's constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.

"The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states retain the constitutional authority to define marriage," said Schuette spokeswoman Joy Yearout. "We will continue to aggressively defend Michigan's Constitution in this case."

Gary Glenn, who leads the conservative American Family Association of Michigan, said it would be a mistake for a judge to extinguish a law on the books for nearly a decade.

"One Detroit lawyer in a black robe doesn't have the legitimate constitutional or moral authority to overturn the will of millions of Michigan voters," Glenn said.

In Ann Arbor, the Washtenaw County clerk's office said judges and clergy will be available at the local courthouse if Friedman allows same-sex marriage. The county will waive the typical three-day waiting period to get a license, at least on Thursday.

"There's obviously a lot of emotion, and a lot of people have been waiting a long time," said Ed Golembiewski, chief deputy clerk.

Bishop Jerry Brohl of Blessed John XIII Community, a church for Christians of all stripes in Wyandotte, near Detroit, said he's eager to bless same-sex marriages, even if he doesn't know the couple.

"Under normal circumstances, I'd want to spend a bit more time with a couple," he said. "But under these circumstances, I feel I need to make an exception. You have two mature persons who are committing themselves to a relationship based on love.

[MsTinkerbelly]

The judge has decided to take the issue to trial on February 25th, so nothing until then.

[MsTinkerbelly]

I'm home and posting articles on my ipad is really tough, so if someone could post a story or link?

New Jerseys Supreme court gave the go ahead today to begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses on Monday the 21st!

Congratulations New Jersey!

[iamkeri1]

Couldn't figure out how to "plant" this in the post. Would appreciate someone doing it for me ... but anyway, here's the link,

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2013...sey/tab/video/

Congratulations New Jersey and Congratulations to all the BEAUTIFUL New Jersey Queerfolk who can now marry or not as they choose - just like real humans

I echo the comments of participants in this event. I can not believe this is happening in my lifetime. Forty-two years ago, as a member of Gay Liberation Front in Michigan, I heard the group leader planning a classroom talk. He was trying to figure out who the "straightest" acting member of the group was so he could send to the talk someone the presumed straight audience would find less offensive. As we have helped society begin to learn to accept us, we have also begun to learn to accept ourselves. There is still a long way to go on both of those fronts, but we are moving down that road. Some of us are stepping proudly, tossing our batons in the air and singing, others of us are being dragged along by our friends and loved ones. But we are moving, and society is moving.

I am so happy to have lived to see this day.

I look forward to the day when marriage equality is the law of the land.

Many happy Smooches,
Keri

[MsTinkerbelly]

Christie withdraws same-sex marriage challenge, as NJ recognizes unions


Published October 21, 2013 •


New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Monday withdrew his challenge to legalized same-sex marriage in the state, after a court determined that the appeal is not likely to prevail.

The decision by Christie came as, in response to the court move, the state on Monday began to recognize same-sex marriages. Christie's administration formally withdrew the appeal in a letter to the state Supreme Court.

"Although the Governor strongly disagrees with the Court substituting its judgment for the constitutional process of the elected branches or a vote of the people, the Court has now spoken clearly as to their view of the New Jersey Constitution and, therefore, same-sex marriage is the law," the governor's office said in a statement. "The Governor will do his constitutional duty and ensure his Administration enforces the law as dictated by the New Jersey Supreme Court."

Earlier in the day, gay couples exchanged vows in early morning ceremonies in several New Jersey communities as the state became the 14th state to recognize them.

The hastily planned first weddings to legally unite long-time couples were planned for a state Senator's grand home in Elizabeth, the boardwalk in Asbury Park and government buildings in small towns and big cities.

In the arts community of Lambertville, Mayor David DelVecchio led the ceremony to marry Beth Asaro and Joanne Schailey. He also presided when they joined in a civil union the minute they became recognized in the state in February 2007.

Soon after they cut the cake, DelVecchio handed Asaro a pink marriage license. "We're floating on air," she said. Added Schailey, "It's like winning the Super Bowl."

The couple, both wearing suits, hosted a reception attended by friends, family and several politicians. The song "In the Mood" played.

Asaro, a member of the city council in Lambertville, said they wanted to get married at the first moment, in part, to promote the gay-friendliness of their community north of Trenton.

"This shows to the world that Lambertville is open for business," DelVecchio said.

In Newark, Mayor Cory Booker was marrying the first of several couples when someone attempted to disrupt the ceremony.

Booker had asked if anyone had reason to object to the marriage and a protester screamed "This is unlawful in the eyes of God and Jesus Christ."

Booker, who was elected to the U.S. Senate last week, called for the person to be removed and police dragged him out.

As Booker continued speaking, "...not hearing any substantive and worthy objections," thunderous applause erupted.

The weddings came amid a flurry of legal activity after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that the federal government should recognize gay marriages and confer couples with the same benefits that it does for heterosexual married couples, including joint tax filings, the right to live together in government-funded nursing homes and Social Security survivor benefits.

A state judge last month agreed with advocates who said that by allowing civil unions but not marriage, New Jersey was keeping gay couples in the state from legal equality.

The administration of Christie, a Republican and possible 2016 presidential candidate, had appealed both the ruling and Monday's implementation date to the state Supreme Court.

And on Friday, less than 60 hours before the weddings were to begin, the state's top court refused to delay them while it sorts out the overall case. The court said the state is not likely to prevail.

Many of the people who have long fought for the right for gay couples to marry had been bracing for a delay, even while they were optimistic the state's top court would ultimately force New Jersey to recognize same-sex marriage.

For the first couples to tie the knot legally, it's been a weekend of fast wedding planning and confusion.

Some towns began taking applications for same-sex marriage licenses on Thursday and continued even after the state government told them not to until there was clarity from the courts.

Other towns refused to grant licenses even after the state Health Department said Friday evening that towns should accept the applications.

It's expected that a rush of weddings will continue in coming days as couples are able to get licenses.

The Associated Press contributed to this report

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

I'm home and posting articles on my ipad is really tough, so if someone could post a story or link?

New Jerseys Supreme court gave the go ahead today to begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses on Monday the 21st!

Congratulations New Jersey!

Now all we need is PA to cover the area! What say you, Corkey?

How many states is that now total, MsTinkerbelly?

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

Now all we need is PA to cover the area! What say you, Corkey?

How many states is that now total, MsTinkerbelly?

14 States and DC...so 15 and counting!

[DapperButch]

http://www.koco.com/news/oklahomanew...#ixzz2iPuBydad

Way cool!

[iamkeri1]

Every little inroad we make into the barriers erected to block our rights and our happiness makes me smile (and cry).

Congratulations Jason and Darren, may you spend many happy years together.

Congratulations as well to our Native peoples for being smarter than the average state legislature.

Smooches,
Keri

[MsTinkerbelly]

I am home again and cannot paste (frickin ipad), but wanted to mention that the Hawaii State legislature is beginning the process today to move to marriage equality.

Go Hawaii!!