Tag Archives: Same Sex Marriage

Big News: California Prop 8 Overturned

Just breaking now–

A judge in California has overturned California’s Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

Big news: According to a source who has seen the 136-page decision, U.S. District Court Judge Walker has ruled Proposition 8, the California voter-approved ban on gay marriage, unconstitutional under both the due-process and equal-protection clauses.

This is great news! I’ll post more detail when I get it.

**Update** You can read the whole ruling here.

Excerpts:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples.

Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex marriage” would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.

Argentina Is For Lovers

Argentina becomes the next country to legalize same-sex marriage.

Argentina has become the first country in Latin America to legalise gay marriage after the Senate voted in favour.

The country’s Chamber of Deputies had already approved the legislation.

The vote in the Senate, which backed the bill by just six votes, came after 14 hours of at times heated debate.

The law, which also allows same-sex couples to adopt, had met with fierce opposition from the Catholic Church and other religious groups.

The legislation, backed by President Cristina Fernandez’s centre-left government, passed by 33 votes to 27 with three abstentions.

In 20 years, I doubt same-sex marriage will be controversial and people will wonder what all the fuss was about.

Breaking Now: Federal Court Strikes Down DOMA Section 3

This is breaking on Twitter right now. The ruling isn’t out yet but a Federal District Court has struck down Section 3 of DOMA. Lambda Legal explains the court challenge:

May 6, 2010 in Boston, eight married same-sex couples and three widowers were in Federal District Court to hear arguments in their challenge to Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman for all purposes under federal law.

We’ll have to wait to read the ruling but if the courts have indeed struck down the definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman this would be a huge step forward. I wonder, would it invalidate all those state constitutional amendments?

I’ll update when we know more.

Here’s a description of the ruling. It sounds like the ruling states that the federal government can’t deny benefits to same sex couples if it is legal in that state:

Judge Joseph Tauro, of U.S. District Court in Boston, issued rulings on two separate cases today.

“This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status,” Tauro wrote in the decision for Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services.

“The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and, in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment. For that reason, the statute is invalid,” he wrote.

Problem Solving 101

Washington, D.C. is the latest area to legalize same-sex marriage and this has caused a problem for Catholic Diocese of Washington. They’ve threatened to quite doing humanitarian work in Washington, D.C. but I guess the backlash and the taxpayer subsidies are too much to pass up. The Catholic diocese of Washington has found a unique solution to their problem of offering benefits to legally recognized spouses – they won’t offer spousal benefits for anyone.

Employees at Catholic Charities were told Monday that the social services organization is changing its health coverage to avoid offering benefits to same-sex partners of its workers — the latest fallout from a bitter debate between District officials trying to legalize same-sex marriage and the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington.

Starting Tuesday, Catholic Charities will not offer benefits to spouses of new employees or to spouses of current employees who are not already enrolled in the plan. A letter describing the change in health benefits was e-mailed to employees Monday, two days before same-sex marriage will become legal in the District.

…

Catholic Charities, which receives $22 million from the city for social service programs, protested in the run-up to the council’s December vote to allow same-sex marriage, saying that it might not be able to continue its contracts with the city, including operating homeless shelters and facilitating city-sponsored adoptions. Being forced to recognize same-sex marriage, church officials said, could make it impossible for the church to be a city contractor because Catholic teaching opposes such unions.

After the council voted to legalize gay marriage, Catholic Charities last month transferred its foster-care program — 43 children, 35 families and seven staff members — to another provider, the National Center for Children and Families.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. First of all, it will create two classes of married people in the Washington Diocese – those that had a spouse enrolled in a health plan and newer employees/newly-married employees. Second, this will be a real hardship for people. Only 59% of employers nationwide offer health insurance to their employees, so a significant number of people will suffer – stay-at-home spouses not previously covered, newly unemployed spouses and new spouses without health insurance from their employer. Also, it’s possible it could hurt the recruitment of employees in the long run if people can not insure their spouses.

I Have No Idea What They Are Trying To Prove

Last year, professional idiot and accused felon James O’Keefe went around with a camera trying to get a wedding license in Massachusetts to marry another man.

Ben Wetmore, the 28-year-old conservative activist whom James O’Keefe called a “mentor,” has stayed out of the headlines since it was revealed that he housed O’Keefe and the other participants in the bungled sting of Sen. Mary Landrieu’s (D-La.) office. When I reached Wetmore by phone yesterday, he politely declined to talk about the situation until it settled down.

Still, the Wetmore-O’Keefe friendship was, in gonzo journalism terms, a productive one. In 2008, after O’Keefe had left the Leadership Institute, the two men recorded hidden camera video of themselves going to three state offices in Massachusetts, applying for marriage licenses, openly admitting that they were straight men who wanted to get married to take advantage of the benefits.

O’KEEFE: We probably plan on doing this for about a year and then..
CLERK: And then, divorcing.
O’KEEFE: Right.
CLERK: Yeah.
WETMORE: Yeah.

I really have no idea what they are trying to prove here. If a couple of the opposite sex says they are getting married for the benefits, that is not a reason to turn down a license is it? I’ve known plenty of people who were married for less than a year. Why should same sex couples be treated differently?

California Prop 8 Trial

Right now in California a trial to determine the constitutionality of Prop 8 is just underway. Prop 8 is the proposition that overturned a court ruling in California allowing same sex marriage by defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. One of the interesting notes of the trial is that the team that wants to overturn Prop 8 has two high profile lawyers, David Boies and Ted Olson. Ted Olson, Bush’s former Solicitor General and David Boies were adversaries in the Bush v. Gore case. Now they’re working together. Ted Olson wrote an essay in the most recent Newsweek called “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage.”

Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one’s own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.

Legalizing same-sex marriage would also be a recognition of basic American principles, and would represent the culmination of our nation’s commitment to equal rights. It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation.

This bedrock American principle of equality is central to the political and legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives alike. The dream that became America began with the revolutionary concept expressed in the Declaration of Independence in words that are among the most noble and elegant ever written: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

That’s exactly right. If you argue that marriage is fundamental to our society how do you argue that some people should be denied its benefits? Same sex marriage opponents have several arguments:
1) marriage is for procreation and same sex couples can’t procreate
2) tradition
3) allowing same sex couples to marry destabilizes traditional marriage

From the first day of the trial, it sounds like #2 is going to be very difficult for the Prop 8 defenders. [In this short transcript Walker is the trial judge, Cooper is the lawyer defending Prop 8]:

Walker: If the Prez’s parents had been in Virginia when he was born, their marriage would have been unlawful. Doesn’t that show a TREMENDOUS change in the institution of marriage? doesn’t that show evolution? Isn’t that correct?

Cooper: Racial restrictions were never a feature of the institution of marriage. (laughter in our courtrtoomm)

Cooper: These restrictions were loathesome, and a detail. “Man and woman” has been universal, across time and all societies.

walker: Is the evidence going to show these racial restrictions are different than the restrictions imposed by Prop 8?

(like a bug pinned to a piece of wood)

Cooper: Naturally procreative instincts….

Walker: Only purpose?

Cooper: Basis of marriage is procreation. It is a pro-child societal institution.

Walker: Many things attend marriage, will your evidence show that those are all secondary to procreation?

Cooper: This is about deinstitutionalizing marriage…

Walker: Yes, you say that. But will your evidence show that?

The trial is being recorded and it may be placed on YouTube (right now the SCOTUS has issued a stay on releasing trial video). This is really a case to watch, but no matter the outcome it will be appealed probably all the way to SCOTUS.

Nate Silver demolishes #3 in a statistical analysis yesterday. He found that states that allow same sex marriage have lowered their divorce rates since 2003 while states that prohibit same sex marriage constitutionally have seen a rise in their divorce rates.

The differences are highly statistically significant. Nevertheless, they do not necessarily imply causation. The decision to ban same-sex marriage does not occur randomly throughout the states, but instead is strongly correlated with other factors, such as religiosity and political ideology, which we have made no attempt to account for. Nor do we know in which way the causal arrow might point. It could be that voters who have more marital problems of their own are more inclined to deny the right of marriage to same-sex couples.

An Assault On Traditional Divorce

Social conservatives have been make dire predictions about how same sex marriage will ruin traditional marriage if it’s allowed. So, what’s happening in Massachusetts, where same sex marriage has been allowed for 5 years?

Actually, the “experiment” has been running in Massachusetts for fully 1/2 decade now. Over three years ago I wrote a story, “Christian Right Wrong on Gay Marriage”, summing up the apparent non-impact of the then-2 year “experiment”. Now, we have 4 consecutive years of data. According to the most recent data from the National Center For Vital Statistics, Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate state, and the MA divorce rate is about where the US divorce rate was in 1940, prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor that triggered the US entrance into World War Two.

Provisional data from 2008 indicates that the Massachusetts divorce rate has dropped from 2.3 per thousand in 2007 down to about 2.0 per thousand for 2008. What does that mean ? To get a sense of perspective consider that the last time the US national divorce rate was 2.0 per thousand (people) was 1940. You read that correctly. The Massachusetts divorce rate is now at about where the US divorce rate was the year before the United States entered World War Two.

So you’re telling me that seeing two men or two women in a committed relationship doesn’t cause people to divorce? Next they’re going to tell me that being gay is just how someone is born and has nothing to do with a lifestyle choice. However will we explain this to the children?

Priorities

I’m glad to know they’ve got their priorities straight here:

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn’t change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.

“If the city requires this, we can’t do it,” Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. “The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that’s really a problem.”

Several D.C. Council members said the Catholic Church is trying to erode the city’s long-standing laws protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination.

So, the tax-exempt, non-profit Catholic Church has been flexing its political muscle quite a bit lately: funding the “Yes on 1” campaign in Maine (successfully removing the right to marry from same sex couples), strong-arming pro-life Democrats into passing the Stupak-Pitts amendment and now trying to defeat a same sex marriage rights bill in Washington D.C. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that the church is not stopping its activities in Texas to protest the state’s use of the death penalty or putting pressure on pro-war legislators.

Obviously the best way to influence people is to stop charitable works and become a political organization. I think it is really important for the Catholic Church to do this because everyone in the U.S. is Catholic, there is no Constitutional separation of church and state and we all believe that an organization of never-been-married, abstinent mostly older men knows what’s best for the rest of us.

2009 Election Results: Mixed Night For Teabaggers

Here’s yesterday’s election results, as they stand right now:

VA-Gov
Bob McDonnell (R) 59%
Creigh Deeds (D) 41%
99% counted

A big win for Republicans in VA-Gov. This result was no surprise, Deeds was a crappy candidate. His problem was that he tried to run against President Obama, at one point even saying he would consider opting out of the public option. Not a good way to inspire the base. According to reports, the Republican turnout was normal but the Democratic turnout was low. This follows the them of Republicans energized, Democrats less so but it doesn’t look like a win for tea bagger.

NJ-Gov
Chris Christie (R) 49%
Jon Corzine (D) inc. 45%
Chris Daggett (I) 6%
99% counted

There were a lot of changes in this race near the end. Daggett’s support collapsed (he was up to 20% at one point last week). A lot of Daggett’s votes went to Christie and the independents went to Christie at a 2:1 rate according to exit polls. Corzine never cracked 45% in any poll, so his final number is not a surprise. Corzine had very low popularity (in the 30s) and had been involved in scandals (affair with one of his aides, car accident) and was governor during the really crappy economy. Christie was not a good candidate but Corzine was just too unpopular. Also, congratulations NJ for getting a governor with 49% unpopularity before he even steps into office.

Maine Prop 1
Yes (repeal same sex marriage) 53%
No (keep same sex marriage) 47%
87% counted

This is the biggest disappointment of the night for me. It shows that lying works (they’re going to indoctrinate your children, the horror!). I don’t think people’s civil rights should be put to a vote.

Other interesting results in Maine as well – Maine approved medical marijuana and rejected an anti-tax initiative. This was definitely not a teabagger election.

Washington State Referendum Measure 71 (domestic partnership)
Yes (approve domestic partnership) 51%
No (reject domestic partnership) 49%
100% counted

A small glimmer of hope in the fight for same sex marriage. This should give the “call it anything but marriage” crowd a boost. There was also an anti-tax initiative on the ballot that lost.

CA-10
John Garamendi (D) 53%
David Harmer (R) 43%
Others 4%
100% counted

This result is not a surprise. The seat was formerly held by Ellen Tauscher.

The most intriguing races of the night were in New York.
NY-23
Bill Owens (D) 49%
Doug Hoffman (I) 45%
DeDe Scozzafava (R) 6%
93% counted

Well, the teabaggers got their scalp with Scozzafava, but didn’t take the district. In some polls, Hoffman had led by as much as 15% over Owens. Were these polls wildly inaccurate? Probably but I think there was a lot of flux in the race at the end. How much did Scozzafava’s endorsement help Owens? Did Palin, Pawlenty, Thompson and Limbaugh (all out-of-district politicians) hurt Hoffman? How much did Hoffman’s unfamiliarity with the district hurt him? Did the reports of overzealous Hoffman supporters harassing voters make a difference?

I think the surprise election of the night was NYC-Mayor. Bloomberg was expected to cruise over former comptroller Bill Thompson and spent more than $100,000,000 of his own fortune on the race. The final results were the following:
Michael Bloomberg (I), (R) inc. 51%
Bill Thompson (D) 46%

That looks like a huge protest vote. I wonder how the democrats would have done if they had run a higher profile candidate?

Election Results Thread

We’ll be watching the results and updating you here. VA polls close at 7 pm, Maine and NJ close at 8 pm and NY polls close at 9 pm. We could actually be in for a long election if the votes are close, because then we’ll have to wait for absentee and provisional ballots to be counted.

Places I watch for results:
Talking Points Memo
Daily Kos
Fivethirtyeight

Weird election story of the night – Hoffman in NY-23 accused Democrats of slashing tires of one of his campaign workers but it turns out the campaign worker ran over a broken bottle.

A short while ago, Conservative Doug Hoffman, the special election candidate in NY-23, breathlessly announced that frustrated Dems had slashed the tires of one of his campaign workers. Right-wing yakkers rose to heights of auto-blogotic self-asphyxiation.

Alas, closer inspection suggests, and local police confirm, said poll worker ran over a bottle.

New headline: GOP campaign worker’s tires slashed by Dem bottle.

Why We Need Marriage Equality

I’ll let WWII veteran Phillip Spooner explain. He does a better job than I ever could.

Partial transcript (full transcript at the link):

[…]

I am here today because of a conversation I had last June when I was voting. A woman at my polling place asked me, “Do you believe in equal, equality for gay and lesbian people?” I was pretty surprised to be asked a question like that. It made no sense to me. Finally I asked her, “What do you think our boys fought for at Omaha Beach?” I haven’t seen much, so much blood and guts, so much suffering, much sacrifice. For what? For freedom and equality. These are the values that give America a great nation, one worth dying for.

I give talks to eighth grade teachers about World War II, and I don’t tell them about the horror. Maybe [inaudible] ovens of Buchenwald and Dachau. I’ve seen with my own eyes the consequences of caste systems and it make some people less than others, or second class. Never again. We must have equal rights for everyone. It’s what this country was started for. It takes all kinds of people to make a world war. It does make no sense that some people who love each other can marry and others can’t just because of who they are. This is what we fought for in World War II. That idea that we can be different and still be equal.

I don’t think it’s really been on the radar here at Delaware Liberal but there is a vote in November in Maine on a proposition to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Marriage equality was passed by Maine’s legislature and signed by the governor but foes of marriage equality are tireless. If you feel like helping out, you can contact the No on 1 campaign.

Marriage Equality In Vermont Today

Today Vermont began issuing wedding licenses to same-sex couples.

Vermont’s gay marriage law began taking effect at exactly midnight on Tuesday, a little over four months after state lawmakers voted to override Gov. Jim Douglas’ veto of the legislation and added to the number of states who have legalized same-sex marriages.

Some couples have already married. Everyone’s favorite crazy protestors, the Westboro Baptist Church, is on hand in the state’s capital to protest. (The Westboro Church is known for protesting at the funerals of soldiers.)

Congratulations to all the newly-wedded couples in Vermont!

SB 121 Signing Today

2nd Update: SB 121 will be signed into law by Jack Markell on Thursday, July 2 at 3:00 PM at Camp Rehoboth. Thanks MJ.

Update: The signing is postponed due to Thurman Adams’s funeral. We will update when we know the new date and time.

Today at 2 PM, Governor Markell will sign SB 121 at Camp Rehoboth. It’s been quite a fight to get this bill passed, and I would like to congratulate the people who worked so hard, for many years to get this bill passed. This bill was long overdue.

AN ACT TO AMEND TITLES 6, 9, 18, 19, 25, AND 29 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT, PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTING, HOUSING, EQUAL ACCOMMODATIONS AND THE INSURANCE BUSINESS.

Synopsis: This Act adds the term “sexual orientation” to the already-existing list of prohibited practices of discrimination. As such, this Act would forbid discrimination against a person on the basis of sexual orientation in housing, employment, public works contracting, public accommodations, and insurance. In addition, this Act would establish that the Superior Court, in the first instance, would hear and adjudicate alleged criminal violations under the Act of equal accommodations, fair housing and employment discrimination.

Tomorrow is the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, largely considered to be the beginning of the gay rights’ movement. Wikipedia:

The Stonewall riots were a series of spontaneous, violent demonstrations against a police raid that took place in the early morning hours of June 28, 1969 at the Stonewall Inn, in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of New York City. They are frequently cited as the first instance in American history when gays and lesbians fought back against a government-sponsored system that persecuted homosexuals, and they have become the defining event that marked the start of the gay rights movement in the United States and around the world.

American gays and lesbians in the 1950s and 1960s faced a legal system more anti-homosexual than those of some Warsaw Pact countries.[note 1][2] Early homophile groups in the U.S. sought to prove that gay people could be assimilated into society, and they favored non-confrontational education for homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. The last years of the 1960s, however, were very contentious, as many social movements were active, including the African American Civil Rights Movement, the Counterculture of the 1960s, and antiwar demonstrations. These influences, along with the liberal environment of Greenwich Village, served as catalysts for the Stonewall riots.

Very few establishments welcomed openly gay people in the 1950s and 1960s. Those that did were often bars, although bar owners and managers were rarely gay. The Stonewall Inn, at the time, was owned by the Mafia.[3][4] It catered to an assortment of patrons, but it was known to be popular with the most marginalized people in the gay community: transvestites, effeminate young men, hustlers, and homeless youth. Police raids on gay bars were routine in the 1960s, but officers quickly lost control of the situation at the Stonewall Inn, and attracted a crowd that was incited to riot. Tensions between New York City police and gay residents of Greenwich Village erupted into more protests the next evening, and again several nights later. Within weeks, Village residents quickly organized into activist groups to concentrate efforts on establishing places for gays and lesbians to be open about their sexual orientation without fear of being arrested.

It is quite amazing to me sometimes to think about the deep prejudice against LGBT people and how it was written into law. It’s now 2009, 40 years after Stonewall and Delaware is just now getting around to making sure LGBT people can’t be fired just for their sexual orientation? This is not to say that the gay rights movement hasn’t been successful, it’s been extremely successful. I am part of the under-40 generation that believes that being gay or lesbian is no big deal – it’s just another form of normal. We see same-sex marriage and full and open service in the military as inevitable.

To me and many others, full recognition of LGBT people is a civil rights issue, and there has been great progress. Six states now allow same-sex marriage: Massachusetts (2003), Connecticut (2008), Iowa (2009), Vermont (starting Sept. 1, 2009), Maine (starting Sept. 14, 2009) and New Hampshire (starting Jan. 1, 2010). New York and Washington, D.C. recognize same-sex marriages from other states without performing them. New Jersey and Oregon recognize civil unions and four other states recognize domestic partnerships.

A lot of work remains to make sure LGBT people have full civil rights in the U.S and the current laws are a patchwork around the country. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is still in effect and qualified men and women are removed from the military today solely based on their sexual orientation. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states and defines marriage federally as between a man and a woman, remains the law of the land. Thirty states have made same-sex marriage consitutionally prohibited. Forty states, including Delaware, have made same-sex marriage illegal by law. An attempt to prohibit same-sex marriage constitutionally in Delaware was defeated just this year.

Today let’s celebrate the success. Tomorrow it’s back to work.