Tag: marriage equality

Posted on

Maryland: Marriage Equality vote in House today

The Maryland House Judiciary looks set to vote on the Civil Marriage Protection bill today. Sponsors of the bill hold 12 of the committee’s 22 seats, making passage likely, but approval by the full House is still uncertain.

While Democrats hold a 98-43 majority in the House, it remains unclear if they have enough votes for passage. Supporters said Friday there were about 68 House delegates ready to vote in favor of the measure — a few shy of the 71 votes needed.

Governor Martin O’Malley has said he plans to sign the bill into law if it reaches his desk.

Posted on

L.A. Times: “Same-sex marriage, NOW”

In a very direct and clear editorial published today, the L.A. Times has called for gays and lesbians to be allowed to get married while the Proposition 8 case continues it’s circuitous route through the courts.

“Enough already. Gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to wed while the case works its way through the system.”

“The state Supreme Court was asked by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to rule on whether supporters of Proposition 8 have the right — known as “standing” — to continue with their case. It indicated that it would hear arguments late this year, with a ruling likely to follow a few months later. Meanwhile, a stay pending the outcome of the appeal has kept gay weddings from going forward. Now, however, the lawyers challenging Proposition 8 have asked the 9th Circuit to lift the stay and allow the weddings to take place. We agree that it should.”

I’m with the L.A. Times. A stay should be issued only if it looks like those appealing the decision will prevail. That would be the anti-gay Prop 8 supporters here. At this point, it’s very murky if those appealing even have “standing” to appeal.

Also, during the trial, the supporters of Proposition 8 were unable to identify any harm that would befall them if same-sex weddings took place.

This could possibly continue on for more than a year, and in that time gays & lesbians are, by definition, are being harmed in denying their rights. And the denial of constitutional rights is never a justifiable action.

Time to let the LGBT community have access to these important civil rights.

Posted on

Many Iowans ambivalent on same-sex marriage

From the Des Moines Register: While there are certainly strong voiced sides on the issue of marriage equality in Iowa, a new poll shows there’s also a lot of ambivalence.

In a poll conducted Feb.13-16, 37% of those polled opposed the court ruling that gives gay and lesbians the right to marry, while 32% support it – but 30% don’t care one way or the other.

On a question asking if there were a vote for a constitutional ban on same sex marriage, 38% would vote against such a ban, 35% would vote for it and 25% wouldn’t vote at all.

With the focus of the argument being taken up by the loudest voices, there is a large middle ground of Iowans who don’t find the issue compelling or worthy of the “front and center” position it seems to have taken in political discourse in Iowa.

Nick Palencsar, a 30-year-old Davenport man, is engaged to a woman and ambivalent on same-sex marriage. “It’s not my issue, and I don’t feel like my input is all that valid for that reason,” Palencsar said. “If I had to make choice, I’d probably vote against the ban.”

Aaron Lea, a self-employed painter in Des Moines with a wife and a child, says he voted against retaining the three Iowa Supreme Court judges (who voted to allow marriage equality) because he doesn’t believe in lifetime appointments, not because of their position on gay marriage. He says he wouldn’t vote on a constitutional amendment that forbids such unions. “This is so low on the priority list, it shouldn’t even be allowed on the Senate floor.” After discussing the matter for about 15 minutes, Lea said: “This is the most time I’ve spent thinking about gay marriage. Ever.”

With a large block of voters having little or no interest in either side, it would seem the issue doesn’t have much momentum in terms of repeal.

Posted on

Huckabee: no equality for LGBT “experiment”

In case anyone ever wondered why I’m so emphatic about equal rights: here you go.

This man, who ran for president, does not want gays to marry, raise kids or serve their country.

His argument against marriage rights for gays is “the majority voted this way.” Well, the “majority” wasn’t behind ending segregation in the 1960s but it was the right thing to do. The “majority” wasn’t all that keen on women’s rights, but it was the right thing to do. Society evolves.

His argument against gays serving in the military is “military leaders were against this.” That’s not so true. Many military leaders found there would be very little disruption in military service by ending DADT. A few had reservations and are now fully behind the change. Many, many countries around the world have allowed gays and lesbians to serve and it hasn’t affected military readiness a bit. AND the sky hasn’t fallen.

Society evolves kids. The fight for marriage equality isn’t an arbitrary thing. RIGHTS are attached to federal marriage recognition. Over 1,138 specific federal rights. And as tax payers living in a country where all are supposed to be equal, every American should have access to the same rights.

If not, then make “marriage” a totally religious status and require every married couple to get not only “married” in a church, but “civilly unionized” by the government that issues the marriage license and bestows those rights. And make civil unions available to all.

Whatever it takes so that all CIVILLY ISSUED RIGHTS by a CIVIL GOVERNMENT are available to EVERYONE. That is how this whole thing IS about “civil rights.”

I make no claim to changing anyone’s religious practices. But you don’t have to be religious in this country to get married. So technically speaking – these rights at the heart of this argument – are NOT about a church or religion. They are about a government that extends certain rights to one group of people and not another.

Posted on

Maryland: Marriage Equality Passes in Senate 25-21!

marylandstate 4

The Maryland State Senate just passed Marriage Equality on a vote of 25-21.

From here the Civil Marriage Protection Act goes to the more Democratic leaning House of Delegates.  Governor Martin O’Malley has indicated he has every intention of signing this bill into law.

Maryland would become the sixth state along with the District of Columbia to have marriage equality.

Go Maryland!

Posted on

Pres. Obama to Justice Dept: DOMA “unconstitutional”

Obama

According to the NY Times, in a letter sent by Attorney General Eric Holder to Congress today, the Obama Administration stated that it believes the 1996 so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (which bans the federal government from recognizing the marriages of gay and lesbian couples) is unconstitutional, and the Department of Justice will no longer defend DOMA in court.

From Attorney General Eric Holder: “After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.”

Here is a link to his full statement.

Laws that unequally affect a group protected by that test are presumptively unconstitutional, and may only be upheld if lawmakers purpose in enacting them serves a compelling governmental interest.

CA Senator Dianne Feinstein says she intends to sponsor repeal of the law: “As a Member of the Judiciary Committee, it is my intention to introduce legislation that will once and for all repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. My own belief is that when two people love each other and enter the contract of marriage, the Federal government should honor that. I opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. It was the wrong law then; it is the wrong law now; and it should be repealed.”

House Speaker John Boehner questioned the Obama administration’s decision to halt its legal defense of DOMA. “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 sharply divides the nation,” he said in a statement.

In a twist of irony, Boehner has stated that the Republicans came into their majority to create jobs and yet, since taking control of the House, they have focused on repealing health care reform and other issues with no movement on actually “creating jobs.”

Posted on

Maryland Marriage Equality Bill hits the state Senate

marylandstate 3

The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, SB 116, which passed out of committee on a vote of 7-4 was introduced to the full state Senate this morning. This bill would legalize marriage equality in the state of Maryland.

State Senator Robert Garagiola introduced the measure and in doing so emphasized that religious institutions would not be required to recognize these relationships:

“Under the terms of the Act, an official of a religious institution or body who is authorized to solemnize marriages, may not be required to solemnize any marriage in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution, or Article 36 of our Constitution. As amended, the bill also provides that a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit operated by one, may not be required to provide services accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges to an individual if the request is related to the solemnization of a marriage or celebration of marriage that is in violation of the entity’s religious beliefs.”

Debate is scheduled to occur Wednesday. Reports are that there are 24 votes, the necessary number, to pass the bill. From there the bill heads to the house of delegates where it’s expected to pass.

Governor Martin O’Malley has indicated he will sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

Posted on

CA Supreme Court to hear arguments on Prop 8 repeal

california

The CA State Supreme Court has decided to hear arguments about whether anti-gay proponents have “standing” to oppose the repeal of Prop 8 in California. March 14th is when the court will accept briefs on the issue.

From Lambda Legal: “Because the federal appeals judges said they need clarification, we look forward to a decision by the California Supreme Court confirming that initiative proponents lack legal standing to continue the Perry case. They are not law enforcers, and have the same limited rights as everyone else to litigate only when their own rights are at stake, not merely to assert their opinions about others’ rights.”

Initiative proponents also cannot step into the shoes of the attorney general, the governor or other state officials. The reason for this is basic: the governor and attorney general are elected by the people to represent all the people, not just one point of view on one issue, out of countless, competing concerns. Most importantly, state officials swear an oath to uphold the federal and state constitutions, including their abiding promises of equal protection and due process for everyone. Initiative proponents take no such oath, and have no such duties.

Should the CA Supreme Court decide the anti-gay forces have no standing to appeal, the issue dies, the repeal of Prop 8 stands and marriage equality is reinstated in CA. If the court decided the anti-gay forces do have standing, then the issue goes back to the Federal Appeals court to decide the issue. This could mean the whole magilla may end up in US Supreme Court.

Stay tuned kids…

Posted on

Indiana: House approves Marriage Equality ban

Indiana 2

In a vote of 70-26, the Indiana state House voted to approve a state constitutional amendment to not only ban same-sex marriage but “anything similar” like civil unions and domestic partnerships.

The bill now goes to the state Senate, where it look to pass there as well.

The proposal has to pass in another separately elected legislature in 2013-14 before it can go before the voters.

Sad to know that so many in Indiana like the idea of committed partners not having the same rights as straight couples.  Hospital visitation, inheritance, medical decision making…

Sure, we can go spend thousands at a lawyers office, but why should gays and lesbians have to spend all that money for a small handful of rights when heterosexual couples don’t?  Seriously kids – this isn’t the America we can be proud of.

Posted on

Full Marriage Equality coming to Britain this week?

britishflag

According to the Sunday Times in London, “A proposal to end the ban on same sex marriage will be announced by the Liberal Democrat equality minister Lynne Featherstone at the same time as the government announces the time table for civil partnerships to be held in religious buildings.”

Civil partnerships have existed in Britain since 2005 which extend many but not all of the same rights and privileges as marriage. The partnerships also are not recognized abroad.

Should full gay marriage be introduced, the only other significant legal discrimination against gay men will be the ban on donating blood, although the government have signaled in the past that they will look to end this practice.

Word is this could be introduced this week…