Gay Rights Watch

A San Francisco trial judge has reaffirmed his decision to strike down California's marriage laws on grounds that they violate the constitutional right of gay residents to be treated equally and to marry whomever they choose. (obviously)

San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer's final ruling is substantially the same as the one he issued a month ago in a pair of cases brought by a dozen same-couples and the city of San Francisco.

In it, he reiterated that that laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman discriminate against same-sex couples on the basis of gender without a legitimate state interest for doing so (oh! is that that whole thing about separation of church and state that Christians seem to forget?). He expressly dismissed the arguments brought by California's attorney general that tradition provided sufficient grounds for such discrimination.

"To say that all men and all women are treated the same in that each may not marry someone of the same gender misses the point," Kramer wrote. "The marriage laws establish classifications (same gender vs. opposite gender" and discriminate on those gender-based classifications."

The decision orders the state registrar to issue gender-neutral marriage licenses, but is stayed automatically to give opponents time to appeal. Two groups that oppose same-sex marriage have said they intend to do just that. (of course - because there aren't more important things to do with their budgets like help out the needy or the 1000's of other things they could be doing with the millions of dollars these groups are spending across the US)

Meanwhile, legislative committees in Sacramento are scheduled to hold hearings on Tuesday on a pair of bills that would ask voters to decide whether the state's existing ban on gay marriage should be moved from the statutes Kramer overturned to the California Constitution.

The proposed constitutional amendments would also strip same-sex couples who register as domestic partners of the marriage-like rights lawmakers already have granted them.

This really stuck me. What an incredible idea and just imagine the possibilities. Feel free to repost this on your own blog to help spread the word!

Hello Friends, Samantha here. As you may of heard, yesterdays Oregon Supreme Court Action has determined that I am no longer married. After a long emotional journey yesterday Kristin brought up the fact that we paid $60 for our marriage lisence and that she wanted it back. Well I have just learned that the county is issuing $60 checks to all 3,022 couples that were married last year. That's $181,320.

Personally that $60 is no longer in my cash flow so my immediate response was... give it to Basic Rights Oregon. With that $60 they can do a heck of a lot more through lawyers and lobbyists than I could do. In fact, I'd probably go spend the $60 drowning my sorrows in martinis, and that's not very productive in the fight for equality.

So I ask you to join me. If you were married, donate your $60 lisencing refund to Basic Rights Oregon. If you know someone who was married please forward this to them and encourage them to do the same. If we can get all 3,022 couples to do the same we would be making huge strides together.

Thanks,
Sam

Ok it's me again - if you got married last year and this is something that you believe in - please think about doing this. I didn't get married personally, but I am going to send them $60 as a symbol for all of my friends who did get married. This is truly a time to unite - to make a difference. Seriously - imagine if everyone did this who got married. That would be over 180,000! Imagine the lobby work that could be done! You can donate to Basic Rights Oregon online and it's super easy. Click here to make an online donation. Multnomah County is automatically sending them to all 3,022 couples. When you filed your paperwork they captured names and addressses and will be issuing checks.

After dozens of students protested a decision to bar T‑shirts reading “I Support Gay Marriage,” their high school in this Columbus, Ohio suburb has reversed itself and allowed them.

The shirts were worn by about 20 Jerome High School students on March 23, according to organizer Zach Hust, a sophomore.

The day before, the principal had demanded that a fellow student, Miles Barerra, remove his shirt with a similar message.

Hust said he didn’t think any of the students who wore the shirts are gay, and they are not part of an organized student group.

“It’s just something we felt strongly about,” said Hust. “The shirts are no different than ones that say ‘Jesus is My Homeboy’ or ‘George W. Bush for President.’ ”

Hust said the students made the shirts from white undershirts with felt-tip pens. His had a large purple heart and said “I Support Gay Marriage” on the front, and two male figures holding hands above the word “Love” on the back.

Principal Steve Best called all the students to the office and told them they had to take the shirts off or leave school for the day. One girl went home, and the others changed their shirts at school.

“We had two days left until spring break,” said Hust. “We didn’t want the shirts to become a distraction, and if we went home, we wouldn’t be learning anything.”

The next day, the shirts appeared again, joined by another 25 students wearing shirts saying “I Support Free Speech” and “I Support the First Amendment.”

The First Amendment messages were not challenged by Best.

Though none of the students were disciplined for wearing the gay marriage shirts, Best told them they were violating the school’s dress code by wearing them.

Hust said Best was concerned that those wearing the shirts would be victimized by gaybashers.

“They should punish the gaybashers, not us,” said Hust.

Best refused to comment for this report, referring questions to Dublin City Schools spokesperson Doug Baker.

“It’s a day-by-day, shirt-by-shirt judgement call the principal makes as to whether a T‑shirt message is disruptive to the educational process or is not,” said Baker. “It’s pretty simple, really.”

“We are a learning organization,” said Baker, “If anything disrupts that, it won’t be permitted. That’s the guideline for T‑shirts or anything else.”

The school’s dress code forbids clothing which advertises or promotes activities against school regulations, is obscene or suggestive of obscenities or violence, or is drug related.

The district’s policy prohibits clothes that “materially interfere with school work, create disorder, or disrupt the educational program.”

That judgment is left to the principal.

Baker said gay pride and First Amendment shirts have been worn by students in the past “without incident.”

Baker said Barerra’s shirt “was reported as ‘disruptive’ on that particular day” which was the reason he was asked to take it off. He did not elaborate as to what that meant.

Hust contacted the ACLU of Ohio, which sent a letter to the system’s superintendent, Linda Fenner.

“The ACLU of Ohio is deeply troubled by the previous actions by school officials resulting in students removing T‑shirts because of the viewpoints expressed,” wrote ACLU legal director Jeff Gamso. “It is our opinion that even the administration’s demands to remove the shirts constitutes an unconstitutional infringement on those students’ free speech rights.”

Gamso cited the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision Tinker v. Des Moines School District, which states that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to free speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

The Des Moines students were suspended for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam war.

Gamso wrote that the T‑shirts were “exactly the type of silent, unobtrusive political expression at issue in Tinker.”

Baker denied that Gamso’s letter had anything to do with the school’s change of interpretation of its dress code policy.

“The ACLU letter had nothing to do with how with how we handled this situation. I can say that for certain,” said Baker.

However, the school has changed its position.

“If the shirt in question were to be worn again, Principal Best indicated it would be permitted as long as it did not interrupt the educational process,” said Baker.

The Oregon Supreme Court on Thursday nullified nearly 3,000 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples by Multnomah County a year ago.

The court said while the county can question the constitutionality of laws governing marriage, they are a matter of statewide concern so the county had no authority to issue licenses to gay couples.

The court noted that last November, Oregonians approved a constitutional amendment that limits marriages to a man and a woman. The court also said that long before that vote, state law had set the same limitations on marriages since Oregon became a state.

"Today, marriage in Oregon - an institution once limited to opposite-sex couples only by statute - now is so limited by the state Constitution as well," the court ruling said.

The court left the door open for state legislators to craft an alternative to gay marriages, such as civil unions.

"We conclude that Oregon law currently places the regulation of marriage exclusively within the province of the state's legislative power," the court said.

A day earlier, Gov. Ted Kulongoski said he will push for a law allowing gay couples in Oregon to form civil unions that would give them many of the rights available to married couples.

Members of the Legislature have been awaiting the ruling to give them guidance on how to proceed on the issue of same-sex couples.

Vermont is the first and still the only state to offer civil unions to gays, passing a law in 2000. Massachusetts has allowed gay marriage since May.

Multnomah County began issuing marriages to gay couples last April, arguing that not doing so violated the state Constitution. A judge ordered the practice to cease about six weeks later, but not before nearly 3,000 same-sex couples had wed.

Marte Sheehan, who married Linda Duchek last March, said she was disappointed with the ruling but had hopes the Legislature would pass a bill allowing civil unions.

"I believe that ultimately the Legislature will do the right thing," she said.

The Oregon Supreme Court on Thursday invalidated the marriages of nearly 3000 same-sex couples and refused to decide whether gays and lesbians should have the same rights and benefits as married couples.

The court said while the county can question the constitutionality of laws governing marriage, they are a matter of statewide concern so the county had no authority to issue licenses to gay couples.

The decision was a victory for social conservatives who backed Measure 36, the 2004 initiative that defined marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Gay rights advocates can file a new lawsuit to seek to obtain equal benefits, but the process could take several years.

Please visit http://basicrights.blogspot.com or basicrights.org for up to date information. I will also report as I find out more details - as the ruling just got released at 8am.

Click here to view the ruling.

Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor

NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 13, 2005

GOVERNOR KULONGOSKI: ENSURE EQUAL PROTECTION AND OPPORTUNITIES TO ALL CITIZENS

Governor and State Senators strengthen anti-discrimination law and provide and protect legal rights of same-sex relationships

(Salem, OR) – Today Governor Ted Kulongoski announced that he and a bipartisan group of State Senators introduced legislation that would outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation and provide legal protections and recognition of committed, same-sex relationships through a civil union.

"As I stated in January, we face a great moral challenge to make sure opportunity is an open door through which every citizen can pass – not a revolving door which turns for some and doesn't budge for others," Governor Kulongoski said. "Those doors are only open for all Oregonians when social justice, tolerance and diversity are protected for every individual – in both their professional and personal life. This measure represents a united effort to help us reach this goal as we continue to grow our economy and move our state forward as truly one Oregon."

Senate Bill 1000 would:

Amend Oregon's existing non-discrimination laws to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, employment, public accommodation, education and public services statewide; and

Amend ORS chapter 106 to create civil unions, defined as a civil contract entered into by two members of the same sex who are at least 17 years of age and are not first cousins or nearer of kin, and are not parties to a marriage or another civil union. While a civil union is not a marriage, it would impose the legal protections, rights and responsibilities generally afforded to opposite sex couples through marriage.

The bill is co-sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown (D-Portland) and Senators Frank Morse (R-Albany), Ben Westlund (R-Tumalo) and Alan Bates (D-Ashland).

"This bill is a bipartisan effort to act on our collective conscience as a state and send a message that Oregon intends to keep its promise of fairness and equality to all Oregonians and their families," said Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown. "When any group of Oregonians is treated unequally under the law, it affects each of us in the Oregon community."

"Forming a family is a fundamental right. Oregon should provide a framework that offers legal protections to any loving, committed couple that wants to become a family," said Senator Ben Westlund. "As a state, we cannot allow some of our citizens to be deprived of rights guaranteed to others. I'm not supporting this legislation to give special rights to gays and lesbians; I'm supporting it because gays and lesbians are human beings."

"We should be encouraging loving, lasting and committed partnerships and the healthy families they create," said Senator Alan Bates. "I believe that all Oregonians should be treated equally under our laws. To deny gays and lesbians some form of civil union is to deny them basic rights that are provided to everyone else – to take care of a sick partner, to obtain joint health insurance, to transfer property, and many more. These are rights that should be afforded all families in Oregon."

Tomorrow the Oregon State Supreme Court will release their opinion on the fate of the 3021 same-sex marriages that began in March 2004. This is a huge decision for us all. For more info visit:

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/supremeWednesday.htm

Six possibilities courtesy of Basic Rights Oregon:

We Win Civil Unions & Same-Sex Marriages of 2004 Are Deemed Valid and Legal

The Ruling:

§ We win a declaration from the court that the State has a constitutional obligation to extend all of the benefits and protections of marriage to same-sex couples through a civil union system.

§ The court upholds those marriages performed last year as valid because they were lawfully entered into and Measure 36 can not retroactively invalidate those marriages.

What it Would Mean:

§ This decision is the win/win that we hope for and would represent an enormous victory for fairness and equality for same-sex couples and their families in the State of Oregon and a giant step forward in the struggle for full equality.

§ Basic Rights Oregon has drafted a civil union bill that would satisfy the court’s ruling and extend every benefit, protection and responsibility afforded to opposite-sex couples in Oregon through marriage, which could be quickly introduced after the decision.

We Win Civil Unions & Same-Sex Marriages of 2004 Are Nullified

The Ruling:

§ We win a declaration from the court that the State has a constitutional obligation to extend all of the benefits and protections of marriage to same-sex couples through a civil union system.

§ The court invalidates those marriages performed last year because it determines that they were not lawfully entered into or the court could rule that the marriages were valid prior to the passage of Measure 36, but can no longer be recognized by the State of Oregon because of the passage of Measure 36.

What it Would Mean:

§ This ruling would represent an enormous victory for fairness and equality for same-sex couples and their families in the State of Oregon and a giant step forward in the struggle for full equality.

§ It is clear, however, that this decision would also be an enormously difficult moment for same-sex couples who would see their marriages painfully revoked and a very sad time for all of us who know someone who would be personally affected in this way.

§ Basic Rights Oregon has drafted a civil union bill that would satisfy the court’s ruling and extend every benefit, protection and responsibility afforded to opposite-sex couples in Oregon through marriage, which could be quickly introduced after the decision.

We Do Not Win Civil Unions & Same-Sex Marriages of 2004 Are Nullified

The Ruling:

§ The court determines that there is no constitutional obligation to provide equal benefits and protections to same-sex relationships through a civil union or any other mechanism.

§ The court invalidates those marriages performed last year because it determines that they were unlawfully entered into or the court could rule that the marriages were valid prior to the passage of Measure 36, but can no longer be recognized by the State of Oregon because of the passage of Measure 36.

What it would mean:

§ This ruling would be a major setback for fairness and equality for same-sex couples and their families in the State of Oregon and a step backward in the struggle for full equality.

§ But, this decision would be the close of just one chapter in a long movement. It is not the end of the story or the end of our struggle. Growing public understanding and the momentum of history are on our side.

§ We wouldn’t give up. And, although our task certainly would become more difficult under this ruling, we would continue to call on the Oregon Legislature to act immediately to pass civil union legislation this session.

§ Basic Rights Oregon has drafted a civil union bill that would extend every benefit, protection and responsibility afforded to opposite-sex couples in Oregon through marriage, which could be quickly introduced after the decision.

The Li/Kennedy Case is Sent Back to the Trial Court & Same-Sex Marriages of 2004 Are Deemed Valid & Legal

The Ruling:

§ The court could determine that various parts of the case were not adequately considered by lower courts before being presented to the Supreme Court (for instance, new issues that arose as a result of the passage of Measure 36). Under such a scenario, the case would be sent back to the trial court that made the original ruling in the case for development of those issues.

§ The court upholds those marriages performed last year as valid because they were lawfully entered into and Measure 36 can not retroactively invalidate those marriages.

What it would mean:

§ This decision would represent an enormous victory for all same-sex couples married in Oregon in 2004 and for those elected officials who had the courage to honor their duty to uphold the constitution for all Oregonians equally.

§ While we would be disappointed in a ruling that would allow murky legal issues to persist for some time, this ruling would be significant in that the court would not have ruled against us on the fundamental merits of our case.

§ The experiences of the last year have made us more prepared than ever to successfully argue this case if we are required to do so again. We feel confident that, if not now, Oregon courts will eventually put an end to the exclusion of committed same-sex couples from the protections and responsibilities other Oregon couples count on.

§ If this litigation were to continue, it would allow us an ongoing opportunity to have a statewide conversation about how Oregon same-sex couples and their families are harmed by their exclusion from equal protections and responsibilities for their relationships.

§ In addition, this case would proceed along a path parallel to the legal challenge to Measure 36, filed in Marion County Court in January.

§ We wouldn’t give up. Basic Rights Oregon has drafted a civil union bill that would extend every benefit, protection and responsibility afforded to opposite-sex couples in Oregon through marriage, which could be quickly introduced after the decision.

§ We would continue to call on the Oregon Legislature to act immediately to pass civil union legislation this session and work step by step for full equality in the end.

The Li/Kennedy Case is Sent Back to the Trial Court & Same-Sex Marriages of 2004 Are Nullified

The Ruling:

§ The court could determine that various parts of the case were not adequately considered by lower courts before being presented to the Supreme Court (for instance, new issues as a result of the passage of Measure 36). Under such a scenario, the case would be sent back to the trial court that made the original ruling in the case for development of those issues.

§ The court invalidates those marriages performed last year because it determines that they were entered into unlawfully or the court could rule that the marriages were valid prior to the passage of Measure 36, but can no longer be recognized by the State of Oregon because of the passage of Measure 36.

What it would mean:

§ While we would be disappointed in a ruling that would allow murky legal issues to persist for some time, this ruling would be significant in that the court would not have ruled against us on the fundamental merits of our case.

§ The experiences of the last year have made us more prepared than ever to successfully argue this case if we are required to do so again. We feel confident that, if not now, Oregon courts will eventually put an end to the exclusion of committed same-sex couples from the protections and responsibilities other Oregon couples count on.

§ If this litigation continues, it will allow us an ongoing opportunity to have a statewide conversation about how Oregon same-sex couples and their families are harmed by their exclusion from equal protections and responsibilities for their relationships.

§ In addition, this case will proceed along a path parallel to the legal challenge to Measure 36, filed in Marion County Court in January.

§ The positive aspects of this decision, however, would be overshadowed by the enormously difficult moment for same-sex couples who would see their marriages painfully revoked and the sadness all of us would feel for our friends and family who would be personally affected in this way.

§ We won’t give up. We wouldn’t give up. Basic Rights Oregon has drafted a civil union bill that would extend every benefit, protection and responsibility afforded to opposite-sex couples in Oregon through marriage, which could be quickly introduced after the decision.

§ We will continue to call on the Oregon Legislature to act immediately to pass civil union legislation this session and work step by step for full equality in the end.

The Li/Kennedy Case is Sent Back to the Trial Court With No Ruling on Any Issues in the Case

The Ruling:

§ The court could determine that various parts of the case were not adequately considered by lower courts before being presented to the Supreme Court (for instance, new issues as a result of the passage of Measure 36). Under such a scenario, the case would be sent back to the trial court that made the original ruling in the case for development of those issues.

§ In this scenario, there would be no final legal clarity on any issues raised in the Li/Kennedy case until the case again reached the Oregon Supreme Court.

What it Would Mean:

§ While we would be disappointed in a ruling that would allow murky legal issues to persist for some time, this ruling would be significant in that the court would not have ruled against us on ANY of the merits of our case.

§ The experiences of the last year have made us more prepared than ever to successfully argue this case if we are required to do so again. We feel confident that, if not now, Oregon courts will eventually put an end to the exclusion of committed same-sex couples from the protections and responsibilities other Oregon couples count on.

§ If this litigation continues, it will allow us an ongoing opportunity to have a statewide conversation about how Oregon same-sex couples and their families are harmed by their exclusion from equal protections and responsibilities for their relationships.

§ In addition, this case will proceed along a path parallel to the legal challenge to Measure 36, filed in Marion County Court in January.

§ We won’t wait for the courts to decide this issue. We wouldn’t give up. Basic Rights Oregon has drafted a civil union bill that would extend every benefit, protection and responsibility afforded to opposite-sex couples in Oregon through marriage, which could be quickly introduced after the decision.

§ We will continue to call on the Oregon Legislature to act immediately to pass civil union legislation this session and work step by step for full equality in the end.

Remember:

The outcomes discussed above are by no means an exhaustive list of the range of possible decisions. It is possible that the court could reach a decision not discussed here or one that is more nuanced and complex than what we have described. No matter what the ruling, the decision will be handed down with little warning. Even Basic Rights Oregon, the ACLU, the plaintiff couples and attorneys in the case will get no more than 24 hours notice. We will make every attempt to let you know via our email update and our website when we know that a decision is imminent. On the day that the decision is released, your best source of up-to-date information will be the Basic Rights Oregon website. Check back often for news and updates.

The Massachusetts legislature is considering the repeal of a 1913 law that bars issuing wedding licenses to people whose marriages would be illegal in other states. But, it also will look at three other bills to block all same-sex marriages in the state.

Shortly after Massachusetts's highest court ruled in 2003 that the state could not bar gays and lesbians from marrying (story) Gov. Mitt Romney declared that the 1913 law prevented town clerks from issuing licenses to couples who do not reside in Massachusetts. (story)

The law had been created when Massachusetts legalized interracial marriage and faced an outcry from other states which still banned the unions. Even then, the law was seldom enforced. After the US Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that preventing interracial marriage was illegal and struck down bans in those states which still prevented them the Massachusetts law collected dust.

"We have a chance to eliminate a law whose origins are in discrimination, a law that has no place on the books in Massachusetts," said openly gay State Sen. Jarrett Barrios (D-Cambridge).

The old law is also being challenged in court. Lawyers for out of state same-sex couples seeking to wed in Massachusetts argued their case in the Supreme Judicial Court last month. (story)

The bill before the legislature has broad support but its passage is not guaranteed. If does make it through the House and Senate it would likely face a veto from Romney.

"We like it when couples who are straight come to Massachusetts. Why should we be afraid of gay and lesbian couples coming to Massachusetts?" Josh Friedes of the Freedom to Marry Coalition said.

The Judiciary Committee is also considering three bills put forward by State Rep. Emile J. Goguen (D-Fitchburg) one of the state's most ardent opponents of same-sex marriages.

One is a new proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage without providing a civil union option. A proposed amendment which allowed for civil unions was approved last year and must get secondary approval this year before it could be put to voters.

The second bill would declare all gay marriages already performed in Massachusetts to be without statutory basis. The third would remove Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, along with justices John Greaney, Roderick Ireland and Judith Cowin, who authored the majority opinion legalizing same sex marriage.

"In the infamous Goodridge decision, these four judges established rights not found in our constitution and then set a 180-day deadline for the Legislature to amend the constitution," Goguen told the committee. "The judges knew very well that the process for amending the constitution requires considerably more time than the 180 days."

Goguen added that "no Legislature can or should be required by a court pursuing some extra-legal agenda to play beat the clock when it comes to our legislative duties."

365gay.com

I‘m getting tired of the gay marriage debate in this country. There are no intelligent reasons to deny gay people the right to marry, only homophobic myths. These include: The Bible says homosexuality, and thus gay marriage, is wrong. Gay marriage is harmful to the institution of marriage. It will promote homosexuality, and "turn" young people gay. And gay people don’t need to be married, because civil unions provide the same legal rights as marriage.

First, evidence that the Bible condemns homosexuality is shaky. According to Yale professor John Boswell’s book, "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality" "The New Testament takes no demonstrable position on homosexuality." In the Old Testament, Boswell writes that only two passages in Leviticus clearly forbid homosexuality, calling it an abomination that is punishable by death. However, Leviticus also punishes adultery, cursing one’s parents and being a wizard with death. We better hang Bill Clinton, Gandalf and any kid who swears at mom and dad. Not everything in the Bible should be held up as how society should be.

Second, two NIU sociology professors don’t think gay relationships have caused the decline in the number of heterosexual marriages. According to Kei Nomaguchi, assistant professor in sociology, more gay families haven’t caused a decline in heterosexual marriage at all, but are instead a result of it. Marriage is declining because of changes in gender roles and a tolerance of divorce, which isn’t all bad. Many women won’t put off a career for marriage or tolerate abusive marriages.

Chet Meeks, assistant professor in sociology, reminded me that the tradition of marriage once included polygamy, arranged marriages and legally-recognized spousal battery. Change is often better than tradition. Not all change is good, though. Meeks said marriage is also declining because popular culture reduces relationships to superficialities. When "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire" or "The Bachelor" links America’s wedding vows with dollar signs or hairstyles, gay marriage is not the institution’s real problem.

Third, homosexuality or gay marriage won’t "turn" anyone gay. A 2002 American Academy of Pediatrics report stated that children raised by couples in a non-traditional relationship do as well as those in traditional marriages. Quoted in U.S. News and World Report, the report found "no increase in depression, anxiety, gender identity problems or adjustment problems" in such children.

Finally, civil unions do not provide the same rights as marriage. The 1996 Defense of Marriage defines marriage as between a man and a woman, for purposes of federal law. It also lets states refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. So gay couples can’t file jointly on their federal taxes or have their union recognized if they move to the wrong state.

These ideas don’t stand up to scrutiny. Myths cannot be allowed to deny people fundamental human rights, like marriage. What is truly pathetic is that I’ll probably get more responses to this column than the ones I did on murder or genocide. If you need something to protest, I’d suggest the ethnic cleansing occurring in Darfur, which has killed more than 100,000 people.

Daniel is going to have a field day leaving comments on this one. Bring it on.

Will we, GLBTQ Americans, ever see full and equal civil marriage rights? It depends on whom you listen to, of course, but I so strongly believe we will that I consider it inevitable, a foregone conclusion. But I don't put a timeline on it and the path to achieving full marriage equality is anything but clear and hazard-free.

I think our biggest obstacle, not unlike in Canada, is organized religion. We are all too familiar with the prophesies of the late pope, John Paul II and his minions, so I won't repeat them here. The vitriol being spewed is certainly not limited to Catholicism, or even Christianity. We find our people being defined as America's 'new minority', as if we are just now coming into existence, and we are the easy scapegoats for everything that is wrong in our culture, especially as it relates to 'traditional families' and their 'values'. We share this position with our sisters and brothers around the globe.

In the United States we make the specious claim of separation of church and state. It is obvious to all and applauded by too many that public officials base some of their public policy decisions on their religious beliefs. Public policy is supposed to be for the benefit of all, and it should not be based on religious doctrine or dogma. Challenges to civil liberties and human rights from religious organizations are as old as organized religion itself, but since the inauguration of George W. Bush, the caving in to religious belief, especially conservative Christian doctrine, has been stunning. Tax dollars now favor faith-based organizations, clearly a violation of our American tradition of the First Amendment separation clause. The Bush policy of building an economy built on war, destruction and death seems an extreme contradiction to what the Bible purportedly teaches.

I will assume that religious-based arguments about civil marriage are all too familiar to most readers of this article, so I will leave those sophistical debates for another day. Outside the realm of sacred vs. secular marriage what I find profoundly disturbing is the effect that 'gay marriage' - I much prefer the term 'marriage equality' - is having on our form of government. Our whole system of government seems to be under attack, with marriage equality positioned as the springboard of right wing hegemony.

Years ago it was the battle between 'family values' (whose family and what values?) and 'special rights' (oh yes, marriage is a special right, when you have it and I don't, it is special for you.) Now our opponents have coined the term 'activist judges' and want to dismantle our system of checks and balances. Well, OK, to be fair, they only label judges as 'activists' when one rules in a way that doesn't align with their religious or zealous right wing beliefs.

In 2004 eleven of the thirteen states that amended their constitutions to limit the right to marry between one man and one women (rarely, if ever, between one woman and one man, and in no case until death do them part) did so on the same day that George W. Bush finally got elected to the presidency. This spectacular show of bigotry reinvigorated the opponents of marriage equality. Legislatures in other states, particularly in the South, have since jumped on the bandwagon and used their own state's legal system to install a system of class privilege for citizens who fit their definition of which citizens are allowed to have which rights. In early April 2005 Kansas became the 18th state to change their constitution to deny rather than extend a particular right to a particular class of people. There is little doubt that other states will soon follow.

On the other side of the coin we have states that are progressing towards marriage equality. Massachusetts is the only state that grants full and equal state level marriage to same-sex couples, while Vermont has civil unions and California has a fairly comprehensive domestic partner registry. Connecticut is about to pass a civil unions bill, and if that happens they will be the first to do so without being ordered by a court.

Here in the state of Washington we await a decision by our State Supreme Court on the issue of marriage equality. We in the GLBTQ community are very hopeful, because of our progressive state constitution, that we will get a favorable decision. If that happens Washington will be the first state in the Union where same-sex couples can come from anywhere on the planet to get married. Unlike Massachusetts, we have no archaic laws prohibiting people from out of state from coming here to get married.

Assuming we get a favorable Supreme Court decision the bigger questions will be, when? and, what happens after that? Our state constitution is much more difficult to amend than those of other states. The first requirement is that two-thirds of both houses of our legislature have to approve a constitutional amendment to be sent to the people for a majority vote. That dual two thirds vote is our greatest hope. Most of us in the GLBTQ activist community feel that as long as we have a Democratic majority in at least one house of the legislature, we are safe. However, that is now coming into question as we experience a Democratic majority in both houses that after 28 years of pushing a gay civil rights bill, is still unable to get it to the governor's desk.

If we win marriage equality by court order, the pressure on the Democrats to send an amendment to the ballot will be close to if not unprecedented. As for the Republicans, with some exceptions, they are basically against anything that advances the equality of GLBTQ people.

It has been a long row to hoe, and the end isn't in sight. Even if Washington becomes the second state to give us full marriage equality, there is the ongoing threat of a federal constitutional amendment. That would set us back for a generation or more. Only once has the US Constitution been amended to limit people's rights. That was Prohibition, and it took over a decade to repeal that.

The other threat is civil unions. Although this status gives same-sex couples many of the rights and benefits of marriage - rights and benefits that are sorely needed - it still represents second-class citizenship. The bigger danger is that civil unions could become acceptable, even expected, by a majority of both the straight and gay population, instead of the fall back position of the right. I hope wherever they are imposed that they are just an incremental step toward full and equal marriage, but I have my misgivings.

At this writing Canada is on the verge of an historic vote for nationwide marriage equality. We in the states are watching that very closely. Of course we want a favorable outcome. Of course we are a nervous as you are about it. Our concern is somewhat self-serving. If Canada can do it and the sky doesn't fall (it won't), then that weakens the argument that extending marriage rights in the States is the death knell of marriage.

We have come a long way and have a long way to go. Canada has been an inspiration to all of us in the United States. I have no plans of giving up the battle until we reach our goal. There are plenty of minefields to cross, but my faith doesn't waiver. I am totally convinced that we are going to make it. There will be bumps in the road, detours and setbacks, but we are going to make it. And when we do we can move on to correct other injustices in the world.

Written by Bill Dubay