Sounds like a joke huh? It's not. Disgraced Republicans David Vitter (Louisiana) and Larry Craig (Idaho) both signed on as sponsors for another attempt on a federal marriage amendment which I believe has already failed 3 times in previous years.

OK, so it's not news that politicians are hypocrites. But, my goodness. This just takes the hypocritical cake. As reported by PageOneQ.com, two infamous senators have signed on to the bill of Mississippi Republican Sen. Roger Wicker to establish a constitutional amendment codifying marriage as between a man and a woman.

You probably only need two guesses as to which two senators announced they were co-sponsoring the bill today -- David "John" Vitter and Larry "Wide Stance" Craig. The actual wording of the amendment and the status of Vitter and Craig as co-sponsors can be seen here.

I mean, really now. How much further down the rabbit hole can we go? A man who pleaded guilty to lewd conduct in propositioning an undercover police officer for anonymous sex in a bathroom, and a man who allegedly has a diaper fetish exerting their moral authority over the rest of us. How can it have come to this?

Get the rest of the story here.

Labels: another disgraced Republican, constitutional amendment, dick of the week, federal, marriage

"In papers filed four days after the legalized same-sex weddings began around the state, advocacy groups argued that the measure would change the state's Constitution so profoundly that it would amount to a revision. Under the law, the Constitution cannot be revised by initiative alone - a two-thirds legislative approval is also needed before the measure goes to the voters. 'If enacted, (the November initiative) would eviscerate the principle of equal citizenship for gay and lesbian people and strip the courts of their authority to enforce basic constitutional guarantees,' said Stephen Bomse, lawyer for the groups."

via SF Gate

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

It's official. In a unanimous vote, the California Supreme Court has rejected a stay in marriage equality. Same-sex couples will now be able to begin getting married on June 17th.

Via SfGate:

The California Supreme Court refused today to put its ruling allowing same-sex marriages on hold until the issue goes before state voters in November, clearing the way for gay and lesbian weddings to begin June 17.

The justices' unanimous vote to deny a stay sought by two conservative organizations will allow thousands of same-sex couples, from California and other states, to marry before the Nov. 4 vote on a state constitutional amendment that would overturn the ruling. If the amendment passes, the court will have to decide whether those marriage are valid.

In a separate vote today, the court denied reconsideration of its 4-3 decision May 15 that struck down the law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. That law was passed by the Legislature in 1977 and reaffirmed by the voters in a 2000 ballot measure.

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

An initiative that would again ban marriage between committed same-sex couples in California has qualified for the November ballot, the Secretary of State announced Monday.

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen said a random check of signatures submitted by the measure's sponsors showed that they had gathered enough names for it to be put to voters.

The measure would amend the state constitution to "provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Here comes the $25 million fight to November. Please folks - head on over to Equality for All or Equality California's issue PAC and make a donation - even if it is $25 dollars.

Labels: anti-gay, california, marriage

Saying he would defend the California Supreme Court's May 15 ruling, California Attorney General Jerry Brown urged the court to reject petitions by anti-gay groups who seek to delay the ruling until after the November elections:

"'This historic litigation is now concluded,' wrote Senior Assistant Atty. Gen. Christopher E. Krueger in a brief filed with the high court. 'It is time for these proceedings to end.' In the brief, Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown said he plans to enforce the court's May 15 ruling 'with no less vigor' than he previously sought to defend state laws that limited marriage to opposite-sex couples. California's change of heart came as 10 other states, including Florida and Utah, filed a brief in support of a request by gay marriage opponents to delay the effective date of the court ruling. The offices of attorneys general of Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah protested that their states, which restrict marriage to unions of a man and a woman, would be inundated by litigation seeking to have them recognize same-sex nuptials in California."

The L.A. Times notes that "the mere filing of the petition could delay same-sex marriages until mid-July, or, at the latest, mid-August, court officials said.

via Towleroad and via LA Times

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

Gov. David Paterson has directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada.

In a directive issued on May 14, the governor's legal counsel, David Nocenti, instructed the agencies that gay couples married elsewhere "should be afforded the same recognition as any other legally performed union."

The revisions are most likely to involve as many as 1,300 statutes and regulations in New York governing everything from joint filing of income tax returns to transferring fishing licenses between spouses.

In a videotaped message given to gay community leaders at a dinner on May 17, Mr. Paterson described the move as "a strong step toward marriage equality." And people on both sides of the issue said it moved the state closer to fully legalizing same-sex unions in this state.

via NYT

Labels: marriage, new york

Labels: 2008 Presidential Election, ellen degeneres, marriage, mccain

On today's Ellen (taped yesterday) she talks about the CA Supreme Court decision and swiftly announces that she is going to marry her long-time partner Portia de Rossi.

via TMZ:

A spy in the audience of this afternoon's taping of the "Ellen DeGeneres Show" tells us that after Ellen mentioned today's California Supreme Court ruling striking down the state's ban on gay marriage, she surprised everyone and announced that she was going to tie the knot with longtime girlfriend, actress Portia de Rossi.

Portia was in the crowd and after she made the announcement, the studio audience went wild, giving the two a huge standing O.

CONGRATS ELLEN!

Labels: california, ellen degeneres, marriage

As a Californian for the first 18 years of my life I could not be more proud. Yesterday morning when the decision came out from the California Supreme Court, my mom and dad who still live there called me to say how happy they were about this landmark decision. It was pretty cute.

There are so many questions though surrounding the longevity of this decision considering there is a big possibility that anti-gay groups will have the signatures validated for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Here are a couple of tidbits I found out after researching the issue and how this court decision will play out.

Ruling goes into effect in 30 days, Governor Schwarzenegger who supports this court decision and opposes any constitutional ban, could take action and make the ruling effective sooner than that 30 day window.

Anti-gay groups could try to get a stay on this ruling until November, although I cannot see the court granting this motion seeing how bold their language in this ruling was.

If a constitutional amendment was to pass in November, it sounds as if the court could invalidate that as they have already ruled, that based on equal protection, same-sex couples have the fundamental right to marry.

In the decision it is mentioned that if there was an initiative passed by the electorate, that said marriage could only for for those couples of the opposite sex, that it would fly in the face of what the CA supreme court is now a constitutional right that is open to everyone. Therefore the constitutional ban, if passed could be invalidated and found unconstitutional.

A poll by Survey USA has found that 46% or Californian's agree with the decision, 46% oppose it.

The above number is a huge jump down from the 62% of Californian's who voted for Prop 22 in 2000 that made a statutory change in California law defining marriage between a man and a woman.

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

The California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

The justices released the 4-3 decision Thursday, saying that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

The cases were brought by the city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples, Equality California and another gay rights group in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march that took place at Mayor Gavin Newsom's direction.

Because this is a state issue, the decision cannot be appealed to a higher level of court. This is the end of this saga. Come November though there is a good chance that a constitutional amendment will be on the ballot. The question then is whether or not this ruling will have an effect on that if it was to be appeal after November should the voters approve discrimination in the California Constitution.

The ruling can be read here.

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

The question they will answer:
Does California's statutory ban on marriage between two persons of the same sex violate the California Constitution by denying equal protection of the laws on the basis of sexual orientation or sex, by infringing on the fundamental right to marry, or by denying the right to privacy and freedom of expression?

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

Tomorrow at 10am, the California Supreme Court will make their ruling on whether California's marriage ban will be upheld or not.

Stay tuned.

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

Last week California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger came out and came out strong against an anti-marriage equality initiative currently in the works in California. His strong opposition to the anti-marriage initiative surprised many of us as he vetoed two marriage equality bills within the last two years. Here's the video in case you missed it. More about a possible victory in the Supreme Court after the jump.



Today, there are rumors that a source close to the CA Supreme Court said something like this:

Sources wishing to remain anonymous in the California Court System indicate that the court, which has until June 2, 2008 to issue it's marriage ruling, is considering issuing it on Friday, May 23, 2008, with the decision being written by Chief Justice Ronald George. The Court is readying itself for a backlash that may follow the rumored and bold decision. There is talk that the Court will not simply strike down Proposition 22, but will move the State of California toward full marriage, if not even granting full marriage rights for gays and lesbians outright.

Obviously aware of what's coming, Gov. Schwarzenegger came out swinging against the FRC's proposed amendment...

While little can be said about the credibility of the 'source' - it does give fair-minded Americans hope for equality for all. It's crazy to think back to my senior year of high school (in 2000) while living in the Bay Area and Prop. 22 passed.

Maybe there is hope. Stay tuned.

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

That's right - right here in the grand ol' United States of America a committed couple could face jail time for wanting to be married. Their trial started this morning.

The trial for lesbian couple Kate Burns and Sheila Schroeder is scheduled for 8:30 a.m. Monday, April 14th at the Denver City and County Building located at 1437 Bannock Street, in Courtroom 117M. The two were arrested for trespassing on September 24, 2007 when they peacefully remained at the Denver Clerk and Recorder Office after being denied the opportunity to apply for a marriage license. Burns and Schroeder will be represented by lead counsel Mari Newman of Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP. Their sit-in protest was an effort to achieve basic fairness and marriage equality for all of Colorado's families. Numerous religious leaders have registered their endorsement for the couple by submitting affidavits in support of marriage equality.

"Ms. Burns and Ms. Schroeder are proud participants in one of America's greatest traditions: speaking out publicly against injustice. Strong and committed individuals like Kate and Sheila are responsible for some of our greatest civil rights achievements from the signing of the Declaration of Independence, to the end of racial segregation, to the legalization of multiracial marriages. One wonders what the current state of our country would be without civil rights heroes like Kate and Sheila. I am proud to represent them," said attorney Mari Newman.

When asked about her decision to participate in their September 24 action, Sheila said, "In the four years since my partner and I had our commitment ceremony, we have experienced numerous acts of discrimination. We are denied the ability to file taxes together. We experienced panic when I had a potentially dangerous health crisis and we had no security that she could attend to me in the hospital. We have spent thousands of dollars in legal fees to combine our property and insure our rights as a couple-when heterosexual couples are granted all of this free without question. This discrimination is unconstitutional and unconscionable. It is my patriotic duty to stand against this discrimination. The world needs more love and more support for loving couples. My church supports this fundamental notion and now it's time my government does too."

Speaking about the continuation of this campaign in Denver and her participation in the action on Sep 24, Kate Burns said, "As a life-long Unitarian Universalist, I seek to practice my religion by marrying my life partner in the church where I grew up. My religion does not condemn love simply because it happens between partners of the same gender. Legislation that prevents me from marrying my partner interferes with the free exercise of my faith tradition and imposes the viewpoint of one religious view-which opposes our union-on all citizens. My union with my partner, Sheila, is a life-long commitment founded on love and respect for each other. I will not allow an unjust law tell me that we are not worthy of being married. Following the principles of nonviolent resistance, I will do whatever it takes to shed light on the immoral and discriminatory legislation that denies basic human rights to us as a couple, and to all lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people."

Absolutely ridiculous that they are even in court. So much for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Labels: colorado, marriage

Supporters of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages likely will have to wait at least another four years after a key House leader decided he won't consider legislation that passed the Senate.

Conservative activists and lawmakers expressed frustration Friday with the decision by Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, not to hear Senate Joint Resolution 7, the legislation that included the constitutional ban.

Pelath's decision did not come as a surprise because earlier this session, he refused to hear a House version of the legislation in his Rules Committee. His decision not to hear the Senate version of the proposal, however, is significant because it likely wipes out a decision by the General Assembly in 2005 to pass the measure.

In order to amend the constitution, two consecutively elected legislatures must pass the measure, and voters must approve it in a general election.

Read the rest here.

Labels: constitutional amendment, indiana, marriage

With Freedom To Marry Week ending, Evan Wolfson, of Freedom To Marry, wrote an insightful piece on the Huffington Post.

As Americans across the country celebrate Freedom to Marry Day today, seizing the opportunity to have conversations with family members, friends, and coworkers about the importance of ending same-sex couples' exclusion from marriage, hopefully they'll talk a lot about gay couples and why marriage matters -- without saying "gay marriage" and "same-sex marriage." Same-sex couples, their kids and loved ones, and those of us who favor equal justice in America are not working to win "gay marriage." We are working to win the freedom to marry, ending the current unfair denial of marriage to those who are already doing the work of marriage in their own lives.

Phrases such as "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage" imply that same-sex couples are asking for something other than marriage. They imply that same-sex couples deserve something different or lesser than the security, protections, safety-net, and respect that married couples cherish. (PDF) And they play into the right-wing's fear-mongering that gay people are a threat to marriage, that equality and inclusion would somehow unacceptably "redefine" the law (in a country dedicated to those very values), and that "Defense of Marriage" is the answer to committed couples seeking to participate in a precious institution.

Read his entire piece here.

Labels: marriage

I know we've posted this before, but today feels like a good day for a refresher. 'Let California Ring' is a massive public education project - educating Californians about why marriage equality matters. Their commercial is below. PS - They need to raise money to help get this on more airwaves. Have 10 bucks? Make a contribution. Link below the video.



Like the video? Want to see marriage equality in California? Go here to watch again and to donate - even if it is 10 bucks. It all helps.

Labels: california, marriage, video

From CNN:

Two men sealed the state's first legal same-sex marriage with a kiss Friday morning, less than 24 hours after a judge threw out Iowa's ban on gay marriage and about two hours before he put the ruling on hold.

It was a narrow window of opportunity.

Thursday afternoon, Polk County Judge Robert Hanson temporarily cleared the way for same-sex couples across the state to apply for marriage licenses in Polk County.

He ruled that Iowa's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which allowed marriage only between a man and a woman, violated the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection of six gay couples who had sued.

County attorney John Sarcone promised a quick appeal, and he asked Hanson to stay his ruling until the appeal was resolved.

A dozen gay and lesbian couples were waiting at the county recorder's office when it opened Friday morning.

By late morning, 20 had applied for marriage licenses when Recorder Julie Haggerty announced that she had been instructed to stop accepting the applications. Hanson later said the judge had formally stayed his ruling.

The judge's stay means the recorder's office is not permitted to accept any more marriage applications from gay couples until the Iowa Supreme Court rules on the county's appeal.

The whole story here.

Labels: iowa, lawsuit, marriage, victory

From Lambda Legal:

Iowa Court Issues Decision in Lambda Legal's Historic Lawsuit: Same-Sex Couples Must Be Allowed to Marry

'THIS DECISION BRINGS TO LIFE THE IOWA CONSTITUTION’S PROMISE OF EQUALITY FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES AND THEIR FAMILIES IN IOWA.'

(Des Moines, IA, August 30, 2007)--A 63 page decision issued today by the Iowa District Court for Polk County said that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry based on the Iowa Constitution's guarantee of equal treatment under the law. The case was filed by Lambda Legal on behalf of six same-sex couples and their families in Iowa.

"This decision brings to life the Iowa Constitution's promise of equality for same-sex couples and their families in Iowa," said Camilla Taylor, Senior Staff Attorney in Lambda Legal's Midwest Regional Office in Chicago.

"This is a significant step forward in recognizing the constitutional rights of all Iowans, and it's an amazing day for same-sex couples and their families all across Iowa," said Dennis Johnson of Dorsey and Whitney, co-counsel for the Plaintiffs with Lambda Legal.

In his decision, Judge Robert B. Hanson said, "Couples, such as Plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 595 by reason of the fact that both persons compromising such a couple are of the same sex."

Read entire press release here.

Read the full court decision here.

Here is background on the case.

Labels: iowa, lawsuit, marriage, victory

Gavin here. I'm heading out into the great outdoors this weekend so I will also be taking a hiatus from blogging until the beginning of next week.

I do want to leave you with one thing though. In California there is a massive coalition of fair-minded groups who have launched a massive public education campaign. I leave you with this great video from the new campaign. See you all on the other side.

G.S.

Labels: california, marriage, video

The leaders of the Vermont House and Senate announced Wednesday they have formed a special commission to gauge Vermonters' thoughts on expanding marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples.

Will Vermont be the next state in the Union to grant basic fairness to all families?

Read entire story here.

Labels: legislature, marriage, vermont

The New York State Assembly voted 85 to 61 to pass AB 8590, a bill that would provide same-sex couples with the equal right to marry under state law. The bill now goes to the state NY Senate.

via HRC:
Already this year, legislatures in several states have taken a stand for equality for same-sex couples and their families. Last week, the Massachusetts legislature rejected, by a 151-45 vote, a discriminatory proposed constitutional amendment that would have rolled back marriage equality in the Bay State. Earlier this month, California's Assembly passed a marriage equality bill; that bill is pending in the state Senate. Earlier this year, civil union legislation was signed into law in New Hampshire, while domestic partnership bills were signed into law in Oregon and Washington.

Last year, New York's high court ruled against marriage equality in a 4-2 decision. The majority opinion in Hernandez v. Robles concluded that whether same-sex marriages deserve equal recognition "is a question to be addressed by the Legislature." The court's Chief Judge predicted in dissent that "future generations will look back on today's decision as an unfortunate misstep."

If the New York marriage equality bill is signed into law, New York would join Massachusetts as the second state to provide marriage equality for same-sex couples under state law. Ten states, plus Washington, D.C., now have laws providing at least some form of state-level relationship recognition for same-sex couples.

Labels: marriage, new york

Right this moment, Massachusetts state legislators are meeting for a constitutional convention. Today is the day that the future of gay marriage will be decided for the state. Will it be referred to the voters?

From HRC:
As you may know, today the state legislators will vote on whether to add an anti-marriage constitutional amendment to the 2008 state ballot. Our opponents need to secure at least 50 votes today to get the amendment on the ballot.

After 3 years and more than 9,000 same-sex marriages, the vote will likely be very close. We picked up one vote last night, but it's really coming down to the wire.

Live Blogging from the constitutional convention is here.

There is also a live TV feed here.

UPDATE FROM HRC Field Director:
Just got out of a closed-door meeting of 30 or so of the legislative leaders who support marriage equality and are whipping for final vote. Scarfing down sandwiches held together with toothpicks adorned with American flags. The meeting is in the basement of St. Paul's Episcopal Church across the Boston Commons. The mood is serious as every possible move is being plotted. It is almost reverent as legislators are keenly aware of what is about to happen is less than one hour. The leaders, Senator Stan Rosenberg and House Member Byron Rushing, gave the directions. The vote is expected to happen at 1:00 sharp and to be over quickly, if all goes well.

The legislators in the church are silent and seem to struggle to swallow their lunches. They stream out in silence and now head to the Statehouse. One by one, legislators say to me, "Welcome home." The crowd outside the Statehouse, now in the thousands, is rather quiet, sensing the seriousness of the moment as the legislators file by them. I am now walking into the Statehouse to, hopefully, see history made in our country.

Labels: constitutional amendment, legislature, marriage, Massachusetts

Legislation that would replace Vermont's landmark civil union law with same-sex marriage was introduced Wednesday at the State House.

The bill is sponsored by Rep. Mark Larson (D) and has 32 house members and 10 senators as co-sponsors.
"After seven years of civil unions, this is simply the right thing to do," Larson said in introducing the legislation.

The measure is similar to one Larson put forward last year but failed to gain support.

The legislation, Larson said, would do three things. First, it would give same-sex couples the right to marry. Secondly, it would allow clergy to refuse to perform a same-sex marriage if it violated their religious beliefs. Thirdly it would convert civil unions already performed into marriages.

In 2000 the Vermont Supreme Court ordered the legislature to recognize the rights of same-sex couples. The debate over civil unions opened up major rifts across the state, but sponsors of the gay marriage bill said the proposal is expected to move much more slowly.

If the measure passes and if Gov. Jim Douglas signs it, Vermont would become the second state to permit same-sex marriage. Connecticut and New Jersey allow civil unions.

Connecticut is also going for full marriage equality-as is California for the second year in a row. California's Legislature passed AB 849 last session but the Governor vetoed the historic legislation.

Labels: california, civil union, legislature, marriage, vermont

Just months after the hateful and discriminatory anti-marriage amendment failed in Arizona, lawmakers are now considering taking the issue up themselves in a blatant attempt to overturn the will of Arizona voters.

Via 365gay:
A group of Republican lawmakers on Wednesday filed a proposed amendment banning same-sex marriage in the only state where voters have already rejected a similar ban.

The new bill, introduced in the state House of Representatives, defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but does not contain additional language also banning civil unions and domestic partner benefits that voters found difficult to accept in the previous amendment.

Last November the state became the first in the nation to defeat a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

A survey taken following the vote showed Arizona voters were concerned about the broad nature of the proposed amendment. Groups fighting against it had pointed out that it would affect thousands of unmarried opposite-sex couples in the state.

State Reps. Russell Pearce, Trish Groe and Rick Murphy, all Republicans, say the new measure has wide support within the state GOP.

The Catholic Church and evangelical Protestants support a gay marriage ban and are likely to throw their support behind the new measure.

US Sens. Jon Kyl and John McCain, a GOP presidential hopeful also support a ban on same-sex marriage.

Arizona already has legislation limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, but the three lawmakers said they feared the law could be overturned in court.

If the new proposed amendment passes both chambers of the Legislature, which is likely, it would be put on the November 2008 ballot.

Labels: Arizona, constitutional amendment, marriage

New York Gov. Elliott Spitzer will propose same-sex legislation in the new session of the legislature according to his press spokesperson.

In his inauguration speech Spitzer did not mention the marriage issue or state's LGBT community raising concerns the governor had abandoned his campaign pledge to promote a marriage bill.

"The governor made a commitment to advancing it this year, and he will do so," Spitzer's communications director, Darren Dopp, told The New York Sun.

Spitzer has been a longtime advocate of gay marriage - despite as Attorney General being obligated to argue against it in the state high court case that upheld the current ban on gay marriage.

In July the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, ruled that same-sex couples do not have a constitutional right to marry. It said that the issue, however, could be taken up by the Legislature.

Immediately after the ruling Spitzer said that he would draft and propose legislation to legalize gay marriage in New York State if elected governor.

But, Dopp on Friday warned that enacting a same-sex marriage bill "isn't a Day One issue." Dopp told the Sun that the first priorities are ethics and economic reform.

"We have to prioritize and that's how we prioritized," Dopp told the Sun. "That's not to say other matters are not important."

Following a move in New Paltz to allow gay marriages in 2004 Spitzer said that under state law the marriages would not be legal but said he believed gay marriage should be legal. He later issued a directive that marriages performed in areas of the world where they are legal must be recognized in New York state.

In October Spitzer was the keynote speaker at Empire State Pride Agenda's annual dinner.

"No New Yorker should be deprived of the right to marry the person of their choice, regardless of gender," he said to thunderous applause.

"This is not about forcing any religion to perform or recognize gay marriage. It's simply about permitting gay and lesbian couples the right to live in stable, long-term married relationships."

A month later he handily defeated Republican John Faso an opponent of same-sex marriage.

Bills coming before the Legislature are usually penned by members of the Assembly or the Senate, but in New York governor's regularly write their own legislation, called Program Bills which are then filed by members.

via 365gay.com

Labels: gay rights, marriage, new york

What a day in Massachusetts today. Today the legislature convened for their last day of the session. Up until today it was unclear if they would end up voting for a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage-making it between one man and one woman, after it was already legalized in 2004.

So what is the state of gay marriage in Massachusetts? First there are a couple of things that you should know. Opponents of gay marriage only needed 50 of the total 200 votes to pass this constitutional amendment on to the next legislature next session, then if it passes next session, it will be moved to the ballot where the people of Massachusetts will vote on civil rights.

So today, the amendment was brought to the floor without debate. It passed. The vote was 61-132 in favor of advancing the proposed constitutional amendment. Backers of equality failed to rally the 151 votes they needed to kill the measure but succeeded in forcing an hour delay to reconsider the initial vote.

A second vote then took place. The vote tally was then 62-134, still enough to move the amendment forward to the next legislative session.

A total of 17 lawmakers who voted Tuesday won't be returning in the new session, including some of the most vocal opponents of same-sex marriage. Supporters of marriage equality say they will pick up a total of seven votes to block the proposed amendment in the new session, according to Marc Solomon, campaign director for MassEquality.

Massachusetts has some very strong allies of equality in their legislature, as well as their new Governor who is set to take office. The following are some statements made regarding the repulsive nature of writing discrimination into the constitution.

House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, (D-Boston):
DiMasi said the amendment discriminates against gay citizens and vowed to work with Patrick to defeat the question before it reaches voters.

"Today a minority of legislators voted to advance a proposal that takes away the civil rights those couples are guaranteed to under our constitution," DiMasi said in a statement. "This initiative petition is offensive and deplorable."

Governor-elect Deval Patrick, a supporter of marriage equality, urged legislators to avoid a vote on the proposed amendment. A vote to adjourn the joint constitutional convention without taking up the gay marriage amendment would have killed the measure and put supporters of the ban back to square one. Governor-elect Patrick said:

"This is not just another question for popular decision. This is a question, under the equal protection clause, about what freedoms the minority is entitled to," Patrick told reporters after meeting with DiMasi. "This is the first time that the petition process has ever been used to consider reinserting discrimination into the constitution."
After the vote, Patrick said issued a written statement saying he was disappointed.

"We have never used the initiative petition to limit individual freedoms and personal privacy, but today's vote was a regrettable step in that direction," he said.

Labels: constitutional amendment, marriage, Massachusetts

Fifty-seven percent of the American public believe that another state will legalize same-sex marriage in 2007 according to a new poll.

The Associated Press-AOL survey asked Americans their predictions on a wide variety of issues.

On the issue of marriage, the prediction of another state legalizing gay weddings does not necessarily suggest 57 percent supported the idea, just that they believed it would occur.

Currently Massachusetts is the only state where same-sex couples can wed. Civil unions are available in Vermont and Connecticut.

In 2006 the Supreme Court of New Jersey declared it unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples rights and benefits of marriage but left it to the legislature to decide whether it should be called marriage or civil unions. Lawmakers opted for civil unions and the law will go into effect next month.

The only state where the issue of gay marriage will reach the Supreme Court this year is California, although lawsuits are underway in several other states at the lower court level.

In California, which already has the nation's strongest domestic partner law, the legislature will also consider a bill that would legalize gay marriage. A similar bill last year passed both the state Assembly and Senate only to be vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The telephone poll of 1,000 adults was conducted Dec. 12-14 by Ipsos, an international polling firm. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Labels: california, marriage, poll

In an act of unethical despiration, presidential hopeful and outgoing Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney is threatening to hold back pay for state legislators until there is a vote on banning gay marriage in Massachusetts. The man is on a damn crusade to take the rights and protections away from children and their families.

With time running out opponents of same-sex marriage are massing a major campaign aimed at forcing Massachusetts lawmakers to vote on a proposed constitutional amendment that would bar gay and lesbian couples from tying the knot.

Outgoing Gov. Mitt Romney is threatening to tie up pay raises for the legislature if it does fails to act and the group behind the amendment says it will seek bar sanctions against attorney's at the legislature if the vote is not held.

The opposition mentioned above are part of the same people who attacked a woman at a rally. She was counter-protesting in favor of keeping the current pro-equality marriage laws already on the books in Massachusetts. The leader (story here) tackled the woman, shoved her face into the concrete and threatened her. Oh-and he is from the Catholic Church. It's so wrong-on so many levels.

On November 10 the legislature, meeting in a special joint session to consider the proposed amendment, recessed until January 2, without taking a vote.

The proposed amendment was the result of a signature gathering campaign mounted by conservative groups. More than the required number of names were collected, sending the issue to the Constitutional Convention where it needs only the support of only 50 lawmakers - 25 percent of the House and Senate - in two constitutional conventions for it to be put to voters in 2008.

If the convention fails to vote on January 2 - the final day of the current session - the proposed amendment would die and supporters would have to begin collecting signatures all over again in an attempt to place it before voters in 2010.

Even if the measure were to pass on January 2 it would need a second round of approval in the new session of legislature.

Romney, who leaves office in January and is expected to announce his candidacy for the GOP nomination for president, is reportedly preparing to play his final card in the battle over the amendment vote - refusing to sign automatic pay raises for lawmakers.

We shall see what happens. They really only have one day left, next Tuesday.

For more on the woman assaulted by the Catholic demonstrator:
Cathlolics Turning to Violence to Stop Equality
Update: The Violent Catholic

Labels: constitutional amendment, discrimination, gay rights, marriage, Massachusetts, mitt romney

Minister Jay Bakker, son of Tammy Faye and Jim Bakker, shares his views on gay rights and the Ted Haggard scandal.

And just for fun, after watching this clip, I'd recommend reading a recent post... The Far-Right's Distortion of Research

Labels: evangelical, marriage

After the New Jersey civil unions bill passed both chambers last Thursday, New Jersey's Governor, Gov. Jon Corzine, said today that he is concerned about some of the aspects of the new civil unions bill that was expected to be signed this week. He is concerned, but not in a negative way.

Some mayors have expressed that they will not recognize civil unions. Like laws involving marriage mayors are not obligated to conduct civil union ceremonies. Corzine said he is concerned some mayors will use the provision to refuse to unite gay couples.

Legal experts have told the governor that although mayors can refuse to perform ceremonies if they conduct marriages but refuse civil unions they could be prosecuted under the state's human rights law. Gov. Corzine Monday said he still has concerns.

Corzine said Monday he expected that review to be completed by Thursday. It offers couples who register most state benefits and protections currently available to opposite-sex couples, including the right to health insurance through a partner's employer. BUT it does not provide any of the benefits of marriage under federal law, and it still could cost same-sex couples more than marriage couples for health insurance.

The bill also contains a provision establishing a commission that will investigate how civil unions fall short of marriage and report back to the legislature in six months.

If the New Jersey Legislature would have passed marriage equality in the first place, the state wouldn't need to waste so much time and money "investigating" how civil unions fall short of marriage.

Labels: civil union, marriage, new jersey

As many of you will remember California passed a bill via the legislature that would have created full marriage equality for same-sex couples. This bill was AB 849 (click here for past coverage by us). AB 849 passed in both chambers, yet Governor Schwarzenegger Vetoed the bill.

Equality California, California's largest GLBT advocacy organization, had a record 14 pro-equality bills passed this year. A truly amazing amount of fantastic legislation and some very momentous milestones for California's GLBT community.

Assemblymember Mark Leno, in conjunction with Equality California will be introducing the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act at the start of the 2007-2008 session. This bill is identical to AB 849 from the last go around.

So why now? Schwarzenegger vetoed it last time, so why would this time be any different? Well there are a few reasons. The first and probably largest factor is that Schwarzenegger will not be seeking re-election. Second, sources tell us that in a meeting between gay families, Schwarzenegger and his wife Maria Shriver, Shriver leaned to Arnold and urged him to support this legislation with some very, very encouraging words. Third, California's voters sent the state's most GLBT-friendly legislature in the state's history to be sworn in on December 4th, 2006.

California has everything going in their favor at this point-except one. A constitutional amendment that has been proposed for the 2008 ballot.

So stay tuned and we will keep you up-to-date as any news comes our way. 2007 could prove to trump 2006 when it comes to pro-equality milestones in California.

You may be interested in:

Governor Ahhhhnold, We're Calling Bullshit.

Previous Posts Regarding CA's Fight for Equality

AB 849 - Will of the People?

Gov. Schwarzenegger Slaps Constituents in the Face

California Makes History as The First Legislative Body In Nation To Pass Equal Marriage Rights Legislation For Same-Sex Couples

Schwarzenegger Vetoes California Gay Marriage Bill

Labels: california, marriage

With the deputy president's signature on a new law, South Africa on Thursday became the first country on the African continent to legalize same-sex marriages. The Civil Union Act entered into force on the eve of a December 1 deadline set by the Constitutional Court for the government to change its marriage legislation to ensure full equality for gays and lesbians.

The legislation made it through parliament despite opposition from many church groups and traditional leaders, who said it violated African culture. Gay rights groups have welcomed the law, although they criticized provisions allowing marriage officers to turn away gay couples if their consciences prevent them from marrying them.

Deputy President Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka signed the law in her capacity as acting president because President Thabo Mbeki is in Nigeria. South Africa recognized the rights of gay people in the constitution adopted after apartheid ended in 1994, at a time when leaders were determined to bury all kinds of legal discrimination.

The constitution, the first in the world to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, provided a powerful legal tool for gay rights activists even though South Africa remains conservative on such issues. (AP)

Labels: marriage, South Africa

A same-sex marriage bill passed South Africa's upper house on Tuesday and headed to the desk of President Thabo Mbeki for signing.

Conservative religious groups and opposition members of Parliament called on Mbeki to veto the legislation but that is considered unlikely with a court ordered deadline to have marriage rights enacted looming.

The Constitutional Court gave the government until Dec. 1 to enact equal marriage rights.

Labels: marriage, South Africa

A new poll sheds insight into the national opinion of gay unions and how there is a rising trend in support over the past two years.

Most adults in the United States believe same-sex partnerships should be legally acknowledged, according to a poll by Opinion Dynamics released by Fox News. 30 per cent of respondents think gays and lesbians should be allowed to legally marry, while 30 per cent support a similar legal partnership that should not be called marriage.

Conversely, 32 per cent of respondents believe there should be no legal recognition to gay and lesbian relationships.



In 2004, marriage certificates were issued to same-sex couples by local governments in the states of California, Oregon, New Mexico and New York. In May 2004, the state of Massachusetts allowed gay and lesbian partners to apply for marriage licenses, the first state-sanctioned homosexual weddings in the U.S.

Civil union and domestic partnership laws in Vermont, Connecticut and California grant same-sex couples all state-level rights and obligations of marriage—in areas such as inheritance, income tax, insurance and hospital visitation. There are more than 1,000 federal-level rights of marriage that cannot be granted by states.

On Jun. 7, a proposal to enact a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage failed in the Senate after a 49-48 vote. On Jul. 18, a House of Representatives effort to constitutionally prohibit any form of marriage other than one "between a man and a woman" fell 46 votes short of the 289 required to pass.

Over the past two years, 19 American states have enacted amendments to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Seven more approved similar measures after statewide ballots on Nov. 7.

On Nov. 8, Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, expressed satisfaction with the victories of Deval Patrick and Eliot Spitzer, saying, "Massachusetts and New York voters have elected in overwhelming landslides the first two governors ever who support marriage equality for same-sex couples. These historic victories show that support for full equality for our families is not a negative but something voters are willing to embrace enthusiastically."

via Angus-Reid

Labels: civil union, marriage, poll

By an overwhelming vote of 230-41, the parliament of South Africa has approved a bill that would give legal recognition to same-sex unions.

The bill provides for government recognition of any "voluntary union of two persons which is solemnized and registered by either a marriage or a civil union." No ceremony is required, apart from the legal registration of the union.

The proposal was strongly backed by the ruling African National Congress, whose leaders portrayed the measure as a civil-rights initiative, likening discrimination against gays and lesbians to the apartheid racial policies of the country's former regime. It will become law when signed by President Thabo Mbeki, who has already signaled his support.

And the U.S. is now behind Mexico and South Africa for civil rights for gay and lesbian couples.

Labels: marriage, South Africa

Attorneys representing same-sex couples in California, along with the human rights organizations Equality California and Our Family Coalition, have petitioned the California State Supreme Court to decide whether banning same-sex marriage violates the state constitution, the ACLU announced Monday.

An April 2005 ruling from the San Francisco Superior Court stated that preventing same-sex couples from marrying was in fact a violation of the state constitution, but the California court of appeals later overturned this in a 2-1 decision last month. This petition asks the court to reverse this ruling.

A wide variety of human and civil rights groups have filed amicus briefs supporting the petition, including the California NAACP, the California Council of Churches, and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center.

The California Supreme Court has 60 days to rule on the petition and may extend that period by not more than an additional 30 days. (The Advocate)

Read the announcement from Equality California - click here.

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

From Reuters:
Mexico City approved civil unions on Thursday, legalizing gay partnerships for the first time in the world's second-largest Roman Catholic nation.

The capital's municipal assembly, controlled by left-wing legislators, voted for the measure 43-17 as hundreds of rival protesters demonstrated noisily outside the building.

The move paves the way for same-sex civil unions in the city of 8.6 million people early next year.
The local congress in the northern state of Coahuila, bordering Texas, began debating a similar plan to legalize gay unions this week.

"These reforms are going to cause a snowball effect that no one will be able to stop," said David Sanchez of the left-wing P