WA: Marriage Equality Bill Introduced 2 Votes Short

Good news! In Washington state, a marriage equality bill (SB 6239) has been introduced in the legislature. The organization Washington United for Marriage issued a press release commending the decision:

OLYMPIA – Washington United for Marriage, a broad statewide coalition of organizations, congregations, unions and business associations that will work to obtain civil marriage for lesbian and gay couples in Washington State in 2012, today applauded the introduction of SB 6239, an act relating to providing equal protection for all families in Washington by creating equality in civil marriage and changing the domestic partnership laws, while protecting religious freedom.  The bill needs 25 votes in the senate for passage and was introduced with 23 sponsors.

“Today we take the next step towards making the promise of equality a reality in Washington State,” said Zach Silk, Campaign Manager for Washington United for Marriage.  “The introduction of this bill not only recognizes the value that lesbian and gay families in Washington make to our united community, but also upholds the longstanding tradition of the separation of church and state in this country.  Marriage is about dignity, commitment, love and respect – it is the ultimate expression of a pro-family society.  The foundation of marriage helps us build stable families, and now is the time to recognize the importance of treating all families in Washington State equally.”

At this time, six states plus the District of Columbia recognize marriage for same-sex couples under state law: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont.  Nine states—California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington—provide same-sex couples with access to the state level benefits and responsibilities of marriage, through either civil unions or domestic partnerships.  Same-sex couples do not receive federal rights and benefits in any state.

You can read the full text of the marriage equality bill. It is currently lacking two votes needed to pass in the Senate, where Democrats hold a 27-22 edge, since there are 23 co-sponsors. The Governor, Christine Gregoire, has already announced her strong support for marriage equality.

NJ Lawmakers Set Marriage Equality As Legislative Priority

Garden State Equality, New Jersey's leading Lesbian and Gay political organization, announced that majority leaders in both houses of the New Jersey legislature have decided to fast-track passage of a marriage equality bill, A. 1 and S.1.

(Trenton, NJ, January 9, 2012) – Today New Jersey Senate President Stephen Sweeney and House Speaker Sheila Oliver announced that they will fast-track and prioritize legislation that would end the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage in New Jersey.  The announcement was made at a press conference today in which Freedom to Marry’s National Campaign Director Marc Solomon offered the  organization’s full support in helping secure passage of the law.

The below is an excerpt from Solomon’s remarks: 

“Freedom to Marry is proud to partner with Garden State Equality and New Jersey’s tremendous legislative leaders, Senate President Sweeney and House Speaker Oliver, as we work together to make New Jersey the next state to end the exclusion of gay couples from marriage.  What New Jersey’s legislative leaders are telling us clearly today is that the Garden State values its gay and lesbian citizens fully, and does not accept treating same-sex couples and their families as second class citizens, as it presently does with civil unions.  Marriage matters for same-sex couples and their families, both because it says we’re a family through thick and thin in a way that nothing else does, and because it provides a critical safety-net of protections that civil unions do not.”

Following the 2006 passage of civil union legislation, the 2008 New Jersey Civil Union Commission concluded there was “overwhelming evidence that civil unions will not be recognized by the general public as the equivalent of marriage in New Jersey with the passage of time.”  It recommended enacting marriage in its place.  

The House and Senate bills (respectively numbered A. 1 and S. 1) are expected to be taken up early this year.  The numbering of the bills reflects the importance which the legislative leaders are giving to the effort.

Interestingly, Republican Governor Chris Christie has repeatedly announced that he would veto any marriage equality bill that the legislature passed and even before he was sworn in, Governor-elect Christie was instrumental in preventing the passage of a marriage equality bill in a lame duck session which Governor Jon Corzine would have signed into law.

Another sign of the widespread support for marriage equality in the Garden State is that the entire 7-member Democratic congressional delegation sent a letter supporting marriage equality and urging fast passage of the pending legislation.

Hopefully 2012 will be the year New Jersey joins its neighboring state of New York in enacting marriage equality. New Jersey has had a civil unions law since 2005.

Celebrity Friday: WA Gov Endorses Marriage Equality

Excellent news! Washington Governor Chris Gregoire announced this week that she will be introducing legislation to enact marriage equality in her state very soon.

Here's an excerpt from the video of the press conference where Governor Gregoire announced her endorsement of marriage equality:

GREGOIRE: Some say domestic partnerships are the same as marriage. That’s a version of the discriminatory, separate but equal argument of the past. For decades that argument was used to keep African Americans separate in schools, at their apartments, at drinking fountains. After all, the argument went, those separate places were just as good. But we, Americans knew, separate is not equal and finally the law caught up. 

[...]

We need to ask ourselves, how would it feel, how would it feel to be a child of a gay couple? How can we tell those children that their parents’ love is seen as unequal under Washington law and that their families are different? We must tell these children and their families that they’re every bit as equal and important as any other family in Washington state.

The Governor and Equal Rights Washington say they do not yet have the votes in the State Senate to pass the legislation but they expect to get them in the heavily Democratic body. After the Governor signs the legislation the heterosexual supremacists will almost definitely file a referendum to have a vote on the measure in 2012. Happily, Washington State advocates for LGBT equality are ready and experienced, having successfully defended the state's comprehensive domestic partnership law in a referendum in November 2009.

Congratulations to Washington!

Hat/tip to LGBT Think Progress

Major NH Newspaper Endorses Marriage Equality

The Concord Monitor published an editorial today ("Don't Tamper With Same-Sex Marriage Law") pointedly demolishing the ridiculous arguments that conservative Republicans in the state have been making to bolster their drive to legislatively repeal New Hampshire's marriage equality law despite the fact that vast majorities of state residents oppose their efforts in published polls.

• Marriage is between one man and one woman. This is more of a declaration than an actual argument. In fact, it's a declaration of bigotry. After all, who gets to define marriage? Those already married? Without a compelling reason to deny marriage to gay people, a statement like this is hard to take seriously.

• But marriage has been restricted to heterosexuals for thousands of years. Many traditions outlive their usefulness. Slavery was an ancient practice too, after all. So was barring women from participation in politics. Once upon a time, people with disabilities were routinely locked away in institutions. Mercifully, times change.

• Marriage is for procreation. In many cases, yes. But infertile, straight couples marry all the time. So do those uninterested in having kids. Those past their child-bearing years aren't forced to divorce. Having children isn't the only thing that brings couples together.

• Same-sex couples don't do as good a job raising children. There are all sorts of good parents and, alas, a wide variety of bad ones, too. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. Nor is there a legislative push to ban other sorts of truly bad parents - child molesters, bank robbers - from marrying. No doubt each of New Hampshire's 424 legislators has among his or her constituents gay couples raising children just fine. Examples that disprove this worry are easy to find.

• Same-sex marriage will start us down a slippery slope toward legalized polygamy and incest. No sign of this so far - in New Hampshire or in the places where gay marriage has a longer history. This is simply a scare tactic. In the off chance that they are actually presented with legislation proposing such notions, lawmakers could simply vote no.

• Gay relationships are immoral. Some religions do preach that. But lawmakers must represent all their constituents, not just those who share their religious beliefs. And they must not impose their own religious beliefs on their constituents. Freedom from religion is just as important as the freedom of religion.

• Same-sex marriage threatens the institution of marriage. In fact, encouraging marriage simply . . . encourages marriage. Hard to see how the gay marriage next-door threatens the straight marriage under your roof. Hard to imagine that the legalization of gay marriage is dissuading straight people from getting married or encouraging them to split up.

It should be fascinating that the two states to vote in the Presidential primary (New Hampshire and Iowa) both already have marriage equality. Hopefully this fact and the Republican candidates and the mainstream media will intersect at some point.

Hat/tip to TowleRoad.

Santorum Would Annul All U.S. Same-Sex Marriages

Rick Santorum, the ex-Senator from Pennsylvania who is one of the biggest religious-based homophobes now running for President (although that is a hotly contested title!) made news over the weekend for two reasons: he has surprisingly surged into the Top 3 in polls for tomorrow's Iowa caucuses and he said that he thinks that all same-sex marriages in the United States should be invalid.

I don't really care about the first item (I am confident that President Obama will be re-elected for a second term in November) but the second item needs further attention.

Here is what Santorum said exactly (to MSNBC's Chuck Todd):

SANTORUM: I think marriage has to be one thing for everybody. We can’t have 50 different marriage laws in this country, you have to have one marriage law…

TODD: What would you do with same-sex couples who got married? Would you make them get divorced?

SANTORUM: Well, their marriage would be invalid. I think if the constitution says “marriage is this,” then people whose marriage is not consistent with the constitution… I’d love to think there’s another way of doing it.

This statement demonstrates an astonishing ignorance and misunderstanding of federal law and marriage law, especially for a former United States Senator. Then, again, there's a reason why Santorum has been declared (by a fellow Republican who served as Senator John McCain's top aide for decade) as the dumbest United States Senator of the last twenty years:

Ron Paul may be the wackiest candidate in the GOP field. But for pure, blind stupidity nobody beats Santorum. In my 20 years in the Senate, I never met a dumber member, which he reminded me of today.

There are many reasons why Santorum's statement is so stupid but I will just list a few here

1. There is no precedent for invalidating any legal contract which was legal when it was entered into (i.e. even when Proposition 8 passed preventing any future marriages all the previous marriages entered into before its enactment are still legal and recognized in California).
2. The regulation of marriage IS a state issue and has been that way for centuries in this country; it is precisely that history (as well as the clearly defined animus against homosexuality that the law represents) which makes the so-called Defense of Marriage Act so constitutionally dubious, and this legal point will probably be settled within the current calendar year when the 9th and 1st U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal finally issue rulings on the matter.
3. The only way to "have one marriage law" would be to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution and there is absolutely no way that there are 2/3rds majorities in both houses to destroy the marriage rights of fellow U.S. citizens in the 6 states (and District of Columbia) where it is now legal.

This is really about Rick Santorum trying to burnish his heterosexual supremacist credentials with Iowa Republican caucus-goers. There is no way that he would ever be in the position to be able to enact his theocratic version of law into reality.

NH: Watch Ad Defending Marriage Equality

NM: Plurality Support For Marriage Equality

A new PPP poll out of New Mexico shows that more people support marriage equality than oppose it. The key questions are:

Q7 Do you think same-sex marriage should be
legal or illegal?
Legal ...................... .45%
Illegal ..................... .43%
Not sure ................. .12%

Q8 Which of the following best describes your
opinion on gay marriage: gay couples should
be allowed to legally marry, or gay couples
should be allowed to form civil unions but not
legally marry, or there should be no legal
recognition of a gay couple's relationship?
Gay couples should
be allowed to legally
marry.......................42%
Gay couples should
be allowed to form
civil unions but not
marry.......................25%
There should be no
legal recognition of
a gay couple's
relationship .............32%
Not sure ................. . 2%

Thus New Mexico joins other Western states like Colorado and Nevada where other recent polls show plurality support for marriage equality. Unfortunately, unless and until polls start showing majority support for marriage equality (outside the margin of error, which in this case was +/-4.4 points) the LGBT community is unlikely to have a decent chance winning a ballot measure fight to end civil marriage discrimination against same-sex couples.

Celebrity Friday: Zach Wahls

Zach Wahls, is a 19-year-old student from Iowa who was raised by his two moms and became an internet celebrity earlier this year when he defended his family in brilliant, emotionally moving testimony before the state House of Representatives which was considering legislation to ban gay marriage in the state. Zach is today's subject for Celebrity Friday.

This week comes news that his video has been watched almost 16 million times, becoming the most watched political video of 2011, ahead of President Obama's announcement of the death of Osama bin Laden and President Obama's humorous speech at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, among others.

Watch it again, and weep!



Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Prop 8 Repeal Initiative Can Begin Signature Gathering

The organization Love Honor Cherish announced this week that it has been given the go-ahead by the Attorney General of California to begin circulating ballot petitions to repeal Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment which purports to ban people of the same sex from marrying in California.

The text of the amendment is:

This amendment would amend an existing section of the California Constitution.  Existing language proposed to be deleted is printed in strikeout type.  Language proposed to be added is printed in underlined type.

Section 1.  To protect religious freedom, no court shall interpret this measure to require any priest, minister, pastor, rabbi, or other person authorized to perform marriages by any religious denomination, church, or other non-profit religious institution to perform any marriage in violation of his or her religious beliefs. The refusal to perform a marriage under this provision shall not be the basis for lawsuit or liability, and shall not affect the tax-exempt status of any religious denomination, church or other religious institution.

Section 2.  To provide for fairness in the government’s issuance of marriage licenses, Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.5.  Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Marriage is between only two persons and shall not be restricted on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.

The ballot summary is:

Reinstates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Summary Date: 12/15/11 | Circulation Deadline: 05/14/12 | Signatures Required: 807,615

Proponent: Thomas B. Watson

Repeals the current provision in California's Constitution that states only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Provides that marriage is between only two persons and shall not be restricted on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. Clarifies that the initiative shall not be interpreted to require any priest, minister, pastor, rabbi, or other person to perform a marriage in violation of his or her religious beliefs. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Over the long run, this measure would likely have little fiscal impact on state and local governments. (11-0058) (Full Text)

Of course, Love Honor Cherish also went forward with a signature-gathering campaign in two years ago in Winter 2009-Spring 2010 to repeal Proposition 8 which failed miserably. Gathering enough signatures to get a measure on the ballot in California is a resource-intensive task, not one that has been achieved by a mainly volunteer or unpaid effort in years.

This effort does not have the backing of any of the state's major LGBT organizations (like Equality California and the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center). The proponents have until May 14, 2012 to gather well over a million signatures, in the hopes that 807, 615 will be valid.

I agree that Propsition 8 should be repealed but I do not think that the LGBT community of California has had a discussion about what it would take to repeal Proposition 8 and I think it is incredibly naive and presumptious of one organization to think that they can make the decision for all LGBT Californians to put our rights up for a public vote.

I will not be signing the petition and I urge you not to as well.

Celebrity Friday: Margaret Court Reveals Her Homophobia

Margaret Court is on top of the list of
all-time women's major singles tennis titleholders

Margaret Court is the legendary tennis player from Australia who won 24 women's major singles titles, more than any other player in history. Steffi Graf is the only modern player to come remotely close to breaking her record, with 22 major titles when she retired in 1999.

Court is widely considered tennis (and sports) royalty but the words that came out of her mouth were not very regal. Court gave her opinion about the ongoing national debate in her home country about whether Australia should end the exclusion of same-sex couples from civil marriage.

And what she said was not pretty.

"They are not perfect, often dysfunctional and despite the fact the role models may be distorted and even severely flawed, there is no reason to put forward alternative, unhealthy, unnatural unions as some form of substitute. No amount of legislation or political point-scoring can ever take out of the human heart the knowledge that in the beginning God created them male and female and provided each with a unique sexual function to bring forth new life. To dismantle this sole definition of marriage and try to legitimise what God calls abominable sexual practices that include sodomy, reveals our ignorance as to the ills that come when society is forced to accept law that violates their very own God-given nature of what is right and what is wrong."

Mrs. Court is now apparently "Reverend Court" and obviously does not understand the difference between civil marriage (which is a creation of the secular state) and a religious wedding. Mrs. Court is free to believe whatever she wants about how her religion views homosexuality but she is not free to impose those values upon other people who do not share her religious beliefs in a democratic, secular country like Australia. 


Since two of the most venerated female tennis champions are openly lesbian you know that Martina Navratilova and Billie Jean King would not let such comments go by without a response.


According to the Tennis Channel this is how they responded:

Said Navratilova: “Seems to me a lot of people have evolved as has the Bible, [for example regarding] slavery. Unfortunately, Margaret Court has not. Her myopic view is truly frightening as well as damaging to the thousands of children already living in same gender families...I have tried to talk to Margaret, but to say she’s completely close-minded on the issue is an understatement...Here is hoping Australia will be on the right side of history and human rights, and become yet another democracy granting equal rights to all her citizens.” 

Said King: "I respectfully disagree with Margaret’s position on gay marriage...We have to commit to eliminating homophobia because everyone is entitled to the same rights, opportunities and protection...The more we talk openly about issues like gay marriage, the more we learn about each other. It is a blessing the people of Australia can live freely and express their own opinions because we need open dialogue to help us move forward."

Good job by Martina and Billie Jean to let Mrs. Court know that her unbridled religious-based homophobia would not pass by unchecked. It's not often two of my favorite topics (tennis and LGBT equality) intersect but you know when they do I will blog about it!


Hat/tip to TowleRoad!

NOM's Finances Reveal Fraudulent "Grassroots" Claim

The National Organization for Marriage has been forced by federal disclosure laws to reveal the fact that they receive a vast majority of their revenue from a small number of individuals, belying their claim that they are a "grassroots" organization devoted to "defending traditional marriage."

LGBT Think Progress analyzed NOM's financial reports for the last few years and the trend is clear:

Year	# of Big Donors (>$5,000)	Amount Raised From Big Donors	% of Total Fundraising
2008	52	$2,161,000	73%
2009	14	$5,500,000	78%
2010	17	—	92%

The latest analysis was done by The Washington Independent and is an amazing piece of journalism:

About 96 percent of NOM’s total revenue [of $10.6 million] came from donations. Of the remaining $368,513, $139 reportedly came from investment income; the rest was attributed to “other revenue.” 

In 2010 the organization had a 17-member staff and no volunteers, and yet only four are listed as being paid: president Brian Brown ($212,500), then-board chair Gallagher ($152,500), treasurer Corkery ($25,000), and Jennifer Morse ($116,667). Morse is listed on the form as simply “employee,” but she is actually the founder and president of the Ruth Institute, which is a project of NOM’s 501(c)3, the NOM Education Fund – though Morse’s name does not appear on the Form 990 for this fund. Additionally, the Ruth Institute is a separate entity with its own 501(c)3 status. In the Ruth Institute’s 2009 Form 990, Morse was listed as nonsalaried, but TAI has not seen Ruth’s disclosures for 2010.

It is very cool that the truth about the waning numbers of heterosexual supremacists is being reported in the media.

EQME Says They Have Signatures For 2012 Marriage Initiative

Game on! Equality Maine has announced that they have gathered twice as many signatures as needed to put an initiative on the November 2012 which would legalize marriage equality.

The specific ballot question language is:

Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses for same-sex couples that protects religious freedom by ensuring no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs?

The Portland Press-Herald reports:

Betsy Smith of EqualityMaine says 396 volunteers collected more than 36,000 signatures on Election Day, bringing the total number to 100,000. That's more than enough petitions to get gay marriage onto the statewide ballot if the group chooses to do so. Smith says the group will make its decision on a referendum in January. 

Maine is currently the only state in New England that doesn't allow either gay marriage or civil unions. Maine lawmakers approved a gay marriage law, but it was overturned by a statewide referendum in 2009.

Recent polls in Maine have shown support for marriage equality at 53%. Hopefully Maine goes forward with a pro-marriage equality measure in 2012, which will at least counter-balance the anti-marriage equality measures in Minnesota and North Carolina.

Australia Labor Party Endorses Marriage Equality

Openly gay Minister of Water Penny Wong is expected to
play a crucial role in passing marriage equality in Australia next year

The ruling Labor Party of Australia has voted to endorse marriage equality, a big step towards Australia becoming the next country to end marriage discrimination in February 2012. However by a vote of 208 to 184 it was made a conscience vote, in other words individual MPs will be allowed to vote their conscience and not be "whipped" to adhere to the party line.

The Sydney Morning Herald reports:

The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, had called for a conscience vote and personally moved the amendment backing this.Had this been defeated, Ms Gillard’s leadership would have suffered a serious blow. She dodged a bullet when the conscience vote was endorsed by 208 votes to 184.Support to change the platform to one of explicit support for gay marriage was much stronger and some see this as a defeat for the Prime Minister.She has not publicly opposed a platform change but she does oppose changes to the Marriage Act which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.The platform change endorsed today says ‘‘Labor will amend the Marriage Act to ensure equal access to marriage under statute for all adult couples irrespective of sex who have a mutual commitment to a shared life’’.

The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, is an unmarried atheist who is the first female head of the Australian government. She has been getting much flak from the Australian LGBT community for her position,, which most liken to Barack Obama;'s in its political expediency.


Polls show strong support for marriage equality among the Australian public.

Marriage Equality Video From Australia

POLL: Californians Favor Marriage Equality (Barely)

A new poll again shows that Californians strongly support legal protections and state recognition of same-sex couples but are also closely divided on the question of whether to allow such unions to be given the legal name "marriages."

Public Policy Polling did a statewide poll of 500 California voters between November 10-13 which had the following questions:

Q11 Do you think same-sex marriage should be
legal or illegal?
Legal............................................................... 48%
Illegal .............................................................. 43%
Not sure .......................................................... 9%

Q12 Which of the following best describes your
opinion on gay marriage: gay couples should
be allowed to legally marry, or gay couples
should be allowed to form civil unions but not
legally marry, or there should be no legal
recognition of a gay couple's relationship?
Gay couples should be allowed to legally
marry ..............................................................43%
Gay couples should be allowed to form civil
unions but not marry .......................................35%
There should be no legal recognition of a gay
couple's relationship .......................................21%
Not sure .......................................................... 1%

The margin of error is +/- 4.4 percentage points. This is more evidence that people who think that 2012 is the right time to attempt to repeal Proposition 8 are fooling themselves. I do think that there are more Californians who support marriage equality than not, but the polling shows that the difference is well within the margin of error.

One of my pre-conditions for attempting a Proposition 8 repeal by ballot measure is multiple polls of likely voters which indicate majority support for marriage equality outside of the margin of error. That polling result is yet to occur in California, though I do believe it will happen soon. (By the way, the other pre-conditions are: A 7-figure amount in the bank at the beginning of a ballot measure campaign AND a public, published plan with a representational organizational structure for the entity which will manage the ballot measure campaign.)

Maine "Why Marriage Matters" Video

Cal Sup Ct Rules 7-0 Initiative Proponents Have Standing

The long-awaited decision by the California Supreme Court on the question of whether initiative proponents have the right to defend their measures in court when elected officials like the Governor and Attorney General refuse to defend them was released today.

The Court ruled unanimously that initiative proponents do have standing under state law to defend their ballot initiatives.

As usual, Chris Geidner of Metro Weekly has the best analysis:

The California Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, was very clear about its answer: 

[W]e respond to the question posed by the Ninth Circuit in the affirmative. In a postelection challenge to a voter-approved initiative measure, the official proponents of the initiative are authorized under California law to appear and assert the state's interest in the initiative's validity and to appeal a judgment invalidating the measure when the public officials who ordinarily defend the measure or appeal such a judgment decline to do so. 

The decision came about resulting from a request by the Ninth Circuit in the ongoing challenge to Proposition 8 brought by the American Foundation for Equal Rights. The case, in which the trial court judge struck down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional in August 2010, is on appeal before the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit appeals court sought to have the California Supreme Court assist it with the case by answering these questions about state law through the process of asking a certified question. The California Supreme Court accepted the invitation to answer the certified question and heard oral arguments on the question on Sept. 6.

As the California Supreme Court found the proponents to have a "particularized interest" and "the authority to assert the State's interest," the Ninth Circuit now is likely to find that the proponents do have standing under federal law to bring the appeal -- although the court need not do so. At that point, the appeal of the Perry trial court decision -- the "merits" decision from the trial court that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional -- could go forward.

It's unfortunate that the Court opened up the can of worms to allow all initiative proponents to defend their statutes under state law. Considering how many ballot measures we have in California, this is an incredibly important decision.

That being said, it is very exciting that now we basically must get a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the Perry v. Brown case which will give us a federal appellate court level ruling on the question of marriage equality.

NYT Reports on Nationwide Marriage Equality Fight

The New York Times had an interesting editorial on the fight for nationwide marriage equality in light of the recent 10-8 vote in the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. The above image indicates the current state-by-state recognition of same-sex relationships. The highlights are that only three states: Rhode Island, New Mexico and New Jersey have no laws banning marriage equality. In two of those three states (Rhode Island and New Jersey) civil union statutes have been enacted which purport to provide all the rights and responsibilities of marriage while reserving the name of "marriage" to opposite-sex couples only.

The editorial ("A Long, Winding Road to Marriage Equality") says:

Twenty-nine states have enacted constitutional amendments blocking same-sex marriage. In 18 of those states, the amendments also ban domestic partnerships or civil unions. Twelve states bar same-sex marriage by statute, and in two, Minnesota and North Carolina, anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendments will go before voters next year. At this point, nearly 60 percent of Americans live in places that do not protect gay couples in any way. 

With New York, same-sex marriage is still allowed in only six states and the District of Columbia. Only 13 states provide some recognition of gay relationships with broad domestic partnerships or more limited rights, for things like medical decisions and inheritance (this includes 11 states with constitutional amendments or statutes barring gay marriage).

In addition to the attempts to ban marriage equality in Minnesota and North Carolina via the ballot box in 2012, there will be attempts to legalize marriage equality by ballot measure in Maine. There will be no such attempt in California, however. (Thank Goodness!)  Also, in Washington, New Jersey and Maryland there are on-going efforts to legalize same-sex marriages in those states.

Of course at MadProfessah.com we will be covering all these political stories in 2012!