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.

Civil Unions Go Into Effect In Hawaii and Delaware

Today is January 1st, 2012, the first day of the year. Typically, legislation enacted during the previous years often goes into effect on January 1st of the next year. Today, civil unions become legal in Hawaii and Delaware.

Marriage equality is legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, New York and the District of Columbia.

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.

Godless Wednesday: IL Catholic Orgs End Lawsuit On Foster Care

Ha, ha! Over the summer MadProfessah.com and other LGBT blogs reported about the obnoxious lawsuit by a number of Catholic dioceses in Illinois who were suing the state for the right to obtain payment from the government to offer foster and adoption services which would illegally discriminate against same-sex couples in civil unions.

The lawsuit was laughable on its face and last week even the religious extremists and heterosexual supremacists at the Catholic Dioceses of Joliet, Springfield and Belleville recognized that fact and dropped their lawsuit and ended their foster care services in the state.

The Chicago Tribune reports:

Since March, state officials have been investigating whether religious agencies that receive public funds to license foster care parents are breaking anti-discrimination laws if they turn away openly gay parents.  

After the civil union bill went into effect in June, Catholic Charities told the state that accommodating prospective foster parents in civil unions would violate Catholic Church teaching that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.  

Catholic Charities said it would instead refer gay couples elsewhere and only license married couples and single parents living alone.  

The agency has pointed to a clause in the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act that they believe protects religious institutions that don't recognize civil unions. 

But lawyers for the Illinois attorney general said that exemption only shields religious clergy who don't want to officiate at civil unions. The policy of Catholic Charities violates state anti-discrimination laws that demand couples in civil unions be treated the same as married couples, they said.

Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say. Thankfully, there are plenty of secular foster care agencies who care more about helping children then promoting religious-based homophobic ideology.

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.)

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!

Chilean President Offers Civil Unions Bill

Great news from South America. The President of Chile, Sebastián Piñera, has introduced legislation to legalize same-sex civil unions.

AFP reports:

"All forms of marriage deserve respect, dignity and the support of the state," said President Sebastian Pinera, who signed the proposal and sent it to Congress.

"This puts opposite-sex and same-sex couples on the same footing, because in both cases it is possible to develop love, affection and respect."

Pinera, who brought conservatives to power after 20 years of center-left rule in the country, grated on his own election campaign when he announced his intention to legalize civil unions for gay couples. He said two million people in Chile live together without marrying.

But the president has repeatedly stressed his opposition to gay marriage.

"I deeply believe that marriage is by nature between a man and a woman, but that conviction does not prevent me from recognizing that other forms of affective relationships exist," he said.

The law would permit gay couples who join into a civil union to have access to inheritance and other social benefits.

Chile is reportedly 80% Catholic and did not legalize divorce until 2004(!). However, Argentina is next door and legalized marriage equality for same-sex coupes in July 2010.

POLL: NJ Supports Marriage Equality 47%-42%

A new PPP poll of New Jersey voters shows that support for marriage equality is now the plurality position. In December 2009 a vote to legalize marriage equality failed when Governor-elect Chris Christie lobbied vigorously to kill the bill. New Jersey has had civil unions since December 2006, two months after the State Supreme Court ruled that the state must provide same-sex couples with all the rights and benefits of opposite sex couples but declined to legalize marriage equality.

While New Jersey failed to legalize same-sex marriage when it came to 
a vote in the state senate in 2010, now the Garden State is in favor of following in New 
York’s footsteps. By a 47-42 margin, New Jersey voters feel same-sex marriage should be legal. Those aged 30-45 come out strongest in support of legal same-sex marriage in New Jersey, with 55% in support and 35% opposed. New Jersey currently allows civil unions, and when they are added as an option, voters are split between marriage and civil unions. 41% favor marriage to 40% for civil unions, while 17% oppose all recognition. 


[...]

PPP surveyed 480 New Jersey voters from July 15th to 18th. The margin of error for the survey is +/-4.5%. This poll was not paid for or authorized by any campaign or political organization. PPP surveys are conducted through automated telephone interviews. PPP is a Democratic polling company, but polling expert Nate Silver of the New York Times found that its surveys in 2010 actually exhibited a slight bias toward Republican candidates.

Hat/tip to Talking Points Memo.

Williams Institute Estimates 581,300 U.S. Same-Sex Couples

Yesterday was an historic day in which the United States Senate held a hearing on a pro-LGBT piece of legislation, the Respect for Marriages Act, which would repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The Williams Institute at UCLA Law School, an LGBT public policy think tank, submitted written testimony for the hearing.

Included in the testimony are the following findings from Williams Institute research  about same-sex couples:

• There are 581,300 same-sex couples in the United States, including 50,000 to 80,000 legally married same-sex and another 85,000 who are in civil unions or registered domestic partnerships.

• Approximately 20% of same-sex couples are raising nearly 250,000 children.

• Almost one-fourth of same-sex partners are people of color.

• Over 7% of individuals in same-sex couples are veterans of the U.S. armed forces.

• Same-sex couples live in every congressional district and in almost every county in the United States.

In addition, the testimony summarizes Williams Institute research documenting a number of ways that DOMA results in legal, financial, social, and psychological hardships for many same-sex couples and their families.  These include:

• Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) Benefits.  Nearly 430,000 same-sex partners remain barred from taking leave to care for a same-sex spouse under the FMLA, even if they marry.

• Benefits for Spouses of Federal Employees.  The same-sex spouses and partners of over 30,000 federal employees are ineligible for important benefits available to different-sex married spouses.

• Veteran Partner Benefits.  Same-sex spouses and partners of nearly 68,000 veterans are barred from a variety of benefits including pensions, educational assistance, and vocational training available to different-sex spouses.

• Taxation of Employee Health Benefits for a Same-Sex Spouse.  When private employers offer health insurance to same-sex spouses and domestic partners, federal law taxes these benefits. Approximately 41,000 employees with a same-sex spouse or domestic partner pay, on average, over $1,000 more in taxes per year than an employee receiving the same health benefits for a different-sex spouse.

• Spousal Impoverishment Protections for Medicaid Long Term Care (LTC).  Medicaid LTC beneficiaries may have to use some of their spouse’s income and assets to pay for LTC. Federal law requires states to allow different-sex spouses to retain income and assets to protect them from destitution. However, about 1,700-3,000 individuals whose same-sex spouses or partners receive Medicaid-financed LTC are not protected by these spousal impoverishment provisions.

• Estate Tax.  Over the next two years, members of same-sex couples who will pay the federal estate tax, will pay, on average, more than $4 million more than a survivor of a different-sex spouse because they do not qualify for the federal estate tax spousal exemption.

• Social Security Survivor Benefits.  Unlike different-sex spouses, same-sex spouses cannot continue receiving their spouse’s social security payments after their spouse’s death. This results in a loss, on average, of over $5,700 for a same-sex spouse that receives lower social security payments than the deceased spouse. 

• Immigration for Bi-National Couples.  Nearly 26,000 same-sex couples in the United States are bi-national couples who could be forced to separate because they cannot participate in green-card and accelerated citizenship mechanisms offered to non-citizen spouses of American citizens. 

• Social Stigma.  Research shows that laws such as DOMA produce stigma that has serious adverse impacts on the health of LGBT people by causing stress and disease. A Williams Institute survey of people married to a same-sex spouse in Massachusetts found that couples gain social support from their families and have a greater level of mutual commitment when they are allowed to marry.  

The Williams Institute testimony concludes that DOMA has also impaired the ability of researchers to assess its impact on same-sex couples and their families. Although the U.S. Census Bureau has begun to reevaluate its policy of not counting married same-sex couples as such, a legacy of DOMAis evident in a general resistance on the part of federal statistical agencies to collect detailed, accurate, and reliable data on same-sex couples and their families. This means that, in spite of the efforts of the Institute, policy debates on laws like DOMA have too often been driven as much by anecdote and stereotype as by sound social science research and facts.

It's great that we can get the factual and actual impact of anti-LGBT public policy like DOMA in to the Congressional Record so that this will increase the momentum to pass legislation to end the discrimination. Apparently all 10 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee support repealing DOMA, so they could vote to move it to the Senate floor, where it will almost certainly be killed by a Republican filibuster.

RI Gov Blasts (But Signs) Discriminatory Civil Unions Bill

Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chaffee

Usually when a governor signs a civil union bill into law the LGBT community celebrates, but not this time. Rhode Island Independent Governor Lincoln Chaffee signed a civil unions bill into law over objections from a coalition of LGBT groups and opposition from religious heterosexual supremacists.

The debate is over the Corvese Amendment, which looks like:

15-3.1-5. Conscience and religious organizations protected. – (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no religious or denominational organization, no organization operated for charitable or educational purpose which is supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization, and no individual employed by any of the foregoing organizations, while acting in the scope of that employment, shall be required:

(1) To provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, certification, or celebration of any civil union; or

(2) To solemnize or certify any civil union; or

(3) To treat as valid any civil union; if such providing, solemnizing, certifying, or treating as valid would cause such  organizations or individuals to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.

(b) No organization or individual as described in subsection (a) above who fails or refuses to provide, solemnize, certify, or treat as valid, as described in subdivision (a)(1), (a)(2) or (a)(3) above, persons in a civil union, shall be subject to a fine, penalty, or other cause of action for such failure or refusal.

This is an incredibly broad religious exemption. Basically, it allows Catholic hospitals to deny life-saving medical decisions by one member of a civil union. In fact it allows any "religious" organization (or individual employee of such an organization) to completely ignore a civil union.

When Governor Chaffee signed the bill into law, according to the Middleton Patch he said:

That exemption, "gives these institutions and their employees the choice of refusing to recognize civil unions. As a result, a party to a civil union could be denied the right to make medical decisions for his or her partner, denied access to health insurance benefits, denied property rights in adjoining burial plots or denied family memberships at religiously-affiliated community centers. If religiously-affiliated hospitals, cemeteries, schools and community centers refuse to treat civil unions as valid, it would significantly harm civil union partners by failing to protect their medical, physical and commercial interests at critical moments in their lives," Chafee wrote. "This extraordinary exemption eviscerates the important rights that enacting a civil union law was meant to guarantee for same sex couples in the first place." 

"I am signing this bill because I believe that same sex couples should have the same legal rights, benefits, protections and responsibilities as heterosexual couples. Although this measure is a step forward, it fails to fully achieve those goals in its present form," Chafee wrote.

What's so bizarre about this fight is that Rhode Island already recognizes same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. So, if one Rhode Island couple gets married in New York and another Rhode Island couple gets civilly united in Rhode Island, it is the locally wed couple that can be legally discriminated against under this law, while the externally married couple can NOT be discriminated against in the same fashion.

Why would any same-sex couple apply for a Rhode Island civil union when they can apply for a legal marriage license in New York (which has no residency requirement) starting TODAY?

Catholic Charities Sue Ill. For Right To Anti-Gay Discrimination

Today in religious hubris news, three chapters of Catholic Charities (based in Peoria, Joliet and Springfield) have decided to sue Illinois in order to gain the right to take state money (as much as $30 million) but discriminate in who they provide adoption and foster care services to. As you may recall, on June 1, Illinois' civil unions law went into effect. In response, some local Catholic Charities have announced they would suspend foster care and adoption services altogether unless they have the right to violate Illinois Human Right Law which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (and race and marital status).

Simply astonishing. The Advocate has the deets:

In the suit, Catholic Charities for the dioceses of Springfield, Joliet, and Peoria claim that their state-funded adoption services are exempt from the civil unions law under provisions of the legislation as well as existing state religious freedom protections.

"Same sex couples' and unmarried cohabiting couples' application for adoption or foster care referrals could be fully and adequately serviced and accommodated (as they are now) by [the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services] referring them to other providers which do not share [our] conscientious religious objections," attorneys for the dioceses wrote in their complaint.

"On the other hand, the harm to plaintiffs and to the poor, needy and vulnerable third parties whom they serve, should no injunctive relief issue, would be severe and ... even unconscionable," they wrote.

The suit was prompted in part by a March 8 letter from Illinois attorney general Lisa Madigan's office inquiring into Catholic Charities of Springfield's existing policies and whether they violate the law.

"Please be advised that the Illinois Human Rights Act makes it a civil rights violation for any person to 'deny or refuse to another the full and equal enjoyment of facilities, goods, or services of any public place of accommodation' on the basis of unlawful discrimination," which includes sexual orientation and marital status as protected characteristics, the letter read in part.

In a Tuesday statement, a spokeswoman for the attorney general's office said of the suit, "Organizations that receive taxpayer funding to provide public services must comply with the law. Unfortunately, instead of working with the state to ensure compliance with child protection and civil rights laws, the dioceses have opted to go to court."

Filed on behalf of the dioceses by attorneys from the Thomas More Society in Chicago, the lawsuit comes after the announcement late last month that Catholic Charities in Rockford was pulling out of adoption services entirely — a decision described by one source as a possible "trial balloon" from the church to put pressure on the state assembly and attorney general's office. But "there's nothing to indicate that the governor or the assembly is interested in providing an exemption" for religious groups contracted by the state for adoption services, the source said.

Meanwhile, Catholic Charities' claim that Illinois is undermining its religious freedom in state adoption contracts has been criticized by several national LGBT legal and advocacy groups.

"It's outrageous," said Camilla Taylor, national marriage project director for Lambda Legal. "They're asking permission to put their desire to discriminate ahead of the welfare of children in state care. And they're asking to do this at taxpayer expense. It's a tragic result for children."

Even the head of Catholic Charities in Illinois, Anthony Riordan, recognizes that the position stated in the lawsuit is nonsensical, making this statement:

That the Catholic Charities adoption contracts in question are not private but rather funded to the tune of a reported $30 million annually by the state is not ultimately what this is about, he argued. "I think it's certainly a reasonable point: If you receive state funds, you have to follow the directives and the rules of the state," Riordan said. "But our position is that faith-based charities have religious liberties and certain rights of conscience."[emphasis added]

I wonder how far Catholic Charities would like these alleged religious liberties to go? The right to be exempt from age of consent laws? Statutes of limitation on child molestation lawsuits? Why stop at the human rights law and try to get exemptions for every law that they don't agree with?

It should be noted that the notion that religious beliefs should trump the concept of "equal justice under the law" and the underlying principle of public accommodations civil rights laws has been rearing it's ugly head in other contexts, most notably the fight to legalize marriage equality in New York State.

WATCH: Black Lesbian Couple 1st To Get Illinois Civil Union

Lakeesha Harris and Jeanean Watkins, a Black lesbian couple with a registered domestic partnership, were first in line to get their civil union license when Illinois civil unions law went into effect today, June 1. Governor Pat Quinn signed the bill into law earlier this year. Hawaii and Delaware also enacted civil union laws this year that go into effect later.

Hat/tip to Wonder Man.