By JESSE McKINLEY
Published: October 29, 2008
PHOENIX — Under a state law enacted in 1996, it is illegal for same-sex couples to marry in Arizona. The law has been upheld by the state’s courts, and there is no visible movement — among voters or lawmakers — to overturn it.
Nonetheless, Arizonans on Tuesday will be asked to vote for the second time in two years on a proposal to amend the state’s Constitution to bar same-sex marriage. A similar ballot measure was rejected in 2006.
Supporters of this year’s measure, Proposition 102, say a constitutional amendment is necessary to prevent “politicians or judges” from overturning the state law, an apparent reference to neighboring California. The State Legislature voted to place the measure on the ballot in June, shortly after same-sex couples gained the right to marry in California.
“The people of Arizona have their own way of doing things, but at the same time, we are also part of the United States,” said Kelly Molique, a spokeswoman for Yes for Marriage, the main backer of the measure. “So we see what’s going on in other areas.”
When Arizona voters turned down the 2006 ballot measure, they became first in the nation to do so. Until then, backers of such statewide constitutional bans had a 27-for-27 winning streak.
Since then, opponents of same-sex marriage have had further cause for concern: courts in California and Connecticut said laws in those states barring such unions were unconstitutional, bringing to three — along with Massachusetts — the number of states where same-sex couples can marry.
Backers of the Arizona measure have raised more than $7 million to promote it, with major financing coming from Focus on the Family Action, the conservative Colorado organization that is also backing a ballot measure in California that would reinstate that state’s ban on same-sex marriages.
But officials favoring Proposition 102 say the vast majority of contributions have come from inside Arizona.
State Representative Steve B. Yarbrough, Republican of Chandler, said the court decision in California had been a “pretty persuasive point” for putting the proposed constitutional amendment to a vote.
“It allowed folks like myself to go to state senators and say, ‘See, see, see,’ ” Mr. Yarbrough said.
But opponents of the Arizona measure say that unlike in California, in Arizona there is no effort in favor of same-sex marriage that threatens to overturn the current ban.
“Their claim that we have to protect marriage from attack is ridiculous, because there’s no such attack,” said State Representative Kyrsten Sinema, a Phoenix Democrat and chairwoman of Arizona Together, which opposes Proposition 102. “It’s a fake threat.”
The opponents have raised less than a tenth of the money raised by supporters, a gap they say may have to do with the amount of national money pouring into the fight over the California measure, which is expected to be one of the most expensive ballot measure campaigns ever.
Barbara McCullough-Jones, executive director of Equality Arizona, a gay rights group in Phoenix, said she had no doubt that the highly publicized California campaign was affecting fund-raising in Arizona and Florida, which is also voting on a constitutional amendment on same-sex marriage.
“On a larger political landscape, Arizona is not necessarily the type of state to move public policy on a national stage,” said Ms. McCullough-Jones, who wrote an opinion piece, “Will Arizona Be Abandoned?”, in July. “And that reality comes up against activists in this state again and again.”
Ms. Sinema, the state lawmaker, said the California measure carried higher stakes for same-sex couples.
“Look, if on Nov. 5 this passes, gay marriage will be illegal in Arizona, and on Nov. 5, if this fails, gay marriage will be illegal in Arizona,” Ms. Sinema said of Proposition 102. “But people in California have something to lose.”
Still, many gay rights activists in Arizona are hoping for a repeat of 2006, when most everyone was surprised by the defeat of the effort to bar same-sex marriage.
Jason Cianciotto, the executive director of Wingspan, which serves the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community in Tucson, said he vividly remembered watching the 2006 returns come in.
“I called a colleague and I said ‘I think we might pull this out,’ and she said, ‘If we do, I’ll eat my hat,’ and lo and behold we won,” Mr. Cianciotto said of the 2006 vote. “And I look forward to skeptics eating their hats this time as well.”
More Articles in US » A version of this article appeared in print on October 30, 2008, on page A29 of the New York edition.
October 31, 2008
Breaking news: South Bay lawmaker receives recall threats
by Matthew S. Bajko
m.bajko@ebar.com
They've threatened pro-gay business owners. They've physically beaten up their opponents. They've launched cyber attacks. And they've spread lies to advance their cause.
Now backers of Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage amendment on Tuesday's ballot, have threatened to recall an openly gay South Bay politician if he does not convert to their side in the fight.
Evan Low, who serves on the Campbell City Council, reported this week that he had received threats from half a dozen people that if he did not rescind his endorsement against Prop 8 he would be recalled from office.
"I have received seven calls today threatening to recall me from office if I do not publicly retract my position and switch to Yes on 8," Low informed supporters in an e-mail Wednesday, October 29. "The Yes on 8 campaign is continuing their efforts of deception and coercion. Let's have a strong showing during this final stretch."
Chip White, a spokesman for Protectmarriage.com, the main group backing Prop 8, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Instead of backing down, Low turned up in San Francisco this morning (Thursday, October 30) to join Mayor Gavin Newsom and other Asian American politicians from the Bay Area for a walk through Chinatown to urge voters to support marriage equality.
In his e-mail Low urged his supporters to donate to the No on 8 campaign (http://www.noonprop8.com) as well as attend several rallies in Silicon Valley over the weekend. In an interview with the Bay Area Reporter, Low said he did not know where most of the callers lived or if they were being coordinated by the Yes on 8 campaign.
"At least one person I knew was from Campbell," he said. "Whether or not these calls or threats of recall are attributed to Yes on 8 directly, it still shows the attempts of people on that side of the issue will go to threaten. It is just ridiculous."
He called the threat of a recall a "pathetic attempt" that would not impact his speaking out against Prop 8.
"It is bad enough they want to eliminate rights for people. It is just ugly, plain and simple," said Low.
Gloria Nieto, political director at the Billy DeFrank LGBT Community Center in San Jose, labeled the tactics thuggish and said they would not work.
"You know what a bunch of thugs. They are attacking our Web sites, threatening our elected officials. It is nothing but thuggery; it is disgusting," said Nieto. "I don't think it will work in Campbell. I will be the first in line to support Evan so he knows people are backing him up."
Low noted that despite being near San Francisco, there are quite a large number of Prop 8 supporters in Silicon Valley. More than 3,000 people turned out for a recent Yes on 8 rally in Cupertino, and Low said one doesn't have to look hard to find Yes on 8 lawn signs.
"We don't need to go that far to see where so much work needs to be done," said Low.
Several No on Prop 8 get-out-the-vote South Bay rallies are planned this weekend.
Saturday, November 1 from noon to 2 p.m. opponents of the measure will gather at the following locations: in Cupertino at DeAnza College, corner of Stevens Creek and Stelling; in San Jose at the intersection of Stevens Creek and Winchester; in Willow Glen at the corner of Lincoln and Minnesota.
Sunday, November 2 from 2 to 5 p.m. No on 8 backers will gather at the Bed, Bath and Beyond on Hamilton Avenue.
m.bajko@ebar.com
They've threatened pro-gay business owners. They've physically beaten up their opponents. They've launched cyber attacks. And they've spread lies to advance their cause.
Now backers of Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage amendment on Tuesday's ballot, have threatened to recall an openly gay South Bay politician if he does not convert to their side in the fight.
Evan Low, who serves on the Campbell City Council, reported this week that he had received threats from half a dozen people that if he did not rescind his endorsement against Prop 8 he would be recalled from office.
"I have received seven calls today threatening to recall me from office if I do not publicly retract my position and switch to Yes on 8," Low informed supporters in an e-mail Wednesday, October 29. "The Yes on 8 campaign is continuing their efforts of deception and coercion. Let's have a strong showing during this final stretch."
Chip White, a spokesman for Protectmarriage.com, the main group backing Prop 8, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Instead of backing down, Low turned up in San Francisco this morning (Thursday, October 30) to join Mayor Gavin Newsom and other Asian American politicians from the Bay Area for a walk through Chinatown to urge voters to support marriage equality.
In his e-mail Low urged his supporters to donate to the No on 8 campaign (http://www.noonprop8.com) as well as attend several rallies in Silicon Valley over the weekend. In an interview with the Bay Area Reporter, Low said he did not know where most of the callers lived or if they were being coordinated by the Yes on 8 campaign.
"At least one person I knew was from Campbell," he said. "Whether or not these calls or threats of recall are attributed to Yes on 8 directly, it still shows the attempts of people on that side of the issue will go to threaten. It is just ridiculous."
He called the threat of a recall a "pathetic attempt" that would not impact his speaking out against Prop 8.
"It is bad enough they want to eliminate rights for people. It is just ugly, plain and simple," said Low.
Gloria Nieto, political director at the Billy DeFrank LGBT Community Center in San Jose, labeled the tactics thuggish and said they would not work.
"You know what a bunch of thugs. They are attacking our Web sites, threatening our elected officials. It is nothing but thuggery; it is disgusting," said Nieto. "I don't think it will work in Campbell. I will be the first in line to support Evan so he knows people are backing him up."
Low noted that despite being near San Francisco, there are quite a large number of Prop 8 supporters in Silicon Valley. More than 3,000 people turned out for a recent Yes on 8 rally in Cupertino, and Low said one doesn't have to look hard to find Yes on 8 lawn signs.
"We don't need to go that far to see where so much work needs to be done," said Low.
Several No on Prop 8 get-out-the-vote South Bay rallies are planned this weekend.
Saturday, November 1 from noon to 2 p.m. opponents of the measure will gather at the following locations: in Cupertino at DeAnza College, corner of Stevens Creek and Stelling; in San Jose at the intersection of Stevens Creek and Winchester; in Willow Glen at the corner of Lincoln and Minnesota.
Sunday, November 2 from 2 to 5 p.m. No on 8 backers will gather at the Bed, Bath and Beyond on Hamilton Avenue.
'Yes on Prop. 8' gaining on foes, poll finds
By Aurelio Rojas
arojas@sacbee.com
Published: Friday, Oct. 31, 2008 | Page 1A
Over the past six weeks, a proposed constitutional amendment that would end same-sex marriage in California has gained substantial ground but still trails by a five-point margin heading into Tuesday's election.
A new Field Poll shows Proposition 8, one of the most closely watched state ballot measures in years, is supported by 44 percent of likely voters. Forty-nine percent oppose it, and 7 percent are undecided.
In the last Field Poll, released Sept. 18, the measure was behind by 17 points.
"It's certainly closer than it was before the advertising campaign hit," said Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo. "A lot of that has to do with the campaigning on the Yes (on 8) side."
In television ads, supporters have expanded their arguments beyond the issue of whether gay couples should be allowed to marry to warn that schools would incorporate same-sex marriage into lesson plans.
Opponents have dismissed those claims as scare tactics. They've argued that by eliminating the right of gays to marry, the measure would deprive one group of a freedom enjoyed by another group.
As the debate has intensified, many supporters and opponents have taken a closer look at the measure – and in some cases been persuaded by arguments from the other side, DiCamillo said.
"The ('Yes') campaign has been effective, but will it be enough?" he said.
Nearly half of all voters are voting early or by mail, and they narrowly favor Proposition 8 by a three-point margin, according to the poll. Among the 22 percent of respondents who have already voted, the yes side was leading by six points.
But DiCamillo said the survey also suggests that the no side has enough supporters to defeat the measure and the race will come down to which side gets more of its backers to the polls on Election Day.
Voters supporting Democrat Barack Obama for president overwhelmingly oppose Proposition 8, and those backing Republican John McCain overwhelmingly support it, according to the poll.
A Field Poll released earlier this week showed Obama leading McCain in California by a whopping 22 points.
DiCamillo said that has been factored into the Proposition 8 poll, which means that if Obama wins by a larger margin, the "No" side will benefit. The same is true for the "Yes" side if McCain beats expectations.
Geography is also playing an important role. Voters who live in coastal California counties constitute 71 percent of likely voters, and they oppose the measure by a 54-39 margin, according to the poll. Those who live in inland counties back it by a 57-37 margin.
"This poll is showing the (Central Valley) strongly on the 'Yes' side," DiCamillo said. "It's just the rest of the state – the coastal counties – that is heavily on the 'No' side."
One Sacramentan who has already voted against the measure is Carol Johnson, a lesbian who doesn't understand why opponents of gay marriage feel threatened.
"It has nothing to do with their marriage, which is probably rocky," Johnson said. "My friend Dave, who's straight, was saying we should put up a Defense of Marriage Act and anybody who gets caught in adultery gets beaten in the public square."
But another Sacramentan, Kirk McCorris, said he is voting for the measure because of his Christian beliefs.
He is also angry that the California Supreme Court overturned a ballot measure overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2000 that banned same-sex marriage.
"Sixty-one percent of voters approved it, and yet four judges disregarded their views," McCorris said.
The latest Field Poll also found Proposition 2 leading by a commanding 33-point margin, 60 percent to 27 percent, with 13 percent undecided. The measure effectively would ban farms in California from confining egg-laying hens, breeding pigs and veal calves in cages or crates.
Proposition 11, which would strip legislators of the power to draw legislative districts and hand that responsibility to an independent commission, was leading by 15 points, 45 percent to 30 percent, with 25 percent undecided.
Proposition 7, which would require all California utilities to get at least half their electricity from clean, renewable sources, was trailing by four points.
arojas@sacbee.com
Published: Friday, Oct. 31, 2008 | Page 1A
Over the past six weeks, a proposed constitutional amendment that would end same-sex marriage in California has gained substantial ground but still trails by a five-point margin heading into Tuesday's election.
A new Field Poll shows Proposition 8, one of the most closely watched state ballot measures in years, is supported by 44 percent of likely voters. Forty-nine percent oppose it, and 7 percent are undecided.
In the last Field Poll, released Sept. 18, the measure was behind by 17 points.
"It's certainly closer than it was before the advertising campaign hit," said Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo. "A lot of that has to do with the campaigning on the Yes (on 8) side."
In television ads, supporters have expanded their arguments beyond the issue of whether gay couples should be allowed to marry to warn that schools would incorporate same-sex marriage into lesson plans.
Opponents have dismissed those claims as scare tactics. They've argued that by eliminating the right of gays to marry, the measure would deprive one group of a freedom enjoyed by another group.
As the debate has intensified, many supporters and opponents have taken a closer look at the measure – and in some cases been persuaded by arguments from the other side, DiCamillo said.
"The ('Yes') campaign has been effective, but will it be enough?" he said.
Nearly half of all voters are voting early or by mail, and they narrowly favor Proposition 8 by a three-point margin, according to the poll. Among the 22 percent of respondents who have already voted, the yes side was leading by six points.
But DiCamillo said the survey also suggests that the no side has enough supporters to defeat the measure and the race will come down to which side gets more of its backers to the polls on Election Day.
Voters supporting Democrat Barack Obama for president overwhelmingly oppose Proposition 8, and those backing Republican John McCain overwhelmingly support it, according to the poll.
A Field Poll released earlier this week showed Obama leading McCain in California by a whopping 22 points.
DiCamillo said that has been factored into the Proposition 8 poll, which means that if Obama wins by a larger margin, the "No" side will benefit. The same is true for the "Yes" side if McCain beats expectations.
Geography is also playing an important role. Voters who live in coastal California counties constitute 71 percent of likely voters, and they oppose the measure by a 54-39 margin, according to the poll. Those who live in inland counties back it by a 57-37 margin.
"This poll is showing the (Central Valley) strongly on the 'Yes' side," DiCamillo said. "It's just the rest of the state – the coastal counties – that is heavily on the 'No' side."
One Sacramentan who has already voted against the measure is Carol Johnson, a lesbian who doesn't understand why opponents of gay marriage feel threatened.
"It has nothing to do with their marriage, which is probably rocky," Johnson said. "My friend Dave, who's straight, was saying we should put up a Defense of Marriage Act and anybody who gets caught in adultery gets beaten in the public square."
But another Sacramentan, Kirk McCorris, said he is voting for the measure because of his Christian beliefs.
He is also angry that the California Supreme Court overturned a ballot measure overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2000 that banned same-sex marriage.
"Sixty-one percent of voters approved it, and yet four judges disregarded their views," McCorris said.
The latest Field Poll also found Proposition 2 leading by a commanding 33-point margin, 60 percent to 27 percent, with 13 percent undecided. The measure effectively would ban farms in California from confining egg-laying hens, breeding pigs and veal calves in cages or crates.
Proposition 11, which would strip legislators of the power to draw legislative districts and hand that responsibility to an independent commission, was leading by 15 points, 45 percent to 30 percent, with 25 percent undecided.
Proposition 7, which would require all California utilities to get at least half their electricity from clean, renewable sources, was trailing by four points.
California Same-Sex Marriage Initiative Campaigns Shatter Spending Records
By Justin Ewers
U.S. News & World Report
Thursday, October 30th 2008, 1:06 PM
SAN FRANCISCO -With less than a week to go before the election, the heated battle over a California ballot initiative that would ban same-sex marriage has begun to shatter spending records and draw high-profile political figures into the fray. According to outside estimates, the campaigns for and against Proposition 8 have raised more than $60 million in donations, setting a new record nationally for a social policy initiative--and trumping every other race in the country this year in spending except the presidential contest.
By comparison, the second-highest campaign spending numbers in the country can be found in Minnesota's Senate race between the Republican incumbent Norm Coleman and comedian Al Franken, where the sides have raised about $35 million combined.
Similar initiatives to ban same-sex marriage in Arizona and Florida have raised just over $11 million combined.
The expensive California media market has been saturated with TV ads for weeks as both proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage jockey for attention in the most populous state in the country. When the initiative qualified for the ballot earlier this year, campaign experts predicted the two sides would raise a total of $30 million. But as recent polls began to show the race tightening, the money-raising arms race began. According to campaign finance records, the biggest single donor to the campaign to ban same-sex marriage is currently the Knights of Columbus, a Connecticut-based Catholic fraternal organization, which has donated $1.4 million. As of last week, roughly 40 percent of the campaign's overall donations have come from members of the Mormon church.
The largest donor to the campaign defending gay marriage is the California Teachers Association, which has raised $1.3 million to fight the initiative. Proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage have each raised roughly $30 million to date, about as much as was raised in all 24 states that have had same-sex marriage initiatives on their ballots since 2004.
"This is the ballgame. There is no other battle than this one, with all due respect to my colleagues in Arizona and Florida," Frank Schubert, the campaign manager for "Yes on 8," the effort to ban gay marriage, told reporters earlier this week. "If you are concerned about marriage and how it gets to be defined, this is where it will be decided."
As donors have reached for their wallets, both sides have also been seeking out high-profile endorsements. In addition to Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, who said recently that she approved of a federal ban on gay marriage, Rick Warren, the evangelical minister who hosted a presidential debate at Saddleback Church this summer, threw his support behind the effort to ban same-sex marriage last week. "For 5,000 years, every culture and every religion--not just Christianity--has defined marriage as a contract between men and women," Warren said on Friday. "There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2 percent of our population." John McCain has also said he supports efforts in California to ban same-sex marriage.
Joe Biden, meanwhile, said in an interview with Ellen DeGeneres last week that he would not support the effort to eliminate marriage for same-sex couples in the state. "If I lived in California, I'd clearly vote against Proposition 8," said the Democratic vice presidential candidate. "I think it's regressive, I think it's unfair, and so I'd vote no." Barack Obama has stayed mum on the subject, though he has indicated in the past that while he personally believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, he does not support efforts like the one in California to amend state constitutions to ban same-sex unions.
Dianne Feinstein, California's popular Democratic senator, appeared for the first time last night in a TV commercial urging residents to vote against the ban. "[Proposition] 8 would be a terrible mistake for California," she says. "It's about discrimination, and we must always say no to that." In another tough new TV spot, Jack O'Connell, the California superintendent of public instruction, also voices his strong opposition to the attempted ban, condemning recent TV ads that imply that supporting the rights of gay couples to marry will affect what's taught in public schools. "Proposition 8 has nothing to do with schools or kids," O'Connell says in the new commercial. "Our schools aren't required to teach anything about marriage, and using kids to lie about that is shameful."
Recent polls show the initiative is currently too close to call, with one poll showing 48 percent of likely voters are inclined to support the effort to ban same-sex marriage, while 45 percent intend to vote against it. The initiative will require a majority to pass.
U.S. News & World Report
Thursday, October 30th 2008, 1:06 PM
SAN FRANCISCO -With less than a week to go before the election, the heated battle over a California ballot initiative that would ban same-sex marriage has begun to shatter spending records and draw high-profile political figures into the fray. According to outside estimates, the campaigns for and against Proposition 8 have raised more than $60 million in donations, setting a new record nationally for a social policy initiative--and trumping every other race in the country this year in spending except the presidential contest.
By comparison, the second-highest campaign spending numbers in the country can be found in Minnesota's Senate race between the Republican incumbent Norm Coleman and comedian Al Franken, where the sides have raised about $35 million combined.
Similar initiatives to ban same-sex marriage in Arizona and Florida have raised just over $11 million combined.
The expensive California media market has been saturated with TV ads for weeks as both proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage jockey for attention in the most populous state in the country. When the initiative qualified for the ballot earlier this year, campaign experts predicted the two sides would raise a total of $30 million. But as recent polls began to show the race tightening, the money-raising arms race began. According to campaign finance records, the biggest single donor to the campaign to ban same-sex marriage is currently the Knights of Columbus, a Connecticut-based Catholic fraternal organization, which has donated $1.4 million. As of last week, roughly 40 percent of the campaign's overall donations have come from members of the Mormon church.
The largest donor to the campaign defending gay marriage is the California Teachers Association, which has raised $1.3 million to fight the initiative. Proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage have each raised roughly $30 million to date, about as much as was raised in all 24 states that have had same-sex marriage initiatives on their ballots since 2004.
"This is the ballgame. There is no other battle than this one, with all due respect to my colleagues in Arizona and Florida," Frank Schubert, the campaign manager for "Yes on 8," the effort to ban gay marriage, told reporters earlier this week. "If you are concerned about marriage and how it gets to be defined, this is where it will be decided."
As donors have reached for their wallets, both sides have also been seeking out high-profile endorsements. In addition to Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, who said recently that she approved of a federal ban on gay marriage, Rick Warren, the evangelical minister who hosted a presidential debate at Saddleback Church this summer, threw his support behind the effort to ban same-sex marriage last week. "For 5,000 years, every culture and every religion--not just Christianity--has defined marriage as a contract between men and women," Warren said on Friday. "There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2 percent of our population." John McCain has also said he supports efforts in California to ban same-sex marriage.
Joe Biden, meanwhile, said in an interview with Ellen DeGeneres last week that he would not support the effort to eliminate marriage for same-sex couples in the state. "If I lived in California, I'd clearly vote against Proposition 8," said the Democratic vice presidential candidate. "I think it's regressive, I think it's unfair, and so I'd vote no." Barack Obama has stayed mum on the subject, though he has indicated in the past that while he personally believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, he does not support efforts like the one in California to amend state constitutions to ban same-sex unions.
Dianne Feinstein, California's popular Democratic senator, appeared for the first time last night in a TV commercial urging residents to vote against the ban. "[Proposition] 8 would be a terrible mistake for California," she says. "It's about discrimination, and we must always say no to that." In another tough new TV spot, Jack O'Connell, the California superintendent of public instruction, also voices his strong opposition to the attempted ban, condemning recent TV ads that imply that supporting the rights of gay couples to marry will affect what's taught in public schools. "Proposition 8 has nothing to do with schools or kids," O'Connell says in the new commercial. "Our schools aren't required to teach anything about marriage, and using kids to lie about that is shameful."
Recent polls show the initiative is currently too close to call, with one poll showing 48 percent of likely voters are inclined to support the effort to ban same-sex marriage, while 45 percent intend to vote against it. The initiative will require a majority to pass.
Palin Differs With McCain on Federal Marriage Amendment
Palin Differs With McCain on Federal Marriage Amendment
October 20, 2008 9:14 AM
ABC News' Imtiyaz Delawala Reports: Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin has signaled support for a federal marriage amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman – a position inconsistent with Sen. John McCain, who has opposed such a measure, as well as with her own previously stated position of letting states decide on such issues.
In an interview to air tomorrow on The 700 Club, Christian Broadcasting News senior correspondent David Brody asked Palin, "On constitutional marriage amendment, are, are you for something like that?"
"I am, in my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman," Palin said, citing the 1998 initiative that banned gay marriage in her home state.
"I wish on a federal level that that's where we would go because I don't support gay marriage," Palin added, taking a position at odds with McCain, who voted against efforts for a proposed Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004 and 2006. Earlier this month, McCain told the Washington Blade, a gay newspaper, that he continues to oppose such an amendment today because he thinks the definition of marriage should be a state matter and not one for the federal government "as long as no state is forced to adopt some other state's standard."
While Palin's position differs from McCain's, it is also seemingly at odds with statements she has made calling herself a "federalist" who supports letting individual states decide on such matters.
When asked last month by CBS' Katie Couric why she considered Roe v. Wade a bad decision, Palin said she believed states and not the federal government should decide the legality of the issue.
"I think it should be a states' issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I'm, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas," Palin said. "And I believe that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in an issue like that."
McCain, who often calls himself a "federalist," has tied together his opposition to Roe v. Wade as well as a Federal Marriage Amendment as consistent with the position of letting states make such decisions.
"I'm a federalist. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states," McCain said in an interview on This Week with George Stephanopoulos in November 2006. "And I don't believe the Supreme Court should be legislating in the way that they did on Roe v. Wade."
As she has said in previous interviews, Palin told CBN’s Brody that she would not "judge" gay individuals, but said that she will continue "casting my votes and speaking up for traditional marriage."
"I'm not going to be out there judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment telling what they can and can't do, should and should not do," Palin told Brody. "But I certainly can express my own opinion here and take actions that I believe would be best for traditional marriage, and that's casting my votes and speaking up for traditional marriage that, that instrument that it's the foundation of our society is that strong family and that's based on that traditional definition of marriage, so I do support that."
October 20, 2008 9:14 AM
ABC News' Imtiyaz Delawala Reports: Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin has signaled support for a federal marriage amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman – a position inconsistent with Sen. John McCain, who has opposed such a measure, as well as with her own previously stated position of letting states decide on such issues.
In an interview to air tomorrow on The 700 Club, Christian Broadcasting News senior correspondent David Brody asked Palin, "On constitutional marriage amendment, are, are you for something like that?"
"I am, in my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman," Palin said, citing the 1998 initiative that banned gay marriage in her home state.
"I wish on a federal level that that's where we would go because I don't support gay marriage," Palin added, taking a position at odds with McCain, who voted against efforts for a proposed Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004 and 2006. Earlier this month, McCain told the Washington Blade, a gay newspaper, that he continues to oppose such an amendment today because he thinks the definition of marriage should be a state matter and not one for the federal government "as long as no state is forced to adopt some other state's standard."
While Palin's position differs from McCain's, it is also seemingly at odds with statements she has made calling herself a "federalist" who supports letting individual states decide on such matters.
When asked last month by CBS' Katie Couric why she considered Roe v. Wade a bad decision, Palin said she believed states and not the federal government should decide the legality of the issue.
"I think it should be a states' issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I'm, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas," Palin said. "And I believe that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in an issue like that."
McCain, who often calls himself a "federalist," has tied together his opposition to Roe v. Wade as well as a Federal Marriage Amendment as consistent with the position of letting states make such decisions.
"I'm a federalist. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states," McCain said in an interview on This Week with George Stephanopoulos in November 2006. "And I don't believe the Supreme Court should be legislating in the way that they did on Roe v. Wade."
As she has said in previous interviews, Palin told CBN’s Brody that she would not "judge" gay individuals, but said that she will continue "casting my votes and speaking up for traditional marriage."
"I'm not going to be out there judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment telling what they can and can't do, should and should not do," Palin told Brody. "But I certainly can express my own opinion here and take actions that I believe would be best for traditional marriage, and that's casting my votes and speaking up for traditional marriage that, that instrument that it's the foundation of our society is that strong family and that's based on that traditional definition of marriage, so I do support that."
California's Proposition 8 has stars, politicans, and advocates in battle over gay marriage rights
By NANCY DILLON
DAILY NEWS WEST COAST BUREAU CHIEF
Thursday, October 30th 2008, 2:03 PM
LOS ANGELES - Their state may be safely in Barack Obama's pocket, but California voters are at ground zero for the national culture war over gay marriage.
The fierce battle centers on a ballot initiative called Proposition - or "Prop." - 8. The referendum would amend the state constitution to define marriage as strictly between a man and a woman.
Gay rights advocates, along with deep-pocketed Hollywood donors Steven Spielberg, Brad Pitt and Ellen DeGeneres are on one side, asking voters to safeguard the fledgling right of gay couples to exchange vows in the Golden State, legal since May of this year.
America Ferrera taped an anti-Prop. 8 ad with her "Ugly Betty" cast-mates and aimed at Latino voters.
Religious conservatives, including ex-House majority leader Newt Gingrich and Nixon lawyer-turned Evangelical icon Charles Colson are on the other side, warning of an apocalyptic ripple effect if the referendum fails.
"This vote on whether we stop the gay-marriage juggernaut in California is The Armageddon," Colson warns in one particularly dire video message. "If we lose this, we are going to lose in a lot of other ways."
Both sides are expected to spend a combined $64 million - a record for a same-sex marriage ballot initiative - with about 40% of the $27 million raised to overturn gay marriage coming from Mormon donors, many outside the state, according to Meg Waters with the "Yes on 8" campaign.
"This as a cornerstone issue," Waters told the Daily News. "People from all over are contributing to our position. They don't want to change the definition of marriage that people have recognized since the dawn of time."
If it passes, Prop. 8 would invalidate a May 2008 California Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage and ushered in thousands of nuptials for local and out-of-state gay couples.
The state's Attorney General has said he does not believe that if the referendum passes, it will invalidate the unions of gay couples who have gotten married in California since June. But other legal experts are not so sure – and fear thousands of spouses will suddenly find themselves unmarried.
"We love being married. There's just a level of depth to it. It's a powerful experience, and it's something our friends and family can relate to," said Manhattan resident Inga Sarda-Sorensen, 44, who married partner Jennie Talley, 54, in Malibu on Sept. 20. "Prop. 8 would eliminate this fundamental right."
Overturning the law could also affect the 12,000 gay couples expected to travel from New York for California weddings over the next three years, according to a UCLA study.
Supporters argue Prop. 8 is needed to protect churches from discrimination lawsuits and keep the topic of gay marriage out of public schools. Those against Prop. 8 say the measure denies gay people a fundamental civil right.
"I want to talk to you about an issue that is central not just to California, but to our very civilization," Newt Gingrich says in a commercial condemning the four California judges who legalized gay marriage. "Vote yes on Proposition 8 to defend and protect marriage."
Polls suggest the race is tight. Turnout will be key.
"I am crazy over it. I'm online reading every single story, trying to figure out the polls. I wish I had the funds to go back out to California and go door to door," said Jeff Friedman, 40, a Rockville Centre, N.Y., resident who married partner Andrew Zwerin, 40, in California on Oct. 12.
The couple has a 5-year-old son named Joshua.
"My son deserves the protections of marriage that other children's parents receive," Friedman, who's been with Zwerin since high school, said.
"I want my son to reap the benefits when we are able to file a joint federal tax return and save on taxes. I want my son to inherit more after his parents are gone," Friedman said. "It might make sense for us to back up our license in Massachusetts or Connecticut [if Prop. 8 passes]. But I don't really want to think about it."
DAILY NEWS WEST COAST BUREAU CHIEF
Thursday, October 30th 2008, 2:03 PM
LOS ANGELES - Their state may be safely in Barack Obama's pocket, but California voters are at ground zero for the national culture war over gay marriage.
The fierce battle centers on a ballot initiative called Proposition - or "Prop." - 8. The referendum would amend the state constitution to define marriage as strictly between a man and a woman.
Gay rights advocates, along with deep-pocketed Hollywood donors Steven Spielberg, Brad Pitt and Ellen DeGeneres are on one side, asking voters to safeguard the fledgling right of gay couples to exchange vows in the Golden State, legal since May of this year.
America Ferrera taped an anti-Prop. 8 ad with her "Ugly Betty" cast-mates and aimed at Latino voters.
Religious conservatives, including ex-House majority leader Newt Gingrich and Nixon lawyer-turned Evangelical icon Charles Colson are on the other side, warning of an apocalyptic ripple effect if the referendum fails.
"This vote on whether we stop the gay-marriage juggernaut in California is The Armageddon," Colson warns in one particularly dire video message. "If we lose this, we are going to lose in a lot of other ways."
Both sides are expected to spend a combined $64 million - a record for a same-sex marriage ballot initiative - with about 40% of the $27 million raised to overturn gay marriage coming from Mormon donors, many outside the state, according to Meg Waters with the "Yes on 8" campaign.
"This as a cornerstone issue," Waters told the Daily News. "People from all over are contributing to our position. They don't want to change the definition of marriage that people have recognized since the dawn of time."
If it passes, Prop. 8 would invalidate a May 2008 California Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage and ushered in thousands of nuptials for local and out-of-state gay couples.
The state's Attorney General has said he does not believe that if the referendum passes, it will invalidate the unions of gay couples who have gotten married in California since June. But other legal experts are not so sure – and fear thousands of spouses will suddenly find themselves unmarried.
"We love being married. There's just a level of depth to it. It's a powerful experience, and it's something our friends and family can relate to," said Manhattan resident Inga Sarda-Sorensen, 44, who married partner Jennie Talley, 54, in Malibu on Sept. 20. "Prop. 8 would eliminate this fundamental right."
Overturning the law could also affect the 12,000 gay couples expected to travel from New York for California weddings over the next three years, according to a UCLA study.
Supporters argue Prop. 8 is needed to protect churches from discrimination lawsuits and keep the topic of gay marriage out of public schools. Those against Prop. 8 say the measure denies gay people a fundamental civil right.
"I want to talk to you about an issue that is central not just to California, but to our very civilization," Newt Gingrich says in a commercial condemning the four California judges who legalized gay marriage. "Vote yes on Proposition 8 to defend and protect marriage."
Polls suggest the race is tight. Turnout will be key.
"I am crazy over it. I'm online reading every single story, trying to figure out the polls. I wish I had the funds to go back out to California and go door to door," said Jeff Friedman, 40, a Rockville Centre, N.Y., resident who married partner Andrew Zwerin, 40, in California on Oct. 12.
The couple has a 5-year-old son named Joshua.
"My son deserves the protections of marriage that other children's parents receive," Friedman, who's been with Zwerin since high school, said.
"I want my son to reap the benefits when we are able to file a joint federal tax return and save on taxes. I want my son to inherit more after his parents are gone," Friedman said. "It might make sense for us to back up our license in Massachusetts or Connecticut [if Prop. 8 passes]. But I don't really want to think about it."
October 30, 2008
Effects Marriage Equality in CONNECTICUT Vote no on question #1
Effects Marriage Equality in CONNECTICUT
FOR CONNECTICUT
READ AND FORWARD WIDELY
VOTE NO on Question #1 on Election Day
On Nov. 4th, there will be a question on the ballot: "Shall there be a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise the Constitution of the State"?
It could be the second most important vote you cast this year! And right now, many people don't even realize it's on the ballot. If you didn't, here's more information.
The Vote YES campaign wants to use this ballot question—which only appears every 20 years—as the first step to reverse the Kerrigan decision which now makes it legal for same-sex couples to marry. We must not let them succeed!
Who Opposes the Constitutional Convention:
* 50+ civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, labor union and human service organizations
* Every one of the Democratic Constitutional Officers: Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, Treasurer Denise Nappier, Comptroller Nancy Wyman
Who Supports the Constitutional Convention:
* Groups like the Family Institute of CT and the CT Catholic Conference who want to use the Convention as a way to ban gay marriage and abortion.
* Groups who want to slash services to poor and middle class residents, give tax breaks to big corporations, and take away workers rights and benefits.
Attorney General Blumenthal calls the convention risky and unnecessary.
VOTE NO on Question #1 on Election Day
PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY
*For breaking news and more information about the status of marriage equality in CT go to http://www.lmfct.org/
FOR CONNECTICUT
READ AND FORWARD WIDELY
VOTE NO on Question #1 on Election Day
On Nov. 4th, there will be a question on the ballot: "Shall there be a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise the Constitution of the State"?
It could be the second most important vote you cast this year! And right now, many people don't even realize it's on the ballot. If you didn't, here's more information.
The Vote YES campaign wants to use this ballot question—which only appears every 20 years—as the first step to reverse the Kerrigan decision which now makes it legal for same-sex couples to marry. We must not let them succeed!
Who Opposes the Constitutional Convention:
* 50+ civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, labor union and human service organizations
* Every one of the Democratic Constitutional Officers: Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, Treasurer Denise Nappier, Comptroller Nancy Wyman
Who Supports the Constitutional Convention:
* Groups like the Family Institute of CT and the CT Catholic Conference who want to use the Convention as a way to ban gay marriage and abortion.
* Groups who want to slash services to poor and middle class residents, give tax breaks to big corporations, and take away workers rights and benefits.
Attorney General Blumenthal calls the convention risky and unnecessary.
VOTE NO on Question #1 on Election Day
PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY
*For breaking news and more information about the status of marriage equality in CT go to http://www.lmfct.org/
October 28, 2008
Connecticut Gay Marriage ruling in effect; but first marriages weeks away
By 365gay Newscenter Staff
(Hartford, Connecticut) Connecticut’s Supreme Court on Tuesday officially published its ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, but it will likely be several weeks before the first weddings can take place.
Publication of the ruling sends the case back down to the lower court where it began. There, a judge will issue a directive to the state Department of Public Health and town clerks, ordering them to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who request them.
The formality means the first weddings will likely not take place before November 10, but with the Veterans Day holiday on Nov. 11, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders - the Boston-based legal group that won the Supreme Court ruling - said Tuesday that it is more likely the marriages will not begin until Nov. 12 or 13.
Last Friday, the Department of Public Health told town clerks that the state’s marriage licenses have been revised and will be sent out this week.
On Oct. 10, Connecticut’s Supreme Court ruled that gay couples have the right to marry, making the state the third behind Massachusetts and California to legalize such unions through the courts.
The 4-3 ruling is the first time that a state which had willingly offered an alternative to marriage was told by a court that civil unions aren’t enough to protect the rights of gay couples. Connecticut was the first state to voluntarily pass laws to affirm civil unions.
Justice Richard N. Palmer, writing for the majority, said that offering civil unions but denying marriage to same-sex couples creates separate standards.
“Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice,” Palmer wrote.
The lawsuit began in 2004, after eight same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses and sued, saying their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process were violated.
It is not known how many of the 1,700 gay and lesbian couples who had civil unions over the last three years will take advantage of the new marriage law.
Some gay and lesbian couples are anxiously awaiting the moment they can wed, hoping the process can be sped up. Others are content to let the process work its way to completion.
One couple, Jeffrey Busch and Stephen Davis, plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said they are anxious to marry, but prepared to wait.
“We’ve waited for almost 20 years,” Busch told the Stamford Advocate. “We can wait a little bit longer to do it right.”
In a separate move, clergy and lay delegates of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut have voted to ask the bishop to allow same-sex church weddings.
Bishop Andrew D. Smith said he would study the issue. If he agrees, it would further acerbate the feud between conservatives and liberals in the worldwide Anglican faith.
Despite the high court ruling, gay marriage foes are pressing for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision.
Every 20 years, voters can force a convention during which delegates can rewrite the entire constitution. By coincidence, it’s on the ballot next Tuesday. The the Family Institute of Connecticut is rallying support for Constitutional Convention.
“This is our one opportunity for the people to have a voice, for the people to be heard, for them to decide whether marriage will be protected as between a man and a woman,” said Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the institute, said earlier this month.
Nevertheless, a poll released after the Supreme Court made its ruling found that 53 percent of registered voters said they agreed with the ruling while 42 percent disagreed.
(Hartford, Connecticut) Connecticut’s Supreme Court on Tuesday officially published its ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, but it will likely be several weeks before the first weddings can take place.
Publication of the ruling sends the case back down to the lower court where it began. There, a judge will issue a directive to the state Department of Public Health and town clerks, ordering them to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who request them.
The formality means the first weddings will likely not take place before November 10, but with the Veterans Day holiday on Nov. 11, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders - the Boston-based legal group that won the Supreme Court ruling - said Tuesday that it is more likely the marriages will not begin until Nov. 12 or 13.
Last Friday, the Department of Public Health told town clerks that the state’s marriage licenses have been revised and will be sent out this week.
On Oct. 10, Connecticut’s Supreme Court ruled that gay couples have the right to marry, making the state the third behind Massachusetts and California to legalize such unions through the courts.
The 4-3 ruling is the first time that a state which had willingly offered an alternative to marriage was told by a court that civil unions aren’t enough to protect the rights of gay couples. Connecticut was the first state to voluntarily pass laws to affirm civil unions.
Justice Richard N. Palmer, writing for the majority, said that offering civil unions but denying marriage to same-sex couples creates separate standards.
“Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice,” Palmer wrote.
The lawsuit began in 2004, after eight same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses and sued, saying their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process were violated.
It is not known how many of the 1,700 gay and lesbian couples who had civil unions over the last three years will take advantage of the new marriage law.
Some gay and lesbian couples are anxiously awaiting the moment they can wed, hoping the process can be sped up. Others are content to let the process work its way to completion.
One couple, Jeffrey Busch and Stephen Davis, plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said they are anxious to marry, but prepared to wait.
“We’ve waited for almost 20 years,” Busch told the Stamford Advocate. “We can wait a little bit longer to do it right.”
In a separate move, clergy and lay delegates of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut have voted to ask the bishop to allow same-sex church weddings.
Bishop Andrew D. Smith said he would study the issue. If he agrees, it would further acerbate the feud between conservatives and liberals in the worldwide Anglican faith.
Despite the high court ruling, gay marriage foes are pressing for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision.
Every 20 years, voters can force a convention during which delegates can rewrite the entire constitution. By coincidence, it’s on the ballot next Tuesday. The the Family Institute of Connecticut is rallying support for Constitutional Convention.
“This is our one opportunity for the people to have a voice, for the people to be heard, for them to decide whether marriage will be protected as between a man and a woman,” said Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the institute, said earlier this month.
Nevertheless, a poll released after the Supreme Court made its ruling found that 53 percent of registered voters said they agreed with the ruling while 42 percent disagreed.
October 27, 2008
A Line in the Sand for Same-Sex Marriage Foes
October 27, 2008
New York Times
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
While the battle over same-sex marriage has been all but invisible in the presidential race this year, it is raging like a wind-whipped wildfire in California.
Conservative religious leaders from across the country are pouring time, talent and millions of dollars into the state in support of Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriage. They are hoping to reverse a California Supreme Court ruling in May that gave same-sex couples permission to marry, resulting in thousands of exultant same-sex weddings.
Similar marriage amendments are on the ballot next month in Arizona and Florida. But religious conservatives have cast the campaign in California as the decisive last stand, warning in stunningly apocalyptic terms of dire consequences to the entire nation if Proposition 8 does not pass.
California, they say, sets cultural trends for the rest of the country and even the world. If same-sex marriage is allowed to become entrenched there, they warn, there will be no going back.
“This vote on whether we stop the gay-marriage juggernaut in California is Armageddon,” said Charles W. Colson, the founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries and an eminent evangelical voice, speaking to pastors in a video promoting Proposition 8. “We lose this, we are going to lose in a lot of other ways, including freedom of religion.”
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian lobby based in Washington, said in an interview, “It’s more important than the presidential election.”
“We’ve picked bad presidents before, and we’ve survived as a nation,” said Mr. Perkins, who has made two trips to California in the last six weeks. “But we will not survive if we lose the institution of marriage.”
In television advertisements, rallies, highway billboards, sermons and phone banks, supporters of Proposition 8 are warning that if it does not pass, churches that refuse to marry same-sex couples will be sued and lose their tax-exempt status. Ministers will be jailed if they preach against homosexuality. Parents will have no right to prevent their children from being taught in school about same-sex marriage.
The “No on 8” forces, which include many liberal religious leaders, dismiss these claims as scare tactics and without basis in legal precedent.
“The idea that we would be forced as clergy to perform a marriage that was against our conscience, or that a church would lose its tax-exempt status, is ridiculous,” said the Rev. Karen Sapio, the minister of Claremont Presbyterian Church in Southern California. “If you look dispassionately at the record, there are a lot of churches with policies that are at odds with civil law.”
She continued, “I have not heard of a single Catholic church forced to marry someone who has been divorced, or a rabbi forced to perform an interfaith marriage or an evangelical church forced to marry a couple who has been living together.”
Nevertheless, the “Yes on 8” campaign has brought over from Sweden a pastor named Ake Green, who a few years ago was sentenced to a month in prison under Sweden’s law banning hate speech, because he gave a sermon denouncing homosexuality. Mr. Green’s testimony was featured in a 90-minute “Yes on 8” satellite simulcast that was recently downlinked to 170 churches throughout the state.
“He is a symbol of what is ahead,” said the Rev. Jim Garlow, the senior pastor of Skyline Church in the San Diego area, a leading organizer of the “Yes” ranks.
“When you have laws that make homosexual marriage a protected class, then the government has a compelling interest to normalize that and must declare anything in opposition to that hate speech,” said Mr. Garlow, who hosted both the recent simulcast and regular conference calls with as many as 2,000 pastors, to motivate the ranks.
Leaders on both sides say they sense that the election will be close and that Proposition 8 could well pass. On one thing they agree: Polls in every other state that has had a marriage amendment on the ballot have consistently undercounted voters who oppose same-sex marriage by significant percentages.
The most recent poll on Proposition 8 showed 52 percent against it, 44 percent for it and 4 percent unsure. The poll, of more than 1,000 likely voters, was conducted Oct. 12 to 19 by the Public Policy Institute of California and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
In Florida, a Mason-Dixon poll taken in early October showed 55 percent supporting the marriage amendment and 34 percent against. However, this measure requires 60 percent to pass.
The text of Proposition 8 in California says, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.”
The campaign to pass it is being organized primarily through churches and other houses of worship. It is a contrast to the opposition, built on a wider array of power blocs, including gay and civil rights groups, unions, businesses and corporations, ethnic lobbies and Hollywood — as well as religious groups.
When it comes to fund-raising, however, the ranks of those who oppose same-sex marriage were surpassing the supporters’ side — at least until gay-rights groups sounded the alarm this month. Each side had raised more than $25 million by mid-October, but new figures due out on Monday are likely to show big jumps in the final stretch.
National religious organizations including the Knights of Columbus, the Catholic fraternal group; Focus on the Family, a ministry based in Colorado Springs that is led by James C. Dobson; and the American Family Association, based in Mississippi and led by the Rev. Donald E. Wildmon, have been major contributors to the “Yes on 8” campaign.
And in June, the top three leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sent a letter strongly urging members to donate time and money, and Mormons have responded with many millions.
Preachers from other parts of the country have dropped everything and moved to California in recent months. Lou Engle, who leads TheCall, a charismatic prayer ministry in Washington and Kansas City, Mo., with a large following among youth, moved with his seven children to California in September. He is holding large prayer rallies up and down the state, urging people to pray and fast for the 40 days leading up to the election. Some people are giving up solid foods; others are giving up clothes shopping or their favorite television shows.
“We believe there is a spiritual battle in an unseen realm, and that’s why I’ve called for united prayer for divine intervention,” Mr. Engle said. “It’s a defining moment for the definition of marriage in American history.”
Mr. Perkins of the Family Research Council said the Proposition 8 forces had not benefited from the Republican presidential campaign of Senator John McCain of Arizona or even by his selection of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, an outspoken Christian conservative, as his vice-presidential running mate.
“He’s not helping, and he’s not being helped by the support for the marriage amendment,” Mr. Perkins said, in contrast to the campaigns of President Bush.
The fight for Proposition 8 was initiated in San Diego by evangelical Christian megachurch ministers like Mr. Garlow. But they have brought together an impressive statewide coalition that will not disappear with this election: Hispanic, Asian and black evangelicals; Roman Catholics; Mormons; conservatives within mainline Protestant churches; and a smattering of Orthodox Jews.
The Rev. David Chi, a pastor in San Gabriel, helped to mobilize about 2,000 Chinese Christians on Oct. 19 to turn out for rallies in the Los Angeles area, wearing red T-shirts that said in Chinese, “Marriage = One man + One woman.”
“If same-sex marriage stays, it will affect our children, our descendants,” Mr. Chi said. “Chinese normally we don’t speak too much. But it’s such a moment that it’s so important to give our voice out.”
New York Times
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
While the battle over same-sex marriage has been all but invisible in the presidential race this year, it is raging like a wind-whipped wildfire in California.
Conservative religious leaders from across the country are pouring time, talent and millions of dollars into the state in support of Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriage. They are hoping to reverse a California Supreme Court ruling in May that gave same-sex couples permission to marry, resulting in thousands of exultant same-sex weddings.
Similar marriage amendments are on the ballot next month in Arizona and Florida. But religious conservatives have cast the campaign in California as the decisive last stand, warning in stunningly apocalyptic terms of dire consequences to the entire nation if Proposition 8 does not pass.
California, they say, sets cultural trends for the rest of the country and even the world. If same-sex marriage is allowed to become entrenched there, they warn, there will be no going back.
“This vote on whether we stop the gay-marriage juggernaut in California is Armageddon,” said Charles W. Colson, the founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries and an eminent evangelical voice, speaking to pastors in a video promoting Proposition 8. “We lose this, we are going to lose in a lot of other ways, including freedom of religion.”
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian lobby based in Washington, said in an interview, “It’s more important than the presidential election.”
“We’ve picked bad presidents before, and we’ve survived as a nation,” said Mr. Perkins, who has made two trips to California in the last six weeks. “But we will not survive if we lose the institution of marriage.”
In television advertisements, rallies, highway billboards, sermons and phone banks, supporters of Proposition 8 are warning that if it does not pass, churches that refuse to marry same-sex couples will be sued and lose their tax-exempt status. Ministers will be jailed if they preach against homosexuality. Parents will have no right to prevent their children from being taught in school about same-sex marriage.
The “No on 8” forces, which include many liberal religious leaders, dismiss these claims as scare tactics and without basis in legal precedent.
“The idea that we would be forced as clergy to perform a marriage that was against our conscience, or that a church would lose its tax-exempt status, is ridiculous,” said the Rev. Karen Sapio, the minister of Claremont Presbyterian Church in Southern California. “If you look dispassionately at the record, there are a lot of churches with policies that are at odds with civil law.”
She continued, “I have not heard of a single Catholic church forced to marry someone who has been divorced, or a rabbi forced to perform an interfaith marriage or an evangelical church forced to marry a couple who has been living together.”
Nevertheless, the “Yes on 8” campaign has brought over from Sweden a pastor named Ake Green, who a few years ago was sentenced to a month in prison under Sweden’s law banning hate speech, because he gave a sermon denouncing homosexuality. Mr. Green’s testimony was featured in a 90-minute “Yes on 8” satellite simulcast that was recently downlinked to 170 churches throughout the state.
“He is a symbol of what is ahead,” said the Rev. Jim Garlow, the senior pastor of Skyline Church in the San Diego area, a leading organizer of the “Yes” ranks.
“When you have laws that make homosexual marriage a protected class, then the government has a compelling interest to normalize that and must declare anything in opposition to that hate speech,” said Mr. Garlow, who hosted both the recent simulcast and regular conference calls with as many as 2,000 pastors, to motivate the ranks.
Leaders on both sides say they sense that the election will be close and that Proposition 8 could well pass. On one thing they agree: Polls in every other state that has had a marriage amendment on the ballot have consistently undercounted voters who oppose same-sex marriage by significant percentages.
The most recent poll on Proposition 8 showed 52 percent against it, 44 percent for it and 4 percent unsure. The poll, of more than 1,000 likely voters, was conducted Oct. 12 to 19 by the Public Policy Institute of California and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
In Florida, a Mason-Dixon poll taken in early October showed 55 percent supporting the marriage amendment and 34 percent against. However, this measure requires 60 percent to pass.
The text of Proposition 8 in California says, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.”
The campaign to pass it is being organized primarily through churches and other houses of worship. It is a contrast to the opposition, built on a wider array of power blocs, including gay and civil rights groups, unions, businesses and corporations, ethnic lobbies and Hollywood — as well as religious groups.
When it comes to fund-raising, however, the ranks of those who oppose same-sex marriage were surpassing the supporters’ side — at least until gay-rights groups sounded the alarm this month. Each side had raised more than $25 million by mid-October, but new figures due out on Monday are likely to show big jumps in the final stretch.
National religious organizations including the Knights of Columbus, the Catholic fraternal group; Focus on the Family, a ministry based in Colorado Springs that is led by James C. Dobson; and the American Family Association, based in Mississippi and led by the Rev. Donald E. Wildmon, have been major contributors to the “Yes on 8” campaign.
And in June, the top three leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sent a letter strongly urging members to donate time and money, and Mormons have responded with many millions.
Preachers from other parts of the country have dropped everything and moved to California in recent months. Lou Engle, who leads TheCall, a charismatic prayer ministry in Washington and Kansas City, Mo., with a large following among youth, moved with his seven children to California in September. He is holding large prayer rallies up and down the state, urging people to pray and fast for the 40 days leading up to the election. Some people are giving up solid foods; others are giving up clothes shopping or their favorite television shows.
“We believe there is a spiritual battle in an unseen realm, and that’s why I’ve called for united prayer for divine intervention,” Mr. Engle said. “It’s a defining moment for the definition of marriage in American history.”
Mr. Perkins of the Family Research Council said the Proposition 8 forces had not benefited from the Republican presidential campaign of Senator John McCain of Arizona or even by his selection of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, an outspoken Christian conservative, as his vice-presidential running mate.
“He’s not helping, and he’s not being helped by the support for the marriage amendment,” Mr. Perkins said, in contrast to the campaigns of President Bush.
The fight for Proposition 8 was initiated in San Diego by evangelical Christian megachurch ministers like Mr. Garlow. But they have brought together an impressive statewide coalition that will not disappear with this election: Hispanic, Asian and black evangelicals; Roman Catholics; Mormons; conservatives within mainline Protestant churches; and a smattering of Orthodox Jews.
The Rev. David Chi, a pastor in San Gabriel, helped to mobilize about 2,000 Chinese Christians on Oct. 19 to turn out for rallies in the Los Angeles area, wearing red T-shirts that said in Chinese, “Marriage = One man + One woman.”
“If same-sex marriage stays, it will affect our children, our descendants,” Mr. Chi said. “Chinese normally we don’t speak too much. But it’s such a moment that it’s so important to give our voice out.”
October 21, 2008
And Now, Connecticut!
And Now, Connecticut!
By: ARTHUR S. LEONARD
10/16/2008
The Connecticut Supreme Court on October 10 ruled by a 4-3 vote that same-sex couples have the same right to marry under the state's Constitution as different-sex couples.
The ruling ended a protracted period of suspense that began on May 14, 2007, when the case was argued before the high court.
Justice Richard N. Palmer, writing for the court, found that the state's 2005 Civil Union Act, which provides same-sex couples with access to all the state-law rights of married different-sex couples, failed the state Constitution's requirement of equal protection of the laws.
Connecticut thus became the third state in which the highest court has ruled in favor of a same-sex marriage claim, following Massachusetts in 2003 and California earlier this year. Courts in Vermont and New Jersey had also found a constitutional violation in the state's denial of the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, but left it to their legislatures to remedy the constitutional defect, resulting in the passage of civil union laws in both states.
The Connecticut court faced a question similar to that confronted in California, where the Legislature had also established a legal status other than marriage for same-sex couples providing near-parity in state legal rights, called domestic partnership in that state. Although the Connecticut court did not go as far as the California court in constructing a constitutional theory for requiring the state to go all the way to marriage, it did break new constitutional ground for Connecticut.
The case was originally filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the Boston-based public interest law firm, on behalf of eight same-sex couples whose applications for marriage licenses had been denied.
At the time, GLAD had recently achieved its triumphant victory in Massachusetts and was seeking to build on that victory in a neighboring state where attempts to achieve legal recognition for same-sex couples had not gotten very far in the legislature. Many state and national organizations joined in support of the litigation through amicus briefs and other forms of assistance to the plaintiffs. GLAD attorney Bennett Klein was lead counsel on the case.
Filing of the suit, however, helped to spur the General Assembly, Connecticut's legislature, on to the adoption of the Civil Union Act, making the state the first to adopt civil union without being ordered to take action by a state high court ruling, although in California progress toward a broad domestic partnership law similarly proceeded without the spur of a court order. Once the law was enacted, the State of Connecticut moved for summary judgment in the marriage case, arguing that its passage cured any possible constitutional defect.
This argument persuaded the trial judge, who granted the state's motion for summary judgment, concluding that whatever difference there was between civil unions and marriage was not significant enough to raise a constitutional claim.
Every judge on the seven-member court disagreed with that initial proposition. The majority and the three dissenting justices all agreed on this one point - that civil unions and marriage are different things, because marriage is more than just a bundle of legal rights. Marriage, as they all recognized, is a social institution of long standing that has meaning and social status beyond the concrete legal rights and responsibilities associated with it.
All the judges, then, agreed that the plaintiffs had raised a valid constitutional question.
The main disagreement was over the appropriate standard by which the court would evaluate this constitutional challenge. The most demanding level of judicial review is strict scrutiny, under which a law that abridges a fundamental right or disadvantages people based on a classification considered suspect of facing discrimination is presumed to be unconstitutional unless the state can show a compelling need for the law that can only be achieved through the policy being challenged.
In contrast, the least demanding level of judicial review is the "rational basis test," where the right at stake is not deemed fundamental, or the law does not embrace a suspect classification. This mode of judicial review presumes the constitutionality of the law and puts the burden on the law's challenger to show that there is no rational basis for it.
In some cases, courts have recognized a level of review intermediate between these two, where important individual interests are at stake or where the law disadvantages based on a classification that might be called "quasi-suspect." In these cases, the burden of justification is placed on the government to show that the challenged law advances some important state interest and does so better than any less discriminatory alternative.
The court's decision of which level of review to use plays a major role in the outcome of a case.
In the California marriage cases, the court decided that the marriage law's exclusion of same-sex couples discriminated regarding a fundamental right - the right to marry - and involved a suspect classification, sexual orientation. As a result, the court applied strict scrutiny, and the state's arguments in support of the law were not persuasive to the majority.
The Connecticut court was not willing to go that far, but the majority concluded that the law does discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and that gay people should be regarded as a "quasi-suspect class" under the state Constitution, putting the burden on the state to justify excluding them from the right to marry.
Unlike the federal Constitution, the Connecticut Constitution contains an express enumeration of the "suspect classes," which do not include sexual orientation, and the court was not willing to adopt the argument, which the California Supreme Court found appealing, that denying gay couples the right marry was also sex discrimination.
However, in Connecticut, the court noted that its own past decisions had suggested that the Constitution's enumeration of suspect classes did not preclude the existence of intermediate categories, since the Constitution also made clear that the guarantee of equal protection extends to everyone.
Justice Palmer carefully examined each of the factors that the US Supreme Court has used in identifying "quasi-suspect" classes. The Connecticut justices generally agreed that of the four factors used by the US high court, gay people would qualify on three of them - a history of invidious discrimination, that the characteristic in question is not relevant to a person's ability to participate in society, and that the characteristic in question is either immutable or so fundamental to personal identity that the government could not insist on the individual trying to change it.
Where the dispute came was on the question of political power. The Supreme Court has sometimes indicated that groups who are unable to protect their interests in the legislative process due to lack of political power may need the assistance of the courts through judicial review.
On this point, the dissenters argued that gay people actually have lots of political clout in Connecticut. After all, the state was among the earliest to reform their sodomy laws, and over the past several decades Connecticut has passed a broad gay rights law, has legislated to allow second-parent adoptions, and has passed the civil union law. Clearly, in the dissenters' view, these legislative victories would have been impossible had gay people been unable to form the political alliances necessary to advance their interests.
Dissenting Judge David M. Borden also noted that a same-sex marriage bill had been introduced in the General Assembly to great fanfare, had achieved significant co-sponsorship, and had even been approved in committee, but had not been subjected to floor votes yet for a variety of reasons.
To Borden and the other dissenters - Justices Christine S. Vertefeuille and Peter T. Zarella - gay political power in Connecticut was too far advanced to hold that gay people needed special protection of the courts.
However, the court's majority concluded otherwise. Palmer pointed out that the neither the US Supreme Court nor the Connecticut Supreme Court had invariably insisted that all four factors must be present to justify treating a particular group as needing judicial protection from discrimination. Indeed, he noted, it was clear from recent US Supreme Court decisions that the current political power of a group was not a determinative factor.
For example, the high court has recently found that race remains a suspect classification, even though some racial minorities have achieved substantial political power in this country, and that sex remains a suspect classification, even though women constitute a majority of the electorate and have made steady gains in placing their issues at the head of the legislative agenda. And, in so-called "reverse discrimination" cases, the Court has used strict scrutiny to evaluate race discrimination claims by white plaintiffs, even though it would be hard to justify treating white people, as a group, as politically disadvantaged.
Palmer found the analogy of gays and women to be appropriate for purposes of this analysis. Although the Connecticut Constitution expressly makes sex a suspect classification, the Supreme Court has refused to go that far under the federal Constitution, instead using its four-pronged test to deem sex a "quasi-suspect" classification invoking intermediate scrutiny. Women, like gays, have substantial political power, but suffer from a history of discriminatory treatment by the state, usually based on stereotypes about the group.
Having concluded that intermediate or heightened scrutiny applies, the court put the burden on the state to justify having made available state law rights but denied the status of marriage. The court accepted the plaintiffs' argument that civil unions are a lesser status than marriage, since civil unions are merely a bundle of legal rights and responsibilities, while marriage is a long-standing social institution. Indeed, noting the long history of discrimination against gay people in our society, the court majority saw the creation of a separate status - in a law that included a declaration that only a man and a woman could marry - as a clear indication of inferior status.
The State of Connecticut, in defending the status quo, disavowed the bizarre theory accepted by the high courts of New York, Maryland, and Washington - that marriage is necessary for heterosexual couples in order to "channel" their procreation into stable family units. In looking at the arguments made by the state, the court found only two justifications there - an interest in maintaining uniformity with the marriage laws of other states, and an interest in preserving the long-standing traditional definition of marriage.
The court found both of these justifications lacking.
The state had not explained why it was important to maintain uniformity, Palmer wrote. Clearly, such uniformity is breaking down, as neighboring Massachusetts and California - at least for now - have same-sex marriage. A desire for uniformity might provide a rational basis for the distinction between same-sex and different-sex couples, but Palmer found that under intermediate scrutiny the state had a burden to show why it was important, not merely rational, and had not done so.
In terms of preserving the traditional definition, Palmer dismissed this without great effort, pointing out that it was a way of saying that discrimination is insulated from challenge just because it is longstanding, a point not deemed worth much refutation.
Borden's dissent, joined by Vertefeuille, focused primarily on the political power point, although he had differences with other parts of the majority decision, including the court's conclusion, in the absence of any real proof - at least in his view - that civil unions would turn out in the long run to be of lesser status than marriages.
Zarella, by contrast, differed with the majority on virtually every point, to the extent of reviving, on behalf of the state, the channeling procreation argument. An essential element of the court's equal protection analysis was the assertion that same-sex and different-sex couples are similarly situated regarding the significance of marriage as an institution, a point the majority embraced based on its view that marriage was not just about procreation or necessarily about procreation.
Zarella argued that marriage was, at its base, all about procreation, which he deemed the main justification for the state recognizing and buttressing this institution. If procreation is so central, then same-sex and different-sex couples are not similarly situated, in his view, because gay and lesbian couples cannot procreate through sex as a couple.
All of the dissenters expressed concerns about the court preempting the political process by constitutionalizing a right to same-sex marriage, with Borden emphasizing his view that the political process was just chugging along toward same-sex marriage in any event, so there was no need for the court to rush in and finish the task.
Palmer's rejoinder was to point out that the marriage bill had been pulled off the floor without a vote due to many legislators stating they were not ready to vote on the issue. He also noted that at the time when the Supreme Court decided to treat sex as a quasi-suspect classification, there were arguments that the pending Equal Rights Amendment to the federal Constitution, which had been approved by Congress overwhelmingly and sent to the states for ratification, would take care of the problem of sex discrimination, making it unnecessary to interpret the Equal Protection Clause to provide special judicial protection for women. The ERA, of course, fell short of the necessary states for ratification.
The court's decision concludes with an order to send the case back to the trial court, with directions to grant summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The court's opinion did not expressly state when and how the ruling would be implemented, so we await word from experts on Connecticut procedure.
However, Connecticut has the practice of releasing opinions long in advance of their official effective date. As this opinion is designated as officially released on October 28, the remand to the trial court does not go into effect until then. GLAD said the decision is likely to take effect on or soon after November 7.
©GayCityNews 2008
By: ARTHUR S. LEONARD
10/16/2008
The Connecticut Supreme Court on October 10 ruled by a 4-3 vote that same-sex couples have the same right to marry under the state's Constitution as different-sex couples.
The ruling ended a protracted period of suspense that began on May 14, 2007, when the case was argued before the high court.
Justice Richard N. Palmer, writing for the court, found that the state's 2005 Civil Union Act, which provides same-sex couples with access to all the state-law rights of married different-sex couples, failed the state Constitution's requirement of equal protection of the laws.
Connecticut thus became the third state in which the highest court has ruled in favor of a same-sex marriage claim, following Massachusetts in 2003 and California earlier this year. Courts in Vermont and New Jersey had also found a constitutional violation in the state's denial of the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, but left it to their legislatures to remedy the constitutional defect, resulting in the passage of civil union laws in both states.
The Connecticut court faced a question similar to that confronted in California, where the Legislature had also established a legal status other than marriage for same-sex couples providing near-parity in state legal rights, called domestic partnership in that state. Although the Connecticut court did not go as far as the California court in constructing a constitutional theory for requiring the state to go all the way to marriage, it did break new constitutional ground for Connecticut.
The case was originally filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the Boston-based public interest law firm, on behalf of eight same-sex couples whose applications for marriage licenses had been denied.
At the time, GLAD had recently achieved its triumphant victory in Massachusetts and was seeking to build on that victory in a neighboring state where attempts to achieve legal recognition for same-sex couples had not gotten very far in the legislature. Many state and national organizations joined in support of the litigation through amicus briefs and other forms of assistance to the plaintiffs. GLAD attorney Bennett Klein was lead counsel on the case.
Filing of the suit, however, helped to spur the General Assembly, Connecticut's legislature, on to the adoption of the Civil Union Act, making the state the first to adopt civil union without being ordered to take action by a state high court ruling, although in California progress toward a broad domestic partnership law similarly proceeded without the spur of a court order. Once the law was enacted, the State of Connecticut moved for summary judgment in the marriage case, arguing that its passage cured any possible constitutional defect.
This argument persuaded the trial judge, who granted the state's motion for summary judgment, concluding that whatever difference there was between civil unions and marriage was not significant enough to raise a constitutional claim.
Every judge on the seven-member court disagreed with that initial proposition. The majority and the three dissenting justices all agreed on this one point - that civil unions and marriage are different things, because marriage is more than just a bundle of legal rights. Marriage, as they all recognized, is a social institution of long standing that has meaning and social status beyond the concrete legal rights and responsibilities associated with it.
All the judges, then, agreed that the plaintiffs had raised a valid constitutional question.
The main disagreement was over the appropriate standard by which the court would evaluate this constitutional challenge. The most demanding level of judicial review is strict scrutiny, under which a law that abridges a fundamental right or disadvantages people based on a classification considered suspect of facing discrimination is presumed to be unconstitutional unless the state can show a compelling need for the law that can only be achieved through the policy being challenged.
In contrast, the least demanding level of judicial review is the "rational basis test," where the right at stake is not deemed fundamental, or the law does not embrace a suspect classification. This mode of judicial review presumes the constitutionality of the law and puts the burden on the law's challenger to show that there is no rational basis for it.
In some cases, courts have recognized a level of review intermediate between these two, where important individual interests are at stake or where the law disadvantages based on a classification that might be called "quasi-suspect." In these cases, the burden of justification is placed on the government to show that the challenged law advances some important state interest and does so better than any less discriminatory alternative.
The court's decision of which level of review to use plays a major role in the outcome of a case.
In the California marriage cases, the court decided that the marriage law's exclusion of same-sex couples discriminated regarding a fundamental right - the right to marry - and involved a suspect classification, sexual orientation. As a result, the court applied strict scrutiny, and the state's arguments in support of the law were not persuasive to the majority.
The Connecticut court was not willing to go that far, but the majority concluded that the law does discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and that gay people should be regarded as a "quasi-suspect class" under the state Constitution, putting the burden on the state to justify excluding them from the right to marry.
Unlike the federal Constitution, the Connecticut Constitution contains an express enumeration of the "suspect classes," which do not include sexual orientation, and the court was not willing to adopt the argument, which the California Supreme Court found appealing, that denying gay couples the right marry was also sex discrimination.
However, in Connecticut, the court noted that its own past decisions had suggested that the Constitution's enumeration of suspect classes did not preclude the existence of intermediate categories, since the Constitution also made clear that the guarantee of equal protection extends to everyone.
Justice Palmer carefully examined each of the factors that the US Supreme Court has used in identifying "quasi-suspect" classes. The Connecticut justices generally agreed that of the four factors used by the US high court, gay people would qualify on three of them - a history of invidious discrimination, that the characteristic in question is not relevant to a person's ability to participate in society, and that the characteristic in question is either immutable or so fundamental to personal identity that the government could not insist on the individual trying to change it.
Where the dispute came was on the question of political power. The Supreme Court has sometimes indicated that groups who are unable to protect their interests in the legislative process due to lack of political power may need the assistance of the courts through judicial review.
On this point, the dissenters argued that gay people actually have lots of political clout in Connecticut. After all, the state was among the earliest to reform their sodomy laws, and over the past several decades Connecticut has passed a broad gay rights law, has legislated to allow second-parent adoptions, and has passed the civil union law. Clearly, in the dissenters' view, these legislative victories would have been impossible had gay people been unable to form the political alliances necessary to advance their interests.
Dissenting Judge David M. Borden also noted that a same-sex marriage bill had been introduced in the General Assembly to great fanfare, had achieved significant co-sponsorship, and had even been approved in committee, but had not been subjected to floor votes yet for a variety of reasons.
To Borden and the other dissenters - Justices Christine S. Vertefeuille and Peter T. Zarella - gay political power in Connecticut was too far advanced to hold that gay people needed special protection of the courts.
However, the court's majority concluded otherwise. Palmer pointed out that the neither the US Supreme Court nor the Connecticut Supreme Court had invariably insisted that all four factors must be present to justify treating a particular group as needing judicial protection from discrimination. Indeed, he noted, it was clear from recent US Supreme Court decisions that the current political power of a group was not a determinative factor.
For example, the high court has recently found that race remains a suspect classification, even though some racial minorities have achieved substantial political power in this country, and that sex remains a suspect classification, even though women constitute a majority of the electorate and have made steady gains in placing their issues at the head of the legislative agenda. And, in so-called "reverse discrimination" cases, the Court has used strict scrutiny to evaluate race discrimination claims by white plaintiffs, even though it would be hard to justify treating white people, as a group, as politically disadvantaged.
Palmer found the analogy of gays and women to be appropriate for purposes of this analysis. Although the Connecticut Constitution expressly makes sex a suspect classification, the Supreme Court has refused to go that far under the federal Constitution, instead using its four-pronged test to deem sex a "quasi-suspect" classification invoking intermediate scrutiny. Women, like gays, have substantial political power, but suffer from a history of discriminatory treatment by the state, usually based on stereotypes about the group.
Having concluded that intermediate or heightened scrutiny applies, the court put the burden on the state to justify having made available state law rights but denied the status of marriage. The court accepted the plaintiffs' argument that civil unions are a lesser status than marriage, since civil unions are merely a bundle of legal rights and responsibilities, while marriage is a long-standing social institution. Indeed, noting the long history of discrimination against gay people in our society, the court majority saw the creation of a separate status - in a law that included a declaration that only a man and a woman could marry - as a clear indication of inferior status.
The State of Connecticut, in defending the status quo, disavowed the bizarre theory accepted by the high courts of New York, Maryland, and Washington - that marriage is necessary for heterosexual couples in order to "channel" their procreation into stable family units. In looking at the arguments made by the state, the court found only two justifications there - an interest in maintaining uniformity with the marriage laws of other states, and an interest in preserving the long-standing traditional definition of marriage.
The court found both of these justifications lacking.
The state had not explained why it was important to maintain uniformity, Palmer wrote. Clearly, such uniformity is breaking down, as neighboring Massachusetts and California - at least for now - have same-sex marriage. A desire for uniformity might provide a rational basis for the distinction between same-sex and different-sex couples, but Palmer found that under intermediate scrutiny the state had a burden to show why it was important, not merely rational, and had not done so.
In terms of preserving the traditional definition, Palmer dismissed this without great effort, pointing out that it was a way of saying that discrimination is insulated from challenge just because it is longstanding, a point not deemed worth much refutation.
Borden's dissent, joined by Vertefeuille, focused primarily on the political power point, although he had differences with other parts of the majority decision, including the court's conclusion, in the absence of any real proof - at least in his view - that civil unions would turn out in the long run to be of lesser status than marriages.
Zarella, by contrast, differed with the majority on virtually every point, to the extent of reviving, on behalf of the state, the channeling procreation argument. An essential element of the court's equal protection analysis was the assertion that same-sex and different-sex couples are similarly situated regarding the significance of marriage as an institution, a point the majority embraced based on its view that marriage was not just about procreation or necessarily about procreation.
Zarella argued that marriage was, at its base, all about procreation, which he deemed the main justification for the state recognizing and buttressing this institution. If procreation is so central, then same-sex and different-sex couples are not similarly situated, in his view, because gay and lesbian couples cannot procreate through sex as a couple.
All of the dissenters expressed concerns about the court preempting the political process by constitutionalizing a right to same-sex marriage, with Borden emphasizing his view that the political process was just chugging along toward same-sex marriage in any event, so there was no need for the court to rush in and finish the task.
Palmer's rejoinder was to point out that the marriage bill had been pulled off the floor without a vote due to many legislators stating they were not ready to vote on the issue. He also noted that at the time when the Supreme Court decided to treat sex as a quasi-suspect classification, there were arguments that the pending Equal Rights Amendment to the federal Constitution, which had been approved by Congress overwhelmingly and sent to the states for ratification, would take care of the problem of sex discrimination, making it unnecessary to interpret the Equal Protection Clause to provide special judicial protection for women. The ERA, of course, fell short of the necessary states for ratification.
The court's decision concludes with an order to send the case back to the trial court, with directions to grant summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The court's opinion did not expressly state when and how the ruling would be implemented, so we await word from experts on Connecticut procedure.
However, Connecticut has the practice of releasing opinions long in advance of their official effective date. As this opinion is designated as officially released on October 28, the remand to the trial court does not go into effect until then. GLAD said the decision is likely to take effect on or soon after November 7.
©GayCityNews 2008
October 10, 2008
Connecticut Ruling Overturns Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 10, 2008
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have the right to marry, making the state the third behind Massachusetts and California to legalize such unions.
The divided court ruled 4-3 that gay and lesbian couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry under the state constitution, and Connecticut's civil unions law does not provide those couples with the same rights as heterosexual couples.
"I can't believe it. We're thrilled, we're absolutely overjoyed. We're finally going to be able, after 33 years, to get married," said Janet Peck of Colchester, who was a plaintiff with her partner, Carole Conklin.
Connecticut will join Massachusetts and California as the only state to allow same-sex couples to marry.
"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote in the majority opinion that overturned a lower court finding.
"To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others," Palmer wrote.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Friday that she disagreed, but will not fight the ruling.
"The Supreme Court has spoken," Rell said in a statement. "I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision -- either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution -- will not meet with success."
The lawsuit was brought in 2004 after eight same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses and sued, saying their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process were violated.
They said the state's marriage law, if applied only to heterosexual couples, denied them of the financial, social and emotional benefits of marriage.
Peck said that as soon as the decision was announced, the couple started crying and hugging while juggling excited phone calls from her brother and other friends and family.
"We've always dreamed of being married," she said. "Even though we were lesbians and didn't know if that would ever come true, we always dreamed of it."
------
Associated Press reporters Pat Eaton-Robb, Stephanie Reitz and Larry Smith in Hartford contributed to this report.
Published: October 10, 2008
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have the right to marry, making the state the third behind Massachusetts and California to legalize such unions.
The divided court ruled 4-3 that gay and lesbian couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry under the state constitution, and Connecticut's civil unions law does not provide those couples with the same rights as heterosexual couples.
"I can't believe it. We're thrilled, we're absolutely overjoyed. We're finally going to be able, after 33 years, to get married," said Janet Peck of Colchester, who was a plaintiff with her partner, Carole Conklin.
Connecticut will join Massachusetts and California as the only state to allow same-sex couples to marry.
"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote in the majority opinion that overturned a lower court finding.
"To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others," Palmer wrote.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Friday that she disagreed, but will not fight the ruling.
"The Supreme Court has spoken," Rell said in a statement. "I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision -- either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution -- will not meet with success."
The lawsuit was brought in 2004 after eight same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses and sued, saying their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process were violated.
They said the state's marriage law, if applied only to heterosexual couples, denied them of the financial, social and emotional benefits of marriage.
Peck said that as soon as the decision was announced, the couple started crying and hugging while juggling excited phone calls from her brother and other friends and family.
"We've always dreamed of being married," she said. "Even though we were lesbians and didn't know if that would ever come true, we always dreamed of it."
------
Associated Press reporters Pat Eaton-Robb, Stephanie Reitz and Larry Smith in Hartford contributed to this report.
Marriage Equality NY applauds the CONNECTICUT SUPREME COURT DECISION IN FAVOR OF MARRIAGE EQUALITY
Media Contacts:
Ron Zacchi, Deputy Executive Director- MENY, 646-660-1906, info@marriageequalityny.org
Cathy Marino-Thomas, Executive Director - MENY, 516-302-5198, cathy@marriageequalityny.org
Today's decision will have an effect on the entire tri-state region of
"Today's decision in
Conn. high court rules gay couples can marry
Conn. high court rules gay couples can marry
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled Friday that gay couples have the right to marry, making the state the third behind Massachusetts and California to legalize such unions through the courts.
The ruling comes just weeks before Californians go to the polls on a historic gay-marriage ballot question, the first time the issue will be put before voters in a state where same-sex couples are legally wed.
The 4-3 ruling is the first time that a state that had willingly offered an alternative to marriage was told by a court that civil unions aren't enough to protect the rights of gay couples. Connecticut was the first state to voluntarily pass laws to affirm civil unions.
"I can't believe it. We're thrilled, we're absolutely overjoyed. We're finally going to be able, after 33 years, to get married," said Janet Peck of Colchester, who was a plaintiff with her partner, Carole Conklin.
"I'm just ecstatic. It's such a relief, the joy of it," said another plaintiff, Jodi Mock of West Hartford, who sued with partner Elizabeth Kerrigan.
In the majority opinion, Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote that denying marriage to same-sex couples would create separate standards.
"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," Palmer wrote.
The Family Institute of Connecticut, a political action group that opposes gay marriage, called the ruling outrageous.
"Even the legislature, as liberal as ours, decided that marriage is between a man and a woman," said executive director Peter Wolfgang. "This is about our right to govern ourselves. It is bigger than gay marriage."
Attorney General Richard Blumethal said the ruling goes into effect Oct. 28 when it is implemented by action of the of the Superior Court. There will be no appeal, he said.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell said she disagreed with the ruling.
"The Supreme Court has spoken," she said. "I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision — either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution — will not meet with success."
But House Speaker Jim Amann, a Democrat, said he expects the issue to be taken up by the General Assembly.
"The legislature, as the lawmaking branch of government, debated this issue and made Connecticut one of the few states that offers civil union status for same-sex couples," Amman said.
The court was sharply divided in the decision, with three justices issuing separate dissenting opinions.
Justice Peter T. Zarella wrote that he believes there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage, and the court's majority failed to discuss the purpose of marriage laws, which he said is to "privilege and regulate procreative conduct."
Zarella added, "The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry. If the state no longer has an interest in the regulation of procreation, then that is a decision for the legislature or the people of the state and not this court."
The lawsuit was brought in 2004 after eight same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses and sued, saying their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process were violated.
They said the state's marriage law, if applied only to heterosexual couples, denied them of the financial, social and emotional benefits of marriage.
Supreme courts in Massachusetts and California also have ruled in favor of gay and lesbian couples, concluding the domestic partnerships were unequal to the rights given in heterosexual marriage.
Civil unions and a similar arrangement, known as domestic partnerships, are offered to same-sex couples in Vermont, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Oregon, Hawaii, Maine, Washington and the District of Columbia.
Peck said that as soon as the decision was announced, the couple started crying and hugging while juggling excited phone calls from her brother and other friends and family.
"We've always dreamed of being married," she said. "Even though we were lesbians and didn't know if that would ever come true, we always dreamed of it."
Associated Press reporters Pat Eaton-Robb, Stephanie Reitz and Larry Smith in Hartford contributed to this report.
Connecticut Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage
HARTFORD, Connecticut (CNN) -- The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Friday that gay and lesbian couples have the right to get married.
Joanne Mock, left, and Beth Kerrigan were among the plaintiffs in a suit brought by eight same-sex couples.
The ruling makes Connecticut the third state, after Massachusetts and California, to decide its constitution mandates treating citizens equally when applying for marriage licenses, regardless of their sexual orientation.
"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," the ruling said.
"To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others. The guarantee of equal protection under the law, and our obligation to uphold that command, forbids us from doing so. In accordance with these state constitutional requirements, same sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry."
The decision would only allow gay couples the state benefits of marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, denies gay couples federal recognition of state marriages, which provides for federal benefits with regard to Social Security, taxation, immigration and others.
Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and New Jersey have civil unions.
In 2005, Connecticut became the first state to allow civil unions, intended to be marriage in all but name, without being forced by its courts. Two years later, Connecticut's Legislature tabled a bill allowing marriage.
Eight same-sex couple sued the state, saying that civil unions were not equal to marriage and that Connecticut's Constitution guaranteed them equal treatment.
In the dissent, one justice said he disagreed with the majority's opinion that "sexual orientation is a quasi-suspect class under our state constitutional provisions guaranteeing equal protection of the laws" because that point of view "unduly minimizes the unique and extraordinary political power of gay persons in this state."
A representative of Connecticut's commissioner of public health said he does not know when the state might start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The suit was called Kerrigan and Mock v. the Connecticut Department of Public Health.CT Supremes Overturn Ban On Gay Marriage
Hoorah! The Connecticut Supreme Court today ruled 4-3 that the state's ban on gay marriage violates its constitution.
The decision came after eight gay citizens filed a lawsuit claiming civil unions were not the same as marriage and qualified as discrimination. And the Court agreed, as Justice Richard Palmer writes in the majority opinion:
We conclude that, in light of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of marriage carries it it a status and significance that the newly crated classification of civil unions does not embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm. We also conclude that our state scheme discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, for the same reasons that classifications predicated on gender are considered quasi-suspect for the purposes of the equal protection provisions of the United States constitutions…
…
The state has failed to provide sufficient justification for excluding same sex couples from the institution of marriage.
This is good news for those of you in New York and New Jersey, because you don't have to be a Connecticut resident to marry there.
http://www.queerty.com/ct-supremes-overturn-ban-on-gay-marriage-20081010/Gay Marriage Rights Approved in CT
Gay Marriage Rights Approved in CT
In a 4 - 3 decision today, the Connecticut Supreme Court granted gay couples the right to marry.
The long-awaited decision had been crafted over many months and stretches to 85 pages.
The majority decision, written by Justice Richard Palmer, states, "Accordingly, we reject the trial court's decision that marriage and civil unions are 'separate' but 'equal' entities.''
Palmer was joined in the majority by Justices Joette Katz, Flemming L. Norcott, and Lubbie Harper, Jr.
The majority specifically rejected the reasoning of longtime Justice David M. Borden, a friend of Palmer's who has often been seen having lunch with his colleague at the state Capitol complex's cafeteria.
"In his dissenting opinion, Justice Borden concludes that gay persons are not entitled to protected status because they have too much political power to warrant such protection,'' the majority said. The four justices added that "this conclusion is flawed because, at the time women were accorded protected status under the federal constitution, they possessed more political power than gays in this state currently possess.''
The big question now is how the ruling will affect a question on the November 4 ballot in Connecticut that asks if the state should hold a constitutional convention. Many of those in favor of the convention want direct initiative, which could eventually allow for a statewide referendum on gay marriage by all voters.
But getting a statewide referendum on gay marriage is not easy. It is a multi-step process that would not happen quickly or simply.
For further information, see www.courant.com.
http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2008/10/gay-marriage-rights-approved.htmlOctober 06, 2008
Iowa Supreme Court to hear gay marriage arguments
By 365gay Newscenter Staff
10.06.2008 12:22pm EDT
(Des Moines, Iowa) The Iowa Supreme Court has announced it will hear arguments Dec. 9 in a case challenging the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.
The court said that both sides will be given 30 minutes to make their arguments.
Last year, Polk County Judge Robert Hanson struck down a state law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. He ruled that a state law allowing marriage only between a man and woman violated the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection.
Less than two hours after the the ruling, two Des Moines men applied for a marriage license, found a judge to waive the waiting period, and were married.
Hanson then stayed his ruling until the state could appeal it to the Iowa Supreme Court. The marriage of Sean Fritz and Tim McQuillan remains the only legal same-sex marriage in the state.
In a separate case, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in January that co-adoptions by same-sex parents were legal.
The case involved a lesbian couple who had split up. While they were together, one partner had adopted as a co-parent the children of her partner. When the relationship ended, the birth mother asked a court if the other woman had visitation rights and could be compelled to pay child support.
A lower court ruled that co-adoptions by same-sex couples were illegal and threw out the case. The Supreme Court disagreed and ordered the lower court to revisit the case.
The issue of gay marriage has prompted Republicans and socially conservative groups to press for an amendment to the state constitution to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Democrats who control the legislature have thwarted GOP demands they take up the proposed amendment. House Speaker Pat Murphy (D) has said he is in no rush to bring in legislation.
To amend the Iowa Constitution, simple majorities are needed in both the House and Senate in two consecutive general assemblies and then it must be approved by a simple majority of voters in the following general election.
Polls show that most Iowans would support civil unions, but not marriage, for same-sex couples.
10.06.2008 12:22pm EDT
(Des Moines, Iowa) The Iowa Supreme Court has announced it will hear arguments Dec. 9 in a case challenging the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.
The court said that both sides will be given 30 minutes to make their arguments.
Last year, Polk County Judge Robert Hanson struck down a state law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. He ruled that a state law allowing marriage only between a man and woman violated the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection.
Less than two hours after the the ruling, two Des Moines men applied for a marriage license, found a judge to waive the waiting period, and were married.
Hanson then stayed his ruling until the state could appeal it to the Iowa Supreme Court. The marriage of Sean Fritz and Tim McQuillan remains the only legal same-sex marriage in the state.
In a separate case, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in January that co-adoptions by same-sex parents were legal.
The case involved a lesbian couple who had split up. While they were together, one partner had adopted as a co-parent the children of her partner. When the relationship ended, the birth mother asked a court if the other woman had visitation rights and could be compelled to pay child support.
A lower court ruled that co-adoptions by same-sex couples were illegal and threw out the case. The Supreme Court disagreed and ordered the lower court to revisit the case.
The issue of gay marriage has prompted Republicans and socially conservative groups to press for an amendment to the state constitution to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Democrats who control the legislature have thwarted GOP demands they take up the proposed amendment. House Speaker Pat Murphy (D) has said he is in no rush to bring in legislation.
To amend the Iowa Constitution, simple majorities are needed in both the House and Senate in two consecutive general assemblies and then it must be approved by a simple majority of voters in the following general election.
Polls show that most Iowans would support civil unions, but not marriage, for same-sex couples.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
