By STEVE LAWRENCE , Associated Press Writer
last updated: January 29, 2009 02:40:25 PM
A federal judge has denied a request to keep secret the names of donors to California's anti-gay marriage initiative.
U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr. ruled Thursday that the state's campaign disclosure laws are intended to protect the public and are important during expensive initiative campaigns.
Supporters of Proposition 8 had sought a preliminary injunction to hide the identities of those who contributed to their campaign.
The initiative was approved by voters in November. It overturned a state Supreme Court ruling that allowed gay marriage.
Reports that identify those who donated within two weeks of the election or afterward are scheduled to be publicly released Monday.
January 29, 2009
January 27, 2009
Most Swedish ministers would marry gays
Published: Jan. 24, 2009 at 12:22 AM
STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Jan. 24 (UPI) -- A majority of Swedish ministers would be willing to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples, a survey found.
The Church of Sweden is scheduled to consider same-sex marriage at a meeting in the fall, the Swedish news agency TT reported.
In a Sveriges Television poll of 1,700 ministers, 68 percent said they would be willing to unite same-sex couples. Only 21 percent said they would refuse, while 11 percent were undecided or had no opinion.
"There's a very clear majority that is open to this. And having so many pastors on board clearly makes it easier for the Church of Sweden to take such a decision," Archbishop Anders Wejryd told SVT.
The Church of Sweden was the established state church until 2000. It is the largest Lutheran group in the world and the largest church in the country.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/01/24/Most_Swedish_ministers_would_marry_gays/UPI-97371232774524/
STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Jan. 24 (UPI) -- A majority of Swedish ministers would be willing to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples, a survey found.
The Church of Sweden is scheduled to consider same-sex marriage at a meeting in the fall, the Swedish news agency TT reported.
In a Sveriges Television poll of 1,700 ministers, 68 percent said they would be willing to unite same-sex couples. Only 21 percent said they would refuse, while 11 percent were undecided or had no opinion.
"There's a very clear majority that is open to this. And having so many pastors on board clearly makes it easier for the Church of Sweden to take such a decision," Archbishop Anders Wejryd told SVT.
The Church of Sweden was the established state church until 2000. It is the largest Lutheran group in the world and the largest church in the country.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/01/24/Most_Swedish_ministers_would_marry_gays/UPI-97371232774524/
Hawaii civil unions backed by a majority in state House
32 of 51 House members sign on to measure that would legalize partnership
By Derrick DePledge
Advertiser Government Writer
A majority in the state House has signed on to a bill that would legalize civil unions, giving the issue a genuine chance of advancing this session after years of stagnation.
Same-sex couples who obtain a license could have their civil union performed by a judge, retired judge or member of the clergy. Partners who enter into civil unions would have the same rights, benefits and protections under state law as married couples. The state would also recognize civil unions, domestic partnerships or same-sex marriages validly performed in other states.
"I think it's just time," said state House Majority Leader Blake Oshiro, D-33rd ('Aiea, Halawa Valley, 'Aiea Heights), who sponsored the bill.
Vermont, New Jersey and New Hampshire allow civil unions while Massachusetts and Connecticut have same-sex marriage. California had also legalized same-sex marriage until voters in November approved a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to heterosexual couples.
In 1998, nearly 70 percent of Hawai'i voters supported traditional marriage when they passed a constitutional amendment that gave the state Legislature the authority to reserve marriage to one man and one woman.
The state Supreme Court had ruled in 1993 that barring same-sex marriage could be a violation of equal protection rights.
Since 1997, same-sex couples in Hawai'i have been able to register with the state Department of Health as reciprocal beneficiaries, which provides some of the same protections as marriage, including inheritance and property rights, the ability to sue for wrongful death, and hospital visitation privileges.
Thirty-two lawmakers in the 51-member House have signed Oshiro's civil-unions bill, including state House Speaker Calvin Say, D-20th (St. Louis Heights, Palolo Valley, Wilhelmina Rise), and state Rep. Jon Riki Karamatsu, D-41st (Waipahu, Village Park, Waikele), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
Karamatsu said he believes he will have the votes to move the bill out of his committee, where it has stalled in the past, most recently in 2007. He said part of the difference this session is that gay-rights activists have broadened their outreach to include organized labor, the interfaith community and social-service groups.
"I think for the advocates that support civil unions, clearly, for a lot of them, it's a compromise" instead of same-sex marriage, he said. "In the past, it was all or nothing. And this year, it has changed a lot, and I think that has helped them. I think they are a little bit more aware of the political process now."
momentum built
Many gay rights activists felt cheated two years ago when majority Democrats would not hold a vote on a civil-unions bill in the House Judiciary Committee because it was likely to be defeated.
In the aftermath of that setback, a new group, the Family Equality Coalition, was formed and has quietly been building support for civil unions with groups such as UNITE HERE Local 5, the hotel workers' union, and the Interfaith Alliance Hawai'i, a collection of religious leaders from different faiths.
Alan Spector, a social worker and co-chair of the Family Equality Coalition, said the long-term goal is to legalize same-sex marriage. But he described the civil-unions bill as significant momentum.
With a majority in the House supportive of civil unions, advocates believe the test will come in the state Senate, where there could be opposition from the Senate Judiciary and Government Operations Committee.
State Sen. Brian Taniguchi, D-10th (Manoa, McCully), the committee's chairman, said he would hear the bill if it crosses over from the House. "We're certainly going to take a look at it," he said.
On the six-member committee, Taniguchi, state Sen. Dwight Takamine, D-1st (Hamakua, S. Hilo), and state Sen. Clarence Nishihara, D-18th (Waipahu, Crestview, Pearl City), are supportive of civil unions. State Sen. Mike Gabbard, D-19th (Kapolei, Makakilo, Waikele), and state Sen. Sam Slom, R-8th (Kahala, Hawai'i Kai), are opposed.
swing vote
Gabbard was among the leaders in the movement against same-sex marriage in the 1990s.
"The people of Hawai'i, we decided this issue 10 or 11 years ago, when 70 percent of the people voted against same-sex marriage," he said. "And, to me, civil unions is same-sex marriage with a different name."
The potential swing vote on the committee is state Sen. Robert Bunda, D-22nd (North Shore, Wahiawa), who has opposed same-sex marriage in the past but said he will keep an open mind on civil unions.
"For me, I have to read and digest what's in the bill before I actually make a decision," he said. "I've been told I'm the swing vote, I don't know for sure. If I am, my priority is to make sure that I understand fully what's before us."
Reach Derrick DePledge at ddepledge@honoluluadvertiser.com.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090124/NEWS01/901240347/-1/RSS02?source=rss_localnews
By Derrick DePledge
Advertiser Government Writer
A majority in the state House has signed on to a bill that would legalize civil unions, giving the issue a genuine chance of advancing this session after years of stagnation.
Same-sex couples who obtain a license could have their civil union performed by a judge, retired judge or member of the clergy. Partners who enter into civil unions would have the same rights, benefits and protections under state law as married couples. The state would also recognize civil unions, domestic partnerships or same-sex marriages validly performed in other states.
"I think it's just time," said state House Majority Leader Blake Oshiro, D-33rd ('Aiea, Halawa Valley, 'Aiea Heights), who sponsored the bill.
Vermont, New Jersey and New Hampshire allow civil unions while Massachusetts and Connecticut have same-sex marriage. California had also legalized same-sex marriage until voters in November approved a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to heterosexual couples.
In 1998, nearly 70 percent of Hawai'i voters supported traditional marriage when they passed a constitutional amendment that gave the state Legislature the authority to reserve marriage to one man and one woman.
The state Supreme Court had ruled in 1993 that barring same-sex marriage could be a violation of equal protection rights.
Since 1997, same-sex couples in Hawai'i have been able to register with the state Department of Health as reciprocal beneficiaries, which provides some of the same protections as marriage, including inheritance and property rights, the ability to sue for wrongful death, and hospital visitation privileges.
Thirty-two lawmakers in the 51-member House have signed Oshiro's civil-unions bill, including state House Speaker Calvin Say, D-20th (St. Louis Heights, Palolo Valley, Wilhelmina Rise), and state Rep. Jon Riki Karamatsu, D-41st (Waipahu, Village Park, Waikele), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
Karamatsu said he believes he will have the votes to move the bill out of his committee, where it has stalled in the past, most recently in 2007. He said part of the difference this session is that gay-rights activists have broadened their outreach to include organized labor, the interfaith community and social-service groups.
"I think for the advocates that support civil unions, clearly, for a lot of them, it's a compromise" instead of same-sex marriage, he said. "In the past, it was all or nothing. And this year, it has changed a lot, and I think that has helped them. I think they are a little bit more aware of the political process now."
momentum built
Many gay rights activists felt cheated two years ago when majority Democrats would not hold a vote on a civil-unions bill in the House Judiciary Committee because it was likely to be defeated.
In the aftermath of that setback, a new group, the Family Equality Coalition, was formed and has quietly been building support for civil unions with groups such as UNITE HERE Local 5, the hotel workers' union, and the Interfaith Alliance Hawai'i, a collection of religious leaders from different faiths.
Alan Spector, a social worker and co-chair of the Family Equality Coalition, said the long-term goal is to legalize same-sex marriage. But he described the civil-unions bill as significant momentum.
With a majority in the House supportive of civil unions, advocates believe the test will come in the state Senate, where there could be opposition from the Senate Judiciary and Government Operations Committee.
State Sen. Brian Taniguchi, D-10th (Manoa, McCully), the committee's chairman, said he would hear the bill if it crosses over from the House. "We're certainly going to take a look at it," he said.
On the six-member committee, Taniguchi, state Sen. Dwight Takamine, D-1st (Hamakua, S. Hilo), and state Sen. Clarence Nishihara, D-18th (Waipahu, Crestview, Pearl City), are supportive of civil unions. State Sen. Mike Gabbard, D-19th (Kapolei, Makakilo, Waikele), and state Sen. Sam Slom, R-8th (Kahala, Hawai'i Kai), are opposed.
swing vote
Gabbard was among the leaders in the movement against same-sex marriage in the 1990s.
"The people of Hawai'i, we decided this issue 10 or 11 years ago, when 70 percent of the people voted against same-sex marriage," he said. "And, to me, civil unions is same-sex marriage with a different name."
The potential swing vote on the committee is state Sen. Robert Bunda, D-22nd (North Shore, Wahiawa), who has opposed same-sex marriage in the past but said he will keep an open mind on civil unions.
"For me, I have to read and digest what's in the bill before I actually make a decision," he said. "I've been told I'm the swing vote, I don't know for sure. If I am, my priority is to make sure that I understand fully what's before us."
Reach Derrick DePledge at ddepledge@honoluluadvertiser.com.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090124/NEWS01/901240347/-1/RSS02?source=rss_localnews
Dallas man files Texas’ 1st same-sex divorce case
By John Wright News Editor
Jan 22, 2009 - 7:54:50 PM
Gay-rights attorney fears issue will go to state Supreme Court
For J.B., it’s a bitter irony.
While the vast majority of judges and politicians in Texas oppose same-sex marriage, the state also may be unwilling to grant J.B. and his husband a divorce from their Massachusetts nuptials.
“I can’t imagine a conservative state like Texas not being joyfully willing to stamp their approval on that,” J.B. said. “I think we’ve been through enough just going through what we’re going through, and should be allowed the same dignity and respect as any two people who have irreconcilable differences. It is my hope that Texas will be satisfied enough to pass the appropriate judgment and not make a grandstand out of this for publicity to further people’s careers, because again, these are human lives that are being dealt with.”
J.B., whose initials are being used in this article to protect his anonymity because his sexual orientation isn’t known to his employer, filed a petition for divorce Wednesday, Jan. 21 in Dallas County’s 302nd District Court.
J.B.’s attorney, Peter A. Schulte, said he believes it’s the first same-sex divorce petition ever filed in Texas. J.B., 45, of Dallas, and his husband married in 2006 when they lived in Massachusetts. He said they’ve been together for 11 years.
The petition sets up a legal showdown over whether Texas courts can grant divorces to same-sex couples married in other states. And it may be evidence of a growing problem nationwide for couples from out of state who’ve wed in one of three states where same-sex marriage has been legalized.
Texas, which has a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman, also doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages from other states. And in 2003, the state Attorney General successfully argued that a same-sex couple from Beaumont couldn’t use a Texas court to dissolve the civil union they obtained in Vermont.
But Schulte argued that a marriage is not the same as a civil union. He also noted that J.B. can’t end the marriage in Massachusetts or elsewhere because all 50 states have a residency requirement for divorce.
Opposite-sex married couples routinely obtain divorces in states other than where they were married.
“We can maybe understand that the state [of Texas] doesn’t recognize the right for same-sex couples to marry — fair enough,” Schulte said. “But if other states recognize the right, there has to be a way for those couples to dissolve their relationship under the laws of any state they choose to live in. This is a fundamental rights issue for gay couples in this state. Gay couples should not be restricted on what state they live in.”
In response to an inquiry from Dallas Voice, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott issued a statement late Thursday, Jan. 22 confirming that he plans to oppose the divorce.
“In the State of Texas, marriage is — and has always been — a union between one man and one woman,” Abbott said in the statement. “To prevent other states from imposing their values on this state, Texas voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment specifically defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Because the parties’ Massachusetts-issued arrangement is not a marriage under Texas law, they are asking a Texas court to recognize — and dissolve —something that does not legally exist.
“These two men are seeking a court ruling that challenges the Texas Constitution, so the Office of the Attorney General will intervene to defend Texas law — and the will of Texas voters.”
J.B. and his husband, 44, tied the knot on Sept. 22, 2006 in Massachusetts, according to a marriage license attached to his petition. The petition states that they stopped living together on Nov. 28, 2008.
J.B. said he doesn’t expect his husband to contest the divorce. They own a house together in Dallas, but they have no children. J.B. said they’ve agreed to a fair division of their assets, but they need a judge to sign off on it. He said he also wants to change back his last name after adopting his husband’s.
When the couple tried to obtain a settlement agreement — common among same-sex couples that separate and divide assets in Texas — J.B. and his husband were advised that because they’re married in another state, they need a divorce instead.
“It’s like Texas wants to have their cake and eat it, too,” J.B. said.
If the couple is unable to obtain a divorce in Texas, it could lead to a host of legal complications down the road, according to Kenneth D. Upton Jr., a senior staff attorney in the Dallas office of Lambda Legal, the national LGBT civil rights organization. Upton said the couple’s intact Massachusetts marriage could affect everything from income taxes and estates to Social Security benefits.
Upton was among LGBT legal experts who warned same-sex couples from Texas against traveling to California to get married last year, in part because they wouldn’t be able to get divorced.
“We’ve had this happen with Canadian marriages,” Upton said. “It creates all kinds of headaches. … I don’t think we know the full reach of the problem we’re going to see.”
But Upton said he anticipates more and more cases like J.B.’s, especially since the legalization of same-sex marriage in any state may prompt gay and lesbian couples to wed prematurely.
“One of the things we’ve found is that there is an increasing number of gay people who get married, who get divorced fairly quickly,” Upton said. “They all of a sudden could get married and might lose the right to get married. … That puts undue pressure on the relationship.”
Upton said J.B.’s case is also unlikely to benefit LGBT equality, because it could result in an unfavorable legal precedent. Same-sex couples from Texas have been advised not to wed in other states with the intention of filing lawsuits seeking to have their marriages recognized here.
Upton said it’s possible the district court judge — in this case, Tena Callahan — will grant J.B. and his husband a divorce. But he said the case is likely to be appealed to the Texas Supreme Court and may prompt an anti-gay backlash from state legislators in Austin.
“The Supreme Court in Texas is just as conservative as can be, and the Attorney General would fight it tooth and nail,” Upton said.
The danger, Upton said, is that Texas’ constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage will be interpreted broadly.
“In the case of Texas, they haven’t done that [interpreted it] yet, and right now I wouldn’t want them to do it,” Upton said. “I just think that from the perspective of advancing the cause, this would not be my choice of cases.”
Schulte insisted that J.B.’s divorce petition isn’t a “test case.”
“This is absolutely legitimate; I wouldn’t take it if it wasn’t,” Schulte said. “They need to get divorced, and they need it to happen now. They’re between a rock and a hard spot.”
J.B., meanwhile, said he has no interest in being part of what could become a media spectacle.
“There is absolutely no desire whatsoever to even be having this conversation with anyone,” J.B. said. “It is a private, personal and painful matter.”
E-mail wright@dallasvoice.com
This article appeared in the Dallas Voice print edition January 23, 2009.
http://www.dallasvoice.com/artman/publish/article_10498.php
Jan 22, 2009 - 7:54:50 PM
Gay-rights attorney fears issue will go to state Supreme Court
For J.B., it’s a bitter irony.
While the vast majority of judges and politicians in Texas oppose same-sex marriage, the state also may be unwilling to grant J.B. and his husband a divorce from their Massachusetts nuptials.
“I can’t imagine a conservative state like Texas not being joyfully willing to stamp their approval on that,” J.B. said. “I think we’ve been through enough just going through what we’re going through, and should be allowed the same dignity and respect as any two people who have irreconcilable differences. It is my hope that Texas will be satisfied enough to pass the appropriate judgment and not make a grandstand out of this for publicity to further people’s careers, because again, these are human lives that are being dealt with.”
J.B., whose initials are being used in this article to protect his anonymity because his sexual orientation isn’t known to his employer, filed a petition for divorce Wednesday, Jan. 21 in Dallas County’s 302nd District Court.
J.B.’s attorney, Peter A. Schulte, said he believes it’s the first same-sex divorce petition ever filed in Texas. J.B., 45, of Dallas, and his husband married in 2006 when they lived in Massachusetts. He said they’ve been together for 11 years.
The petition sets up a legal showdown over whether Texas courts can grant divorces to same-sex couples married in other states. And it may be evidence of a growing problem nationwide for couples from out of state who’ve wed in one of three states where same-sex marriage has been legalized.
Texas, which has a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman, also doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages from other states. And in 2003, the state Attorney General successfully argued that a same-sex couple from Beaumont couldn’t use a Texas court to dissolve the civil union they obtained in Vermont.
But Schulte argued that a marriage is not the same as a civil union. He also noted that J.B. can’t end the marriage in Massachusetts or elsewhere because all 50 states have a residency requirement for divorce.
Opposite-sex married couples routinely obtain divorces in states other than where they were married.
“We can maybe understand that the state [of Texas] doesn’t recognize the right for same-sex couples to marry — fair enough,” Schulte said. “But if other states recognize the right, there has to be a way for those couples to dissolve their relationship under the laws of any state they choose to live in. This is a fundamental rights issue for gay couples in this state. Gay couples should not be restricted on what state they live in.”
In response to an inquiry from Dallas Voice, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott issued a statement late Thursday, Jan. 22 confirming that he plans to oppose the divorce.
“In the State of Texas, marriage is — and has always been — a union between one man and one woman,” Abbott said in the statement. “To prevent other states from imposing their values on this state, Texas voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment specifically defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Because the parties’ Massachusetts-issued arrangement is not a marriage under Texas law, they are asking a Texas court to recognize — and dissolve —something that does not legally exist.
“These two men are seeking a court ruling that challenges the Texas Constitution, so the Office of the Attorney General will intervene to defend Texas law — and the will of Texas voters.”
J.B. and his husband, 44, tied the knot on Sept. 22, 2006 in Massachusetts, according to a marriage license attached to his petition. The petition states that they stopped living together on Nov. 28, 2008.
J.B. said he doesn’t expect his husband to contest the divorce. They own a house together in Dallas, but they have no children. J.B. said they’ve agreed to a fair division of their assets, but they need a judge to sign off on it. He said he also wants to change back his last name after adopting his husband’s.
When the couple tried to obtain a settlement agreement — common among same-sex couples that separate and divide assets in Texas — J.B. and his husband were advised that because they’re married in another state, they need a divorce instead.
“It’s like Texas wants to have their cake and eat it, too,” J.B. said.
If the couple is unable to obtain a divorce in Texas, it could lead to a host of legal complications down the road, according to Kenneth D. Upton Jr., a senior staff attorney in the Dallas office of Lambda Legal, the national LGBT civil rights organization. Upton said the couple’s intact Massachusetts marriage could affect everything from income taxes and estates to Social Security benefits.
Upton was among LGBT legal experts who warned same-sex couples from Texas against traveling to California to get married last year, in part because they wouldn’t be able to get divorced.
“We’ve had this happen with Canadian marriages,” Upton said. “It creates all kinds of headaches. … I don’t think we know the full reach of the problem we’re going to see.”
But Upton said he anticipates more and more cases like J.B.’s, especially since the legalization of same-sex marriage in any state may prompt gay and lesbian couples to wed prematurely.
“One of the things we’ve found is that there is an increasing number of gay people who get married, who get divorced fairly quickly,” Upton said. “They all of a sudden could get married and might lose the right to get married. … That puts undue pressure on the relationship.”
Upton said J.B.’s case is also unlikely to benefit LGBT equality, because it could result in an unfavorable legal precedent. Same-sex couples from Texas have been advised not to wed in other states with the intention of filing lawsuits seeking to have their marriages recognized here.
Upton said it’s possible the district court judge — in this case, Tena Callahan — will grant J.B. and his husband a divorce. But he said the case is likely to be appealed to the Texas Supreme Court and may prompt an anti-gay backlash from state legislators in Austin.
“The Supreme Court in Texas is just as conservative as can be, and the Attorney General would fight it tooth and nail,” Upton said.
The danger, Upton said, is that Texas’ constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage will be interpreted broadly.
“In the case of Texas, they haven’t done that [interpreted it] yet, and right now I wouldn’t want them to do it,” Upton said. “I just think that from the perspective of advancing the cause, this would not be my choice of cases.”
Schulte insisted that J.B.’s divorce petition isn’t a “test case.”
“This is absolutely legitimate; I wouldn’t take it if it wasn’t,” Schulte said. “They need to get divorced, and they need it to happen now. They’re between a rock and a hard spot.”
J.B., meanwhile, said he has no interest in being part of what could become a media spectacle.
“There is absolutely no desire whatsoever to even be having this conversation with anyone,” J.B. said. “It is a private, personal and painful matter.”
E-mail wright@dallasvoice.com
This article appeared in the Dallas Voice print edition January 23, 2009.
http://www.dallasvoice.com/artman/publish/article_10498.php
Arguments in place as Prop. 8 hearing nears
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, January 26, 2009
(01-25) 20:59 PST -- In thousands of pages, the combatants in the Proposition 8 fight have made their case to the state Supreme Court.
On one side: the people's right to amend their Constitution and define marriage. On the other side: the courts' duty to protect minorities, such as gays and lesbians, from the tyranny of the majority.
The briefs are all in, from sponsors and opponents of the ballot measure banning same-sex marriage and their far-flung allies - organizations as mainstream as the AFL-CIO and the California Catholic Conference and as unconventional as the Church of the Messiah and a No on 8 group called Love, Honor, Cherish.
The next step is a court hearing, perhaps by the first week of March in San Francisco. A ruling, due 90 days later, should be the last word on the validity of the Nov. 4 initiative and the 18,000 same-sex weddings performed before it passed, at least until the losing side puts the issue on the ballot again.
Prop. 8 declared that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. The measure amended the state Constitution after the state's high court ruled May 15 that the previous ban on same-sex marriage - endorsed by the voters in 2000 - discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation and violated the constitutional right to marry the partner of one's choice.
Opponents' case
Opponents argue that Prop. 8, though now part of the Constitution, is invalid for three reasons:
-- It had such a drastic impact on individual rights that it amounted to a revision of the Constitution, not merely an amendment. A revision can be placed on the ballot only by a two-thirds legislative vote or by delegates to a constitutional convention.
-- It violated the constitutional separation of powers by stripping the courts of their authority to protect a minority group from discrimination.
-- It eliminated "inalienable rights," those protected by the Declaration of Rights in the opening clause of the state Constitution, without a compelling reason. That argument comes from Attorney General Jerry Brown, who reversed course after defending the previous marriage law before the court.
Brown's new stance left the defense of Prop. 8 to its sponsoring organization, Protect Marriage, which portrays its case as a defense of democracy itself.
Starr's argument
"The Constitution has now been amended, by the sovereign people who are its creators. That is the beginning and end of this case," the group's lawyers - Kenneth Starr, the prosecutor in President Bill Clinton's impeachment, and Andrew Pugno - said in their final round of written arguments last week.
Prop. 8, they said, makes no far-reaching changes in the structure of state government - a standard the court has used to define a constitutional revision - but merely restores the long-standing definition of marriage while leaving same-sex couples' rights intact under domestic partner laws.
Opponents' arguments, the lawyers said, amount to "a call for a constitutional revolution."
Brown's brief countered that Prop. 8 makes an "unprecedented change to the California Constitution by taking away the fundamental rights of a vulnerable minority." Same-sex couples who sued to overturn the ballot measure cast its proponents as would-be constitutional revolutionaries.
Defenders of the initiative are promoting a "radical vision of a constitutional structure in which the rights of minorities are utterly subservient to even temporary majority sentiment," said lawyers for the couples.
Only the judiciary, "the last bulwark against majority oppression," can protect the principle of equality at the core of the Constitution, said the city of San Francisco, which led city and county governments in a separate suit challenging Prop. 8.
Plenty of other voices
Last week's arguments came from the official parties in the case, the only ones with the right to speak at the hearing and file appeals. The court has also heard from 63 organizations and individuals with an array of written arguments on legal, social and religious issues related to the case, about two-thirds of them opposing Prop. 8.
The friend-of-the-court briefs come from legal scholars, civil rights advocates, competing religious coalitions and individual churches, labor and business organizations, and a few authors with an ax to grind, such as a self-described defender of "the civil rights of this nation's male minority" who warned against lesbians' "exterminationist" agenda.
Such outpourings have become common in major cases - court spokeswoman Lynn Holton said 68 nonparties filed briefs in last year's marriage case - and the arguments occasionally show up in court opinions. One example was the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 ruling allowing the limited use of race in state college admissions, which cited filings by military and business leaders favoring affirmative action.
Value debatable
The briefs sometimes give courts additional perspectives, particularly when they come from a trusted source, or at least show that the public considers the case important, former California Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas said in an interview. He said their value was expressed by the late Justice Stanley Mosk, who was fond of saying, "We should take wisdom from wherever it comes."
But San Francisco attorney Dennis Maio, a staff attorney on the state's high court from 1984 to 2004, said friend-of-the-court briefs might help persuade the court to grant review of a case but almost never contribute to a ruling. "The issues are framed by the parties," he said.
The briefs nonetheless represent the views of some major constituencies in California, including the state AFL-CIO, whose unions have 2 million members in the state.
Urging the court to overturn Prop. 8, attorney William Sokol wrote, "Today, it is gays and lesbians who are singled out. Tomorrow, it could be trade unionists."
Dueling religious cases
On the other side, James Sweeney, a lawyer for the California Catholic Conference, also representing congregations of Seventh-Day Adventists and Orthodox Jews, said religious institutions might be sued for acting on their beliefs against same-sex marriage - for example, by excluding gay or lesbian couples from married student housing at a church college - if Prop. 8 were overturned.
A group of more liberal denominations, led by the 4,000-member California Council of Churches, argued that Prop. 8 could open the door to religious persecution. The Rev. Mark Shirilau of Riverside, who founded the gay-friendly Ecumenical Catholic Church in 1987 and has congregations in several states, said the measure's declaration that only male-female marriage is recognized in California is false because his church performs and recognizes same-sex weddings.
Scores of current and former state legislators signed a brief against Prop. 8. Three Republican congressmen - Wally Herger of Marysville (Yuba County), Dan Lungren of Gold River (Sacramento County) and George Radanovich of Mariposa - signed a brief supporting the measure and also arguing that San Francisco and other local governments have no right to sue because they "clearly have no sexual orientation" and thus have no rights at stake.
One unique brief came from T.M. Reverend Messiah, pastor of the Church of the Messiah in Marina del Rey (Los Angeles County). He cited 42 biblical passages that showed, he said, that male-female unions were ordained by God, homosexuality is unnatural, and Prop. 8 is valid.
"Why can't everybody accept the fact that there are different things for different persons?" he asked. "Marriage is for heterosexuals and not homosexuals."
Read the briefs
Briefs filed with the state Supreme Court in the Proposition 8 case may be read at:
links.sfgate.com/ZFYN
E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/01/26/MNB515G17D.DTL
Monday, January 26, 2009
(01-25) 20:59 PST -- In thousands of pages, the combatants in the Proposition 8 fight have made their case to the state Supreme Court.
On one side: the people's right to amend their Constitution and define marriage. On the other side: the courts' duty to protect minorities, such as gays and lesbians, from the tyranny of the majority.
The briefs are all in, from sponsors and opponents of the ballot measure banning same-sex marriage and their far-flung allies - organizations as mainstream as the AFL-CIO and the California Catholic Conference and as unconventional as the Church of the Messiah and a No on 8 group called Love, Honor, Cherish.
The next step is a court hearing, perhaps by the first week of March in San Francisco. A ruling, due 90 days later, should be the last word on the validity of the Nov. 4 initiative and the 18,000 same-sex weddings performed before it passed, at least until the losing side puts the issue on the ballot again.
Prop. 8 declared that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. The measure amended the state Constitution after the state's high court ruled May 15 that the previous ban on same-sex marriage - endorsed by the voters in 2000 - discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation and violated the constitutional right to marry the partner of one's choice.
Opponents' case
Opponents argue that Prop. 8, though now part of the Constitution, is invalid for three reasons:
-- It had such a drastic impact on individual rights that it amounted to a revision of the Constitution, not merely an amendment. A revision can be placed on the ballot only by a two-thirds legislative vote or by delegates to a constitutional convention.
-- It violated the constitutional separation of powers by stripping the courts of their authority to protect a minority group from discrimination.
-- It eliminated "inalienable rights," those protected by the Declaration of Rights in the opening clause of the state Constitution, without a compelling reason. That argument comes from Attorney General Jerry Brown, who reversed course after defending the previous marriage law before the court.
Brown's new stance left the defense of Prop. 8 to its sponsoring organization, Protect Marriage, which portrays its case as a defense of democracy itself.
Starr's argument
"The Constitution has now been amended, by the sovereign people who are its creators. That is the beginning and end of this case," the group's lawyers - Kenneth Starr, the prosecutor in President Bill Clinton's impeachment, and Andrew Pugno - said in their final round of written arguments last week.
Prop. 8, they said, makes no far-reaching changes in the structure of state government - a standard the court has used to define a constitutional revision - but merely restores the long-standing definition of marriage while leaving same-sex couples' rights intact under domestic partner laws.
Opponents' arguments, the lawyers said, amount to "a call for a constitutional revolution."
Brown's brief countered that Prop. 8 makes an "unprecedented change to the California Constitution by taking away the fundamental rights of a vulnerable minority." Same-sex couples who sued to overturn the ballot measure cast its proponents as would-be constitutional revolutionaries.
Defenders of the initiative are promoting a "radical vision of a constitutional structure in which the rights of minorities are utterly subservient to even temporary majority sentiment," said lawyers for the couples.
Only the judiciary, "the last bulwark against majority oppression," can protect the principle of equality at the core of the Constitution, said the city of San Francisco, which led city and county governments in a separate suit challenging Prop. 8.
Plenty of other voices
Last week's arguments came from the official parties in the case, the only ones with the right to speak at the hearing and file appeals. The court has also heard from 63 organizations and individuals with an array of written arguments on legal, social and religious issues related to the case, about two-thirds of them opposing Prop. 8.
The friend-of-the-court briefs come from legal scholars, civil rights advocates, competing religious coalitions and individual churches, labor and business organizations, and a few authors with an ax to grind, such as a self-described defender of "the civil rights of this nation's male minority" who warned against lesbians' "exterminationist" agenda.
Such outpourings have become common in major cases - court spokeswoman Lynn Holton said 68 nonparties filed briefs in last year's marriage case - and the arguments occasionally show up in court opinions. One example was the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 ruling allowing the limited use of race in state college admissions, which cited filings by military and business leaders favoring affirmative action.
Value debatable
The briefs sometimes give courts additional perspectives, particularly when they come from a trusted source, or at least show that the public considers the case important, former California Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas said in an interview. He said their value was expressed by the late Justice Stanley Mosk, who was fond of saying, "We should take wisdom from wherever it comes."
But San Francisco attorney Dennis Maio, a staff attorney on the state's high court from 1984 to 2004, said friend-of-the-court briefs might help persuade the court to grant review of a case but almost never contribute to a ruling. "The issues are framed by the parties," he said.
The briefs nonetheless represent the views of some major constituencies in California, including the state AFL-CIO, whose unions have 2 million members in the state.
Urging the court to overturn Prop. 8, attorney William Sokol wrote, "Today, it is gays and lesbians who are singled out. Tomorrow, it could be trade unionists."
Dueling religious cases
On the other side, James Sweeney, a lawyer for the California Catholic Conference, also representing congregations of Seventh-Day Adventists and Orthodox Jews, said religious institutions might be sued for acting on their beliefs against same-sex marriage - for example, by excluding gay or lesbian couples from married student housing at a church college - if Prop. 8 were overturned.
A group of more liberal denominations, led by the 4,000-member California Council of Churches, argued that Prop. 8 could open the door to religious persecution. The Rev. Mark Shirilau of Riverside, who founded the gay-friendly Ecumenical Catholic Church in 1987 and has congregations in several states, said the measure's declaration that only male-female marriage is recognized in California is false because his church performs and recognizes same-sex weddings.
Scores of current and former state legislators signed a brief against Prop. 8. Three Republican congressmen - Wally Herger of Marysville (Yuba County), Dan Lungren of Gold River (Sacramento County) and George Radanovich of Mariposa - signed a brief supporting the measure and also arguing that San Francisco and other local governments have no right to sue because they "clearly have no sexual orientation" and thus have no rights at stake.
One unique brief came from T.M. Reverend Messiah, pastor of the Church of the Messiah in Marina del Rey (Los Angeles County). He cited 42 biblical passages that showed, he said, that male-female unions were ordained by God, homosexuality is unnatural, and Prop. 8 is valid.
"Why can't everybody accept the fact that there are different things for different persons?" he asked. "Marriage is for heterosexuals and not homosexuals."
Read the briefs
Briefs filed with the state Supreme Court in the Proposition 8 case may be read at:
links.sfgate.com/ZFYN
E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/01/26/MNB515G17D.DTL
Midlevel NY court upholds gay marriage benefits
By MICHAEL VIRTANEN | Associated Press Writer
January 22, 2009
ALBANY, N.Y. - A midlevel appeals court Thursday upheld New York's policy granting health benefits to spouses of gay state workers legally married outside the state.
Five Appellate Division justices, in two concurring decisions, rejected claims that the state Department of Civil Service exceeded its statutory authority in granting health insurance benefits to same-sex partners legally married elsewhere.
The justices upheld a 2008 ruling from a lower court in Albany, rejecting a challenge on behalf of four upstate taxpayers brought by attorney Brian Raum, who is also counsel for the Christian-based Alliance Defense Fund.
Justice Robert Rose noted that New York's top court has ruled state law limits marriages conducted within the state to people of the opposite sex. But New York also recognizes valid marriages from elsewhere, except when strictly prohibited by a state statute or the union is considered "abhorrent to public policy," such as incest, polygamy or when someone was under the age of consent.
"Our courts have narrowly construed these two exceptions, applying the marriage recognition rule to recognize a wide variety of out-of-state marriages that would not qualify as marriages if they had been solemnized in New York," Rose wrote. No New York statute specifically precludes recognition of same-sex marriages from elsewhere, nor does the state's public policy abhor it, he wrote.
Justices Karen Peters and Anthony Kane agreed.
In a separate concurring decision, Justice John Lahtinen wrote that state workers have been entitled for more than a decade to get health coverage for a same-sex domestic partner. The practical effect of the civil service ruling was to give an out-of-state marriage certificate the same weight as the affidavit required to get such employee benefits.
The policy change initiated in May 2007 under then-Gov. Eliot Spitzer affected spouses of state and municipal workers married in Canada, Massachusetts, California and other places where same-sex ceremonies are legal.
That was "a narrow accommodation to state employees in an area where the legislature has specifically accorded the (Civil Service) Commission broad discretion," Lahtinen wrote. Justice Bernard Malone Jr. agreed.
Raum said they plan to ask New York's top court to hear the case on appeal. "Until the Court of Appeals does address it, it's not going to be resolved," he said.
He said Lahtinen and Malone seemed to understand that the broader issue affects New York's citizens as a whole and it should be decided by the Legislature.
"Action taken by the state pertaining to its own employees is different from changing longstanding law that affects all of the state's citizens," Lahtinen wrote.
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--gaymarriage-court0122jan22,0,411760.story
January 22, 2009
ALBANY, N.Y. - A midlevel appeals court Thursday upheld New York's policy granting health benefits to spouses of gay state workers legally married outside the state.
Five Appellate Division justices, in two concurring decisions, rejected claims that the state Department of Civil Service exceeded its statutory authority in granting health insurance benefits to same-sex partners legally married elsewhere.
The justices upheld a 2008 ruling from a lower court in Albany, rejecting a challenge on behalf of four upstate taxpayers brought by attorney Brian Raum, who is also counsel for the Christian-based Alliance Defense Fund.
Justice Robert Rose noted that New York's top court has ruled state law limits marriages conducted within the state to people of the opposite sex. But New York also recognizes valid marriages from elsewhere, except when strictly prohibited by a state statute or the union is considered "abhorrent to public policy," such as incest, polygamy or when someone was under the age of consent.
"Our courts have narrowly construed these two exceptions, applying the marriage recognition rule to recognize a wide variety of out-of-state marriages that would not qualify as marriages if they had been solemnized in New York," Rose wrote. No New York statute specifically precludes recognition of same-sex marriages from elsewhere, nor does the state's public policy abhor it, he wrote.
Justices Karen Peters and Anthony Kane agreed.
In a separate concurring decision, Justice John Lahtinen wrote that state workers have been entitled for more than a decade to get health coverage for a same-sex domestic partner. The practical effect of the civil service ruling was to give an out-of-state marriage certificate the same weight as the affidavit required to get such employee benefits.
The policy change initiated in May 2007 under then-Gov. Eliot Spitzer affected spouses of state and municipal workers married in Canada, Massachusetts, California and other places where same-sex ceremonies are legal.
That was "a narrow accommodation to state employees in an area where the legislature has specifically accorded the (Civil Service) Commission broad discretion," Lahtinen wrote. Justice Bernard Malone Jr. agreed.
Raum said they plan to ask New York's top court to hear the case on appeal. "Until the Court of Appeals does address it, it's not going to be resolved," he said.
He said Lahtinen and Malone seemed to understand that the broader issue affects New York's citizens as a whole and it should be decided by the Legislature.
"Action taken by the state pertaining to its own employees is different from changing longstanding law that affects all of the state's citizens," Lahtinen wrote.
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--gaymarriage-court0122jan22,0,411760.story
Gillibrand's Marriage Stance Improves on 07-08 Record
By:PAUL SCHINDLER
01/23/2009
In her first press conference as senator-designate, US Congresswomen Kirsten Gillibrand was quite clear.
"I will advocate for marriage equality and for women's rights," she said, in remarks delivered after Governor David Paterson announced her selection at a January 23 Albany press conference in which a host of Democratic luminaries - and former GOP Senator Alfonse D'Amato - joined them on the dais.
For LGBT advocates keeping tabs, Gillibrand's unprompted mention of equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples may have come as something of a surprise. The Democratic representative from New York's 20th congressional district since her election in 2006, Gillibrand had previously voiced support only for civil unions.
According to the scorecard from the Human Rights Campaign, Gillibrand achieved an 80 percent rating in the 2007-8 session of Congress. That rating is strong, but in fact no other Democrat in the New York House delegation had a rating that low.
She supported hate crimes legislation, co-sponsored the version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that included transgender protections, voted for the version that went to the floor with those protections stripped out, and opposed an effort to block the District of Columbia from funding clean needle exchange programs.
Gillibrand was penalized in her HRC rating by failing to co-sponsor the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the passage of the Early Treatment for HIV Act, the Uniting American Families Act allowing the foreign same-sex partners of Americans to immigrate on the same terms as foreign spouses, and a bill treating domestic partner benefits the same as spousal benefits for federal tax purposes.
Clinton, in the last session of Congress, scored a 95 with HRC, and Chuck Schumer, the state's senior senator, earned a perfect 100, though the Senate and House are scored on different rosters of issues.
The first public indication that Gillibrand's position had evolved to support for full equality came in a press statement released early on Friday, the day her appointment was announced, from the Empire State Pride Agenda, New York's LGBT lobbying group.
Recounting a telephone conversation he had the previous evening with Gillibrand, Alan Van Capelle, ESPA's executive director, said, in the release, "After talking to Kirsten Gillibrand, I am very happy to say that New York is poised to have its first US senator who supports marriage equality for same-sex couples. She also supports the full repeal of the federal DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) law, repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT), and passage of legislation outlawing discrimination against transgender people."
Gillibrand won her seat in Congress by defeating four-term incumbent Republican John E. Sweeney in a race that earned her a reputation as a hard-charging political newcomer. The 20th congressional district runs north along the Hudson River from Dutchess County through Columbia County, Albany, Saratoga Springs, and as far as Essex County, and west to Delaware County on the Pennsylvania border.
In her 2006 race, Gillibrand benefited from enthusiastic campaigning by both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose Senate seat she will now occupy, and the former president. Gillibrand worked in the Clinton administration as a special counsel to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo, New York's attorney general, who had widely been considered the chief rival to Caroline Kennedy for the Senate appointment.
Gillibrand's support for repeal of both DOMA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell squares with pledges made by President Barack Obama during the fall campaign and reiterated on the new White House website posted at noon on Inauguration Day.
The new senator's advocacy for marriage equality may have less immediate impact in Washington, but is a significant advance here in New York. Neither Clinton nor Schumer support equal marriage rights, though Paterson and Cuomo, the two other statewide elected officials, do. Gillibrand's new posture on the issue, then, may create a floor for statewide elected officials, at least Democrats, going forward.
Despite Gillibrand's assurances to the Pride Agenda, Van Capelle, in a second statement issued after Paterson made his announcement, clearly aimed to drive home the community's commitment to remain vigilant about follow-through. "Actions always speak louder than words, and in that spirit, we look forward to working with her on the issues that the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community cares so much about," he said.
Joe Solmonese, HRC's president, released a statement saying, "Governor Paterson's pick of Representative Kirsten Gillibrand is a step forward for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community as she brings with her a strong record of support and understanding."
The new senator's position on marriage equality was not the focus of press attention at her introductory press conference. Instead, there was considerable interest in her 100 percent rating from the National Rifle Association, a distinction that likely puts her out of step with New Yorkers statewide, certainly with residents of the New York City metropolitan area, and specifically with Schumer, her new senior colleague.
The Brooklyn Democrat, whose face makes good copy for NRA dartboards, took the occasion of the Albany press conference to highlight his differences with Gillibrand on the issue, concluding with the prediction that she would come around -- delivered in a tone the new senator could reasonably have considered patronizing.
Gillibrand was later asked about the prospect that Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy -- a Long Island Democrat who first ran for office after her husband was slain on the Long Island Railroad by a random shooter who terrorized a train car full of evening commuters -- might mount a primary challenge in 2010. The senator-designate insisted she was only interested in protecting the rights of hunters and was prepared to work with gun control advocates.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has joined Schumer as one of the nation's leading gun control advocates, released a statement about Gillibrand's appointment, saying, "I have a strong disagreement with one area of her record as a member of Congress: illegal guns. She has actively opposed the efforts of New York City, and cities around the state and nation, to enact commonsense measures that keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals. For instance, she has co-sponsored legislation to deny key data cities and police need to track illegal gun criminals, as well as to tie the hands of the ATF and to protect dealers who sell guns illegally."
Jonathan Tasini, who challenged Hillary Clinton in the 2006 Democratic Senate primary, released a statement scorching Gillibrand for her position on guns, terming her a "caretaker appointment," and calling for a real Democrat to emerge by 2010.
Published reports and knowledgeable sources Gay City News contacted indicate that the final runner-up for the seat Gillibrand won was Randi Weingarten, an out lesbian and longtime teachers union chief in New York City who know heads the American Federation of Teachers.
http://gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20248138&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=568864&rfi=6
01/23/2009
In her first press conference as senator-designate, US Congresswomen Kirsten Gillibrand was quite clear.
"I will advocate for marriage equality and for women's rights," she said, in remarks delivered after Governor David Paterson announced her selection at a January 23 Albany press conference in which a host of Democratic luminaries - and former GOP Senator Alfonse D'Amato - joined them on the dais.
For LGBT advocates keeping tabs, Gillibrand's unprompted mention of equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples may have come as something of a surprise. The Democratic representative from New York's 20th congressional district since her election in 2006, Gillibrand had previously voiced support only for civil unions.
According to the scorecard from the Human Rights Campaign, Gillibrand achieved an 80 percent rating in the 2007-8 session of Congress. That rating is strong, but in fact no other Democrat in the New York House delegation had a rating that low.
She supported hate crimes legislation, co-sponsored the version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that included transgender protections, voted for the version that went to the floor with those protections stripped out, and opposed an effort to block the District of Columbia from funding clean needle exchange programs.
Gillibrand was penalized in her HRC rating by failing to co-sponsor the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the passage of the Early Treatment for HIV Act, the Uniting American Families Act allowing the foreign same-sex partners of Americans to immigrate on the same terms as foreign spouses, and a bill treating domestic partner benefits the same as spousal benefits for federal tax purposes.
Clinton, in the last session of Congress, scored a 95 with HRC, and Chuck Schumer, the state's senior senator, earned a perfect 100, though the Senate and House are scored on different rosters of issues.
The first public indication that Gillibrand's position had evolved to support for full equality came in a press statement released early on Friday, the day her appointment was announced, from the Empire State Pride Agenda, New York's LGBT lobbying group.
Recounting a telephone conversation he had the previous evening with Gillibrand, Alan Van Capelle, ESPA's executive director, said, in the release, "After talking to Kirsten Gillibrand, I am very happy to say that New York is poised to have its first US senator who supports marriage equality for same-sex couples. She also supports the full repeal of the federal DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) law, repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT), and passage of legislation outlawing discrimination against transgender people."
Gillibrand won her seat in Congress by defeating four-term incumbent Republican John E. Sweeney in a race that earned her a reputation as a hard-charging political newcomer. The 20th congressional district runs north along the Hudson River from Dutchess County through Columbia County, Albany, Saratoga Springs, and as far as Essex County, and west to Delaware County on the Pennsylvania border.
In her 2006 race, Gillibrand benefited from enthusiastic campaigning by both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose Senate seat she will now occupy, and the former president. Gillibrand worked in the Clinton administration as a special counsel to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo, New York's attorney general, who had widely been considered the chief rival to Caroline Kennedy for the Senate appointment.
Gillibrand's support for repeal of both DOMA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell squares with pledges made by President Barack Obama during the fall campaign and reiterated on the new White House website posted at noon on Inauguration Day.
The new senator's advocacy for marriage equality may have less immediate impact in Washington, but is a significant advance here in New York. Neither Clinton nor Schumer support equal marriage rights, though Paterson and Cuomo, the two other statewide elected officials, do. Gillibrand's new posture on the issue, then, may create a floor for statewide elected officials, at least Democrats, going forward.
Despite Gillibrand's assurances to the Pride Agenda, Van Capelle, in a second statement issued after Paterson made his announcement, clearly aimed to drive home the community's commitment to remain vigilant about follow-through. "Actions always speak louder than words, and in that spirit, we look forward to working with her on the issues that the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community cares so much about," he said.
Joe Solmonese, HRC's president, released a statement saying, "Governor Paterson's pick of Representative Kirsten Gillibrand is a step forward for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community as she brings with her a strong record of support and understanding."
The new senator's position on marriage equality was not the focus of press attention at her introductory press conference. Instead, there was considerable interest in her 100 percent rating from the National Rifle Association, a distinction that likely puts her out of step with New Yorkers statewide, certainly with residents of the New York City metropolitan area, and specifically with Schumer, her new senior colleague.
The Brooklyn Democrat, whose face makes good copy for NRA dartboards, took the occasion of the Albany press conference to highlight his differences with Gillibrand on the issue, concluding with the prediction that she would come around -- delivered in a tone the new senator could reasonably have considered patronizing.
Gillibrand was later asked about the prospect that Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy -- a Long Island Democrat who first ran for office after her husband was slain on the Long Island Railroad by a random shooter who terrorized a train car full of evening commuters -- might mount a primary challenge in 2010. The senator-designate insisted she was only interested in protecting the rights of hunters and was prepared to work with gun control advocates.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has joined Schumer as one of the nation's leading gun control advocates, released a statement about Gillibrand's appointment, saying, "I have a strong disagreement with one area of her record as a member of Congress: illegal guns. She has actively opposed the efforts of New York City, and cities around the state and nation, to enact commonsense measures that keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals. For instance, she has co-sponsored legislation to deny key data cities and police need to track illegal gun criminals, as well as to tie the hands of the ATF and to protect dealers who sell guns illegally."
Jonathan Tasini, who challenged Hillary Clinton in the 2006 Democratic Senate primary, released a statement scorching Gillibrand for her position on guns, terming her a "caretaker appointment," and calling for a real Democrat to emerge by 2010.
Published reports and knowledgeable sources Gay City News contacted indicate that the final runner-up for the seat Gillibrand won was Randi Weingarten, an out lesbian and longtime teachers union chief in New York City who know heads the American Federation of Teachers.
http://gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20248138&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=568864&rfi=6
January 07, 2009
Malcolm Smith says party picks him to lead NY Senate majority
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
January 7, 2009
ALBANY - State Senate Democrats said yesterday they've unanimously chosen state Sen. Malcolm Smith to lead their historic majority.
After a closed-door conference last night, Smith said he is certain he has the support to lead the 32-30 Democratic majority that won in the Nov. 4 election, securing the party's control of the Senate for the first time in 43 years.
It won't be official until today, when senators vote for their leader as the 2009 legislative session opens.
Senate Republicans couldn't be reached for comment late yesterday, but spokesman Mark Hansen has said they will convene and vote to return state Sen. Dean Skelos (R-Rockville Centre) as majority leader.
Smith, of St. Albans, said he has the support of three Democrats who had threatened to side with Republicans if party leaders didn't meet their demands for lucrative leadership posts and greater attention to Hispanic causes and conservative issues. He needs their support to maintain a majority.
Smith met privately with state Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr. and state Sen. Pedro Espada Jr., both of the Bronx, and state Sen. Carl Kruger of Brooklyn.
The dissidents had struck a December deal with Smith, brokered in part by Gov. David A. Paterson, that gave them highly coveted leadership roles and the stipends that go with them as well as a promise to Diaz that a bill to legalize gay marriage would not reach the Senate floor.
But rank-and-file Democrats blasted the deal and Smith, forcing him to scrap the deal he thought would assure a Democratic majority.
The three dissidents were present at the news conference last night when Smith declared his anticipated victory.
Diaz said he was happy with the outcome of talks, but he declined to say if he won his fight to keep the issue of gay marriage off the Senate floor.
"I'm comfortable with whatever is going to happen," Diaz said.
Smith wouldn't say whether he would consider giving the issue a chance on the floor.
Smith was eager to discuss reforms they have planned for the Senate, including one to give rank-and-file members the ability to sponsor and co-sponsor bills regardless of whether they belong to the majority party.
Diaz will lead the Senate Aging Committee, which comes with a $12,500 stipend.
Espada will head the Housing, Construction and Community Development Committee for an extra $12,500 and will serve as the vice chair of the powerful Senate Rules Committee and president of the Senate for Urban Policy.
Kruger will chair the Finance Committee, which comes with a $34,000 stipend.
Other senators received committee assignments yesterday, including Craig Johnson of Port Washington to head the Investigations and Government Operations Committee, and Brian X. Foley of Blue Point, for the Ethics Committee.
Republican state Sen. Frank Padavan of Jamaica Estates can't rejoin the Senate until the recount in his district is completed.
January 7, 2009
ALBANY - State Senate Democrats said yesterday they've unanimously chosen state Sen. Malcolm Smith to lead their historic majority.
After a closed-door conference last night, Smith said he is certain he has the support to lead the 32-30 Democratic majority that won in the Nov. 4 election, securing the party's control of the Senate for the first time in 43 years.
It won't be official until today, when senators vote for their leader as the 2009 legislative session opens.
Senate Republicans couldn't be reached for comment late yesterday, but spokesman Mark Hansen has said they will convene and vote to return state Sen. Dean Skelos (R-Rockville Centre) as majority leader.
Smith, of St. Albans, said he has the support of three Democrats who had threatened to side with Republicans if party leaders didn't meet their demands for lucrative leadership posts and greater attention to Hispanic causes and conservative issues. He needs their support to maintain a majority.
Smith met privately with state Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr. and state Sen. Pedro Espada Jr., both of the Bronx, and state Sen. Carl Kruger of Brooklyn.
The dissidents had struck a December deal with Smith, brokered in part by Gov. David A. Paterson, that gave them highly coveted leadership roles and the stipends that go with them as well as a promise to Diaz that a bill to legalize gay marriage would not reach the Senate floor.
But rank-and-file Democrats blasted the deal and Smith, forcing him to scrap the deal he thought would assure a Democratic majority.
The three dissidents were present at the news conference last night when Smith declared his anticipated victory.
Diaz said he was happy with the outcome of talks, but he declined to say if he won his fight to keep the issue of gay marriage off the Senate floor.
"I'm comfortable with whatever is going to happen," Diaz said.
Smith wouldn't say whether he would consider giving the issue a chance on the floor.
Smith was eager to discuss reforms they have planned for the Senate, including one to give rank-and-file members the ability to sponsor and co-sponsor bills regardless of whether they belong to the majority party.
Diaz will lead the Senate Aging Committee, which comes with a $12,500 stipend.
Espada will head the Housing, Construction and Community Development Committee for an extra $12,500 and will serve as the vice chair of the powerful Senate Rules Committee and president of the Senate for Urban Policy.
Kruger will chair the Finance Committee, which comes with a $34,000 stipend.
Other senators received committee assignments yesterday, including Craig Johnson of Port Washington to head the Investigations and Government Operations Committee, and Brian X. Foley of Blue Point, for the Ethics Committee.
Republican state Sen. Frank Padavan of Jamaica Estates can't rejoin the Senate until the recount in his district is completed.
January 06, 2009
California Proposition 8 Results
California Proposition 8 Results -- A Study
A new study of the California Proposition 8 results debunks many of the myths surrounding Prop 8.
Below are our conclusions after reading the study by Professors Patrick Egan and Kenneth Sherrill about Proposition 8, which revoked same sex couples right to marry in California:
* The two most important characteristics determining the vote were party identification and ideology.
Those self describing as Democrats or Liberals, overwhelmingly opposed Prop 8. Those self describing as Republicans or Conservatives, overwhelmingly supported California Proposition 8.
* The third most important characteristic determining the vote was religiosity.
Those attending religious services every week, supported Prop 8 by 70% while those attending once a month opposed it by 52% and those hardly ever attending opposed it by 70%.
* The fourth most important characteristic determining the vote was age.
All the ages groups opposed Prop 8, except for those 65+ who supported it by 67%.
As importantly, when compared to another marriage initiative in California in 2000 (the Knight initiative), all age groups increased their support of same sex marriage equality in 2008---except for those 65 years of age or older.
* African Americans and Latinos supported Prop 8 by 58 and 59% respectively---not 70% plus as reported in an exit poll on November 4, 2008.
Furthermore, their vote correlates more with religiosity than race.
* Contrary to popular belief, knowing an LGBT person was not a significant factor in opposing California Proposition 8.
download the whole study in pdf:
http://www.equalitygiving.org/files/California-Proposition-8-Results/California-Proposition-8-Results-Egan-Sherrill.pdf
download the press release:
http://www.equalitygiving.org/files/California-Proposition-8-Results/FINAL%20RELEASE%201%206%2009.doc
A new study of the California Proposition 8 results debunks many of the myths surrounding Prop 8.
Below are our conclusions after reading the study by Professors Patrick Egan and Kenneth Sherrill about Proposition 8, which revoked same sex couples right to marry in California:
* The two most important characteristics determining the vote were party identification and ideology.
Those self describing as Democrats or Liberals, overwhelmingly opposed Prop 8. Those self describing as Republicans or Conservatives, overwhelmingly supported California Proposition 8.
* The third most important characteristic determining the vote was religiosity.
Those attending religious services every week, supported Prop 8 by 70% while those attending once a month opposed it by 52% and those hardly ever attending opposed it by 70%.
* The fourth most important characteristic determining the vote was age.
All the ages groups opposed Prop 8, except for those 65+ who supported it by 67%.
As importantly, when compared to another marriage initiative in California in 2000 (the Knight initiative), all age groups increased their support of same sex marriage equality in 2008---except for those 65 years of age or older.
* African Americans and Latinos supported Prop 8 by 58 and 59% respectively---not 70% plus as reported in an exit poll on November 4, 2008.
Furthermore, their vote correlates more with religiosity than race.
* Contrary to popular belief, knowing an LGBT person was not a significant factor in opposing California Proposition 8.
download the whole study in pdf:
http://www.equalitygiving.org/files/California-Proposition-8-Results/California-Proposition-8-Results-Egan-Sherrill.pdf
download the press release:
http://www.equalitygiving.org/files/California-Proposition-8-Results/FINAL%20RELEASE%201%206%2009.doc
No defending the Defense of Marriage Act
The author of the federal Defense of Marriage Act now thinks it's time for his law to get the boot -- but for political reasons, not in support of gays.
By Bob Barr
January 5, 2009
In 1996, as a freshman member of the House of Representatives, I wrote the Defense of Marriage Act, better known by its shorthand acronym, DOMA, than its legal title. The law has been a flash-point for those arguing for or against same-sex marriage ever since President Clinton signed it into law. Even President-elect Barack Obama has grappled with its language, meaning and impact.
I can sympathize with the incoming commander in chief. And, after long and careful consideration, I have come to agree with him that the law should be repealed.
The left now decries DOMA as the barrier to federal recognition and benefits for married gay couples. At the other end of the political spectrum, however, DOMA has been lambasted for subverting the political momentum for a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. In truth, the language of the legislation -- like that of most federal laws -- was a compromise.
DOMA was indeed designed to thwart the then-nascent move in a few state courts and legislatures to afford partial or full recognition to same-sex couples. The Hawaii court case Baehr vs. Lewin, still active while DOMA was being considered by Congress in mid-1996, provided the immediate impetus.
The Hawaii court was clearly leaning toward legalizing same-sex marriages. So the first part of DOMA was crafted to prevent the U.S. Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause -- which normally would require State B to recognize any lawful marriage performed in State A -- from being used to extend one state's recognition of same-sex marriage to other states whose citizens chose not to recognize such a union.
Contrary to the wishes of a number of my Republican colleagues, I crafted the legislation so it wasn't a hammer the federal government could use to force states to recognize only unions between a man and a woman. Congress deliberately chose not to establish a single, nationwide definition of marriage.
However, we did incorporate into DOMA's second part a definition of marriage that comported with the historic -- and, at the time, widely accepted -- view of the institution as being between a man and a woman only. But this definition was to be used solely to interpret provisions of federal law related to spouses.
The first part of DOMA, then, is a partial bow to principles of federalism, protecting the power of each state to determine its definition of marriage. The second part sets a legal definition of marriage only for purposes of federal law, but not for the states. That was the theory.
I've wrestled with this issue for the last several years and come to the conclusion that DOMA is not working out as planned. In testifying before Congress against a federal marriage amendment, and more recently while making my case to skeptical Libertarians as to why I was worthy of their support as their party's presidential nominee, I have concluded that DOMA is neither meeting the principles of federalism it was supposed to, nor is its impact limited to federal law.
In effect, DOMA's language reflects one-way federalism: It protects only those states that don't want to accept a same-sex marriage granted by another state. Moreover, the heterosexual definition of marriage for purposes of federal laws -- including, immigration, Social Security survivor rights and veteran's benefits -- has become a de facto club used to limit, if not thwart, the ability of a state to choose to recognize same-sex unions.
Even more so now than in 1996, I believe we need to reduce federal power over the lives of the citizenry and over the prerogatives of the states. It truly is time to get the federal government out of the marriage business. In law and policy, such decisions should be left to the people themselves.
In 2006, when then-Sen. Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, he said, "Decisions about marriage should be left to the states." He was right then; and as I have come to realize, he is right now in concluding that DOMA has to go. If one truly believes in federalism and the primacy of state government over the federal, DOMA is simply incompatible with those notions.
Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the Libertarian Party's 2008 nominee for president.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/newsletter/la-oe-barr5-2009jan05,0,2810156.story?track=newslettertext
By Bob Barr
January 5, 2009
In 1996, as a freshman member of the House of Representatives, I wrote the Defense of Marriage Act, better known by its shorthand acronym, DOMA, than its legal title. The law has been a flash-point for those arguing for or against same-sex marriage ever since President Clinton signed it into law. Even President-elect Barack Obama has grappled with its language, meaning and impact.
I can sympathize with the incoming commander in chief. And, after long and careful consideration, I have come to agree with him that the law should be repealed.
The left now decries DOMA as the barrier to federal recognition and benefits for married gay couples. At the other end of the political spectrum, however, DOMA has been lambasted for subverting the political momentum for a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. In truth, the language of the legislation -- like that of most federal laws -- was a compromise.
DOMA was indeed designed to thwart the then-nascent move in a few state courts and legislatures to afford partial or full recognition to same-sex couples. The Hawaii court case Baehr vs. Lewin, still active while DOMA was being considered by Congress in mid-1996, provided the immediate impetus.
The Hawaii court was clearly leaning toward legalizing same-sex marriages. So the first part of DOMA was crafted to prevent the U.S. Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause -- which normally would require State B to recognize any lawful marriage performed in State A -- from being used to extend one state's recognition of same-sex marriage to other states whose citizens chose not to recognize such a union.
Contrary to the wishes of a number of my Republican colleagues, I crafted the legislation so it wasn't a hammer the federal government could use to force states to recognize only unions between a man and a woman. Congress deliberately chose not to establish a single, nationwide definition of marriage.
However, we did incorporate into DOMA's second part a definition of marriage that comported with the historic -- and, at the time, widely accepted -- view of the institution as being between a man and a woman only. But this definition was to be used solely to interpret provisions of federal law related to spouses.
The first part of DOMA, then, is a partial bow to principles of federalism, protecting the power of each state to determine its definition of marriage. The second part sets a legal definition of marriage only for purposes of federal law, but not for the states. That was the theory.
I've wrestled with this issue for the last several years and come to the conclusion that DOMA is not working out as planned. In testifying before Congress against a federal marriage amendment, and more recently while making my case to skeptical Libertarians as to why I was worthy of their support as their party's presidential nominee, I have concluded that DOMA is neither meeting the principles of federalism it was supposed to, nor is its impact limited to federal law.
In effect, DOMA's language reflects one-way federalism: It protects only those states that don't want to accept a same-sex marriage granted by another state. Moreover, the heterosexual definition of marriage for purposes of federal laws -- including, immigration, Social Security survivor rights and veteran's benefits -- has become a de facto club used to limit, if not thwart, the ability of a state to choose to recognize same-sex unions.
Even more so now than in 1996, I believe we need to reduce federal power over the lives of the citizenry and over the prerogatives of the states. It truly is time to get the federal government out of the marriage business. In law and policy, such decisions should be left to the people themselves.
In 2006, when then-Sen. Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, he said, "Decisions about marriage should be left to the states." He was right then; and as I have come to realize, he is right now in concluding that DOMA has to go. If one truly believes in federalism and the primacy of state government over the federal, DOMA is simply incompatible with those notions.
Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the Libertarian Party's 2008 nominee for president.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/newsletter/la-oe-barr5-2009jan05,0,2810156.story?track=newslettertext
NJ- Push for Gay Marriage Meets Election Concerns
By CAREN CHESLER
Published: January 1, 2009
NEW JERSEY has never appeared so close to — and yet so far from — enacting gay marriage.
Associated Press
Gov. Jon S. Corzine; Richard J. Codey, the State Senate president; and Joseph J. Roberts Jr., leader of the Democratic-controlled Assembly, have all recently stated publicly that gay marriage is an idea whose time has come. Echoing the sentiments of a state commission report released last month, some state officials said that civil unions — the closest thing to marriage available to gay couples in the state — were woefully inadequate and that the legalization of gay marriage in New Jersey was not a matter of “if” but “when.”
But with the governor and all 80 members of the Assembly up for re-election in November, most of the officials say the “when” may not be for some time.
The New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission, a 13-member panel convened to evaluate the impact of the state’s 2006 civil union law, in its final report last month, called on the state to legalize same-sex marriage after finding that civil unions did not result in equal treatment. Likening the prohibition against gay couples marrying to the racial segregation laws imposed upon black Americans, the commission said hospitals were reluctant to recognize civil unions when it came to visitation rights, employers did not always extend health benefits to both partners, and the children of such unions were stigmatized.
“New Jersey stands the best shot of any U.S. state to be the first to enact ‘marriage equality’ through legislation rather than by court order,” said Steven Goldstein, vice chairman of the commission and chairman of Garden State Equality, a gay rights organization.
Massachusetts and Connecticut are currently the only states that allow gay couples to marry, and in both instances the issue was decided by the courts rather than the legislatures. California was in that category until November, when gay marriage was overturned by voters.
Mr. Goldstein says his organization has been lobbying to get a measure passed.
“We are very, very close,” he said. “Do I believe we have the votes yet? It depends on how you count them. Even under our very conservative vote counts, we’re very close.”
While the governor had asked state lawmakers to refrain from raising the issue during the presidential election, for fear that it would sidetrack voters, he is now encouraging lawmakers to seriously review the commission’s report.
“While this administration is focused squarely on the economic crisis for the foreseeable future, it’s clear that this issue of civil rights must be addressed sooner rather than later,” Mr. Corzine said in a statement.
The governor promised to sign marriage-equality legislation when it reaches his desk. The question is whether state lawmakers will present him with the opportunity. “Politics will play a role in whether it actually gets posted to a committee,” said Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, a Democrat from Princeton and the deputy majority leader, who sponsored a gay marriage bill. “With the Assembly up this November, there will be a lot of members unlikely to get involved with such a polarizing issue.”
Opponents of gay marriage have pledged to make it an issue in the 2009 election. Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council, said his organization believed that some New Jerseyans might support same-sex marriage but that a majority do not want to see marriage redefined in the process.
Some veteran political strategists say lawmakers are reluctant to have voters think they have taken their eyes off the state’s grave fiscal situation. With residents losing jobs and facing foreclosure and the prospect of higher property taxes, they do not want to appear sidetracked.
“There could be a backlash,” said Harold Hodes, a Democratic strategist. “There are other issues that are more pressing at this time.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/nyregion/new-jersey/04gaynj.html
Published: January 1, 2009
NEW JERSEY has never appeared so close to — and yet so far from — enacting gay marriage.
Associated Press
Gov. Jon S. Corzine; Richard J. Codey, the State Senate president; and Joseph J. Roberts Jr., leader of the Democratic-controlled Assembly, have all recently stated publicly that gay marriage is an idea whose time has come. Echoing the sentiments of a state commission report released last month, some state officials said that civil unions — the closest thing to marriage available to gay couples in the state — were woefully inadequate and that the legalization of gay marriage in New Jersey was not a matter of “if” but “when.”
But with the governor and all 80 members of the Assembly up for re-election in November, most of the officials say the “when” may not be for some time.
The New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission, a 13-member panel convened to evaluate the impact of the state’s 2006 civil union law, in its final report last month, called on the state to legalize same-sex marriage after finding that civil unions did not result in equal treatment. Likening the prohibition against gay couples marrying to the racial segregation laws imposed upon black Americans, the commission said hospitals were reluctant to recognize civil unions when it came to visitation rights, employers did not always extend health benefits to both partners, and the children of such unions were stigmatized.
“New Jersey stands the best shot of any U.S. state to be the first to enact ‘marriage equality’ through legislation rather than by court order,” said Steven Goldstein, vice chairman of the commission and chairman of Garden State Equality, a gay rights organization.
Massachusetts and Connecticut are currently the only states that allow gay couples to marry, and in both instances the issue was decided by the courts rather than the legislatures. California was in that category until November, when gay marriage was overturned by voters.
Mr. Goldstein says his organization has been lobbying to get a measure passed.
“We are very, very close,” he said. “Do I believe we have the votes yet? It depends on how you count them. Even under our very conservative vote counts, we’re very close.”
While the governor had asked state lawmakers to refrain from raising the issue during the presidential election, for fear that it would sidetrack voters, he is now encouraging lawmakers to seriously review the commission’s report.
“While this administration is focused squarely on the economic crisis for the foreseeable future, it’s clear that this issue of civil rights must be addressed sooner rather than later,” Mr. Corzine said in a statement.
The governor promised to sign marriage-equality legislation when it reaches his desk. The question is whether state lawmakers will present him with the opportunity. “Politics will play a role in whether it actually gets posted to a committee,” said Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, a Democrat from Princeton and the deputy majority leader, who sponsored a gay marriage bill. “With the Assembly up this November, there will be a lot of members unlikely to get involved with such a polarizing issue.”
Opponents of gay marriage have pledged to make it an issue in the 2009 election. Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council, said his organization believed that some New Jerseyans might support same-sex marriage but that a majority do not want to see marriage redefined in the process.
Some veteran political strategists say lawmakers are reluctant to have voters think they have taken their eyes off the state’s grave fiscal situation. With residents losing jobs and facing foreclosure and the prospect of higher property taxes, they do not want to appear sidetracked.
“There could be a backlash,” said Harold Hodes, a Democratic strategist. “There are other issues that are more pressing at this time.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/nyregion/new-jersey/04gaynj.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
