Schmidt urges GOP to be more welcoming of gays
Steve Schmidt, chief strategist for U.S. Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) presidential campaign, came out in favor of marriage rights for same-sex couples in an interview with the Blade last week while urging the Republican Party to be more inclusive of gays and lesbians.
“I’m personally supportive of [marriage] equality for gay couples and I believe that it will happen over time,” he said. “I think that more and more Americans are insistent that, at a minimum, gay couples should be treated with respect and when they see a political party trying to stigmatize a group of people who are hardworking, who play by the rules, who raise decent families, they’re troubled by it.”
Schmidt is scheduled to appear at the Log Cabin Republicans’ annual convention, planned for next month in D.C.
In the wide-ranging, 50-minute Blade interview, Schmidt touched on how the Republican Party should address gay issues, decisions made during the presidential campaign and the future viability of some GOP politicians.
Since the election, Schmidt has taken a job as partner at Mercury Public Affairs, a public relations firm.
Schmidt said he “understand[s] the reality that people have objections to gay marriage,” but said he nonetheless supports marriage rights for gay couples.
A California resident, Schmidt said he voted against Proposition 8, which ended same-sex marriage in the Golden State. He said he believes marriage rights for gay couples will return through an initiative “that passes by popular vote within the next few years.”
His support for marriage rights for gay couples puts him in the minority within the Republican Party, but he said he still thinks the GOP should work to extend legal protections to gays, such as tax benefits for gay couples and non-discrimination protections for schoolteachers.
Schmidt, who has a lesbian sister, said his support of same-sex marriage has been shaped by the presence of a gay person in his family. Schmidt declined to disclose the identity of his lesbian sister, but said she accepted her sexual orientation and shared the news with family.
“I think one of the most tragic things in the world [is] when people are closeted and are denied their sexuality and this incredibly important part of their lives and the destructive potential of that action,” he said. “And I’ve come to believe over time that, as Dick Cheney said, freedom for everybody means freedom for everybody.”
But while Schmidt may have rejected Prop 8 at the ballot box, McCain officially supported the measure during the presidential campaign. Schmidt said he’s “never agreed 100 percent with any candidate” for whom he’s worked.
“It wasn’t my place in the campaign to debate issues with him that he had a firm opinion on,” Schmidt said. “But … as a voter, I’m not carrying my candidate’s proxy into the ballot box, I’m voting my conscience.”
Schmidt also worked on California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s (R) reelection campaign in 2006 and urged the governor to sign a bill that would have legalized same-sex marriage. The governor ultimately vetoed the bill.
When asked whether Schwarzenegger could have done more to fight Prop 8, Schmidt defended the governor, saying he was busy last year because many groups were looking to him for help in the election.
“If I [were] to offer free political advice to the gay community in California,” Schmidt said, “it would be don’t spend your time looking for people about why it was defeated, but instead focus on what you could do next time and get ready to run the next campaign, because they were very, very close to succeeding.”
Campaign comparisons
Schmidt also addressed the perception that gay issues like same-sex marriage weren’t prevalent in the 2008 campaign — at least in comparison to the 2004 campaign when the Federal Marriage Amendment factored heavily in the national dialogue.
Schmidt said the McCain campaign steered away from gay issues in part because McCain “has never been somebody who has used these divisive issues in his campaigns for office.” In 2006, McCain appeared in a television ad to urge the passage of an Arizona amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage and civil unions, but he was not seeking re-election to the U.S. Senate that year.
The economic crisis also dominated the debate during last year’s election, so social issues were put to the side, Schmidt said. But the focus on economic issues proved to be a detriment to the campaign, he said.
“Once the economy collapsed, we had a very, very difficult task and in fact it turned out to be impossible,” he said. “The day that Lehman Brothers collapsed, the McCain campaign was still roughly three points ahead, but that moment forward, [it] never went back into the lead.”
He said the Obama campaign “was built on a strategic premise that was right from Day One, which was the country wanted change” and something different than the Republican administration.
Schmidt said the McCain campaign never felt any pressure from social conservative groups to address LGBT issues more prominently in the campaign. He also said no constituency within the campaign was “trying to elevate these issues to the forefront of the campaign’s agenda.” He couldn’t immediately recall if there were any memoranda circulating on how campaign members should address LGBT issues.
But he said comparing the 2008 campaign to the 2004 campaign, when then-President George W. Bush and Karl Rove hammered the Federal Marriage Amendment and marriage amendments proposed in many states, would be an unfair comparison. Schmidt had a role in Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign as Rove’s deputy.
“The fact that there were so many ballot initiatives taking place in states that were of critical importance in the presidential election forced the issue into the presidential campaign in 2004,” he said. “So I think the circumstances of the debate changed very dramatically in 2004 and 2008. I think it’s an apples-and-oranges comparison.”
Schmidt said there would have been “little difference” on how McCain would have acted on LGBT issues if he were elected to the White House instead of Obama, noting that both candidates oppose same-sex marriage.
As far as other issues, Schmidt said he thinks McCain would have “taken decisive action and fixed the banking crisis in the country,” which he said Obama “has been pretty ineffective on.”
‘No negative reaction’ to McCain’s Blade Q&A
In a noteworthy development, McCain granted a written Q&A interview to the Blade during the general election campaign. The interview, published in October, marked the first time that a Republican presidential nominee has granted an interview to the gay press.
Despite the significance of the interview, Schmidt said “there were not deliberations” within the campaign about whether McCain should participate.
“The interview request came in and the interview request was fulfilled,” he said. Schmidt said, “there was certainly no negative reaction” after the interview was published.
He declined to comment on whether McCain penned the responses to the e-mail interview himself and said he didn’t know whether Log Cabin had any input into the responses.
Schmidt also made an appearance last year at a Log Cabin event at the Republican National Convention. At the time, the Advocate quoted him as telling Log Cabin attendees that their “organization is an important one in the fabric of our party.”
Schmidt told the Blade that it’s rare for a person working on a campaign to share their views publicly, but said he “exerted a prerogative to go speak to an important group of the Republican Party that I think has been historically underrepresented.”
“At the end of the day, it’s important that more and more gay people feel like they have a place in the Republican Party and the Republican Party has a lot of work to do,” he said.
Schmidt decided to appear at Log Cabin’s annual convention because he said the GOP has been “a shrinking party” in recent years.
“It has been losing market share,” he said. “I believe in a Republican Party that is a broad national party that is big enough to tolerate a broad range of views on issues.”
Schmidt urged Republicans to steer clear of divisive social issues if they are to remain viable candidates.
“I think the Republican Party should not be seen by a broad majority of the electorate as focused with singularity on issues like gay marriage,” he said. “The attitudes of voters about gay marriage and about domestic partnership benefits for gay couples are changing very rapidly and for voters under the age of 30, they are completely disconnected from what has been Republican orthodoxy on these issues.”
But is there any danger of the Republican Party reverting to attacks on gays in an attempt to stage a political comeback?
Schmidt said “any campaign that would go out and try to demonize people on the basis of their sexual orientation is abhorrent and I suspect that that campaign would be rejected.”
Schmidt says McCain ‘proud’ of Palin’s campaign role
When asked whether he had any regrets about the campaign selecting Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) as McCain’s running mate, Schmidt said McCain is “proud of the job that Gov. Palin did during the campaign.”
“I think that many of her positions were caricatured beyond any recognition to reality,” he said. “It’s a narrative left over from the campaign that’s just not appropriate to open and to discuss and I think fundamentally the whole thing was unfair to her.”
Schmidt said Palin ought to be judged on the work that she’s done as governor of Alaska since the completion of the presidential campaign.
Schmidt declined to comment on whether media reports were true that she was going “rogue” during the latter part of the campaign. In an October interview with a Christian media outlet, Palin expressed support for the Federal Marriage Amendment — a position that McCain didn’t hold.
Schmidt said former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney would be a strong presidential contender in the future because the GOP has “a habit of nominating people who have been around the track at least once before.
“So when he should decide to run, he would be very strong,” Schmidt said.
He also called Utah Gov. John Huntsman (R) “a deeply, deeply impressive person” and said if Huntsman wanted to be president, “he would be a deeply impressive candidate for a lot of people.”
Huntsman recently came out in favor of civil unions, despite the fact that 70 percent of Utah residents oppose them.
Other rising Republican stars that Schmidt noted were Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R), former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R) and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R).
As for whether Palin could be a presidential contender in 2012, Schmidt said the American people have had a “high degree of exposure” to her following her campaign.
“I think there’s a bit of information out there for your average person to make their own minds about her viability,” he said.
He noted that he’s not working with any of these politicians and is merely “happily watching from the sidelines.”
http://washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=24683
By CHRIS JOHNSON, Washington Blade | Mar 25, 3:53 PM
March 27, 2009
Two big wins for gay rights advocates
Limited marriage amendment sinks; House bill bans discrimination
DOVER -- Gay rights advocates gained two victories Thursday in the state Legislature -- the Senate's defeat of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and the House's passage of a bill prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.
More than 1,000 demonstrators wearing white T-shirts with the slogan "One Man, One Woman -- That's Marriage" rallied on the steps of Legislative Hall as, inside, both chambers engaged in lengthy debates colored by accusations of discrimination past and present.
Senate Bill 27, the defeated constitutional amendment, sought to make an existing state law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman more difficult to overturn. But many members of the Senate voiced concern that amending the constitution was unnecessary and even inappropriate.
"I believe that the constitution ... should be not a place where rights are restricted but where there is a positive affirmation of the rights of all of the people of Delaware," Sen. Brian Bushweller, D-Dover, said.
The legislation was sponsored by Sen. Robert Venables, D-Laurel, who said he wanted to make the already-illegal practice part of the state Constitution to prevent courts from being able to overturn the law.
Venables said other states have seen their legal bans overturned when courts ruled the laws were a violation of civil rights.
Far from gaining the three-fifths majority necessary for an amendment to progress, the bill was voted down 11-9.
Debate turns contentious
Several people testified in favor of the legislation, including Nicole Theis, executive director of the Christian group the Delaware Family Policy Council.
The overturning of gay marriage bans in other states has forced churches to comply with the laws and schools to teach that homosexuality is acceptable, she said.
"Whatever you put into public policy reflects what happens in the classroom," Theis said, holding up copies of children's books that depict gay characters. "I think most people would agree, how you want to live is up to you, but don't teach it in the classroom."
Theis said her organization expected the legislation to be defeated, but said it will continue to press for a constitutional amendment.
Drewry Fennell, executive director of the ACLU in Delaware, spoke against SB 27 and accused Venables and the bill's co-sponsors, including Sens. Colin Bonini, Thurman Adams, Bruce Ennis and Gary Simpson, of being motivated by their own biases.
"Elevating a prohibition that isn't based on one thing but discriminatory feelings is wrong," Fennell said. "That's not what we use the constitution for. I think it sends a message that many of you would not want to be sending."
The debate became more heated when the bill's sponsors challenged Fennell, saying the proposal wasn't based on prejudice. Pointing to Venables' comment that legalizing gay marriage could lead to removal of restrictions on pedophiles or relatives marrying, she accused him of essentially equating homosexuality to incest and pedophilia.
"It's hard to stand here and maintain composure sometimes," said Fennell, who is in a long-term lesbian relationship and has four children, ages 9 to 23. "I didn't bring my children today because I don't want them to hear anybody talk about our household that way."
Fennell added that if there were legal grounds to overturn the ban on gay marriage in the courts, she would have tried already.
The debate became more contentious when Sen. Karen Peterson, D-Stanton, a longtime gay rights advocate, asked Venables if the legislation could be considered a ban on heterosexuals remarrying because it specifies "one man and one woman."
"Anyone of normal intelligence would know what it means," Venables shot back.
"I'm trying to get the sponsor's intention on the record," Peterson responded. "I think it's a legitimate question that was not deserving of sarcasm."
Sen. Margaret Rose Henry, D-Wilmington, said the amendment reminded her of discriminatory legislation that previously barred people of different races from marrying.
"You couldn't marry who you wanted because you happened to be black and this is just like that," Henry said. "This is a bigoted effort in an attempt to hurt gay people who want to make a commitment to one another."
continued:
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20090327/NEWS02/903270371
DOVER -- Gay rights advocates gained two victories Thursday in the state Legislature -- the Senate's defeat of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and the House's passage of a bill prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.
More than 1,000 demonstrators wearing white T-shirts with the slogan "One Man, One Woman -- That's Marriage" rallied on the steps of Legislative Hall as, inside, both chambers engaged in lengthy debates colored by accusations of discrimination past and present.
Senate Bill 27, the defeated constitutional amendment, sought to make an existing state law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman more difficult to overturn. But many members of the Senate voiced concern that amending the constitution was unnecessary and even inappropriate.
"I believe that the constitution ... should be not a place where rights are restricted but where there is a positive affirmation of the rights of all of the people of Delaware," Sen. Brian Bushweller, D-Dover, said.
The legislation was sponsored by Sen. Robert Venables, D-Laurel, who said he wanted to make the already-illegal practice part of the state Constitution to prevent courts from being able to overturn the law.
Venables said other states have seen their legal bans overturned when courts ruled the laws were a violation of civil rights.
Far from gaining the three-fifths majority necessary for an amendment to progress, the bill was voted down 11-9.
Debate turns contentious
Several people testified in favor of the legislation, including Nicole Theis, executive director of the Christian group the Delaware Family Policy Council.
The overturning of gay marriage bans in other states has forced churches to comply with the laws and schools to teach that homosexuality is acceptable, she said.
"Whatever you put into public policy reflects what happens in the classroom," Theis said, holding up copies of children's books that depict gay characters. "I think most people would agree, how you want to live is up to you, but don't teach it in the classroom."
Theis said her organization expected the legislation to be defeated, but said it will continue to press for a constitutional amendment.
Drewry Fennell, executive director of the ACLU in Delaware, spoke against SB 27 and accused Venables and the bill's co-sponsors, including Sens. Colin Bonini, Thurman Adams, Bruce Ennis and Gary Simpson, of being motivated by their own biases.
"Elevating a prohibition that isn't based on one thing but discriminatory feelings is wrong," Fennell said. "That's not what we use the constitution for. I think it sends a message that many of you would not want to be sending."
The debate became more heated when the bill's sponsors challenged Fennell, saying the proposal wasn't based on prejudice. Pointing to Venables' comment that legalizing gay marriage could lead to removal of restrictions on pedophiles or relatives marrying, she accused him of essentially equating homosexuality to incest and pedophilia.
"It's hard to stand here and maintain composure sometimes," said Fennell, who is in a long-term lesbian relationship and has four children, ages 9 to 23. "I didn't bring my children today because I don't want them to hear anybody talk about our household that way."
Fennell added that if there were legal grounds to overturn the ban on gay marriage in the courts, she would have tried already.
The debate became more contentious when Sen. Karen Peterson, D-Stanton, a longtime gay rights advocate, asked Venables if the legislation could be considered a ban on heterosexuals remarrying because it specifies "one man and one woman."
"Anyone of normal intelligence would know what it means," Venables shot back.
"I'm trying to get the sponsor's intention on the record," Peterson responded. "I think it's a legitimate question that was not deserving of sarcasm."
Sen. Margaret Rose Henry, D-Wilmington, said the amendment reminded her of discriminatory legislation that previously barred people of different races from marrying.
"You couldn't marry who you wanted because you happened to be black and this is just like that," Henry said. "This is a bigoted effort in an attempt to hurt gay people who want to make a commitment to one another."
continued:
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20090327/NEWS02/903270371
Hawaii civil-union bill flounders in committee
Supporters of civil unions for same-sex couples remained optimistic that such legislation could still pass this year.
But realistically the chances are slim, legislative leaders said after the Senate rejected a move yesterday to force a vote on the proposal.
"If you ask me what I think the probabilities are ... it probably will not happen this session," said Senate President Colleen Hanabusa (D, Nanakuli-Makua).
Hanabusa spoke after senators spent an hour debating whether to force a vote on House Bill 444, which would extend all the rights, benefits and protections of marriage to same-sex couples without calling the partnership a marriage.
Opponents who packed the chamber gallery applauded boisterously as the Senate completed its roll call indicating that the move to pull the bill had failed by a vote of 18-6, three shy of the number needed.
"I'm clearly overjoyed at the turn of events," said Garret Hashimoto, chairman of the Hawaii Christian Coalition, which had organized opponents of the legislation for rallies and lobbying of lawmakers. "I think justice was done today."
He and others said the Senate's action reaffirms the 1998 constitutional amendment approved by voters that gives the Legislature the power to reserve marriage for couples of one man and one woman.
"This is a victory for traditional marriage and preserving the will of the people," Lt. Gov. James "Duke" Aiona said in a news release. "I have said from the beginning that House Bill 444 attempts to circumvent the will of the people by authorizing same-sex marriage under a different name."
Supporters of civil unions expressed disappointment but vowed to continue their fight.
"Today's vote helps no one in the state of Hawaii," Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a news release. "It protects no one's marriage. It grants dignity to no couple's relationship. It does nothing to ensure that all families receive the equal rights and responsibilities they deserve.
"But no one is giving up."
HB 444 passed out of the House in February but stalled in the Senate, where the Judiciary and Government Operations Committee deadlocked 3-3 on advancing the proposal after a marathon 18-hour hearing.
Sen. Gary Hooser (D, Niihau-Kauai) moved to pull the bill from committee and force an up or down vote by the Senate.
"For me the main reason to vote yes ... is one of principle and one of obligation," he said. "The principle, of course, is that all people are created equal, and all people deserve to be treated fairly, equally, with respect and dignity.
"We owe it to these people," he added. "These are our friends, our neighbors our family members. We owe them a full and open discussion of the issues."
Opposition was led by Sen. Sam Slom (R, Diamond Head-Hawaii Kai), who argued that unlike past measures that were pulled from committee, HB 444 had a full hearing and a final vote.
"The bill is not stuck in committee. The bill is not bottled up in committee," Slom said. "We came to a conclusion, and the conclusion was there was not enough support to pass this bill at this time."
By B.J. Reyes
http://www.starbulletin.com/news/20090326_Civil-unions_bill_stuck_likely_dead.html#fullstory
POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Mar 26, 2009
But realistically the chances are slim, legislative leaders said after the Senate rejected a move yesterday to force a vote on the proposal.
"If you ask me what I think the probabilities are ... it probably will not happen this session," said Senate President Colleen Hanabusa (D, Nanakuli-Makua).
Hanabusa spoke after senators spent an hour debating whether to force a vote on House Bill 444, which would extend all the rights, benefits and protections of marriage to same-sex couples without calling the partnership a marriage.
Opponents who packed the chamber gallery applauded boisterously as the Senate completed its roll call indicating that the move to pull the bill had failed by a vote of 18-6, three shy of the number needed.
"I'm clearly overjoyed at the turn of events," said Garret Hashimoto, chairman of the Hawaii Christian Coalition, which had organized opponents of the legislation for rallies and lobbying of lawmakers. "I think justice was done today."
He and others said the Senate's action reaffirms the 1998 constitutional amendment approved by voters that gives the Legislature the power to reserve marriage for couples of one man and one woman.
"This is a victory for traditional marriage and preserving the will of the people," Lt. Gov. James "Duke" Aiona said in a news release. "I have said from the beginning that House Bill 444 attempts to circumvent the will of the people by authorizing same-sex marriage under a different name."
Supporters of civil unions expressed disappointment but vowed to continue their fight.
"Today's vote helps no one in the state of Hawaii," Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a news release. "It protects no one's marriage. It grants dignity to no couple's relationship. It does nothing to ensure that all families receive the equal rights and responsibilities they deserve.
"But no one is giving up."
HB 444 passed out of the House in February but stalled in the Senate, where the Judiciary and Government Operations Committee deadlocked 3-3 on advancing the proposal after a marathon 18-hour hearing.
Sen. Gary Hooser (D, Niihau-Kauai) moved to pull the bill from committee and force an up or down vote by the Senate.
"For me the main reason to vote yes ... is one of principle and one of obligation," he said. "The principle, of course, is that all people are created equal, and all people deserve to be treated fairly, equally, with respect and dignity.
"We owe it to these people," he added. "These are our friends, our neighbors our family members. We owe them a full and open discussion of the issues."
Opposition was led by Sen. Sam Slom (R, Diamond Head-Hawaii Kai), who argued that unlike past measures that were pulled from committee, HB 444 had a full hearing and a final vote.
"The bill is not stuck in committee. The bill is not bottled up in committee," Slom said. "We came to a conclusion, and the conclusion was there was not enough support to pass this bill at this time."
By B.J. Reyes
http://www.starbulletin.com/news/20090326_Civil-unions_bill_stuck_likely_dead.html#fullstory
POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Mar 26, 2009
NH House approves gay marriage, sends bill to Sen
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — The state House on Thursday voted narrowly to make New Hampshire the third state to allow gay couples to marry.
The bill, which passed the House 186-179, next goes to the Senate, where its future is uncertain. Democratic Gov. John Lynch opposes gay marriage but has not said specifically that he would veto it — a position that spokesman Colin Manning reiterated after the vote.
Two years ago, the Legislature approved, and Lynch signed, civil unions for gays, which provide all the rights of marriage, except in name.
Currently, only Connecticut and Massachusetts allow gay couples to marry. The Vermont Senate sent a gay marriage bill to the House this week, but Gov. Jim Douglas says he will veto it if it reaches his desk.
Supporters say it is discriminatory to exclude gays from marriage. Opponents argue marriage is a sacred religious institution that would be cheapened by allowing gays to marry.
Civil unions are not marriage, said Rep. David Pierce, D-Etna. The law should respect and support his life with his partner and their two daughters.
"When my children grow up to be old enough to know what discrimination is, they should not have to learn they were the objects of it," he said.
He said gays should be allowed to marry, just as women won the right to vote and people of different races the right to marry.
"It is separate but equal all over again. Would you volunteer to ride at the back of the bus? Would you volunteer to give up your marriage license for a civil union license?" said Pierce.
Brookline Democratic Rep. Melanie Levesque, who is black and married to a white man, said her marriage was still a crime in Virginia in the mid-1960s.
"We have had a long history of challenging conventional wisdom — the Earth is flat, people from different continents should not marry, people who are the same should not marry," she said.
Republicans who voted against the bill said gay marriage defies nature and could harm children.
Rep. John Cebrowski, of Bedford, said, "You cannot make two similar things into something they were never meant to be." Rep. Laura Gandia, of Litchfield, called it "the most radical redefinition of marriage that can be imposed."
Rep. Nancy Elliott, of Merrimack, said marriage was instituted by God and that "marriage between a man and a woman is perfect and holy."
The first attempt to pass the bill fell one vote short, but opponents were unable to kill it. The House then reconsidered and passed the measure Thursday. A dozen House Republicans voted to pass the bill; 26 Democrats opposed it.
Democrats hold a 14-9 edge in the Senate, but Senate Republican Leader Peter Bragdon, of Milford, said GOP senators will work to kill the legislation.
State Republican Party Chairman John H. Sununu criticized the House vote as an "attempt by the liberal Democrats in the Legislature to impose their San Francisco agenda on the state of New Hampshire."
But Mo Baxley, executive director of New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition, said lawmakers showed the world that "New Hampshire does not discriminate and all families count."
The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, the U.S. Episcopal Church's first openly gay bishop, had testified in support of the bill, calling it a matter of fairness.
"I am delighted, because it's clear to me that New Hampshire values one class of citizenship and not two," Robinson said of the House vote. "And I'm delighted that (the bill) threatens people of faith in no way."
More than 600 New Hampshire couples have entered into civil unions since the state's law took effect last year. The current bill would change the name from civil union to marriage. Federal law does not recognize civil unions or same-sex marriages.
By NORMA LOVE – 1 day ago
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ia0uHb3aRkxBGOF4NgaTGIYjKFhwD975TDF80
(This version CORRECTS Robinson's title to Rt. Rev.)
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
The bill, which passed the House 186-179, next goes to the Senate, where its future is uncertain. Democratic Gov. John Lynch opposes gay marriage but has not said specifically that he would veto it — a position that spokesman Colin Manning reiterated after the vote.
Two years ago, the Legislature approved, and Lynch signed, civil unions for gays, which provide all the rights of marriage, except in name.
Currently, only Connecticut and Massachusetts allow gay couples to marry. The Vermont Senate sent a gay marriage bill to the House this week, but Gov. Jim Douglas says he will veto it if it reaches his desk.
Supporters say it is discriminatory to exclude gays from marriage. Opponents argue marriage is a sacred religious institution that would be cheapened by allowing gays to marry.
Civil unions are not marriage, said Rep. David Pierce, D-Etna. The law should respect and support his life with his partner and their two daughters.
"When my children grow up to be old enough to know what discrimination is, they should not have to learn they were the objects of it," he said.
He said gays should be allowed to marry, just as women won the right to vote and people of different races the right to marry.
"It is separate but equal all over again. Would you volunteer to ride at the back of the bus? Would you volunteer to give up your marriage license for a civil union license?" said Pierce.
Brookline Democratic Rep. Melanie Levesque, who is black and married to a white man, said her marriage was still a crime in Virginia in the mid-1960s.
"We have had a long history of challenging conventional wisdom — the Earth is flat, people from different continents should not marry, people who are the same should not marry," she said.
Republicans who voted against the bill said gay marriage defies nature and could harm children.
Rep. John Cebrowski, of Bedford, said, "You cannot make two similar things into something they were never meant to be." Rep. Laura Gandia, of Litchfield, called it "the most radical redefinition of marriage that can be imposed."
Rep. Nancy Elliott, of Merrimack, said marriage was instituted by God and that "marriage between a man and a woman is perfect and holy."
The first attempt to pass the bill fell one vote short, but opponents were unable to kill it. The House then reconsidered and passed the measure Thursday. A dozen House Republicans voted to pass the bill; 26 Democrats opposed it.
Democrats hold a 14-9 edge in the Senate, but Senate Republican Leader Peter Bragdon, of Milford, said GOP senators will work to kill the legislation.
State Republican Party Chairman John H. Sununu criticized the House vote as an "attempt by the liberal Democrats in the Legislature to impose their San Francisco agenda on the state of New Hampshire."
But Mo Baxley, executive director of New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition, said lawmakers showed the world that "New Hampshire does not discriminate and all families count."
The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, the U.S. Episcopal Church's first openly gay bishop, had testified in support of the bill, calling it a matter of fairness.
"I am delighted, because it's clear to me that New Hampshire values one class of citizenship and not two," Robinson said of the House vote. "And I'm delighted that (the bill) threatens people of faith in no way."
More than 600 New Hampshire couples have entered into civil unions since the state's law took effect last year. The current bill would change the name from civil union to marriage. Federal law does not recognize civil unions or same-sex marriages.
By NORMA LOVE – 1 day ago
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ia0uHb3aRkxBGOF4NgaTGIYjKFhwD975TDF80
(This version CORRECTS Robinson's title to Rt. Rev.)
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Mayor Bloomberg urges New York State to pass bill to allow gay marriage
Mayor Bloomberg official threw his support behind pushing New York state to pass bill to allow gay marriage. Taggart for News
Mayor Bloomberg said Wednesday night he stands ready to ask the Legislature to allow gay marriage in New York State, but doesn't know when the time will be right.
"We see that the tide is turning, that support is mounting," Bloomberg told the annual dinner of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center. "Make no mistake, the time will come ... and we will pass this bill."
Bloomberg has made similar pledges to testify in Albany for almost three years, but the GOP-run state Senate blocked any such bill.
Democrats now run the Senate but have not been able to round up votes to pass the measure - increasing pressure on Bloomberg to follow through.
"I don't know whether it's more likely or not" this year, Bloomberg said before his speech. "If they consider a bill, I think they should pass it, and I would be happy to testify for it."
The mayor was received warmly by the crowd, which cited his administration as a model for gay-friendly initiatives. Still, marriage remains the top item on the gay political agenda.
"We need Republican votes to pass this. We gave a lot of money to the Republican state Senate campaign last year," said Paul Schindler, editor in chief of Gay City News. "When the gay community gets politicians to say they're on our side, the next question is, How soon?"
Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who is gay, both said U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer's new found support for gay marriage is a sign that the tide is turning.
"Everything's different this year in a way that I think is very positive for the movement of the bill," Quinn told the Daily News. "When we get the green light from our leaders in the [state] Senate that it's the right time to go, he and I will be up there."
BY Adam Lisberg
alisberg@nydailynews.com
DAILY NEWS CITY HALL BUREAU CHIEF
Wednesday, March 25th 2009, 9:09 PM
Mayor Bloomberg said Wednesday night he stands ready to ask the Legislature to allow gay marriage in New York State, but doesn't know when the time will be right.
"We see that the tide is turning, that support is mounting," Bloomberg told the annual dinner of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center. "Make no mistake, the time will come ... and we will pass this bill."
Bloomberg has made similar pledges to testify in Albany for almost three years, but the GOP-run state Senate blocked any such bill.
Democrats now run the Senate but have not been able to round up votes to pass the measure - increasing pressure on Bloomberg to follow through.
"I don't know whether it's more likely or not" this year, Bloomberg said before his speech. "If they consider a bill, I think they should pass it, and I would be happy to testify for it."
The mayor was received warmly by the crowd, which cited his administration as a model for gay-friendly initiatives. Still, marriage remains the top item on the gay political agenda.
"We need Republican votes to pass this. We gave a lot of money to the Republican state Senate campaign last year," said Paul Schindler, editor in chief of Gay City News. "When the gay community gets politicians to say they're on our side, the next question is, How soon?"
Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who is gay, both said U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer's new found support for gay marriage is a sign that the tide is turning.
"Everything's different this year in a way that I think is very positive for the movement of the bill," Quinn told the Daily News. "When we get the green light from our leaders in the [state] Senate that it's the right time to go, he and I will be up there."
BY Adam Lisberg
alisberg@nydailynews.com
DAILY NEWS CITY HALL BUREAU CHIEF
Wednesday, March 25th 2009, 9:09 PM
Douglas will veto gay marriage bill
MONTPELIER — Gov. Jim Douglas, calling the issue a distraction, declared Wednesday that he would veto the same-sex marriage bill working its way through the Legislature.
“The speculation about my decision has added to the anxiety of the moment and further diverts attention from our most pressing issues, and I cannot allow that to happen,” he said at an afternoon news conference. “I intend to veto this legislation when it reaches my desk.”
The move surprised many, as Douglas normally steadfastly refuses to comment on whether he will veto a bill until after it has made its way through the Legislature. The same-sex marriage bill passed the Senate this week, with a 26-4 vote, but the House Judiciary Committee had just started taking testimony Tuesday.
Opponents of the bill cheered Douglas’ announcement, while supporters argued that he should have waited until the debate had played out. “Thank you, Jim,” said the Rev. Craig Bensen of Cambridge, founder of Take it to the People, a same-sex-marriage opposition group.
“I am deeply disappointed that the governor has interfered with this process at this time,” said Rep. William Lippert, D-Hinesburg, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who said as a gay person the legislation has deep personal meaning to him. “We will finish our work.”
While the legislation is expected to pass the House, supporters might not have the votes needed to override a veto.
Douglas said the decision was a deeply personal one. “I believe marriage should remain between a man and a woman,” he said. “That’s my belief.”
He said he believes civil unions, which Vermont was the first state to adopt in 2000 granting same-sex couples the rights of marriage, “serves Vermont well, and I would support congressional action to extend those benefits at the federal level to states that recognize same-sex unions.”
Same-sex marriage advocates have argued that civil unions do not offer the same rights, particularly because the concept is unknown and unaccepted outside the state. New York state, for example, recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere but does not recognize civil unions. Douglas said he can only worry about laws in his own state.
Beth Robinson, of the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force, said she was surprised by Douglas’ announcement. “By his comments, he’s made clear he doesn’t understand the impact of the laws on gay and lesbian Vermonters,” she said.
Legislative leaders complained that Douglas is circumventing the legislative process.
“I’ve not actually had this happen before,” said House Speaker Shap Smith, D-Morristown. “It seems to me that announcing a decision before the process has played out is essentially undermining our democratic system of government.”
Asked whether Douglas’ decision will make it harder for supporters of the bill to lure those who are on the fence, Smith said simply, “I don’t know.”
Douglas said in his 3½-minute statement, “I’m sure that legislative leaders would not have advanced this bill if they didn’t have the votes to override a veto,” but that question remains unanswered.
Smith wouldn’t address whether he has the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. If all 150 members of the House were present, it would take 100 votes to override a veto.
Supporters of the legislation have privately said they doubt they have that. However, George Schiavone, a former Republican representative from Shelburne who is lobbying members to vote against the bill, said he’s not so sure. “It’s within shooting distance,” he said of an override.
A veto override can be difficult to predict, as members might vote one way on the bill but then support their party caucus on an override vote. Democrats, Progressives and independents together have 102 members in the House. Republicans have 48 members.
Sen. Richard Sears, D-Bennington, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said a veto would not make the issue of same-sex marriage go away in Vermont. “You can’t stop it,” he said. “It’s coming back.”
By Terri Hallenbeck, Free Press Staff Writer • March 26, 2009
Contact 651-4887 or thallenb@bfp.burlingtonfreepress.com
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090326/NEWS03/90326003/-1/NEWS05
“The speculation about my decision has added to the anxiety of the moment and further diverts attention from our most pressing issues, and I cannot allow that to happen,” he said at an afternoon news conference. “I intend to veto this legislation when it reaches my desk.”
The move surprised many, as Douglas normally steadfastly refuses to comment on whether he will veto a bill until after it has made its way through the Legislature. The same-sex marriage bill passed the Senate this week, with a 26-4 vote, but the House Judiciary Committee had just started taking testimony Tuesday.
Opponents of the bill cheered Douglas’ announcement, while supporters argued that he should have waited until the debate had played out. “Thank you, Jim,” said the Rev. Craig Bensen of Cambridge, founder of Take it to the People, a same-sex-marriage opposition group.
“I am deeply disappointed that the governor has interfered with this process at this time,” said Rep. William Lippert, D-Hinesburg, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who said as a gay person the legislation has deep personal meaning to him. “We will finish our work.”
While the legislation is expected to pass the House, supporters might not have the votes needed to override a veto.
Douglas said the decision was a deeply personal one. “I believe marriage should remain between a man and a woman,” he said. “That’s my belief.”
He said he believes civil unions, which Vermont was the first state to adopt in 2000 granting same-sex couples the rights of marriage, “serves Vermont well, and I would support congressional action to extend those benefits at the federal level to states that recognize same-sex unions.”
Same-sex marriage advocates have argued that civil unions do not offer the same rights, particularly because the concept is unknown and unaccepted outside the state. New York state, for example, recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere but does not recognize civil unions. Douglas said he can only worry about laws in his own state.
Beth Robinson, of the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force, said she was surprised by Douglas’ announcement. “By his comments, he’s made clear he doesn’t understand the impact of the laws on gay and lesbian Vermonters,” she said.
Legislative leaders complained that Douglas is circumventing the legislative process.
“I’ve not actually had this happen before,” said House Speaker Shap Smith, D-Morristown. “It seems to me that announcing a decision before the process has played out is essentially undermining our democratic system of government.”
Asked whether Douglas’ decision will make it harder for supporters of the bill to lure those who are on the fence, Smith said simply, “I don’t know.”
Douglas said in his 3½-minute statement, “I’m sure that legislative leaders would not have advanced this bill if they didn’t have the votes to override a veto,” but that question remains unanswered.
Smith wouldn’t address whether he has the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. If all 150 members of the House were present, it would take 100 votes to override a veto.
Supporters of the legislation have privately said they doubt they have that. However, George Schiavone, a former Republican representative from Shelburne who is lobbying members to vote against the bill, said he’s not so sure. “It’s within shooting distance,” he said of an override.
A veto override can be difficult to predict, as members might vote one way on the bill but then support their party caucus on an override vote. Democrats, Progressives and independents together have 102 members in the House. Republicans have 48 members.
Sen. Richard Sears, D-Bennington, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said a veto would not make the issue of same-sex marriage go away in Vermont. “You can’t stop it,” he said. “It’s coming back.”
By Terri Hallenbeck, Free Press Staff Writer • March 26, 2009
Contact 651-4887 or thallenb@bfp.burlingtonfreepress.com
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090326/NEWS03/90326003/-1/NEWS05
March 24, 2009
March 23, 2009
Schumer Comes Out For Gay Marriage
At a private risotto dinner last night with gay leaders and elected officials at Gramercy Tavern last night, Sen. Chuck Schumer reversed himself on the issue of same-sex marriage, saying he not only now supports it but also backs a full reversal of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Schumer's office confirmed the meeting and also the senior senator's change of heart, issuing the following statement from the Brooklyn Democrat (who is traveling upstate today):
"It’s time. Equality is something that has always been a hallmark of America and no group should be deprived of it. New York, which has always been at the forefront on issues of equality, is appropriately poised to take a lead on this issue."
It's hard to overstate the significance of this in the eyes of gay marriage advocates.
With the ascent of Kirsten Gillibrand to fill Hillary Clinton's vacant US Senate seat, Schumer was the last remaining statewide elected official who backed civil unions over full marriage equality.
Clinton's departure from the New York political stage arguably gave Schumer some breathing room on this issue.
Both Clinton and Schumer were under pressure from the gay community (which includes some very heavy-hitting political donors) to change their position from supporting civil unions to backing marriage, but they both refused to budge.
While Clinton was running for president, there was no way Schumer could move on this topic - no matter how much he might have wanted to follow the lead set by then-Gov. Eliot Spitzer and his LG, David Paterson - especially since Barack Obama also took the civil-union-only approach.
Last night's dinner was organized by Empire State Pride Agenda Executive Director Alan Van Capelle and Jeff Soref, a gay philanthropist and donor who was board president of the Gay Men's Health Crisis from 1991-1004 and a past ESPA co-chair.
"I want to thank Sen. Schumer for his support of marriage equality and repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act,” said Van Capelle.
“Like a majority of New Yorkers, Sen. Schumer recognizes that only marriage equality provides same sex couples the status, protections and rights afforded to all other Americans. We look forward to working with him to win marriage equality in New York State and around the country."
Also present for the meal were Assemblyman Danny O'Donnell, who sponsored the gay marriage bill that passed his house in 2007; Assemblywoman Deborah Glick; Council Speaker Christine Quinn; and Assemblyman Micah Kellner.
Sen. Tom Duane, who is carrying the marriage bill in the Senate, was in Albany and couldn't make it.
Schumer's office confirmed the meeting and also the senior senator's change of heart, issuing the following statement from the Brooklyn Democrat (who is traveling upstate today):
"It’s time. Equality is something that has always been a hallmark of America and no group should be deprived of it. New York, which has always been at the forefront on issues of equality, is appropriately poised to take a lead on this issue."
It's hard to overstate the significance of this in the eyes of gay marriage advocates.
With the ascent of Kirsten Gillibrand to fill Hillary Clinton's vacant US Senate seat, Schumer was the last remaining statewide elected official who backed civil unions over full marriage equality.
Clinton's departure from the New York political stage arguably gave Schumer some breathing room on this issue.
Both Clinton and Schumer were under pressure from the gay community (which includes some very heavy-hitting political donors) to change their position from supporting civil unions to backing marriage, but they both refused to budge.
While Clinton was running for president, there was no way Schumer could move on this topic - no matter how much he might have wanted to follow the lead set by then-Gov. Eliot Spitzer and his LG, David Paterson - especially since Barack Obama also took the civil-union-only approach.
Last night's dinner was organized by Empire State Pride Agenda Executive Director Alan Van Capelle and Jeff Soref, a gay philanthropist and donor who was board president of the Gay Men's Health Crisis from 1991-1004 and a past ESPA co-chair.
"I want to thank Sen. Schumer for his support of marriage equality and repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act,” said Van Capelle.
“Like a majority of New Yorkers, Sen. Schumer recognizes that only marriage equality provides same sex couples the status, protections and rights afforded to all other Americans. We look forward to working with him to win marriage equality in New York State and around the country."
Also present for the meal were Assemblyman Danny O'Donnell, who sponsored the gay marriage bill that passed his house in 2007; Assemblywoman Deborah Glick; Council Speaker Christine Quinn; and Assemblyman Micah Kellner.
Sen. Tom Duane, who is carrying the marriage bill in the Senate, was in Albany and couldn't make it.
March 04, 2009
Rallies and campouts planned for same-sex marriage arguments
By Brent Begin
Examiner Staff Writer 3/2/09
SAN FRANCISCO – Not all the action surrounding Thursday’s oral arguments for and against same-sex marriage will occur inside the courtroom. Several groups have organized rallies in San Francisco and through the state.
The largest same-sex marriage advocacy groups — including Equality California, which is the only advocacy group arguing against Prop. 8 on Thursday, and the Human Rights Campaign — have banded together for a vigil across the state on the evening before the case is heard.
Called the “Eve of Justice,” the vigil is planned for 18 cities across California, from Fresno to West Hollywood.
In San Francisco, supporters of same-sex marriage are gathering at Market and Castro streets at 5 p.m. for a march that will end at the state Supreme Court building for a vigil, “recommitment ceremony” and a moment of silence.
After the vigil, at least one group, One Struggle One Fight, is planning to camp on the grass outside the court. On Thursday, the trial will be broadcast on a large television at the Civic Center.
Backers of Prop. 8, Protect Marriage, have not publicized any action of their own for the arguments. The Catholic and Mormon churches were instrumental in organizing support for the ban on same-sex marriage.
Prop. 8’s big day
WHAT: The California Supreme Court will hold three hours of oral arguments from 9 a.m. to noon Thursday on three lawsuits seeking to overturn Proposition 8,the ballot measure that amended the state constitution to reinstate the ban on same-sex marriage.
Three issues will be argued:
* Whether Prop. 8 is an amendment to the state constitution or a revision to the constitution. An amendment requires signatures to get on the ballot, a revision requires two-thirds approval of the Legislature. Prop. 8 was put on the ballot with signatures.
* If Prop. 8 is not unconstitutional, will same-sex marriages that occurred before it passed remain valid?
* Whether Prop. 8 violates separation of powers because it limits the courts from protecting the rights of a minority group against the will of the majority.
Who is involved:
* Lawyers representing same-sex couples and a group of local governments led by The City will have 90 minutes to present arguments. They are Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights; Chief Deputy S.F. City Attorney Therese Stewart; and Michael Maroko, partner of L.A. lawyer Gloria Allred.
* Sponsors of Prop. 8 will have an hour. They are represented by Pepperdine Law School Dean Kenneth Starr.
* California Attorney General Jerry Brown has declined to defend the initiative. Deputy Attorney General Christopher Krueger will have half an hour to explain the state’s position.
Examiner Staff Writer 3/2/09
SAN FRANCISCO – Not all the action surrounding Thursday’s oral arguments for and against same-sex marriage will occur inside the courtroom. Several groups have organized rallies in San Francisco and through the state.
The largest same-sex marriage advocacy groups — including Equality California, which is the only advocacy group arguing against Prop. 8 on Thursday, and the Human Rights Campaign — have banded together for a vigil across the state on the evening before the case is heard.
Called the “Eve of Justice,” the vigil is planned for 18 cities across California, from Fresno to West Hollywood.
In San Francisco, supporters of same-sex marriage are gathering at Market and Castro streets at 5 p.m. for a march that will end at the state Supreme Court building for a vigil, “recommitment ceremony” and a moment of silence.
After the vigil, at least one group, One Struggle One Fight, is planning to camp on the grass outside the court. On Thursday, the trial will be broadcast on a large television at the Civic Center.
Backers of Prop. 8, Protect Marriage, have not publicized any action of their own for the arguments. The Catholic and Mormon churches were instrumental in organizing support for the ban on same-sex marriage.
Prop. 8’s big day
WHAT: The California Supreme Court will hold three hours of oral arguments from 9 a.m. to noon Thursday on three lawsuits seeking to overturn Proposition 8,the ballot measure that amended the state constitution to reinstate the ban on same-sex marriage.
Three issues will be argued:
* Whether Prop. 8 is an amendment to the state constitution or a revision to the constitution. An amendment requires signatures to get on the ballot, a revision requires two-thirds approval of the Legislature. Prop. 8 was put on the ballot with signatures.
* If Prop. 8 is not unconstitutional, will same-sex marriages that occurred before it passed remain valid?
* Whether Prop. 8 violates separation of powers because it limits the courts from protecting the rights of a minority group against the will of the majority.
Who is involved:
* Lawyers representing same-sex couples and a group of local governments led by The City will have 90 minutes to present arguments. They are Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights; Chief Deputy S.F. City Attorney Therese Stewart; and Michael Maroko, partner of L.A. lawyer Gloria Allred.
* Sponsors of Prop. 8 will have an hour. They are represented by Pepperdine Law School Dean Kenneth Starr.
* California Attorney General Jerry Brown has declined to defend the initiative. Deputy Attorney General Christopher Krueger will have half an hour to explain the state’s position.
Dueling lawyers in California Prop. 8 case are a study in opposites
By Aurelio Rojas
arojas@sacbee.com
Published: Sunday, Mar. 1, 2009 - 12:00 am | Page 1A
Kenneth Starr and Shannon Minter, lead attorneys in the California Supreme Court case that will decide the fate of same-sex marriage in the state, are as different as the competing sides they represent.
Starr, dean of Pepperdine University School of Law, is best known for leading the inquiry into President Bill Clinton's affair with a White House intern.
Since then, the former federal judge and U.S. solicitor general has dedicated himself to conservative causes, including writing briefs for the Mormon church in a previous gay marriage case in California.
Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco, is a transsexual who spent his first 35 years as a female. He was a lead counsel in the state Supreme Court case decided last May that allowed same-sex couples to marry, a ruling that was reversed in November when voters approved Proposition 8.
Starr and Minter will square off Thursday in the most closely watched California Supreme Court hearing in a generation. They're set to deliver oral arguments in three suits in which supporters of gay marriage contend that Proposition 8, which limits marriage to a man and a woman, is unconstitutional.
Minter, representing gay rights groups, will be the first attorney to address the court in San Francisco. Starr will deliver the final arguments on behalf of the Yes on 8 campaign.
Gay rights groups, the city of San Francisco and other local governments contend that Proposition 8 is not an amendment to the state constitution, but an illegal revision that should not have been placed on the ballot without the Legislature's approval.
Minter calls Thursday's proceedings "much bigger" than the case last May that invalidated Proposition 22; approved in 2000, it also limited marriage to a man and a woman.
"This is now about whether a majority can take away an inalienable right from one group of Californians," Minter said. "If the court were to say it's OK … then no one's rights would mean very much."
Starr did not respond to interview requests. But his co-counsel, Folsom attorney Andrew Pugno, disagreed with Minter's contention that Proposition 8 should never have been on the ballot.
"Minority rights exist only because the majority decided to protect them by adopting a constitution," Pugno said. "If the court misinterprets those rights, it's the people's job to correct that by clarifying the constitution."
In court papers, Starr contends that voters have the power to define marriage under the state constitution and that the court must accept their decision.
"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity," he wrote. "There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions."
State Attorney General Jerry Brown, whose office will represented in court by attorney Christopher Krueger, is challenging Proposition 8 – but on different legal grounds from Minter.
Brown contends that the California Constitution declares certain rights to be fundamental, such as liberty and equality, and that the court held in last year's case that marriage was one of those rights.
The attorney general maintains that legal protections given to minorities and others can be taken away only if the state can show there is a "compelling interest." Proposition 8, Brown said, lacks that compelling interest.
In his court papers, Starr accuses Brown of overreaching with his legal argument.
"We will not mince words," he wrote. "The attorney general is inviting this court to declare a constitutional revolution."
As solicitor general, Starr argued several cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Frank Schubert, who managed the Yes on 8 campaign, calls him "one of the nation's top jurists."
"He brings an extraordinary degree of credibility on constitutional law, which is ultimately what this case hinges on – whether or not people have the right to amend our constitution," Schubert said.
Like Starr, Minter was born in a small Texas town. But Jenny Pizer, Minter's co-counsel, quipped, "One would hardly say these two are cut from the same cloth."
Starr, 62, was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan and served as solicitor general under President George H.W. Bush.
He became a national figure as an independent counsel appointed by a three-judge panel to investigate the Clinton White House.
Given broad investigative powers, Starr began by looking into the real estate dealings of Bill and Hillary Clinton in a failed Arkansas business venture. He wound up uncovering the president's sexual relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky.
Clinton supporters accused Starr of engaging in a "right-wing conspiracy" in an attempt to bring down the president. Clinton initially denied the affair, then admitted his involvement. After the House impeached him, the Senate acquitted him of perjury.
Minter, 48, arrived in San Francisco in 1992 as a law student for an internship at the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
Since then, he has been lead counsel in dozens of groundbreaking legal victories, including a successful wrongful death lawsuit filed by the partner of a lesbian who was mauled to death by a neighbor's dog in San Francisco.
As a child searching for his sexual identity in a conservative town, Minter said, he often feared for his physical safety and "experienced a lot of rejection."
"I see Shannon as someone who has committed his life to tackling injustice," said Pizer, an attorney for the gay rights group Lambda Legal. "He's chosen to take on deeply painful social injustice problems through the law."
Minter said he's passionate about marriage because he was not accepted by some members of his family until he got married eight years ago to a woman with whom he is raising a daughter.
Unlike gay and lesbian marriages, California recognizes marriages involving transsexuals. Minter said he was pained "by the injustice."
As he prepares for Thursday's hearing, he admits the importance of the case is giving him butterflies.
"This is a huge case," Minter said. "If we were to lose, I'm very fearful about what that would mean for us."
arojas@sacbee.com
Published: Sunday, Mar. 1, 2009 - 12:00 am | Page 1A
Kenneth Starr and Shannon Minter, lead attorneys in the California Supreme Court case that will decide the fate of same-sex marriage in the state, are as different as the competing sides they represent.
Starr, dean of Pepperdine University School of Law, is best known for leading the inquiry into President Bill Clinton's affair with a White House intern.
Since then, the former federal judge and U.S. solicitor general has dedicated himself to conservative causes, including writing briefs for the Mormon church in a previous gay marriage case in California.
Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco, is a transsexual who spent his first 35 years as a female. He was a lead counsel in the state Supreme Court case decided last May that allowed same-sex couples to marry, a ruling that was reversed in November when voters approved Proposition 8.
Starr and Minter will square off Thursday in the most closely watched California Supreme Court hearing in a generation. They're set to deliver oral arguments in three suits in which supporters of gay marriage contend that Proposition 8, which limits marriage to a man and a woman, is unconstitutional.
Minter, representing gay rights groups, will be the first attorney to address the court in San Francisco. Starr will deliver the final arguments on behalf of the Yes on 8 campaign.
Gay rights groups, the city of San Francisco and other local governments contend that Proposition 8 is not an amendment to the state constitution, but an illegal revision that should not have been placed on the ballot without the Legislature's approval.
Minter calls Thursday's proceedings "much bigger" than the case last May that invalidated Proposition 22; approved in 2000, it also limited marriage to a man and a woman.
"This is now about whether a majority can take away an inalienable right from one group of Californians," Minter said. "If the court were to say it's OK … then no one's rights would mean very much."
Starr did not respond to interview requests. But his co-counsel, Folsom attorney Andrew Pugno, disagreed with Minter's contention that Proposition 8 should never have been on the ballot.
"Minority rights exist only because the majority decided to protect them by adopting a constitution," Pugno said. "If the court misinterprets those rights, it's the people's job to correct that by clarifying the constitution."
In court papers, Starr contends that voters have the power to define marriage under the state constitution and that the court must accept their decision.
"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity," he wrote. "There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions."
State Attorney General Jerry Brown, whose office will represented in court by attorney Christopher Krueger, is challenging Proposition 8 – but on different legal grounds from Minter.
Brown contends that the California Constitution declares certain rights to be fundamental, such as liberty and equality, and that the court held in last year's case that marriage was one of those rights.
The attorney general maintains that legal protections given to minorities and others can be taken away only if the state can show there is a "compelling interest." Proposition 8, Brown said, lacks that compelling interest.
In his court papers, Starr accuses Brown of overreaching with his legal argument.
"We will not mince words," he wrote. "The attorney general is inviting this court to declare a constitutional revolution."
As solicitor general, Starr argued several cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Frank Schubert, who managed the Yes on 8 campaign, calls him "one of the nation's top jurists."
"He brings an extraordinary degree of credibility on constitutional law, which is ultimately what this case hinges on – whether or not people have the right to amend our constitution," Schubert said.
Like Starr, Minter was born in a small Texas town. But Jenny Pizer, Minter's co-counsel, quipped, "One would hardly say these two are cut from the same cloth."
Starr, 62, was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan and served as solicitor general under President George H.W. Bush.
He became a national figure as an independent counsel appointed by a three-judge panel to investigate the Clinton White House.
Given broad investigative powers, Starr began by looking into the real estate dealings of Bill and Hillary Clinton in a failed Arkansas business venture. He wound up uncovering the president's sexual relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky.
Clinton supporters accused Starr of engaging in a "right-wing conspiracy" in an attempt to bring down the president. Clinton initially denied the affair, then admitted his involvement. After the House impeached him, the Senate acquitted him of perjury.
Minter, 48, arrived in San Francisco in 1992 as a law student for an internship at the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
Since then, he has been lead counsel in dozens of groundbreaking legal victories, including a successful wrongful death lawsuit filed by the partner of a lesbian who was mauled to death by a neighbor's dog in San Francisco.
As a child searching for his sexual identity in a conservative town, Minter said, he often feared for his physical safety and "experienced a lot of rejection."
"I see Shannon as someone who has committed his life to tackling injustice," said Pizer, an attorney for the gay rights group Lambda Legal. "He's chosen to take on deeply painful social injustice problems through the law."
Minter said he's passionate about marriage because he was not accepted by some members of his family until he got married eight years ago to a woman with whom he is raising a daughter.
Unlike gay and lesbian marriages, California recognizes marriages involving transsexuals. Minter said he was pained "by the injustice."
As he prepares for Thursday's hearing, he admits the importance of the case is giving him butterflies.
"This is a huge case," Minter said. "If we were to lose, I'm very fearful about what that would mean for us."
March 03, 2009
R.I.'s dueling same-sex marriage bills elicit personal stories
02:52 PM EST on Friday, February 27, 2009
By Katherine Gregg
Journal State House Bureau
PROVIDENCE -- While many others talked for and against same-sex marriage at the State House last night, Mark S. Goldberg put a human face on what it sometimes can mean to be a married man without the rights of marriage in his home state.
In a pained voice in a packed hearing room, he talked about his months-long battle last fall to convince state authorities to release to him the body of his partner of 17 years, Ron Hanby, so he could grant his wish for cremation -- only to have that request rejected too because "we were not legally married or blood relatives."
After struggling for years with depression, he said, Hamby took his own life.
Goldberg said he tried to show the police and the state medical examiner's office "our wills, living wills, power of attorney and marriage certificate" from Connecticut, but "no one was willing to see these documents." He said he was told the medical examiner's office was required to conduct a two-week search for next of kin, but the medical examiner's office waited a full week before placing the required ad in a newspaper. And then when no one responded, he said, they "waited another week" to notify another state agency of an unclaimed body.
After four weeks, he said, a Department of Human Services employee finally "took pity on me and my plight -- reviewed our documentation and was able to get all parties concerned to release Ron's body to me," but then the cremation society refused to cremate Ron's body.
"On the same day, I contacted the Massachusetts Cremation Society and they were more than willing to work with me and cremate Ron's body," and so, "on Nov. 6, 2008, I was able to finally pick up Ron's remains and put this tragedy to rest."
"I felt as if I was treated not as a second-class citizen, but as a non-citizen," Goldberg told the Senate Judiciary Committee, an hour into the first hearing this year on the 13-year push by gay-rights advocates for the right to marry in Rhode Island, and the pushback from the Roman Catholic Church and other opponents.
In the words of Kathy Kushnir, executive director of the local branch of Marriage Equality: "Rhode Island has become an island of inequality." Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts and Connecticut, while Vermont, New Jersey and New Hampshire allow civil unions and Maine has had a domestic-partnership law since 2004 that extends certain legal rights, such as inheritance rights, to heterosexual and gay couples who live together under long-term arrangements.
The Senate committee had before it dueling bills to allow and prohibit same-sex marriages here as well. Scores of advocates spilled out into the State House hallway, and gathered around TV monitors set up in both the Bell Room and Senate gallery so they could watch the televised hearing. One group wore stickers that said "Marriage =1 Man + 1 Woman," while the other had stickers that said: "Open your hearts to equality."
On Wednesday, Rep. Arthur Handy introduced a matching bill to allow same-sex marriage in the House that had been signed by 30 of 75 House members. Handy, D-Cranston, said he was aiming for 30 because it would demonstrate how much, he believes, support has grown within the sometimes tradition-bound General Assembly.
Both Handy's bill and the Senate version contain a section titled -- "protection of freedom of religion in marriage" -- that says "each religious institution has exclusive control over its own religious doctrine, policy, and teachings regarding who may marry within their faith, and on what terms" and "no court or other state or local governmental body, entity, agency or commission shall compel, prevent, or interfere in any way with any religious institution's decisions about marriage eligibility within that particular faith's tradition."
The bills also specify that no member of the clergy of any religion shall be "obligated or otherwise required by law to officiate at any particular civil marriage or religious rite of marriage."
Nonetheless, there have been warring radio ads in recent days by "Marriage Equality Rhode Island" and an opposition group, calling itself, the "National Organization for Marriage Rhode Island," whose board of advisers includes the Most Rev. Thomas J. Tobin, Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence.
Sen. Leo Blais, the Coventry Republican who introduced the bill to ban same-sex marriage, read aloud a portion of the written testimony submitted by Bishop Tobin.
"Contrary to the assertion of others, this is not an issue about civil rights," he wrote. "Freedom is not unbridled license. … In short, there's never a right to do something wrong … The fact that two adults consent to an action doesn't make it morally right or socially acceptable. After all, two consenting adults can engage in drug use, prostitution, bigamy, polygamy or other immoral activities."
In the letter he submitted to the committee, Bishop Tobin went a step further. He said "hatred, persecution, prejudice and ridicule of homosexuals is a grave sin … But we also believe that homosexual activity is immoral and contrary to natural law, the tenets of the Bible and the teaching of the Church."
In his own turn at the microphone soon after, the Rev. Bernard Healey, chief lobbyist for the Diocese disputed the notion that same-sex marriage is needed for the "protection of social benefits. Such a view reduces marriage to a mere bundle of state benefits and loses sight of the deeper meaning of marriage."
"Many of these benefits can be provided for and obtained for persons, whether homosexual or otherwise, without the need of being in a ‘marriage' and/or state sanction [ed] ‘civil union', " he argued.
Lawyers, the former medical director of Hasbro Childrens' Hospital, Pawtucket City Solicitor Margaret "Peg" Lynch-Gadaleta who is the sister of Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch, and state Rep. Frank Ferri, D-Warwick, were among those lining up on the other side.
With his own partner of 28 years and husband, Tony Caparco, at his side, Ferri told his fellow lawmakers: "Many of you think that supporting marriage equality would be detrimental to your elections. I pose this question to you: how is it that I was elected? I believe that the majority of Rhode Islanders are of the mind … live and let live. As their priorities, they are worried about the economy, education, health care and the environment."
By the numbers
•49: Percentage of Rhode Island voters who support same-sex marriage *
•37: Percentage of Rhode Island voters who oppose same-sex marriage*
•30: States that bar recognition of same-sex marriage
•12: Years since first same-sex marriage bill introduced in the General Assembly
•8: States that allow civil unions
•2: States that allow same-sex marriage
*Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research Poll in July, commissioned by Marriage Equality Rhode Island
kgregg@projo.com
By Katherine Gregg
Journal State House Bureau
PROVIDENCE -- While many others talked for and against same-sex marriage at the State House last night, Mark S. Goldberg put a human face on what it sometimes can mean to be a married man without the rights of marriage in his home state.
In a pained voice in a packed hearing room, he talked about his months-long battle last fall to convince state authorities to release to him the body of his partner of 17 years, Ron Hanby, so he could grant his wish for cremation -- only to have that request rejected too because "we were not legally married or blood relatives."
After struggling for years with depression, he said, Hamby took his own life.
Goldberg said he tried to show the police and the state medical examiner's office "our wills, living wills, power of attorney and marriage certificate" from Connecticut, but "no one was willing to see these documents." He said he was told the medical examiner's office was required to conduct a two-week search for next of kin, but the medical examiner's office waited a full week before placing the required ad in a newspaper. And then when no one responded, he said, they "waited another week" to notify another state agency of an unclaimed body.
After four weeks, he said, a Department of Human Services employee finally "took pity on me and my plight -- reviewed our documentation and was able to get all parties concerned to release Ron's body to me," but then the cremation society refused to cremate Ron's body.
"On the same day, I contacted the Massachusetts Cremation Society and they were more than willing to work with me and cremate Ron's body," and so, "on Nov. 6, 2008, I was able to finally pick up Ron's remains and put this tragedy to rest."
"I felt as if I was treated not as a second-class citizen, but as a non-citizen," Goldberg told the Senate Judiciary Committee, an hour into the first hearing this year on the 13-year push by gay-rights advocates for the right to marry in Rhode Island, and the pushback from the Roman Catholic Church and other opponents.
In the words of Kathy Kushnir, executive director of the local branch of Marriage Equality: "Rhode Island has become an island of inequality." Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts and Connecticut, while Vermont, New Jersey and New Hampshire allow civil unions and Maine has had a domestic-partnership law since 2004 that extends certain legal rights, such as inheritance rights, to heterosexual and gay couples who live together under long-term arrangements.
The Senate committee had before it dueling bills to allow and prohibit same-sex marriages here as well. Scores of advocates spilled out into the State House hallway, and gathered around TV monitors set up in both the Bell Room and Senate gallery so they could watch the televised hearing. One group wore stickers that said "Marriage =1 Man + 1 Woman," while the other had stickers that said: "Open your hearts to equality."
On Wednesday, Rep. Arthur Handy introduced a matching bill to allow same-sex marriage in the House that had been signed by 30 of 75 House members. Handy, D-Cranston, said he was aiming for 30 because it would demonstrate how much, he believes, support has grown within the sometimes tradition-bound General Assembly.
Both Handy's bill and the Senate version contain a section titled -- "protection of freedom of religion in marriage" -- that says "each religious institution has exclusive control over its own religious doctrine, policy, and teachings regarding who may marry within their faith, and on what terms" and "no court or other state or local governmental body, entity, agency or commission shall compel, prevent, or interfere in any way with any religious institution's decisions about marriage eligibility within that particular faith's tradition."
The bills also specify that no member of the clergy of any religion shall be "obligated or otherwise required by law to officiate at any particular civil marriage or religious rite of marriage."
Nonetheless, there have been warring radio ads in recent days by "Marriage Equality Rhode Island" and an opposition group, calling itself, the "National Organization for Marriage Rhode Island," whose board of advisers includes the Most Rev. Thomas J. Tobin, Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence.
Sen. Leo Blais, the Coventry Republican who introduced the bill to ban same-sex marriage, read aloud a portion of the written testimony submitted by Bishop Tobin.
"Contrary to the assertion of others, this is not an issue about civil rights," he wrote. "Freedom is not unbridled license. … In short, there's never a right to do something wrong … The fact that two adults consent to an action doesn't make it morally right or socially acceptable. After all, two consenting adults can engage in drug use, prostitution, bigamy, polygamy or other immoral activities."
In the letter he submitted to the committee, Bishop Tobin went a step further. He said "hatred, persecution, prejudice and ridicule of homosexuals is a grave sin … But we also believe that homosexual activity is immoral and contrary to natural law, the tenets of the Bible and the teaching of the Church."
In his own turn at the microphone soon after, the Rev. Bernard Healey, chief lobbyist for the Diocese disputed the notion that same-sex marriage is needed for the "protection of social benefits. Such a view reduces marriage to a mere bundle of state benefits and loses sight of the deeper meaning of marriage."
"Many of these benefits can be provided for and obtained for persons, whether homosexual or otherwise, without the need of being in a ‘marriage' and/or state sanction [ed] ‘civil union', " he argued.
Lawyers, the former medical director of Hasbro Childrens' Hospital, Pawtucket City Solicitor Margaret "Peg" Lynch-Gadaleta who is the sister of Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch, and state Rep. Frank Ferri, D-Warwick, were among those lining up on the other side.
With his own partner of 28 years and husband, Tony Caparco, at his side, Ferri told his fellow lawmakers: "Many of you think that supporting marriage equality would be detrimental to your elections. I pose this question to you: how is it that I was elected? I believe that the majority of Rhode Islanders are of the mind … live and let live. As their priorities, they are worried about the economy, education, health care and the environment."
By the numbers
•49: Percentage of Rhode Island voters who support same-sex marriage *
•37: Percentage of Rhode Island voters who oppose same-sex marriage*
•30: States that bar recognition of same-sex marriage
•12: Years since first same-sex marriage bill introduced in the General Assembly
•8: States that allow civil unions
•2: States that allow same-sex marriage
*Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research Poll in July, commissioned by Marriage Equality Rhode Island
kgregg@projo.com
Corzine says he'd sign marriage equality law
By Wally Edge
Over 800 people attended a gala fundraising dinner on Saturday for Garden State Equality, a gay rights organization that advocates same sex marriage. Tickets were between $225 and $1,000. Governor Jon Corzine told the attendees that he would sign a marriage equality law, saying he hopes he gets to do that in 2009.
The Corzine administration also announced a new regulation allowing transgender New Jerseyans would to provide an affidavit of their gender identity to get the Motor Vehicle Commission to change the gender on their license to drive. In the past, the state had required gender reassignment surgery.
The Legislature is widely expected to consider same sex marriage legislation after the November election.
Wally Edge can be reached via email at politicsnj@aol.com.
http://www.politickernj.com/wallye/27801/corzine-says-hed-sign-marriage-equality-law
Over 800 people attended a gala fundraising dinner on Saturday for Garden State Equality, a gay rights organization that advocates same sex marriage. Tickets were between $225 and $1,000. Governor Jon Corzine told the attendees that he would sign a marriage equality law, saying he hopes he gets to do that in 2009.
The Corzine administration also announced a new regulation allowing transgender New Jerseyans would to provide an affidavit of their gender identity to get the Motor Vehicle Commission to change the gender on their license to drive. In the past, the state had required gender reassignment surgery.
The Legislature is widely expected to consider same sex marriage legislation after the November election.
Wally Edge can be reached via email at politicsnj@aol.com.
http://www.politickernj.com/wallye/27801/corzine-says-hed-sign-marriage-equality-law
Same-sex spouses challenge US curbs
Call Marriage Act discriminatory
"It hurts. But I . . . need to stand up for what I believe in. This is a nation of laws, and we're all supposed to have equal treatment under the law." - Dean T. Hara, Gerry Studds's spouse. (Wendy Maeda/ Globe Staff/ 2006)
By Jonathan Saltzman
Globe Staff / March 3, 2009
Fifteen gay and lesbian residents from Massachusetts who wed after this state legalized same-sex marriages plan to file a discrimination suit today, challenging a federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Six same-sex couples and three men whose husbands have died - one of the deceased was retired congressman Gerry E. Studds - said in the suit that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act treats them like second-class citizens and is unconstitutional. The complaint is being filed in US District Court in Boston.
The suit, which legal specialists described as the first serious challenge to the federal law signed by President Bill Clinton, contends that the statute has deprived the plaintiffs of benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.
Those benefits include health insurance for spouses of federal employees, tax deductions for couples who jointly file federal income tax returns, and the ability to use a spouse's last name on a passport.
"It hurts," said Dean T. Hara, who was married to Studds from May 2004 until the retired congressman's death in October 2006, as he discussed the federal government's denial of a $255 lump-sum death payment and thousands of dollars in benefits as the surviving spouse of a retired federal employee. "But at the same time I realize that I, as a man, need to stand up for what I believe in. This is a nation of laws, and we're all supposed to have equal treatment under the law."
Mary L. Bonauto, the civil rights lawyer for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders who was lead counsel in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health - the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case in 2003 that legalized same-sex marriage in the United States for the first time - said the suit asks the court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act because it targets gays and lesbians for discrimination.
"This is a case that should go to the Supreme Court and in all likelihood will go to the Supreme Court," she said.
If the plaintiffs win, she said, it would not extend same-sex marriage beyond Massachusetts and Connecticut, the two states where it is legal.
But it would dismantle a federal statute that affects more than 1,000 marriage-related benefits, and it would be a huge victory on symbolic and practical levels for supporters of same-sex marriage, according to legal specialists.
"We've got this major federal statute that inflicts really substantial harm on very large numbers of gay people just for being gay people," said Andrew Koppelman, a Northwestern University law professor. "The federal government declares to these people that it regards their marriages as worthless and would not give those marriages the protection and recognition that it gives to all other marriages. It's quite significant if that is invalidated."
A handful of federal agencies and officials are named as defendants in the suit. A spokesman for President Obama, who has spoken of repealing the Defense of Marriage Act but does not support same-sex marriage, said the White House had no comment.
Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute and a vocal opponent of same-sex marriage, said the lawsuit represents the latest effort to export gay marriage to other parts of the country. He noted that Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, known by its acronym GLAD, has a "Six by Twelve" campaign to legalize same-sex marriage in all six New England states by 2012, and he said some gay-rights groups want a federal constitutional amendment to legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states.
But the tide of public opinion is strongly against them, he said. Voters in 30 states have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, Mineau said, including California, which in a November referendum overturned a state Supreme Court decision that had recently given gay couples the right to marry.
"There's no doubt that the desire of the citizens of America . . . is that marriage is to remain one man and one woman, and that's what the intent of DOMA is as well," he said, using the acronym for the federal law.
Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, when it appeared increasingly likely that some state would soon legalize same-sex marriage, either by legislation or a court interpretation of state or federal law.
Proponents of the statute feared that if one state legalized gay marriage, other states would be required to do so under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.
Same-sex weddings began in Massachusetts on May 17, 2004, and about 10,000 couples have married. Two years later, GLAD quietly began surveying couples to determine whether they wanted federal benefits and equal tax treatment currently provided only to married heterosexuals.
Among those who say they have been discriminated against are Nancy Gill and Marcelle Letourneau, a Bridgewater couple who have been together nearly 30 years and married four days after same-sex weddings began. They have two children.
Gill, 51, who has worked for the Postal Service since 1987, has repeatedly tried to put Letourneau on her health insurance plan, but her employer has rejected her applications, citing the Defense of Marriage Act.
Letourneau, 47, has health insurance through her employer, Baystate Visiting Nurse Association & Hospice, but the couple estimates that it costs them $800 more a year than it would if she could be on Gill's plan.
"I feel like I am not being treated the same as my other married co-workers," Gill said. "I earn those same benefits as my co-workers, yet I'm not allowed to use them."
Jonathan Saltzman can be reached at jsaltzman@globe.com
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/03/03/same_sex_spouses_challenge_us_curbs/?page=1
"It hurts. But I . . . need to stand up for what I believe in. This is a nation of laws, and we're all supposed to have equal treatment under the law." - Dean T. Hara, Gerry Studds's spouse. (Wendy Maeda/ Globe Staff/ 2006)By Jonathan Saltzman
Globe Staff / March 3, 2009
Fifteen gay and lesbian residents from Massachusetts who wed after this state legalized same-sex marriages plan to file a discrimination suit today, challenging a federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Six same-sex couples and three men whose husbands have died - one of the deceased was retired congressman Gerry E. Studds - said in the suit that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act treats them like second-class citizens and is unconstitutional. The complaint is being filed in US District Court in Boston.
The suit, which legal specialists described as the first serious challenge to the federal law signed by President Bill Clinton, contends that the statute has deprived the plaintiffs of benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.
Those benefits include health insurance for spouses of federal employees, tax deductions for couples who jointly file federal income tax returns, and the ability to use a spouse's last name on a passport.
"It hurts," said Dean T. Hara, who was married to Studds from May 2004 until the retired congressman's death in October 2006, as he discussed the federal government's denial of a $255 lump-sum death payment and thousands of dollars in benefits as the surviving spouse of a retired federal employee. "But at the same time I realize that I, as a man, need to stand up for what I believe in. This is a nation of laws, and we're all supposed to have equal treatment under the law."
Mary L. Bonauto, the civil rights lawyer for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders who was lead counsel in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health - the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case in 2003 that legalized same-sex marriage in the United States for the first time - said the suit asks the court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act because it targets gays and lesbians for discrimination.
"This is a case that should go to the Supreme Court and in all likelihood will go to the Supreme Court," she said.
If the plaintiffs win, she said, it would not extend same-sex marriage beyond Massachusetts and Connecticut, the two states where it is legal.
But it would dismantle a federal statute that affects more than 1,000 marriage-related benefits, and it would be a huge victory on symbolic and practical levels for supporters of same-sex marriage, according to legal specialists.
"We've got this major federal statute that inflicts really substantial harm on very large numbers of gay people just for being gay people," said Andrew Koppelman, a Northwestern University law professor. "The federal government declares to these people that it regards their marriages as worthless and would not give those marriages the protection and recognition that it gives to all other marriages. It's quite significant if that is invalidated."
A handful of federal agencies and officials are named as defendants in the suit. A spokesman for President Obama, who has spoken of repealing the Defense of Marriage Act but does not support same-sex marriage, said the White House had no comment.
Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute and a vocal opponent of same-sex marriage, said the lawsuit represents the latest effort to export gay marriage to other parts of the country. He noted that Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, known by its acronym GLAD, has a "Six by Twelve" campaign to legalize same-sex marriage in all six New England states by 2012, and he said some gay-rights groups want a federal constitutional amendment to legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states.
But the tide of public opinion is strongly against them, he said. Voters in 30 states have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, Mineau said, including California, which in a November referendum overturned a state Supreme Court decision that had recently given gay couples the right to marry.
"There's no doubt that the desire of the citizens of America . . . is that marriage is to remain one man and one woman, and that's what the intent of DOMA is as well," he said, using the acronym for the federal law.
Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, when it appeared increasingly likely that some state would soon legalize same-sex marriage, either by legislation or a court interpretation of state or federal law.
Proponents of the statute feared that if one state legalized gay marriage, other states would be required to do so under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.
Same-sex weddings began in Massachusetts on May 17, 2004, and about 10,000 couples have married. Two years later, GLAD quietly began surveying couples to determine whether they wanted federal benefits and equal tax treatment currently provided only to married heterosexuals.
Among those who say they have been discriminated against are Nancy Gill and Marcelle Letourneau, a Bridgewater couple who have been together nearly 30 years and married four days after same-sex weddings began. They have two children.
Gill, 51, who has worked for the Postal Service since 1987, has repeatedly tried to put Letourneau on her health insurance plan, but her employer has rejected her applications, citing the Defense of Marriage Act.
Letourneau, 47, has health insurance through her employer, Baystate Visiting Nurse Association & Hospice, but the couple estimates that it costs them $800 more a year than it would if she could be on Gill's plan.
"I feel like I am not being treated the same as my other married co-workers," Gill said. "I earn those same benefits as my co-workers, yet I'm not allowed to use them."
Jonathan Saltzman can be reached at jsaltzman@globe.com
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/03/03/same_sex_spouses_challenge_us_curbs/?page=1
O'Reilly, Miller falsely suggested Obama supported Prop 8
On the February 25 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly and Fox News contributor Dennis Miller falsely suggested that President Obama supported California's Proposition 8. During a discussion of the Academy Awards, Miller said that he received "a brilliant call" to his radio show and that the caller, whom he identified as Melanie, "said, 'Does Sean Penn realize that the same president that he's praising as elegant, had he been a California resident, would have voted for Proposition 8?' He said on record that he is not for gay marriage." O'Reilly responded: "We pointed that out. Melanie probably listened to The Radio Factor and then called you because we had said that. But, look, Penn doesn't care about the truth." In fact, Obama opposed Proposition 8, the ballot measure that amended California's constitution to ban same-sex marriage in that state.
In a June 29, 2008, letter to The Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club, Obama stated: "I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states." Obama reiterated his opposition to Proposition 8 in a November 1, 2008, interview with MTV. During that interview, Obama also said of Proposition 8: "[W]hen you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."
From the February 25 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: All right, now, the Oscars: You're a show biz kind of guy -- had the lead role in Bordello of Blood, as I remember. And you watched the program. What'd you think?
MILLER: I think I lost for Bordello of Blood to Paul Scofield in Man for All Seasons, if I'm not mistaken.
O'REILLY: And it was close, though. I voted for you.
MILLER: Thank you, Bill. Listen, I did not watch it this year. I watched the last three events. I was out having dinner with my son. I thought it was a little odd when I saw the clip the next day of Heath Ledger winning, which I thought was well-deserved. I thought he was great. I think they could have taken down the Joker thing over his parents' shoulders. I mean, they talk about how he couldn't escape that role and it led him into a dark place.
It might have been a nice touch when they showed the nominees to show that. And then as his parents came up, his beloved mom, dad, and his sister, maybe blend into a beatific, boyish shot of Heath. I would have liked that touch, but that's just me. I'm a bit of a softy.
Listen, I thought that Sean Penn is a great actor. But I had a caller to my show, Bill -- you tell me if this isn't a brilliant call -- a woman named Melanie from Massachusetts. She said, "Does Sean Penn realize that the same president that he's praising as elegant, had he been a California resident, would have voted for Proposition 8?" He said on record that he is not for gay marriage.
O'REILLY: Yeah, I -- right.
MILLER: So I sometimes think --
O'REILLY: We pointed that out. Melanie probably listened to The Radio Factor and then called you because we had said that. But, look, Penn doesn't care about the truth. You know that. He's a Hugo Chavez guy. He's a Raul Castro guy. He just wants to showboat up there. That's what it's all about.
—J.K.F.
In a June 29, 2008, letter to The Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club, Obama stated: "I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states." Obama reiterated his opposition to Proposition 8 in a November 1, 2008, interview with MTV. During that interview, Obama also said of Proposition 8: "[W]hen you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."
From the February 25 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: All right, now, the Oscars: You're a show biz kind of guy -- had the lead role in Bordello of Blood, as I remember. And you watched the program. What'd you think?
MILLER: I think I lost for Bordello of Blood to Paul Scofield in Man for All Seasons, if I'm not mistaken.
O'REILLY: And it was close, though. I voted for you.
MILLER: Thank you, Bill. Listen, I did not watch it this year. I watched the last three events. I was out having dinner with my son. I thought it was a little odd when I saw the clip the next day of Heath Ledger winning, which I thought was well-deserved. I thought he was great. I think they could have taken down the Joker thing over his parents' shoulders. I mean, they talk about how he couldn't escape that role and it led him into a dark place.
It might have been a nice touch when they showed the nominees to show that. And then as his parents came up, his beloved mom, dad, and his sister, maybe blend into a beatific, boyish shot of Heath. I would have liked that touch, but that's just me. I'm a bit of a softy.
Listen, I thought that Sean Penn is a great actor. But I had a caller to my show, Bill -- you tell me if this isn't a brilliant call -- a woman named Melanie from Massachusetts. She said, "Does Sean Penn realize that the same president that he's praising as elegant, had he been a California resident, would have voted for Proposition 8?" He said on record that he is not for gay marriage.
O'REILLY: Yeah, I -- right.
MILLER: So I sometimes think --
O'REILLY: We pointed that out. Melanie probably listened to The Radio Factor and then called you because we had said that. But, look, Penn doesn't care about the truth. You know that. He's a Hugo Chavez guy. He's a Raul Castro guy. He just wants to showboat up there. That's what it's all about.
—J.K.F.
Same-sex partner benefits bill clears Senate
By John Ingold- jingold@denverpost.com
The Denver Post
Posted: 02/24/2009 01:16:19 PM MST
Updated: 02/24/2009 02:55:02 PM MST
A bill to allow the partners of gay and lesbian state employees to share in state health care coverage in the way married couples can passed the state Senate on final reading today with considerably less drama than the prior day's debate over the bill.
Senate Bill 88, from Sen. Jennifer Veiga, D-Denver, passed on a 22-12 vote, with one senator absent. Two Republicans Sen. Al White, R-Hayden, and Sen. Ken Kester, R-Las Animas voted with Democrats in approving the bill.
Unlike yesterday, when passions flared on both sides, the bill saw no debate today, just a vote.
Arguing against the bill yesterday when it won initial approval in the Senate, a number of Republicans said Colorado voters already rejected a domestic partnership ballot initiative and Sen. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley, quoted Bible verses in saying the state shouldn't condone homosexuality.
Democrats said the bill is a crucial civil rights measure, giving the same benefits to committed homosexual couples that married heterosexual couples already have. Veiga, who is gay, said the bill will also bring Colorado in line with what many private companies already do.
The Denver Post
Posted: 02/24/2009 01:16:19 PM MST
Updated: 02/24/2009 02:55:02 PM MST
A bill to allow the partners of gay and lesbian state employees to share in state health care coverage in the way married couples can passed the state Senate on final reading today with considerably less drama than the prior day's debate over the bill.
Senate Bill 88, from Sen. Jennifer Veiga, D-Denver, passed on a 22-12 vote, with one senator absent. Two Republicans Sen. Al White, R-Hayden, and Sen. Ken Kester, R-Las Animas voted with Democrats in approving the bill.
Unlike yesterday, when passions flared on both sides, the bill saw no debate today, just a vote.
Arguing against the bill yesterday when it won initial approval in the Senate, a number of Republicans said Colorado voters already rejected a domestic partnership ballot initiative and Sen. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley, quoted Bible verses in saying the state shouldn't condone homosexuality.
Democrats said the bill is a crucial civil rights measure, giving the same benefits to committed homosexual couples that married heterosexual couples already have. Veiga, who is gay, said the bill will also bring Colorado in line with what many private companies already do.
Bill filed to ban gay marriage in N.C.
Wednesday, February 25
( updated 5:20 am)
By Mark Binker
Staff Writer
North Carolina would add a prohibition on gay marriage to the state constitution under legislation filed this week and met with great fanfare Tuesday by religious and social conservative activists.
However, the fate of the bill filed by Sen. Jim Forrester, a Stanley Republican, and a similar one due to be filed by House backers Thursday is far from certain. Democrats control both the House and Senate and the top leaders in those chambers expressed reluctance to allow either measure to proceed.
“This bill has great meaning to the faith community,” Republican Sen. Jim Jacumin said in a news conference that was well attended by Catholic and Protestant ministers. “This amendment will ensure that marriage will be that which God designed.”
Other backers said there are secular reasons to worry about “nontraditional” marriage, primarily marriages between two women or two men.
It would be possible, they point out, for a same-sex couple to marry in Massachusetts and then come back to North Carolina and sue to be recognized.
“It only takes one liberal judge to overturn our statutes and usher in same-sex marriage without a vote of the legislature and without a vote of the people of our state,” Forrester said.
Backers claim broad support for a marriage amendment. The JWP Civitas Institute, a conservative think tank that supports the ban, said that 76 percent of respondents to a recent poll favored adding a gay marriage ban to the state constitution.
And other states surrounding North Carolina have approved similar constitutional prohibitions by healthy margins, supports say, leaving North Carolina as the only state in the South without a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages.
There is, however, a North Carolina state law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, something that legislative leaders say has proved sufficient thus far.
“There’s no reason to think that’s going to change,” said House Speaker Joe Hackney, an Orange County Democrat. “What I think you see happening with these news conferences is the advancement of a partisan agenda.”
In 2007, Hackney used his power as Speaker to kill a similar bill in the House that had managed to pass its first committee hearing. When asked if he would do the same again this year, Hackney said, “I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it.”
Senate leader Marc Basnight also was skeptical about the need for such a bill. When asked if he worried North Carolina’s marriage law could be overturned, Basnight said, “No one has shown me that could occur.”
Asked Tuesday afternoon if Forrester’s bill would be doomed to the same fate as in previous years, Basnight was noncommittal.
“Will it come up? I can’t say,” Basnight said.
But he assigned the bill to Ways and Means, a committee that has not met since 2001 and is controlled by one of Basnight’s chief deputies. Assigning a bill there is viewed as an efficient way to kill legislation.
Local legislators split on the measure.
Rep. Laura Wiley, a High Point Republican, says she supports taking it up, even as the legislature struggles with a ballooning budget gap and other pressing issues.
“We are down here to spend time on things that are important to people,” Wiley said.
But Rep. Hugh Holliman, a Lexington Democrat, said he does not favor taking up the bill.
“I don’t think it needs doing,” Holliman said. “I’ve never heard of anyone trying to do a same sex marriage in our state ... I think it’s a lot of posturing over nothing.”
Contact Mark Binker at (919) 832-5549 or mark.binker@news-record.com
( updated 5:20 am)
By Mark Binker
Staff Writer
North Carolina would add a prohibition on gay marriage to the state constitution under legislation filed this week and met with great fanfare Tuesday by religious and social conservative activists.
However, the fate of the bill filed by Sen. Jim Forrester, a Stanley Republican, and a similar one due to be filed by House backers Thursday is far from certain. Democrats control both the House and Senate and the top leaders in those chambers expressed reluctance to allow either measure to proceed.
“This bill has great meaning to the faith community,” Republican Sen. Jim Jacumin said in a news conference that was well attended by Catholic and Protestant ministers. “This amendment will ensure that marriage will be that which God designed.”
Other backers said there are secular reasons to worry about “nontraditional” marriage, primarily marriages between two women or two men.
It would be possible, they point out, for a same-sex couple to marry in Massachusetts and then come back to North Carolina and sue to be recognized.
“It only takes one liberal judge to overturn our statutes and usher in same-sex marriage without a vote of the legislature and without a vote of the people of our state,” Forrester said.
Backers claim broad support for a marriage amendment. The JWP Civitas Institute, a conservative think tank that supports the ban, said that 76 percent of respondents to a recent poll favored adding a gay marriage ban to the state constitution.
And other states surrounding North Carolina have approved similar constitutional prohibitions by healthy margins, supports say, leaving North Carolina as the only state in the South without a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages.
There is, however, a North Carolina state law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, something that legislative leaders say has proved sufficient thus far.
“There’s no reason to think that’s going to change,” said House Speaker Joe Hackney, an Orange County Democrat. “What I think you see happening with these news conferences is the advancement of a partisan agenda.”
In 2007, Hackney used his power as Speaker to kill a similar bill in the House that had managed to pass its first committee hearing. When asked if he would do the same again this year, Hackney said, “I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it.”
Senate leader Marc Basnight also was skeptical about the need for such a bill. When asked if he worried North Carolina’s marriage law could be overturned, Basnight said, “No one has shown me that could occur.”
Asked Tuesday afternoon if Forrester’s bill would be doomed to the same fate as in previous years, Basnight was noncommittal.
“Will it come up? I can’t say,” Basnight said.
But he assigned the bill to Ways and Means, a committee that has not met since 2001 and is controlled by one of Basnight’s chief deputies. Assigning a bill there is viewed as an efficient way to kill legislation.
Local legislators split on the measure.
Rep. Laura Wiley, a High Point Republican, says she supports taking it up, even as the legislature struggles with a ballooning budget gap and other pressing issues.
“We are down here to spend time on things that are important to people,” Wiley said.
But Rep. Hugh Holliman, a Lexington Democrat, said he does not favor taking up the bill.
“I don’t think it needs doing,” Holliman said. “I’ve never heard of anyone trying to do a same sex marriage in our state ... I think it’s a lot of posturing over nothing.”
Contact Mark Binker at (919) 832-5549 or mark.binker@news-record.com
Domestic partnership bill fails
By The Associated Press
Posted: 02/27/2009 12:00:00 AM MST
SANTA FE — The state Senate rejected a bill creating domestic partnerships in New Mexico, with opponents contending it was "marriage in disguise."
Supporters of the bill did a last-minute rewrite to remove references that could be construed as marriage-related, but that wasn't enough to win the necessary votes.
Ten Democrats joined the chamber's 15 Republicans to defeat the bill 25-17.
"I'm disappointed by the Senate's actions today in defeating what is fundamentally an issue of civil rights and equality," said Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson, who has been pushing the legislation for several years.
The bill has gotten snared in the Senate for the past couple of years, although the House has passed it previously.
It would have allowed gay or straight unmarried couples to register as domestic partners and have the same legal protections and benefits as married couples.
There are still three weeks left in the legislative session, but it appeared unlikely the measure could be revived.
"If you're mad, you should be mad," Linda Siegle, a lobbyist for Equality New Mexico, told a dejected crowd outside the Capitol. "The people in this building said you are not equal, you are not worthy, you do not deserve the same rights as most of them have."
Siegle said religious groups were influential in the bill's defeat. The Roman Catholic Church, which previously was neutral on the issue, lobbied against it this year.
"I think what they've invited today is a lawsuit seeking marriage — absolute equal rights. ... I'm sure there are folks that are ready to pursue that," said Patti Bushee, a Santa Fe city councilor.
Debate in the Senate was brief and dwelled almost exclusively on the legal implications of the bill.
Its sponsor, Sen. Cisco McSorley, D-Albuquerque, described it as a "safety net" for those who don't qualify for, or choose, marriage.
The bill is "not a marriage bill," he insisted. New Mexico doesn't even recognize common-law marriage, said McSorley, a lawyer who chairs the Judiciary Committee. A valid license is required to be considered married.
In New Mexico, "You're either married or you're not married. This bill changes nothing," he said.
But opponents disputed that.
"This bill is really marriage in disguise," said Sen. William Sharer, a Farmington Republican, sounding a recurring theme from opponents.
A domestic partnership law "makes New Mexico ripe for a court challenge on the gay marriage issue," said Republican Whip William Payne of Albuquerque.
———
On the Net:
New Mexico Legislature: www.nmlegis.gov
———
The domestic partnership bill is SB12.
Senate roll call vote on domestic partnership bill
SANTA FE — The Senate's 25-17 vote on Thursday rejecting a measure that would have allowed domestic partnerships for unmarried couples, including same-sex couples. Voting yes, in favor of the bill, were 17 Democrats. Voting no, against the proposal, were 15 Republicans and 10 Democrats.
REPUBLICANS VOTING NO
Rod Adair (Roswell)
Vernon Asbill (Carlsbad)
Sue Wilson Beffort (Sandia Park)
Mark Boitano (Albuquerque)
Kent Cravens (Albuquerque)
Dianna Duran (Tularosa)
Clint Harden (Clovis)
Stuart Ingle (Portales)
Gay Kernan (Hobbs)
Carroll Leavell (Jal)
Steven Neville (Aztec)
William Payne (Albuquerque)
Sander Rue (Albuquerque)
John Ryan (Albuquerque)
William Sharer (Farmington)
DEMOCRATS VOTING NO
Pete Campos (Las Vegas)
Carlos Cisneros (Questa)
Tim Jennings (Roswell)
Lynda Lovejoy (Crownpoint)
Richard Martinez (Espanola)
George Munoz (Gallup)
John Pinto (Tohatchi)
Bernadette Sanchez (Albuquerque)
John Arthur Smith (Deming)
David Ulibarri (Grants)
DEMOCRATS VOTING YES
Tim Eichenberg (Albuquerque)
Dede Feldman (Albuquerque)
Stephen Fischmann (Mesilla Park)
Mary Jane Garcia (Dona Ana)
Eric Griego (Albuquerque)
Phil Griego (San Jose)
Timothy Keller (Albuquerque)
Linda Lopez (Albuquerque)
Cisco McSorley (Albuquerque)
Howie Morales (Silver City)
Cynthia Nava (Las Cruces)
Gerald Ortiz y Pino (Albuquerque)
Mary Kay Papen (Las Cruces)
Nancy Rodriguez (Santa Fe)
Michael Sanchez (Belen)
John Sapien (Corrales)
Peter Wirth (Santa Fe)
———
The domestic partnership bill is SB12.
http://www.lcsun-news.com/ci_11796862
Posted: 02/27/2009 12:00:00 AM MST
SANTA FE — The state Senate rejected a bill creating domestic partnerships in New Mexico, with opponents contending it was "marriage in disguise."
Supporters of the bill did a last-minute rewrite to remove references that could be construed as marriage-related, but that wasn't enough to win the necessary votes.
Ten Democrats joined the chamber's 15 Republicans to defeat the bill 25-17.
"I'm disappointed by the Senate's actions today in defeating what is fundamentally an issue of civil rights and equality," said Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson, who has been pushing the legislation for several years.
The bill has gotten snared in the Senate for the past couple of years, although the House has passed it previously.
It would have allowed gay or straight unmarried couples to register as domestic partners and have the same legal protections and benefits as married couples.
There are still three weeks left in the legislative session, but it appeared unlikely the measure could be revived.
"If you're mad, you should be mad," Linda Siegle, a lobbyist for Equality New Mexico, told a dejected crowd outside the Capitol. "The people in this building said you are not equal, you are not worthy, you do not deserve the same rights as most of them have."
Siegle said religious groups were influential in the bill's defeat. The Roman Catholic Church, which previously was neutral on the issue, lobbied against it this year.
"I think what they've invited today is a lawsuit seeking marriage — absolute equal rights. ... I'm sure there are folks that are ready to pursue that," said Patti Bushee, a Santa Fe city councilor.
Debate in the Senate was brief and dwelled almost exclusively on the legal implications of the bill.
Its sponsor, Sen. Cisco McSorley, D-Albuquerque, described it as a "safety net" for those who don't qualify for, or choose, marriage.
The bill is "not a marriage bill," he insisted. New Mexico doesn't even recognize common-law marriage, said McSorley, a lawyer who chairs the Judiciary Committee. A valid license is required to be considered married.
In New Mexico, "You're either married or you're not married. This bill changes nothing," he said.
But opponents disputed that.
"This bill is really marriage in disguise," said Sen. William Sharer, a Farmington Republican, sounding a recurring theme from opponents.
A domestic partnership law "makes New Mexico ripe for a court challenge on the gay marriage issue," said Republican Whip William Payne of Albuquerque.
———
On the Net:
New Mexico Legislature: www.nmlegis.gov
———
The domestic partnership bill is SB12.
Senate roll call vote on domestic partnership bill
SANTA FE — The Senate's 25-17 vote on Thursday rejecting a measure that would have allowed domestic partnerships for unmarried couples, including same-sex couples. Voting yes, in favor of the bill, were 17 Democrats. Voting no, against the proposal, were 15 Republicans and 10 Democrats.
REPUBLICANS VOTING NO
Rod Adair (Roswell)
Vernon Asbill (Carlsbad)
Sue Wilson Beffort (Sandia Park)
Mark Boitano (Albuquerque)
Kent Cravens (Albuquerque)
Dianna Duran (Tularosa)
Clint Harden (Clovis)
Stuart Ingle (Portales)
Gay Kernan (Hobbs)
Carroll Leavell (Jal)
Steven Neville (Aztec)
William Payne (Albuquerque)
Sander Rue (Albuquerque)
John Ryan (Albuquerque)
William Sharer (Farmington)
DEMOCRATS VOTING NO
Pete Campos (Las Vegas)
Carlos Cisneros (Questa)
Tim Jennings (Roswell)
Lynda Lovejoy (Crownpoint)
Richard Martinez (Espanola)
George Munoz (Gallup)
John Pinto (Tohatchi)
Bernadette Sanchez (Albuquerque)
John Arthur Smith (Deming)
David Ulibarri (Grants)
DEMOCRATS VOTING YES
Tim Eichenberg (Albuquerque)
Dede Feldman (Albuquerque)
Stephen Fischmann (Mesilla Park)
Mary Jane Garcia (Dona Ana)
Eric Griego (Albuquerque)
Phil Griego (San Jose)
Timothy Keller (Albuquerque)
Linda Lopez (Albuquerque)
Cisco McSorley (Albuquerque)
Howie Morales (Silver City)
Cynthia Nava (Las Cruces)
Gerald Ortiz y Pino (Albuquerque)
Mary Kay Papen (Las Cruces)
Nancy Rodriguez (Santa Fe)
Michael Sanchez (Belen)
John Sapien (Corrales)
Peter Wirth (Santa Fe)
———
The domestic partnership bill is SB12.
http://www.lcsun-news.com/ci_11796862
March 02, 2009
REGION: State high court to hear Prop. 8 case this week - North County Times - Californian
North County Times - Californian, CA
Disposti, though, said supporters of same-sex marriage are relying on the courts to secure what he said are his civil rights as a gay man. "All citizens should be equal under the law," said Disposti, the founder of the North County LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, ...
Disposti, though, said supporters of same-sex marriage are relying on the courts to secure what he said are his civil rights as a gay man. "All citizens should be equal under the law," said Disposti, the founder of the North County LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
