The Governor Speaks Out

In an Exclusive Interview, David Paterson Handicaps the Fight For Marriage Equality

As the State Legislature hurtles toward its last two months in regular session for 2009 -- with enormous issues such as a bailout of the MTA still unresolved -- one remarkable development on the Albany scene has been the forceful emergence of Governor David Paterson as an advocate for making certain that a marriage equality bill, passed by the Assembly two years ago and expected to be approved again next week, receives a floor vote in the State Senate.

Although the governor was among the first elected officials in the nation to endorse gay marriage -- in 1994 -- his recent high profile on the issue has garnered considerable comment and controversy. The media has loudly speculated that Paterson's motivation is based on a need to shore up support in key parts of his constituency, given one recent poll that found his approval rating sagging at just 19 percent.

More jarringly, his posture has also drawn fire from fellow Democrats -- beginning with his insistence three weeks ago in an Ithaca radio interview that a Senate vote, up or down, was worth pursuing. That suggestion flies in the face of both Albany tradition and the game plan repeatedly articulated by Malcolm Smith, the Democratic Senate majority leader.

With Paterson's leadership on the issue highlighted on April 16 when he formally introduced a marriage equality bill into the Legislature and this week in a impassioned speech to 2,000 grassroots advocates in Albany for the Empire State Pride Agenda's Equality & Justice Day, Gay City News spoke exclusively to the governor on April 29 about how he handicaps the prospects for short-term success.

Paterson's April 8 radio interview appeared to catch advocates off guard. Asked that day about the chances of enacting a marriage equality law this year, the governor said of prospective action by the Senate, "We'll put a bill out and let the people decide one way or the other. Why can't people just debate the bill, vote on it, and it goes up or down?"

The reaction from at least one Senate Democrat was swift and harsh. Thomas Duane, the out gay sponsor of the bill the governor has since introduced, on April 10 told New York 1 News, "Say what you will about former Governor Spitzer, a blessing and a curse. However, working with him, we would have gotten this bill passed by now. We absolutely would have gotten this bill passed, and we would have had a strategy."

Yet just six days later, Duane was back on the same page with the governor, appearing at an April 16 Manhattan press conference with Paterson, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, out lesbian City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, Daniel O'Donnell, the out gay Upper West Side Democrat who steered marriage equality to victory in the Assembly two years ago (and told Gay City News, "I don't think the governor deserves any criticism"), and four members of Congress. The newly restored comity did not mean the governor had changed his mind on the wisdom of a Senate vote.

This week, Paterson, even as he acknowledged the longstanding Albany practice of only bringing sure winners to the floor, explained that forcing a vote is often the best route to success on "issues of conscience" like marriage equality.

"What we learned in the Assembly was that there were nine Assembly members who we didn't know would support the bill until they voted in favor of it," he told Gay City News. "And that is very common. Whenever the vote is taken, I believe you will see -- and it will be interesting to watch if this doesn't turn out to happen, whether there aren't three or four members of the Senate who will vote for it when they had not said they would."

As with the Assembly's 2007 marriage equality vote, Paterson, who was the Senate minority leader before being elected lieutenant governor in 2006, said that the Senate votes on hate crimes in 2000 and the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act in 2002 were also examples of fence-sitters coming down in favor only when the moment demanded a choice.

The governor later added, "The sooner the vote is taken, the sooner this will pass. What's the worst that can happen? That it will not pass, and we'll know who we need to focus our efforts on." Paterson argued that history provides ample cases of controversial measures going down to defeat, only to be resurrected triumphantly soon after.

Stepping up to a high profile was especially important at this point, he said, given the routing marriage equality proponents suffered in California last fall.

"I felt that so many advocates were so devastated by Proposition 8 that they didn't even know how to respond when marriage equality was being discussed as a political football in the battle over the Senate leadership at the end of last year," Paterson said, "and then it was being discussed that the governor wouldn't even introduce a program bill this year, and that's when I decided to put a stop to that discussion."

Still, doubts have lingered as to whether Paterson is now at odds with Smith over the bold challenge he issued on a marriage equality vote, as well as over other policy differences. At his April 16 press conference, which the majority leader did not attend, the governor opened by declaring, "What we have is not a crisis of issues, we have a crisis of leadership. We're going to fill that vacuum today. I'm going to put a stop to it."

But the governor insisted he and Smith understand each other's positions and roles on the marriage issue. "I'm not in the Senate," he said. " I have my work cut out for me running the executive branch. I am not trying to dictate the process."

Asked whether the majority leader has complained or appeared unhappy about his prodding for a vote, Paterson said, "No, and I see him all the time. [New York Post columnist] Fred Dicker has written the same column three years in a row that we're fighting, but he's never quoted a single named source."

At the same time, Paterson recalled that when he was the Senate minority leader, he and his caucus consistently asked that bills be brought to the floor. "We wanted to get a vote," he said. "We wanted to get people on the record." The governor is not counting heads in the Senate, but given his long history in that body he has a strong feel for its members.

"I think it is capable of passing it," he said. "I don't think the votes are there yet. Maybe they're three or four votes short, maybe more. But they can get there, and as evidence of that I would cite the growth from 40 to 85 votes in the Assembly in 2007. The percentage of votes we have now in the Senate is higher than it was two years ago at this time in the Assembly. And they didn't think they had a shot."

For now, the governor's lobbying of legislators is focused primarily on bailing out the MTA, which faces steep fare hikes and service cuts by the end of May if no action is taken in Albany. He also plans to focus in the near term on tax relief measures. But, once those issues have been addressed, Paterson said, he "absolutely" will be reaching out to senators to discuss marriage equality, along with issues like family leave and gun control.

Asked to comment on the harsh criticism former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a potential opponent in the 2010 election, leveled at him over his push for marriage equality, the governor said, "I think he is living half a generation behind, thinking like people were in 1993 when he became mayor."

Then noting that Giuliani made his comments the same day a Siena NY poll showed that New Yorkers support marriage equality by a 53-39 margin, Paterson added, "The only thing worse than people who pretend not to like an issue because they think it will be expedient for them politically are people who pretend not to like an issue because they think it will be expedient for them politically and are wrong."

Asked to clarify a statement he made at the Equality & Justice Day gathering on April 28 suggesting that marriage equality opponents might suffer from "guilt" -- which got lively, though not favorable attention on some blogs -- the governor explained, "What I was saying was that people who are opposed are afraid -- and I think it is a valid point -- that when it becomes law they are going to have to do certain things, that their personal beliefs will be infringed on, but where was this same respect for personal beliefs when these leaders -- and they weren't primarily religious leaders, they were oppositional leaders -- failed to speak up when gay youth were victims of violence... They must have a profound sense of guilt for when the situation was worse than it is today and they never spoke up about it."

http://gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20306863&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=568864&rfi=6
By: PAUL SCHINDLER
04/29/2009

N.H. Senate passes gay-marriage bill

Gov. John Lynch has not indicated if he will veto the legislation

CONCORD, N.H. - New Hampshire's Senate passed a bill on Wednesday that would legalize same-sex marriage after an amendment was added that prohibits polygamy and marriage of family members, among other measures.

Governor John Lynch has not indicated whether he will veto the bill, which passed in a 13-11 vote and would make New Hampshire the nation's fifth state where gay marriage is legal. But the Democrat has expressed opposition to the measure.

The bill passed the state's House of Representatives on March 26 but looked set for near certain defeat in the Senate before the amendment, which appeared to mollify some critics in the Democrat-controlled chamber.

The last-minute changes to the legislation would allow clergy to decline to marry homosexual couples and give couples the freedom to either keep the words "bride" and "groom" on marriage licenses, or simply use the word "spouse" instead.

Because the Senate and House passed separate versions they must resolve their differences before the bill can go to the governor, who in 2007 signed a law recognizing same-sex civil unions, making New Hampshire the fourth state to do so.

Lynch has said the word marriage should be reserved for a traditional heterosexual relationship.

Gay marriage made big inroads this month when, in a single week, Iowa and Vermont joined Massachusetts and Connecticut in allowing gay couples to legally wed. On Tuesday, a joint judiciary committee in neighboring Maine's legislature approved a bill to allow same-sex marriage. Maine's House and Senate could vote on the measure as early as next week.

In California, gay marriage advocates are hoping to overturn Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment that banned gay marriage there, in the state's highest court.

New Hampshire state Senator Lou D'Allesandro was the only Democrat to side with 10 Republicans against the legislation, which would redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. He cited his "traditional family values."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30481498/
Reuters
updated 4:49 p.m. ET, Wed., April 29, 2009

EDITORIAL: In same-sex marriage, government has no stake

People who oppose same-sex marriage generally do so on moral or religious grounds, neither of which can be legislated. The issue of same-sex marriage is so personal that the government would be wisest to stay right out of it. In other words, government shouldn't go around banning things just because they don't match up with some people's moral or religious notions.

Assemblywoman Janet Duprey has it right. Same-sex marriage is a civil-rights issue, and on that, the government has only one choice: to come down heavily in favor of the civil rights of everyone.

Maybe your religion frowns on homosexuality. That might certainly affect how you and your fellow worshippers feel about the issue. But it wouldn't be any of the government's concern.

Maybe your personal morality says marriage should be only between a man and a woman. That would surely dictate that you personally oppose homosexual marriage. But it shouldn't propel the government into making a law against it.

Possibly, you oppose homosexual marriages because benefits such as tax breaks would accrue to more people at your expense as a taxpayer. There, perhaps the government has some soul-searching to do. But if it's going to be fair about things, why should sexual inclination be the litmus test for who gets benefits and who doesn't?

Homosexuals are only recently beginning to be treated as full-fledged human beings, in many circles. In others, they haven't yet achieved that status. By any equitable standard, they (and every other minority group) don't deserve to be shunned in any fashion, especially for something over which they have so little control. People refer to sexual "preference," as if the eventuality of whom to spend the rest of one's life with were like choosing a laundry detergent.

It is inconceivable at this juncture of human history that so many people remain so adamant against allowing two individuals to seek happiness together in the privacy of their own homes. How are the lives of those nay-sayers so denigrated by another couple's merger? How are they affected at all, in fact?

Would they be so agitated over the marriage of representatives of any other two groups of humans? Not so long ago, few dared to cross religious lines to wed. Only recently have racial bounds been popularly erased. In the not-very-distant future, people will wonder what was so egregious about same-sex marriage that individuals' rights to happiness were so blatantly violated.

It's too bad this has to be an issue at all, but if human history has shown us anything, it is that biases die hard and slowly. This one will not die any more quickly whether government acts or not.

But the undeniable fact, as we see it, is that who gets married to whom is none of the government's business.

Published April 22, 2009 10:13 pm - People who oppose same-sex marriage generally do so on moral or religious grounds, neither of which can be legislated

A Civil Right: Legislature has no reason to delay on same-sex marriage

Posted by Post-Standard Editorial Board
April 23, 2009 5:02AM

Opponents of gay marriage insist that extending one of civilization's basic organizing principles to include homosexuals will weaken traditional marriage.

The National Organization for Marriage says the best argument against gay marriage is that "gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose; they don't have the right to redefine marriage for all of us."

That reasoning has many happily married heterosexuals scratching their heads. How, exactly, would granting gays the right to marry adversely affect heterosexual couples? How would it weaken families?

Arguments against gay marriage tend to be based on religious beliefs that marriage is a sacred rite intended solely for a man and a woman. But the legislation proposed by Gov. David Paterson would legalize gay and lesbian participation in civil marriages, not religious ceremonies. The bill specifically states that "no member of the clergy may be compelled to perform any marriage ceremony."

New York and other states already recognize sexual orientation as a civil rights issue. Gov. George Pataki signed the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act in 2002, and that same year, the state extended workers' compensation benefits to gay people who lost their partners on 9/11. Why shouldn't equal rights be extended into the realm of civil marriage?

Legalizing gay marriage -- moreso than the halfway measure of civil unions -- would strengthen and affirm the long-term commitments same-sex couples make to each other. That doesn't weaken families; it bolsters them. The argument put forward by the National Organization for Marriage that gay marriage should remain outlawed because "children need a mother and a father" is also a red herring. Gay couples will continue to raise children whether they are allowed to marry or not. Wouldn't those children be better off if their gay parents solidified their relationship through marriage?

Likewise, the organization declares on its Web site that gay marriage would result in children being taught that "one-half of humanity -- either mothers or fathers -- are dispensable, unimportant. ... Children are confused enough right now with sexual messages. Let's not confuse them further."

The argument is a shameless scare tactic. If anything, legalizing same-sex marriage would provide children with a clearer understanding of -- and a greater tolerance for -- the immutable fact that some people have different sexual orientations than others.

Indeed, as gay relationships have become more open and better understood, they have become more accepted, particularly among young people. A Siena College poll released Monday found that 53 percent of New York voters support gay marriage, with 39 percent opposed. Among those between 18 and 34, a whopping 71 percent said they support gay marriage. Among those 55 and above, only 42 percent did.

Given those demographics, it is inevitable that same-sex marriage rights will eventually spread across the country. New York has no reason to wait. The Legislature should move swiftly to affirm a civil right and legalize same-sex marriage.

New York Marriage Bill Gets GOP Boost

The Log Cabin Republicans announced Tuesday that the GOP's New York leadership in both the state senate and assembly are going to allow Republican legislators to make "conscience votes" on Gov. David Paterson's marriage-equality bill rather than pressuring party members to vote against it, giving the legislation a much stronger likelihood of picking up Republican votes in both chambers.

The development may be particularly important in the senate, where Democrats hold a slim 32-30 majority, four Democrats have already said they will vote against the marriage bill, and equality advocates will need to pick up several GOP votes in order to pass the legislation. Strategists expect the legislation to sail through the assembly, which already passed an identical bill in 2007 by a vote of 85 to 61.

Jeff Cook, legislative adviser for the Log Cabin Republicans, said the decision stood in stark contrast to the tack taken in 2007, when assembly minority leader Jim Tedisco and the GOP leadership pressured assembly Republicans to vote against marriage equality.

"We were successful in that environment in getting four Republicans to vote yes, making it the first bipartisan vote on marriage in a legislative chamber," Cook said. "But we would have probably done better if there was a 'vote of conscience.'"

Cook declined to discuss the vote count on the Republican side of the aisle in the senate but said that today's decision was an important turning point. "Republicans realize that marriage equality is inevitable in New York and they do not want to vote against this," he said. "I think they realize that the polling is changing very fast and they do not want our party to be perceived as being hostile on this issue." A Siena poll released yesterday found 53% of the state's voters want Governor Paterson's marriage-equality bill passed, while 39% are opposed to it.

Cook called it "significant" that "the center of gravity in both parties has shifted on this issue to where Republicans now feel like their conference needs to be neutral and Democrats feel their conference needs to be emphatic in support."

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid79898.asp
April 21, 2009
By Kerry Eleveld

NY Gov. Paterson talks to Marriage Equality New York Board President Cathy Marino-Thomas

New York Gov. David Paterson, second from right, talks to Marriage Equality New York Board President Cathy Marino-Thomas after a news conference, Thursday, April 16, 2009 in New York. Gov. David Paterson announced plans Thursday to legalize same-sex marriage in the state of New York, making a political gamble that he can ride the momentum of other states that have recently allowed the practice.

Mary Altaffer, AP / April 16, 2009
(AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)

NY governor introduces bill to allow gay marriage

NEW YORK (AP) - Gov. David Paterson has announced plans to legalize same-sex marriage in New York.

New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who is openly gay, stood by Paterson's side during Thursday's announcement as supporters cheered.

Paterson hopes to tap into the momentum of other states that have recently allowed same-sex couples to wed.

He says it's the same bill the Democrat-controlled state Assembly passed in 2007. It died in the Senate, where the Republican majority kept it from going to a vote.

Opponents are vowing to make sure this one fails as well.

Associated Press - April 16, 2009 11:03 AM ET
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
http://www.wlbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=10194833

Church to Challenge Governor on Gay Marriage

NEW YORK (AP) -- New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan says he'll challenge any effort to legalize gay marriage in New York.

Dolan made the remarks at a news conference Wednesday just hours before he was installed as New York's new Roman Catholic leader.

Gov. David Paterson is expected to propose a gay marriage bill Thursday. He is among the civic leaders expected at Dolan's installation Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral.

Dolan is the 59-year-old former archbishop of Milwaukee. He says one of his priorities is to draw more men to the priesthood. He also will try to persuade alienated Catholics to return to the church.

Dolan succeeds Cardinal Edward Egan, who is retiring after nine years.
http://www.wgrz.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=65855

Gay Marriage Bill Introduced in New York

The California Supreme Court is rumored to announce their ruling on the fate of gay marriage as early as Monday. But as they figure things out, New York Governor David Paterson yesterday introduced legislation to legalize same-sex marriage. "There is clearly a problem in that those individuals who are gay or lesbian who would live in a civil union are still not entitled to somewhere between 1,250 and 1,300 civil protections" that are afforded to married couples, he said. A similar same-sex marriage bill was knocked down in the New York state Senate in 2007 when former Gov. Eliot Spitzer brought it to the table.

By Zach Behrens in News on April 16, 2009 10:29 AM
http://laist.com/2009/04/16/gay_marriage_bill_introduced_in_new.php

Gay Marriage in Vermont Has Tourism Industry Planning

The passage of Vermont's same-sex marriage law has some businesses in the tourism industry planning to boost marketing to gay and lesbian travelers.

At a meeting of the Vermont Gay Tourism Association Wednesday morning, innkeepers and tour companies discussed a media campaign and series of events to attract more business to Vermont. They say guests who come here from out-of-state for weddings or civil unions spend an average of $500 per person.

Jeff Connor of the Vermont Gay Tourism Association explains, "Already, people at inns and so forth that had couples for civil unions are getting in touch with those couples and saying, 'Come back and now have a marriage.' So we're hoping for repeat business as well."

Connor says the law sends a message that Vermont is open and welcoming to all visitors, whether or not they're planning a gay wedding.

But during the debate over same-sex marriage, some opponents argued the legislation would actually turn off travelers who don't like the idea of letting gay and lesbian couples marry.

Jack Thurston - WCAX News
http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=10187777

A DANGEROUS ROAD TO GAY MARRIAGE

LAST week, the Vermont legislature overrode the governor to legalize gay marriage. The week before, the Iowa Supreme Court achieved the same result by overriding the state legislature, declaring a 1998 ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

For those who agree (as I do) that the benefits of civil marriage should be available to all couples regardless of sexual orientation, does it matter how we get to that destination? I think it does: The Iowa approach ultimately undermines a constitution's ability to constrain government action and protect individual freedom.

The seven-member Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled that limiting marriage to heterosexual couples violates the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection, which it said "is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike."

It seems safe to say that neither the constitutional-convention delegates nor the voters who approved this provision in 1857 would've agreed that two people of the same sex and two people of opposite sexes were "similarly situated" and "should be treated alike" under civil-marriage laws. In fact, that re mains a minority opinion in Iowa. Last month, a University of Iowa survey found that only 26 percent of Iowans supported gay marriage.

The court overrode the majority's view by reinterpreting the equal-protection clause to mean something it didn't mean when it was adopted. "Our responsibility," the justices explained, "is to protect constitutional rights of individuals from legislative enactments that have denied those rights, even when the rights have not yet been broadly accepted, were at one time unimagined, or challenge a deeply ingrained practice or law viewed to be impervious to the passage of time."

Here we are not talking about applying a constitutional provision in a way consistent with the original public understanding of it (for example, by extending the First Amendment to television). We are talking about applying a provision in a way the people who ratified it would have rejected. How can a right that was "unimagined" in this sense be a constitutional right?

According to the court, "equal protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation." But if the justices had defined equal protection by the standards of this generation (in Iowa, at least), they'd have let the gay-marriage ban stand.

"The point in time when the standard of equal protection finally takes a new form," the court said, "is a product of the conviction of one, or many, individuals that a particular grouping results in inequality and the ability of the judicial system to perform its constitutional role free from the influences that tend to make society's understanding of equal protection resistant to change."

Let's be frank: Under this approach, it doesn't take "one, or many, individuals" to change the meaning of the constitution. It takes exactly four.

Legislatures draw distinctions between groups all the time. They establish criminal penalties, impose age restrictions and set conditions for government benefits. If such judgments violate equal protection whenever four justices disagree with the reasoning behind them, the line between what judges do and what legislatures do begins to disappear.

Changing conditions are said to require reinterpretation, and since no constitution is perfect, you or I may occasionally like the results. But over the long term, we can't count on an evolving constitution to protect our rights.

By JACOB SULLUM
Posted: 1:56 am
April 16, 2009

Iowa becoms third U.S. state to allow gay marriage

DES MOINES, Iowa (Reuters) - The Iowa Supreme Court cleared the way for gay marriage in the state on Friday by declaring a law that limits marriage to a man and a woman unconstitutional.

The ruling makes Iowa the third U.S. state after Connecticut and Massachusetts, and the first in the Midwest, to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry.

Gay marriage was briefly legal in California, but voters repealed it in a November 2008 referendum, though efforts are under way to revive the issue.

The Iowa case, Varnum v. Brien, involved six same-sex couples who sued the Polk County Recorder of Deeds Timothy Brien in 2005 for refusing to grant them marriage licenses.

A county judge sided with the couples and the state supreme court affirmed that decision and declared the 1998 Iowa Defense of Marriage Act -- which restricted marriage to one man and one woman -- unconstitutional.

The key principle at the heart of the case was the doctrine of equal protection under the law, which the court said "is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike."

The court compared the right of same-sex couples to marry with historical precedents that struck down slavery and segregation and recognized women's rights.

Susan Sommer, senior counsel with Lambda Legal in New York, which sued in the Iowa case, said a number of states, including New York, Vermont and New Hampshire, have "very active efforts" underway to pass gay marriage provisions.

"Iowa is a terrific state with a great historical leadership in advancing the equal protection rights of minorities and we are seeing Iowa live up to what it holds dear," Sommer said.

Gay marriages in the state could begin within weeks.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/usTopNews/idUKTRE5323XB20090403?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0
By Kay Henderson

Iowa Court Says Gay Marriage Ban Is Unconstitutional

DES MOINES — Iowa became the first state in the Midwest to approve same-sex marriage on Friday, after the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously decided that a 1998 law limiting marriage to a man and a woman was unconstitutional.

The decision was the culmination of a four-year legal battle that began in the lower courts. The Supreme Court said same-sex marriages could begin in Iowa in as soon as 21 days.

The case here was being closely followed by advocates on both sides of the issue. While the same-sex marriage debate has played out on both coasts, the Midwest — where no states had permitted same-sex marriage — was seen as entirely different. In the past, at least six states in the Midwest were among those around the country that adopted amendments to their state constitutions banning same-sex marriage.

“The Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution,” the justices said in a summary of their decision.

And later in the ruling, they said: “Equal protection under the Iowa Constitution is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike. Since territorial times, Iowa has given meaning to this constitutional provision, striking blows to slavery and segregation, and recognizing women’s rights. The court found the issue of same-sex marriage comes to it with the same importance as the landmark cases of the past.”

In a hotel in Des Moines, several of the same-sex couples who were involved in the suit wept, teared up and embraced as they learned about the decision from their lawyers. “I’d like to introduce you to my fiancee,” said Kate Varnum, 34, reaching over to Trish Varnum. “Today I am proud to be a lifelong Iowan.”

“We are blessed to live in Iowa,” she added.

Opponents of same-sex marriage criticized the ruling.

“The decision made by the Iowa Supreme Court today to allow gay marriage in Iowa is disappointing on many levels," State Senator Paul McKinley, the Republican leader, said in a statement on The Des Moines Register’s Web site. "I believe marriage should only be between one man and one woman and I am confident the majority of Iowans want traditional marriage to be legally recognized in this state."

He added: "Though the court has made their decision, I believe every Iowan should have a voice on this matter and that is why the Iowa Legislature should immediately act to pass a Constitutional Amendment that protects traditional marriage, keeps it as a sacred bond only between one man and one woman and gives every Iowan a chance to have their say through a vote of the people."

Advocates of same-sex marriage said they did not believe opponents had any immediate way to overturn the decision. A constitutional amendment would require the state legislature to approve a ban on same-sex marriage in two consecutive sessions after which voters would have a chance to weigh in.

Iowa has no residency requirement for getting a marriage license, which some suggest may mean a flurry of people from other states.

Two states — Connecticut and Massachusetts — currently allow same-sex marriages. Several other states on the East coast allow civil unions, lawmakers in Vermont are considering gay marriage, and California allowed it until November’s election, when residents rejected the idea in a voter initiative.

A change in Iowa’s take on marriage, advocates for gay marriage said before Friday’s ruling, would signal a broader shift in public thinking, even in the nation’s more conservative middle. Opponents of same-sex marriage, meanwhile, had said any legal decision in support of same-sex marriage in Iowa would certainly trigger a prompt and sharp response among residents and, surely, state lawmakers.

The legal case here began in 2005, when six same-sex couples filed suit against the county recorder here in Polk County because he would not accept their marriage license applications.

Two years later, a local judge here, Robert B. Hanson, ruled in that case that a state law defining marriage as only between a man and woman was unconstitutional. The ruling, in 2007, set off a flurry of same-sex couples from all over the state, racing for the courthouse in Polk County.

The rush lasted less than a day in August of 2007. Although Judge Hanson had ruled against the state law, he quickly decided to delay any additional granting of licenses, saying that the Iowa Supreme Court should have an opportunity to weigh in first. In the end, about 20 couples applied before the stay was issued. Just one couple, Timothy McQuillan, then 21, and Sean Fritz, 24, managed to obtain their license and also to marry.

By MONICA DAVEY and LIZ ROBBINS
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/us/04iowa.html
Published: April 3, 2009

Sweden approves same-sex marriage legislation

Stockholm - A broad majority in the Swedish parliament Wednesday approved adoption of same-sex marriage legislation after a six-hour debate. Six of the seven parties in parliament had backed the proposal drafted by the Committee on Civil Affairs to introduce a gender- neutral marriage law.

Only the Christian Democrats, one of the four parties in the ruling centre-right coalition, opposed the move.

Yvonne Andersson said her party wanted to maintain "a several hundred-year-old concept" about marriage.

Supporters of the gender-neutral legislation included Evon Frid of the Left Party who said it was "not a negative change, but a positive change."

The proposal was approved by a 261 to 22 vote, with 16 abstentions.

The new legislation is to take effect as of May 1, and replaces the legislation approved in 1995 that allows same-sex couples to form a union in Sweden via registered partnership.

Couples who have registered partnership can keep that status or amend it by an application to the authorities or marry.

Soren Juvas, president of the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights, said it was "a great victory".

The changes will not affect church marriage ceremonies for the time being.

The Church of Sweden, a Lutheran church, was this autumn due to discuss its stance.

It was disestablished in 2000, receiving the same "faith community" designation as other faiths, such as the Pentecostal, Baptist, Roman Catholic, Jewish and Muslim.

A majority of bishops in the Church of Sweden in February said the church should no longer handle legal registrations of marriage.

Posted : Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:48:03 GMT
Author : DPA
Category : Europe (World)
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/262551,sweden-approves-same-sex-marriage-legislation.html

Gay Marriage Veto

The Governor is wrong.

We were sorry to hear Governor Douglas say he’ll veto Vermont’s new Gay Marriage law when it reaches his desk.

We think that’s a mistake.

We had hoped he’d sign it. We believe he should.

When you get right to it, this is a pretty simple issue: Marriage ought to for any couple that shares love and commitment. If ONE couple can marry, why wouldn’t you allow another to do so?

Remember, this law does not force any church or religion to do anything---there’s no requirement for them to perform a same-sex marriage. But the State would recognize that it cannot deny the rights of one couple if another couple has those rights.

That’s called equality. It’s the cornerstone of the American belief system. And equality doesn’t just apply to some people. It has to apply to all of us if it is to have any meaning at all.

It’s disappointing to see that Jim Douglas doesn’t get that.

That’s our opinion. What’s yours?

Aired by President/General Manager, Paul A. Sands
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
http://www.wptz.com/editorials/19063262/detail.html