To Form a More Perfect Union: Marriage Equality News

Cayman Islands: Gay kissers raise doubt

Link: Cay Compass News Online

Excerpt:

A Sister Islands’ MLA said last week that Cayman’s now infamous gay kissing incident has raised doubts in voters’ minds about the country’s proposed bill of rights.

“I must say that the news headlines of this past week…certainly have caused the conservative voters…to be a little bit leery,” said Julianna O’Connor–Connolly during her budget debate in the Legislative Assembly. “Assurances were given that these things wouldn’t happen…now we have this test case.”

One of the major concerns expressed in the ongoing constitutional review process has been that, if Cayman placed a bill of rights in the country’s new constitution, it would be forced to accept same sex marriages or same sex unions similar to marriage.

[...]

The Cayman Brac MLA was one of many last week who said they were upset over an e–mailed apology sent from the Department of Tourism director to the man who was detained by police following the 30 April kissing incident at Royal Palms.

“Sorry for what, Madam Speaker (addressing Speaker of the House Edna Moyle)?” Mrs. O’Connor–Connolly asked. “Sorry for what?”

There are differing legal opinions as to whether the actions of 23–year–old Aaron Chandler and his partner violated either the Cayman Islands Penal Code or the Towns and Communities Law.

Mrs. O’Connor–Connolly said it was Mr. Chandler and his partner who owed the Cayman Islands an apology, and that legislators should determine if local law contained a loophole that would allow for similar public displays of affection.

“Are we just inches away from telling our pastors that they can’t preach about this lifestyle?” Mrs. O’Connor–Connolly asked. “Or that they have to marry (same sex couples)?”

“Once doubt enters in the equation that we have to pander to these people…then we are diminishing our faith in God,” she said. “Each time, I get more and more concerned as I see a lack of commitment to these values.” 

[jw]

AZ: Marriage ban advances

Link: Arizona Daily Star

Excerpt:

Efforts to put a question on the November ballot asking voters to ban same-sex marriage overcame a major roadblock Monday — passing through a closely divided state House.

A lack of support had stalled the measure for weeks, and it appeared dead in early April. But supporters managed to drum up the votes they needed in time for a Monday morning roll call — due in part to two Democratic crossover votes.

Now the proposed constitutional amendment heads to the Senate, where President Tim Bee, a Tucson Republican, introduced an identical resolution early this year, and where Republicans have a wider majority.

[...]

Also supporting the move was Rep. Marian McClure, a Tucson Republican, who said she thought a constitutional amendment was unnecessary because same-sex marriage already is banned by state statute. But ultimately she voted for sending it to the ballot because of her personal religious briefs.

"If I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, how do I go into church next Sunday and try to explain to my pastor and to my Christian community that I voted saying that marriage was not between a man and a woman?" she said. "The average individual looks at the bill number and the title. What do they see? Marriage between one man and one woman."

[...]

[jw]

NY: Constituents Back a Tough Stand

Link: New York Times

Excerpt:

For many Democratic members of the Assembly, last year’s passage of a bill to legalize same-sex marriage was the culmination of years of battle and persuasion within their party’s ranks, and most of them eventually supported the legislation.

For the few Assembly Republicans who ultimately supported the bill, the vote was potentially far more risky: a public break with their own party on an issue that at the time was still considered in some quarters to be radioactive, potentially even career-killing.

But the experience of Assemblywoman Teresa R. Sayward suggests that those fears may be unwarranted.

Ms. Sayward, left, a three-term Republican from the North Country, an observant Roman Catholic in a heavily Catholic district, surprised many of her colleagues last year when she rose to speak in support of the bill, reflecting on her own experiences coming to terms with the fact that her son, Glenn, was gay.

More surprising — to Ms. Sayward, anyway—was the response from her constituents after news of the vote percolated through her district. More than three-fifths of those who contacted Ms. Sayward’s office about the issue said they either agreed with her position or respected her willingness to make a stand on principle.

“We did get some of those very heated phone calls and letters as we expected to get,” she said. “But we didn’t get as many as you’d think. We got an excellent reception.” Some letters, she said, came from parents who had kept quiet about their own gay children for years. “They decided they were no longer going to be secretive,” Ms. Sayward said. “That touched my heart the most.”

[...]

Ultimately, no corresponding bill came to a vote in the Republican-controlled State Senate. But gay-rights groups say they believe that the lack of a public outcry over last year’s Assembly vote will help them next year in the Senate. Democrats hope to take control of the chamber in this fall’s election.

“I think most of the Assembly members that voted for this had a good experience with it, and that will help build support in the Senate,” said Alan Van Capelle, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, a gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights group, who has been meeting with Albany lawmakers on the issue each week. “People are not afraid of gay marriage. It’s just not a wedge issue any more in New York State.”

[jw]

Anti-Gay Amendment Heads To Arizona Senate

Link: 365Gay.com

Excerpt:

A proposed amendment that would prevent same-sex couples in Arizona from marrying received final approval in the House on Monday and if approved in the state Senate will appear on the ballot in November.

The proposed amendment defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

[...]

Arizona already limits marriage to one man and one woman. The law has been upheld by the state Court of Appeals and the state Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal.

Nevertheless, backers of the amendment say some future court may reopen the issue and strike down the law.  Amending the state constitution would prevent that.

The proposed amendment is narrower that one defeated by voters in 2006.

That attempt, in addition to nixing gay marriage, would have barred civil unions and blocked all three levels of government from offering domestic partner benefits.

Public opinion polls have showed that while most people in the state oppose same-sex marriage they do not want to enshrine that in the constitution.

UPDATE from Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin:

AZ House Approves Anti-Marriage Amendment Proposal

We’ve just learned that thirty-three members of the Arizona House of Representatives approved SCR1042, the proposed anti-marriage amendment. The resolution passed 33-25, with two representatives not voting. You can see how each representative voted here. The battle now moves to the Senate. If SCR1042 passes the Senate, the proposed anti-marriage amendment goes onto the ballot for November’s general election.

Now it’s time for Arizona residents to shift their attention to their state Senator.If you don’t know who your Senator is, the Equality Arizona web site can find him or her for you and provide you with phone numbers and contact information. You can call directly, or you can even send a message via Equality Arizona. They’ve made it extremely easy to do this.

[jw]

MD: TV Same-Sex Wedding Stirs Debate

Link: ABC2News.com, Channel 2 WMAR-TV

Excerpt:

On Sunday night’s season finale of the ABC show, “Brothers and Sisters,” the characters “Kevin" and "Scotty" got married -- in what was billed as the first gay marriage on a network television drama.

In Maryland, a push to legalize gay marriage has stalled in Annapolis -- and in Maryland courtrooms.  Right now, no form of same-sex marriage is recognized by state law.  Some people want to overturn the law; others want to make it even stronger by placing into the state's constitution.

State Delegate Don Dwyer Jr. has no doubt what the producers of "Brothers and Sisters" were trying to do with the marriage of "Kevin and Scotty."  “It's clearly to normalize and build social acceptance for the issue on a national basis,” Del. Dwyer said.

The Anne Arundel County Republican is a leading opponent of the effort to legalize gay marriage in Maryland.  He believes the citizens are on his side -- and supporters of gay marriage know it.  “What the other side is concerned with is that they realize that the voting public in Maryland is not ready to accept gay marriage and if they were the bill would have passed this year,” he said.

Andrew Foster Connors is the Pastor at Brown Memorial Park Avenue Presbyterian Church in Baltimore’s Bolton Hill neighborhood.  He says over the years, his congregation has changed dramatically.  “As the city has changed, we've begun to change along with it,” he said.  “We do have a number of families, same-sex couple families with children, whose children are at risk frankly because they don't have the same protections that i have in my marriage.”

Foster Connors believes same-sex marriage should be legal.  “The more I saw the welcoming and words of grace from Jesus -- obviously a Christian congregation -- and that led me ultimately to this kind of a decision.”

He hopes the "Brothers and Sisters” wedding helps same-sex couples realize they're still welcome in the Christian community.  “I think that as we discuss gay and lesbian people and relationships more in society I think that will ultimately be helpful.”

[...]

[jw]

IL: Student-led effort lobbies online for civil unions bill

Link: Chicago Tribune

Excerpt:

When Phil Miatkowski created an online group to support civil union legislation in Illinois, it was meant to be just an easy way to keep friends informed.

A year later, the group on the social networking site Facebook has swelled to nearly 9,000 members. The legislation's sponsor sought their help to lobby for the measure which would be the first of its kind in the state. And they've generated thousands of faxes and e-mails to state lawmakers, organized rallies and circulated petitions.

"Every time I log on, it's getting larger, so it's exciting to see," said Miatkowski, a Lake Forest College sophomore.

He started the group, Students for the Illinois Marriage Equality Bill, last May after Rep. Greg Harris, a Chicago Democrat, introduced legislation to allow same-sex couples to form civil unions.

[...]

The group's efforts made enough of an impression that Illinois lawmakers mentioned it to Harris, sponsor of the civil unions bill. Harris contacted Miatkowski and other student leaders to discuss how to gather more momentum on the bill.

"This is an organic thing. That's the exciting thing about it," Harris said. "There's no way I could talk to 9,000 individuals from every county in this state and get them on board with this. They did this themselves."

He will need the help.

Harris sponsored a bill to legalize gay marriage last year, but abandoned it when the idea faced too much resistance. He proposed a new plan weeks later and changed its language from "marriage" to "civil unions." The proposal passed out of committee 5-4.

Harris is confident the bill will get the 60 votes it needs to pass and expects the House to make a decision on it before the end of the year. The bill gives same sex couples the same the rights as married couples to estate benefits, child custody or adoption, property ownership.

[...]

DePaul junior Chris Jessup spent last weekend canvassing suburban Chicago and Wrigley Field to collect signatures for the bill. Jessup, one of the first members of Miatkowski's group, set up a companion Web site.

"It's a huge way, an easy way and quick way to get students involved," he said.

Some lawmakers said it's hard not to notice the effort.

Urbana Democrat Rep. Naomi Jakobsson, a co-sponsor of the bill, said she had an inch-high stack of faxes on her desk.

Sen. Heather Steans has received more than 50 e-mails from the supporters of the measure. The Chicago Democrat said the online effort is an effective way get people in touch with their own state representatives and senators.

"If you get something like 10 to 20 constituent contacts, you listen," Steans said.

Miatkowski knows the bill has stalled, but hopes his efforts effort will lead to legislation similar to that in his home state of Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2004.

He points to a 2005 state law that outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation that took several years before it passed.

"So if you put it in perspective, one year isn't that long," he said.

[jw]

AZ Anti-Marriage Bill Scheduled For Vote Monday

Link: Box Turtle Bulletin

As we reported earlier, the Arizona House of Representatives gave preliminary approval to move a bill onto the House floor that would place an anti-marriage amendment proposal on the ballot for November. Since that vote was taken, Speaker Jim Weiers (R-Phoenix) has placed SCR1042 on the calendar for a third reading on April 28th, 29th, 30th and May 5th. Each day has come and gone without a vote, and SCR1042 was pulled off the calendar for May 6th and 7th. Now we see it back on the calendar for Monday, May 12.

For Arizona residents, it’s still not too late to act. Remember: there are two representatives for each legislative district. Contact both of them and let them know where you stand. If you don’t know who your representatives are, the Equality Arizona web site can find them for you and provide you with their phone numbers and contact information. You can call them directly, or you can even send a message via Equality Arizona.

[jw]

Watered down same-sex laws pass in Australian Capital Territory

Link: Australian Associated Press via Sydney Morning Herald

Excerpt:

Laws granting same-sex couples legal recognition passed the ACT Legislative Assembly Thursday night, but the territory government is still furious it was forced to water down its legislation.

"This is not the outcome the ACT government wanted," Chief Minister Jon Stanhope said during the late night debate.

The government had wanted to recognise gay marriage through same-sex civil union ceremonies but abandoned the plan after the federal Labor government said it would veto the move.

"It is a matter of embarrassment to me that my party did not stand up for this fundamental principle," Mr Stanhope said.

[...]

Attorney-General Simon Corbell said he was very proud the legislation was passed by the assembly.

"Gay and lesbian couples in the ACT will now be able to affirm their relationship before friends and families and gain legal recognition of their partnership," he said.

Legal legitimacy would give same-sex couples increased access to superannuation, taxation and social security law reforms that heterosexual couples took for granted, Mr Corbell said.

"Although we have been unable to provide gay and lesbian couples the opportunity to affirm their relationship in a legally-recognised public ceremony, this is a historic moment on the inevitable path towards removing discrimination."

[jw]

NY: Editorial--"N.Y. lawmakers must resolve same-sex marriage question"

Link: Rochester Democrat and Chronicle

The state Court of Appeals has tossed the volatile issue of same-sex marriage back to the lower courts and, consequently, to Monroe County, which now must decide whether to continue an increasingly costly legal fight.

Until the state's highest court decides, there will be no definitive clarity on the question whether local governments, under existing law, must recognize same-sex marriages, which are only allowed in a few states or countries.

But the real battleground for this issue should be the state Legislature, which eventually must decide not only how to deal with same-sex unions but also whether to accept what other governments have done on the issue. Until that happens, the onus will fall on local governments and aggrieved citizens to interpret conflicting law and practice.

In this instance, the county declined to grant spousal benefits to the female partner of a woman employed at Monroe Community College. The county has reasonably argued that it followed state law, which doesn't recognize same-sex marriages. The couple said that position abandons a long-standing practice in New York to accept valid marriages conducted in other states or countries.

Lawmakers who temporize on an issue usually don't get much sympathy from this page. But this obviously is a difficult matter involving religion and morality as well as fairness and tolerance.

Other states wanting either to ban or allow same-sex marriages have sought a public vote, and that may well be the path for New York.
But it's important for Gov. Paterson and the Legislature to forge their own course and not wait for the courts to dictate play.

As often happens, indecision at the top causes grief down the line. Monroe County and the two plaintiffs in this case are carrying a weight that the Legislature thus far has declined to lift.

[jw]

RI: No votes taken on marriage bills

Link: The Providence Journal

Excerpt:

Jenn Steinfeld celebrated an anniversary of sorts in a crowded committee room at the State House last night.

For the 10th year running, the executive director of Marriage Equality RI testified in support of same-sex marriage.

Change, she said, takes time. But ultimately, it is inevitable.

In what may be a sign of changing times, the perennial legislative debate over gay marriage saw a new addition last night: the question of whether same-sex couples married in other states should be allowed to divorce in Rhode Island.

Sponsored by House Majority Leader and Providence Democrat Gordon D. Fox, an openly gay man, that proposal would do what the Supreme Court elected not to in a decision late last year –– allow couples to opt out of an unhappy marriage.

“Divorce can be a more fundamental principle than marriage because it has to do with the due process that’s the bedrock of American jurisprudence,” Fox said before the hearing. Prohibiting it effectively denies “a fundamental principle of democracy.”

The passionate testimony before the House Judiciary Committee late last night came hours before another critical proceeding in the same-sex divorce debate. This morning, the state Superior Court is expected to hold a hearing to determine whether that court can grant a divorce to a Providence couple who were married in Massachusetts.

[...]

By 10:30 last night, the committee had taken testimony from dozens in the audience, with more lined up waiting to speak despite the late hour. Chairman Donald J. Lally Jr., D-Narragansett, said members did not plan to immediately vote on any of the bills.

The fate of these proposals remains unclear. House Speaker William J. Murphy and Senate President Joseph A. Montalbano have in the past opposed same-sex marriage along with Governor Carcieri, whose administration reiterated his opposition yesterday.

A Murphy spokesman said the speaker has not yet reviewed the same-sex divorce legislation.

But Fox, his second in command, said he remains optimistic about his bill. “I hope to get it to the floor and hopefully to the Senate,” he said.

[jw]

Dan Savage: How Do You Stop an Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment?

Link: Slog | The Stranger
by Dan Savage

By asking straight people to sacrifice something to protect the sacred sanctity of the institution of marriage.

Earlier this week the state legislature in Pennsylvania was preparing to place an anti-gay marriage amendment to the Pennsylvania state constitution before voters in that state. Then a state senator, Vincent Fumo (D-Philadelphia), introduced an amendment-to-the-amendment that wound up sinking PA’s proposed anti-gay marriage amendment.

His amendment would “outlaw the dissolution of most marriages in Pennsylvania,” he said in a news release. That would mean there would be few legal ways for the divorce of a married couple, a man and a woman.

Mr. Fumo, who leaves the Senate on Nov. 30, said the stated goal of Senate Bill 1250 is to “protect the sanctity of the marital institution” by defining a legal marriage as only between one man and one woman.

The next logical step, according to Mr. Fumo, is to also outlaw divorces…

The state senate in Pennsylvania is controlled by Republicans, and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazzette reports that Fumo’s amendment didn’t have a chance. But Fumo’s amendment would have to be debated, and PA’s family values crusaders didn’t want to engage in a debate about divorce—currently a purely heterosexual institution in PA—and how straight divorce undermines the totally sacred sanctity of the institution of marriage. It’s way easier for sanctimonious lawmakers to point their ring fingers at same-sex marriage, which is currently illegal in PA (if not unconstitutional), and blame people that have done no harm to the sacred sanctity of the institution of marriage for all the damage done by heterosexuals.

You know, folks behind anti-gay marriage amendments like to accuse gay people of seeking to “redefine marriage.” But, as I wrote in The Commitment, it’s actually straight people that have redefined marriage (mostly in good ways—women are no longer property, for instance). But here’s another straight redefinition of marriage to add to the list: An institution that most straight people weren’t interested in defending until one day they realized they might have to share it.

[jw]

R.I. lawmakers to hear testimony on marriage, divorce for same-sex couples

Link: Boston Globe

Excerpt:

House lawmakers plan to debate two bills that would allow gay couples legally united elsewhere to divorce in Rhode Island courts.

The House Judiciary Committee was scheduled to hear testimony Wednesday on several bills related to gay unions, including a divorce proposal backed by the Democratic majority leader. A vote is not expected.

Lawmakers filed the divorce bill after Rhode Island's Supreme Court ruled in December that a lesbian couple married in Massachusetts cannot divorce in Rhode Island, where they live. Massachusetts is the only state to legalize gay marriage.

[...]

[jw]

Pa. Senate tables bill on marriage, civil unions ban [with update]

Link: AP via The News Journal

Excerpt:

The state Senate has tabled a measure that would amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Michael Brubaker, R-Lancaster, told colleagues on the Senate floor today that the bill faces long odds in the House.

Proponents of the amendment say writing the ban into the constitution will prevent a judge from overturning the law or opening the door to civil unions between gays and lesbians.

[...]

UPDATE: More, from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Same-sex marriage ban likely dead in Pa. Senate

A bill that would amend the state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage is in a deep coma and is probably dead, at least for the rest of this session.

Faced with staunch opposition to the measure in the Democrat-controlled House, the main sponsor, Sen. Michael Brubaker, R-Lancaster, asked the Senate last evening to table the bill indefinitely, and it agreed.

[...]

But Mr. Brubaker said last evening he'd learned the bill, if it did get through the Senate, would be sent to the House State Government Committee, where it likely wouldn't be acted on anytime soon. That panel is chaired by Rep. Babette Josephs, D-Philadelphia, who strongly opposed putting a ban on same-sex marriage into the constitution. Democrats control the House by a slim margin of 102-101.

Ms. Josephs was one of the speakers at a loud rally Monday in the Capitol rotunda, where Senate Bill 1250 was denounced as "discriminatory, disgraceful, morally wrong and unnecessary."

Mr. Brubaker denied those claims and said his bill was not a biased attack on gays and lesbians. He said that all the bill did was to make it clear that Pennsylvania believed that the only type of marriage that would be publicly and legally recognized was the joining of one man and one woman.

To amend the constitution, a bill must be approved in two different sessions of the Legislature and then be approved in a statewide referendum. Mr. Brubaker said that if state voters didn't like his bill, they could vote it down in the referendum, but he said they deserve a chance to vote.

He said that if Pennsylvania is going to change the definition of marriage, to include such things as the union of two women or two men, "It should be (done by) the people of Pennsylvania, not the courts."

He said he hopes House members eventually will decide "that they desire a healthy, productive, civil debate" on the bill.

He said the bill isn't bigoted, as some critics have charged.

"Marriage between one man and one woman is what we've had for the history of our commonwealth," he said.

"I have a healthy respect for the homosexual community. I have a healthy respect for heterosexuals. I have a deep respect for the institution of marriage. I am standing for marriage. I am not standing against any individual sector of our society."

Senators had been facing a long evening, with as many as 14 amendments to the bill ready for debate.

One of them was by Sen. Vincent Fumo, D-Philadelphia, an outspoken opponent of the bill. He said that if the intent of the bill was to "protect the sanctity of the marital institution," then divorce should be outlawed, except in a few cases where one spouse was physically violent to the other, deserted the other or where one spouse was a bigamist.

Because Republicans control the Senate, there is virtually no chance that Mr. Fumo's radical amendment would ever pass. But it would have given Mr. Fumo a chance to rail against the bill for, as he put it, "taking away the rights of some citizens based on their sexual orientation."

 

[jw]

MA: Catholic Action League raps Knights of Columbus leadership for failing to suspend politicians who voted for marriage access

Link: Catholic World News

Excerpt:

The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts has criticized state leaders of the Knights of Columbus for refusing to allow a vote at their annual convention on a measure that would have required suspension of the membership of politicians who support abortion or same-sex marriage. 

[...]

Two-thirds of K of C members who serve in the Massachusetts legislature recently voted in favor or a proposal to expand "buffer zones" outside abortion clinics, while more than three-quarters voted against a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage. 

Supreme Advocate Paul Devin, who was attending the Massachusetts convention, ruled the measure "unconstitutional." The Catholic Action League called the ruling "a disgraceful example of the disconnect between rhetoric and policy when it comes to the Knights of Columbus and Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life and the integrity of marriage."

[jw]

PA: Marriage ban moves to full Senate

Link: PennLive.com

Excerpt:

Sen. Vincent Fumo, D-Philadelphia, said, "When the basic human rights are threatened then no one's rights are safe" during a rally against Senate Bill 1250 at the Capitol Rotunda Monday afternoon. (Christine Baker, The Patriot-News)

 

The Pennsylvania Senate is expected to vote Wednesday on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

The Appropriations Committee voted 18-8 today to move the bill to the Senate for a vote. The bill seeks to add to the state Constitution these words: "No union other than a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage or the functional equivalent of marriage by the commonwealth."

Pennsylvania already has a law barring gay marriage, but some lawmakers say it needs to be strengthened with a constitutional amendment. Sen. John Gordner, R-Columbia, said at the committee meeting, the words "functional equivalent of marriage" are needed in Senate Bill 1250 "to prevent something that would be civil unions."

Following the committee meeting, a boisterous crowd of opponents gathered in the Capitol Rotunda for a rally and chanted "Stop this bill."

[...]

If it gains Senate approval, the measure will go to to the House for approval. It would then need the House's and Senate's blessing again in the next legislative session before it could go to the voters for ratification.

[jw]

MD: Marriage at standstill

Link: Baltimore Sun

Excerpt:

Gay and lesbian activists thought they had a friend in Martin O'Malley.

As a progressive mayor in Baltimore, O'Malley attended gay pride parades and signed into law a measure to protect transgender people from discrimination. When he ran for governor, he said he supported civil unions and wanted to extend benefits to same-sex partners of state employees, as he had done for city workers.

But two years into O'Malley's first term in Annapolis, neither has happened. He largely stayed out of the debate over legal recognition for same-sex unions that fizzled in the General Assembly, and aides say his financially strapped administration probably won't grant benefits for at least another year.

The lack of momentum for gay rights in the State House is the latest disappointment for activists after a lawsuit to force the legalization of same-sex marriage failed in state courts. While O'Malley's allies say he has done as much as he can in the face of significant hurdles, activists say they feel sidelined.

"There's just not a lot to be enthusiastic about, because the governor hasn't done much to help us move forward," said Dan Furmansky, director of Equality Maryland, a leading gay rights group. "Why did the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community work so hard to elect this person? What do we have to show for it at this point?"

The fits and starts of gay rights in Maryland reflect what has happened nationally. Four years after Massachusetts became the first state to allow same-sex marriage, no other state has followed suit, and only a handful offer civil unions, an institution that dissatisfies many activists who consider it separate but unequal.

O'Malley plans to sign two bills this month that would grant same-sex couples some rights of married couples, including the ability to visit each other in the hospital and an exemption from certain property taxes.

Spokesman Rick Abbruzzese said the governor would revisit proposals concerning other benefits and protections, and that he is willing to work with the legislature on civil unions.

"We didn't accomplish everything that we wanted to do," Abbruzzese said. "And there's a conversation that needs to continue on civil unions, but the reality is, a marriage bill will not pass through the Maryland General Assembly."

[...]

But Senate Minority Leader David R. Brinkley, a Republican representing Carroll and Frederick counties, said inaction on gay rights measures in Maryland reflects the public's greater interest in other issues such as the flagging economy and education. He opposes same-sex unions as institutions that undermine traditional marriage.

"You have this group that's shrieking from rooftops that they need these rights, and everyone else is just trying to maintain their households," Brinkley said. "It just doesn't resonate. I don't see fire hoses and dogs being turned on gay activists. That, to me, is not a civil rights problem."

[...]

Robyn S. Zeiger, a professor at the university, said she and her partner of 25 years have paid escalating amounts for her to be privately insured. "I'm really tired of hearing it's about the budget because civil rights transcend money, and I hope O'Malley does the right thing," Zeiger said.

Providing the benefits to all state employees would cost about $3 million a year, according to legislative analysts.

Abbruzzese said action by the governor to grant the benefits would have been unnecessary had legislation recognizing same-sex unions passed during the session. He said it is too late now for money to be set aside for the benefits in the next fiscal year

[...]

It is also unclear whether activists can build enough support for legislation recognizing civil unions or same-sex marriage. Many say the biggest obstacle would be the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, where some had hoped that Sen. C. Anthony Muse, a Prince George's County Democrat and evangelical Christian bishop, would provide the key vote for such legislation this year. He did not.

"I would like to see civil unions, and we've got one vote in the Senate to change, and that's it," said Del. Maggie L. McIntosh, a Baltimore Democrat who is openly gay. "But it's going to be hard to push for civil marriage in the next two years. You can't just get people to roll easily on these votes."

[jw]

Australia: ACT [Australian Capital Territory] plan for marriages thwarted

Link: Sydney Morning Herald

Excerpt:

IN DECEMBER, Kevin Rudd gave hope to gay and lesbian couples by indicating he would not use Commonwealth powers to override same-sex marriage laws passed by states and territories, as the Howard government did.

"On these matters, state and territories are answerable to their own jurisdictions. State and territory governments are elected to govern, they are accountable to their constituents," Mr Rudd said then.

Yesterday those hopes were snuffed out when the ACT Labor Government abandoned plans that amounted to gay marriage after the Rudd Government said they would be overridden.

The ACT Attorney-General, Simon Corbell, said the territory had been going to legally recognise same-sex civil union ceremonies but had been advised by the Commonwealth that this resembled gay marriage and would be overturned.

The laws were to be similar to those the territory passed in its 2006 Civil Partnerships Bill that were disallowed by the Howard government.

"Given the stubborn refusal of the Federal Government to consider any compromise, the territory has decided to amend its legislation to provide for a form of civil partnerships without ceremony," Mr Corbell said.

"This will allow gay and lesbian couples in Canberra to legally formalise their relationships and unequivocally demonstrate their legal status so as to access Commonwealth superannuation, taxation and social security law reforms."

[...]

[jw]

NJ Becomes 2nd State To Mandate Paid Family Leave For Gay Partners

Link: 365Gay.com

Excerpt:

New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D) Friday signed broad legislation that mandates paid family leave for same-sex partners - making the state the second after California to have such a law.

Under the New Jersey law, workers can apply for up to six weeks off to care for a newborn or newly adopted child, or a sick parent, child, spouse or partner, and collect up to two-thirds of their pay, up to a maximum of $524 a week.

The new law explicitly includes married spouses, as well as civil union partners under the Civil Union Act enacted in December 2006, and domestic partners through the Domestic Partnership Act enacted in January 2004. 

Today, same-sex couples in New Jersey have the option only of entering civil unions, not domestic partnerships and not marriage, yet. Same-sex couples who entered domestic partnerships before the Civil Union Act, who have not subsequently entered into civil unions, remain in domestic partnerships under state law. 

Washington State, the only other U.S. state besides California and New Jersey with paid family leave, covers paid leave only to care for children. Massachusetts, which has marriage equality, does not have a paid family leave law. 

Since 1993, unpaid family leave has been the law nationally, mandating 12 weeks to care for a newborn or newly adopted child, or a sick parent, child or spouse, but not same-sex partners, which federal law does not recognize. 

"This new law is the latest indication that our state is ready to give same-sex couples the freedom to marry," said Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality. 

[...]

[jw]

VT: Editorial--Gay Marriage Report

Link: WPTZ Plattsburgh

Excerpt:

It seemed a pretty sure bet.

Vermont's commission on same-sex marriage was going to go around the state, listen to folks who believed the state should have same-sex marriage, and then issue a report saying that's exactly what ought to happen.

Surprise. It didn't.

What did happen is that the commission delivered an open-minded, thoughtful and objective report. Strong feelings about keeping Vermont's Civil Unions policies in place and equally strong feelings about the need to make marriage the law in the state were both given voice.

We're pleased to see that. We think discussion and dialogue are important.

Evidently Governor Jim Douglas doesn't. The Governor said he thought---quote---"it's not in the state's best interest to reopen these wounds."

We disagree. We think talking about issues is healthy, not harmful.

We hope the Governor will re-think his stance and be as open-minded and thoughtful as the commission.

[...]

Aired by President/General Manager, Paul A. Sands

[jw]

Arizona Anti-Marriage Amendment Still Held In the House

Link: Box Turtle Bulletin
by Jim Burroway

As we reported earlier, the Arizona House of Representatives has not yet formally passed the proposed anti-marriage constitutional amendment. The measure requires approval from the House and the Senate before it can be sent on to the voters.

At issue is what exactly the proposed amendment would ban. The new proposal reads, “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.” Opponents say that the word “union” could be applied to more than just marriage, opening up the state to lawsuits over domestic partnerships.

Peter Gentala, general council for the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP, Focus On the Family’s official state policy council for Arizona), said proponents have no plans to target domestic partnerships with this new effort. Lambda Legal warns however that a similar measure in California resulted in years of litigation there, and that CAP used the language of Arizona’s current law to argue against the state expanding benefits to domestic partners in Arizona.

The measure has been placed on the House calender every day since last week’s preliminary approval, and every day the delay has been delayed. This means there is still time to let your representative know what you think about the proposal.

Remember: there are two representatives for each legislative district. If you don’t know who your representatives are, the Equality Arizona web site can find them for you and provide you with their phone numbers and contact information. You can call then directly, or you can even send a message via Equality Arizona.

[jw]

CA: Marriage fight casts shadow on Senate race

Link: The Bay Area Reporter Online

Excerpt:

The likelihood that California will be convulsed by another fight over same-sex marriage at the polls in November is casting a shadow on the heated Senate race between two of the state's most powerful gay lawmakers. 

Now that anti-gay groups are claiming they have collected enough signatures to place a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the ballot this fall, the question arises who is better suited to lead the fight to defeat it: state Senator Carole Migden or Assemblyman Mark Leno?

And the rematch over the issue – voters once before passed a ban on gay marriage in the March 7, 2000 primary – is dredging up Leno's and Migden's involvement in what was then known as the No on Knight campaign against Proposition 22, pushed by the late Republican state Senator Pete Knight.

The two out San Francisco Democrats are vying for Migden's 3rd District Senate seat in the June 3 primary along with former Marin Assemblyman Joe Nation. While both Migden and Leno will continue to serve in the Legislature through the fall, should either of them win the Senate race that person will be expected to lead the fight against the marriage measure.

In interviews with the Bay Area Reporter , all three lawmakers vowed to do everything they could to defeat the marriage ban. 

Migden said she would do "everything" to defeat it. 

"I'll rally, raise money," she said.

Nation, a co-sponsor of the pro-gay marriage legislation Leno introduced when he was in the Assembly in 2004, also pledged to fight alongside the LGBT community should he be elected. 

"I will raise money, walk precincts, speak out against it and do everything I could possibly do," said Nation. "It is a fundamental basic civil right people should have."

Leno said this week that he has already contacted Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California and a leader of Equality for All, the coalition of statewide groups formed to defeat the initiative, to offer his support. 

"Once I get past June 3 my focus will be on defeating the constitutional amendment," said Leno. "I would be honored to travel the state and speak on behalf of marriage equality."

Leno also said that should the state Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage, he would use a legislative maneuver to "gut and amend" a bill already introduced to the Legislature to revive his marriage bill. The court is expected to issue its ruling in the consolidated same-sex marriage lawsuit by June 3.

[...]

Continue reading this long item on the BAR site.

[jw]

Australia: Gay reforms 'will help'

Link: Sunshine Coast Daily

Kristen Turley and Holly Kercheval with their little boy Indi are pleased the government is proposing changes to legislation regarding same sex couples.
Photo: Michaela O'Neill

 

Indi, soon to turn six, could not ask for better parents than his two Eumundi mums, Kristen Turley and Holly Kercheval.

And the couple hopes that more people will come to realise that, as the federal government propose law changes to effectively recognise same-sex relationships.

Holly has been in Indi’s life since he was 25 weeks old, and despite many obstacles the trio has become a tight family unit, one they are considering adding to sometime in the future – which is why they are excited about the proposed legislation changes.

“It’s very much welcomed and it’s been a long time coming,” Kristen said. “I think it could really help with the discrimination we face in our everyday lives, even just down at the playground.

“They could really help to widen the community’s perspective on families and what constitutes a family.

“This issue also faces the youth of today and this will hopefully promote more positive changes for the future. So I think it could help teenagers feel more comfortable and accepting of one another.’’

While Kirsten feels the government’s recognition is a step in the right direction, she cannot understand why it has stopped at legalising same-sex unions.

“We just want equality on all levels,” she said. “I just can’t see how they acknowledge all of this and not marriage.’’

[jw]

Australia: Clock ticking on same-sex laws

Link: The Canberra Times

Excerpt:

The ACT [Australian Capital Territory] is on an imminent collision course with the Federal Government over same-sex unions.

The Rudd Government is set to emulate the Howard government and override or disallow ACT legislation, unless talks in the next 48 hours reach a compromise.

The Federal Government yesterday unveiled plans to fulfil election commitments to amend about 100 laws to ensure superannuation, taxation and social-security rights for same-sex partners.

However, it remained intransigent on ACT plans to institute ceremonies formally recognising same-sex unions, declaring they "mimicked marriage". It also maintained opposition to gay and lesbian couples having access to IVF and adoption.

ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell announced yesterday a substantial compromise, offering to remove a state-sanctioned official from the ceremonies, to be replaced by authorised witnesses.

This is expected to be a critical bargaining chip in his discussions today or tomorrow with his federal counterpart, Robert McClelland.

It is understood that the Federal Government has not wanted any mention of any ceremony in the legislation, mirroring the previous government's position, and virtually gutting the legislation.

Former Attorney-General Philip Ruddock and former Territories Minister Jim Lloyd advised the Governor-General to disallow the ACT Civil Unions Bill, provoking the ACT's Gary Humphries to become the only Liberal senator to cross the floor and vote against the Howard government.

Mr Corbell made clear yesterday that he intended to re-introduce the legislation - with or without federal agreement - before October's ACT election.

[...]

[jw]

Australia: Opinion--Same sex must mean same rights

Link: The Age
by Rodney Croome

Excerpt:

Imagine risking your life for your country in the armed services, only to discover that if you die your partner will receive no compensation or pension? Imagine not being able to fully provide for your partner after your death because you are not permitted to name him or her as the beneficiary of your superannuation?

Imagine needing to place your partner in aged care only to discover that because you're not officially a couple, and your home isn't exempt from the assets test, you'll have to sell the place where you live to pay the fees? This is the world of financial disadvantage and insecurity that Australia's same-sex couples inhabit.

Not all of us suffer this level of trauma, but the extent of discrimination across tax, health care, workplace entitlements and social security means none of us escape it.

Take the Medicare rebate: same-sex partners and their children must outlay much more on medical fees to qualify for it because they are not considered a family unit. This is also the case with workplace entitlements such as carer's leave and maternity leave. In more than 100 areas of federal law, imposts like this add up to what is effectively a tax on loving someone of the same sex. This discrimination also adversely affects the many thousands of Australian children cared for by same-sex couples. Their families are not only worse off financially but are treated by the law as if they do not exist. But thanks to yesterday's pledge by the Federal Government to a timetable for removing discrimination against same-sex de facto couples in federal law, this financial disadvantage and legal invisibility will soon be just a memory.

[...]

Naturally the recognition of same-sex de facto couples raises the issue of same-sex marriage, a reform both major parties oppose. Six countries, including Catholic Spain, allow same-sex couples to marry. Many more allow civil unions, including our neighbour New Zealand and several Eastern European and South American countries. Australians are already entering civil unions in Tasmania, and will do so in Victoria later this year.

Yet the Federal Government refuses to recognise overseas unions, enact a national scheme or allow the ACT to have its own civil partnerships scheme. Same-sex couples who have solemnised their unions overseas, or want to do the same here, are left wondering why an official declaration of love and commitment is so hard for the Federal Government to countenance.

They are rightly exasperated by the Government's failure to justify continued discrimination in marriage beyond declaring "that's the way it's always been". Slavery and denying women the vote were also hallowed traditions until fairness prevailed. Indeed, in centuries past the second-class status of blacks and women was sealed by laws that denied them the right to marry the partner of their choice in much the same way same-sex partners are denied that right today.

But debate on equal marriage should not be allowed to overshadow the changes now being proposed. This is because there are important details yet to be resolved. For example, will same-sex couples involved in property or custody disputes have access to the federal Family Court? This has been opposed by some religious groups. But it is preferable to the current situation, with same-sex partners and their children relegated to more expensive and less user-friendly state Supreme Courts. Will the Federal Government give full and equal recognition to partners who are in Tasmanian and Victorian civil unions? Tasmanian registered partners are automatically granted the same rights as married couples in state law, and civil union status when they travel to countries such as Britain, yet they have no standing in Australian national law.

[...]

The urgency of this reform is too great to be jeopardised by quibbling and mean-spiritedness. Unqualified bipartisanship will send out an important anti-discrimination message, a message that Australians are desperate to hear because it will echo what they already feel.

A decade ago I was a criminal in my home state of Tasmania because I was in a same-sex relationship. Now my same-sex relationship is about to have near-equal entitlements at a state and national level. For all that remains undone and unresolved, that is an important achievement of which all Australians can be proud.

 

Rodney Croome is a spokesman for the Australian Coalition for Equality.

[jw]

PA: Backers, foes of marriage equality collide at legislative hearing

Link: Post-Gazette

Excerpt:

Lawyers, religious leaders and advocates for gays and lesbians faced off yesterday in one of the most contentious and highly charged Senate Appropriations Committee hearings in recent history.

At issue is a proposal to strengthen the state's ban on gay marriage with a constitutional amendment and a provision preventing other kinds of unions that are functionally equivalent to marriage.

Proponents of the measure invoked Bible passages while opponents cried discrimination and attorneys on both sides argued over whether a constitutional amendment is necessary when Pennsylvania already has a statute prohibiting same-sex marriage.

The hearing turned at times into a verbal sparring match between Sen. Vince Fumo, D-Philadelphia, and various advocates for the amendment who argued that homosexuality is immoral and that government should encourage relationships that involve procreation. They said same-sex unions would undermine God's plan and cause traditional marriage to become undervalued and obsolete.

Mr. Fumo railed back, calling those arguments ignorant.

"If two homosexuals are allowed to get married, is that going to affect your marriage? Your marriage is that weak you're going to get a divorce over that?" he said to Philadelphian James Horn, a father of eight who testified in favor of the constitutional amendment.

Mr. Horn had said that "changing the meaning of marriage will further discourage men and women from marrying. ... If we leave the door open to change the meaning of marriage and lessen the special place a husband and wife hold in our society, we are saying it is even less important for men and women to be responsible to each other and their children."

The Rev. Riess Potterveld, president of Lancaster Theological Seminary, said gay people have long been subject to discrimination and recriminations and should not be subject to further prejudice and polarization that would be brought by the proposed constitutional amendment.

Scott Hollander, executive director of KidsVoice, said his board members are divided on the gay marriage issue but unanimous in opposing the language banning "the functional equivalent of marriage." Under that language, children placed with unmarried foster parents could be denied health insurance through domestic-partner benefit programs and could face hurdles if those foster families want to adopt them, he said.

"They could lose many of the benefits they currently enjoy," said Mr. Hollander, whose group serves abused and neglected children in Pittsburgh.

Sen. John Gordner, R-Columbia, said that hasn't been a widespread problem in states with similar bans.

[...]

The Appropriations Committee is expected to vote on the amendment next week. The issue was before the committee because of the estimated $2 million cost of advertising required as part of the constitutional amendment process, although cost was mentioned only once during the three-hour hearing.

Amending the constitution requires lawmakers' approval during two separate legislative sessions and approval by voters in a referendum.

Proponents say voters should have their say, but opponents say the constitution was put in place to protect the rights of the minority and that the proposed amendment would restrict those rights.

"The majority of people in Germany did not accept Jews. Does that make it right that they exterminated them?" Mr. Fumo asked. "If you allow the tyranny of the majority to prevail, then no one is safe."

Committee approval would send the bill to the floor for a vote by the Republican-controlled Senate. If it passes there, it is unlikely Democrats, who control the House, would give it a hearing this session, and GOP House members are focused on other issues, like tax reform, Republican Leader Sam Smith told the Pennsylvania Press Club on Monday.

[jw]

NY: Activists push for marriage bill

Link: Elmira Star-Gazette

Excerpt:

More than 2,000 gay-rights activists gathered at the Capitol today to urge the legislature to legalize same-sex marriage.

The group of young and old, black and white, male and female straight and gay people from across the state gathered on the Capitol lawn, some dancing and others waving signs. Everyone was cheering for same-sex marriage.

Alan Van Capelle, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, told the crowd that the majority of New Yorkers support gay marriage. Now the legislature has catch up.

"New Yorkers don't care about these issues,'' he said. "They have a good live and let live attitude."

Last year the Assembly passed a bill to allow same-sex marriage, but it was never considered by the Senate.

If senators do not vote for the legislation "we're going to find new legislators to sit in their seats," Van Capelle said, threatening to work to defeat incumbents this fall.

Sen. Tom Duane, D-Manhattan, sponsor of same-sex marriage bill that is pending in the Senate, said he is confident the bill will be voted on and passed eventually.

"I believe that marriage is a when, not an if, but I'm impatient and so is the LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, Transgender] community," said Duane, who is the Senate's only openly gay member.

"Even though the members of the Republican conference are doing everything they can to appeal in an insider way to conservatives, in fact their constituents believe they are socially moderate, so voting no would destroy that veneer."

The bill is important to pass because "it means that all families will be treated equally in New York State and full civil rights means marriage equality and marriage equality means full civil rights," he said.

There are more than 50,000 same-sex couples - about one percent of all couples -- living in the state with about 20 percent of those couples raising children, according to a report by the Williams Institute, a research organization at the University of Southern California. In 2005, there were an estimated 592,337 gay, lesbian and bi-sexual people living in the state, according to the report.

[...]

As of 2005, an estimated 7 percent, or 7,042, of the adopted children in the state live with same-sex couples, according to the Williams Institute report.

[jw]

PA: Seminary chief--Same-sex union ban a 'step back'

Link: LancasterOnline.com

Excerpt:

Civil-rights attorneys, theologians and moms and dads on both sides of the gay-marriage debate clashed again in Harrisburg today as a state Senate panel heard a third round of testimony on a proposal to ban same-sex unions in the constitution.

"Clearly, what is proposed in Senate Bill 1250 is a step backward into language of denial, devaluing, delegitimizing and in its simple wording, in my opinion, conceals a wellspring of toxic and prejudicial feeling," testified Riess W. Potterveld, president of Lancaster Theological Seminary. 

"The text is not neutral but rather agressive in its language of invalidation. This would be a step back into what I will call 'worst public practices'; because it is essentially about the restriction of rights, the enforcement of inquality without any basis other than fear, prejudice and hostility," he said, according to prepared remarks provided to the New Era. 

"...To be honest, I cannot think of one good thing that would come from passage of this amendment; my hope is that reason will prevail and that the measure will be defeated," said Potterveld, the only local speaker.

[...]

A similar proposal backed by Republican Rep. Scott Boyd of West Lampeter Township, however, stalled in 2006. The House and Senate — both controlled by Republicans at the time — passed conflicting versions of an amendment and could not resolve their dispute, which centered on whether it also should apply to civil unions. 

While Republicans still control the Senate, they are in the minority in the House. It is unclear whether Democrats are willing to take up such a proposal in an election year. 

"There are several factors intervening here," said Armstrong. "One, obviously, is the governor." 

In 2006, Gov. Ed Rendell called Boyd's bill "mean spirited," "horrible" and a "total waste of time." Though the bill would not require the governor's signature for the question to be placed on the ballot, Rendell could use his influence to spike the proposal. 

"Let's face it, this governor clearly has influence on every issue. He doesn't win them all, but he's a player," said Atkinson. "He's someone who is not reluctant to weigh in." 

Armstrong said Rep. Bill DeWeese, the House majority leader, must decide whether the bill gets a vote anytime soon. 

"How it plays in his district decides whether this is brought up or not. I think he may be inclined to bring it up; however, his caucus may not. Obviously he has to keep his caucus happy or he wouldn't be majority leader," he said.

[...]

[jw]

Australia: Government excludes marriage from law changes

Link: ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Excerpt:

The Australian Coalition for Equality says discrimination will not be eliminated until same-sex couples are allowed to marry.
(File photo) (AAP: Sam Mooy)

 

The Federal Government says it will begin introducing legislation next month to remove same-sex discrimination from 100 Commonwealth laws.

The Government says the amendments to end discrimination against same-sex couples will make practical differences, but will not sanction changes to marriage laws.

The move will cover areas like superannuation, tax, health, employment entitlements and aged care.

But Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland says it will not extend to marriage.

"The government believes that marriage is between a man and a woman so it won't amend the marriage act," he said.

"But in all other areas that we've identified the issue of discrimination against same-sex couples will be removed."

"We anticipate that the reforms will be all introduced by the middle of 2009."

But Rodney Croome from the Australian Coalition for Equality says discrimination will not be eliminated until same-sex couples are allowed to marry.

"While this is a very important reform in itself and it'll certainly remove many of the more severe disadvantages faced by same sex couples in Australian today, it's not the end of the matter," he said.

"Until there's full equality in Australian law, for same and opposite sex couples, discrimination continues, prejudice continues and we can't allow that as a nation."

"Gay and lesbian Australians will not be fully equal until we are allowed the right to marry the partner of our choice."

[...]

[jw]

NY: Oyster Bay gay couple denied marriage license

Link: Newsday

Excerpt:

About five dozen people stood in a steady rain outside the Oyster Bay clerk's office yesterday, holding signs and chanting, "Let Dan and Lee Marry," as an East Hills gay couple applied for a marriage license.

Dan Pinello, 58, and Lee Nissensohn, 50, walked in at 3:30 p.m. and when they walked out nearly two hours later, they each had a ticket for trespassing.

The two men had been prepared to be arrested to make a point about the need for a law in New York that would allow same-sex marriage. But the couple relented and agreed beforehand with town officials to leave once they were ticketed.

"We are law-abiding citizens," said Pinello, a government professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. "We pay our taxes. We have no other choice left."

The goal of the couple's "act of civil disobedience" - as they called it - was to persuade Sen. Carl Marcellino (R-Syosset) to pressure State Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno (R-Brunswick) to take a bill that would allow same-sex marriage to the Senate floor for a vote.

A Marcellino spokeswoman has said the senator supports state law, which says marriage is between a man and a woman. Bruno has said he is against the bill.

The bill, which was co-sponsored by the couple's own senator, Craig Johnson (D-Port Washington), remains in the judiciary committee.

The men, who have been together for 13 years, refused to leave the building at closing time, 4:45 p.m., when three Nassau County police officers took them into a room and handed them appearance tickets.

Their supporters were mostly people who didn't know the couple. But the men had written them letters, asking for their support in lobbying their representatives.

Judith Alexanderson, who received one of the thousands of letters, said she was disappointed in Marcellino.

"The time has come - equal rights for everyone," said Alexanderson, a retired middle school teacher from Syosset. "Times have changed. You can't be stuck in your ways."

Pinello and Nissensohn said they were touched by the show of support.

"For strangers to show so much devotion, not only to us, but to our cause, is wonderful," said Pinello.

[...]

[jw]

PA: Talking to Sen. Brubaker about his marriage amendment

Link: LancasterOnline.com

Excerpt:

The week after state Sen. Mike Brubaker introduced legislation to limit marriage in Pennsylvania to unions of one man and one woman, he spoke to elementary school students about the importance of tolerance and acceptance of differences.

Some might see irony there, but Brubaker doesn't.

The senator said during a 45-minute one-on-one interview Thursday that his leadership on marriage isn't about self-righteousness or demagoguery and has nothing to do with religious ideology.

"I have not cited Bible verses in regard to this issue," he said. "If I were to recite a Bible verse, the only one is God says we should love all people, not just heterosexual people."

He said that at least 20 homosexual couples have had conversations with him about the bill and "they are concluding I am not a bigot.

"I know people who are homosexual, and I have friends who have children who are homosexual, and if you ask them, does Mike Brubaker have this prejudice against this community, if we can call it a community, they would say no," he said.

[...]

"I honestly believe he believes he's doing this for the right reason, but because he's ignorant of what it's like to be a same-sex couple; he's missing the perspective of what it means to be in a loving relationship with someone of the same sex," said Max Phillips, co-director of Rainbow Rose Community, who organized Sunday's rally.

While altering the state Constitution is the kind of act upon which a legislator establishes his legacy, not once has his office published a news release about the proposed amendment, not even when the Senate Judiciary Committee passed it 10-4 in March.

[...]

On Thursday, speaking in a measured voice, Brubaker often shifted his light blue eyes from the conference table to the wall while answering questions. Yet as the interview continued, he grew noticeably passionate, focusing his eyes more on the reporter, his previously folded hands waving in the air to emphasize points, the gold wedding band he's worn for 25 years reflecting the ceiling lights.

"I got in because I believe I need to be a voice of reason," he said about why he's leading the charge instead of leaving it to others. Brubaker said he was recruited to the task by rank-and-file senators, although he would not divulge who did the asking.

Brubaker said he shouldn't be grouped with those who believe homosexual marriage is a threat to traditional marriage, and he's adamant this is a wedge issue to drive conservative voters to the polls this November.

"My marriage is not threatened," Brubaker said. "My marriage is very secure." Saying same-sex marriage undermines traditional marriage is "not an argument that works for me," he added. Related Topics

When asked if he has a problem with gays and lesbians marrying, Brubaker only said: "I'm not opposed to the laws that we currently have, which permit two men and two women to co-habit. It is my preference that marriage be one man, one woman. Currently, homosexuals can go through a process that makes them domestic partnerships. I do not oppose that."

[...]

The proposed amendment faces a long and arduous journey to become law. Both chambers in the Legislature must pass identical language in consecutive two-year sessions, and then it goes to a voter referendum.

Same-sex couples currently cannot marry in Pennsylvania due to a 1996 state statute, but amendment supporters say language in the state Constitution would make the law vulnerable to a court challenge.

A hearing on the bill is scheduled at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday before the Senate Appropriations Committee, chaired by state Sen. Gibson E. Armstrong, who co-sponsored it.

Brubaker said he is confident the Republican-controlled Senate will pass the bill, but it faces resistance in the state House, controlled by Democrats.

[jw]

VT: A story of love but not marriage

Link: Barre Montpelier Times Argus

Excerpt:

Monique Signorat was not a person who spoke publicly too often – least of all about herself.

But on Nov. 17, 2007, she stood up among a crowd of more than 100 who gathered at Lyndon State College to testify before the Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection and told her story.

Signorat's story is also the story of Anne Marie Marano – a woman she met in graduate school nearly 30 years ago. They fell in love, moved to Vermont, were joined in a civil union in 2001, pooled their income and bought a house together.

Marano died in January 2007 after a seven-year battle with cancer, ending their 28-year romance.

"I was at her side when she died," Signorat told the crowd at the hearing last year. "I was holding her hand. For better and for worse. In sickness and in health. Till death did us part."
"Please," she added. "Call it what it is. Marriage."

Since July 2000, when the Vermont Legislature passed its landmark civil unions law, thousands of same-sex couples have come here to be legally joined in unions. But for many couples the law was a compromise on the further goal of expanding marriage rights to gays and lesbians.

[...]

Toward the end of her battle with cancer, Signorat quit working to stay home and care for her partner. Marano's father offered her a spot in the family grave plot, right next to her.

"I had a lot of casserole dinners left at my doorstep," she said.

It was not as simple with the federal government, which doesn't recognize civil unions. Signorat missed out on some survivor's benefits from her long relationship with Marano, but as far as the federal government was concerned she was just another person on a will.

"All the federal government sees are two single people," she said. "They don't know that this special thing happened between us. And that's real unfortunate."

Despite being in a committed relationship with Marano for 28 years, Signorat said she was mostly in the closet to many people, including co-workers at Turtle Island Children's Center and National Life Insurance Company in Montpelier.

Signorat surrounded herself with friends and family members when she spoke to the same-sex marriage panel last year. She had never spoken out publicly, in front of strangers, lawmakers and the media, about her relationship or the death of her partner.

But she knew what she had to say was more important than clinging to a sense of shyness.

"We had a marriage," Signorat said. "I don't know why we are calling it something different. Let's call it what it is."

[jw]

Scalia interview: "Laws change, values change"

Link: The Wall Street Journal

Excerpt:

While CBS had already released some of the best parts of tonight’s “60 Minutes” Lesley Stahl interview with Justice Scalia (see this prior post), they saved some good nuggets.

[...]

When Stahl asked Scalia whether he would acknowledge that values change and society adapts, he replied: “That’s fine. And so do laws change. Because values change, legislatures abolish the death penalty, permit same-sex marriage if they want, abolish laws against homosexual conduct. That’s how the change in a society occurs. Society doesn’t change through a Constitution.”

[...]

[km]

PA: Rally opposes 'marriage protection'

Link: LancasterOnline.com

Excerpt:

Those who oppose the "Marriage Protection Amendment" (Senate Bill 1250) will be given a chance to voice their concerns Sunday at a special rally.

The main focus of the event is to urge elected officials to vote no on SB 1250.

The rally will feature red postcards bearing the slogan "Equal Rights Include Marriage" that will be made available to sign.

The Marriage Equality Team plans to collect as many postcards as possible with the intent of delivering them to the Senate in Harrisburg.

The event will be held at Unitarian Universalist Church of Lancaster, 538 W. Chestnut St., from 2 to 4 p.m. Sunday.

The Marriage Protection Amendment, sponsored by state Sen. Mike Brubaker, would ban civil unions in Pennsylvania.

Critics say the bill would permit discrimination against gays and lesbians by adding an amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution that denies them marriage rights, civil unions or other equivalents to marriage.

Lancaster resident Amy Knox, 29, said she plans to attend the rally.

"My brother's gay, and I find the bill's language problematic," she said. "Why should he be denied life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? It's sick."

[...]

[km]

Arizona House Still Hasn't Scheduled Anti-Marriage Vote

Link: Box Turtle Bulletin
by Jim Burroway

There’s still time to contact your Arizona state representatives. The Arizona House has still not given its final approval to the proposed anti-marriage constitutional amendment (SCR 1041).

We reported that the Arizona House of Representatives brought the proposed anti-marriage constitutional amendment (SCR 1042) to the floor on Wednesday and that the final vote was expected to take place as soon as Thursday. Well, it didn’t happen, and last I heard the vote wasn’t expected to take place today either.

Please note: A lot of bloggers and out-of-state web sites are erroneously reporting that the House has approved the measure and it has gone on to the Senate. It hasn’t. The House has only given its preliminary approval to bring the bill to the floor. That means there’s still time for you to act.

Remember: there are two representatives for each legislative district. If you don’t know who your representatives are, the Equality Arizona web site can find them for you and provide you with their phone numbers and contact information. You can call then directly, or you can even send a message via Equality Arizona.

Please let your representatives know how much you appreciate their work in opposing this divisive and anti-family measure. And if they happen to not be working in your favor, please politely inform them of what they are doing to you and your family.

[jw]

Ford's Fate--Rep. Harold Ford Jr of Tennessee

Link: The Notion blog, The Nation

CORRECTION: This item is old material from 2006. Thanks to reader Matt for the heads-up.

Excerpt:

When it comes to winning back the Senate, Rep. Harold Ford Jr. of Tennessee is beginning to look li