NH House Defeats Marriage Equality Repeal Bill!

Great news from New Hampshire! Despite expectations that the Republican majority in the New Hampshire legislature would pass HB 437 to repeal that state's 2009 marriage equality law and that the fight would be over whether the heterosexual supremacists could override a promised veto from Democratic Governor John Lynch.

Instead, today the New Hampshire House voted 211-116 to defeat the bill, thus preserving the right of same-sex couples to receive civil marriage licenses in the Live Free or Die state.

The Washington Blade reports:

House bill 437, which would have prevented New Hampshire from recognizing any new same-sex marriages and revived the 2007 civil unions law in its place, was introduced last year by GOP Rep. Bates, along with 11 Republican co-sponsors. After the bill lost traction in the House last week, Bates introduced an amendment that would put a nonbinding question on the issue before voters in November, prior to the law’s official repeal date in March 2013, as well as have left intact the 2,000 existing same-sex marriages already recognized by the state, much like California’s post-Proposition 8 law that created, what advocates call 15,000 “limited edition” legally recognized same-sex marriages in that state. 

The floor amendment, meant to give the law a better chance of surviving a veto, failed to be adopted after a vote of 162-188, leaving the bill less likely to become law in the long run. 

After a failed first vote on returning to civil unions, the legislature voted to divide the combined civil unions-referendum amendment into separate issues, an effort that also failed on a vote of 128 to 222. 

[...] 

Countering the call for a ballot initiative, Rep. Steve Murphy (R- Bedford) declared, “The rights of the people are not subject to popular vote.”Earlier, the initial vote on the civil unions amendment — prior to the multiple votes to reconsider — failed on a vote of 82 to 266.

This is great news! It just goes to show the extent to which heterosexual supremacists like the National Organization for Marriage is losing the fight against marriage equality nationwide. NOM abandoned any pretense of principle and actually announced their support for the version of HB 437 which would have (re)enacted civil unions in New Hampshire, which is in direct contravention with public announcements they made against civil unions legislation in Illinois.

As I predicted earlier this year, in 2013 there will be more Americans living in jurisdictions where marriage equality is legal than there is right now, despite the efforts of NOM and other heterosexual supremacists to force ballot measures on these issues in Washington, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina and Maine.

President Jimmy Carter Endorses Marriage Equality

The 39th President of the United States, Jimmy Carter, has given an interview to Huffington Post where he explicitly endorses civil marriage equality for same-sex couples. Like our current President, Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (albeit well after his Presidency) and is a Christian, a Southern Baptist. The 87-year-old Carter is the author of dozens of books and his latest is a treatise attempting to answer difficult questions from a Biblical perspective.

Joe.My.God highlights the key responses Carter gives in the interview:

A lot of people point to the Bible for reasons why gay people should not be in the church, or accepted in any way. 

Homosexuality was well known in the ancient world, well before Christ was born and Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. In all of his teachings about multiple things -– he never said that gay people should be condemned. I personally think it is very fine for gay people to be married in civil ceremonies.[emphasis added] 

I draw the line, maybe arbitrarily, in requiring by law that churches must marry people. I’m a Baptist, and I believe that each congregation is autonomous and can govern its own affairs. So if a local Baptist church wants to accept gay members on an equal basis, which my church does by the way, then that is fine. If a church decides not to, then government laws shouldn’t require them to.

Unlike our current President, Carter is clearly not a graduate of Harvard Law or a constitutional law professor because it would be a very obvious violation of the First Amendment for any law to require a church to marry any individual or force a church to accept someone as a member.

Carter joins the 42nd President of the United States, Bill Clinton, as the only two living ex-presidents to endorse marriage equality. There are two other living ex-presidents, both with the surname Bush, but surprisingly(sic) they have not done the same. Clinton and Carter are Democrats...

Obama Campaign Opposes NC Anti-Gay Ballot Measure

President Obama visited North Carolina on Friday and his campaign issued a statement opposing the anti-gay ballot measure called Amendment One which voters will consider on the May 8 primary. As I have discussed here many times before, if passed by voters, Amendment One would have far reaching effects on all families in North Carolina, especially ones headed by same-sex couples, because it purports to only allow one kind of "domestic legal union" to be recognized by the state, and that "domestic legal union" must include a man and a woman. If the amendment were added to the state constitution, it would most definitely pass the legislative or judicial branches of government from enacting marriage equality, and would probably ban state recognition of any kind of same-sex domestic partnership. It's not clear if it would also repeal existing domestic partner statutes already existing in local jurisdictions around the state.

The text of Obama-Biden 2012's statement is:

"While the president does not weigh in on every single ballot measure in every state, the record is clear that the President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same sex couples," said Cameron French, his North Carolina campaign spokesman. "That’s what the North Carolina ballot initiative would do – it would single out and discriminate against committed gay and lesbian couples – and that’s why the President does not support it." 

The good news is that Obama's statement comes after other recent news about the fight against North Carolina's heterosexual supremacist Amendment One has intensified, and polling suggests a solid majority opposes the measure.

It is also very good news that the Obama camp has decided to explicitly oppose Amendment One, something LGBT activists have been asking for repeatedly.

It will be interesting to see as we get closer to the election of the campaign will take a position on any of the marriage referenda that will appear on the same ballot, in states like Washington, Maryland, Maine and Minnesota, all of which are likely to be blue states.

Denmark PM Sets Date Marriage Equality Legalized

Excellent news! As I blogged about last October, the Government of Denmark has announced that it will be enacting marriage equality in the near future, and today comes word that the date will be June 15th, 2012.

At her weekly press conference, Tuesday, Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt said the government is putting the finishing touches to a bill that will come into force on June 15th, allowing homosexuals and lesbians to walk down the aisle in the church of their choice – if they can find a priest who’s willing to conduct the ceremony.

“It will always be up to the individual priest as to whether he or she is prepared to bless gay couples but this legislation provides homosexuals with the same rights as heterosexuals,” said the PM.

Way back in 1989, Denmark was the very first country in the world to have state-sponsored recognition of same-sex couples when they enacted registered partnerships, which was essentially what we would now call civil unions or comprehensive domestic partnerships. Now, there are well over a half-dozen countries which have full marriage equality, led by the Netherlands in 2000 and followed by Canada, Argentina, South Africa, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Sweden and Norway.

Denmark is a European country of 5.5 million people, about the size of Minnesota or Wisconsin. When Maryland and Washington defend their marriage equality laws at the ballot box later this year, even more people (5.8 million and 6.8 million, respectively) will gain access to marriage equality.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Washington: Referendum 74 Final Language Set

You may recall that previously I commented about the draft language of Washington's Referendum 74, a ballot measure which seeks to overturn that state's recently enacted marriage equality law. The heterosexual supremacist Republican Attorney General Rob McKenna (who just happens to be running for Governor) had issued language which included the homophobic concept of "redefine marriage."

Happily, that original draft language was challenged and today new language was released which is more neutral:

Ballot TitleThe legislature passed Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6239 concerning marriage for same-sex couples, modified domestic-partnership law, and religious freedom, and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill. [10 words]
This bill would allow same-sex couples to marry, preserve domestic partnerships only for seniors, and preserve the right of clergy or religious organizations to refuse to perform, recognize, or accommodate any marriage ceremony. [30 words]
Ballot Measure SummaryThis bill allows same-sex couples to marry, applies marriage laws without regard to gender, and specifies that laws using gender-specific terms like husband and wife include same-sex spouses. After 2014, existing domestic partnerships are converted to marriages, except for seniors. It preserves the right of clergy or religious organizations to refuse to perform or recognize any marriage or accommodate wedding ceremonies. The bill does not affect licensing of religious organizations providing adoption, foster-care, or child-placement. [75 words]

This referendum will be one of four ballot measures involving marriage equality in November 2012. In Maine, Washington and Maryland if the voters vote YES (or APPROVE) they will be legalizing marriage equality. If they vote No they will be returning to the status quo (which is no marriage equality in those states, but comprehensive domestic partnerships in Washington). In Minnesota if the voters vote YES they will insert a ban on marriage equality in the state constitution while if they vote NO same-sex marriage will continue to be banned by statute.

Villaraigosa Supports Marriage Equality in 2012 Dem Platform

Antonio Villaraigosa, is Mayor of Los Angeles and
Chair of the 2012 Democratic National Convention

There is a campaign called "Democrats, Say I Do" organized by the Freedom to Marry to convince Democrats to include a marriage equality plank in the official platform of the 2012 Democratic National Convention, to be held in Charlotte, NC in August 2012. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a longtime LGBT ally has been named the Chair of the Democratic National Convention and recently announced that he supports the inclusion of the marriage equality plank.

The text of the language to be included is:

The Democratic Party supports the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation, with equal respect, responsibility, and protection under the law, including the freedom to marry. Government has no business putting barriers in the path of people seeking to care for their family members, particularly in challenging economic times. We support the Respect for Marriage Act and the overturning of the federal so-called "Defense of Marriage Act," and oppose discriminatory constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny the freedom to marry to loving and committed same-sex couples.

In addition to Mayor Villaraigosa (who also happens to be a co-chair of Mayors for the Freedom to Marry), the campaign to include the marriage equality plank in the 2012 Democratic platform now has the support of 22 Democratic U.S. Senators.

The 22 senators are Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), John Kerry (D-Mass.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)


If you don't see your Senator on the list you might want to contact them and ask why not?

POLL: NC Majority Opposes Anti-Gay Amendment

Well, well! There's a new poll from Elon University which indicates fairly substantial (and growing!) opposition to North Carolina's Amendment One, a measure which would likely ban state recognition of same-sex marriages and domestic partnerships if were to pass and be added to the state constitution on the May 8 primary election.
As depicted above, a total of 29.6% of respondents strongly oppose, and another 27.3% oppose the measure, giving a total of 56.9% which oppose denying state recognition of same-sex relationships. On the other side only 14.3% strongly support the measure, with another 20.7% supporting, for a total of 35.0% supporting it. These are very encouraging numbers for the forces promoting equality, and frankly somewhat surprising. The margin of error is ± 3.98 percentage points.
The umbrella organization fighting Amendment One is Protect All NC Families. Won't you support them by donating now? I did!

PPIC Poll Says 56% Of CA Likely Voters Support Marriage Equality

Wow! The good polling news on marriage equality just keeps on coming. As this is a presidential election year, it is not surprising that there is a lot of polling going on, and I suspect more and more polls will be including the marriage equality question. Just last week we heard from the Field Poll that 59% of Californians support marriage equality (compared to just 34% who do not), the largest lead (25 points) and highest level of support for same-sex marriage ever recorded in the state by the most trusted name in California polling.

The latest poll is from PPIC and says that 52% of registered voters support allowing same-sex marriage, compared to 41% who don't a margin of +11 for the supporters of equality, which is identical to what the PPIC poll showed last September. Of course the grain of salt here is that the margin of error of the PPIC poll is ±3.8 points, so technically we can not be sure that a majority of registered voters in California support marriage equality. We can however be sure that there are more supporters of marriage equality than people who oppose it.

PPIC also attempts to sample "likely voters," and among this group support for marriage equality is even higher, at 56% with a mere 38%expressing opposition. This is a margin of +18 for the forces for equality. The margin of error on this statistic is ±4.2 points, so this time, according to PPIC, a majority of Californians likely to vote in the June 2012 primary support marriage equality (see figure, below).

Equality California immediately sent out a statement about the new poll which included the graphic at the top of this post highlighting the improvement in the "likely voter" statistic on the question of marriage in the last 3 years.

This was a somewhat curious move, since no one in California is going to be voting on the question of marriage equality anytime soon, since there is no organized effort to put a Proposition 8 repeal measure on the November 2012 ballot due to the fact that the Perry v Brown litigation about the constitutionality of California's same-sex marriage ban is still tied up in the federal courts and is unlikely to be resolved before June 2013 (at the earliest!)

All that being said, two polls within two weeks indicating near-majority support for marriage equality and at the very least significant, double-digit leads for the pro-equality forces are very encouraging and good news!

POLL: Majority of Maine Voters Want Marriage Equality

Joe.My.God highlights a new Public Policy Polling poll of Maine voters which has very encouraging news for supporters of marriage equality. As you may recall, Maine is trying to become the first state in the history of the United States to enact marriage equality by a public vote of the people. In 2009, Maine voters rejected a referendum on a marriage equality law called Question 1 by a margin of 53% to 47%.

However, the new poll from PPP shows that Maine voters now support a law allowing "marriage licenses for same-sex couples that protects religious freedom by ensuring no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs" by a margin of 47% to 32% with 21% undecided.

The more important question is that in the more basic question of "In general, do you think same-sex marriage should be legal or illegal?" a whopping 54% say it should be illegal compared to 41% who say it should be illegal.

Happily, the margin of error is a mere ±2.8 points, so this demonstrates a clear majority of Maine voters support marriage equality. This does not guarantee that the forces of good will win the electoral campaign to enact marriage at the ballot boxm, but it dramatially illustrates the difference in the terrain LGBT advocates now face in making their case for marriage equality to all voters.

POLL: Marriage Equality Support Leads 49% to 40%

A new national poll from the NBC/Wall Street Journal shows that support for marriage equality nationwide is still leading the opposition outside of the margin of error (which is ±3.5 points), with 49% supporting and 40% opposing.

As LGBT Think Progress notes, this demonstrates a huge swing from exactly 8 years ago when only 30% supported marriage equality and 62% opposed it.

Some other key findings in the poll are that the number of people who know someone personally who is gay or lesbian is now up to 64% (from 62%), and 3% of the sample self-identifies as gay or lesbian, with 15% saying the gay/lesbian person they know is a friend, 23% say it is a family member and 26% say it is a co-worker.

Fight Against NC Anti-Gay Ballot Measure Intesifies

As you may recall, the North Carolina legislature has proposed an anti-gay constitutional amendment that will be placed before voters which would ban not only state recognition of same-sex marriage but also may ban domestic partnerships as well. What I had not maybe emphasized in my previous coverage is that this vote will occur during the statewide primary election on May 8, not the November 6 presidential election.

The specific ballot language of the anti-gay amendment that voters will see on May 8 is:

[] For [] Against
Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized by this State.


Of course "domestic legal union" is not defined in the text of the amendment or in North Carolina law so it will be up to judges to define it if the measure passes, but it could most definitely be construed to mean that not only same-sex marriages but opposite-sex or same-sex domestic partnerships would be banned at the state level.

Since the vote is basically 2 months from today, the opposition to the measure has accelerated, with Scott Wooledge using a front-page post on Daily Kos to highlight the polls on the measure and promote the following video, titled "Momentum:



North Carolina has long been a target of heterosexual supremacists because it is the only state in the Southern United States without a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

Let's work together to make sure that North Carolina's constitution remains free of the stain of homophobic discrimination on May 9 by donating money to defeat the amendment.

O'Malley Signs Maryland Marriage Equality Bill!

Democratic Governor Martin O'Malley signed Maryland's marriage equality bill into law on Thursday February 29th, making his state the 8th state in the country to currently have a same-sex marriage law on the books. However, since the bill will not go into effect until January 1, 2013, there will be no actual marriages in Maryland until a November 2012 referendum on the law is resolved.

Heterosexual supremacists have already announced that they intend to place the question on the ballot, and thus have until July 1, 2012 to collect 55,736 signatures and must also submit at least one third of that amount, 18,579 by June 1, 2012.

But February 29th was all about celebrating a long journey to have Maryland join the other states in the Union which have ended illegal gender discrimination in civil marriage (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa, New York, New Hampshire and Washington). Governor O'Malley himself used to oppose marriage equality and only supported civil unions but has since moved enthusiastically into the pro-marriage equality camp and demonstrate that by his willingness to sign the bill in front of television cameras and then open the Governor's mansion for a celebration afterwards.



Maryland is the third state legislature to pass a marriage equality bill in 2012 (following Washington State on February 8, 2012 and New Jersey on February 17, 2012) with the two Democratic Governors (like Chris Gregoire in Washington and O'Malley in Maryland signing the bills into law, both of which will be faced with referendum campaigns to annull these measures at the ballot box. In New Jersey, Republican Governor Chris Christie vetoed his state's marriage equality bill, but said he would have signed it into law if it included a referendum provision, which is anathema to Democratic legislators and LGBT activists in New Jersey.

Congratulations to Maryland! Now let's make sure same-sex couples will have the right to protect their families with all the responsibilities and privileges of civil marriage starting in January 2013 by defeating any campaign to prevent the bill from going into effect.

AFER Head Chad Griffin Named HRC Head

Chad Griffin, 38, is board president and founder of the American Foundation
 for Equal Rights, the group that organized the Proposition 8 federal lawsuit

The Advocate is reporting that 38-year-old political consultant Chad Griffin, the force behind the Los Angeles-based group which is shepherding the original Perry v Schwarzenegger federal legal challenge to Proposition 8 (American Foundation for Equal Rights or AFER) has been named the new head of the Human Rights Campaign, the most prominent LGBT advocacy position in the United States:

A major fundraiser for the Obama campaign who began his career in the early days of the Clinton White House, Griffin will replace current president Joe Solmonese at the helm of the $40 million organization on June 11, HRC announced Friday following a board of directors vote. Solmonese, who joined HRC as president in 2005 and said in August that he would leave after his contract expires at the end of this month, will continue in his role until June. Solmonese was named a national co-chair for the Obama campaign last month. 

In its pick of Griffin as president, HRC has chosen someone who was shaped from an early age by Washington political culture yet who is not defined by it, having spent the vast majority of his career outside the Beltway. Griffin, 38, is a fervent supporter of President Obama with personal ties to White House officials, but has pushed the bipartisan case for marriage equality, notably hiring former George W. Bush solicitor general Theodore Olson to co-lead the Prop. 8 suit and aligning with conservatives including gay former Republican National Committee chair Ken Mehlman, who has raised money for the legal effort. Griffin has been openly critical of the president’s evolving position on marriage equality, calling Obama’s indicated support for states' rights on deciding who can marry “a step backwards.” And, central to the job, Griffin has a proven ability to be a formidable fundraiser.

“While there’s no doubt that we’ve made tremendous progress on the road to equality, we must not forget that millions of LGBT Americans still lack basic legal protections and suffer the consequences of discrimination every day,” Griffin said in a statement. “Today's generation of young people, and each generation hereafter, must grow up with the full and equal protection of our laws, and finally be free to participate in the American dream. As HRC president, I’ll approach our work with a great sense of urgency because there are real life consequences to inaction.”

This is very big news and should raise the profile of marriage equality even higher in the nexus of LGBT issues that enter into the mainstream political consciousness of the 2012 political campaigns.

It will be interesting to see what impact Griffin's selection will have on the other issues which America's largest LGBT advocacy organization is also responsible for advancing, such as trans-inclusive national employment non-discrimination legislation, repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, passing the Uniting All Families Act, and the multiple statewide pro-gay and anti-gay ballot measures around the country (just to name a few).

In larger terms, the question of how the movement for LGBT equality will interface with other progressive movements like comprehensive immigration reform, the pro-choice movement, the labor movement and people of color civil rights organizations when the players involved are becoming more bipartisan in nature will be important to watch. Griffin is known for defying "Gay, Inc." orthodoxy in the past and is clearly comfortable working across party lines, having personally recruited David Boies and Ted Olson to be the superlawyers leading the Perry lawsuit to strike down California's same-sex marriage ban.

Analysis of Field Poll Showing 59% Support Marriage Equality

The latest Field Poll is out and it has some encouraging news for supporters of marriage equality in California. By a margin of 25 points, 59% to 34%, California registered voters support "same-sex marriage," a jump of 7  points in support from the last Field poll taken in July 2010 which had the margin at a mere 9 points, 51% to 42%. The margin of error of these polls is ±4.5 percentage points.

Although this is very good news that the most respected polling outfit in California is showing support for marriage equality well above the majority position, it should be noted that 1) Field has a history of overstating supporting for the pro-equality side and 2) this is a poll of registered voters, which means it is essentially meaningless in predicting the outcome of a voter initiative on the measure.

First I will elaborate on my first point (Field has overestimated marriage equality support in the past). In 2008, during the fight to defeat Proposition 8 and defend California marriage equality from June 15 to November 4 (173 days) the Field poll issued 3 polls, all of which had the NO side ahead, often by significant margins. On September 19, 2008 Field said Proposition 8 was losing 55% No, 38% Yes among likely voters, On August 29, 2008 the Field Poll said Proposition 8 was losing 54% No to 40% Yes among likely voters and on its first poll on the issue on July 19, 2008 Field said that Proposition 8 was losing 51% No to 42% among likely voters. According to David Flesicher's exhaustive (and definitive) analysis of the campaign published in The Prop 8 Report, the internal polls of the No On 8 campaign NEVER had the No side above 48% of support, although their daily tracking polling did sometimes have the No side slightly ahead of the Yes side when the Undecided number would get larger. Once the "Princes" ad ran on California television for 10 days without a response Proposition 8 was ahead outside the margin of error. Field has never explained why their polling was so off on the Proposition 8 question, which ultimately passed by a margin of Yes 52.3%, No 47.7%.

My second point is to note that this is a poll of registered voters, not likely voters. It is true that it does not make sense to even speak about likely voters at this point, more than 8 months before the general election, but I want to clarify that there is always a difference between polling the set of all possible voters, and the results created when the subset of voters who actually go to the polls (or return their absentee ballots) and vote. However, the fact that we finally have one data point where majority support for marriage equality has been reached OUTSIDE the margin of error, bring us closer to the pre-conditions for when I would support an attempt to place a ballot measure to repeal Proposition 8.

I repeat those conditions here, for completeness:

1. multiple polls separated in time of weeks or months indicating clear majority support for marriage equality among registered voters;
2. at least one million dollars in the bank to begin a campaign; and 
3. a clearly delineated, consensus-driven model of a campaign structure that is responsive to and supported by all (or nearly all) the various segments of the California LGBT  and progressive activist communities.

I would also note that the two putative (and abortive) attempts by Love Honor Cherish to repeal Proposition 8 (in 2009 and in 2011) by ballot measure did not meet ANY of these above three conditions. In fact, only one of these conditions has ever been met (Condition 2), briefly by Equality California. I suspect that by November 2012 Condition 1 will have been met.

Then again, it is not clear that a campaign to repeal Proposition 8 is necessary, thanks to the federal court case of Perry v Brown, which has declared that measure as violative of the United States Constitution and has been struck down by the two courts which have examined it, on August 4, 2010 and on February 7, 2012. Proposition 8 is currently only in effect due to a stay issued by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on August 16, 2010 as the heterosexual supremacists who are defending it ask for an 11-member en banc panel of that court to consider their appeal, and after that they can also appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

More comment about the new Field poll. They also ask the question about what kind of legal recognition should same-sex couples have and here the response is that now 51% support marriage equality, with another 29% supporting civil unions (or comprehensive domestic partnerships, which is what California law is right now) and a mere 15% support no legal recognition for same-sex couples (See Table 3, below). Note, this 51% is not a majority position when the margin of error is considered. It's curious what the difference is between the 59% who support "allowing same- sex couples to marry and having regular marriage laws apply to them" and the 51% who think that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry  (when given the option of civil unions and no recognition whatsoever).

This is all great news for supporters of marriage equality and just more evidence that the heterosexual supremacists are fighting a battle that they will lose; it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.

An interesting poll would to also ask specifically about a Proposition 8 re-do which Field last asked in March 2009 and the results were 48% Support Repeal, 47% Support Prop 8. But this was before even the California Supreme Court had upheld Prop 8 and two federal courts had struck it down. I wonder what the Proposition 8 re-do poll numbers are now? Inquiring minds want to know.

POLL: Iowa Voters Oppose Marriage Equality Repeal

A new poll from the Des Moines Register  illustrates that even if Iowan voters were given the opportunity to vote on the legality of their fellow citizens' marriages (which is unlikely to happen) a majority of them would oppose a ban on same-sex marriage being added to the state constitution.

According to the poll 56% oppose the same-sex marriage ban while 38% support it.

The poll also asks about the unanimous Iowa State Supreme Court decision Varnum v. Brien which legalized marriage equality in April 2009. On that front the results are less supportive of equality with 30% favoring the decision and 36% opposing it while a full 33% of the respondents "don't care much" either way.
The poll was taken February 12-15 and has a margin of error of 3.5 points.

Because the Democrats control the Iowa State Senate (by a slim majority of one vote!), there is no way that a constitutional amendment will be presented to the Iowa voters before 2015 (a constitutional amendment has to be passed by two consecutive sessions of the Iowa Legislature before it can appear before voters).

Conservative Federal Judge Strikes Down DOMA

Karen Golinksi legally married her partner Amy in 2008 and literally
 made a federal case of getting health benefits for her spouse

Wow! Clearly, the days for which the so-called Defense of Marriage Act will remain viable in the United States Code are numbered, and appears to be decreasing rapidly. Recall that two weeks ago the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Proposition 8. This week, a federal judge named Jeffrey White appointed by Republican president George W. Bush issued an opinion in Golinski v Office of Personnel Management in which he summarily strikes down Section 3 of DOMA as violating Karen Golinski's constitutional right to receive federal benefits based on her legal marriage to her wife Amy.

The case involves Karen Golinski, who married her longtime partner in California in 2008 when same-sex marriage was legal between June and November. She has been an employee of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for decades and so when she got married she asked that her employer put her spouse on her health benefits plan like her heterosexual co-workers have been able to do. As a federal employee, but of the Judicial Branch, her case raised a host of interesting constitutional issues. Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit, Alex Kosinski, twice issued orders to the Office of Personnel Management (in the Executive Branch) to process Golinski's request, which were ignored.

Golinski was represented by MadProfessah friend Tara Borelli of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and pro bono by Morrison Foster. Amazingly, the judge ruled based just on the briefing on motions  for summary judgment (from the good guys) and motion for dismissal (from the bad guys represented by Paul Clement and the House Republican majority led by Speaker John Boehner).

U.S. District Court Judge White's opinion is remarkable for many things, as Ari Ezra Waldman notes at TowleRoad:

First, Judge White declared that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation merits heightened scrutiny in an equal protection analysis. 

Second, the court distinguished old and outdated precedent that Judge Randy Smith recently used in his dissent in Perry v. Brown, highlighting the doctrinal vacuum that is denial of gay rights. 

Third, in dismantling the proffered and any conceivable justification for DOMA Section 3, the court authoritatively rejected House Republican attempts to buttress DOMA with recourse to certain conceptions of morality. 

Fourth, Judge White's reliance on the other DOMA cases and Ninth Circuit precedent in other gay rights cases emphasizes the primacy of a federal litigation approach in our quest for marriage recognition.

I encourage you to read the rest of Ari's insightful analysis as well as Chris Geidner's at Poliglot. What is not becoming remarkable is the sight of federal judges ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional. Judge White of the 9th Circuit follows Judge Joseph Tauro of the 1st Circuit who struck down DOMA in July 2010. The decision in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management is still on appeal before the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

MD: Senate Passes Marriage Equality Bill 25-22!

Woo hoo! The Maryland State Senate completed work on  HB 438, the Civil Marriage Protection Act, by passing the legislation on a 25-22 vote, sending the measure to Democratic Governor Martin O'Malley who has promised to sign it into law.

NGLTF's Executive Director Rea Carey made a statement:

“Maryland and marriage equality will certainly make a lovely couple. Maryland is the Free State, after all. To be able to share and celebrate one's love and commitment both publicly and legally is a lifelong dream for thousands of same-sex couples and their families. It’s thrilling that Maryland is poised to make this a reality by becoming the latest state to treat its families fairly. This has been a long journey of changing hearts and minds, of breaking down walls, of shining a spotlight on our common humanity. Congratulations to Equality Maryland, Marylanders for Marriage Equality and all those who have been part of the journey leading to this victory.”

By this action Maryland will likely become the 8th state to legalize marriage equality. However, as I noted earlier in a blog post, it is not clear if the law will actually go into effect January 1, 2013 due to the referendum process in Maryland.

Heterosexual supremacists have until May 31st to gather 55,736 signatures to put the measure up for a vote on the November 6, 2012 ballot. Whether same-sex couples will be able to get married will depend on the outcome of the vote.

REPORT: Aussie Marriage Equality Worth $161M

The Williams Institute at UCLA Law School released a report analyzing the fiscal impact of Australia legalizing marriage equality and came up with a big number: at least $161,000,000 over 3 years.

This is a conservative estimate, as the executive summary states:

Extending marriage to Australian same-sex couples would boost the country’s economy by $161 million over three years. This estimate is based on a projection that 54 percent (or 17,820) of Australia’s approximately 33,000 same-sex couples would marry. Tasmania, in particular, stands to claim a large share of that $161 million should it become the first state to allow same-sex couples to marry. In addition to marriages by Tasmanian couples, an estimated 15,236 couples would travel from out-of-state to marry in Tasmania, resulting in an economic gain of $96 million or more for the state. The figures in the report draw upon recent surveys, estimating the total number of Australian same-sex couples and the number of same-sex couples interested in marriage. Notably, the estimates in the report are conservative compared to other estimates because they only include spending by resident couples.  They do not include spending by wedding guests, or wedding or tourism spending by couples traveling to Australia to marry. One recent study that took this additional spending into account estimated an economic boost of $742 million.

Come on, Australia! Don't you want 2011 US Open champion Sam Stosur to be able to legally marry her girlfriend?

Prop 8 Proponents Want En Banc Re-Hearing

As expected, the heterosexual supremacists defending Proposition 8 in federal court (who have now lost twice, at the federal District Court level on August 4, 2010 and before a 3-judge panel on February 7, 2012) have applied for an en banc re-hearing by a randomly selected 11-member subset of the 29-member 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

A majority of the activie judges on the Court of Appeals must vote to agree to hear the case, and then an en banc panel of 11 judges consisting of Chief Judge Alex Kosinski and 10 randomly selected other judges will hear the case, probably issuing a ruling (if no further briefs are requested!) by the end of the summer. According to Wikipedia, at 64%, the 9th Circuit has the highest proportion of judges appointed by Democratic presidents, and is thus considered the most liberal.

Whoever loses at the en banc level can appeal to the 9-member United States Supreme Court level, where it takes 4 votes to agree to hear a case, but 5 votes to decide it. A final ruling by that court would probably not happen before June 27, 2013.

New Mexico DOMA Dead

New Mexico is like the Goldilocks of marriage equality. It's statewide public policy is neither "too hot" nor "too cold" on this issue. It is one of the rare states in the Union which not does not have a law or constitutional amendment banning (or allowing) same-sex couples from entering into marriage.

However, recently a Republican legislator named David Chavez had proposed an amendment to the state constitution which would have restricted marriages in New Mexico to opposite sex couples only. Happily, the New Mexico legislature adjourned last week without taking action on the measure, effectively killing it.

Interestingly, on January 4, 2011 State Attorney General Garry King issued an advisory opinion that same-sex couples who marry in jurisdictions where it is legal should have those marriages recognized in New Mexico.