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.

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!

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.

WA: Gov. Gregoire Signs Marriage Equality Bill!

As promised, Democratic Governor Chris Gregoire of Washington, signed the marriage equality bill into law today which was passed by the legislature last week. The bill will not go into effect until June 7th at the earliest, and with her signature today opponents now have the opportunity to collect 120, 557 signatures by that date to place a referendum on the enactment of SB 6239 on the November 2012 ballot. The referendum process prevents the law from going into effect unless and until the referendum is approved by the voters. If you're feeling a sense of déjà vu you are not alone. In 2009, Washington State enacted a comprehensive domestic partnership statute (which on the east coast they call "civil union" or an "everything but the title marriage" law) that became subject to a referendum, Referendum 71.

The ballot measure was later approved by voters and went into effect on December 7, 2009. However, since we all know that separate but equal does not work, Washington marriage equality advocates continued to work for full equality and now have convinced the Legislature and Governor to enact a marriage equality bill. It is quite likely that Evergreen State voters will again approve of equality for same-sex couples and become the first state to enact marriage equality at the ballot box in the process.

If so, Washington will join Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, District of Columbia and New York as granting equal marriage rights to same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

ACLU Sues Michigan Over Anti-Gay DP Benefits Law

Previously MadProfessah had blogged about a new discriminatory law signed into effect by Republican Governor Rick Snyder which would ban public employees (at the state, county, or city level) from receiving benefits based on domestic partner status. Now comes word that the American Civil Liberties Union is suing the Governor and the state of Michigan to strike down the law in court.

The case is known as Bassett v. Snyder:

The lawsuit charges that the new law discriminates by categorically denying domestic partners access to benefits and violates the constitutional right to equal protection by forcing gay and lesbian employees in committed relationships to carry the financial hardship and anxiety of being uninsured, while allowing heterosexual couples to marry and receive family health protections. In addition, the law only bars domestic partners from receiving health care coverage, while allowing government employers to offer benefits to all other family members, including parents, siblings, uncles and cousins.

“It’s unconstitutional for the state of Michigan to deprive a small number of workers the means to take care of their loved ones when other similarly situated workers do have access to family coverage,” said Amanda C. Goad, staff attorney for the ACLU LGBT Project. “In an economic downturn, the state should be passing laws to make it easier for families to take care of each other, not to take protections away.”

Proponents point to the “high cost” of domestic partner health care coverage as the motivating force to enact such a law. However, an analysis of programs across the state proves these numbers to be wildly inaccurate. In fact, studies show such coverage, in addition to attracting and retaining the best employees, costs well under one percent of the health care budget of public employers who voluntarily provide these benefits. In addition, unlike married couples, domestic partners must pay taxes to the state on their health insurance benefits – revenue the state would lose under the new law.

As Ari Ezra Waldman over at TowleRoad comments, this case is really about more than just domestic partnership benefits, it's about whether the state can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without a legitimate governmental purpose or compelling justification.

The answer is, of course, "heck no!"

Civil Unions Go Into Effect In Hawaii and Delaware

Today is January 1st, 2012, the first day of the year. Typically, legislation enacted during the previous years often goes into effect on January 1st of the next year. Today, civil unions become legal in Hawaii and Delaware.

Marriage equality is legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, New York and the District of Columbia.

MI: Governor Signs Bill Ending DP Benefits For Public Employees

Governor Rick Snyder (R) was elected in 2010 and used his Republican majority
in both houses to strip domestic partner benefits from all unmarried public employees

Wow. This is incredibly horrendous news (especially if you live in, or know anyone who lives in, Michigan). The Republican Governor and State Legislature of Michigan have enacted a law which bans the state (and any local subdivision) from offering domestic partnership benefits to public employees.

AnnArbor.com reports:

Public employees, including state and local government workers and public school teachers, will no longer be allowed to extend their health care benefits to domestic partners.

It is unclear whether the bill applies to state universities, although Snyder asserts that it does not. House Republicans, meanwhile, say it does apply to university employees.

The move is a blow to gay and lesbian activists throughout the state.

"We’re so very disappointed in the governor," Kary L. Moss, executive director of American Civil Liberties Union's Michigan chapter, said in an interview. "This was the moment for him to show real leadership, to rise above what I believe is petty politics, to tell the rest of the country that Michigan is not living in the dark ages and to create an open, inclusive Michigan."

Governor Snyder vetoed a companion bill (HB 4771) which would have applied the domestic partnership ban (HB 4770) to state universities while he signed this bill into law.

POLL: Californians Favor Marriage Equality (Barely)

A new poll again shows that Californians strongly support legal protections and state recognition of same-sex couples but are also closely divided on the question of whether to allow such unions to be given the legal name "marriages."

Public Policy Polling did a statewide poll of 500 California voters between November 10-13 which had the following questions:

Q11 Do you think same-sex marriage should be
legal or illegal?
Legal............................................................... 48%
Illegal .............................................................. 43%
Not sure .......................................................... 9%

Q12 Which of the following best describes your
opinion on gay marriage: gay couples should
be allowed to legally marry, or gay couples
should be allowed to form civil unions but not
legally marry, or there should be no legal
recognition of a gay couple's relationship?
Gay couples should be allowed to legally
marry ..............................................................43%
Gay couples should be allowed to form civil
unions but not marry .......................................35%
There should be no legal recognition of a gay
couple's relationship .......................................21%
Not sure .......................................................... 1%

The margin of error is +/- 4.4 percentage points. This is more evidence that people who think that 2012 is the right time to attempt to repeal Proposition 8 are fooling themselves. I do think that there are more Californians who support marriage equality than not, but the polling shows that the difference is well within the margin of error.

One of my pre-conditions for attempting a Proposition 8 repeal by ballot measure is multiple polls of likely voters which indicate majority support for marriage equality outside of the margin of error. That polling result is yet to occur in California, though I do believe it will happen soon. (By the way, the other pre-conditions are: A 7-figure amount in the bank at the beginning of a ballot measure campaign AND a public, published plan with a representational organizational structure for the entity which will manage the ballot measure campaign.)

Names Of Referendum 71 Signers Released

Finally! After losing a Supreme Court decision Doe v. Reed last year, the heterosexual supremacists who forced the voters of Washington State to vote on whether that state's comprehensive domestic partnership law should go into effect have lost their battle to keep secret the names of the voters who signed the petitions to get the measure on the ballot.

A federal judge ordered the state of Washington to release the names on Monday, and the Secretary of State released a DVD with 138, 000 names of petitioners to the press.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports:

The 138,000 people who signed petitions to force a vote on a 2009 domestic partnership law are unlikely to face harassment if their names are disclosed a judge said Friday while ordering the release of signatures.

U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle said the petitioners who advocated for privacy provided only a few experiences of indecent statements and other uncomfortable conversations. Also, there was only speculation that those incidents were connected to the issue, he said.

Disclosure would become the exception, rather than the rule, if just a few instances of harassment were used as the standard for preventing the release of names, Settle said.

And the heterosexual supremacists lost the referendum campaign in 2009 as well. Washington voters approved the referendum (upheld Washington's comprehensive domestic partnership law) and it has been in effect since November 2009.

POLL: NC Anti-gay relationship amendment ahead 61-34

After years of being stopped by a Democratic majority in one House of the North Carolina legislature, a constitutional amendment to ban the recognition of "[any] domestic legal union between members of the same sex (i.e. same-sex marriages and domestic partnerships) was passed by the new Republican majority September 12th.

This week comes the bad news that despite a majority of North Carolinians either supporting marriage equality or domestic partnerships almost two-thirds support this virulently anti-gay constitutional amendment:

PPP's first look at the proposed marriage amendment in North Carolina since the legislature placed it on the ballot finds it leading 61-34. Republicans are overwhelmingly in favor of it (80/17) and independents (52/43) and Democrats (49/44) support it as well, although by more narrow margins.

The interesting thing is that 51% of this same set of voters supports legal recognition for gay couples. 22% favor gay marriage and another 29% civil unions, with only 46% completely opposed to granting same sex couples legal recognition.  The problem for those trying to defeat the amendment is that 37% of voters who support gay marriage or civil unions are still planning to vote for it.  That suggests a lot of folks aren't familiar with how wide reaching the proposed amendment would be and it gives those fighting it a chance- they just have to get their message out effectively to the majority of North Carolinians who do support legal recognition for gay couples that the proposal goes too far.

This is really a classic example of how small differences in poll question wording can lead to huge differences in how people respond. Last month we asked the following question "State legislators have proposed an amendment to the North Carolina Constitution that would prohibit the recognition of marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian couples. If the election was held today,would you vote for or against this amendment?" When you ask it that way only 30% of voters are supportive and 55% are opposed. Voters are against 'prohibiting' recognition for gay couples. But if you word it in such a way that all you're doing is defining marriage as between one man and one woman, voters are ok with that.  You're asking about the same thing in both cases, but the semantics make a huge difference and Republicans clearly know what they're doing with the language that's on the ballot.

One key group of voters those fighting the amendment will really have to reach out to is black Democrats. 70% of them support it to 25% opposed. White Democrats on the other hand oppose it by a 57/37 margin.

The only anti-gay marriage amendment to have been defeated was in Arizona, and it similarly attempted to ban both marriages and domestic partnerships. That measure failed in 2006 when senior citizen groups came out against the measure. But in that state the measure was actually stripping people of exstant domestic partnership benefits. I don't believe North Carolina has any state recognition of same-sex couples (or opposite-sex couples) outside of marriage, so the amendment is banning a "theoretical" problem which will be easy to demonize in  Bible Belt state.

Chilean President Offers Civil Unions Bill

Great news from South America. The President of Chile, Sebastián Piñera, has introduced legislation to legalize same-sex civil unions.

AFP reports:

"All forms of marriage deserve respect, dignity and the support of the state," said President Sebastian Pinera, who signed the proposal and sent it to Congress.

"This puts opposite-sex and same-sex couples on the same footing, because in both cases it is possible to develop love, affection and respect."

Pinera, who brought conservatives to power after 20 years of center-left rule in the country, grated on his own election campaign when he announced his intention to legalize civil unions for gay couples. He said two million people in Chile live together without marrying.

But the president has repeatedly stressed his opposition to gay marriage.

"I deeply believe that marriage is by nature between a man and a woman, but that conviction does not prevent me from recognizing that other forms of affective relationships exist," he said.

The law would permit gay couples who join into a civil union to have access to inheritance and other social benefits.

Chile is reportedly 80% Catholic and did not legalize divorce until 2004(!). However, Argentina is next door and legalized marriage equality for same-sex coupes in July 2010.