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.

Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional By 9th Circuit Panel!!

As expected, the federal appellate court in California has affirmed the lower court decision, ruling bya  vote of 2-1 that Proposition 8 violates the United States Constitution.

Here's the text of the decision (hat/tip to AmericaBlog)
Ninth Circuit Prop. 8 decision

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!"

SCOTUS Aiming To Be Factor In 2012 Elections

The U.S. Supreme Court has announced some decisions recently which indicate that they will be a major factor in the 2012 presidential election. They announced they would decide three politically fraught cases: the constitutionality of the health care reform law, the constitutionality of Texas's congressional redistricting map and the constitutionality of Arizona's wildly xenophobic immigration law SB-1070.