Washington group primed to roll-back newly won rights
With Governor Chris Gregoire's signature on Senate Bill 5688 yesterday, Washington now offers every "privilege, immunity, right, benefit, and responsibility" of marriage to registered same-sex domestic partners. However, according to Seattle PI, conservative anti-gay group Washington Values Alliance has already filed Referendum 71, a measure allowing Washington voters to overturn the new domestic partnership bill. The group will have until June 25 to collect the more than 120,000 signatures necessary to place the referendum on the November ballot. Should they succeed, the new law will be suspended until after the vote, affecting 5,395 Washington couples already in a registered domestic partnership.
Some in the state's legislature have indicated interest in sponsoring a legislative push for full marriage equality, and Governor Gregoire herself has been quoted as saying that she "want[s] to see a bill on [her] desk." However, given Washington's preference for a slower, incremental approach to gay rights, it is likely that the state's leaders are waiting to see the results of Referendum 71 before seriously considering such a bill.
Have a question, comment, or response? Share your thoughts.National Call In: The Future of Same-Sex Marriage
The National LGBT Bar Association held a conference call today to discuss the many court and legislative battles the gay and lesbian community has won recently, and also to look at the future of the same-sex marriage movement. Executive Director D'Arcy Kemnitz (pictured left) moderated the call and was joined by Jennifer Pizer, Senior Counsel and Director of the National Marriage Project at Lambda Legal, and Mary Bonauto, Civil Rights Project Director at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD).
Among the topics discussed were California's Proposition 8, the recent victories in Vermont, Maine, and Iowa, Washington D.C., the status of efforts in New Hampshire and New York, and GLAD's current federal court Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) challenge.
UPDATE: A copy of the recording is now available at the National LGBT Bar Association website. You may scroll to the bottom of this post for a link to the approximately 1-hour long audio, or read some highlights of the issues that were discussed: Read More
Have a question, comment, or response? Share your thoughts.Same-Sex Marriage Now Legal in Maine
Last Thursday, Maine's senate by a vote of 21-14 approved LD 1020, a bill affirming marriage equality in the state. Yesterday, the House followed suit and passed the bill by a margin of 89-58. This morning, Governor John Baldacci, who has stated previously that he does not support same-sex marriage, signed the bill into law, making Maine the 5th state in the country to offer marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples and the second to do so legislatively.
The governor issued a press release after the signing:
In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions. I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage. [. . . .] [M]y responsibility is to uphold the Constitution and do, as best as possible, what is right. I believe that signing this legislation is the right thing to do.
Governor Baldacci also stated that the state Constitution "guarantees that the ultimate political power in the State belongs to the people," hinting at a possible veto referendum to challenge the law. Dubbed the "People's Veto", the process only requires that opponents collect a sufficient number of signatures to place the referendum before voters. At that time, the people would choose whether to approve or reject the new law. Current polls show that 39% of Maine residents support same-sex marriage while 23% oppose any legal recognition. 34% support civil unions and not marriage.
The Maine Family Policy Council, a conservative evangelical group, has already started the process, saying:
Maine people twice rejected "gay" rights in the past decade. Homosexuality is very sad, and sinful. Maine must not create a culture that winks at something so debilitating on so many levels. To present this "orientation" as benign to impressionable children is the height of arrogance, and surely qualifies as evil.
Opponents have 90 days to collect the more than 55,000 signatures required to put the issue on the ballot.
Have a question, comment, or response? Share your thoughts.This Week in Gay News Roundup: 4/26 - 4/30
So much has happened on the gay rights front this week. Here is a review in case you missed anything:
- Florida's anti-gay adoption laws are being challenged in both the legislature and the court. Though the legislation is expected to die without a vote next week, the court will soon hold hearings on the issue. The case is an appeal from a lower court ruling that permitted a gay man, Martin Gill, to adopt two abused and neglected brothers. Florida's statute states that no homosexual is permitted to adopt, and is the only state law in the country that completely prohibits an individual from adopting on the basis of his or her sexuality. Via The Miami Herald.
- The New Hampshire Senate Judiciary Committee has recommended tabling a bill that would expand marriage rights to same-sex couples by a vote of 3-2. At least 12 of the state's 24 senators must now support the bill in order for a motion to pass to be entertained. Governor John Lynch, who prefers civil unions, has previously expressed opposition to same-sex marriage, but has not given an official statement on whether or not he intends to veto the bill if it survives the Senate. Via Reuters.
- Update: The Senate has passed the bill 13-11 after an amendment prohibiting polygamy and incestuous marriages was added. It now heads to the governor's desk.
- Iowa began distributing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples on Monday, 24 days after the Supreme Court's ruling that approved same-sex marriage. 380 couples took advantage of the law on the first day it was available, including 25 out-of-state couples. Because Iowa law requires a three day waiting period between application and receipt of a marriage license, today is the first day that these 380 couples can officially say that they are legally married. Congratulations!
- The American Constitution Society has begun distributing a new issue brief [pdf] with a novel explanation as to why California's Proposition 8 — the constitutional amendment that re-restricted marriage in the state — is unconstitutional:
[T]o the extent the rights to liberty, privacy, due process and equal protection have not themselves been changed, then the pre-existing interpretation of those rights in Marriage Cases [the suit in which the Supreme Court previously found the right to marriage] must control. Thus, even if Proposition 8 is construed as a permissible amendment (as opposed to a revision), it would necessarily violate separation of powers principles because it purports to dictate a specific interpretation of certain other — indisputably unchanged — constitutional provisions.
Essentially, ACS argues that Proposition 8 cannot simply change marriage law without also changing the fundamental basis upon which the Court found the right to marriage. To do so would unconstitutionally rob the Court of their power to interpret the constitution.
- On the heels of the Designated Beneficiary Agreement Act, Colorado's legislature has now also passed a bill allowing partners of gay and lesbian state employees to gain access to their partner's health insurance plan. The law would require that same-sex couples be in a committed relationship for at least one year before qualifying for the benefits.
- The Maine Senate Judiciary Committee has approved a bill that would open marriage to same-sex couples in the state by a vote of 11-2. The bill now moves to the full state Senate for their vote.
Did I miss anything? Let me know in the comments.
Have a question, comment, or response? Share your thoughts.Professor Geoffrey Stone on Civil Unions and Religious Freedom
Illinois will soon begin to discuss the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act, a bill with the dual purpose of providing legal recognition for same-sex couples and permitting religious organizations to choose not to solemnize or officiate civil union ceremonies. The bill would also recognize marriages and other legal relationships between members of the same-sex performed in other jurisdictions as civil unions. Illinois currently offers no recognition for gay and lesbian couples.
Professor Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago Law School, like 60% of Americans according to recent polls, supports the legislation and wrote a very interesting opinion piece in the Chicago Tribune. He opines:
There has been a transformation in our thinking on this issue over the past half-century. What would once have been regarded as nothing short of weird now seems perfectly sensible. This is the American story. It is, in part, what makes us great. Over time, we have gradually recognized the common humanity of blacks, women, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, Catholics and gays, all of whom have been the victims of cruel discrimination.
The rights for each of these groups have come incrementally. For instance, women won suffrage in 1920, employment nondiscrimination in 1964, and school nondiscrimination in 1972. Professor Stone believes the incremental approach to legalized same-sex marriage is appropriate as well, saying, "it is a reasonable compromise at this time in our history."
I disagree. 'Reasonable compromises' are what have led many people to believe that the fight for women's equality ended in 1970 with the Equal Pay Act when, in reality, women today are still paid 15-40 percent less than their male colleagues. By taking an incremental approach and settling for civil unions, we run the risk of fostering a perception that the problem has been fixed by a separate-but-equal institution. So why not go straight for full marriage equality? Professor Stone points to fears of losing religious liberty:
The most obvious tension arises out of the fact that some religious people believe same-sex relationships are inherently sinful and immoral. They therefore insist that the state should not legitimate such relationships. The problem, though, is that in a society that values the separation of church and state, religious doctrine cannot be the source of our secular law. The framers of our Constitution certainly embraced this principle. It is not a violation of religious liberty for the state not to impose one group's religious beliefs on other citizens who do not share them.
I agree with Professor Stone on this point and I believe he has articulated it beautifully. However, we diverge in opinion on the appropriateness of the "Religious Freedom Protection" part of the Act. While he regards the language as "a respectful and very substantial acknowledgment of legitimate religious liberty interests," I see it as a merely symbolic and unnecessary inclusion simply for political appeasement.
The case that has spawned the fervor over religious liberty took place in New Jersey, where a religious organization refused to allow a lesbian couple to use a pavilion it owned. As a result of their decision, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection took away a tax break given to the organization for opening the pavilion to public use. This was a case involving not religious freedom, but a bland and straightforward taxation principle: you may not receive a public accommodation tax exemption on a location that is not actually accommodating the public.
I do not believe that the Illinois provision would have affected this outcome. Section 15 provides only that the law does not "interfere with or regulate the religious practice of any religious body" and that an organization "is free to choose whether or not to solemnize or officiate a civil union." However, this is already the state of the law in all 50 jurisdictions; no religious institution is forced to recognize any marriage it does not want to. Many Catholic churches, for instance, do not perform marriage ceremonies for divorcees, while Orthodox Jewish temples may refuse to join a jew and a gentile. No provision of law could be read to force religious organizations to conduct same-sex civil union ceremonies.
What an organization cannot do, however — and what they still cannot do even with Illinois's provision — is accept a public accommodations tax credit for a building that is not a public accommodation.
We are left, then, with a component of the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act that is superfluous and merely symbolic. I do not assert that religious organizations should be denied the ability to observe whatever tenants it wishes, I simply do not believe that Section 15 is necessary to achieve this end. I also fear what the law may be implying. If the legislature specifically exempts organizations from being forced to perform civil union ceremonies, is the implication that they can be required to perform marriages between divorcees or between jew and gentile? Why codify only a single exception while leaving other exceptions up to mere 'common understanding'?
Finally, I believe Section 15 reinforces the misunderstanding that civil rights are zero sum. The truth is that we can make one group — gays and lesbians — equal without making a second group — the religious — unequal. Equality is not a limited resource, but rather something we all can and should share.
In the end, both Professor Stone and I support the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act, albeit I with less gusto. I believe the Act is a step above nothing and is certainly a welcome relief for Illinoisan same-sex couples, but is absolutely not where Illinois should stop. A "compromise," as Professor Stone calls this bill, is not equality; equality is equality.
Have a question, comment, or response? 3 people do.Maine Inches Ever Closer to Full Gay Marriage Rights
Maine state senator Dennis Damon received a standing ovation yesterday at a public hearing on LD 1020, a bill extending marriage rights to Maine's same-sex couples. Damon, the bill's sponsor, believes his legislation is important because it "recognizes the worth of every man and woman among us." Though Maine has provided domestic partnerships for same-sex couples since 2004, the rights fall short of those received through marriage. Companion bill LD 1118, also a topic of yesterday's hearing, would expand domestic partnerships to offer all the rights of marriage.
While passage of either bill is uncertain, many commentators are hopeful, and cite the bills' 60 co-sponsors and its positive reception in the state legislature as good signs. Although Governor John Baldacci has previously stated that he would not support marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples, he has indicated that he is keeping an open mind about the bill. It was expected that Baldacci would veto the bill if it passed the House and Senate, as happened in both California and Vermont.
A Bangor Daily News poll of 400 Maine residents asking their "position on the issue of marriage for gay and lesbian couples and civil unions" indicates some more positive news:
- 39.3% selected: "Support for full marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples."
- 34.5% said they, "Support gay and civil unions or partnerships, but not gay marriage."
- 23% said they, "Oppose any legal recognition for gay and lesbian couples."
The poll shows a 9% increase since 2004 in those supporting full marriage rights.
The bills' reception is important due to Maine's referendum process, which allows voters to effectively veto a law passed by the state's legislature. Such an initiative could resemble California's Proposition 8, the 2008 proposition reversing the California's Supreme Court ruling that extended marriage rights to same-sex couples.
While both bills still have a long way to go before coming law, many are still hopeful that the goal to bring full marriage equality to New England by 2012 is still within reach.
Have a question, comment, or response? 1 person does.