This Week in Gay News Roundup: 5/24 - 5/30
The week that brought us disappointment over Proposition 8's approval by California courts and hope with a federal challenge featured many other strides in our fight for equality. Here is what happened this week in case you missed anything. For more up-to-the-minute news stories, follow Family Fairness on Twitter.
- President Obama made his first Supreme Court nomination to fill David Souter's vacant seat. His pick, current Second Circuit judge Sonia Sotomayor, would be the Court's third woman, third non-white, and first hispanic justice. Though her time in the New York District Court and Second Circuit have not revealed her stance on gay issues, legal activists are happy with her nomination. Paula Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commissions, said of a meeting with Sotomayor in 1991, "she was totally interested [in gay civil rights issues] and supportive." Evan Wolfson, head of Freedom to Marry, said, "from everything I know, Judge Sotomayor is an outstanding choice — fair and aware, open and judicious. I believe she has the demonstrated commitment to principles of equal protection and inclusion that defines a good nominee to the Supreme Court." The National LGBT Bar Association and Lambda Legal have also made statements supporting Sotomayor.
- A Brown University poll revealed that 60% of Rhode Island voters support the right of same-sex couples to marry, and 75% support Civil Unions. Of the six New England states, four have legalized marriage equality with a fifth — New Hampshire — in the process. While Rhode Island legislatures have attempted to pass marriage bills every year since 1997, none have made it to the floor for a full House or Senate vote. Equality advocates are hopeful that such a strong showing of support will encourage lawmakers to more seriously consider a bill.
- Speaking of New Hampshire, House and Senate negotiators have reached a compromise on the state's marriage bill and will be holding votes on the amendments next week. Governor Lynch, who threatened to veto the last version of the bill unless the changes were made, has indicated his support of the new bill. The legislation added a sentence specifying that religious organizations have exclusive control over their practices with regards to marriage.
- Two bills, one of which would legalize same-sex marriage while the other would ban it, are circulating for co-sponsors in Pennsylvania. While the outcome of either bill is uncertain, Senator Leach, who intends to introduce the marriage equality legislation, believes that the climate is right for Pennsylvania to follow in the footsteps of other legislatures the recognized the fundamental inequality of marriage exclusion.
- The White House released a statement reaffirming President Obama's support for efforts repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The statement says "DOMA is a federal law passed by Congress that precludes uniform federal recognition of same-sex relationships, even those recognized as valid under the law of the state. Because the President believes that this is an issue that should be left to the states, he continues to support the legislative repeal of DOMA." While the statement is comforting given Obama's relative silence on issues important to the gay community, it offered no timeline as to when these efforts would begin.
- The domestic partnership bill in Nevada that won support from the state's House and Senate was vetoed by Governor Jim Gibbons as he promised to do. A statement released by the governor explains that he believes the 2002 constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage also extends to domestic partnerships, and that "only the voters should have the right to undo or amend constitutional mandates." He also stated that other private contracts, like a Power of Attorney document or a health care proxy, were already sufficient to give same-sex couples legal rights and that domestic partnerships were unnecessary.
Did I miss anything? Be sure to let me know in the comments. You may also follow Family Fairness on Twitter for more up-to-the-minute news stories.
Have a question, comment, or response? Share your thoughts.Five Years Later, Sky Over Massachusetts Has Still Not Fallen
Five years ago today, Massachusetts became the first US state and the sixth jurisdiction in the world to begin handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Massachusetts Supreme Court found that marriage equality was constitutionally required in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, a decision that came only four months after Lawrence v. Texas decriminalized consensual homosexual intercourse.
Critics warned that same-sex marriage would destroy Massachusetts, and that the strength of families would be diminished. And yet, according to Massachusetts-based Marriage Equality Works, a project of MassEquality Education Fund, the results have been the opposite:
The vast majority of Massachusetts voters — 74 percent — believe that marriage equality has benefited society because it means that more couples are taking responsibility and making long-term commitments to each other. These are seen as important values for a strong society.
- Fifth Anniversary Voter Survey [pdf]
The Massachusetts economy also enjoyed an estimated $111 million increase over the last five years.
The evidence that marriage equality may enhance the ability of Massachusetts to attract highly-skilled creative class workers among those in same-sex couples offers some support that the policy has the potential to have a long-term positive economic impact
- Social and Economic Benefits Report [pdf]
Not only has marriage equality fail to result in societal upheaval as opponents predicted, but it seems to have strengthened Massachusetts and the family unit as a result. And as each of the five states that have affirmed marriage continue to provide more evidence to refute the outlandish prophecies of doom put forth by equality opponents, we should continue to see a steady increase in support for marriage inclusion.
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.The Iowa/Vermont Effect: Support for Same-Sex Marriage Up 9%
A nationwide CBS News poll conducted this week shows a comforting result: 42% of those polled believe that "same sex couples should be allowed to legally marry." This is up 9% since just last month. Those saying that same-sex couples should have no legal recognition fell 7 points to just 28%. Support for civil unions rather than marriage hovers at 25%.
Though the margin of error for the poll is ±3%, the results seem to indicate a large growth of support for legal recognition for gay and lesbian couples. In the wake of the poll was Vermont's legislative and Iowa's judicial approvals of marriage inclusion, which many believe to be the impetus for such a widespread stance reversal. As more and more people see that same-sex marriage will not bring about the earth-shattering harms that anti-marriage groups peddle, I expect support for LGB unions to continue to rise.
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.