Obama and McCain on California's Gay Marriages

Log Cabin Republicans issued the following statement today about presidential hopeful Sen. McCain:

Late last week, the group pushing California’s anti-marriage constitutional amendment released an email from a McCain staffer saying the Senator backed the amendment. We now have confirmation that this represents the Senator’s view. “Unfortunately, his position on this amendment hurts gay and lesbian families,” said Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon. “We obviously disagree with Senator McCain and do not believe he should have interjected himself into this state issue.”

“Supporting this amendment is inconsistent with Sen. McCain’s belief in federalism,” said Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon. “Backing California’s ban sends the wrong signal to the independents who will decide this election because it creates the impression that he’s pandering to social conservative leaders.”

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama announced his opposition to the California November ballot.

Obama is skating gingerly past his previous position on the issue. The Illinois senator said repeatedly that he believes marriage should only be between man and a woman. When the California Supreme Court overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage in May, Obama released a carefully nuanced statement saying he respected the court's decision, believed states should make their own decisions on marriage and "will continue to fight for civil unions as President."

But civil unions, gay activists have often argued, aren't the same as marriage, which would put Obama on the wrong side of what's increasingly seen as a civil rights issue.

Although California's proposed constitutional amendment affects only Californians, the battle is extending far beyond the state's borders.

More importantly, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says the effort to ban same-sex marriage "a waste of time." He said he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman but does not think that view should be forced on anyone else.

Arizona citizens to vote on banning same-sex marriage

After failing in April in the Arizona House of Representatives after Democrats changed the measure to tie it to expanded legal rights for domestic partners, causing most Republicans to withdraw their support, the Senate approves a measure to ban same-sex marriage in the final hours of one of the longest state legislative sessions on record.

Arizona voters rejected a similar state constitutional amendment in 2006. That measure would have also stopped the state from recognizing civil unions of same-sex couples.

The long-anticipated vote came just before adjournment and followed hours of angry, raucous debate in which the Arizona Senate rule book was used as a weapon to both stall the vote (Democrats) and cut short debate (Republicans). Senators on both sides of the aisle and of the issue lamented a meltdown in the higher chamber, as most of the day's work was scrapped so that the marriage amendment could be voted upon while key senators were present.

Senate President Tim Bee, a Tucson Republican, cast the decisive, 16th vote in favor of the referendum that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

After the vote, conservative activists rejoiced that voters would get a chance to vote on the issue this fall. A similar measure, which also banned governments from offering benefits to employees' domestic partners, gay or straight, failed at the polls in 2006.

Democratic Sen. Paula Aboud accused leadership of "cheating," while Harper derided Democrats for "dilatory" stall tactics.

"To end this session today means we all walk out of here tainted, besmirched," Aboud said. "That's what will be remembered about this session."

Aboud, who is openly gay, accused the amendment's supporters of being "afraid of me and my relationship."

Bee and other members decried the lack of decorum.

After the vote, conservative activists cheered while gay rights activists blasted lawmakers for pushing a measure that would divide Arizonans.

Barbara McCullough-Jones, executive director of Equality Arizona, warned that anti-gay rhetoric from lawmakers could fuel anti-gay violence. She pledged that her group would work to defeat the election of lawmakers who supported the referendum, as well as the referendum itself.

"We as an electorate, we are going to say no again," she said.

Freedom Rings in California

All same-sex couples and members of Marriage Equality USA have been celebrating a major victory in the State of California since yesterday evening, a victory activists and volunteers fought long and hard for: the civil right to marry the person they love.

Marriage Equality USA's president, Mr. David Janis-Kitzmiller and his partner Jeff had the honor of being the first Fairfield residents married in Solano County yesterday. (story)

In other California counties:

• "I'm really amazed and happy," said Jason Scott, leader of Marriage Equality USA's Fresno chapter. "It's something you might not expect in Fresno." (story)
• Monday night's marriage was the second one for Ryan James, 32, and Moe Perez, 39, leaders of the Alameda County chapter of Marriage Equality USA. They lined up for a license on Valentine's Day 2004 in San Francisco after Mayor Gavin Newsom allowed same-sex marriages in that city.
• Jamila Tharp and Michelle Hasting crossed the Canadian border two years ago to commit themselves to each other for the rest of their lives. Both sides of their families attended the Vancouver wedding ceremony, as did their daughter, who was the flower girl, “3, and very excited,” Tharp said. Tharp sits on the Marriage Equality USA board and is on a state advisory board for the Unitarian Universalists Legislative Ministry of California. The stay-at-home mother also sits on the Humboldt County Human Rights Commission. (story)

Congratulations to everyone in California!

"No one can rain in our parade. This is an absolutely fantastic day, it's a historic milestone for California as we move forward in the civil rights struggle for our generation." - Marriage Equality USA Media Director Molly McKay

Liberty Council tires to stop gay marriages in California (again)

An anti-gay group on Thursday made a last-ditch effort to stop gay marriage from becoming legal in California by asking a midlevel appeals court to temporarily prohibit county clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The Liberty Counsel, in a petition (view) with the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco, argued that the wording of the California Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriages allows the lower court to set the terms and schedule for implementing the decision.

Liberty Counsel argued that the high court's May 15 ruling put dozens of state laws addressing marriage into conflict and that the Legislature needs time to address those issues.

Barring any further legal intervention, gay couples will be able to start marrying in California at 5:01 p.m. Monday, when the Supreme Court's decision becomes final.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera called Liberty Counsel's filing "absurd."

"I am not aware of a process in American law that enables parties to effectively appeal a higher court ruling to a lower court," Herrera said.

The Liberty Council sent a blast email asking the following:

Will you help me flood Governor Schwarzenegger's office with phone calls? I want to literally shut down his switchboard right up until the 5pm Sunday deadline when the ruling permitting same-sex "marriage" will go into effect.

From Liberty Council's website, for $15.00, you can send faxes to California Governor Schwarzenegger, and California lawmakers. Senator Gil Gedillo of California angered Liberty Council by returning a fax to them with the words, "do not send" written across the page (view). Liberty Council responded by calling Senator Gedillo "arrogant." Great job Senator Gedillo!

Liberty Council claims to be a nonprofit litigation, education and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family.

Did you catch that? Traditional? As I have said before and must say again, traditions' must sometimes be broken in favor of progress. Without progress, this nation could still be a colony that uses slave labor, filled with women who cannot hold public office or vote.

Log Cabin Republicans disagree with HRC on McCain

Log Cabin Republican blogger disagrees with the Human Rights Commission (HRC).

• HRC and John McCain

Log Cabin Republicans blog:

We understand the general election starts today and Log Cabin will do its part to educate gay and lesbian voters about Sen. McCain in the weeks ahead. Contrary to what many Democrats are saying, Sen. McCain is not George W. Bush. Most gays and lesbians understand that fact. Sen. McCain isn’t going to use gay people as a wedge issue. He won the GOP nomination with no help (and with outright hostility) from many so-called “social conservatives.” This is a significant achievement for all gay and lesbian Americans.

HRC glosses over McCain’s principled stand against the anti-gay federal marriage amendment. As I pointed out in this column for the Washington Blade, McCain didn’t just vote (twice) against the marriage amendment. He put himself on the line, bucked his own party leadership and President Bush, and took to the floor of the U.S. Senate to speak against the proposal. In 2004, he gave one of the most impassioned speeches from the Senate floor on the issue. That isn’t insignificant.

Is his record perfect? No. But it’s inclusive and shows positive signs. We will hear more about his priorities and record in the months ahead. Stay tuned…

Many bloggers think the Human Rights Campaign's high-stakes strategy hints at a developing split within the gay community over McCain.

Although the Log Cabin* hasn't decided whether to endorse McCain, he's signaling he wants to be viewed as a Big Tent Republican comfortable with gay people. McCain seems intent on coming across as likable to election-deciding independents, who tend to be gay-friendly, polls show. Notice how he has been nearly silent about the upcoming gay marriages in California.

Though many people in the LGBT community claim you cannot be Republican and gay....this simply isn't true; the ideals of the political party you're part of go a lot deeper than your sexual orientation.

Gay Marriage foes divorced reality

Bisexual Blogger: California gays should work to overturn Supreme Court ruling and start focusing on LGBT issues that actually matter

I was surfing the net today and looking at all the blog posts about California’s Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. The following post from a guest columnist really ticked me off:

(Edited for content length....some paragraphs deleted)

This decision does next to nothing for California gays and lesbians and causes real harm to people who believe in the "old" definition of marriage. It's nothing to be proud of.

The June weddings that can now be expected for same-sex couples all over California actually will provide little tangible advantage to anyone. California already has a domestic partnership law providing all the state benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act prevents all the federal benefits. Sure, gays and lesbians may get a lift in self-esteem from having their relationships declared "equal" by four jurists, but does an ego boost really outweigh the real harm caused by last week's decision?

Because there certainly are harms -- to religious liberty, to give just one example. For the past two weeks, I have been contacting "marriage equality" leaders all over California to ask about the impact of redefining marriage on religious freedom. All, including several prominent lesbian and gay legislators and other leaders, have refused to disclose their opinions, some repeatedly.

So if a traditionally religious business owner wants to extend his "marriage discount" only to couples married in his eyes, the Triangle Foundation's Sean Kososky says, "If you are a public accommodation and you are open to anyone on Main Street that means you must be open to everyone on Main Street. If they don't do it, that's contempt and they will go to jail."

No lesbian ever died a painful death because the government called her relationship a domestic partnership instead of a marriage.

Gays and lesbians should put away the champagne, work to overturn this ruling and start focusing on LGBT issues that actually matter.

The person who wrote this is a bisexual blogger, and a contributor to http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/. This person doesn't have a clue!

"Marriage Discount?" I've never heard of anything like that!

QUESTION: What if the person only wanted to provide a "marriage discount" to white married couples because they are the only ones married in his eyes?

ANSWER: That would be illegal, and unacceptable because we are evolving as a society and old hatred and bigotry isn't accepted by the new generation; that's what we call progress! A little over 50 years ago, interracial couples couldn't get married.....again, that's social progress.

Our nation was founded on diversity, social acceptance, and tolerance.

I certainly would never support forcing religious leaders and institutions to marry same-sex couples; this would be a clear violation of their constitutional rights. Legally, the power to marry however isn’t granted by God (or Church), but rather the state. It's a contract!

LGBT Victory: California Supreme Court - Gay Marriage is Legal

In 4-3 decision authored by Chief Justice George, the California Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a constitutional right same-sex couples cannot be denied! This is a major victory for the LGBT movement!

Gay marriages will begin (again) in the State of California in 30 days!

California Supreme Court: If civil marriage were an institution whose only role was to serve the interests of society, it reasonably could be asserted that the state should have full authority to decide whether to establish or abolish the institution of marriage (and any similar institution, such as domestic partnership).

In recognizing, however, that the right to marry is a basic, constitutionally protected civil right — “a fundamental right of free men [and women]” (Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711, 714) —the governing California cases establish that this right embodies fundamental interests of an individual that are protected from abrogation or elimination by the state.41 Because our cases make clear that the right to marry is an integral component of an individual’s interest in personal autonomy protected by the privacy provision of article I, section 1, and of the liberty interest protected by the due process clause of article I, section 7, it is apparent under the California Constitution that the right to marry — like the right to establish a home and raise hildren — has independent substantive content, and cannot properly be understood as simply the right to enter into such a relationship if (but only if) the Legislature chooses to establish and retain it. (Accord, Poe v. Ullman (1961) 367 U.S. 497, 553 (dis. opn. of Harlan, J.) [“the intimacy of husband and wife is necessarily an essential and accepted feature of the institution of marriage, an institution which the State not only must allow, but which always and in every age it has fostered and protected” (italics added)].

One very important aspect of the substantive protection afforded by the California constitutional right to marry is, of course, an individual’s right to be free from undue governmental intrusion into (or interference with) integral features of this relationship — that is, the right of marital or familial privacy.

In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry — and their central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society — the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation.

In sum, we conclude that statutes imposing differential treatment on the basis of sexual orientation should be viewed as constitutionally suspect under the California Constitution’s equal protection clause.

In striking down the ban, the court said, "In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation — like a person's race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."