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.

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.

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."

The Conservative Case For Gay Marriage

Andrew Sullivan posted something today that I loved. I wanted to share it with you:

Social conservatism resists change and that therefore extending civil marriage rights to gay couples is inherently liberal. The reform corresponds with the evolution of civil marriage away from procreation and toward companionship - and social conservatives worry about such change. In that sense, I don't disagree with Reihan's point. The most coherent conservative objection to same-sex marriage is simply resistance to any tampering with a vital social institution.

But as societies change, conservatives have to adapt. Given that our society now has a huge number of openly gay couples, many with children, and that the law has to respond to this social reality, the practical decision conservatives have to make is: what shall we do about this? My fear, expressed almost two decades ago now, was that the ad hoc responses - domestic partnership, civil unions and the like - were as practically unavoidable as they were subtly undermining of marriage. Give gays domestic partnerships and marriage-lite and straights will demand them as well. And so marriage becomes less special and less constructive an institution.

I can see that, back in 1989, when I first made the case, the jump to full marriage equality seemed a leap. But two decades later? When it has become the norm in many countries and in one state? When civil unions exist in many other states? Why does it remain socially liberal to resist the conservative logic of including everyone within the same family structure, with the same responsibilities? And, of course, when you actually listen to the current advocates of banning such marriages - and unions - you do not hear nuanced or Hayekian social arguments very often. You hear truisms - "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" - or religious invocations of the "sanctity" of a civil institution.

I suppose marriage equality is socially liberal in as much as it tries to defend and integrate a previously despised minority. But it is socially conservative in its attempt to envelop that minority in the traditions and responsibilities of family life. In this, it is exactly the same as welfare reform: ending a disincentive to family life among a minority that needs more social stability. I have to say that having finally begun to live a married life, all my previous intuitions about its integrating impact have been borne out more profoundly than I ever imagined.

If you can make the leap to seeing gay people as the equal of straight people, then encouraging their marriages to one another is arguably one of the most socially conservative measures now subject to national debate. That's why it remains so saddening that so many social conservatives still regard it as definitionally anathema. I don't think it's a leap to believe that homophobia or fundamentalism are the critical stumbling blocks. Or that they are the real reasons for the resistance.

LOGO presidential debate - gay marriage.

Six of the candidates seeking the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination participated Thursday in a two-hour forum in Los Angeles devoted to issues of concern to gays and lesbians. The event — moderated by journalist Margaret Carlson was broadcast live on Logo, a lifestyle cable channel aimed at gay and lesbian viewers.

For anyone who missed the LOGO presidential debate you can watch it here.







The basic subject of the LOGO debate was gay marriage, non-discrimination, etc. This is what Law Digest says about gay marriage:

The legal issues surrounding same-sex marriage in the United States are complicated by the nation's federal system of government. Traditionally, the federal government did not attempt to establish its own definition of marriage; any marriage recognized by a state was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more other states (as was the case with interracial marriage before 1967). With the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, however, a marriage was explicitly defined as a union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law. (See 1 U.S.C. § 7.)

However, many aspects of marriage law affecting the day to day lives of inhabitants of the United States are determined by the states, not the federal government, and the Defense of Marriage Act does not prevent individual states from defining marriage as they see fit; indeed, legal scholars have stated that the federal government cannot impose a definition of marriage onto the laws of the various states.

Kentucky Constitution, Section 233A: Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.

Kentucky Revised Statutes
Section 402.005: Definition of marriage. As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.

Gay marriage? It isn't going to happen in Kentucky anytime soon. I'd settle for the following for now (progress takes time):

• A Kentucky law prohibiting discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
• A Kentucky law prohibiting discrimination in housing based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
• A Kentucky law prohibiting discrimination in credit based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
• A Kentucky law prohibiting discrimination in service based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
• A Kentucky law giving me the legal right to visit my "partner" in the hospital.
• The Governor, as well as the Kentucky House of Representatives and Senate to leave the issue of "domestic-partner" at Kentucky educational facilities alone.

For additional coverage about the debate visit InterstateQ.

Gay Man & Sick Partner's Family Highlights Lack Of Same-Sex Couple Rights.

Hospital visitation rights*, as well as the right to make decisions for your partner are only two of the many rights the Commonwealth of Kentucky denies same-sex couples (and in the case, the State of Indiana).

This case however is bringing national attention to one of the many problems faced by same-sex couples:

For a quarter century Patrick Atkins and Brett Conrad shared their lives including a home and bank accounts but when Atkins fell near fatally ill Conrad discovered he had no rights in determining the care or who would deliver it to his ailing partner.

In 2005 Atkins collapsed while on a business trip to Atlanta. He had a ruptured aneurysm and later suffered a stroke while hospitalized.

When Conrad arrived in Atlanta Atkins' family directed the hospital to refuse him access to the ailing 47-year old, the Indianapolis Star reports. He was allowed by sympathetic hospital staff to sneak in after hours and after Atkins parents had left.

When Atkins was moved to a nursing home Conrad again was forced to sneak in to see the man with whom he had spend more than half his life.

Later that year Conrad filed for guardianship of Atkins. But the now severely disabled man's parents quickly moved their son to their home and have refused to allow Conrad access to him. For the past two years Conrad has been battling the Atkins family in court.

Legal documents obtained by the Star show that Atkins' mother, Jeanne Atkins, believes homosexuality is a sin and refuses to acknowledge the men's relationship. In June the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that Conrad must have visitation rights.

"Brett and Patrick have spent 25 years together as life partners - longer than Patrick lived at home with his parents - and their future life together has been destroyed by Patrick's tragic medical condition and by the Atkinses' unwillingness to accept their son's lifestyle," the ruling said.

But the court left the care of Atkins up to his parents. The Atkins family has asked the Appeals Court to reconsider the visitation ruling. Eventually the case is expected to go to the Indiana Supreme Court.

Indiana (like Kentucky) has a so-called defense of marriage law barring same-sex couples from marrying and no legislation giving any rights to gay and lesbian couples.

* Kentucky Equality Federation and allied organizations tried unsuccessfully to get hospital visitation rights passed by the 2007 Kentucky General Assembly.

Family Foundation of Kentucky threatens to file an injunction to stop UK domestic partnerships.

The Family Foundation of Kentucky is considering filing an injunction against the University of Kentucky to stop domestic partner benefits from going into effect on Monday when their new fiscal year begins.

Let them file their injunction, because doing so could open a Pandora's box they will never be able to close again.

Domestic Partnership? The real issue here with the Family Foundation of Kentucky is if homosexuals have the rights to any of the benefits associated with marriage. Why would they not?

Kentucky Constitution - Section 233A: Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.

Marriage is something created by the state (both Kentucky and the United States) for the benefit of its citizens.

Most people cannot disassociate a chapel, white dress, and a best man from their definition of marriage. The only religious thing about marriage however is in the minds of the people. When a marriage is dissolved it is done by the state, not God. When a minister pronounces someone married he or she does so by saying "by the power invested in me by the Commonwealth of Kentucky."

Marriage Defined:
Marriage is an interpersonal relationship with governmental, social, or religious recognition, usually intimate and sexual, and often created as a contract.

The reasons people marry vary widely, but usually include one or more of the following: legal, social and economic stability; the formation of a family unit; procreation and the education and nurturing of children; legitimizing sexual relations; public declaration of love.

• What gives heterosexual couples the right to be the only ones to enjoy this? The state.
• Is Section 233A (passed by a 2004 Constitutional Amendment) of the Kentucky Constitution unconstitutional? Yes. It violates Section I, Section II, Section III, and Section IV of the Kentucky Constitution.
• Does Section 233A of the Kentucky Constitution violate United State law? Traditionally, the federal government did not attempt to establish its own definition of marriage; any marriage recognized by a state was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more other states (as was the case with interracial marriage before 1967). With the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, however, a marriage was explicitly defined as a union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law. (See 1 U.S.C. § 7.) Thus, no act or agency of the U.S. federal government currently recognizes same-sex marriage.
  
  Some opponents of same-sex marriage, wanting to ensure that the constitutionality of such laws cannot be challenged in the courts under the Full Faith and Credit clause, Equal Protection Clause or Due process clause of the United States Constitution, have proposed a Federal Marriage Amendment to the constitution that would prevent the federal government or any state from providing a marriage or the legal incidents thereof to a same-sex couple, whether through the legislature or the courts.

Let the Family Foundation of Kentucky file their injunction so the legal battle may finally begin.

A UCLA report released in January 2007 about the attitudes of college freshmen nationwide says acceptance of same-sex marriage grew between 2005 and 2006. The study found that 61% of incoming freshmen last year agreed that same-sex couples should have the right to marriage, up 3.3 percentage points from 2005.

Fletcher Vs. Northup for Governor.

Most of the publicity for the election of the commonwealth's chief executive has been centered around unseated U.S. Representative Ann Northup (R) and our current chief executive, Governor Ernie Fletcher.

Though Fletcher has been conservative in a lot of areas, not nearly as conservative as Northup.

Is Governor Fletcher the lesser of the two evils should the primary come down to the Fletcher and Northup? You decide!

FLETCHER:
Kentucky Equality Federation is no fan of Governor Fletcher.

We cannot forget that he refused to veto unconstitutional funding to the University of the Cumberlands, leading the Federation to hold a protest outside the Governor's Mansion during the Governor's Annual Derby Breakfast (that brings approximately 15,000 people to Frankfort from around the nation).

Governor Fletcher also rescinded an executive order Governor Patton had established protecting LGBT people from discrimination in government.

Let us not even address the ugly hiring scandal. We're sick of hearing about it....and the bottom line is that the Fletcher Administration violated laws in our opinion.

NORTHUP:
Now, on to Northup; while part of Kentucky's Congressional Delegation, Northup voted in a manner inconsistent with Kentucky Equality Federation Values:

Northup voted NO on this issues:
Vote 535: H R 6375: Requiring the Secretary of Defense to Submit to Congress An Annual Report and to Provide Notice to the Public on Congressional Initiatives in Funds Authorized or Made Available to the Department of Defense. (no government/public oversight on Pentagon spending)

Prosecuting Hate Crimes - Expand the federal criminal civil rights statute to include violent acts against a person because of a person's sexual orientation, gender identity, gender or disability.

Northup did NOT vote on these issues:
Vote 423: H RES 844: Congratulating the International Aids Vaccine Initiative on 10 Years of Significant Achievement in the Search for HIV/AIDS Vaccine, and for Other Purposes.

Northup voted YES on these issues:
Warrantless Wiretapping - Warrantless surveillance of telephone and e-mail conversations that Americans in the U.S. have with people abroad, even when there is no evidence that they are conspiring with foreign terrorist organizations. It would authorize Warrantless surveillance of Americans with no judicial check if the U.S. is attacked, or when the president decides there is a threat of attack.

Federal Marriage Constitutional Amendment - Amendment the United States Constitution that would deny the right to marry to all same-sex couples and jeopardize all other protections that same-sex couples have under state or local law. Send to states for ratification.

Anti-Marriage Court-Stripping Bill - A bill to strip all federal courts -- including the U.S. Supreme Court -- of jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of the anti-gay federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Domestic Partnership - Block the implementation of the Dictrict of Columbia's domestic partnership law. Every year since 1992, Congress has blocked a measure passed by the D.C. City Council that would allow city employees to purchase health insurance for their partners and provide hospital visitation rights to other domestic partners in the city.

UCLA study: 61% of incoming freshmen support marriage equality.

A UCLA report released today about the attitudes of college freshmen nationwide says acceptance of same-sex marriage grew between 2005 and 2006.

The study found that 61% of incoming freshmen last year agreed that same-sex couples should have the right to marriage, up 3.3 percentage points from 2005.

Based on a paper questionnaire given to 271,441 first-time, full-time college students at 393 schools nationwide in 2006, the annual survey was conducted as part of the Cooperative Institutional Research Program under UCLA's Higher Education Research Institute. The researchers statistically adjusted the data to reflect the demographics of the 1.3 million incoming freshmen entering four-year schools throughout the U.S. in 2006.

The UCLA study surveyed opinions on a variety of social and political issues.

Researchers say today's freshmen are more vocal about their political ideologies than in previous years, with 33.8% saying they've recently discussed politics, up from 25.5% in 2004, when the question was last asked.

The percentage of students identifying themselves as "liberal," 28.4%, is at its highest level since 1975, and those identifying as "conservative," 23.9%, at its highest level in the survey's 40-year history.

However, the majority of 2006's freshman students, 43.3%, consider themselves "middle-of-the-road," the lowest percentage since first measured by the research program in 1970.

Hot-button issues, such as abortion and same-sex marriage, sharply divide liberals and conservatives, the survey found.

While the majority of freshmen overall support same-sex marriage, the issue divides students along ideological lines. Four out of 5 liberals support same-sex marriage, compared with 1 out of every 3 conservatives.

The common ground between liberals and conservatives can be found on affirmative action in college admissions, where 53% of conservatives and 45% of liberals agree that the practice should be abolished.

The two groups strongly agree in similar proportions that "dissent is a critical component of the political process," supported by 63.2% of conservatives and 66.1% of liberals surveyed.