Chilean President Offers Civil Unions Bill

Great news from South America. The President of Chile, Sebastián Piñera, has introduced legislation to legalize same-sex civil unions.

AFP reports:

"All forms of marriage deserve respect, dignity and the support of the state," said President Sebastian Pinera, who signed the proposal and sent it to Congress.

"This puts opposite-sex and same-sex couples on the same footing, because in both cases it is possible to develop love, affection and respect."

Pinera, who brought conservatives to power after 20 years of center-left rule in the country, grated on his own election campaign when he announced his intention to legalize civil unions for gay couples. He said two million people in Chile live together without marrying.

But the president has repeatedly stressed his opposition to gay marriage.

"I deeply believe that marriage is by nature between a man and a woman, but that conviction does not prevent me from recognizing that other forms of affective relationships exist," he said.

The law would permit gay couples who join into a civil union to have access to inheritance and other social benefits.

Chile is reportedly 80% Catholic and did not legalize divorce until 2004(!). However, Argentina is next door and legalized marriage equality for same-sex coupes in July 2010.

POLL: NJ Supports Marriage Equality 47%-42%

A new PPP poll of New Jersey voters shows that support for marriage equality is now the plurality position. In December 2009 a vote to legalize marriage equality failed when Governor-elect Chris Christie lobbied vigorously to kill the bill. New Jersey has had civil unions since December 2006, two months after the State Supreme Court ruled that the state must provide same-sex couples with all the rights and benefits of opposite sex couples but declined to legalize marriage equality.

While New Jersey failed to legalize same-sex marriage when it came to 
a vote in the state senate in 2010, now the Garden State is in favor of following in New 
York’s footsteps. By a 47-42 margin, New Jersey voters feel same-sex marriage should be legal. Those aged 30-45 come out strongest in support of legal same-sex marriage in New Jersey, with 55% in support and 35% opposed. New Jersey currently allows civil unions, and when they are added as an option, voters are split between marriage and civil unions. 41% favor marriage to 40% for civil unions, while 17% oppose all recognition. 


[...]

PPP surveyed 480 New Jersey voters from July 15th to 18th. The margin of error for the survey is +/-4.5%. This poll was not paid for or authorized by any campaign or political organization. PPP surveys are conducted through automated telephone interviews. PPP is a Democratic polling company, but polling expert Nate Silver of the New York Times found that its surveys in 2010 actually exhibited a slight bias toward Republican candidates.

Hat/tip to Talking Points Memo.

Williams Institute Estimates 581,300 U.S. Same-Sex Couples

Yesterday was an historic day in which the United States Senate held a hearing on a pro-LGBT piece of legislation, the Respect for Marriages Act, which would repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The Williams Institute at UCLA Law School, an LGBT public policy think tank, submitted written testimony for the hearing.

Included in the testimony are the following findings from Williams Institute research  about same-sex couples:

• There are 581,300 same-sex couples in the United States, including 50,000 to 80,000 legally married same-sex and another 85,000 who are in civil unions or registered domestic partnerships.

• Approximately 20% of same-sex couples are raising nearly 250,000 children.

• Almost one-fourth of same-sex partners are people of color.

• Over 7% of individuals in same-sex couples are veterans of the U.S. armed forces.

• Same-sex couples live in every congressional district and in almost every county in the United States.

In addition, the testimony summarizes Williams Institute research documenting a number of ways that DOMA results in legal, financial, social, and psychological hardships for many same-sex couples and their families.  These include:

• Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) Benefits.  Nearly 430,000 same-sex partners remain barred from taking leave to care for a same-sex spouse under the FMLA, even if they marry.

• Benefits for Spouses of Federal Employees.  The same-sex spouses and partners of over 30,000 federal employees are ineligible for important benefits available to different-sex married spouses.

• Veteran Partner Benefits.  Same-sex spouses and partners of nearly 68,000 veterans are barred from a variety of benefits including pensions, educational assistance, and vocational training available to different-sex spouses.

• Taxation of Employee Health Benefits for a Same-Sex Spouse.  When private employers offer health insurance to same-sex spouses and domestic partners, federal law taxes these benefits. Approximately 41,000 employees with a same-sex spouse or domestic partner pay, on average, over $1,000 more in taxes per year than an employee receiving the same health benefits for a different-sex spouse.

• Spousal Impoverishment Protections for Medicaid Long Term Care (LTC).  Medicaid LTC beneficiaries may have to use some of their spouse’s income and assets to pay for LTC. Federal law requires states to allow different-sex spouses to retain income and assets to protect them from destitution. However, about 1,700-3,000 individuals whose same-sex spouses or partners receive Medicaid-financed LTC are not protected by these spousal impoverishment provisions.

• Estate Tax.  Over the next two years, members of same-sex couples who will pay the federal estate tax, will pay, on average, more than $4 million more than a survivor of a different-sex spouse because they do not qualify for the federal estate tax spousal exemption.

• Social Security Survivor Benefits.  Unlike different-sex spouses, same-sex spouses cannot continue receiving their spouse’s social security payments after their spouse’s death. This results in a loss, on average, of over $5,700 for a same-sex spouse that receives lower social security payments than the deceased spouse. 

• Immigration for Bi-National Couples.  Nearly 26,000 same-sex couples in the United States are bi-national couples who could be forced to separate because they cannot participate in green-card and accelerated citizenship mechanisms offered to non-citizen spouses of American citizens. 

• Social Stigma.  Research shows that laws such as DOMA produce stigma that has serious adverse impacts on the health of LGBT people by causing stress and disease. A Williams Institute survey of people married to a same-sex spouse in Massachusetts found that couples gain social support from their families and have a greater level of mutual commitment when they are allowed to marry.  

The Williams Institute testimony concludes that DOMA has also impaired the ability of researchers to assess its impact on same-sex couples and their families. Although the U.S. Census Bureau has begun to reevaluate its policy of not counting married same-sex couples as such, a legacy of DOMAis evident in a general resistance on the part of federal statistical agencies to collect detailed, accurate, and reliable data on same-sex couples and their families. This means that, in spite of the efforts of the Institute, policy debates on laws like DOMA have too often been driven as much by anecdote and stereotype as by sound social science research and facts.

It's great that we can get the factual and actual impact of anti-LGBT public policy like DOMA in to the Congressional Record so that this will increase the momentum to pass legislation to end the discrimination. Apparently all 10 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee support repealing DOMA, so they could vote to move it to the Senate floor, where it will almost certainly be killed by a Republican filibuster.

RI Gov Blasts (But Signs) Discriminatory Civil Unions Bill

Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chaffee

Usually when a governor signs a civil union bill into law the LGBT community celebrates, but not this time. Rhode Island Independent Governor Lincoln Chaffee signed a civil unions bill into law over objections from a coalition of LGBT groups and opposition from religious heterosexual supremacists.

The debate is over the Corvese Amendment, which looks like:

15-3.1-5. Conscience and religious organizations protected. – (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no religious or denominational organization, no organization operated for charitable or educational purpose which is supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization, and no individual employed by any of the foregoing organizations, while acting in the scope of that employment, shall be required:

(1) To provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, certification, or celebration of any civil union; or

(2) To solemnize or certify any civil union; or

(3) To treat as valid any civil union; if such providing, solemnizing, certifying, or treating as valid would cause such  organizations or individuals to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.

(b) No organization or individual as described in subsection (a) above who fails or refuses to provide, solemnize, certify, or treat as valid, as described in subdivision (a)(1), (a)(2) or (a)(3) above, persons in a civil union, shall be subject to a fine, penalty, or other cause of action for such failure or refusal.

This is an incredibly broad religious exemption. Basically, it allows Catholic hospitals to deny life-saving medical decisions by one member of a civil union. In fact it allows any "religious" organization (or individual employee of such an organization) to completely ignore a civil union.

When Governor Chaffee signed the bill into law, according to the Middleton Patch he said:

That exemption, "gives these institutions and their employees the choice of refusing to recognize civil unions. As a result, a party to a civil union could be denied the right to make medical decisions for his or her partner, denied access to health insurance benefits, denied property rights in adjoining burial plots or denied family memberships at religiously-affiliated community centers. If religiously-affiliated hospitals, cemeteries, schools and community centers refuse to treat civil unions as valid, it would significantly harm civil union partners by failing to protect their medical, physical and commercial interests at critical moments in their lives," Chafee wrote. "This extraordinary exemption eviscerates the important rights that enacting a civil union law was meant to guarantee for same sex couples in the first place." 

"I am signing this bill because I believe that same sex couples should have the same legal rights, benefits, protections and responsibilities as heterosexual couples. Although this measure is a step forward, it fails to fully achieve those goals in its present form," Chafee wrote.

What's so bizarre about this fight is that Rhode Island already recognizes same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. So, if one Rhode Island couple gets married in New York and another Rhode Island couple gets civilly united in Rhode Island, it is the locally wed couple that can be legally discriminated against under this law, while the externally married couple can NOT be discriminated against in the same fashion.

Why would any same-sex couple apply for a Rhode Island civil union when they can apply for a legal marriage license in New York (which has no residency requirement) starting TODAY?

Catholic Charities Sue Ill. For Right To Anti-Gay Discrimination

Today in religious hubris news, three chapters of Catholic Charities (based in Peoria, Joliet and Springfield) have decided to sue Illinois in order to gain the right to take state money (as much as $30 million) but discriminate in who they provide adoption and foster care services to. As you may recall, on June 1, Illinois' civil unions law went into effect. In response, some local Catholic Charities have announced they would suspend foster care and adoption services altogether unless they have the right to violate Illinois Human Right Law which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (and race and marital status).

Simply astonishing. The Advocate has the deets:

In the suit, Catholic Charities for the dioceses of Springfield, Joliet, and Peoria claim that their state-funded adoption services are exempt from the civil unions law under provisions of the legislation as well as existing state religious freedom protections.

"Same sex couples' and unmarried cohabiting couples' application for adoption or foster care referrals could be fully and adequately serviced and accommodated (as they are now) by [the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services] referring them to other providers which do not share [our] conscientious religious objections," attorneys for the dioceses wrote in their complaint.

"On the other hand, the harm to plaintiffs and to the poor, needy and vulnerable third parties whom they serve, should no injunctive relief issue, would be severe and ... even unconscionable," they wrote.

The suit was prompted in part by a March 8 letter from Illinois attorney general Lisa Madigan's office inquiring into Catholic Charities of Springfield's existing policies and whether they violate the law.

"Please be advised that the Illinois Human Rights Act makes it a civil rights violation for any person to 'deny or refuse to another the full and equal enjoyment of facilities, goods, or services of any public place of accommodation' on the basis of unlawful discrimination," which includes sexual orientation and marital status as protected characteristics, the letter read in part.

In a Tuesday statement, a spokeswoman for the attorney general's office said of the suit, "Organizations that receive taxpayer funding to provide public services must comply with the law. Unfortunately, instead of working with the state to ensure compliance with child protection and civil rights laws, the dioceses have opted to go to court."

Filed on behalf of the dioceses by attorneys from the Thomas More Society in Chicago, the lawsuit comes after the announcement late last month that Catholic Charities in Rockford was pulling out of adoption services entirely — a decision described by one source as a possible "trial balloon" from the church to put pressure on the state assembly and attorney general's office. But "there's nothing to indicate that the governor or the assembly is interested in providing an exemption" for religious groups contracted by the state for adoption services, the source said.

Meanwhile, Catholic Charities' claim that Illinois is undermining its religious freedom in state adoption contracts has been criticized by several national LGBT legal and advocacy groups.

"It's outrageous," said Camilla Taylor, national marriage project director for Lambda Legal. "They're asking permission to put their desire to discriminate ahead of the welfare of children in state care. And they're asking to do this at taxpayer expense. It's a tragic result for children."

Even the head of Catholic Charities in Illinois, Anthony Riordan, recognizes that the position stated in the lawsuit is nonsensical, making this statement:

That the Catholic Charities adoption contracts in question are not private but rather funded to the tune of a reported $30 million annually by the state is not ultimately what this is about, he argued. "I think it's certainly a reasonable point: If you receive state funds, you have to follow the directives and the rules of the state," Riordan said. "But our position is that faith-based charities have religious liberties and certain rights of conscience."[emphasis added]

I wonder how far Catholic Charities would like these alleged religious liberties to go? The right to be exempt from age of consent laws? Statutes of limitation on child molestation lawsuits? Why stop at the human rights law and try to get exemptions for every law that they don't agree with?

It should be noted that the notion that religious beliefs should trump the concept of "equal justice under the law" and the underlying principle of public accommodations civil rights laws has been rearing it's ugly head in other contexts, most notably the fight to legalize marriage equality in New York State.

WATCH: Black Lesbian Couple 1st To Get Illinois Civil Union

Lakeesha Harris and Jeanean Watkins, a Black lesbian couple with a registered domestic partnership, were first in line to get their civil union license when Illinois civil unions law went into effect today, June 1. Governor Pat Quinn signed the bill into law earlier this year. Hawaii and Delaware also enacted civil union laws this year that go into effect later.

Hat/tip to Wonder Man.

RI State House Overwhelmingly Passes Civil Unions Bill 62-11

The lower House of the Rhode Island legislature approved a civil unions bill by a lopsided vote of 62-11 over the objections of several LGBT activists who had hoped that open;y gay Speaker Gordon Fox would be able to shepherd a marriage equality bill through his chamber but he announced late last month that there were not the votes this year to enact such a bill and that he would support civil unions instead.

Gay marriage advocates tried unsuccessfully to resurrect the gay marriage legislation during House debate. But their procedural move failed after House Speaker Gordon Fox, who is openly gay, ruled it out of order. A vote to overrule Fox failed 23-47.

Rhode Islanders opposed to civil unions gathered outside the House chamber during the two-hour debate to pray and sing religious songs. Rev. Santos Escobar, a pastor at Cranston's Abundant Life Church, said lawmakers were defying public opinion.

"They have ignored us," he said. "But we will remember how they voted in the next election."

Critics in the House warned that civil unions would prompt legal challenges designed to legalize gay marriage. Rep. Arthur Corvese, D-North Providence said civil unions were indistinguishable from marriage, and threated a "fundamental building block of society."

"If the founding fathers were alive today they would be rolling over in their graves," he said.

Opponents of civil unions proposed asking voters to weigh in on civil unions. Their request was rejected.

The debate was at times emotional, with lawmakers clashing over political pragmatism, Constitutional rights and personal stories. Rep. Michael Chippendale, R-Foster, voted against the bill in the House Judiciary Committee. But Thursday night he told his colleagues compassion made him change his mind.

"I'm a Republican. I'm a conservative. I was a no vote," he said. "If my lord Jesus Christ was here, he would say, what you do to the least of my people you do to me... I don't have that right."

The debate now moves to the Senate, which had been seen as unlikely to support gay marriage. Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed, D-Newport, has opposed gay marriage but supports the civil union bill and predicts it will win broad support.

A recent poll in Rhode Island showed nearly 60 percent support for marriage equality. Rhode Island and Maine are the only states in New England which do not have marriage equality. I support moving forward with civil unions legislation but also think that Speaker Fox should also allow a bill on marriage equality as well.

WATCH: Delaware Governor Signs Civil Unions Into Law

Brazil High Court Legalizes Civil Unions

There is good news from Brazil! The largest country in South America's highest court voted unanimously on Friday to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples.

From Reuters:

The court ruled that gay couples deserve the same legal rights as heterosexual pairs when it comes to alimony, retirement benefits of a partner who dies and inheritances, among other issues.

In Latin America, gay marriage is legal only in Argentina and Mexico City.

Same-sex civil unions granting some rights to homosexual couples are legal in Uruguay and in some states of Mexico outside the capital. Colombia's Constitutional Court has granted same-sex couples inheritance rights and allowed them to add their partners to health insurance plans.

Brazil's ruling sets a judicial precedent that must be honored by all public institutions, including notary publics where civil unions must be registered.

"This is a historic moment for all Brazilians, not just homosexuals. This judgment will change everything for us in society — and for the better," said Marcelo Cerqueira with the gay rights group Grupo Gay da Bahia. "Gays, lesbians and transsexuals will be recognized as being more human. We'll be more accepted by having our rights honored."

Very interesting! I guess I will have to bump Brazil higher on the list of the countries I want to visit. (i'm only going to countries which recognize LGBT civil rights.)

Rhode Island Trying Civil Unions "Compromise" Over Marriage Equality

Rhode Island has long been on the list of states marriage equality activists think will  likely be the next to enact marriage equality (which includes Maryland, Minnesota and New York). However, in Maryland marriage equality legislation recently died, and in Minnesota the 2010 election gave Republicans control of the legislature, which they are using to try to put a constitutional amendment prohibiting marriage equality on the 2012 ballot.

This week, openly gay (and multiracial)  Rhode Island House Speaker Gordon Fox announced that he would try to pass a civil unions bill because he felt that marriage equality legislation could not pass both houses of the legislature.

Both Marriage Equality Rhode Island and Freedom To Marry (predictably) sent out press releases denouncing the move.

Marriage Equality Rhode Island:

The Marriage Equality Rhode Island (MERI) board of directors issued a statement expressing staunch opposition to civil unions now being supported by Speaker Gordon Fox and restated their support for full marriage equality for same-sex couples in Rhode Island.

“Civil unions are unacceptable because they marginalize gay and lesbian couples in very significant ways. The General Assembly will essentially be legalizing a two-class system that subjects thousands of Rhode Island same-sex couples to discrimination. We cannot support legislation that establishes a second class of citizens in Rhode Island,” said Martha Holt, chair of MERI’s board of directors.

Freedom To Marry:

“Rhode Island House Speaker Gordon Fox has made a serious miscalculation.  With support for the freedom to marry topping 60 percent—higher than in any other state in the country—and with a strongly supportive governor, the Rhode Island House should send a marriage bill—and nothing less—to the Senate now.  Couples who are doing the work of marriage in their day-to-day lives, who have made a commitment in life, deserve to have an equal commitment under the law.  That legal commitment is called marriage.  Freedom to Marry is prepared to join with Speaker Fox, advocates on the ground, and a super-majority of Rhode Islanders to make the strongest case to the Senate. 

“Civil union is a separate and unequal half-step that has proven to be terribly inadequate in practice.  That’s why every New England state that started with civil union—Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Vermont—has moved to marriage.  It is also why the official New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission found that “the separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children.

Although I am a strong supporter of marriage equality, I disagree with MERI and Freedom To Marry here and support Gordon Fox's actions. I believe it is better to enact legislatively what you can right now to protect same-sex couples and their families, while at the same time acknowledging that you are interested in passing marriage equality in the future. Just recently, Hawaii and Illinois have done exactly that earlier this year, with Colorado coming one vote short of joining them in enacting civil unions. In Maryland, marriage equality advocates refused to support a civil unions bill and were rewarded with passage of a bill in one legislative house and bitter recriminations. New York is also only going for marriage equality. Interestingly, in New York and Maryland if you are married someplace else those states will recognize those unions under state law, so maybe the pressure is off for same-sex couples who really need the protections of marriage.

Rhode Island should be an interesting place next week. Both heterosexual supremacists and marriage equality activists will be opposed to civil unions legislations. Presumably, Governor Lincoln Chafee will sign it into law if it reaches his desk, just like he said he would a marriage equality bill.

The Providence Journal reports about the reaction to Speaker Fox's action:

Fox, in an emotional appeal to gay marriage advocates protesting outside his State House office, said his decision to support civil-union legislation was a sign of the strong opposition in both the state House of Representatives and the state Senate for gay marriage, and did not mean that he was stepping away from his drive for full-fledged marriage rights.


"I am the Speaker of the House and I am an openly gay man. This is very emotional for me,” he said. “But as speaker, I understand counting votes and what I can deliver for all of us. And I believe I am delivering rights to us today and it’s not killing the cause.”

Protester Wendy Becker, of Providence, begged him to put gay marriage to a vote, saying: “We need to let people do the right thing.”

Fox replied: “I understand that. This is the right thing for now. We’ll keep working.”

His move won support from both Governor Chafee, a strong advocate of same-sex marriage, and Senate President M. Teresa Paiva Weed, an opponent, but it was lambasted by the lead sponsor of the abandoned same-sex marriage bill, the protesters outside Fox’s State House office, and a phalanx of advocacy groups, including Marriage Equality Rhode Island.

As a same-sex marriage advocate, Chafee said he “had hoped that legislation enacting it would have reached my desk this year,” but he respects Fox’s political assessment and believes “passage of civil-union legislation would be a step forward for our state and I would sign such a bill if and when it reaches my desk.”

Paiva Weed reiterated her own support for civil unions, and said she believes this approach has “broad support” in the Senate.

I also support Speaker Fox's actions.

Delaware Legislature Passes Civil Unions Bill!

Following the passage of the State Senate last Friday by a vote of  13-6, the State House today passed the bill by a vote of 26-15.

The Washington Blade has the story:

"Today, we celebrate a victory for all Delaware families who will have the tools to protect themselves in good times and in bad,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “We look forward to Governor Markell signing this bill into law and thank Senator Sokola and Representative George for their leadership on this bill, and Equality Delaware for their tireless dedication.”

The bill, SB 30, cleared a key hurdle on Wednesday when the House Administration Committee voted 4-1 to approve it and send it to the House floor, with House Republican leader Gregory Lavelle voting for it.

[...]

The bill creates “the recognized legal relationship of civil unions” for same-sex couples and provides them with “all of the same rights, benefits, protections and responsibilities as married persons under Delaware law.”

The bill states that it is not the intention of the legislature “to revise the definition or eligibility requirements of marriage under Delaware law or to require any religious institution to perform solemnizations of civil unions.”

Similar to civil unions bills approved in other states, the Delaware bill would not provide same-sex couples with any federal rights or benefits associated with marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act, which Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed in 1996, bars same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage-related rights or benefits.

Lisa Goodman, president of the board of Equality Delaware, a state LGBT group coordinating lobbying efforts for the bill, said the group and other LGBT organizations and advocates determined they didn’t have the political support in the state to pass a same-sex marriage bill.

Goodman, an attorney in private practice, said the civil unions law would provide same-sex couples and their families, including children, with crucial legal protections that they don’t currently have.

Delaware becomes the eighth state to offer comprehensive statewide protections for same-sex couples, following: Illinois, Hawaii, New Jersey, Nevada, California, Oregon, and Washington. 5 states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex couples to get married (Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut and New Hampshire).

Delaware Senate Passes Civil Unions Bill!

Delaware took a big step today in favor of LGBT equality when the State Senate approved SB 30, a bill which would allow same-sex couples to enter into civil unions which have all the right, responsibilities and rewards that the state can provide to married couples.

According to the Washington Blade, the bill passed by a vote of 13-6

The approval came after the Senate defeated two hostile amendments, including one that would have forced a state referendum on the issue. The second amendment called for expanding the measure to include opposite-sex couples. It was defeated 12-2. 

The bill now goes to the state House where a vote is expected on Wednesday, April 13. Supporters are optimistic because the House is thought to be more supportive of the bill than the Senate.

This is surprising progress in Delaware, since it was a mere two years ago that Delaware passed an LGB rights bill banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in housing, employment, education and public accommodations. Delaware still does not have a bill banning discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

Ireland Civil Partnerships Go Into Effect

Hugh Walsh (l) and Barry Dignam are Ireland's first same-sex couple
to be registered after the country's registered partnership measure went into effect Monday April 4th.

 Ireland has joined other European Union countries (Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, Slovenia and the United Kingdom) in allowing same-sex couples to register their civil partnerships with the state, obtaining almost all the rights and responsibilities of married couples. The equivalent legal context in the United States to a European "civil or registered partnership" is a civil union or comprehensive domestic partnership.

The first couple to be registered is Hugh Walsh and Barry Dignam, as the Irish Times reports:

Yet today, 17 years after they started going out, they will become the public face of civil partnership in Ireland as one of the first couples to be joined under legislation which came into effect on January 1st. 

[...] 

Mr Dignam admitted that when the couple originally found out that they were to be the first gay couple who were to avail of the new regime without first seeking an exemption to do so, they did consider postponing the ceremony given the media attention that would inevitably follow. 

“We did have an opportunity to move the date but we felt that we would have been cheating [gay] people who had been through an awful lot of hardship – those who had been ridiculed and even jailed in the past,” he said. 

Although both Mr Dignam and Mr Walsh are in favour of full gay marriage rights, they hope that this too may happen in time. 

“This change is a pretty sizeable change although it is a pity it’s not full marriage,” he said, adding that there are those in the gay community who believe strongly that civil partnership does not go far enough. 

“They are right as well. Anything which is not equality is not equal,” he said, but added that he does not believe, like some, that civil partnership should be boycotted and would see himself as an incrementalist.

Congratulations to Hugh and Barry!

Colorado House Republicans Kill Civil Unions Bill

The Colorado House Judiciary Committee voted 6-5 to kill a civil unions bill which would have allowed unmarried heterosexual and same-sex couples access to almost all state-based rights and responsibilities currently enjoyed by married couples.

The Colorado Independent has probably the best in-depth coverage on the death of the civil unions legislation:

After the vote, Committee Chair Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs, told the Independent the main reason he voted against the bill was that Colorado voters had already made their will known on civil unions, when in 2006 they voted for Amendment 43, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and against Referendum I, which would have established civil union domestic partnerships.

“I generally believe the people of Colorado have spoken on this issue,” Gardner said. “There was a lot of discussion among supporters about polling– that people do or do not agree with the position [against civil unions] anymore. I think it’s very possible that they have changed their minds but I think we should be very reluctant to overturn something, particularly when the vote has happened in the last five years.

“I think it’s a major public policy decision and because it was subjected to a vote of the people, both in Referendum I and Amendment 43 in different ways, to do it differently now, [to pass it] legislatively, that strikes me as aggregating to ourselves something that the people have spoken on.”

That’s essentially the argument that has been cited most persuasively in public over the last weeks by Republicans opposed to the bill, despite the overwhelming trend among opponents of the bill outside the capitol and witnesses testifying against it inside the capitol to focus on faith- and scripture-based arguments about the unnaturalness and sinfulness of homosexuality and the threat gay people pose to traditional marriage and society.

Ferrandino said he thought that the “will of the people” argument had been exposed as merely a cover at the hearing.

“You know, if that was their real message, that we should send this back to the people for a vote, then they had a chance to support an amendment that would have done that,” he said.

Right before the vote was taken to close the hearing, Rep. Su Ryden, D-Aurora, proposed to attach an amendment to the bill that would have placed it onto the ballot as a referendum.

“Not a single one of the Republicans supported that amendment,” Ferrandino said. “They’re talking out of both sides of their mouths. They’re just trying to find the most convenient answer to give so they don’t look like they bent to the far right of their party.”

Ferrandino said that, as strategy, he was willing to consider Ryden’s amendment, but that given the Republican response, it was not worth dwelling upon what might have been.

“I was willing to look at that just in order to get [the bill] out of committee,” he said, “but [Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder] was persuasive in opposing that idea.”

Levy argued that a referendum was not an appropriate way to approach the problem Steadman’s bill was designed to address. She said that, as legislators, they had all been elected to protect people’s rights. That’s a first priority for a lawmaker, she said. We don’t submit to a vote of the people Constitutional rights guaranteed to all Americans, including minority Americans. That’s not the way the United States is governed, she said.

The Republicans have a 1-vote advantage in the Colorado House and the openly gay sponsor Pat Steadman said he had multiple Republican vote commitments to  support the bill on the floor. There were multiple polls showing majority popular support for civil unions legislation, despite the history of the 2006 ballot measures.

Colorado Senate Passes Civil Unions Bill 23-12

The Colorado State Senate, which has a strong Democratic majority 20-15, today completed work on SB 172, the Civil Unions Act, voting by a bipartisan majority of 23-15 to send the bill to the 65-member State House of Representatives where Republicans hold a 1-vote majority.

Interestingly, the three Republicans who voted for the bill are the only 3 female members of the Republican caucus. The Colorado Independent reports:

Highlands Ranch Republican Frank McNulty, House Speaker, will now assign SB 172 to a House committee for review. The scenario that has haunted the bill since it was introduced in February is that it would pass the Democrat-controlled Senate and then be assigned to a hard-line Republican committee on the House side where four or five members could vote it down and kill it. 

That’s still a strong possibility. Yet the bill has garnered much media attention and public polling suggests large majorities of Coloradans support it. McNulty has signaled in the past that he believes the bill deserves a fair hearing and a vote in the House, where Republicans enjoy a one-seat majority. The strong bipartisan vote tally in the Senate bolsters that case. 

Gay rights organization OneColorado celebrated the Senate voice vote Wednesday, where all three Republican women supported the bill, in part for the fact that it strengthens the case for McNulty. 

“We look forward to working with House Republican leadership who have promised a fair hearing,” said Brad Clark, executive director of OneColorado. “Issues of significant importance with overwhelming public support like civil unions deserve a full and fair hearing with an up-or-down vote by the entire House.” 

House Sponsor Mark Ferrandino, a Denver Democrat, has said for weeks that he believes the bill has enough support among Republicans in the House to pass should it make it to the floor.
Supporters of the bill might take heart from the fact there are nine Republican womenserving in the House this legislative session, at least two of whom have already signaled they would vote for the bill.

It should be interesting to see if this makes it through the lower house and to Governor John Hickenlooper's desk, where it is likely the Democratic governor would sign it into law.

Then Colorado would join other Western states such as California, Oregon, Nevada, Washington (and Hawaii) having comprehensive recognition of same-sex couples under state law without calling this legal status marriage.

Hawaii Governor Signs Civil Unions Bill Into Law

On Wednesday February 23 Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie signed Senate Bill 232 into law, making Hawaii the seventh state to legalize civil unions. The Democratic governor fulfilled a campaign promise and reversed a decision made by Republican Governor Linda Lingle one year ago. When Hawaii's civil unions law goes into effect on January 1, 2012 it will allow opposite-sex and same-sex couples access to all the rights, responsibilities and benefits of marriage that the state of Hawaii can provide them while not calling such unions marriages.

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported:

"E Komo Mai: It means all are welcome," Abercrombie said in remarks before signing the bill into law. "This signing today of this measure says to all of the world that they are welcome. That everyone is a brother or sister here in paradise." 

"The legalization of civil unions in Hawaii represents in my mind equal rights for all people," he said.

The other states that have civil unions (or comprehensive domestic partnership statutes) which provide all the state rights, responsibilities and benefits of marriage through a "separate but equal" legal status are:  California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, New Jersey and Illinois. Only the last two of these states actually call their laws "civil unions." The laws in these states are open to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. Three other states, New Hampshire, Vermont and Connecticut previously had civil unions laws on the books which were superseded by the enactment of marriage equality in those states. The states with comprehensive domestic partnership laws generally limit eligibility to opposite-sex couples where one partner is above 62 and all adult same-sex couples.

Facebook Adds "Civil Union" and "Domestic Partnership" Options

This is an interesting cultural advance. Facebook has decided to add two more options to "Relationship Status": in a civil union and in a domestic partnership.

The 600 million user social networking behemoth made a small change to its ‘Relationship Status’ drop down box today, and in doing so recognized ‘In a civil union’ and ‘In a domestic partnership’ as valid choices in the way one can report their personal relationship on the site.

[...]

Starting in Denmark in 1989 and spreading to some 30 plus countries, the concept of civil unions was created to ensure that same-sex couples received the same rights, benefits, and were subject to the same legal responsibilities as opposite-sex couples. The concept is highly controversial with both supporters and detractors for what is commonly referred to as gay marriage, the former believes it does not grant rights equivalent to marriage and thus holds them at a second lesser status, the latter holds that civil unions legitimize a type of relationship that should not be sanctioned by the state.

It should be noted that there are numerous states which have the option of civil unions and domestic partnerships: Illinois, New Jersey,  California, Washington, Oregon, and Nevada with Hawaii and possibly Colorado joining the list soon.

Of course, marriage equality is the law in Vermont, Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut and the District of Columbia with Maryland and possibly New York joining this list soon.

UPDATE: Colorado Civil Unions Bill Gains Momentum

In Colorado, the previously promised legislation to enact civil unions has materialized, along with a new poll indicating the idea has majority support in the Centennial state. Public Policy Polling (pdf), one of the most accurate pollsters in the country says more than 70% of residents support legal recognition for same-sex couples:

Q8 Which of the following best describes your opinion on gay marriage: gay couples should be allowed to legally marry, or gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry, or there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship?

Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry……40%
Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry……32%
There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship……25%
Not sure ……3%

The Denver Post reported on openly gay State Senator Pat Steadman's legislation recently:

"This is a method of recognizing committed relationships between two people and allowing them to access the full scope of protections in Colorado law," said the bill sponsor, Sen. Pat Steadman, D-Denver. 

He and the House sponsor, Rep. Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver, are two of four openly gay lawmakers in the 100-member General Assembly. 

The measure is expected to cruise through the Democratic-controlled Senate, but the real question is what happens when it gets to the House, where Republicans have a 33-32 edge. 

[...]

House Speaker Frank McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch, has repeatedly said the bill will get a fair hearing no matter which committee hears it. 

Senate Bill 172 allows unmarried adults, regardless of gender, to apply to a county clerk and recorder for a civil-union license. 

The legal benefits, protections and responsibilities granted under the law to spouses would apply to parties in civil unions. That includes the ability to file a claim based on wrongful death, eligibility for family-leave benefits and spousal privilege.