Gallup Shows Majority Support For Marriage Equality 53-45

This is big news! The Gallup Organization, the most respected polling outfit in the United States, has announced that a majority of Americans support the right of same-sex couples to be married with the same rights and responsibilities as "traditional marriages."

This year's nine-point increase in support for same-sex marriage is the largest year-to-year shift yet measured over this time period. Two-thirds of Americans were opposed to legalized same-sex marriage in 1996, with 27% in favor. By 2004, support had risen to 42% and, despite some fluctuations from year to year, stayed at roughly that level through last year.

Democrats' and Independents' Greater Acceptance Shifts the Balance

Democrats' and independents' support for legalized same-sex marriage increased this year by 13 and 10 points, respectively. Republicans' views on the issue did not change from last year. Clear majorities of both Democrats and independents now support gay marriage, 69% and 59% respectively, contrasted with 28% support among Republicans.

Majorities of moderates and liberals support gay marriage, as they did last year, contrasted with 28% of conservatives.

As Daily Kos put it, the Party that has the biggest problem with reality (Republicans) registered absolutely no change in opinion on marriage equality in the last year.

This is actually not surprising. Researchers at Harvard about implicit versus explicit bias have found that Republicans are the only group whose self-reported (explicit) bias against LGBT people is actually larger than their unconscious (implicit) bias. In other words, being homophobic or being publicly identified as homophobic actually reinforces Republicans view of their self-identity.  Thus they are more likely to publicly identify themselves with the anti-gay policy position than they truly believe.

What is so interesting about this result is that it flips the narrative on its head about whether marriage equality is "controversial" or a minority view point. Marriage equality support is a majority position. The next question is whether elected representatives will reflect this reality in the near future.

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.

SHOCKER! Maryland Marriage Bill Recommitted; Likely Dead

It's still not clear what happened but the vote on HB 175/SB 116 in the Maryland House of Delegates has not happened today and is unlikely to happen because the bill has been sent back to the House Judiciary Committee where it nearly escaped death by a 12-10 vote last week.

A joint press release from Equality Maryland, Freedom to Marry and Human Rights Campaign was distributed:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 11, 2011

EQUALITY MARYLAND CONTACT: Morgan Meneses-Sheets, Executive Director | 202-812-9229

FREEDOM TO MARRY CONTACT: Jackie Yodashkin | Jackie@freedomtomarry.org | 646-430-3925

HRC CONTACT: Paul Guequierre | paul.guequierre@hrc.org | 202-423-2860

Statement on Developments in Maryland Marriage Debate

Groups working for freedom to marry in Maryland remain committed

ANNAPOLIS, MD. – Today a coalition of groups including Equality Maryland, the Human Rights Campaign, Freedom to Marry and Gill Action released the following joint statement in response to developments in the debate over ending the exclusion of same-sex couples from the freedom to marry in Maryland:

“Already this year we have made tremendous progress toward winning the freedom to marry for same-sex couples in Maryland.  Successful votes in the full Senate and House committee show there is a strong and growing movement toward the freedom to marry.  Over the past several days it has become clear that additional time to continue the marriage conversation in the state will better position the Civil Marriage Protection Act for success.  By taking a bit more time, the majority of Marylanders who support the freedom to marry in the state will have the opportunity to have their voices heard by their legislators.

“We are thankful to the leadership for taking these steps to ensure that all Maryland families will be respected at the earliest possible date.  We remain optimistic that very soon all Maryland families will be treated equally under the law.  We thank Governor Martin O’Malley, House Speaker Michael Busch, Majority Leader Kumar Barve, and the Maryland LGBT Legislative Caucus for their tireless efforts.”

Black Female Senator Holds Deciding Vote On Marriage?

State Senator Joan Carter Conway (D)

As regular readers of this blog know, Maryland is currently engaging in a legislative debate about expanding civil marriage rights to same-sex couples. State Senator Joan Carter Conway, an African-American woman who represents the Baltimore area has emerged as the likely 24th (and deciding) vote to legalize marriage equality in the great state of Maryland.

Rod 2.0 reports:

The deciding vote: Joan Carter Conway, a veteran Baltimore Democrat.

In interviews Monday, two more senators said they intended to vote for the bill, increasing the number who have made such commitments to 24 - the bare majority needed for passage in the 47-member Senate - according to an ongoing Washington Post tally.  The Post's count of 24 senators includes one - Joan Carter Conway (D-Baltimore) - who has said she will not vote for the bill if she believes it will fail. Conway told The Post last week that she "would pray real hard" and vote for the bill if hers was the deciding vote. Still, it is clear that the legislation, which has stalled in previous years, has considerable momentum.

The Baltimore Sun has a tally of publicly announced Senator's positions on the legislation, which will face its first committee votes on Thursday February 17th and a full Senate floor vote on Tuesday February 22nd.

For (23)
Sen. James Brochin, Baltimore County Democrat
Sen. Bill Ferguson, Baltimore Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Jennie Forehand, Montgomery County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Brian Frosh, Montgomery County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Rob Garagiola, Montgomery County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Lisa Gladden, Baltimore Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Verna Jones, Baltimore Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Edward Kasemeyer, Baltimore and Howard counties Democrat
Sen. Delores Kelley, Baltimore County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Nancy King, Montgomery County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Allan H. Kittleman, Howard County Republican
Sen. Katherine Klausmeier, Baltimore County Democrat
Sen. Richard Madaleno, Montgomery County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Roger Manno, Montgomery County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Nathaniel McFadden, Baltimore Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Karen Montgomery, Montgomery County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Paul Pinsky, Prince George's County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Catherine E. Pugh, Baltimore Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Victor Ramirez, Prince George's County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Jamie Raskin, Montgomery County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. James Robey, Howard County Democrat
Sen. Ronald Young, Frederick County Democrat (sponsor)
Sen. Bobby Zirkin, Baltimore County Democrat (sponsor)


No public position/Undecided
Sen. John Astle, Anne Arundel County Democrat
Sen. James Brochin, Baltimore County Democrat (supports)
Sen. Joan Carter Conway, Baltimore Democrat
Sen. Ulysses Currie, Prince George's County Democrat
Sen. Edward Kasemeyer, Baltimore and Howard counties Democrat (supports)
Sen. Katherine Klausmeier, Baltimore County Democrat (supports)
Sen. James Rosapepe, Prince George's County Democrat

If any one of the twenty-three seators in the "For" column actually votes against the measure then Sen. Conway may vote against the legislation, fearing it would fail? This is such an insupportable position! Either one thinks marriage should be between two people regardless of gender or you don't! I hope that Sen. Conway discovers that as she "pray[s] real hard" that it is not okay to vote to discriminate against any other group of people, especially as a "double minority" herself.

I must say that it is pretty shocking that in such a Democrat-dominated state that this is even an issue. Already Maryland will recognize marriages from other states, this is about giving that same opportunity to Marylanders to not have to leave the state to get married.

Also, when the Governor O;Malley signs the marriage bill into law, the National Organization for Marriage will do all it can to try to overturn the measure at the ballot in 2012, so this is really just a skirmish in the war for marriage equality.

NYT Editorial On Defending the Defense of Marriage Act

Today is Valentine's Day, and the New York Times took the opportunity to take the Obama Administration to task for its defense in court of the indefensible "so-called" Defense of Marriage Act (commonly known by its acronym DOMA):

Two new lawsuits, filed in Connecticut and New York, challenging the Defense of Marriage Act now offer the president a chance to put the government on the side of justice. We urge him to seize it when the administration files its response, which is due by March 11. The executive branch’s duty to defend federal laws is not inviolate. This one’s affront to equal protection is egregious.

As in the Massachusetts cases, there are two crucial questions here. The overarching one, of course, is whether it is constitutional for the federal government to deny benefits to some people who are legally married under their state’s laws. Much also depends on the standard of review. How should courts evaluate claims that a law discriminates against gay people?

On the merits, this should be an easy call. A law focusing on a group that has been subjected to unfair discrimination, as gay people have been, is supposed to get a hard test. It is presumed invalid unless the government proves that the officials’ purpose in adopting the law advances a real and compelling interest. That sort of heightened scrutiny would challenge the administration’s weak argument for upholding the act. It would also make it more difficult to sustain other forms of anti-gay discrimination, including state laws that deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

By now, such blatant discrimination should be presumed to be unconstitutional, and the Justice Department should finally say so. If conservatives in Congress want to enter the case to argue otherwise, so be it.

The editorial is referring to the cases Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services. These lawsuits are claiming that the United States is discriminating against legally married couples in Massachusetts by denying these couples access to a whole host of federal benefits due the Section 3 of the DOMA. The first lawsuit was filed by GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders); they have (essentially) won every marriage case they have filed, in Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. The State of Massachusetts filed suit separately on behalf of the same-sex couples who have been able to get legally married there since May 17, 2004. Both cases are now pending before the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after the Justice Department decided to appeal a great opinion by U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro,  with "the good guys" winning at the trial court level.

The Obama Administration has great leeway in how they handle the case. I support their decision to appeal the case(s) but I agree with the Times editorial that in addition to whether the justice Department appeals is how they appeal the case. The decision to appeal has already been made, anyway. The question is whether the Justice Department should continue asserting that it believes DOMA is constitutional, when the President has said that he wants it repealed. The main argument is that it is the Justice Department's job to defend statutes passed by Congress and it's not really a defense if you tell the court "I agree with my opponent that their legal argument is correct!"

However, the legal terrain on which the defense of the Defense of Marriage Act is crucially important for numerous pending lawsuits in federal court. There the question is whether the burden of proof will be on the Government to give a compelling reason for why they are discriminating against a class of people and burdening their exercise of a fundamental right (to marry) OR whether the Government can come up with any rational reason for the existence of the statute and Massachusetts and the same-sex legally married couples have to claim the government's rationales are not even rational. In legalese, it is whether "heightened scrutiny" should be given to the statute. I would argue that it should be, and the New York Times editorial page is beseeching the Obama administration to take this position as well.

POLL: Majority of Maryland Voters Support Marriage Equality

The Washington Post reports on a new poll which increases the likelihood that Maryland will become the next state to enact marriage equality:

In the poll, 51 percent of voters say they would favor a law in Maryland allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 44 percent opposed such a law and 5 percent gave no response.

If the legislature passes a same-sex marriage bill, it is likely to be petitioned to the ballot for a statewide vote in 2012. 

[...] 

The Gonzales poll of 802 registered voters who vote regularly was conducted Jan. 13 to Jan. 19. It is said to have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

 What will be very important in determining whether Maryland has marriage equality in 2013 is whether the bill that enacts marriage equality goes into effect well before the November 2012 election. One of the main reasons Proposition 8 passed in November 2008 was that marriage equality had only been in effect for 173 days and most Californians had not had enough time to realize that one couple's (gay) marriage has no impact on anyone else's life, let alone their marriage.

I would also caution observers to notice that 51 percent does not mean that an actual majority of Maryland voters supports marriage equality, the margin of error could put the real number as low as 47.5%. However, it does indicate that the trend is moving in the right direction. I'm sure there will be many more polls before the proposed marriage bill goes into effect.