Romney Pledges Heterosexual Supremacy

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney signed a pledge from the National Organization of Marriage to affirm his support for heterosexual supremacy in America. This entails:

1. To support and send to the states for ratification a federal marriage amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
2. To do vigorously what President Obama has refused to do: defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court.
3. To appoint to the Supreme Court, and as his or her Attorney General, only those who support the original meaning of the Constitution and who will, therefore, not invent a right to gay marriage.
4. To establish a presidential commission to investigate the increasing reports of harassment and threats to supporters of traditional marriage.
5. And to give back to the people of D.C. the right already guaranteed in the Charter which Congress gave them: the right to vote on marriage via the referendum process.

Where to begin? I guess let's address them one at a time. The Federal Marriage Amendment didn't get out of the U.S. House of Representatives when the Republicans controlled the Presidency, the House and the Senate majority in July 2006 and popular support was below 50%. Why would anyone expect a measure to divorce the estimated 100,000 same-sex married couple in the country to be more successful in 2013? It takes a vote of 2/3rds of BOTH Houses of the Legislature and then ratification of 3/4 of the states to be enacted. In 220 years the document has been Amended 27 times, and 10 of those happened within the first 5 years. A federal marriage amendment is not going to happen!

The second item (to defend DOMA) is obvious, but by the time a Republican could become President on January 20, 2013, the Defense of Marriage Act may already have been struck down by multiple federal appellate courts and perhaps even the U.S. Supreme Court.

The fact that Romney, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum signed the third item should mean they are immediately disqualified to serve as President. They are basically saying that they will have a particular litmus test for Supreme Court nominees (and Attorney General).

The fourth item is just sheer buffoonery. As the discriminatory position of heterosexual supremacists to envision a society in which heterosexuals have more civil rights than non-heterosexual becomes more and more a repulsive position to a greater majority of American voters, the supremacists have begun to claim that any opposition to their radical ideology in verbal or written form is "harassment" or "intolerance towards religion." The idea of a President Commission to explore harassment and threats to people who have been publicly calling for LGBT people to have less rights than other Americans is simply laughable.

The fifth item is just obnoxious. Marriage equality has been legal in the District of Columbia since March 4, 2010 after a measure was approved by a near-unanimous vote of its law-making body in December 15 2009. After filing multiple lawsuits in order to force a vote of the majority on the rights of the minority despite explicit provisions in the D.C. Charter which prevents such inimical actions, those attempts came to an ignominious end with a Supreme Court refusal to hear their appeal on January 18, 2011.

It should be interesting to see which other Republican presidential candidates are willing to sign NOM's pledge to heterosexual supremacy. I presume Rick Perry will be next in line to add his name to this foolishness.

Cal Sup Ct Prop 8 Arguments To Be Televised Live

Last week I told you that the California Supreme Court had set oral arguments in "the Prop 8 case" (Perry v. Brown) for September 6, 2011 at 10am. This week comes news that those oral arguments will be televised live!

Online newspaper SF Appeal has the deets:

In January, a panel of the appeals court said that federal law, as defined in a 1997 Supreme Court decision, doesn't seem to allow sponsors to defend an initiative when state officials refuse to do so.

But the appeals panel said there might be a right under state law, and asked the California Supreme Court to step in and decide that issue.

The seven-member state high court will hear one hour of arguments in its State Building courtroom on Sept. 6 and then will have 90 days to issue a written ruling.

Court spokeswoman Lynn Holton said that because of public interest in the case, the court has approved a live statewide television broadcast of the arguments on the California Channel, a public affairs network.

If the state court eventually rules that the sponsors have standing, or the right to appeal, the case will then go back to the 9th Circuit for review of Walker's decision, a process that might take several more months.

But the federal appeals court said earlier this year that if the sponsors lack legal standing, the federal court would be required to dismiss the appeal.

Hat/tip to Wonder Man

New Poll On New York Marriage Law

There is a new poll which asks Americans nationwide whether the legalization of marriage equality in New York state on July 24th is a positive or negative development. The results show that it depends on whether you are conservative Republican (and/or white evangelical Protestant) or not. If you are, you generally oppose it, if you're not you think it's a positive development.

Democrats and Republicans react in opposite ways to the new law, each facing stark internal divisions that may present challenges to building a winning coalition in 2012. Among Democrats, the divide is between the liberal base and those with conservative or moderate stripes. Liberal Democrats view the law positively by an overwhelming 74 to 25 percent margin. A smaller 54 percent majority of moderate and conservative Democrats say the same. Among African Americans, another loyal segment of the Democratic party coalition, more than six in 10 say the law is a negative development, while roughly one in three see it positively. Republicans broadly reject the law by a 2 to 1 margin, but alignment with the tea party movement complicates political calculations concerning the issue. More than seven in 10 Republicans who support the Tea Party movement view the New York law as a negative development.

This partisan divide in the electorate about marriage equality has been a frequent topic at this blog. Many people believe that the tipping point in favor of marriage equality becoming the law of the land has already reached.

Recently, researches at my alma mater have produced a model of conversion which indicates that when just 10% of a population has an implacable, unalterable position that view will eventually become the majority position, given enough time.

Maryland Gov Announces Push For Marriage Equality

Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley announced new plans to make the legalization of marriage equality in the 2012 legislative session an administration priority for him. You may recall that a marriage equality bill passed the state senate earlier this year but at the last minute was recommitted (and killed) instead of being voted on in the House of Delegates. Governor O'Malley announced that he will using his political capital to ensure a bill reaches his desk next year.

ANNAPOLIS, MD (July 22, 2011) – Governor Martin O’Malley and Lt. Governor Anthony G. Brown today released the following statements regarding the Governor’s decision to sponsor same sex marriage legislation in the 2012 legislative session. Last year, same sex marriage legislation was proposed and sponsored by Senator Rob Garagiola, Delegate Kumar Barve and Delegate Ben Barnes:

Governor O’Malley:

“Marylanders of all walks of life want their children to live in a loving, stable, committed home – protected under the law.  As a free and diverse people of many faiths, we choose to be governed under the law by certain fundamental principles or beliefs, among them “equal protection of the law” for every individual and the “free exercise” of religion without government intervention.  Other states have found a way to protect both these rights.  So should Maryland. The legislation we plan to introduce in the 2012 legislative session will protect religious freedom and equality of marital rights under the law.” 

Lt. Governor Brown:

“All Marylanders deserve to be treated equally under the law, and I look forward to joining Governor O’Malley in working with the General Assembly to pass a Marriage Equality bill that will provide the same opportunity for all who wish to marry while fully protecting religious freedoms and views.  Every member of our community should enjoy the same freedoms and share the same responsibilities.”

Do the heterosexual supremacists really think they are going to win this fight? Since 2004 there have been more same-sex couples who have access to legal civil marriages every year and there's no sign that the trend will not continue for the foreseeable future.

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.

Wolfson Testimony At DOMA Repeal Hearing

President Obama Endorses DOMA Repeal Bill!

Today is when the Senate Judiciary Committee is hearing testimony about the repeal of the so-called Defense of  Marriage Act, through consideration of S. 598, the Respect for Marriage Act.

However, yesterday the Whuite House Press Secretary Jay Carney made news yesterrday when he announced that the President was endorsing the legislation, even before its first committee hearing (a rare step for Presidents to take with legislation).

The response was to a question by openly gay reporter Chris Geidner of Metro Weekly:




The transcript of the exchange is available:

Metro Weekly: The president has said in the past that he opposes the Defense of Marriage Act, but he is yet to endorse the Respect for Marriage Act, which is the specific piece of legislation --

Carney: Senator [Dianne] Feinstein [(D-Calif.)], yeah.

Metro Weekly: -- aimed to repeal the bill. Tomorrow, the Senate will hold the first hearing into that bill. Is the administration ready to endorse that bill?

Carney: I can tell you that the President has long called for a legislative repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, which continues to have a real impact on the lives of real people -- our families, friends and neighbors. He is proud to support the Respect for Marriage Act, introduced by Sen. Feinstein and Congressman [Jerrold] Nadler [(D-N.Y.)], which would take DOMA off the books once and for all. This legislation would uphold the principle that the federal government should not deny gay and lesbian couples the same rights and legal protections as straight couples.

It should be interesting how far Senate Democrats want to push DOMA repeal. They presumably have the votes to get it out of committee but probably not the 60 votes to break the inevitable filibuster. And passage in the U.S. House is a non-starter.

GLAD Files For Summary Judgment In DOMA Case

GLAD Files Motion for Summary Judgment in 2nd Circuit DOMA Challenge, Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management

Plaintiffs Ask Court for Heightened Scrutiny

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) filed a motion for summary judgment in Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, its 2^nd Circuit challenge to the federal so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

GLAD argues that the equal protection claims of the plaintiffs, six married couples and one widower fromConnecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire, require heightened scrutiny from the court. The brief shows how DOMA fails heightened scrutiny, or even a rational basis review.

“No interest advanced to defend DOMA can in fact withstand any level of scrutiny,” the brief reads.  “The reasons offered by Congress at the time of DOMA’s passage are either nonsensical or just another way of saying that Congress wanted to denounce and harm those gay men and lesbians who form long-term relationships and seek to have those relationships recognized and respected through civil marriage.”

GLAD also filed supporting affidavits from experts Michael Lamb, Ph.D, Gary Segura, Ph.D, Lititia Anne Peplau, Ph.D, George Chauncey, Ph.D, and Nancy F. Cott, Ph.D.

The next step is for Congress to respond to GLAD’s motion for summary judgment on or by August 15, 2011.

GLAD filed Pedersen v. OPM in Hartford, CT on November 8, 2010.  GLAD’s DOMA challenge Gill v. OPM won a July 8, 2010 ruling in Massachusetts federal district court that DOMA is unconstitutional.  That case is now on appeal. 

Co-operating counsel on Pedersen are Jenner & Block LLP (Washington, DC), Horton, Shields & Knox (Hartford), and Sullivan & Worcester LLP (Boston).  Co-counsel in the Gill case are Foley Hoag LLP, Sullivan & Worcester LLP, Jenner & Block LLP, and Kator, Parks & Weiser, PLLC.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is New England’s leading legal organization dedicated to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status, and gender identity and expression.

# # #

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?

EQME Plans 2012 Marriage Equality Ballot Measure

Well, well, well! The LGBT community will not only be playing defense of our civil rights in the 2012 election in Minnesota but will also be playing offense in Maine. 

Equality Maine has announced that they will be attempting to put this question before voters on the November 2012 ballot:

Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses for same-sex couples that protects religious freedom by ensuring no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs?

More interestingly, Equality Maine also released the information that marriage equality is a majority position in Maine, according to recent polls.

The Bangor Daily News reports:

“We’ve changed hearts and minds during ‘No on One,’ and since then, many more Mainers have changed their hearts and continue to change their minds,” said Smith in a Thursday release. “We have been going door to door, talking to them and hearing their journey toward support. In two separate polls, conducted over the last five months, 53 percent of Mainers surveyed said they support letting gay and lesbian couples marry here.”

[...]

Supporters must get 57,277 signatures to get the question on the November 2012 ballot.

Gay marriage supporters hope to build on momentum in Rhode Island and in New York, which earlier this month became the sixth state to allow gay marriage.

In 2009, Maine voters used a People's Veto to overturn a marriage equality bill by a vote of 53% to 47% on Question 1 that had been passed through the legislature and signed by Governor Baldacci at the time.

New York Celebrates Marriage Equality

The New York newspapers have reported last night's historic passage of marriage equality. Oh, and this weekend is New York City pride :-)

Hat/tip to DailyKos.

NY Senate Passes Marriage Equality 33-29!

New York becomes the 6th state in the United States to legalize marriage equality. Governor Cuomo has signed the bill into law and it will go into effect 30 days from today.

New York Marriage Update: State Senate Vote TONIGHT!

Finally! It appears as if the long-pending marriage equality bill will get an up or down vote on the floor of the New York State Senate tonight. A marriage equality bill has passed the lower house multiple times, most recently last week. Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos had the power to smother the bill to death in the chamber he controls but has decided to just have the vote and get it over with.

After many hours of deliberation and discussion over the past several weeks among the members, it has been decided that same sex marriage legislation will be brought to the full Senate for an up or down vote. 

 The entire Senate Republican Conference was insistent that amendments be made to the Governor’s original bill in order to protect the rights of religious institutions and not-for-profits  with religious affiliations.  I appreciate the Governor’s cooperation in working with us to address these important issues and concerns. 

As I have said many times, this is a very difficult issue and it will be a vote of conscience for every member of the Senate.

The text of the bill with the new religious exemption amendments has been publicly released and the coalition pushing for enactment of marriage equality in New York State (New Yorkers United for Marriage) has agreed to the language, which looks like:

10-B. RELIGIOUS EXCEPTION.

1. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY STATE, LOCAL OR MUNICIPAL LAW, RULE, REGULATION, ORDINANCE, OR OTHER PROVISION OF LAW TO THE CONTRARY, A RELIGIOUS ENTITY AS DEFINED UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW OR SECTION TWO OF THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAW, OR A CORPORATION INCORPO RATED UNDER THE BENEVOLENT ORDERS LAW OR DESCRIBED IN THE BENEVOLENT ORDERS LAW BUT FORMED UNDER ANY OTHER LAW OF THIS STATE, OR A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION OPERATED, SUPERVISED, OR CONTROLLED BY A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, OR ANY EMPLOYEE THEREOF, BEING MANAGED, DIRECTED, OR SUPERVISED BY OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, BENEVO LENT ORDER, OR A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION AS DESCRIBED IN THIS SUBDI VISION, SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SERVICES, ACCOMMODATIONS, ADVANTAGES, FACILITIES, GOODS, OR PRIVILEGES FOR THE SOLEMNIZATION OR CELEBRATION OF A MARRIAGE. ANY SUCH REFUSAL TO PROVIDE SERVICES, ACCOM MODATIONS, ADVANTAGES, FACILITIES, GOODS, OR PRIVILEGES SHALL NOT CREATE ANY CIVIL CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION OR RESULT IN ANY STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PENALIZE, WITHHOLD BENEFITS, OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SUCH RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, BENEVOLENT ORDER, A NOT-FOR-PROFITCORPORATION OPERATED, SUPERVISED, OR CONTROLLED BY A RELIGIOUS CORPO RATION, OR ANY EMPLOYEE THEREOF BEING MANAGED, DIRECTED, OR SUPERVISED BY OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, BENEVOLENT ORDER, OR A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION.

2. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY STATE, LOCAL OR MUNICIPAL LAW OR RULE, REGU LATION, ORDINANCE, OR OTHER PROVISION OF LAW TO THE CONTRARY, NOTHING IN THIS ARTICLE SHALL LIMIT OR DIMINISH THE RIGHT, PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION ELEVEN OF SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-SIX OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW, OF ANY RELIGIOUS OR DENOMINATIONAL INSTITUTION OR ORGANIZATION, OR ANY ORGAN IZATION OPERATED FOR CHARITABLE OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, WHICH IS OPER ATED, SUPERVISED OR CONTROLLED BY OR IN CONNECTION WITH A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION, TO LIMIT EMPLOYMENT OR SALES OR RENTAL OF HOUSING ACCOMMO DATIONS OR ADMISSION TO OR GIVE PREFERENCE TO PERSONS OF THE SAME RELI GION OR DENOMINATION OR FROM TAKING SUCH ACTION AS IS CALCULATED BY SUCH ORGANIZATION TO PROMOTE THE RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES FOR WHICH IT IS ESTAB LISHED OR MAINTAINED.

3. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE DEEMED OR CONSTRUED TO LIMIT THE PROTECTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS UNDER SECTION THREE OF ARTICLE ONE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

Although there are only 31 publicly announced votes in favor of marriage equality in the 62 member Senate, it has been rumored by several sources that there is an unannounced 32nd vote and Governor Andrew Cuomo has fought valiantly and powerfully to shepherd the measure through the legislature and promised to sign the measure into law, after which it will go into effect 30 days later.

Marriage equality opponents are expressing with displeasure their belief that the measure will pass the Legislature tonight. You can watch the New York State Senate vote live here.

If New York does enact marriage equality, the percentage of American citizens that live in jurisdictions where marriage equality is the law of the land will more than double from 16 million to 35 million.

UPDATE on NY Marriage Equality

The latest news from New York is that the legislative session has been extended to deal with three issues: rent control, property tax and, of course, marriage equality. The first two of the three issues have now been settled:

[State Majority Leader Dean] Skelos said he, Gov. Cuomo and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver are on board with agreements to extend the rent regulation law, restore a 421-A property tax abatement for city housing developers, SUNY 2020, a local property tax cap, and a mandate-relief package for localities.

Gay marriage, he said, will be conferenced once there is agreed upon language concerning religious protections. "I think we're going to have a real good concluding package," Skelos said.

Openly lesbian New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who is one of the frontrunners to become the next Mayor of New York City following Anthony Weiner's resignation, has said that she expects a vote on marriage equality Wednesday or Thursday.

Why NY Marriage Equality Matters

The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law has issued a press release detailing whay marriage equality is so important to achieve in New York state:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT:
Gary J. Gates, PhD
Williams Distinguished Scholar, Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law
(310) 825-1868 (office), (202) 257-6400 (cell)
Cathy Renna, 917-757-6123, cathy@rennacommunications.com

EXTENDING MARRIAGE TO SAME-SEX COUPLES IN NEW YORK WILL IMPACT OVER 42,000 COUPLES RAISING 14,000 CHILDREN IN THE STATE; DOUBLE PERCENTAGE OF U.S. POPULATION LIVING IN STATES THAT ALLOW SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY

Los Angeles, CA - June 15, 2011 - As the New York legislature approaches a vote on the legalization of marriage for same-sex couples, The Williams Institute, a leading think tank in the field of law and public policy relating to sexual orientation and gender identity, released the following statistics to illustrate the potential impact of the bill’s passage.

●     There are an estimated 42,600 same-sex couples in New York (Source: 2009 American Community Survey), of whom 21% (nearly 9,000) are already legally married (Source: Williams Institute/Harris Interactive Same-sex Couple Survey, 2010)
●     Approximately 7,200 same-sex couples in New York are raising about 14,000 children (Source: 2008/2009 American Community Survey)
●     If New  York extends marriage to same-sex couples, the percentage of the U.S.’ population living in a state that allows same-sex couples to marry will more than double, from 5.1% to 11.4%. (Source: Census 2010)
●     Similarly, the percentage of same-sex couples living in states that allow them to marry will more than double, from 6.9% to 14.3% (Source: 2009 American Community Survey)
●     An estimated 38% of same-sex couples living in states that allow them to marry are currently married, compared to 12% in states that do not allow same-sex couples to marry (Source: Williams Institute/Harris Interactive Same-sex Couple Survey, 2010)

Earlier information on same-sex couples in New York, from the 2000 Census, is available at the link below:

http://www3.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/NYCCensusSnapshot_FINAL.pdf

The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law and Public Policy advances law and public policy through rigorous, independent research and scholarship, and disseminates its work through a variety of education programs and media to judges, legislators, lawyers, other policy makers, and the public. For more information, please visit www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute.

New York Assembly Passes Marriage Equality 80-63

Openly gay Assemblymember Daniel O'Donnell

For the fourth time since 2007, a marriage equality bill has passed the lower house of the New York State legislature, this time with a vote of 80-63 on Wednesday.

Gay City News reports:

This was the Assembly’s fourth vote on marriage equality, each one of them successful, since 2007. Upper West Side Assemblyman Daniel O’Donnell, an out gay Democrat, is the lead sponsor.

On the heels of two Republican senators pledging their “yes” votes in recent days, the majority in that chamber met behind closed doors for more than four hours on Wednesday morning, only to announce they would pick up the discussion again the following day. Senators who have yet to firmly commit to one side or another refused comment or stuck to their noncommittal positions.

The public count of Senate supporters stands at 31, one vote shy of a majority.

The Assembly floor debate offered a preview into the rhetoric that might soon be echoed in the Senate, as members voting yes made passionate speeches supporting equality and a largely tepid opposition raised concerns about infringement on religious values and the dangers of “redefining marriage.”


[...]


Supporters lined up to dismiss the standard opposition claim that marriage is a timeless institution that would be irreparably harmed by the governor’s legislation.

“It’s actually not true,” said Manhattan Assemblyman Dick Gottfried, who was the originating sponsor of marriage equality legislation, handing off that role to O’Donnell in 2007. “If we were to look honestly at what the institution of marriage was as little as a hundred years ago, we would be looking at an institution we scarcely recognize.”

Like several of his colleagues, Gottfried pointed out that the history of marriage included treating women as property and not allowing mixed-race marriages.

“It was all about property, it was all about hierarchy,” he said. “It was not at all about love.”

Hopefully the fourth time is the charm!

French National Assembly Rejects Marriage Equality 293-222

Bizarre news from France where the National Assembly has rejected a bill to enact marriage equality by a vote of 293-222. President Nicholas Sarkozy's party, the UMP which controls the body, opposed the measure proposed by the Socialists.

From Agence France Press:

"We are against homophobia but we do not want to alter the image and function of marriage in the collective subconscious," said UMP lawmaker Michel Diefenbacher.

Opposition Socialist party lawmaker Patrick Bloche had called the bill a measure to end a form of discrimination and "pass to a new stage in equality of rights."

Several of France's fellow European Union member states, including Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands, have legalised homosexual marriage.

Wow. "The collective subconscious" image and function of marriage is what heterosexual supremacists are using to defend their discriminatory position. Doesn't that sound eerily like a defense of segregation? After all, that was about the collective subconscious of what it means to be "white" (and "American") in this country.

Roy McDonald Is 31st Public Vote for Marriage Equality

State Senator Roy McDonald (R-Rensselaer)

This is amazing news! I used to live in Troy, New York in upstate New York for 8 years while I was amassing my three degrees in mathematics at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute from 1986-1994. Anywho, then my state senator was the notoriously homophobic (and corrupt) but very powerful Joseph Bruno who was the Republican Majority Leader and represented the "Capital District Tri-Cities" area of Schenectady, Albany and Troy. Bruno was indicted and convicted of corruption and replaced by State Senator Roy McDonald.

McDonald became the 31st State Senator (and 2nd Republican) to publicly announce his intention to vote Yes on marriage equality legislation pending before the New York state legislature.

The Times-Union has the deets:

Senator Roy McDonald, R-Saratoga, told the Times UnionTuesday that he will back a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. He becomes the 31st senator to proclaim his public support for the bill. It needs 32 votes to pass the Senate.

“I’m trying to do the right thing,” he said. “Rather than wait I worked with the governor…I’m not out to alienate anybody. This is driven by compassion.”

“My lifestyle is my lifestyle — I don’t want anyone telling me or my children what to do,” he said. “We’ve got 20 million people in this state…we can’t be paralyzed by social issues.”

“It’s my own evolution,” he said. “I think there’s going to be a vote on Friday.”

McDonald has been the subject of much lobbying on the issue of same-sex marriage, including a billboard on I-787 calling for his support. While he voted against the bill in 2009 and while an Assemblyman in 2007, he had hedged his position this year, as talk of legalizing same-sex marriage has once again intensified.

31 down, 1 to go! The still-undecided state Senators are:

 Stephen Saland  845-463-0840;
  Andrew Lanza  718-984-4073; 
  Greg Ball  845-279-3773;
  Kemp Hannon  516-739-1700;
  Charles Fuschillo  516-882-0630;
  Betty Little  518-743-0968  

It should be noted that these remaining undeclared State Senators signaled they were interested in voting for marriage equality (off-the-record) on Monday but are also all Catholic and will probably be targeted by religious extremists who do not understand that the Governor's proposed legislation is about civil marriage and has explicit exemptions for religious entities and individuals who do not want to sanction or solemnize same-sex civil marriages.

Gov. Cuomo Introduces Marriage Equality Act

As I mentioned yesterday, today Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York introduced the Marriage Equality Act (pdf) which would end discrimination in the issuance of civil marriage licenses on the basis of the gender of the couples.

The Office of the Governor's press release:

Albany, NY (June 14, 2011)

Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today submitted a program bill to bring marriage equality to New York state. The Marriage Equality Act permits all couples to enter into marriage in New York state, thereby removing the current barrier same-sex couples face in recognizing their relationships, protecting their families and obtaining essential benefits.

Specifically, the Act grants same-sex couples who seek to marry equal status under the law as well as hundreds of rights, benefits and protections that are currently limited to married couples of the opposite sex.

"From the fight for women's suffrage to the struggle for civil rights, New Yorkers have been on the right side of history. But on the issue of marriage equality, our state has fallen behind," Governor Cuomo said. "For too long, same-sex couples have been denied the freedom to marry, as well as hundreds of rights that other New Yorkers take for granted. Marriage Equality is a matter of fairness and legal security for thousands of families in this state – not of religion or culture. When it comes to fighting for what's right, New Yorkers wrote the book, and Marriage Equality is the next chapter of our civil rights story."

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the freedom to marry is "one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free people." Further, the state assigns hundreds of protections, benefits and mutual responsibilities in a variety of areas to couples who marry, including health care and hospital visitation rights, child custody issues and financial matters.

However, in New York, many individuals who currently seek to exercise the freedom to marry their partners may not do so solely because they are of the same sex.

The Marriage Equality Act would remove these barriers by amending New York's Domestic Relations Law to state:

• A marriage that is otherwise valid shall be valid regardless of whether the parties to the marriage are of the same or different sex
• No government treatment or legal status, effect, right, benefit, privilege, protection or responsibility relating to marriage shall differ based on the parties to the marriage being the same sex or a different sex
• All relevant gender-specific language set forth in or referenced by New York law shall be construed in a gender-neutral manner
• No application for a marriage license shall be denied on the ground that the parties are of the same or a different sex

To ensure that the bill does not intrude into matters of religious belief, the Marriage Equality Act affirms that no member of the clergy can be compelled to solemnize any marriage. This bill grants equal access to the government-created legal institution of civil marriage while leaving the religious institution of marriage to its own separate and fully autonomous sphere. The bill also guarantees that religious institutions and benevolent organizations such as the Knights of Columbus remain free to choose who may use their facilities for marriage ceremonies and celebrations or to whom they provide religious services, consistent with their religious principles.

New York has always been at the forefront in advancing equal rights. In 1983, New York banned discrimination based on sexual orientation in state employment. In 2002, the state extended the same principle to the private sector by enacting the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act. That same year, the state recognized same-sex relationships by extending workers' compensation benefits to all those who lost a partner on 9/11. Passage of the Marriage Equality Act represents yet another significant step in granting full and equal rights to all citizens of New York state.

The Marriage Equality Act bill memo is available here. The bill text is available here.

This action is significant because Governor Cuomo had earlier said that he would not introduce a bill this session (which ends next Monday) unless it would pass.

There are currently 30 declared supporters  (29 Democrats and 1 Republican) of marriage equality legislation in the 62-member State Senate, which has passed the state Assembly 3 times. More announcements by Republican supporters are expected prior to a decision on whether a vote will occur on the bill by the Republican caucus on Wednesday June 15.