Box Turtle Bulletin

Gibbons Vetoes Nevada Domestic Partnerships

As expected Governor Jim Gibbons has vetoed the Domestic Partnership bill passed by the legislature. (Mercury News)

Gibbons said in a statement released during the Memorial Day holiday that Senate Bill 283 conflicts with a state constitutional amendment approved by Nevada voters in 2002 supporting marriage between a man and a woman.

“Only the voters should have the right to undo or amend constitutional mandates,” he said.

The Nevada amendment was one that only assigned the name ‘marriage’ to heterosexual unions and did not seek to ban all comparable forms of domestic union. Gibbons is creating a mandate where none previously existed.

It is unclear whether the legislature will override Gibbons’ veto. An additional two votes are needed in each house, a not insignificant hurdle to overcome. However, the Nevada Resort Association – a very powerful lobby in the state – is calling for Domestic Partnerships to be passed and for the veto to be overturned.

It is worth noting that Gibbons vetoed the bill on a holiday, when the decision will receive the least notice from his constituents. And Gibbons made certain to note that on Friday he had signed a bill that banned discrimination in the state on the basis of orientation.

Church of Scotland Approves Gay Minister

The Church of Scotland, the mother of the Presbyterian churches, has taken a very significant step.

The church’s ruling body voted 326 to 267 Saturday to support the appointment of the Rev. Scott Rennie, 37, who was previously married to a woman and is now in a relationship with a man.

Rennie was first appointed as a minister 10 years ago, but has faced opposition since he moved to a church in Aberdeen, Scotland, last year. He has been unable to take up his post while the Church of Scotland considered appeals from his critics.

Before the vote, the Church had voted down efforts to discuss or debate the greater issue of the place of gay men and women in the Church. Conservatives had hoped that such a debate would result in positions that would make it difficult to seat Rennie.

The decision is a positive indication that the Church is at least willing to allow those congregations that wish to be led by a gay person the right to that position.

UPDATE:

Although the Church voted not to debate sexuality this year, they have put a hold on any other ordination and sent the matter to committee. (
BBC)

At its General Assembly in Edinburgh, it was decided that a special commission should be set up to consider the matter and report in 2011.

There will be a two-year ban on the future ordination of gay ministers.

State Department to Offer Domestic Partner Benefits

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will soon announce that the State Department will provide domestic partner benefits for same-sec couples, a move which will have particularly important ramifications for gay diplomats posted overseas:

Among the benefits that will now be granted gay diplomats: the right of domestic partners to hold diplomatic passports, government-paid travel for their partners and families to and from foreign posts, and the use of U.S. medical facilities abroad. In addition, gay diplomats’ families will now be eligible for U.S. government emergency evacuations and training courses at the Foreign Service Institute, the message says.

The previous policy, which barred recognition of same-sex couples, left partners of gay diplomats vulnerable to the visa policies of host countries. It also meant that, in some postings, they may well have had to take their lives into their own hands as previous policies denied them access to competent medical care and emergency evacuations.

One former ambassador to Romania under the Bush administration, Michael Guest, used the opportunity of his retirement in 2007 to publicly protest the restrictions. Guest had been sworn in as ambassador by former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who publicly recognized Guest’s partner, Alex Nevarez.

Maggie Gallagher’s Bogus Poll

By now, none of us really expect that anything coming from Maggie Gallagher or her National Organization for Marriage is the truth. But sometimes her utter contempt for the truth is so blatant as to be astonishing.

Take, for example, her 2009 NOM Massachusetts Marriage Survey.

Now, of course, this is not really a poll that is seeking to determine attitudes about marriage in Massachusetts. Rather, this is simply her attempt to try and come up with an artificial opposition to marriage equality and to try and convince the public that marriage has hurt Massachusetts.

But even for a push poll, this is laughable.

First, her sample is as far from representative as you can get. While about 60% of Massachusans are between the age of 18 and 50, this is only 20% of Maggie’s sample. And while those over 75 make up about 9% of the population, they are 24% of her survey. What did Maggie poll, retirement communities?

And though only about 31% of Massachusans attend church “almost weekly”, about 47% of Maggie’s group does.

Then look at the claims she makes in a press release:

Do Children Need a Mom and Dad? Majority Say Yes

But what did the survey really ask?

13. Here\’s one more statement: “All things being equal, it is better for children to be raised by their married mother and a father?” Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

Well who would disagree with that? Not me – not the way it’s phrased. So it’s hardly a surprise that 76% agreed.

But do I think “children need a Mom and Dad”? Nope.

Maggie goes on pretending that her findings suggest that “Massachusetts voters remain sharply divided about gay marriage”. They don’t.

Afraid to ask whether marriage should remain legal in the state, Maggie tried to appeal to personal dislike of gays or personal discomfort with gay marriage. But even then she failed. 43% of respondents were generally personally favorable and another 14% couldn’t care less.

9. Do you personally favor or oppose same-sex marriage generally?

43% FAVOR
44% OPPOSE
14% DON’T KNOW/NO RESPONSE

Maggie goes on to try and spin her survey results to support her cause using percentages of percentages, but in the process provides us with some interesting information about the attitudes of Massachusetts voters.

• 44% think that opposing gay marriage is discrimination comparable to racial discrimination. And while
• 16% think that “people may try to hurt you” if you are an anti-gay-marriage activist, only
• 7% know someone who “feels they were harassed or intimidated” because of their anti-gay marriage beliefs

(Maggie calls this “a surprisingly substantial minority of voters”)

But getting around Maggie’s loaded questions and her contorted analysis, a picture emerges of the Massachusetts voter.

About half are personally supportive of marriage equality while the rest seem fairly content. Most support the right of dissenters to disagree and only a tiny fringe think that their views are being suppressed. They aren’t worried about whether their kids (or grandkids) are being taught about same-sex couples in school. And they tend to think that anti-marriage activists are distasteful, if not downright bigots, and acknowledge that the state has broad social support for the institution. And these are the opinions of the old religious folk.

In short, the sky hasn’t fallen. The citizens aren’t upset. Massachusetts has now seen that marriage equality is a good thing.

Wisconsin May Offer Recognition

In 2006, Wisonsin voters passed the following amendments by a margin of 59%-41%:

“Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.”

Now the legislature is seeking to find a place short of “substantially similar” to allow recognition for same-sex couples. (Chicago Tribune)

The Legislature’s budget committee voted 12-4 Friday for a plan allowing gay and lesbian couples who live together to form domestic partnerships and receive some of the same benefits as married couples.

The Wisconsin plan would allow couples who register with their county register of deeds to jointly own property, inherit each other’s assets and visit each other in the hospital, among other things.

Harrah’s Casinos Lobbies for Nevada Domestic Partnerships

In Nevada, Harrah’s Casinos operates

• Harrah’s Reno
• Harrah’s Lake Tahoe
• Harvey’s Lake Tahoe
• Harrah’s Las Vegas
• Caesars Palace
• Paris Las Vegas
• Rio
• Flamingo Las Vegas
• Bally’s Las Vegas
• Imperial Palace

So it is fair to say that Harrah’s is no small player in the Nevada business community.

Harrah’s makes an effort to target the gay community in it’s marketing, particularly for Paris Las Vegas. And now Harrah’s is adding its power to the fight for rights in Nevada.

The State’s legislature has approved a Domestic Partnership bill providing many of the rights, priveleges and obligations of marriage to same-sex couples. However, anticipating a veto from Governor Jim Doyle Gibbons, supporters are hoping to marshall the votes needed to override the veto. It appears that they will need two more votes in each of the House and the Senate.

So Harrah’s Senior Vice President Jan Jones has written a letter to legislators encouraging them to consider the impact that their vote can have on the state’s ecomony. (Trading Markets)

“Our state cannot afford to lose any more revenue to other destinations because of a reputation as a place which is not socially or politically the right place to do business or to vacation,” Jones stated in the letter, dated Tuesday.

Gays and lesbians have the highest disposable income of any segment of the population, according to Jones.

“Our company does aggressive marketing to this community,” Jones said Wednesday. “How can we say to them ‘we want your business, but we don’t care about your rights.'”

Jones’ concern is not without basis. Gay couples may decide that Atlantic City is their better gambling choice; in case something happens to one of them, New Jersey’s domestic partnership laws provide protection and access to medical facilities.

But in either city, I think I’ll choose Harrah’s for my lodging and gaming.

UPDATE:

Although Harrah’s was the most proactive, they are not alone in their support for Domestic Partnerships (Forbes)

The powerful Nevada Resort Association, representing the state’s biggest hotel-casinos, joined Friday in support of a domestic partnership bill that may be vetoed by Gov. Jim Gibbons.

Bill Bible, head of the association, said the bill would help to ensure the resort industry’s thousands of employees have “the fundamental right to the same benefits enjoyed by other Nevadans.”

Although there is no word yet on whether this has yet changed the vote of any legislator, no Nevada politician wants to be on the wrong side of the largest, most powerful economic and political force in the state.

Obama To Be In Los Angeles Day After Decision Day

President Barack Obama will be in Los Angeles on Wednesday, which will be the day immediately following Decision Day. Do you think he can make it through the entire visit without mentioning Prop 8?

[Hat tip: Michael Petrelis]

California Supreme Court To Issue Prop 8 Ruling Tuesday

The California Supreme Court has just posted a notice on its web site announcing that they will issue their ruling on the Prop 8 case at 10:00 a.m. PST on Tuesday, May 26. The court was asked to rule whether Proposition 8, which was passed as a Constitutional amendment, went too far and should have been handled as a Constitutional revision, which would have required a much more extensive and difficult process.

Day of Decision has more details on whether we will be protesting or celebrating.

CA Supremes Will Announce Prop 8 Decision on Tuesday

The website of the California State Supreme Court has the following announcement:

Forthcoming Opinion Filings
Date Posted Filename Description
May 22 2009 SF052609
Supreme Court filing for Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Case SF052609 (pdf) is:

STRAUSS et al. v. HORTON (HOLLINGSWORTH et al, Interveners) S168047
TYLER et al. v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al. (HOLLINGSWORTH et al, Interveners) S168066
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al. v. HORTON (HOLLINGSWORTH et al. , Interveners) S168078
Argued in San Francisco 3-05-09

The court issued an order to show cause in Strauss, Tyler, and City and County of San Francisco directing the parties to brief and argue the following issues: (1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution? (See Cal. Const., art. XVIII, §§ 1–4.) (2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution? (3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

Opinions in the above cases will be filed on: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 at 10:00 a.m.

Illinois Poised To Approve Civil Unions

The Washington Blade is reporting that the Illinois General Assembly may approve a bill providing for civil unions as early as next week. The bill already has the support of Gov. Pat Quinn (D). It appears that if the bill reaches the governor’s desk, it will likely become law thirty days after he signs it.

Neighboring Iowa began marrying same-sex couples April 27, 2009.

White House Questioned Further On DADT

Air America’s Anna Marie Cox is holding Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’ feet to the fire:

What Mainline Clergy Believe

National City Christian Church, Washington D.C. - Disciples of Christ

“Mainline Christianity” has deep roots and wide branches. With about 18% of Americans (and 24% of all voters), the denominations that makeup this more-liberal end of the Protestant Christian world trace to the founding of our nation. When Americans think of church – the steeple, the stained glass windows, the minister in a clerical collar – these are probably the Christians that come to mind.

However, in today’s sound-bite driven media and take-no-prisoners politics, moderate Christians with nuanced positions and non-combatant values don’t make for good television. Instead the fire-breathing “Bible believing” family values culture warrior gets to speak for all of Christianity. So to non-believers, the impression is that Christianity is at war with the rest of the world, and gays are enemy number one.

But a recent survey of Mainline ministers finds quite another Christian response to gay and lesbian Americans. On most issues, these denominations are quite supportive.

The six denominations included, in order of support are:

• United Church of Christ
• Episcopal Church
• Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
• Evanglical Lutheran Church in America
• Presbyterian Church (USA)
• United Methodist Church
• American Baptist Churches (USA)

(for those unfamiliar, American Baptist Churches is a smaller Baptist organization that is not affiliated with the very conservative Southern Baptist Convention)

Mainline Protestant Clergy Views on Theology and Gay and Lesbian Issues: Findings from the 2008 Clergy Voices Survey was released this month. And it provides us with better understanding of the beliefs of clergy in Mainline Denominations.

In general, these ministers are supportive of gay civil rights. Additionally, they are fairly supporting of the inclusion of gay persons into the body of the church – though that differs by denomination.

Some of the more interesting public policy issue findings are:

• 79% agree with the statement “Homosexuals should have all the same rights and priveleges as other American citizens”
• 67% support passing gay-inclusive hate crime laws
• 66% support employment non-discrimination laws
• 55% support adoption by gay persons

The one area where there is not majority support is for marriage equality. Only 33% support gay marriage with another 32% supporting civil unions. However, as I discuss in another commentary, support for marriage goes up to 46% when religious assurances are given.

There is also a large variance between denominations on this issue.

• 67% – United Church of Christ
• 49% – Episcopal
• 42% – Disciples of Christ
• 38% – Presbyterian
• 37% – Lutheran
• 25% – Methodist
• 20% – American Baptist

After clergy were reassured that churches and ministers would not be forced to conduct such marriages, support for civil marriage laws were over 50% for all denominations other than United Methodist and American Baptist.

The report goes on to break Mainline Christianity into three camps in relation to gay and lesbian issues; 29% are a supportive base, 30% are an opposing base, and 41% are in an uncertain middle. They find that on most issues the middle tends to side with the supporting base.

They also found that 45% of mainline clergy report that they are more supportive than 10 years ago. Only 14% are more conservative. The following is how those who became more supportive explain the change.

Among clergy who reported becoming more liberal on gay and lesbian issues, the top factors they cited as being very or extremely important to this change were discernment through prayer and reflection (66%), having a friend, congregant or colleague who is gay or lesbian (58%), and additional Bible study (55%).

We have long known that coming out is a valuable way to influence public opinion. Those who have real life examples from which to draw – rather than lies and stereotypes from anti-gay activists – are more likely to find that gay men and women are a valuable part of the social fabric.

But those within the Christian fold will also find it interesting that prayer, reflection, and Bible study can yield greater support for gay persons. Religion, when applied by devout and sincere people seeking to find meaning from sacred Scriptures for real life situations, need not be the enemy of freedom and equality.

As for the inclusion of gays and lesbians into religious life, the study found

• 94% – welcome gay persons in their church
• 63% – believe that the gospel requires their full inclusion in the church
• 51% – believe the church should not work towards making homosexuality unacceptable
• 45% – support ordination of gay and lesbian ministers without special requirements
• 13% – lead congregations that have formally become “open and affirming congregations”

These denominations have the potential to become strong allies in our question for civil equalities. Already many ministers from these denominations are active in showing legislators and voting citizens People of Faith who do not agree with the political agenda of “Christian” and “Family” groups that seek the exclusion of gay persons from civil equalities.

As time goes on, it is increasingly likely that Mainline Christianity is going to move in the direction of fuller acceptance, inclusion, and support. We should, as a community, be appreciative of their help and proactive in efforts to build bridges to these churches.

Positive Rumblings on New Hampshire Marriage

I am beginning to think that when the New Hampshire House voted down the marriage bill revisions requested by the Governor that it was not a vote about marriage at all. I think that those Republicans – and perhaps some Democrats – that are supportive of marriage are indignant that Governor Lynch, a Democrat, gets to have it both ways.

The Boston Globe carried a few quotes today which I found interesting

Key Republicans who switched sides indicated Thursday they’re open to supporting a compromise.

“I think the votes are there to pass it and put it on Governor Lynch’s desk,” said Rep. Anthony DiFruscia, a Windham Republican who lead the fight for negotiations.

Amherst Republican Cynthia Dokmo, who also voted against passage, said she would like to see the bill tweaked.

“I would like to see this bill pass,” she said. “It just seems to me it really doesn’t hurt anyone and it helps some people. It’s not going to affect my marriage.”

Rep. Steve Vaillancourt, a Manchester Republican who also switched, argued Lynch’s proposed language provides churches broader ability to discriminate than do laws in Connecticut and Vermont.

“I need something that does not send a signal to the rest of the country that New Hampshire has gone farther than any other state,” said Vaillancourt.

It may well be that they objected to what they saw as partisan support for protecting a Democratic Governor from risk while they shouldered threats from within their party. They too may be chaffing at being handed wording from the executive office and told to rubber stamp it.

But from the words of these “no” votes, it seems likely to me that wording can be achieved that meets Gov. Lynch’s requirements but also can be seen as originating in the legislature. I think that the delay is simply that – a brief delay in passage.

Why Religious Reassurances Matter

The US Constitution’s Freedom of Religion Clause protects churches from having to conduct sacraments that are contrary to their beliefs. So no minister need fear that he or his church will be forced against his will to conduct a marriage ceremony between a same-sex couple.

But the peculiar practice in this country of having ministers vested with power by the State to make civil pronouncements of marriage have led to confusion. Most people, ministers included, know that Catholics don’t have to officiate at the marriage of non-Catholics, or Rabbis for non-Jews, but the battles over gay rights in recent years have caused a great many people to fear that denying gay couples religious recognition might fall under the category of illegal discrimination.

The 2008 Clergy Voices Survey (pdf) provides illustration of the importance of reassuring the population that religious freedoms will be protected.

The Clergy Voices Survey measures the views of “Mainline” Christian denominations, those six Christian churches that embrace a more liberal theology and whose parishoners make up about 18% of the population.

When asked about civil recognition for same-sex couples, Mainline clergy replied as follows:

• 33% said gay couples should be allowed to marry
• 32% said gay couples should be allowed civil unions
• 35% said gay couples should not have state recognition

But then the survey noted something interesting

Among clergy who initially did not support allowing gay couples to marry, support increased significantly when they were provided with an assurance that no church or congregation would be required to perform same-sex marriage services. With this religious liberty assurance, support among clergy jumped from one-third support to nearly half (46%), a movement of 13 points. Nearly all of this movement occurred among clergy who initially supported civil unions.

One would assume that clergy are aware that their religious rights are protected, moreso than anyone. But 13% of Mainline clergy who would otherwise support marriage equality needed assurance that this would not impose on churches or ministers.

If all it takes to get a 13% shift in the position of Mainline ministers – who wield great community influence due to their position – is reassurance of a respect for the rights they already have protected by the Constitution, then by all means let’s reassure them.

Colorado State Employees Get Domestic Partner Benefits

Denver Post:

Gov. Bill Ritter this week quietly signed into law a bill that will allow gay and lesbian state employees to share benefits with their partners in the way married couples already can.

No wonder Dr. James Dobson is so discouraged. Right in his own (adopted) home state.