Box Turtle Bulletin

Hey, go sign my petition

Timothy Kincaid

January 29th, 2013

You don’t have to live in Rhode Island or be a Democrat to insist that legislators live up to their duty. So please go sign my petition to remind the members of the Rhode Island Senate that the obstructionist behavior of Sen. Pavia-Weed reflects on all of them and, even, on those Democrats outside the state who assure us that we must vote for their Party if we want equality.

She needs to come to the side of equality or get out of the way. And if she won’t move, she needs to be moved.

Please. It only takes a moment.

France begins debating equality

Timothy Kincaid

January 29th, 2013

The equality bill now has been introduced into the French Paliament and debate is expected to go on for weeks. In a last ditch effort, anti-gay activists have placed banners on the city’s bridges insisting on discrimination and exclusion. (expatica)

Justice Minister Christiane Taubira told parliament as the debate kicked off that introducing gay marriage was “an act of equality”. The government has allowed for the debate to run until February 10 with a vote due two days later.

With opinion polls having consistently shown that a comfortable majority of the French support gay marriage, Hollande could never have anticipated that a promise he made in his election manifesto last year would generate such controversy.

The Socialist Party has the votes to pass the legislation and it is also supported by Communists, Greens and some other centrists.

Sun-Times politics wonk: Republicans want marriage equality passed and over with

Timothy Kincaid

January 28th, 2013

Recently a friend and I play a smart-phone game in which you spell words to flip letters and gain control of the board. If you play creatively and protect your letters, you can situate yourself into a non-losable position. And when I’m so lucky as to do so, Anthony will play a word that ends the game, letting me win, and move on to the next game.

And, according to Rich Miller, the political reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times, that is what Illinois Republicans want to do on the issue of marriage equality: lose the battle and move on to the next one.

Talk to just about any top Illinois Republican these days off the record and they’ll freely admit that they want the bill legalizing gay marriage to be approved as soon as possible.
…
The reason so many Republicans would like to see the bill passed is because they know that with the huge, new Democratic majorities in both legislative chambers, that it’s eventually going to pass anyway.

They want to get this issue out of the way and behind them as soon as possible. The issue is trending hard against the GOP’s historical opposition, and they want the thing off the table before it starts to hurt them.

After New Hampshire Republicans refused to reverse marriage, and after New York Republicans met in caucus and came out with enough votes to pass marriage, and after the call by Wyoming Republicans for marriage (and it’s very close vote in today’s committee hearing), and after Rhode Island’s House Minority Leader lecturing the Senate Leader about delaying votes, and after the Illinois GOP chairman’s endorsement of equality (without losing his position), this argument makes a lot of sense.

And I’m sure that BTB readers will happily agree. Let’s pass marriage equality and move on.

Wyoming committee approves domestic partnership bill

Timothy Kincaid

January 28th, 2013

Two bills came before the Wyoming House Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Committee today, one to enact marriage equality and the other to allow for a domestic partnership registry that appears to be ‘all but the name’.

The marriage bill failed to pass by a 5-4 vote, but the domestic partnership bill was approved 7-2 and will move on for debate on the House floor.

Marriage update – South America

Timothy Kincaid

January 27th, 2013

It’s getting marriagey all over the place. And it’s also getting hard to keep track of what is going on where. So here is an update to help (which will probably be outdated by the time I hit “publish”).

Central South America:

Argentina - marriage has been equal since 2010.

Bolivia - in 2011 a bill to grant some limited couple recognition was introduced into the Bolivian Chamber of Deputies. It was referred in April 2012 to the Human Rights Commission, where it appears to have fallen asleep.

Brazil - since May 2011, Brazil has had recognizd civil unions for same-sex couples. The states of Alegoas and Bahia allow couples to administratively convert the civil unions to marriage. Since last month, same-sex couples in Sao Paulo may marry without any converted-civil-unions process.

Chile - on March 27, 2012, Daniel Zamudio was tortured and beaten to death. Much in the same way that Matthew Sheppard’s story changed the United States, Zamudio’s has been changing Chile. A long-stalled non-discrimination bill was quickly passed and signed and the populace is now impatient with institutionalize homophobia.

In August 2011, conservative President Pinera sent a civil unions bill to congress and two months ago he reaffirmed that the end of his term, March 2014, is the deadline for its passage. In hearings on the bill in the first weeks of the year, the Catholic Bishop of San Bernardo testified that the bill “brings the destruction of human beings and, although they deny it, destruction to social and family peace among men.” However, public polling shows strong support and the President has named the bill “a top priority”.

The opposition party’s contenders for Presidential nominee debated earlier this month whether same-sex couples should have civil unions or marriage rights. It is likely that civil unions will be achieved this year and that marriage equality will then follow at some point.

Colombia - in July 2011, the Supreme Court found that same sex couples have the same contitutional rights to recognition as heterosexual couples, but they left the structure open to Congress to legislate. Since that time there have been various bills pass one house or the other, but none came to completion. Currently there is a marriage bill in the Senate which has passed the first committee hurdle. Should no bill be enacted by June 20th, same-sex couples will be able to go to judges and become recognized. As there is no alternative legal structure in place, it seems logical that the only legal alternative for judges is to declare them married. But as legislators are disinclined to turn over power to anyone, it’s even more likely that something – civil unions or marriage – will be in place by that date.

Ecuador - while marriage equality is banned by constitution, Ecuador has had civil unions since 2008.

Uruguay - civil unions have been available since 2007. Last month a marriage equality bill passed the House of Deputes with a wide margin last month and is expected to pass the Senate in April.

And while other nations in South America are strongly hostile to same-sex marriage recognition, many of them place strong importance on the rulings of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which has been increasingly supportive of gay rights. It may be that this court plays a role in shifting the continent’s laws in the near future.

Marriage update – Central America and the Caribbean

Timothy Kincaid

January 25th, 2013

It’s getting marriagey all over the place. And it’s also getting hard to keep track of what is going on where. So here is an update to help (which will probably be outdated by the time I hit “publish”).

Central America:

Costa Rica - Gay Rights advocates met last month with the administration to discuss a proposal to provide specific couple benefits. It may be early yet to know how far or how quickly this could go, but it was a positive step. There is a strong opposition coming from (can you imagine?) the Catholic Church.

Other than Costa Rica, the outlook on same-sex couple rights in Central American looks dim.

Caribbean Islands:

In many of the Caribbean Islands, LGBT people live in a state of oppression, often subjected to social ostracization and occasional violence. There are a few bright spots.

Since 2009, the Dutch islands of Sint Eustatius, Saba and Sint Maarten, Aruba, Curaçao and Bonaire have recognized same-sex marriages conducted in the Netherlands. But last month the tiny island of Saba finalized changes to their laws to become the first Caribbean Island to offer marriages. The other five are expected to follow.

Wyoming rally

Timothy Kincaid

January 25th, 2013

As Jim informed you, on Monday the the House Corporations Committee will hear testimony on the marriage equality and domestic partnership bills followed on Wednesday by a hearing in Judiciary for the non-discrimination bill.

Equality Wyoming is holding a rally on Monday in support of all three bills.

When: Monday, 9 AM on the front steps of the Capitol Building in Cheyenne.

Come dressed for business because we mean business for Wyoming!

Our rally will be calm, cool, and collected with slick black and white signs. If you’d like to make your own signs (encouraged!), go for simple, clear messages that lend themselves to black and white photography.

Check out the Action Alert for more information.

Marriage Bills Introduced In Hawaii

Jim Burroway

January 25th, 2013

A flurry of bills addressing same-sex marriage have been introduced into Hawaii’s House and Senate yesterday. One version of bills introduced simultaneously in both houses by Sen. Mike Gabbard (D-20) and Rep. Faye Hanohano (D-4) would grant full marriage equality to Hawaii’s same-sex couples.

Gabbard is a former Republican who campaigned against gay rights in the 1990s and pushed for the 1996 Constitutional amendment which overturned a state Supreme Court ruling granting marriage equality and reserved the power to interpret what constitutes a legal marriage in the state to the legislature.

Two more bills introduced by Rep. John Mizuno (D-28) appear aimed at countering Gabbard and Hanohano’s bills. Mizuno, who says that he opposes same-sex marriage, proposed two constitutional amendments: one would ban same-sex marriage permanently, and the other would legalize it. Both amendments would go before voters.

Marriage update – North America

Timothy Kincaid

January 25th, 2013

It’s getting marriagey all over the place. And it’s also getting hard to keep track of what is going on where. So here is an update to help (which will probably be outdated by the time I hit “publish”).

North America:

Canada - Marriage has been equal since 2005.

Mexico - Marriage is equal in Mexico City, and marriages conducted there are recognize throughout the nation. However, in December, the Supreme Court unanimously found that an anti-gay marriage law in Oaxaca was unconstitutional. Due to Mexico’s complicated legal system, this means that marriages are highly likely to eventually be legal throughout the nation, but the process requires that five same-sex couples in each state file an amparo (civil rights claim) and that the court issue the same ruling on each. It may take some time for the legality of the state by state process to catch up, but the reality is that any Mexican couple wishing to marry probably can, either immediately or through petition.

United States - Several locales provide or have provided marriage equally:

• Massachusetts – 2005 2003
• California – 2008, but rescinded that year
• Connecticut – 2008
• Vermont – 2009
• Iowa – 2009
• New Hampshire – 2010
• The District of Columbia – 2010
• New York – 2011
• Washington – 2012
• Maryland – 2012
• Maine – 2013

In addition, two Native American tribes, the Coquille in Oregon and the Suquamish in Washington provide marriage equally to their members.

Current and upcoming movement on the marriage front includes:

* DOMA3 – several federal courts have found the federal prohibition on recognition of legally married same-sex couples – the Defense of Marriage Act, Section 3 – to be unconstitutional on several grounds. The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear one case, Windsor v. the United States, a case in which Edie Windsor was assessed in excess of $300,000 in inheritance tax from her wife’s estate, a tax that does not apply to heterosexuals. On Tuesday, the special counsel for the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (at the direction of House Speaker John Boehner) filed its arguments in defense of the law (I’ll try to get an analysis up soon). It argued that BLAG has standing to support the law, that only rational basis should apply to anti-gay discrimination, that the nation needs uniform recognition, and that states should be allowed to decline to offer equality if they so choose (thus, I assume, vetoing other states in the name of uniformity). Today Professor Victoria C. Jackson will, at the court’s request, filing a brief insisting that BLAG has no standing and on February 26th, Windsor’s team will present arguments as to why she should not be discriminated against. Oral arguments before SCOTUS will be on March 27th, and the Court will likely release it’s ruling in June. Whichever way it goes, it will probably only impact couples in states which allow marriage.

* Proposition 8 - this is the highest profile case, but it could end up having the least legal effect. In 2008, the California Supreme Court found the state’s law prohibiting same-sex marriage to be a violation of the state’s constitution. For several months, same-sex couples could legally marry, but in November the voters approved Proposition 8 by 52%, ending marriage equality in the Golden State. In May 2009, Ted Olson, one of the most prominent Republican attorneys and David Boies, one of the most prominent Democratic attorneys, teamed up to fight for the legal overturn of that proposition. In January 2010, though cameras were banned from the courtroom, the nation was captivated by the reporting about the case – a trial not only on the legality of the proposition but also on its merits. Federal Judge Vaughn Walker eventually found the proposition to violate the US Constitution on broad grounds. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision, but on much narrower grounds: that a state cannot provide a right to all citizens and then take it away from a select few. Last month the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal, but added the question as to whether the proponents defending the law (the Governor and Attorney General declined to do so) have standing. On Tuesday the proponents of the law filed their brief (I’ll try to get an analysis up soon). Olson and Boies have until February 21st to respond, and oral arguments will be on March 26th with a likely result in June. While the Court could find that the US Constitution guarantees marriage equality across the land, it could also choose to narrow its ruling to the unique issues of the case and only impact Californians.

* Rhode Island - on Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee unanimously approved the marriage bill. The full House voted in favor today 51-19. However, the Senate is less certain. Although Rhode Island is virtually a single-party state (the Senate has 32 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 1 Independent), the Senate President, Teresa Paiva-Weed, is an opponent to equality. She has said that she will allow a committee to hear the matter, but in times past she has made certain that committees were selected to prevent equality.

I have started a petition at Change.org to request that should Paiva-Weed obstruct or block the passage of this bill, that Rhode Island State Senators remove her from power. Please go sign this petition.

* Illinois - a marriage bill was submitted during the first week of the year in a lame-duck session. Due to difficulty in corralling members returning from holiday, the vote never took place.

After the new legislature was is session, the bill was reintroduced. Currently the status is a bit in limbo as the bill is yet to be sent to committee.

However, that does not mean that there is no excitement, just that it’s happening outside the legislature and in an unexpected arena. The GOP chairman has come out in favor of marriage, which has angered social conservatives in the state. Bit though they are demanding his resignation and threatening ouster, the party insiders are lining up behind the chairman. At the moment it seem like the prevailing position may end up, “we may not support equality, but we support those who do.” In any case, this latest public squabble serves our community well.

* Minnesota - fresh off a victory in turning back an anti-marriage bill in November, Minnesotans for All Families is fighting on and will present a marriage bill to the legislature next month. The political strategist who generaled the battle is staying on to finish the war.

Polls are breaking even in the state and the DFL (Democratic) party has a slim lead in each house, so they will have their work cut out for them. But I would be surprised if the state did not take some movement towards couple recognition.

* Colorado - supporters filed an everything-but-the-name Civil Unions bill which is pretty much guaranteed to pass. More than half of each house has signed on as sponsors. This is as far as that state can go at present, as there is a state constitutional ban on equality.

* Wyoming - out of pretty much nowhere and flying way below the radar, lesbian Sen. Cathy Connolly has file both a domestic partnership bill and a marriage bill. Both have significant Republican support.

They may not be attracting much buzz on these bills due to party power; Republicans dominate both houses by overwhelming numbers. But Wyoming Republicans are traditionally pretty libertarian in their thinking and local papers are mostly quoting the bills’ Republican cosponsors. It may be early yet, but so far there doesn’t appear to be any visible organized opposition. I would not be altogether shocked if one of the bills passed or, at least, got a decent vote.

* New Jersey - the legislature of this state has already passed a marriage bill which was vetoed by the governor. However there are the paths to equality that might be achievable.

One is to take it to the people. But though a supporter brought such a bill, it was quickly dismissed due to the inherent insult of voting on a minority’s civil rights. (Personally, I’d rather win at the polls that fight over whether its an insult to do so.)

The second path, the one favored by equality leaders in the state, is to continue building support one by one until we have the numbers to override a veto. That would require substantial Republican support and this would be held off until after the next primary to minimize conservative backlash.

The third possibility doesn’t appear likely, but it shouldn’t be written off. Governor Chris Christie is a politician, and politicians are susceptible to evolution.

Christie made his mark in the Republican Party by being hard nose on fiscal issues but being more progressive on social issues. He was the poster boy for supporting civil unions, a position that made him seem ahead of the curve. As the Party moves away from anti-gay hostility, he may find it necessary to move as well. It’s not a bet I’d take, but it’s not outside the realm if possible for the Governor to hold to his views but still find some way to allow marriage to become law.

* Hawaii - I’ve no idea why marriage hasn’t already become law.

I think it can be hardest sometimes in states in which one party dominates. In mega-red states, we have little hope (though i just made a case for Wyoming). But in all-blue states, its not always much better. There’s no reason for Democrats to show the voters the difference between them and Republicans, so they fell less pressure to live up to their potential.

I’m sure I’ve missed some state in there. And, of course, you have to always expect that something completely unexpected will happen.

Tomorrow I’ll try to provide an update for Europe and South America.

UPDATE:

Yesterday, a state representative in Hawaii filed a bill for marriage equality. She had no cosponsors. Also yesterday, 15 representatives filed a bill calling for a constitutional amendment banning equality. It was also introduced in the senate. Additionally, a state senator filed a pair of ‘take it to the people’ bills which would have voters choose to either allow or ban marriage in the constitution (he’s an opponent of equality). All in all, it looks dire for marriage in Hawaii.

Illinios GOP anti-gays have trouble ousting State Chairman

Timothy Kincaid

January 25th, 2013

Thing got very interesting in Illinois at the start of the year. In a move I didn’t anticipate, the state Republican Party chairman endorsed marriage equality and began lobbying legislators to support a marriage bill.

While I was delighted by his support, I feared that he would not hold his position much longer. And the Party does have a provision for removing the state chairman should he do something odd or out of character for a Republican. (Daily Herald)

According to party rules, a special meeting can be called if at least five of the 18 state central committeemen request it.

So, not surprisingly, a committeeman has been rallying the forces to removed Pat Brady from office. Sugar Grove dairy magnate and state Sen. Jim Oberweis wants him gone because, you know, there are more important issues to deal with, you see. But he’s not finding it as easy as he expected.

Oberweis said he emailed “six or seven” committeemen, and several expressed their support for a special meeting. Oberweis said he has yet to see “five hands go up.”

Because, as it turns out, Republican leadership in Illinois may not love Teh Ghey so much, but what they really don’t like is losing. And they took a little glance at the last election results and decided that kicking out a marriage supporter is just not smart politics. As Republican House Leader Tom Cross put it:

“It reaffirms people’s worst fears about our party. I think we bragged about being the big tent party over the years. And there are going to be people that adamantly oppose gay marriage and people who support it. And we need to be the party that says, ‘Hey, that’s fine.’”

Various groups, including women, Latinos and young people aren’t listening to Republicans, Cross said,

“In the last election, we lost Kane County, DuPage County, Lake County, Will County. And we lost almost all demographic groups,” Cross said. “Old white guys aren’t going to win the elections any more,”

Now Oberweis may yet win. Brady may go. It seems to good to be true that the anti-gay forces in the Illinois GOP can’t get five committeemen to oppose ‘The HomoSEXshull Agenda’.

But at the moment it seems possible. And if so, we just may be sitting in front row seats for the biggest political extravaganza in decades: the drastic reformation of a political party. This could prove to be a VERY interesting year.

Rhode Island House passes equality – live blog

Timothy Kincaid

January 24th, 2013

I picked this up part way through. 1/24/13 1:56 (All times P.S.T.)

Right now, Rep. Corvese (D-North Providence) is ranting about “breaking the parameters of marriage”. He just recommended that you pick up What same-sex “marriage” has done to Massachusetts, a extremist publication of the hate-group MassResistance. He’s told us it isn’t about love or civil rights, that the Homosexual Activists aren’t discriminated against, and that trouble’s a-coming. Basically he sounds a lot like a Southern Republican more than a New England Democrat.

The House Speaker, openly gay Gordon Fox, has given Corvese extra time. I assume it’s out of courtesy and in respect that Corvese is on the losing side (both today and in history).

2:02 Rep. Blazejewski (D-East Providence), “Why would anyone want to prohibit two consenting adults from entering into a binding contract to protect their family? Why would you want to do that?”

2:05 Rep. Doreen Costa (R-N. Kingston), “The people don’t support this.” Presents a bunch of signatures… but didn’t she vote “yes” in committee.?

2:06 Rep Edwards (D-Tiverton), “Yes, Rep. Corvese, this is a game changer. For good.”

2:10 Rep McLaughlin (D-Central Falls) offers amendment (Corvese seconds) which I”m not sure what it says. “I fought on two continents. I’m a Roman Catholic. I believe in the Seven Sacraments. But it goes beyond religion. It’s a moral issue.” He’s babbling on about his specific Catholic doctrine. “We have rules in our society. We have rules in Church doctrine.” He’s babbling now, venting really, in an apologetic way. I kinda feel for this guy – he’s really trying not to offend, he’s keeps saying he should judge anyone. He’s just an old guy in a world that has changed in ways he hasn’t.

2:15 It seem’s McLauglin’s bill is to delete the wording and replace it with “marriage is between one man and one woman”. Under Rule 16 it was found out of order.

2:16 Rep Trillo (R-Warwick) “I supported the civil unions bill because I believe gays and lesbians deserve every right. But what I have a problem with is the word marriage.” “The terminology has been the same for 30,000 years. Marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman.” He’s okay with any other words, and thinks the other words will have the same credibility in 10 years as “marriage”.

2:20 Rep Ruggiero (D-Jamestown) “It’s about tax policy”. “Do this for your sons, daughters… whoever that gay person is whom you are thinking about right now.”

2:22 Rep. Tanzi (D-Narragansett) “I felt bad voting for civil unions for telling our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters that their love was different.” “I’m proud to cast my vote for this bill with my daughter beside me…”

2:27 Rep Cimini (D-Providence) She said in testimony in support of equality three years ago, “I don’t want to get married, I don’t know why anyone would want to marry, but I know that no one will stop me.” She just got married.

2:28 Rep Almeida (D-Providence), “This IS a civil rights agenda!” He’s African-American and pissed about what Cervese said. “We were all divided. Not just my skin color, but go way back we all were.” “I remember in the Marine Corp there were a lot of gays and lesbians. I didn’t care when bullets were flying at me.”

2:31 Rep Mattello (D-Cranston) “We all have different religious beliefs in marriage. But that’s not what we’re debating today.” “Three years ago I would have been in opposition. But society has changed.” “If you were given heterosexual attraction by God, you deserve happiness. If you were given gay attraction, you deserve happiness.” “We’re just making the law catch up with where society already is.”

2:37 Rep Newberry (R-N. Smithfield; Minority Leader) “They’ve said this is a civil rights bill. And I agree, that’s why I’m voting for it.” “But this has come up seven years, and it has deserved an up or down vote.” He went on to lecture the Senate and insist that they vote and not let it be a bargaining chip. He’s angry.

2:40 Rep. O’Neill (D-Pawtucket) “It’s a historic day… Enjoy this piece of history.”

2:42 Rep. Ferri (D-Warwick) “It has been a journey getting to this point.” To Speaker Fox: “You have class”. Speaking about his husband “I guess we have to get married now. But we’ve had a ‘marriage’ for 32 years. Call it what you want, but who else in this room had a marriage of 32 years.” He spent time pointing out people “this is for Tony, this is for…”

2:45 Rep Handy (D-Cranston) “I’ve evolved on this.” “I’ll be brief.” He hasn’t been.

2: 48 THEY ARE VOTING

51-19 passes

Lots of applause

Marriage Bill Formally Introduced in British Parliament

Jim Burroway

January 24th, 2013

As expected, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill was formally introduced in Parliament, kicking off a process which is expected to lead to a second reading on February 5. The legislation will prohibit the Church of England from marrying same-sex couples, but will allow all other religious denominations to provide it if they so choose. According to the BBC, religious groups supporting the bill include Quakers, Unitarians and Reformed Judaism.

The bill will be officially published on Friday ahead of Tuesday’s debate. The bill has divided Conservatives, with David Cameron giving his M.P.s a free vote on the bill. If the bill passes its second reading, it will then go to a committee for further evaluation before returning to the House for its third and final reading. It will then go to the House of Lords.

Go Ravens

Timothy Kincaid

January 23rd, 2013

I haven’t been to a football game since college; my hometown, the nation’s second largest, doesn’t have a team. And as I find watching televised sports to be an exercise in frustration, I haven’t much cared about the NFL.

But this year I will be watching the Super Bowl, and not just for the commercials and half time show.

This year I will be cheering on a team, the one that Brendon Ayanbadejo is on. The Baltimore Ravens.

On Sunday night WeHo’s gay sports bar was packed with people wearing blue and purple jerseys. And when the night was over (long after I left) the Ravens had won a place in the SuperBowl.

And that night, a night of exhilaration for the underdog team, Ayanbadejo thought about his personal priorities and reached for his computer. (Times)

He tapped out an email to Brian Ellner, a leading marriage-equality advocate with whom he had worked before, and Michael Skolnik, the political director for Russell Simmons, a hip-hop mogul who has become involved in many issues, including same-sex marriage.

Ayanbadejo wrote: “Is there anything I can do for marriage equality or anti- bullying over the next couple of weeks to harness this Super Bowl media?” The time stamp on the email was 3:40:35 A.M.

Yep. I’m a fan.

Rhode Island Judiciary sends marriage bill to House Floor

Timothy Kincaid

January 22nd, 2013

From the Providence Journal

With a unanimous vote, the House Judiciary Committee did Tuesday what no previous committee had done, sending a bill to legalize same-sex marriage to the floor of the Rhode Island House of Representatives.

There were eleven “yes” votes and two abstentions. The vote was not only bipartisan, but every single Republican member of the committee voted yes. (Okay, so there’s only one Republican on that committee, Doreen Costa, but I’m sure it annoys the National Organization for Marriage to say it that way.)

The House vote is expected on Thursday.

Selma and Stonewall

Timothy Kincaid

January 21st, 2013

I was delighted to hear President Obama call for equality under the law for gay and lesbian Americans. But one part of his speech, even more than that call, struck me as a significant change in the language of our struggle.

We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.

Repeatedly our opponents, especially those who are African-American preachers, insist that our quest for equal treatment before our civil government does not fit within the rubric of “civil rights”. Tony Evans, pastor of the 9,000-member Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship in Dallas spoke with NPR last May:

Evans and others say the black family is in crisis — a majority of babies, for example, are born to single mothers — and that’s why black ministers are often the most vocal opponents of same-sex marriage. Asked about the argument that this is a civil rights issue, Evans bristles.

“The issue of race is not an issue of choice. It’s an issue of birth,” he says.

Does that mean that homosexuality is a choice?

“The Bible is clear on that one, too. And that is, sexual relationships are to be between men and women within the context of marriage,” Evans says. “That’s not only related to the issue of homosexuality, but adultery, or fornication or bestiality. All of that is proscribed in the Bible.”

Though the tide has turned in the black community and though those who know the civil rights struggle for racial equality most intimately have championed our cause, there still remain those who think that gay people are stealing the rightful ownership of civil rights from those who fought for it. And even some who have come to support us still see our discrimination as secondary and less severe.

But this paragraph included in the President’s address casts the convention at Seneca Falls for women’s right, the marches from Selma to Montgomery for racial rights, and the riot at the Stonewall Inn for sexual orientation as one. And it was in the context of that quest for women’s, black, and gay equality that Obama quotes Dr. Martin Luther King. On this day set aside of honor Dr. King.

This was, for me, an unexpected statement, of which the implication is unmistakable. The quest for equality for our community is a civil rights battle. It always has been, but now the most influential and important African-American alive has spoke of it as so in one of his most important and broadly heard speeches.

The impact of that statement has the potential to be enormous in this country and beyond.

A very classy “no”

Timothy Kincaid

January 18th, 2013

The Campaign for Southern Equality is hoeing a tough row. They are fighting for our equality in that part of the nation most reluctant to recognize it, the Southern states.

Part of their strategy is asking for what we don’t have. Personally, I think this is something we must always consider. If we let people go without even asking, they may never confront within themselves the reality that they are harming others.

Since January 1st, 35 LGBT couples from across Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee have stood up for marriage equality in their home states. The WE DO Campaign involves LGBT couples in the Southern communities where they live requesting – and being denied – marriage licenses in order to call for full equality under federal law and to resist unjust state laws.

And as part of that ongoing effort, yesterday couples met at the Arlington County Courthouse to request marriage licenses. Their reception was a very classy “no”: (arlnow.com)

Participants gathered in the square to request marriage licenses from Paul Ferguson, the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Arlington County and the City of Falls Church.

“I commend each of you that is coming forward today for your courage. I think you do realize that by law, the Commonwealth of Virginia does not allow me to issue those marriage licenses to you,” Ferguson said. “I hope that if laws do change in the future, that you will choose to return one day to Arlington County to receive a marriage license.”

More than a dozen couples stepped forward to request marriage licenses from Ferguson. In turn, each was rejected.

“Unfortunately, I am not able to grant that license by law,” Ferguson repeated to each couple.

Each of the couples acknowledged the rejection, some vowing to return for licenses should the laws change.

“You’re just doing your job. We’ve been together 25 years. It hurts to be rejected,” one tearful applicant said to Ferguson. “We know hearts and minds do change, and we hope Virginia will too.”

RI marriage bill goes to House Judiciary on Tuesday

Timothy Kincaid

January 17th, 2013

After a hearing on Tuesday at which the Governor and State Treasurer spoke in favor of equality, the marriage bill in Rhode Island will face its first hurdle in the road to law. (WPRI)

The House Judiciary Committee has scheduled a vote on the measure for Tuesday.

If the panel passes the measure as expected, it will head to the full House for a vote, possibly next week. House Speaker Gordon Fox has said he wants the House to vote on the legislation by month’s end.

RI marriage bill goes to House Judiciary on Tuesday

Timothy Kincaid

January 17th, 2013

After a hearing on Tuesday at which the Governor and State Treasurer spoke in favor of equality, the marriage bill in Rhode Island will face its first hurdle in the road to law. (WPRI)

The House Judiciary Committee has scheduled a vote on the measure for Tuesday.

If the panel passes the measure as expected, it will head to the full House for a vote, possibly next week. House Speaker Gordon Fox has said he wants the House to vote on the legislation by month’s end.

The evolution of domestic partnerships

Timothy Kincaid

January 16th, 2013

Representative Cathy Connolly (D-Albany) has submitted two bills to the Wyoming legislature, one providing for marriage equality and one providing for domestic partnerships. Both bills have bipartisan support in the House, and the domestic partnership bill has bipartisan support in the Senate.

While marriage is highly preferable, either bill would be a great improvement in the lives of gay couples in the state. And even the domestic partnership bill has taken a step further than other DP bills have.

Domestic Partnerships were first proposed in San Francisco in the late 70′s. The City Counsel approved such a provision in 1982, but then-mayor Diane Feinstein vetoed the bill (San Francisco finally got domestic partnerships in 1990). In 1985, the newly chartered city of West Hollywood created the first Domestic Partner registry.

In 1999, the State of California passed the first state-wide domestic partnership bill. The benefits were limited; it provided for a public registry, hospital visitation rights, and authorized health insurance coverage for domestic partners of public employees. Over the next several years, additional benefits and obligations were added and the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 provided that (nearly) all provisions that impact marriage also impact domestic partnerships (though as recently as 2011, additional tinkering was required).

Oregon (in 2007) and Nevada (in 2009) started where California ended up. Oregon’s HB2007 Section 9 starts with “Any privilege, immunity, right or benefit granted by statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other law to an individual because the individual is or was married” and runs for about 500 more words. Nevada’s SB283 Section 7 manages to squeeze the definition down to about 365 words and begins thusly:

Domestic partners have the same rights, protections and benefits, and are subject to the same responsibilities, obligations and duties under law, whether derived from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

But the proposed Wyoming law takes a unique approach and, I think, one which reflects the evolution in the nation’s thinking about same-sex couples.

For purposes of Wyoming statutes, administrative rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil or criminal law, the term “spouse” shall include a party to a domestic partnership contract evidenced by a certificate issued pursuant to this chapter.

No longer are domestic partners treated just like spouses. Should this bill become law, in Wyoming domestic partners would be spouses.

Wait wait wait wait wait… WYOMING?!?

Timothy Kincaid

January 15th, 2013

Either I’m dreaming, someone has hacked my browser and is playing a big joke, or the movement towards equality is in hypermegaoverdrive. (Jackson Hole Daily)

Laramie Democratic Rep. Cathy Connolly filed legislation late Monday afternoon that would create a path for gay couples to form civil unions or get married.

Okay, that sounds normal. It was the response of some Republicans that has me wondering if April 1 came early.

The dual approach already has won the backing of Reps. Ruth Ann Petroff, R-Jackson, and Gingery. Both Teton County lawmakers said they would prefer to see gay marriage allowed in Wyoming but are willing to debate whether civil unions might be a better way to go.

That would be Catholic Republican Chair of the Judiciary Committee Gingery who did not support marriage in 2007, 2009, or 2012. But, in his words:

“It’s hard for anyone to be against gay marriage when there’s a face to it and that face is a friend or relative,” Gingery said.