Box Turtle Bulletin

Queens chose gay marriage

Last year, New York State Senator Hiram Monserrate slashed the face of his girlfriend and dragged her through the building lobby before driving her to a distant hospital. This behavior was too much even for the New York Senate, so they booted him from his Senate seat.

However, Monserrate’s ouster was at least in part due to internal Democratic Party annoyance with him. He had aligned himself with a handful of other Senators and sought to use the tiny party majority as a bargaining point to advance his own personal power and profile. This coup attempt resulted in months of deadlock and confusion with the leadership changing hands at least twice, the doors of the Senate being locked to one faction, and other nonsense. So when it came time for the Party to rally behind a member in need and to overlook his “accident”, he found few willing.

Adding to the discontent was his vote against marriage equality. When Hiram Monserrate ran for the Senate, he portrayed himself as an ally of the gay community and a certain vote for marriage. But instead, he was one of eight Democrats who voted for discrimination and for reserving special rights and privileges for heterosexuals.

And it was on this vote that Monserrate ran a campaign to be re-elected to the seat from which he had just been removed. He was endorsed by, the Queens Hispanic Clergy Association, a collection of pastors and other religious leaders whose sole focus was on opposing gay equality. (YourNabe.com)

The Rev. Ricardo Reyes of El Elyon Christian Church in Corona said he represented 612 churches in Queens that oppose same-sex marriage and praised Monserrate for his record of supporting community groups.

“I have seen a generation sunk down by the gay community,” Reyes said. “If we vote for a gay marriage situation … we are sending our children to practice something against the Bible.”

The other candidate in the race was Jose Peralta. While Peralt received the support and endorsement of the Party structure and the unions, much of his financial and grassroots support came from gay individuals and groups who sought to punish Monserrate for his vote and for his newly-adopted anti-gay activism.

While Peralta ran on the scandal, Monserrate and his Queens Hispanic Clergy Association tried to make this a referendum on marriage. Surely, the people of the 13th Senate District in Queens would rather have a man who “accidentally” harmed his girlfriend – who has forgiven him – than the scourge of gay marriage! Right?

No. Yesterday, Jose Peralta became the new Senator-elect. It wasn’t close. (Newsday)

With 81 percent of the precincts reporting, Assemb. Jose Peralta (D-Corona) beat Hiram Monserrate with 66 percent of the vote. Monserrate had 27 percent.

The voters took a look at Monserrate, and Queens chose gay marriage.

Anti-gay marriage bill dies in PA Judiciary Committee

Perhaps Pennsylvania Senator John H. Eichelberger, Jr. though that his marriage amendment bill would fare well in the Senate Judiciary Committee. After all, with an 9 to 5 Republican majority it would just be expected.

No such luck, Eichelberger. (On Top)

Eichelberger’s resolution would insert the following language into the state constitution: “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid and recognized as a marriage in this Commonwealth.”

But three Republican and five Democratic lawmakers disagreed. Joining all the committee’s Democrats in killing the resolution were Republicans Pat Browne, Jane Earll and Mary Jo White.

It must have Eichelberger wondering why (PhillyBurbs)

The latest effort to amend Pennsylvania’s constitution to effectively ban gay marriage appeared dead today after three senators who supported an even broader measure two years ago changed their vote in committee, according to the Associated Press.

But there was no debate whatsoever on the bill, so we can only speculate about possible motivations. It may well be that these Senators have come to know and love gay people in their lives. They may have found a new respect for equality.

Of course, there is also another possibility. (Pennsylvania Progressive)

I spend a fair amount of time in Harrisburg. I know who is closeted. Any closeted Senator who votes for Eichelberger’s bill will be outed. I also know a State Senator who is wildly homophobic and is also an alcoholic. One of her rants will also be made public depending on her vote. This is fair warning.

We’ll probably never know what led to their decisions. I’m just happy they voted as they did.

Tom Campbell responds to “two peas in a pod” ad

Today the National Organization for Marriage released an ad attacking California GOP Senate candidate Tom Campbell. They said that his views on income taxes, gas taxes, and (gasp) gay marriage are no different from those of “liberal Barbera Boxer”.

Campbell’s team is crying, “No fair”

Campbell spokesman James Fisfis said the campaign is more upset that the ad compares Campbell to Boxer on taxes. He says the two are worlds apart on that issue.

Gotta love that answer.

Fact Checking the Family “Research” Council Straw Man Argument

In response to a Washington Post article about the economic benefits of same-sex marriage in DC, the Family Research Council (FRC) provides a classic example of how right-wing organizations manipulate data and statistics to suit their anti-LGBT positions.

Here’s the quote:

When same-sex weddings kicked off in D.C. yesterday, the city wasn’t seeing anything but dollar signs. In an absurd article in today’s Washington Post, reporters tried to argue that counterfeit marriage could be the economic salvation of the city’s economy. In a region with 12% unemployment, local officials claim that redefining marriage “will create 700 jobs and contribute $52.2 million over three years to the local economy.”

Not so fast, says FRC. The last census counted 3,678 same-sex partner homes in D.C. Assuming that number has stayed roughly the same, then the 150 who applied for marriage licenses yesterday would amount to a whopping four percent of the local homosexual population–hardly the stuff of economic recovery. For the Post’s $52.2 million projection to come true, all 3,678 of those D.C. couples would have to get married and spend over $14,000 per wedding. (I don’t know about you, but my wife and I spent a LOT less!) These “marriages” (which have yet to meet financial expectations in other states) may make a fast buck in the short term, but they will do nothing but drain the economy down the road. Consider the massive health care expenses incurred by taxpayers every year to cope with the diseases spread by homosexual behavior. According to the Kaiser Foundation, federal funding grew to more than $18 billion in 2004 to deal with the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Over half of all U.S. infections are in men having sex with men! That means taxpayers spend roughly $10 billion a year treating the diseases caused by a behavior celebrated in same-sex “marriage.” So much for economic development!

Not so fast FRC.

Yes, according to the Washington, DC Census Snapshot published by the Williams Institute, there are an estimated 3,678 same-sex couple households in the district, and the Associate Press did report that 150 same-sex couples applied for licenses on the first day same-sex marriage became legal there. This is about all that is factually correct in FRC’s statement.

FRC’s claim that the 150 couples represent “four percent of the local homosexual population” is a classic manipulation used by the religious right and discredited “researchers” like Paul Cameron. They take an estimate of one portion of a minority population and pretend that it is generalizeable to the population as a whole. In this case, the number of same-sex couple households willing to self-identify in the Census is not equivalent to the total population of lesbian, gay, or bisexual DC residents, which according to the Williams Institute is approximately 33,000.

Even more importantly, it is laughable for FRC to base its argument on the number of couples who applied for licenses on the first day. The Washington Post article references another Williams Institute report, which estimates that 2,000 same-sex couple in DC would marry over the next three years. In addition, another 12,500 couples are expected to come from out of state to get married. This is a more complete picture of the estimates used to create the projection of 700 new jobs and $52.2 million in revenue, but FRC simply ignores this information.

Where to begin with FRC’s last argument about same-sex marriage being a long-term drain on the economy because of “diseases spread by homosexual behavior?”

We could cite CDC data on transmission rates caused by “heterosexual behavior.” We could also estimate federal funding spent on prevention efforts that address the damage caused by social, and familial environments created by FRC. As they say, so much for economic development!

However, it would be a waste of time to feed into FRC’s “straw man” arguments.

They have no interest in examining real facts. Nor do they see the folly in their position against allowing same-sex couples access to an institution that fosters monogamy as well as mutual caring and support. As so many articles and special reports on Box Turtle Bulletin have illustrated, there is no place for scientifically supported facts in the anti-gay playbook.

Status of Buenos Aires marriage uncertain

The Catholic News Agency is reporting that the Buenos Aires marriage between Damian Bernath and Jorge Salazar last week is void:

On Monday, Judge Felix Gustavo de Igarzabal of Buenos Aires reversed a decision which allowed two gay men to marry at the city’s civil registry office on March 3. In his ruling the judge said no marriage took place “because of the absence of the institution’s structural elements,” in this case a man and a woman, and thus declared the act to be invalid.

We hear that the Supreme Court is expected to hear the case, so this may not be the final resolution.

Congratulations Kissimmee

Last night the City Commission in Kissimmee, FL, became the latest US municipality to recognize domestic partnerships. (Watermark)

In a 4-1 vote, the Kissimmee City Commission approved health and dental benefits for domestic partners of city employees, whether they’re the same sex or opposite sex.

This adds another 60,894 people (2007 estimate) to the total 27,269,114 estimated Americans who live in a community which – though in an unfriendly state – has offered some measure of recognition to same-sex relationships.

The new rules let employees purchase the benefits for their partners.

“It will also give domestic partners the same benefits as spouses as it relates to sick leave and one of the other items is that we have a policy that [city employees] cannot supervise [their] spouse and this will apply to domestic partners as well,” says Grieb.

Employees can also take advantage of sick leave if the children of their domestic partners become ill.

The measure cannot provide full compensation equality because of federal and state law. The State of Florida will not allow the children of partners to be covered by insurance unless they are formally adopted – which the state also bans (so much for “protecting the children”). And due to the Federal Government considering coverage of non-heterosexual spouses to be taxable income, Kissimmee will not offer the $10 per paycheck spousal coverage stipend they offer married employees.

There was a protest in late February led by a local pastor, but it did not appear to be well attended. (oscnewsgazette)

Initially, [Iglesia Christiana Renuevo assistant pastor Modesto] Vega’s group was against any domestic partner benefits, as he stated in his request for a permit to hold the protest, dated Feb. 9. However, the signs protesters held Tuesday stated that the group was only against such benefits to a same-sex partner.

The dozen and a half or so protesters, who were organized by an association of 35 to 40 local pastors, said they were motivated by religious beliefs. Vega told Grieb that domestic partnership benefits could be the beginning of tolerance that could lead to Florida allowing gay marriage.

No one spoke against the proposal at the meeting, and more than 300 business owners in Kissimmee had signed a petition to back the decision.

Anti-8 Campaign must reveal internal memos

It seems that the anti-gay activists supporting Proposition 8 will get a chance to review the internal documents of No on 8. They had been complaining that they the Olson-Boies team in Perry v. Schwarzenegger had access to their documents and that it just wasn’t fair that they didn’t have access to the No on 8 side. That appears to have changed.

From the San Jose Mercury News:

A federal magistrate is ordering several gay rights groups that campaigned against California’s 2008 same-sex marriage ban to furnish some internal memos and e-mails to lawyers for the measure’s sponsors.
…
Spero says Equality California, Californians Against Eliminating Basic Rights, an ACLU campaign committee and an umbrella group that oversaw the campaign against the ban must hand over all documents “that contain, refer or relate to arguments for or against Proposition 8,” with the exception private communications between their core leaders.

This is a very perplexing order for several reasons:

First: The reason that Olson-Boies had access to the Protect Marriage campaign, was because it was pertinent to the question of the trial: was Prop 8 based on anti-gay animus and marketed to appeal to prejudice. Because this dealt with the intentions of the Yes on 8 side, their internal documents were relevant.

But the motivations or intentions of No on 8 were not up for question. There was nothing in the internal documents from No on 8 that could shed any light whatsoever on the question of whether Proposition 8 was intended to deny a class of Californians from equal protections. Nothing in these documents will tell the court whether Yes on 8 was motivated by animus, because they aren’t Yes on 8’s documents and don’t reflect their views.

Second: The trial is over. The testimony is concluded and the final written arguments have been presented. It is unlikely that the turn over of Equality California’s documents to the anti-gay activists will or even could occur before final arguments are made and Judge Walker makes his determination. So it is confusing exactly how this request advances the pursuit of justice in this case.

Third: As this order has no value on the merits of the case, it appears to be purely political in nature. I’m not suggesting that Justice Spero is engaging in judicial activism, but rather this seems to be an order purely to be “fair” so that “both sides can see each others’ secrets”.

But legal proceedings are to be based on the law, not on making both sides happy. “Making everyone happy” is not a standard that is applied to disclosure in criminal or corporate law.

This decision seems to be a product of the culture war. But justices are sworn to defend the constitution, not make sure that the culture warriors are each provided with the same ammunition.

Box Turtle Podcast: D.C. Marriage Victory

On this week’s podcast: The D.C. gay marriage victory — plus, the anti-HRC blog “swarm.”

Listen below or subscribe to the podcast on iTunes (click here, then click “subscribe” in the iTunes window).

Direct link to audio file available here.

Slovenia marriage bill passes first reading

The government of Slovenia is proposing a revised Family Law bill which would legalize same-sex marriage and allow for gay adoptions. The bill was proposed on September 21, 2009 and has gone through a period of public debate.

Yesterday, after heated debate – with much emphasis on the adoption provision – the Slovenian Parliament passed a first reading of the bill by a vote of 46 to 38.

According to the NYU Law School, a bill undergoes three readings, the first of which is a debate over the reasons, principles, and goals of the law.

(hat tip to reader Hall)

International Marriage Update

Several nations are competing to become the eighth to offer full civil marriage recognition to same sex couples. It is likely that at least three, possibly four, will change their laws by summer.

Portugal – The parliament has now finalized the language of the bill and around the first of the month sent it to President Cavaco Silva. Silva is a member of the PSD party and has spoken in the past in opposition to same-sex marriage recognition. It is uncertain what he will do.

Silva has four choices. He can sign the bill, send it to the Supreme Court within 8 days, or refuse to sign it and return it to Parliament within 20 days (a form of veto). Prime Minister José Sócrates has stated that he has the requisite two-thirds vote to overturn a Presidential veto.

Nepal – This Asian nation is scheduled to implement a new constitution by May 28, 2010. This new constitution is reported to have marriage equality provisions. Nepal has been capitalizing on this change in hopes of increasing tourism.

Luxembourg – This tiny duchy has had civil partnership laws since 2004. However, at the end of January, Minister of Justice François Biltgen announced that the nation would legalize civil gay marriage before Parliament’s summer break. Gay couples will not be allowed to adopt.

Iceland – This vast island with its hardy but tiny population has had registered partnerships since 1996. The current government, helmed by lesbian Prime Minister Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, is committed to changing the law to enact marriage equality. Although no time line is currently reported, as of 18 November 2009, the Minister of Justice and Human Rights confirmed that the government was working on such an act.

This is not likely to be a highly controversial issue in Iceland. Only one lawmaker voted against the 1996 partnerships and the 2006 upgrade was passed unanimously.

Argentina – There have now been two legal same-sex marriages in that country opening up a precedent, if not exactly law. However, the current governmental leadership has indicated support for marriage equality and there are bills currently under consideration. Although movement forward was scheduled for last November, but parliamentary procedures were used to delay the decision until 2010. The two judicially authorized marriages may be seen as impetus for the legislature to enact marriage as a matter of legislation rather than concede to judicial mandate.

Cyprus – The Attorney-general’s office, Law Commissioner, Ombudswoman, and senior representatives of the relevant government ministries will meet this month to discuss whether the island off the coast of Turkey and Syria will adopt marriage equality.

To make the race even more uncertain, the European Court of Human Rights heard testimony last week from an Austrian couple suing for marriage rights. On Tuesday, the court determined that Poland could not treat a gay man and his partner differently than a married couple. It is expected to announce within the next few months whether European states can deny marriage to same-sex couples or whether civil unions, such as those adopted by Austria at the first of the year, were sufficient to protect equal rights.

So we see movement in Europe, Asia, and the Americas and at the most northern and most southern parts of the globe. And, of course, we may always be surprised by an unexpected nation taking this step, as well as determinations in the European . But, whichever moves first, it will certainly be a spring to remember.

UPDATE:

Slovenia – This eastern neighbor of Italy, and former portion of communist Yugoslavia, has already begun the process of changing their laws to allow for marriage equality. Their legislature voted yesterday to advance the bill.

Congratulations to Mexico City’s gay couples

I’m sure there is a word or phrase for the residents of Mexico City, but I don’t know what it is. So I’ll be expansive and say felicitaciones por su día de la boda to all Mexican gays. Today is the first day that same-sex couples can marry in that nation’s capital. (Beating out the US Capital by a week)

And the judges are ready (Americas Quarterly)

Seventy judges in the Federal District of Mexico underwent sensitivity training today at the Instituto Mexicano de Sexología in preparation for this Thursday, when same-sex marriage becomes legal in the district. According to the Judicial and Legal Services Council the workshops are intended to ensure that ceremonies are performed without “discrimination”.

Nearly half of all Americans live where there is some recognition of same-sex couples

About 5.1% of Americans (15.5 million) live in areas in which same-sex marriages are legal and equal to opposite-sex marriages: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, and the District of Columbia.

Another 58.4 million (19.2%) live in states which have either civil unions or domestic partnerships that offer all the rights and protections of marriage without the name: California, New Jersey, Oregon, Nevada, and Washington. To that we can add two more states (New York and Maryland) in which the local state government will honor marriage occurring elsewhere and we have a total of 32.6% of Americans living with the rights and responsibilities of marriage available to their family.

There are also five states which recognize same-sex couples and offer them limited itemized rights. They are Hawaii, Colorado, Wisconsin, Maine, and Rhode Island and they add an additional 14.2 million Americans (4.7%).

But recognition does not stop there. There are dozens more counties and cities who provide what local recognition and benefits as they can, adding another 14.2 million local residents (4.7% of Americans) who can appreciate that their city officials see them as a couple. Local municipalities include the populations of Salt Lake City, UT; Phoeniz AZ; Tuscon AZ; Duluth, MN; Minneapolis, MN; St. Paul, MN; Lawrence, KS; Columbia, MO; Kansas City, MO; St. Lewis, MO; Ann Arbor, MI; Cook County, IL (Chicago); Urbana, IL; Cleveland, OH; Cleveland Heights, OH; Toledo, OH; Philadelphia, PA; Pittsburgh, PA; Harrisburg, PA; El Paso, TX; Travis County, TX (Austin); Eureka Springs, AK; New Orleans, LA; Carrboro, NC; Chapel Hill, NC; Clarke County, GA (Athens); Fulton County, GA (Atlanta); Broward County, FL (Fort Lauderdale); Key West, FL; Miami-Dade County, FL; and West Palm Beach, FL.

In total about 140 million Americans – about 46% of the nation’s population – live where there is some form of official notice of same-sex couples. So NOM can proclaim “victory” when they have an election in California or Maine, but this ball is rolling and the momentum is in the direction of recognition.

Argentina’s second same-sex marriage takes place in Buenos Aires

As predicted, Argentina’s second same-sex marriage has taken place in Buenos Aires. And this time all went well. (AFP)

Damian Bernath and Jorge Salazar “married on Wednesday at a Civil Registry office, and decided to do it completely privately,” said Maria Rachid, who leads the Argentine Federation of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transgendered.

It’s quite some week for marriage at capital cities in the Americas.

Congratulations to our Nation’s Capital

Today the residents of the District of Columbia are free to pick up a marriage license to marry the person whom they love without regard to that person’s gender. The first marriage may occur as early as next Tuesday (after the waiting period).

Congratulations to Washingtonians on your newly acquired freedom.

Supreme Court says “yes” to DC Marriages

Opponents of marriage equality in the District of Columbia have been trying everything they could think of to stop marriage license from being issued to same-sex couples tomorrow. Unable to persuade city council members from choosing discrimination, they sought to get a congressional veto.

Recognizing that their congressional efforts were simply a clown show, they went to the courts and demanded that they be allowed to vote by initiative. After the District Courts all declined their demands, they made a last ditch appeal to the Supreme Court. (AHN)

Efforts by conservatives to overturn the law have continued. A group of conservatives including clerics Harry Jackson and James Silver filed papers Monday asking the Supreme Court to stay the law.

“The D.C. Council violated the congressionally authorized process for amending the D.C. Charter and, as a result, the citizens of the District are being denied the right to refer the act to the people,” the group said in its petition.

The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled against Jackson’s group last week. Jackson and Silver, members of a coalition of community leaders and pastors called Stand4MarriageDC.com, also tried to seek approval last year from the D.C. board of elections for a ballot initiative on whether marriage should be between persons of opposite sexes.

Today Chief Justice John Roberts declined placing a stay. (AP)

The Supreme Court has refused to stop the District of Columbia’s gay marriage law.

The court on Tuesday turned down requests from gay marriage opponents to stop the law, which will take effect on Wednesday.

This is good news for DC and Maryland residents.

But it may possibly also be good news for California gay couples and those around the nation. Were Justice Roberts an anti-marriage advocate, he may have been willing to lean towards granting the stay. It is, of course, far too soon and far to speculative to assume that this is a forerunner of his position on Perry v. Schwarzenegger, but it certainly weighs on the side of hope.