Box Turtle Bulletin

No Prop 8 insider documents for Olson/Boies

Part of the Ted Olson/David Boies case against Proposition 8 is based on the argument that the campaign and its voters denied rights to gay couples out of animus. And to prove animus, they subpoenaed the internal communication of the pro-8 campaign.

Although the presiding judge agreed that such communication should be turned over to Olson/Boies, an appeal to the 9th Circuit has suspended that decision until they can hear it. (SF Chronicle)

The Ninth U.S. Circuit of Appeals in San Francisco suspended the order that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker issued in October against backers of Prop. 8, which state voters approved in November 2008.
…
Prop. 8 sponsors argued that their discussions were constitutionally protected and that orders such as Walker’s would discourage candid communications in political campaigns.

The three-judge appeals court panel said the sponsors “have made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed” in their arguments. The court, which held a hearing on Walker’s order on Tuesday, said it would issue a ruling soon.

This always seemed a bit of a long-shot to me anyway.

Irish Fianna Fáil Party required to vote for Partnerships

From Irish Central

Irish Justice Minister Dermot Ahern refused to allow party colleagues to abstain or vote against a new bill legalizing civil partnerships for gay couples.

He banned the so-called “freedom of conscience” clause for colleagues to defy the government and vote against the bill.

With other minority parties supporting the bill, it is expected to pass.

Sen. Diane Sevino’s testimony

You must listen to Sen. Diane Sevino talk of the reasons she supports marriage equality.

Partnership Bill introduced in Ireland

A partnership registry in Ireland has been introduced. From Fox News

Justice Minister Dermot Ahern said Thursday that the Civil Partnerships Bill would give gay couples the same rights as married heterosexual couples to questions of inheritance, medical care and access to state benefits — and also the same right to demand financial support from wealthier partners when relationships fail.

The bill faces opposition from a minority of lawmakers in the ruling Fianna Fail party. But its passage into law this month appears assured because of strong backing by opposition parties.

Although most couple rights are included, rights relating to children are missing. For those, and other reasons, it is being dismissed by some gay groups as inadequate

Earlier, The National Lesbian and Gay Federation rejected the Bill, and reiterated calls for the immediate introduction of a civil marriage option.

The Union of Students in Ireland says the proposed Bill will offer a number of legal rights to lesbian and gay couples but falls short of offering many of the rights and protections covered by civil marriage.

The USI says the Bill ‘refuses to recognise the existence of same sex families, leaving children of same sex couples vulnerable and unprotected under Irish law’.

USI Lesbian Gay Bi-sexual Transgender Rights Officer Laura Finlay said: ‘The implementation of this Civil Partnership Bill will only serve to enshrine in law the second class citizenship of LGBT people in this country.

‘It is wholly unfair and sends out the message that gay people in Ireland are not equal to their heterosexual counterparts.’

A provision allowing marriage would not be possible by means of legislation as most politicians agree that such a law would require national referendum to change to the wording of the constitution. And the government has expressed intention to address some other outstanding issues involving taxation and social welfare.

NJ Senate to vote on marriage next week

From NJ.com

“On Monday in the Judiciary Committee, we’re going to vote on marriage equality,” Lesniak (D-Union) said, while making the announcement to a crowd of gay marriage supporters on the Statehouse steps today.

“On Thursday (Dec. 10) the full Senate is going to vote on marriage equality,” said Lesniak, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “And God be willing, we’ll have 21 votes.”

There has been an expectation that marriage equality has adequate support in New Jersey to become law. However, recent rumblings suggest that some supporters may have been getting cold feet.

Let us hope that the fury unleashed on the Democratic Senators in New York who voted for discrimination will cause New Jersey elected officials to ask themselves whether they wish to be included on the “must be defeated” list.

Congratulations Washingtonians

Today Washington State’s Senate Bill 5688 goes into effect. It was this bill, which upgrades Domestic Partnerships to contain all the rights, privileges, responsibilities and obligations of marriage, which was threatened by Referendum 71.

On November 4th, the voters of Washington State declared that they support full rights and responsibilities for same-sex couples.

Unlike their Senators, New Yorkers want marriage equality

NY Senators who voted against equality thinking that they were doing “the will of the people” may find themselves trying to make stuttering explanations in future debates. Cuz “the people” certainly didn’t ask for marriage to be denied to their gay neighbors.

A Marist Poll released yesterday:

Do you favor or oppose legalizing same-sex marriage in New York State?

Total:
Favor – 51%
Oppose – 42%

NYC:
Favor – 61%
Oppose – 33%

Suburbs:
Favor – 47%
Oppose – 47%

Upstate:
Favor – 48%
Oppose – 44%

The Australian Marriage Waltz

Yesterday I told you of the complicated steps, kicks and strides in the Argentine Marriage Tango. Now it appears that Australia, with its love of ballroom dance, has a marriage waltz all of its own.

I feel a bit like a celebrity guest judge on So You Think You Can Dance. I don’t know the steps or what comes next but I am caught up it the drama of the swirling movement and will wing my explanation.

The dance has a basic premise: some local governments, particularly that of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), wish to grant to their gay constituents marriage rights as similar to that of their straight constituents as possible. However, federal officials are determined to keep sharp distinctions between the orientations and to minimize and diminish same-sex couples and their relationships.

Most of the back-and-forth has less to do with rights or privileges (though that is important) and more to do with status, social approval, and ceremony. Conservatives seem to be taking the position that you can be a couple, but that is nothing to celebrate.

In November the ACT voted for the third time to pass a bill that allowed for legally binding ceremonies between same sex couples. And for the third time the federal government vowed to veto it. They declared that ceremonies cannot be allowed but instead a registry should be used, just like for fishing licenses or building permits. Of course the federal government hasn’t actually enacted such a registry, but they are quite determined to block any I Do’s or Til Death Do Us Part’s until they do.

But, in the meantime, one couple of 20 years, Warren McGaw and Chris Rumble, exchanged vows in the rose gardens of the Old Parliament House in Canberra.

The dance is more confusing in that it seems to involve uncertain partners. Greens nationwide support marriage, while Labor in Victoria Tasmania, and the ACT are battling against the Labor leadership over the issue. The Greens, though a minority in the federal government, in June introduced a bill in support of marriage itself.

“The Greens will be pursuing passage of the bill when parliament resumes in the New Year,” Hanson-Young said.

“The Australian public wants to debate this issue. They responded to the Senate inquiry into the bill in record numbers and latest polling shows 60 per cent support for equal marriage.

“We urge the Prime Minister to bring this debate on, and to allow his party a conscience vote.”

When the bill was rejected by the Senate last Friday led to protest in the street.

Australian Marriage Equality spokesman Alex Greenwich said strong attendances by more than 2,000 people at rallies in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, ACT, Adelaide and Lismore on Saturday to launch a national year of action showed positive community support.

But lets circle back to civil unions in the ACT. The Commonwealth seems to have found a compromise.

The Commonwealth’s proposed amendment would create an additional step in the process, requiring couples who choose to have a ceremony to first notify the registrar-general of the ACT Office of Regulatory Services with at least five days’ notice of their intention to hold a ceremony.

The union will be legally created by the couple’s declaration in front of a legally-authorised celebrant. Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland told Chief Minister Jon Stanhope earlier this week that the Commonwealth would overturn the recently-passed laws unless the ACT agreed to its amendments.

”This is an important reform,” Mr Corbell said yesterday.

”This locks in the role of ceremonies for same-sex couples and maintains the legal effect, and it also maintains the role for a legally-authorised official to conduct those ceremonies.”

However, so far this isn’t pleasing anti-gays…

Jim Wallace from the Australian Christian Lobby says that mimics marriage and the Rudd Labor Government has betrayed Christians who voted for it.

“Once you cross this line you’ve opened the door to completely devaluing marriage,” he said.

“This will lead to other ways of mimicking it. We’ll have demands for polygamists marriages.”

…or the Greens.

Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury says he is yet to be convinced.

“It’s so much splitting hairs that people are saying why don’t we stick with the original bill – the original bill that the Greens put up is a good one,” he said.

He says there is no justification to change the laws.

“At this stage we’re not inclined to accept these amendments because there is no clear reason why we need to make them.

“Nobody has articulated what the problem is with the legislation, they’ve just said here’s a fix that we need for it.

“Our view is if it’s not broken you don’t need to fix it.”

The Greens appear to be taking a risk. If they refuse the administrative change, will the government dare veto the whole thing. If at the end of the dance they fling themselves backwards, will Rudd catch them or dare to let them hit the floor?

Primary elections may be key to NY equality

I am not particularly receptive to the argument that a representative can be excused at times for voting in a way that might not reflect their own views, but which is required to keep their seat. I think that equality is worth defending even if it requires personal sacrifice.

However, I have nothing but contempt for those who elect to endorse discrimination and bias even when there is no downside to siding with decency and equality.

And of the eight Democrats who voted to deny equal civil rights to their fellow New Yorkers, five were elected in 2008 with no organized opposition in the general election. They were either unopposed, or had only a token Republican opponent who received but a tiny percentage of the votes:

32nd • Ruben Diaz (D-Bronx)
10th • Shirley Huntley (D-Queens)
27th • Carl Kruger (D-Brooklyn)
13th • Hiram Monserrate (D-Queens)
12th • George Onorato (D-Queens)

These are definitely not elected officials who secretly support us but were fearful of Republicans using that support against us. No, these Senators voted against our equality because they believe that we are inferior to them and that we don’t deserve the same rights that they enjoy.

The other three won by the following percentages:

15th • Joseph Addabbo (D-Queens) — 58%
48th • Darrel Aubertine (D- Cape Vincent) — 53%
58th • William Stachowski (D-Buffalo) — 53%

While these are not landslides, they are comfortable majorities.

All of which suggests to me that an organized primary fight in which a supporter of equality could prevail might be all that is necessary in most of these districts to bring about marriage equality in New York in the very near future.

As Joe Jarvis at Joe-My-God seems to be on the same page:

Remember all of these names. I will be coming back to you to help fund their opponents.

The Vincent Ciampa example

On February 11, 2004, Massachusetts State Representative Vincent Ciampa, Democrat, voted to define marriage as “one man one woman”.

Ciampa feared no one – he could do what he wanted. He served in a Democratic safe seat and had done so for 16 years. Republicans didn’t even run candidates against him.

But in Ciampa’s lived a young man named Carl Sciortino. And Carl was gay.

Although he had supported Ciampa in the past, Carl was furious that his representative had voted to define him as a second class citizen. So Carl did the unthinkable; though only 26 and having no political machine or public service experience, he ran against Ciampa.

But Sciortino had something that Ciampa was missing. He had a moral cause – to advance equality – and a community that was outraged by elected officials that endorsed discrimination. So he fought the system.

And won.

More biblical illiteracy from NOM

In a recent statement, National Organization for Marriage’s Brian Brown once again illustrates that his familiarity with his own Christian religion and its holy texts are only marginally better than that of an atheist raised as a Buddhist in Abu Dhabi.

In responding to the vote for Marriage in the nation’s capital, he declared (for the umpteenth time) that NOM would continue its fight to oppose equality.

We will fight in Congress. We will fight through the courts to get this to the people of D.C. who have a God-given right to vote for marriage and Charter-given right to overturn the council’s decision.

A God-given right to vote for marriage? What kind of nonsense is that?

Scripture doesn’t endorse democracy, in fact quite the opposite. Kings are set up by God to rule the people and it is your duty to obey them.

Hmmmm. Come to think of it, I’ll bet Brian Brown really would support a “biblical model” for government. For all his endorsement of democracy, he seems pretty fond of theocracy.

Marriage Equality vote fails in New York Senate

The New York Senate has finally voted on whether to treat all citizens equally and has voted to continue discrimination. The vote was 24 – 38. Those voting against equality will be listed as soon as the breakout is available.

We have much work to do – including a strong effort to remove from office those who have endorsed discrimination and proven themselves to be enemies of equality.

On a personal note, considering the way in which race has been played as a factor in campaigns to deny rights to gay Americans, I was greatly heartened by the number of African American legislators who rose to make impassioned appeals in favor of this bill and to do so in terms of civil rights.

UPDATE: Elizabeth Benjamin has the list

The final vote was 24-38. Seven Democrats voted “no” – Addabbo, Aubertine, Huntley, C. Kruger, Monserrate, Onorato, Stachowski – while not a single Republican voted “yes.”

(It was eight Democrats – Diaz also voted “no”)

We now know those Senators who find civil equality to be in opposition to either their ideals or their self interests. Those who believe that some citizens are entitled to special rights that are to be denied to others are obstacles to freedom and enemies to the principles behind American society. They do not deserve to be representatives.

Where possible, our community needs to focus its energy, time, and money in defeating all of the Republican State Senators and the seven Democratic State Senators and replace them with lovers of freedom and equality of whatever party.

NY Senate is now debating marriage equality

The New York marriage equality bill has been approved again by the Assembly (a technical step) and has also been passed by the Senate Rules Committee. Debate has begun on the Senate floor (HudLo.com)

The state Senate started its debate on same-sex marriage a little before 12:30 this afternoon, and the sides were imploring their colleagues to vote one way or another.

Sen. Thomas Duane, D-Manhattan, who is gay and the bill\’s sponsor, asked his colleagues to give him the same rights that the rest of the people in the chamber have.

Sen. Ruben Diaz, D-Bronx, a major opponent of the bill, said the issue should be decided by voters at the polls, not by politicians or judges. He encouraged Democrats and Republicans—whose votes will be needed to pass the bill—to stand up for family values.

You can watch the debate live on the Senate’s website.

UPDATE 2: Debate is closing

UPDATE: Espada will vote “yes”

Pedro Espada was the central figure in the contentious power struggle over control of the Senate this summer. There has been some uncertainly as to whether Espada would support marriage equality or would barter his vote for the advancement of areas of his own interest.

Elizabeth Benjamin reports the answer:

Senators were just treated to a treatise on “morality” by Majority Leader Pedro Espada Jr., who urged his undecided colleagues to join him in voting “yes” on the gay marriage bill.

Espada held forth on his definition of a “vote of conscience,” which is what Senate Minority Leader Dean Skelos has said he will allow his 30-member conference to take on this controversial issue.

Espada couched his support in terms of morality declaring equality to be the morally superior decision.

Watch the Atlanta vote

From Fox News:

Gay marriage is not on the ballot in Atlanta today, but the issue could make a difference in the race for Mayor. The ongoing gay marriage and gay rights debate has become a flashpoint in an election that could seat the city’s first white mayor since 1973. Both candidates have been pushed into a struggle to prove who is more gay-friendly to win the coveted vote of Atlanta’s gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) community.

The two candidates, former Georgia State Senator Kasim Reed, who is black, and current City Council member Mary Norwood, who is white, are expected to split the city’s heterosexual votes along racial lines.

But Atlanta has a large gay voting block, about 12% of the populace. And the two candidates are each seeking to appeal to these constituents, hoping they will provide the margin of victory.

Norwood has, as I see it, two advantages. First, unlike Reed who favors civil unions, Norwood has long and vocally supported marriage equality. This should give her at least some advantage.

And secondly, Reed is black.

I am not suggesting that gay people are racists or that they generally vote based on skin color (though, of course, racism is present in the gay community just as it is in every community). However, I think that at this point in time there are increased tensions between the gay community and the African American community. And these tensions are the logical outcome of what appears on the surface to be an aggressive attack on gay people by leaders in the black community.

We look over the recent past and we see that in many, many instances those who are leaders in opposition to gay concerns, be it in DC, Maryland, California, or within the Obama administration, can seem to be disproportionately African American. This may be a product of an effort by white anti-gay activists to direct attention to black preachers in a desire to deflect comparisons of anti-gay animus to racism, but polls consistently show that black Americans are far more favorable of discrimination against gay citizens than are any other racial subgroup.

Although there are many principled and caring African American leaders who are committed to equality for all (who, sadly, don’t receive enough press), there is a perception that black politicians cannot be counted on to support our community. So be it fair or not, I think that race will sway gay voters to Norwood.

If, indeed, the election comes down to the gay vote, I suspect that Norwood will be successful. The question I wonder is: We know that if Reed wins, Fox will see this as a rejection of marriage equality; but will a Norwood victory be declared as Atlanta’s endorsement of same-sex marriage?

The Argentine Marriage Tango

Last month, Judge Gabriela Seijas in Buenos Aires, Argentina, determined that disallowing gay couples the right to marry was unconstitutional. And as the decision applied only to one couple and only in Buenos Aires, once the mayor chose not to object it seemed like the marriage would occur.

So Jose Maria Di Bello and Alex Freyre scheduled today to be their wedding day.

But yesterday, Judge Marta Gomez Alsina, acting on the objection of a third party, put a hold on the wedding stating that the decision should be reviewed by the supreme court.

Today the couple showed up at the Civil Registry arguing that they had not been notified of the hold and that Alsina could not overturn the decision because she is not an appellate judge. Judge Seijas reconfirmed her decision to authorize the ceremony. But the registry did not allow the marriage to occur.

It now appears that the issue will be addressed by the Supreme Court (Buenos Aires Herald):

Supreme Court Justice Carlos Fayt said the highest tribunal is currently analyzing a ruling on the possible legalization of same-sex marriages, as the first gay wedding, scheduled for today, was suspended following an appeals court ruling. The case now awaits a final decision in the hands of the Supreme Court.

The complexities of Argentine law are beyond by knowledge base and cultural and language barriers leave this as unfamiliar as the Argentine Tango. But if I understand correctly, like the Tango there will be a lot of kicking followed by a long proud stride forward.