Box Turtle Bulletin
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobby“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbyPosts Tagged As: Marriage
May 8th, 2009
New Hampshire could be the sixth gay marriage something-or-other, but finding the language to fit is not a straight-forward task. Considering the methods by which states have reached (and retreated from) marriage rights, putting them in order depends on what one is measuring.
The order in which states have granted recognition to same sex couples
1. District of Columbia 1992 (blocked by Congress until 2002)
2. Hawaii 1997
3. California 1999
4. Vermont 1999
5. Connecticut 2005
6. New Jersey 2004
7. Maine 2004
8. New Hampshire 2007
9. Washington 2007
10. Oregon 2007
11. Maryland 2008
12. Iowa 2009
13. Colorado 2009
The order in which courts have found that states must provide marriage and/or all its rights and benefits to same-sex couples:
1. Hawaii 1993/1997 (reversed by Constitutional amendment)
2. Vermont 1999
3. Massachusetts 2003
4. New Jersey 2006
5. California 2008 (perhaps reversed by Constitutional amendment)
6. Connecticut 2008
7. Iowa 2009
The order in which states provided virtually all of the same benefits as marriage
1. Vermont 1999
2. California 2003 (with subsequent minor adjustments to fix differences)
3. Massachusetts 2003
4. Connecticut 2005
5. District of Columbia 2006 (with adjustment in 2008)
6. New Jersey 2006
7. New Hampshire 2007
8. Oregon 2007
9. Washington 2009
10. Maine 2009
The order in which legal marriages were first performed
1. Massachusetts – 5/17/2004
2. Iowa – 8/31/2007 (only one)
3. California – 6/16/2008
4. Connecticut – 11/4/2008
5. Vermont – 9/1/2009 (Scheduled)
6. Maine – around 9/14/2009 (Scheduled)
The order in which continuous legal marriages began to be offered
1. Massachusetts – 5/17/2004
2. Connecticut – 11/4/2008
3. Iowa – 4/27/09
4. Vermont – 9/1/2009 (Scheduled)
5. Maine – around 9/14/2009 (Scheduled)
And should New Hampshire\’s bill be signed, it will be sixth.
May 8th, 2009
Governor Lynch received the New Hampshire marriage bill on Wednesday, the 6th. He has 5 days to respond.
Politicians seeking to minimize a news story love to go to the press on Friday afternoon. Folks tend to be socially engaged on the weekend, and less likely to watch the news. Additionally, the talk shows and news commentaters are off and by the time that Monday rolls around there’s a good chance that their story will have been eclipsed.
Governor Lynch is going to suffer outrage regardless of whether he signs or vetoes this legislation, or even if he just lets it go into effect without his signature. So, if I were him, I’d announce my decision late today.
UPDATE:
It looks like my predition did not come true.
I’m not certain as to the actual deadline for Governor Lynch’s signature. If he does not sign or veto within five days, the bill becomes law. By my count, that will be Tuesday, May 12. However, I’m not completely clear as to whether that includes weekend days and some are suggesting (thanks Bruno) that there may be delay based on procedural requirements.
But in any case, we will know by next week at this time whether New Hampshire will be the sixth state which legally recognizes the right for same-sex couples to marry.
May 7th, 2009
The ad Equality California should have ran a year ago.
This commentary is the opinion of the author and may not necessarily reflect those of other authors at Box Turtle Bulletin
May 7th, 2009
When Pres. Barack Obama tried to quell the outrage over selecting Saddleback pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at the Inauguration, Obama promised to be a “fierce advocate of equality for gay and Lesbian Americans.” But lately he hasn’t been so fierce. Obama has backtracked on his promise to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and a recent re-vamping of the White House web site on Civil Rights has dropped all mention of repealing the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
The silence on DOMA is particularly strange because during the Democratic primaries he used his stance on DOMA’s full repeal to distinguish himself from then-Sen. Hillary Clinton. She wanted to retain the provisions permitting states to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states. He campaigned on its full repeal.
But since then, Obama has clammed up altogether as a number of states have taken action to recognize same-sex marriage. Iowa, Vermont, Connecticut, Maine, and possible New Hampshire — that’s quite a remarkable procession in just a few short weeks. It’s hard to imagine such a remarkable series of developments go unnoticed. But the phrase “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is quickly becoming an apt description for the White House’s approach to marriage:
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked during the press briefing Wednesday if President Obama had any reaction to same-sex marriage becoming legal in Maine.
… Jake Tapper (The Advocate): Does the President or the White House have a reaction to the Governor of Maine signing a same-sex marriage bill?
Robert Gibbs: No, I think the President’s position on same-sex marriages has been talked about and discussed.
Tapper: He opposes same-sex marriage.
Gibbs: He supports civil unions.
Tapper: Does that mean that he’s going to say or do anything against what the citizens of Maine —
Gibbs: Not that I’m aware of. I think the President believes this is an issue that’s best addressed by the states.
This silence over marriage is just one example of Obama’s timidity where LGBT civil rights are concerned. Richard Socarides, who served as a Clinton White House staffer from 1991 to 1993 and was openly gay at the time, wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Post over the weekend asking what happened to our “fierce defender”?
I understand that the president has his hands full saving the economy. But across a broad spectrum of issues — including women’s rights, stem cell research and relations with Cuba — the Obama administration has shown a willingness to exploit this change moment to bring about dramatic reform.
So why not on gay rights? Where is our New Deal?
It is the memory of 1993’s gays-in-the-military debacle (and a desire never to repeat it) that has both the president’s advisers and policy advocates holding back, waiting for some magical “right time” to move boldly.
This is a bad strategy. President Obama will never have more political capital than he has now, and there will never be a better political environment to capitalize on. People are distracted by the economy and war, and they are unlikely to get stirred up by the right-wing rhetoric that has doomed efforts in the past.
The White House did release a statement urging passage of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and that is not something that should go unnoticed. But Obama’s timidity on the more substantive gay issues is now getting noticed outside the gay press and blogosphere. The New York Times has noticed his absence today — and brought out a key inconsistency on his stance toward marriage:
Anything substantive he might say on same-sex marriage — after the Iowa ruling, the White House put out a statement saying the president “respects the decision” — would be endlessly parsed. If Mr. Obama were to embrace same-sex marriage, he would be seen as reversing a campaign position and alienating some moderate and religious voters he has courted.
…Mr. Obama supports a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law that said states need not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Opponents of same-sex marriage say that is an inconsistency.
Opponents aren’t the only ones who see this as an inconsistency. Your humble scribe does so as well. And with DOMA being deep-sixed from the White House Civil Rights web stite, my willingness to give Obama the benefit of the doubt shrinks proportionately.
In the past several weeks, there has been a remarkable sea-change on marriage equality. Four (possibly five) states are being added to the marriage equality column. This was unimaginable just a few months ago in the wake of California’s passage of Prop 8. But these remarkable development has been utterly invisible to the White House.
Obama promised bold leadership on these issues but we haven’t seen it. How can he be bold when he’s not even bothering to catch up?
May 6th, 2009
At first it looked as though the Republican Party was going to walk away from the Maine marriage decision whistling and looking away as if they didn’t notice. But finally Chairman Michael Steele released the following statement:
Our party platform articulates our opposition to gay marriage and civil unions, positions shared by many Americans. I believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman and strongly disagree with Maine\’s decision to legalize gay marriage.
Steele spoke of what “the platform” articulates about “our opposition” rather than trying to suggest that opposition to both marriage and civil unions is the position of a majority of Republicans. Further he said that “many” rather than “most” Americans share the platform’s positions. As for his opinion, he limited it to marriage and didn’t discuss his personal beliefs on civil unions.
There is no suggestion that this is thwarting the will of the people or accusations of undue activism or calls for initiatives. There is no appeal to tradition, God, founding fathers, the fabric of society, or 5000 years of definition.
This two sentence statement appears not to have been broadly released nor was there a press conference. This suggests to me that the Republican leadership wants a low profile about same-sex marriages – especially those passed by a legislature – at this time. I would find it hard to craft a more tepid response.
Whether this is because of a change in perspective, polling data, some new found respect for states rights, or just plain political calculus, I welcome it. And I’m awfully glad that Michael Steele is the current head of the RNC rather than, say, Ken Blackwell.
Maine’s Senators, both of whom are Republican women who have been supportive of gay rights, both stated that they support the rights of the state to determine its own marriage laws. While neither fully came out and endorsed the bill, neither had anything negative to say about it either. This was also the reaction of the White House.
In fact, other than the usual ranting voices endorsing religious oppression, the objection to the actions taken in Maine, New Hampshire, and the District of Columbia have been muted to the extent they have been raised at all.
May 6th, 2009
The House voted, 178-167, to accept a Senate-approved compromise (HB 436) that would let gays and lesbians marry next Jan. 1.
If Lynch agreed, New Hampshire would become the sixth state where gays could marry.
Governor Lynch has not said whether he will sign, veto, or let the legislation go into effect without signature. I think that if he is forward thinking, he will not want this veto as part of his legacy.
May 6th, 2009
Governor Balducci signed the marriage bill.
From the San Jose Mercury News (who, for some reason reported the story first)
Gov. John Baldacci has signed a bill making Maine the fifth state to allow gay marriage.
Earlier in the day, the Maine Legislature gave final approval to gay marriage and sent the bill to Baldacci, who had been undecided on the issue.
What Happens Next
If this were a bill without opposition, it would come into effect 90 days after the end of the legislative session. However Michael Heath, executive director of the Maine Family Policy Council, has already announced that he will seek a “people’s veto” of the legislation.
A people’s veto works like this: After the end of the legislative session (probably some time in June), Heath can begin collecting signatures. He needs 10% of the last gubernatorial vote, or 55,087 valid signatures. If Heath gets enough signatures, the bill will not go into effect until it has been presented on the November ballot for an up or down vote. Yes means keep the bill, No means veto it.
Although Heath will have 90 days to collect signatures, he must present the signatures no later than 60 days before the vote, around September 3rd. Thus, may be a strange window in which signatures can be collected but in which they will not count towards forcing a vote.
Which raises a question. Were Heath to present signatures on, say, September 5 and were that day within 90 days of the end of the legislative session, would that place a stay on the enactment of the bill until the following election in the spring of 2010? While that might be a “dirty trick” that could momentarily work in Heath’s favor, it may in the long run prove to be detrimental. As time goes by, it is increasingly likely that attitudes in Maine will favor equality. This will be especially true as no dire consequences result in Vermont, Connecticut, or Massachusetts. Heath’s window of possible success may close.
As it is, Heath may have a rough go. Attitudes seem fairly even in Maine but Heath has a rather bad reputation in the state dating from his attempts to identify and out gay legislators. His requests for “tips, rumors, speculation and facts” resulted in a temporary ouster from the Christian Civic League (a previous name of the Maine Family Policy Council) and a significant amount of bad press.
Heath may well be an advantage for us. He tends towards extremism and outrageous hyperbole. Additionally, it looks as though Peter LaBarbera may be a part of the effort.
May 5th, 2009
Green = marriage; Yellow = needs Governor signature
With marriage equality issues changing so very quickly, here’s where the current status stands (my apologies for any inaccuracies):
California – the State Supreme Court has until June 6 to announce whether Proposition 8 is constitutional and, if so, what impact it has on the 18,000 same-sex couples who married between June and November 2008. There are mixed opinions on what the court will decide.
Colorado – The legislature passed a Designated Beneficiary Agreement Act, which has been signed by the Governor.
Illinois – a bill has been introduced to enact Civil Unions. The bill is currently waiting for a House vote.
Maine – The House and the Senate have both passed a marriage bill. Tomorrow it goes before the Senate for final approval and then to Gov. John Baldacci, who is “keeping an open mind”. Anti-Gays will immediately seek a “People’s Veto”, a process by which an enacted bill can be placed before the voters for an up or down vote. They would need about 55,000 valid signatures by the first of September. It would be led by Michael Heath who has established his reputation in Maine as an extremist and a homophobe.
Nevada – The Senate passed a bill to provide Domestic Partnerships with all the rights and obligations of marriage. It will go before the Assembly Judiciary on Friday. The Governor has promised to veto the bill but some sources say that there will be a compromise crafted before the legislature disbands in a month.
New Hampshire – The House and Senate have both passed a marriage bill. The Senate version had specific religious protections that were not in the House bill. The House Judiciary has approved the changes and they will go before a House vote tomorrow. The Governor has stated that he is opposed to gay marriage in the past but has not addresses this specific bill.
New York – A marriage bill has been introduced in the house. Log Cabin Republicans announced that they have found additional Republican support in the House for marriage. Senate Majority Leader Smith will not bring marriage to a vote in the Senate until adequate votes will assure its passage, which probably means that four to six Republicans will need to be convinced. Empire State Pride is doing polling in Republican districts and seeking to give them assurance that a vote for equality will not result in an election defeat.
Washington – a bill to upgrade the state\’s Domestic Partnerships to provide all the rights and obligations of marriage has passed the Senate and House with large margins and will be signed by the Governor. A petition has been filed to put it to the voters.
District of Columbia – the Council voted to recognize out of state marriages. This bill will be signed by the Mayor and then Congress has 30 days to review and possibly overturn it by a majority vote in both houses and the signature of the President. A same-sex marriage bill is expected later this year.
May 5th, 2009
Last week the Washington State legislature passed a bill providing Domestic Partnerships with all the rights, priveleges, and obligations of marriage. Now, per the Seattle Post-Intelligencer,
Referendum 71 was filed by Monday Larry Stickney, president of the Washington Values Alliance. Supporters need to get more than 120,500 valid voter signatures by July 25 in order to qualify for the Nov. 3 ballot.
A “yes” vote on the referendum would be to sustain the measure; a “no” vote would overturn the law.
The filing will temporarily suspend the new legislation, which was to take effect July 25 . Gov. Chris Gregoire is expected to sign the bill soon.
May 5th, 2009
The Courage Campaign, currently the most vocal activists seeking to organize an overturn of Proposition 8 in either 2020 2010 or 2012, say that things will be different this time around. The parties who spearheaded the opposition to Prop 8 will not be involved in the effort.
The two main differences may be
1. in deflating the spurious claims of NOM and other anti-gay activists
To address voter concerns about the impact that state-sanctioned gay marriage could have on religious institutions, the Courage Campaign is considering possible ballot language that would guarantee the right of any two unrelated consenting adults to marry, while simultaneously stating that churches have a right to decide for themselves whom to marry.
“In order to win, we have to remove fear because that’s all the other side has left,” Jacobs said.
2. showing the face of gay marriage
Jacobs is convinced that the “No on Prop. 8” campaign erred by not showing gays or lesbians in any of its ads.
“There were no pictures of gay people. The ads were all about fairness,” Jacobs said. “This time, we’re going to make it clear you’re talking about real people.”
The campaign will also seek to make inroads into the African American community and other communities that were not adequately targeted last year.
May 5th, 2009
In the first week of April the Council of Washington, D.C. unanimously voted to recognize same-sex marriages conducted in such as as where they are legal. Today, with a required second vote, they again passed the bill recognizing marriage by a 12 – 1 vote.
The sole dissent was Marion Barry, the one-time mayor who has been married four times, busted by the FBI for crack cocaine possession and use, indicted for tax evasion, and jailed for six months, who claimed that he was a “moral leader” by opposing marriage recognition. Barry said that black residents of the nation’s capital would not allow marriage to be recognized.
“All hell is going to break lose,” Barry said while speaking to reporters. “We may have a civil war. The black community is just adamant against this.”
The bill will now advance to the mayor, a marriage supporter (NY Times)
The bill, which was approved by a 12-1 vote after an emotional debate, must first be signed by Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, a step that is considered a formality since he has already said he supports the measure. Then the committees in the House and Senate that oversee the District of Columbia would have 30 session days to review the law.
To overturn it, the House and Senate would have to send a joint resolution to President Obama for his signature. If Congress chooses not to take action within those 30 days, however, the law would automatically go into effect.
May 5th, 2009
Per the Washington Blade:
A House committee endorsed a proposal Tuesday that’s already been approved in the Senate. The bill comes up for a vote in the House on Wednesday. It distinguishes between civil and religious marriage and says any two individuals have a right to a civil marriage. The proposal leaves it up to each religion whether to recognize and officiate over same-sex marriages.
May 5th, 2009
The Maine House of Representatives has approved a bill providing for same-sex marriage by a vote of 89–58. This follows last week’s approval in the state Senate. The bill now goes to Governor John Baldacci (D), who hasn’t said publicly whether he will sign it or not. He has indicated privately however that he may be open to signing it.
May 5th, 2009
Today the Maine House will vote on whether to allow same-sex couples to marry. As the House is about two thirds Democrat and because over a thrid of House members have signed on as sponsors of the bill, supporters are “cautiously optimistic” of its passage.
Then the bill will go to Governor Baldacci for signature. Although he has opposed same-sex marriage in the past, he has also made recent statements that are encouraging that he may sign the bill.
It is possible that before you go to sleep tonight that Maine will decide to become the fifth state in which same-sex couples may marry.
Update I: You can watch the live debate and vote here.
Update II: The Maine House approved the measure.
May 1st, 2009
From the Star Tribune:
As you may know, the Iowa Supreme Court recently legalized same-sex marriage in that state by declaring unconstitutional a state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Do you believe Minnesota should pass a state constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage or legalize same-sex marriage or make no changes in its marriage laws and leave it to the Minnesota Supreme Court to interpret the state Constitution?
33% Prohibit same-sex marriage
25% Legalize same-sex marriage
35% Leave it to the MN Supreme Court
6% Don’t know/refused
Featured Reports
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.
“Google” is a trademark of Google Inc.
© Box Turtle Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.
Posts 
Posts via daily email: