Box Turtle Bulletin

Vermont Senate Judiciary Approves Civil Marriage

From the A/P:

A state Senate committee unanimously approved a gay marriage bill on Friday, moving Vermont one step closer to allowing same-sex couples to legally wed.

“It provides … gay and lesbian couples the same rights that I have as a married heterosexual,” said Sen. John Campbell, vice chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and chief sponsor of the bill.

The measure would replace Vermont’s first-in-the-nation civil unions law with one that allows marriage of same-sex partners beginning Sept. 1.

For some reason, Vermont seems to be the only state who’s website does not give one immediate access to the member of various committees so I can’t report on to what extent this was a bi-partisan decision. However, we know that at least one Republican voted yes.

Friday’s committee vote followed the panel’s rejection of an amendment proposed by Sen. Kevin Mullin, R-Rutland, that would have put the gay marriage question to a statewide referendum next March. After the amendment was defeated, Mullin joined his colleagues in voting 5-0 for the bill.

Should there be sufficient bi-partisan support, Republican Governor Jim Douglas may feel it best to sign the bill.

Californians Against Hate: Mormon-Established “Front Group” Handled Early Prop 8 Finances

Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate has been leading the legal battle to force the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) to reveal its full involvement in California’s Yes on 8 campaign as required by state law. Karger filed a supplemental complaint on Wednesday with California’s Fair Political Practices committee charging that the Mormon church failed to reveal its earlier involvement in Prop 8, particularly through a front organization they had set up called the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) in the summer of 2007. This front group is similar to one the LDS church set up in Hawaii ten years earlier.

Karger charges that while early donations by several prominent Catholic doners were reported as required by law (Including hotel owner Doug Manchester [125,000], Terry Caster and his family who own A-1 Self Storage [$283,000], car dealer [Robert Hoehn [$25,000] and the Knights of Columbus [$250,000]), none of the early Mormon contributors are listed. Karger asks:

Did they do polling as they did in Hawaii? Did the Church incur legal bills as they did in Hawaii? How about travel expenses, as in Hawaii? What about staff time, as they reported after the fact in California? These expenses should be easy to identify as a part of the current investigation.

The Mormon Church engages in extensive record keeping. All requests for funds are assigned an 11 digit Cost Center Number (i.e. 123-4567-899). Cost Center records should be readily available for 2007 and 2008, which would show all the money spent to create NOM. Additionally, the Mormon Church maintains records on its “Historical Material Management System” (HMMS).

Mormon Elders M. Russell Ballard, Quentin L. Cook and L. Whitney Clayton were all working on California’s Proposition 8 and their files and records should be able to substantiate these charges.
The Mormon Church should have disclosed all non monetary contributions made during the relevant reporting periods.

Documentation related to the LDS church’s activities have been uploaded to a new web site established by Fred Karger at Mormongate.com.

Karger filed his original complaint on November 13, 2008, charging that the LDS church had failed to report its monetary and non-monetary contributions to the passage of Proposition 8. The following day, the Mormon Church spokesman Scott Trotter responded through the LDS-owned newspaper, the Deseret News, that the allegations were “false” and that the complaint had “many errors and misstatements.” But on January 30, 2009, the Mormon church revealed that it was they who had lied about their financial involvement in the Prop 8 campaign.

Nevada Domestic Partnership Bill

In a move that seems to have received no pre-publicity or hype, a bill has been introduced into the Nevada Senate to provide for Domestic Partnerships.

Senate Bill 283, sponsored by Sen. David Parks, D-Las Vegas, calls for a new type of civil contract for domestic partnerships, under which domestic partners would have the same rights, protections and benefits as spouses, former spouses, widows or widowers.

Although Democrats hold an overwhelming majority of both houses of legislature, I’m not much confident of this bill going anywhere. Nonetheless, I commend Parks for his efforts.

Marriage Attitudes in New England

Sometimes I despair at the slow pace at which equality seems to progress. But when I stand back and take a good look, it becomes clear that even though we have many battle left to fight, we should not get weary because we really have won the war.

As an example, consider these two news stories out of New England:

Nearly 200 Vermont clergy are speaking out in favor of legislation pending at the Statehouse that would grant equal access to civil marriage for same-sex couples.

In fact, other than the Catholic Church, it’s not easy to find religious opposition to marriage in Vermont.

Meanwhile, in Maine it seems that marriage is not necessarily a partisan issue. And it’s so popular that the leadership changed the rules to allow more sponsors than the usual ten.

The author of a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in Maine says more than 60 legislators from both parties have signed on as co-sponsors.

There are only 186 legislators in Maine.

And in Maryland, a Republican former congressman found common cause with a freedom rider and the state Attorney General.

Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler appeared for the second year in a row before a General Assembly committee to testify for the legislation. This year, he was joined by former U.S. Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest, who lost the Republican primary last year after 18 years in Congress, and Travis Britt, an African-American civil rights activist and widower of the late Sen. Gwendolyn T. Britt, who was to be the lead sponsor of the bill before her death last year.

Some Thoughts on the Challenge to Prop 8

Most pundits who listened to the California Supreme Court hearings challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8 came away with the impression that the court would side with the defense on the proposition itself (i.e. let the marriage ban stand) but would refuse to invalidate the marriages of those same-sex couples who wed between June 16 and November 4, 2008.

However, such a split decision may give rise to more questions than it resolves:

Two Classes

By allowing some gay couples to remain married and denying other gay couples from getting married, there are then two groups of couples that are treated differently under the law for no functional reason. This could give rise to two classes of gays (those same-sex couples with recognition and those without) and the possibility of a challenge under the US Constitution’s equal protections clause.

Having two classes of gay couples is, according to some law scholars, a stronger arguement for equal protections than having all gay couples treated alike.

Foreign Marriages

Those foreign (non-Californian) same-sex couples who married elsewhere and moved to California present unique questions.

Presumably, those who married in, say, Massachusetts and then moved to California all within the four month window would be treated similarly to those who married within the state. And we assume that those who married elsewhere prior to June 15 and then whose marriage became legal within the state upon June 15 will be the same.

But what about those who married in Massachusetts on July 15, 2008 (within the marriage recognition window) but did not move here until after the election? Presumedly the State of California recognized their marriage on their wedding day, but is it recognized now? Does one have to have been in California during the recognition period to have a legally recognized marriage?

And what of those who spent time in the state during the window – say a three month residency – and then moved away? Suppose they return; were they married here at that time and now not married here now?

Or what of those who never spent time here but whose marriage would have been recognized had they done so? When they visit today, are they penalized to non-married status because they didn’t visit the state during a four month window last summer?

Federal Response

Currently there is a federal lawsuit challenging DOMA’s refusal to recognize state marriages in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

Their very valid argument is that states have always defined marriages and are specifically granted that right by the US Constitution and 200 years of interpretation. If the courts in Connecticut or the legislature in Vermont elect to define marriage as being between two men, the federal government is exceeding its authority to refuse recognition.

And, indeed, this is a convincing argument. State marriage laws differ greatly from state to state and the feds always leave it up to the states.

But should the federal courts overturn that portion of DOMA that denies recognition to same-sex state-authorized marriages, there is no argument that it should extend to other non-marriage arrangements. Nor, indeed, should it; the states define what is marriage and what is some other thing.

You then end up with a situation whereby the State of California has some same-sex couples with the thousand or so federal rights and protections and some with none of them. This further exacerbates the “two classes” argument.

In fact, though I did not hear any of our counsel argue this point, I believe it may be an adequate cause for the CA Supreme Court to refuse to let the “it’s only nomenclature” argument sway their thinking.

Washington Domestic Partnership Upgrade Advances

In 2007, the state of Washington introduced Domestic Partnerships. Last year they included additional coverage. Now they are amending Domestic Partnerships to have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage.

Last night the state Senate approved SB 5688 by a vote of 30 to 18 (three Republicans voted yes, four Democrats voted no). Now its companion, House Bill 1727, will go for a House vote where it is expected to pass and be signed by the Governor.

Washington will join California and Oregon in having Domestic Partnerships that possess identitical state rights and responsibilities as marriages. And none of the federal ones.

British Prime Minister Weighs in on Prop 8

California’s Proposition 8 has become an event greater than itself. No longer a vote on whether same-sex couples can call their relationship “marriage”, Prop 8 has become a symbol, a rallying cry, an event that transcends its happening. Protests over its passage have not been limited to the state’s borders, or even the nation’s.

A further evidence that this ban is representative of the global fight over equality for gay people came this week in London (BBC) from Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Speaking about Proposition 8 in California,

Mr Brown said “this attempt to undo good that has been done is unacceptable”.

He added: “This shows why we have always got to be vigilant, always got to fight homophobic behaviour and any form of discrimination.”

Those inclined to irony might note that same-sex marriage is not legal in England, either. However, over there the amost-marriage-but-by-some-other-name has federal recognition and in California it does not.

Vermont News Station Predicts Marriage Equality Within Weeks

WCAX, “Vermont’s own” television station is reporting that the leadership is planning on shepherding marriage through the legislature in the next few weeks.

Shumlin and Rep. Shap Smith, D-Vt. House Speaker, plan to push a marriage equality bill quickly through both chambers.

The bill would grant same-sex couples the right to marry in Vermont.

Further, some are predicting that the governor, Republican Jim Douglas, will not stand in the way.

“Jim Douglas is no fool,” political analyst Garrison Nelson said.

But Nelson says the timing makes sense, it will pass this session, and the governor will ultimately let it.

“The anticipated horrors of civil unions never came to pass so consequently this is the logical next step,” Nelson said. “Douglas won’t sign the bill. He won’t veto the bill. He’ll let it become law without his signature.”

The lawmakers are wanting to move quickly and the bill should come up consideration within the next few weeks.

Illinios Civil Unions Goes to House Floor

Despite the efforts of Elise and her Mormon e-mail distribution, HB2234, the Illinios civil unions bill, has passed out of committee.

The House Youth and Family Committee approved the bill 5-4. It now goes to the House floor.

Justice Chin’s Proposition

In the debate over whether Proposition 8 should be overturned, Justice Ming Chin asked few questions. But there was one that he presented to both sides:

Would it not be a both a consistent with the court’s ruling In Re Marriages and with Proposition 8 for the State of California to provide that because marriage is restricted solely to heterosexuals and because California cannot discriminate against homosexuals then therefore the State can recognize no marriages? And does this court have the purview to make such a declaration.

Both sides agreed that this would be a legal remedy. Ken Starr, in defending Prop 8, argued that the court would have no such right to make such a declaration.

Arguments on Proposition 8 Are Being Presented

Shannon Minter is arguing for the overturning of Proposition 8.

UPDATE

It is not always possible to deduce from the direction of the questioning how justices will vote. But to me it seems that Judge Kennard is not impressed by our requests to overturn Proposition 8. Kennard did vote in our direction In Re Marriage Cases.

Judge Corrigan was successful in establishing a question to be answered: “Does a definition of a revision include those efforts to remove a fundamental right from a suspect group”. Though Corrigan is commonly believed to be a lesbian, she did not decide in favor of In Re Marriages.

Civil Rights Pioneer Backs Same-Sex Marriage

He joined sit-in protests at restaurants in Washington, D.C. that refused to serve African-Americans, and he volunteered to register black voters in rural Mississippi. He was run out of Ruleville, Mississippi at gunpoint by a man who was the town’s mayor and justice of the peace. Charles Cobb, Jr. knows what civil rights are all about:

“If people want to get married, I don’t care if they’re the same sex,” said Cobb. “Not all civil rights are racial.”

Charles Cobb was field secretary for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee in Mississippi from 1962 to 1967. He is also a founding member of the National Association of Black Journalists. His new book, On the Road to Freedom: A Guided Tour of the Civil Rights Trail, provides a city-by-city guide to the history of the civil rights movement in the South.

New Mexico Senate Votes Down Domestic Partnerships

Last week we told you that a Domestic Parterships bill was advanced from the Senate Judiciary Committee to a full vote of the Senate. Now the Senate has voted and rejected the bill.

All 15 Republicans voted against this effort to provide same-sex couples with limited rights, responsibilities and protections. While 17 Democrats did vote in favor of this less-than-equal proposal (for which we are appreciative), 10 more were unwilling to give gay couples anything at all. The Democrats who said no are:

Pete Campos
Carlos R. Cisneros
Timothy Jennings
Lynda Lovejoy
Richard Martinez
George Munoz
John Pinto
Bernadette Sanchez
John Arthur Smith
David Ulibari

Perhaps it is time to start thinking about primary opponents.

Hawaii Senate Committee Tied on Civil Unions

After 15 hours of testimony, the Senate Judiciary Committee tied 3-3 on whether to advance a civil unions bill. This would normally deadlock the issue, but Democratic Senate leaders will use a rare procedure to pull the bill onto the Senate floor for a full vote.

The bill is assured passage in the Senate and will go to Governor Linda Lingle (R), who has not stated her position on the bill.

Lutheran Task Force Supports Couple Recognition

A task force of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ECLA) was assigned the task of reviewing the church’s policy on recognition of gay pastors and making a recommendation to the body. The current policy is that gay ministers may serve, but must remain celibate.

The task force has concluded that those churches who wish to have a gay pastor in a committed relationship should be able to do so:

A task force of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America recommended Thursday that its leaders make changes to allow gay and lesbians in committed relationships to serve as clergy.

Making this change gave birth to a larger question: if they allow non-celibate gay pastors, what rules apply? Surely they couldn’t just say that heterosexuals must be married but gays can play the field. So they decided that the church must establish some means by which it can determine which gay ministers are in compliance.

“The task force agreed that this church cannot responsibly consider any changes to its policies unless this church is able and willing in some way to recognize lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships,” the report said.

The task force did not define the recognition, other than that it should include commitments, public accountability, and prayer.

The denomination will vote on the recommendation in August in a four part process.

With 4.7 million members, the ECLU is the fifth largest denomination in the United States, and if they adopt the recommendations of the task force they will be the largest denomination in the United States to recognize same-sex relationships.