Washington DC Poised to Pass Marriage Equality Bill

The Washington Post reports:

The District is poised once again to become the battleground for a divisive social issue as the D.C. Council moves a step closer to legalizing same-sex marriage, an action that could force Congress and White House to take sides in the debate.

After months of buildup and behind-the-scenes lobbying, a bill by David A. Catania, one of two openly gay members of the council, has been drafted and is ready to be introduced in the coming weeks. Catania (I-At Large) expects a final vote before the end of the year. On Thursday, Catania said he had 10 co-sponsors, all but assuring that the measure will be approved by the council. The bill would have to survive congressional review before it could become law.

The bill, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post, would change the law to say that "marriage is the legally recognized union of two people" and that "any person who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements . . . may marry any other eligible person regardless of gender."

This is great news for marriage equality advocates, but it is bound to piss off Bishop Harry Jackson, the local Catholic Church and the National Organization for Marriage, who just opened an office in the capital.

They have been working hard on getting the issue put on a ballot for D.C. residents to vote upon, but since this move failed when it came to the District's decision to recognize same-sex marriages performed outside its borders (a judge cited it would violate the District's Human Rights Act), it will most likely fail on this as well. Many also believe that they would be unsuccessful in gathering enough signatures.

Speculation on marriage equality opponents' next move is to drum up the racial division over the issue, stirring up many of the African American residents who attend churches in the area that adamantly resist LGBT legislation.

Catania's bill, titled "Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009," will most likely be voted upon and passed by the end of the year and the mayor has expressed support and most likely will sign it.

However, since the District isn't a state, U.S. Congress has the final word on legislative matters. Congress has 30 session days, not calendar days, to oppose District bills. When the same-sex marriage recognition bill came into fruition, Congress steered clear with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressing her belief that the District should be treated like a state.

This time, however, marriage equality opponents are urging like-minded individuals across the country to call their representatives to put an end to Catania's bill. Congress can also choose to express displeasure with the bill when it goes over D.C.'s budget next year by diverting funds and forcing the District to not perform same-sex marriages.

Yet optimism is high. Catania, who clearly wrote in the bill that no religious organizations or their officials would have to perform a same-sex marriage or provide wedding-related services to same-sex couples, was able to secure 10 city council co-sponsors with only three Democratic members opting out. One of these is councilmen Marion Barry, who voted against the recognition bill but told the Washington Post, "Let [Catania] introduce his bill, and we'll see."

Phil Mendelson, chairman of the Public Safety and the Judiciary Committee, plans to hold a public hearing on the bill, just as they had done on the same-sex marriage recognition ordinance.

"I will look in particular at protecting religious freedoms for churches to be able to say yes or no to celebrating marriages consistent with their faith," Mendelson said.

Though councilmembers face a blacklash from voters who oppose marriage equality, with 10 co-sponsors attached to the bill, it appears their minds have been made up. If it passes, Washington D.C. will be the first area south of the Mason-Dixon line legalizing marriage equality.

Read about the further impact of marriage equality in the nation's capitol at Change.org, "Five Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage in D.C. Would Be Huge."

California Senate Approves Law Clarifying Rights of Same-Sex Couples Married Outside of California

The California Senate passed Wednesday the Marriage Recognition and Family Protection Act, SB 54, in a 23-14 vote. The bill, introduced by Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) and sponsored by Equality California (EQCA), underscores that same-sex couples married before the passage of Proposition 8 are entitled to full recognition as married spouses in California, regardless of whether they married in California or out of state. That rule is consistent with existing law, including the California Supreme Court's prior holding in In re Marriage Cases that California cannot treat marriages differently based on whether they were performed in state or out of state.

The bill also confirms that same-sex couples married outside of California after November 5, 2008, must be given all of the rights, protections and responsibilities of spouses under California law, with the sole exception of the designation of "marriage."

"We are grateful that our elected leaders have passed this vital bill, which provides much needed clarity for same-sex couples married out of state who deserve to know where their families stand," said Geoff Kors, Executive Director for Equality California. "Ultimately, however, restoring the freedom to marry is the only way to ensure that all Californians are treated with true equality under the law."

Although Proposition 8 prevents California from designating same-sex couples who marry in another jurisdiction on or after Nov. 5, 2008, as "married," the Court's decision in Strauss v. Horton requires the state to give those couples all of the substantive protections of marriage.

"When California offered marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2008, spouses who were already married in another state or country were prohibited from re-marrying in California," said Senator Leno. "Now those couples and their families are in limbo because their rights and protections under law are not clear. This legislation ensures that same-sex couples are protected by existing California law that recognizes all marriages equally, regardless of where they are performed."

The conservative California Family council also responded. "The California Legislature’s majority continues its disregard for the expressed will of their constituents and the state Constitution which affirms traditional marriage’s definition. Article I, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution specifically states “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” SB 54 explicitly violates California’s Constitution."

“The Legislature’s approval of SB 54 demonstrates the Legislature’s contempt and lack of respect for their constituents,” stated Everett Rice CFC’s Legislative Coordinator. “In 2000 and 2008, the voters expressed their desire to protect traditional marriage at the ballot box. They emphatically affirmed that marriage should retain its historical definition and identity. Nonetheless, our elected representatives choose to yield to the demands of special-interest groups over the values of those who elected them.”

SB 54, having already passed the California Assembly, will now proceed to the Governor's desk.

DOMA Repeal Bill to Be Introduced Early Next Week; HRC Delivers Survey to Congress Showing Overwhelming Support for Repeal

The Advocate reports that Rep. Jerry Nadler's bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act will be introduced Tuesday, September 15. A source told them "the bill currently has just over 50 cosponsors, but Congressman Nadler’s office has not yet officially circulated a letter to his fellow House members."

A press release from the Human Rights Campaign:

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, today launched a campaign to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denies legally married same-sex couples more than 1,000 federal protections and responsibilities. As part of the campaign, HRC launched a national action alert, an interactive website, RepealDOMAnow.org, and delivered to Congress nearly 50,000 survey responses showing the concrete harms DOMA brings to the lives of LGBT Americans and their families. A bill is expected to be introduced in the U.S. House as early as next week. To view HRC Legislative Director Allison Herwitt delivering the surveys to Congress visit www.HRCBackStory.org.

"Now is the time to let Congress and President Obama know that DOMA must go. The introduction of a bill to repeal DOMA with this unprecedented momentum behind it will mark a tidal shift in this fight," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. "This hurtful and discriminatory law denies millions of Americans federal recognition of marriage and the critical rights and benefits that come with it - Social Security survivors' benefits, equal treatment under U.S. immigration laws, the right to take leave to care for a spouse, and more. It is more important than ever to push for repeal of DOMA."

Nearly 50,000 people participated in a membership survey commissioned in August by the Human Rights Campaign that asked a series of questions on DOMA repeal. To view the survey, visit: www.hrc.org/DOMASurvey.

In the past year, tens of thousands of loving same-sex couples have legally been married in Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont. And with new laws soon to take effect in New Hampshire and Maine, thousands more will surely join them. Enacted in 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act purports to allow states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

DOMA also creates a federal definition of "marriage" and "spouse" for the first time in our country's history. This is an unprecedented intrusion by the U.S. Congress into an area traditionally left to the states. Marriage is defined as a "legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife," and spouse is defined as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." Marriages that do not fit this description are not be eligible for any benefits offered by the federal government. Under DOMA, even same-sex couples lawfully married under the laws of their states are ineligible for numerous rights, benefits, and responsibilities, including those related to Social Security, immigration, family and medical leave, joint taxation, federal employee benefits and many more.

ACTION: Send an email to President Obama and Congress, urging them to Repeal DOMA Now!

Top Obama Adviser Losing Patience with White House; Press Secretary Gibbs Responds

Steve Hildebrand, the deputy campaign manager of Obama's successful campaign for president, told Politico that he is losing patience with the president and his administration over health care reform and LGBT rights.

I am one of the millions of frustrated Americans who want to see Washington do more than it's doing right now . . . I’m not going to just sit by the curb and let these folks [Democratic leadership] get away with a lack of performance for the American people . . . I want change just as much as a majority of Americans do, and I’m one of the many Americans who are losing patience.

Hildebrand also said that Obama "needs to be more bold in his leadership."

Hildebrand's statements shows signs of cracking in the polished veneer of the Obama Administration. Hildebrand is the most senior ranking member of Obama's political team to criticize the Administration and its lack of movement on promises made to the American people, and more specifically the LGBT population, during the presidential campaign.

Though he had already begun to part ways with Obama's team during the 2008 campaign, Hildebrand said that he has already stated his opinion to the White House, saying his comments are nothing to new to them.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs agreed in that this was nothing new.

“We all know and love Steve Hildebrand,” Gibbs said during a press brief, adding that “Steve’s frustration is the frustration of people not only in this town, but a lot of people outside of this town, and that is Washington’s inability to address its big problems and get something done.”



Hildebrand, who is openly gay, said in a August speech in San Diego, "The government still doesn’t treat Gay people equally. Should I continue doing what I’m doing, or should I be a strong voice from the outside?"

It appears Hildebrand will be that outside voice, deciding not to work for candidates but issue campaigns instead.

Recently, Hildebrand appeared at a Los Angeles meeting discussing next steps on bringing marriage equality back to California. He voiced his strong support for a 2010 ballot campaign.

Reporter Rex Wockner had an amazing in-depth interview with Steve Hildebrand in July about Obama in which he urges the LGBT population to not let the president off the hook.

Maine's Catholic Church to Hold Special Collection to Fight Marriage Equality

The Catholic Church of Maine has stepped up its efforts to fight the state's new marriage equality law by announcing through the Bishop of Maine that it will request all parishes to pass a special collection plate next weekend to raise funds for the Yes on 1/Stand for Marriage Maine campaign, which is fighting to ban same-sex marriage. This despite the fact that the church faces bankruptcy and has been forced to close five churches in the state as of late.

Yes, you read that right - a special collection plate.

Stand for Marriage also is planning a rally next Saturday at the Augusta Civic Center, but parishioners can get free tickets through the church.

This is another step towards blurring the line of legality with the Roman Catholic Church's deep involvement with politics. A couple weeks ago 300 priests in New Jersey were contacted through a letter from the bishop, urging them to speak to their members about supporting the same-sex marriage ban.

Michael Jones of Change.org writes about the Diocese of Portland: "This collection should be illegal. There's no way the Catholic Church should be able to hold this kind of political collection, be able to give thousands upon thousands of dollars for an anti-LGBT organization, and not have to report who the donors are. It's an anonymous collection meant to shield the identity of haters, and it's bogus."

I couldn't agree more. With the church holding a tax-exempt status, holding a "special collection" for a political matter is a violation of this status and the church should be stripped of it. It's also a blatant attempt to keep donor identities anonymous, a violation of election laws. (Might I remind you that public affairs official for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, Marc Mutty, has taken leave to chair the campaign in opposition to the marriage law.)

But even more detrimental, the church is violating its own beliefs of feeding the hungry and sheltering the poor by deciding to close its own parishes and use its money instead to strip rights away of Maine's LGBT population.

It saddens me to see that the Church is losing its way and setting such a hateful example, going against the core of its beliefs.

Get involved in Maine by supporting the NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign. No matter where you live, there's an opportunity to protect marriage equality.

Judge Rules Referendum 71 Will Go to Ballot; Petition Signatures to Remain Private

UPDATE: Washington Families Standing Together will NOT appeal the judge's ruling, allowing Referendum 71 to go to the ballot.

A spokeswoman for the group said they will now focus on the campaign to protect the new "everything but marriage" domestic partnership law.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Tuesday a Washington state judge refused to block anti-LGBT Referendum 71, ruling against the Washington Families Standing Together (WAFST), who oppose it. WAFST had contended that many of the signatures should have been invalidated by the Secretary of State, a conclusion an earlier judge had agreed with but would not rule to invalidate the ballot measure.

However, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Thomas McPhee ruled the signatures were valid for acceptance even if the person who signed was not a registered voter at the time of signing, and even if the signature gatherer broke the law.

An appeal to the state's Supreme Court is likely to take place very soon. The ballots for the November 3 election need to be printed within the next few days.

(Read a post by Lurleen at Pam's House Blend, "Washington's referendum process begs reform.")

Earlier in the week, a judge decided to keep petitioners who supported Referendum 71 and their identities private for a few more days while deciding on a case submitted by Referendum 71 proponents, Protect Marriage Washington, who seek to keep the identities permanently hidden from public view. They believe petition signers could be submitted to harassment. State attorneys defending Secretary of State Sam Reed say the harassment threats are far too weak to risk violating the state's public disclosure law.

The Seattle Times also reports that Washington State's senior citizens have all been lost in the debate over Referendum 71. The law allows heterosexual couples to enter domestic partnerships if one of them is over 62, an aspect of which very few people are aware of.

"I think people may not be very well-educated about the full scope of the law, that it affects more than just same-sex couples," Lynn Elmore, who is in her 60s and in a domestic partnership, told the Seattle Times. "They may not consider what it means to people like us."

An APPROVAL vote for Referendum 71 approves the expanded, all-inclusive domestic partnership law. VOTE TO APPROVE!

Unite the Fight to Return Tomorrow!

Hello UTF Readers,

I will be back full steam ahead tomorrow. It's been a nice break, but I'm eager to get back to work.

The internet connection has been SLOOOOW, so I wasn't able to post periodically like I had hoped. Posting this will probably take 15 minutes! LOL.

Thank you for the kind comments and emails during my time away. The support from the community is strong and it means a lot to me. It's motivation to get back to work!

See you tomorrow!