Sounds like a joke huh? It's not. Disgraced Republicans David Vitter (Louisiana) and Larry Craig (Idaho) both signed on as sponsors for another attempt on a federal marriage amendment which I believe has already failed 3 times in previous years.

OK, so it's not news that politicians are hypocrites. But, my goodness. This just takes the hypocritical cake. As reported by PageOneQ.com, two infamous senators have signed on to the bill of Mississippi Republican Sen. Roger Wicker to establish a constitutional amendment codifying marriage as between a man and a woman.

You probably only need two guesses as to which two senators announced they were co-sponsoring the bill today -- David "John" Vitter and Larry "Wide Stance" Craig. The actual wording of the amendment and the status of Vitter and Craig as co-sponsors can be seen here.

I mean, really now. How much further down the rabbit hole can we go? A man who pleaded guilty to lewd conduct in propositioning an undercover police officer for anonymous sex in a bathroom, and a man who allegedly has a diaper fetish exerting their moral authority over the rest of us. How can it have come to this?

Labels: another disgraced Republican, constitutional amendment, dick of the week, federal, marriage

"In papers filed four days after the legalized same-sex weddings began around the state, advocacy groups argued that the measure would change the state's Constitution so profoundly that it would amount to a revision. Under the law, the Constitution cannot be revised by initiative alone - a two-thirds legislative approval is also needed before the measure goes to the voters. 'If enacted, (the November initiative) would eviscerate the principle of equal citizenship for gay and lesbian people and strip the courts of their authority to enforce basic constitutional guarantees,' said Stephen Bomse, lawyer for the groups."

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

It's official. In a unanimous vote, the California Supreme Court has rejected a stay in marriage equality. Same-sex couples will now be able to begin getting married on June 17th.

Via SfGate:

The California Supreme Court refused today to put its ruling allowing same-sex marriages on hold until the issue goes before state voters in November, clearing the way for gay and lesbian weddings to begin June 17.

The justices' unanimous vote to deny a stay sought by two conservative organizations will allow thousands of same-sex couples, from California and other states, to marry before the Nov. 4 vote on a state constitutional amendment that would overturn the ruling. If the amendment passes, the court will have to decide whether those marriage are valid.

In a separate vote today, the court denied reconsideration of its 4-3 decision May 15 that struck down the law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. That law was passed by the Legislature in 1977 and reaffirmed by the voters in a 2000 ballot measure.

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

An initiative that would again ban marriage between committed same-sex couples in California has qualified for the November ballot, the Secretary of State announced Monday.

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen said a random check of signatures submitted by the measure's sponsors showed that they had gathered enough names for it to be put to voters.

The measure would amend the state constitution to "provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Here comes the $25 million fight to November. Please folks - head on over to Equality for All or Equality California's issue PAC and make a donation - even if it is $25 dollars.

Labels: anti-gay, california, marriage

Saying he would defend the California Supreme Court's May 15 ruling, California Attorney General Jerry Brown urged the court to reject petitions by anti-gay groups who seek to delay the ruling until after the November elections:

"'This historic litigation is now concluded,' wrote Senior Assistant Atty. Gen. Christopher E. Krueger in a brief filed with the high court. 'It is time for these proceedings to end.' In the brief, Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown said he plans to enforce the court's May 15 ruling 'with no less vigor' than he previously sought to defend state laws that limited marriage to opposite-sex couples. California's change of heart came as 10 other states, including Florida and Utah, filed a brief in support of a request by gay marriage opponents to delay the effective date of the court ruling. The offices of attorneys general of Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah protested that their states, which restrict marriage to unions of a man and a woman, would be inundated by litigation seeking to have them recognize same-sex nuptials in California."

The L.A. Times notes that "the mere filing of the petition could delay same-sex marriages until mid-July, or, at the latest, mid-August, court officials said.

via Towleroad and via LA Times

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

Gov. David Paterson has directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada.

In a directive issued on May 14, the governor's legal counsel, David Nocenti, instructed the agencies that gay couples married elsewhere "should be afforded the same recognition as any other legally performed union."

The revisions are most likely to involve as many as 1,300 statutes and regulations in New York governing everything from joint filing of income tax returns to transferring fishing licenses between spouses.

In a videotaped message given to gay community leaders at a dinner on May 17, Mr. Paterson described the move as "a strong step toward marriage equality." And people on both sides of the issue said it moved the state closer to fully legalizing same-sex unions in this state.

via NYT

Labels: marriage, new york

Labels: 2008 Presidential Election, ellen degeneres, marriage, mccain

On today's Ellen (taped yesterday) she talks about the CA Supreme Court decision and swiftly announces that she is going to marry her long-time partner Portia de Rossi.

via TMZ:

A spy in the audience of this afternoon's taping of the "Ellen DeGeneres Show" tells us that after Ellen mentioned today's California Supreme Court ruling striking down the state's ban on gay marriage, she surprised everyone and announced that she was going to tie the knot with longtime girlfriend, actress Portia de Rossi.

Portia was in the crowd and after she made the announcement, the studio audience went wild, giving the two a huge standing O.

Labels: california, ellen degeneres, marriage

As a Californian for the first 18 years of my life I could not be more proud. Yesterday morning when the decision came out from the California Supreme Court, my mom and dad who still live there called me to say how happy they were about this landmark decision. It was pretty cute.

There are so many questions though surrounding the longevity of this decision considering there is a big possibility that anti-gay groups will have the signatures validated for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Here are a couple of tidbits I found out after researching the issue and how this court decision will play out.

The above number is a huge jump down from the 62% of Californian's who voted for Prop 22 in 2000 that made a statutory change in California law defining marriage between a man and a woman.

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

The California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

The justices released the 4-3 decision Thursday, saying that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

The cases were brought by the city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples, Equality California and another gay rights group in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march that took place at Mayor Gavin Newsom's direction.

Because this is a state issue, the decision cannot be appealed to a higher level of court. This is the end of this saga. Come November though there is a good chance that a constitutional amendment will be on the ballot. The question then is whether or not this ruling will have an effect on that if it was to be appeal after November should the voters approve discrimination in the California Constitution.

The ruling can be read here.

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

The question they will answer:
Does California's statutory ban on marriage between two persons of the same sex violate the California Constitution by denying equal protection of the laws on the basis of sexual orientation or sex, by infringing on the fundamental right to marry, or by denying the right to privacy and freedom of expression?

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

Tomorrow at 10am, the California Supreme Court will make their ruling on whether California's marriage ban will be upheld or not.

Stay tuned.

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

Last week California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger came out and came out strong against an anti-marriage equality initiative currently in the works in California. His strong opposition to the anti-marriage initiative surprised many of us as he vetoed two marriage equality bills within the last two years. Here's the video in case you missed it. More about a possible victory in the Supreme Court after the jump.



Today, there are rumors that a source close to the CA Supreme Court said something like this:

Sources wishing to remain anonymous in the California Court System indicate that the court, which has until June 2, 2008 to issue it's marriage ruling, is considering issuing it on Friday, May 23, 2008, with the decision being written by Chief Justice Ronald George. The Court is readying itself for a backlash that may follow the rumored and bold decision. There is talk that the Court will not simply strike down Proposition 22, but will move the State of California toward full marriage, if not even granting full marriage rights for gays and lesbians outright.

Obviously aware of what's coming, Gov. Schwarzenegger came out swinging against the FRC's proposed amendment...

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

That's right - right here in the grand ol' United States of America a committed couple could face jail time for wanting to be married. Their trial started this morning.

The trial for lesbian couple Kate Burns and Sheila Schroeder is scheduled for 8:30 a.m. Monday, April 14th at the Denver City and County Building located at 1437 Bannock Street, in Courtroom 117M. The two were arrested for trespassing on September 24, 2007 when they peacefully remained at the Denver Clerk and Recorder Office after being denied the opportunity to apply for a marriage license. Burns and Schroeder will be represented by lead counsel Mari Newman of Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP. Their sit-in protest was an effort to achieve basic fairness and marriage equality for all of Colorado's families. Numerous religious leaders have registered their endorsement for the couple by submitting affidavits in support of marriage equality.

"Ms. Burns and Ms. Schroeder are proud participants in one of America's greatest traditions: speaking out publicly against injustice. Strong and committed individuals like Kate and Sheila are responsible for some of our greatest civil rights achievements from the signing of the Declaration of Independence, to the end of racial segregation, to the legalization of multiracial marriages. One wonders what the current state of our country would be without civil rights heroes like Kate and Sheila. I am proud to represent them," said attorney Mari Newman.

When asked about her decision to participate in their September 24 action, Sheila said, "In the four years since my partner and I had our commitment ceremony, we have experienced numerous acts of discrimination. We are denied the ability to file taxes together. We experienced panic when I had a potentially dangerous health crisis and we had no security that she could attend to me in the hospital. We have spent thousands of dollars in legal fees to combine our property and insure our rights as a couple-when heterosexual couples are granted all of this free without question. This discrimination is unconstitutional and unconscionable. It is my patriotic duty to stand against this discrimination. The world needs more love and more support for loving couples. My church supports this fundamental notion and now it's time my government does too."

Speaking about the continuation of this campaign in Denver and her participation in the action on Sep 24, Kate Burns said, "As a life-long Unitarian Universalist, I seek to practice my religion by marrying my life partner in the church where I grew up. My religion does not condemn love simply because it happens between partners of the same gender. Legislation that prevents me from marrying my partner interferes with the free exercise of my faith tradition and imposes the viewpoint of one religious view-which opposes our union-on all citizens. My union with my partner, Sheila, is a life-long commitment founded on love and respect for each other. I will not allow an unjust law tell me that we are not worthy of being married. Following the principles of nonviolent resistance, I will do whatever it takes to shed light on the immoral and discriminatory legislation that denies basic human rights to us as a couple, and to all lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people."

Labels: colorado, marriage

Supporters of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages likely will have to wait at least another four years after a key House leader decided he won't consider legislation that passed the Senate.

Conservative activists and lawmakers expressed frustration Friday with the decision by Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, not to hear Senate Joint Resolution 7, the legislation that included the constitutional ban.

Pelath's decision did not come as a surprise because earlier this session, he refused to hear a House version of the legislation in his Rules Committee. His decision not to hear the Senate version of the proposal, however, is significant because it likely wipes out a decision by the General Assembly in 2005 to pass the measure.

In order to amend the constitution, two consecutively elected legislatures must pass the measure, and voters must approve it in a general election.

Read the rest here.

Labels: constitutional amendment, indiana, marriage

With Freedom To Marry Week ending, Evan Wolfson, of Freedom To Marry, wrote an insightful piece on the Huffington Post.

As Americans across the country celebrate Freedom to Marry Day today, seizing the opportunity to have conversations with family members, friends, and coworkers about the importance of ending same-sex couples' exclusion from marriage, hopefully they'll talk a lot about gay couples and why marriage matters -- without saying "gay marriage" and "same-sex marriage." Same-sex couples, their kids and loved ones, and those of us who favor equal justice in America are not working to win "gay marriage." We are working to win the freedom to marry, ending the current unfair denial of marriage to those who are already doing the work of marriage in their own lives.

Phrases such as "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage" imply that same-sex couples are asking for something other than marriage. They imply that same-sex couples deserve something different or lesser than the security, protections, safety-net, and respect that married couples cherish. (PDF) And they play into the right-wing's fear-mongering that gay people are a threat to marriage, that equality and inclusion would somehow unacceptably "redefine" the law (in a country dedicated to those very values), and that "Defense of Marriage" is the answer to committed couples seeking to participate in a precious institution.

Labels: marriage

I know we've posted this before, but today feels like a good day for a refresher. 'Let California Ring' is a massive public education project - educating Californians about why marriage equality matters. Their commercial is below. PS - They need to raise money to help get this on more airwaves. Have 10 bucks? Make a contribution. Link below the video.



Like the video? Want to see marriage equality in California? Go here to watch again and to donate - even if it is 10 bucks. It all helps.

Labels: california, marriage, video

From CNN:

Two men sealed the state's first legal same-sex marriage with a kiss Friday morning, less than 24 hours after a judge threw out Iowa's ban on gay marriage and about two hours before he put the ruling on hold.

It was a narrow window of opportunity.

Thursday afternoon, Polk County Judge Robert Hanson temporarily cleared the way for same-sex couples across the state to apply for marriage licenses in Polk County.

He ruled that Iowa's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which allowed marriage only between a man and a woman, violated the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection of six gay couples who had sued.

County attorney John Sarcone promised a quick appeal, and he asked Hanson to stay his ruling until the appeal was resolved.

A dozen gay and lesbian couples were waiting at the county recorder's office when it opened Friday morning.

By late morning, 20 had applied for marriage licenses when Recorder Julie Haggerty announced that she had been instructed to stop accepting the applications. Hanson later said the judge had formally stayed his ruling.

The judge's stay means the recorder's office is not permitted to accept any more marriage applications from gay couples until the Iowa Supreme Court rules on the county's appeal.

Labels: iowa, lawsuit, marriage, victory

From Lambda Legal:

Iowa Court Issues Decision in Lambda Legal's Historic Lawsuit: Same-Sex Couples Must Be Allowed to Marry

'THIS DECISION BRINGS TO LIFE THE IOWA CONSTITUTION’S PROMISE OF EQUALITY FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES AND THEIR FAMILIES IN IOWA.'

(Des Moines, IA, August 30, 2007)--A 63 page decision issued today by the Iowa District Court for Polk County said that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry based on the Iowa Constitution's guarantee of equal treatment under the law. The case was filed by Lambda Legal on behalf of six same-sex couples and their families in Iowa.

"This decision brings to life the Iowa Constitution's promise of equality for same-sex couples and their families in Iowa," said Camilla Taylor, Senior Staff Attorney in Lambda Legal's Midwest Regional Office in Chicago.

"This is a significant step forward in recognizing the constitutional rights of all Iowans, and it's an amazing day for same-sex couples and their families all across Iowa," said Dennis Johnson of Dorsey and Whitney, co-counsel for the Plaintiffs with Lambda Legal.

In his decision, Judge Robert B. Hanson said, "Couples, such as Plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 595 by reason of the fact that both persons compromising such a couple are of the same sex."

Labels: iowa, lawsuit, marriage, victory

Gavin here. I'm heading out into the great outdoors this weekend so I will also be taking a hiatus from blogging until the beginning of next week.

I do want to leave you with one thing though. In California there is a massive coalition of fair-minded groups who have launched a massive public education campaign. I leave you with this great video from the new campaign. See you all on the other side.

G.S.

Labels: california, marriage, video