Same-Sex Marriage News

Changing Your Name After Marriage When You’re Gay - Bucks Blog - NYTimes.com

2009-11-14T16:50:00.000-05:00

Changing Your Name After Marriage When You’re Gay - Bucks Blog - NYTimes.com

By JENNIFER SARANOW SCHULTZ
Changing legal documents like Social Security cards and passports can be difficult for gay couples who get married.

While changing a name after marriage can often be a struggle for heterosexual women and men, it’s a lot harder if you’re gay.

Couples who live in states that don’t allow or recognize same-sex marriage or its equivalents (civil unions, for instance) generally can’t just rely on a marriage certificate as proof of a name change and instead have to go through the in-court name change process. This means they will have to pay a $100 to $400 fee to file a petition at court, publish a notice in a local newspaper and get a court order officially changing their name and that they can use to change everything else (just one more area where being gay can cost you more).

Even more, couples who live in states that do allow or recognize same-sex marriage and civil unions often in practice don’t have it that much easier. While changing a name on a driver’s license can be done without a problem in such states, changing federal documentation can be trickier.

Since the federal government doesn’t recognize the right to same-sex marriage, even if you get married in a state that allows it, whether you can get the name change processed by Social Security or the passport office merely with the marriage certificate and required forms currently tends “to be hit and miss,” said Emily Doskow, an attorney in California who specializes in same-sex and transgender family issues and writes about marriage and divorce issues for the legal information publisher Nolo. “It depends on what local office you are going to, what the opinion is at the moment and whether you get a staff person who cares or doesn’t care,” she said.

This is despite the fact that a spokeswoman for the Social Security office said such same-sex couples should have no problems changing their Social Security cards because the marriage certificate is a legal name change document in those states and the office follows state rules in regard to name changes. In addition, while the Passport Agency used to not recognize the marriage certificates of same-sex couples as name change documents, the State Department earlier this year changed its policy to permit the document to be used as proof for a same-sex last name change if it’s a legal way to change one’s last name under a state’s law.

Problems now are because of “misunderstanding and misinformation at the passport and Social Security offices,” said Karen Loewy, senior staff attorney at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, a legal rights organization focusing on New England. “The marriage license should be enough for any name change” in a state that allows or recognizes same-sex marriage or its equivalents, she said.

She said she expected the hurdles to eventually go away. But for now, she recommends that couples who face problems trying to change their Social Security cards or passports keep trying, go in person to talk with someone else in the office and bring or send in additional supporting changed identification like driver’s licenses and this document from the Glad Web site about the changed law. “There is no reason folks should have to go to court,” Ms. Loewy said.

Lawmakers Defy Church Pressure On Gay Marriage - wjz.com

2009-11-13T11:06:00.000-05:00

Lawmakers Defy Church Pressure On Gay Marriage - wjz.com

Lawmakers Defy Church Pressure On Gay Marriage
WASHINGTON (AP) ―

D.C. Council members say there's little room for compromise with the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington over a proposed same-sex marriage law.

The church says it won't continue offering social services with D.C. money if the marriage bill isn't changed because it would require the church to recognize same-sex couples. But council members say threats shouldn't determine D.C. laws.

Council member Jim Graham says the church hasn't abandoned social services in New Hampshire, Connecticut or Vermont after they began same-sex marriages.

In Boston, Catholic Charities has halted city adoption programs because Massachusetts bans public discrimination against same-sex couples.

Council chairman Vincent Gray plans to meet with colleagues Friday to discuss the issue.

Argentine judge allows gay wedding in legal first - Yahoo! News

2009-11-13T11:01:00.000-05:00

Argentine judge allows gay wedding in legal first - Yahoo! News

BUENOS AIRES (Reuters) – An Argentine judge has granted a homosexual couple permission to get married, setting a precedent that could pave the way for the Catholic country to become the first in Latin America to allow same-sex marriage.

This week's ruling by Judge Gabriela Seijas in Buenos Aires, which became the region's first city to approve civil unions between same sex couples in 2002, may increase pressure on lawmakers to debate a gay marriage bill currently deadlocked in Congress.

"The law should treat everyone with the same respect according to their singularities, without the need to understand or regulate them," Seijas said in her ruling, which could still be overturned by city authorities.

The couple, Alex Freyre and Jose Maria Di Bello, said in a statement posted on a gay rights Internet site that the decision would allow them to become "the first gay couple in Latin America to get the right to marry."

Civil unions in Buenos Aires and several other Argentine cities grant same sex couples some but not all the rights of married couples.

Elsewhere in Latin America, same sex civil unions are allowed in Uruguay and Mexico City.

(Reporting by Nicolas Misculin and Helen Popper, editing by Alan Elsner)

Guessing game in New York - Washington Blade: Gay and Lesbian News, Entertainment, Politics and Opinion

2009-11-13T10:55:00.000-05:00

Guessing game in New York - Washington Blade: Gay and Lesbian News, Entertainment, Politics and Opinion

By CHRIS JOHNSON
Nov. 13, 2009

New York’s governor and state Senate leaders announced this week they’re committed to a vote on same-sex marriage legislation by the end of this year.

Gov. David Paterson (D) announced the agreement at a press conference Tuesday while flanked by champions of the marriage bill, according to media reports.

“This is the first time that the Senate leadership had indicated that it will support a vote on marriage equality,” Paterson said, according to the New York Daily News.

Austin Shafran, a spokesperson for the Senate Democrats, didn’t respond to the Blade’s request for comment, but reportedly confirmed for the Daily News an agreement had been made with Senate leaders on the marriage bill.

“We will commit the full spectrum of our energies to making marriage equality a reality in the State of New York,” Shafran was quoted as saying.

Gay state Sen. Tom Duane, a gay lawmaker and prime sponsor of the marriage bill in the Senate, said Paterson and Senate leaders reached a decision to bring the marriage bill to the floor this year “under the leadership of Gov. Paterson, who brought everyone together — the LGBT political organizations, myself, my colleagues in the Senate majority.”

Approval in the Senate is the last major obstacle in passing same-sex marriage legislation in New York. In May, the New York Assembly passed legislation that would grant marriage rights to gay couples, 89-52. Paterson has pledged to sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

The governor has placed the marriage bill on the Senate’s agenda for Monday and Tuesday for an extraordinary session of the Senate, which must also consider legislation that would address the state’s $3.2 billion budget deficit. But the Senate is not required to vote on items the governor puts on the agenda. It was unclear at Blade deadline whether the Senate would take up the marriage bill next week.

Duane said “nothing is ever for certain” in Albany with regard to whether or not the Senate would take up the legislation next week, but added he’s pushing to bring it to the floor at “every opportunity, every time that we’re together, and we’ll be together again on Monday.”

“I do know that the governor is putting it on the agenda, and, again, that shows his leadership on the issue,” Duane said.

Whether there are sufficient votes in the Senate to pass the marriage bill also was unclear. Democrats hold a narrow majority in the Senate, 32-30, and about five Democrats have said they are non-committal or would vote against the bill, according to a report in the New York Times, making Republican votes necessary for passage.

Jeff Cook, a Log Cabin Republicans legislative adviser who has been lobbying GOP senators on the marriage bill, said he couldn’t speak to whether senators would take up the measure next week, but noted he believes the measure will pass this year with Republican votes.

“I believe that when this finally comes up for a vote that it will pass with bipartisan support,” he said. “I am confident that there will be Republican support.”

Duane said he’s “feeling very, very optimistic” about there being enough votes in the Senate to approve the marriage bill.

Asked whether there would be stronger chance for passing the bill later in the year as opposed to next week, Duane replied, “I guess the answer would be who knows, but I’m very optimistic about the bill today.”

But Dan Pinello, a gay government professor at the City University of New York, said he’s “not optimistic” about there being sufficient votes to pass the marriage bill.

“I don’t think the votes are there, quite frankly, but I think it’s important, nonetheless, that the vote be taken because that way people are on the record, and next year, which is the election cycle, they can be held accountable for the votes,” he said.

Pinello said the New York State Legislature “is run by these dinosaurs,” and a vote on the marriage bill — even it fails — would get opponents of same-sex marriage on the record so issue advocates know who to target in the 2010 election.

Paterson was reportedly joined at the press conference by Duane and Alan Van Capelle, Empire State Pride Agenda’s executive director. Key members of the Senate were absent, including Democratic Leader John Sampson, President Malcolm Smith and Majority Leader Pedro Espada Jr.

But Paterson said at the press conference that Senate leaders “will stand behind this commitment” and their lack of presence at the event didn’t mean they weren’t standing by the agreement, the Daily News reported.

“I think that those three leaders would not like to get into the conversation about dates and times,” Paterson was quoted as saying. “They’ve made the commitment. They have not had a chance to meet with their membership as yet, and usually these types of commitments come after meeting the membership.”

The commitment for a Senate vote this year comes after supporters of same-sex marriage had a false start on hopes that the chamber would take up the measure this week. Lawmakers failed to take up the measure Tuesday at the start of the session, even though Paterson put the bill on the agenda.

The Senate began its session at around noon Tuesday, and lawmakers discussed appreciation for U.S. veterans in recognition of Veteran’s Day, then put the chamber in recess. The Daily News reported Senate Democrats went into discussion about the marriage bill in a members-only conference and engaged in “very passionate” debate.

Enough is Enough

2009-11-05T07:38:00.000-05:00

must read Gay apartheid must end

DavidMixner.com - Live From Hell's Kitchen

Over the next weeks, there will be numerous well-meaning proposals to deal with the aftermath of our brutally unfair defeat in Maine. Clearly there are many ways to respond. However, with all the energy I can muster, I have come to the clear conclusion that we can't continue on the path we have been following the last two decades. The time has come for a major shake-up in ideas, tactics and priorities.

Those who hang on to the nostalgia of the past can live in it. There is no question in my mind that the vast majority of the LGBT community is ready to move forward with new visions and new tactics. What is happening to us with this expanding system of Gay Apartheid in America cannot be allowed to continue and if it does, we cannot go quietly into the night enabling such abuse anymore.

How can we have any dignity, honor or pride in ourselves if we validate this continued process of ballot box terrorism? How can we stand tall next to each other if we explain away another's cowardliness? How can we allow people to dehumanize our relationships and our very integrity if we give people passes to sit out the battle for our very freedom? No longer are political timelines a reason for delay, no longer are incremental approaches acceptable and no longer can the political process expect us to be patient and wait our turn. Our turn came long ago and there will be no more waiting.

Our national organizations should be put on notice that we expect more from them and that we want more accountability and more dynamic leadership. For example, who talked to the President about Maine? Why did the White House refuse to become heavily involved? Why was Attorney General Eric Holder's statement not disavowed by the White House? Did we have direct access to the President or not? Wanting to know these answers is fair. Holding organizations that ask for our money and support accountable is not divisive it is common sense. We want leaders and organizations that represent our interests and are not beholden to the trappings of political power. Time to end the cozy relationship between our national leaders and Washington power brokers and start playing tough.

Organizations should follow the role model of Empire State Pride Agenda (ESPA) in New York. They must refuse to allow anyone to speak at their dinners who is not for marriage equality. That includes the President of the United States. If they insist on doing so, we should stop enabling them and stop buying tickets. Guess what? ESPA, because of their policy, is not viewed as fringe or ineffective. In fact, they are one of the toughest and best state organizations in the country. Why in the world would we give people platforms and honorswho don't support full equality now? We must stop it. They are abusers of our graciousness and our kindness. There is no room for them anymore.

As so many others have said, "The Gay ATM Machine is closed." Not one penny more for those who are fair weather friends, who ask us to delay and who insist patience is a virtue in the face of injustice. I was astounded a few weeks ago in Washington when all my liberal friends were urging me to support the Democrat Owen in upstate New York who won election on Tuesday. When I responded that he was strongly against marriage equality and opined that they shouldn't be supporting him, it was quickly pointed out to me that the Human Rights Campaign was supporting him. Well, you know what? I don't care. If we support people who are against full equality, how can we expect others to do differently? No more excuses. Stop it. Close the checkbooks to those who are not fully on our side.

Promises are not enough. Before we support people they must be CO-SPONSORS for the repeal of DOMA and DADT. How in the world can Speaker Pelosi justify not being on Congressman Nadler's "Respect for Marriage Act?" No sponsorship equals getting no money, it is really that simple In addition, we must cease giving money to groups that contribute to those 'Blue Dog' Democrats who are holding so much of our legislation up. Instead of national party committees, give to those politicans who have proven themselves directly. How can we possibly send money to the Democratic National Committee which urges the people of Maine to phone New Jersey and not a word about our struggle? How can you justify it?

New tactics must be embraced and honored. Civil disobedience must now be on the table and it is time for a long discussion about how it is to take place in the community. Perhaps we have to fill the jails, block military bases, sit in Congressional offices, block marriage bureaus, etc in order for them to know that business as usual has stopped. Careful and thoughtful consideration must be given now to this option.

Watching the coverage on Maine and the results tells me the press doesn't really take us seriously as a civil rights movement. If that initiative had said people of different faiths could not marry does anyone really believe that it would be a sidebar story this week? The media has grown used to us being abused and we are enabling them to ignore it. "Oh yeah, another loss, how sad, we support you." GLAAD has to consider making this a priority and force the media to accept us as the civil rights movement we have become in the last months. Nothing could be more important. I will take a stereotype on a television show in exchange for serious and comprehensive coverage of our civil rights struggle.

There is so much more to say and be debated over the next months. Maybe the ideas above are not the best but at least they are bold and not more of the same. We can't survive more of the same. Apartheid for the LGBT community is becoming a way of life and everyone is beginning to adjust to it. We can't, we simply can't, allow that to happen.

For over thirty years I have been fighting ballot box measures and even have won some. What I have seen is a system of laws go in place around the country that prevents us from full equality. Some laws are specific like banning our participation in the military or DOMA. Some states ban adoption or foster care. Others give people permission to discriminate against us. We are not denied a few rights, we are being denied our basic freedom and dignity.

No longer can I stand before you in speeches and rallies urging you to stay the course. The course needs changing and we need to toughen up in the process. Yes, we must continue fighting but this time, instead of responding to their strategy, we must forge our own. Make no mistake about it. The days of acquiesce are over. There is no option except one at this stage and that is full equality now.

Freedom,Liberty,Justice are not mere words. They represent a way of life that is being denied to LGBT Americans every day of our lives.

Enough. No More, Enough

News Analysis - Loss in Maine Sets Back Drive for Same-Sex Marriage - NYTimes.com

2009-11-04T12:43:00.000-05:00

News Analysis - Loss in Maine Sets Back Drive for Same-Sex Marriage - NYTimes.com

By ABBY GOODNOUGH

They had far more money, ground troops and political support, and geography was on their side, given that New England has been more accepting of same-sex marriage than any other region of the country. Yet gay-rights advocates suffered a crushing loss in Maine when voters decided Tuesday to repeal the state’s new law allowing gays and lesbians to wed, setting back a movement that had made remarkable progress nationally this year.

Maine became the 31st state to block same-sex marriage through a public referendum, a result that will force supporters to rethink their national strategy at a crucial time for the movement. With 84 percent of precincts reporting early Wednesday, the repeal proposal had 53 percent of the vote, even though polls had indicated the race was a dead heat.

This year three other states — Iowa, New Hampshire and Vermont — joined Massachusetts and Connecticut in allowing same-sex marriage, but only through court rulings and legislative action. Maine, with its libertarian leanings, had seemed to offer an excellent chance of reversing the long national trend of voters rejecting marriage equality at the ballot box.

Some said the loss was a sign that the state-by-state approach favored by the largest gay-rights groups had failed and that the focus should move to reversing the federal ban on same-sex marriage, which Congress can reverse without voter approval. Others argued that the defeat only reinforced the need to keep winning grassroots support.

Evan Wolfson, executive director of the national gay-rights group Freedom to Marry, said the loss in Maine underscores "the fact that we need to continue those conversations and make ourselves visible as families in communities."

He added, "It shows we have just not done it long enough and deep enough, even in a place like Maine.”

But Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, the conservative Christian group that is leading the charge against same-sex marriage around the country, read the outcome differently.

"It interrupts the story line that is being manufactured, that suggests the culture has shifted on gay marriage and the fight is over,” she said. “Maine is one of the most secular states in the nation, it’s socially liberal, they had a three-year head start to build their organization and they outspent us two to one. If they can’t win there, it really does tell you the majority of Americans are not on board with this gay marriage thing."

The next battlefields are New Jersey and New York, whose Democratic governors were pressing lawmakers to pass same-sex marriage bills by the end of the year, and California, where voters approved a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage last November. Gay-rights groups there will likely seek a ballot measure reversing the ban by 2012; a federal lawsuit challenging the prohibition is scheduled to go to trial in January, and is expected to make its way to the Supreme Court.

Richard Socarides, who advised President Bill Clinton on gay issues, said such federal litigation was the best hope for advancing same-sex marriage at this point.

"The state-by-state strategy that looked clever a few years ago has run its course," he said. "The states that were easy to get have been gotten."

In New Jersey, Gov. Jon Corzine’s loss on Tuesday to Christopher Christie, a Republican who opposes same-sex marriage, dealt another potential blow to the movement. Mr. Christie has vowed to veto any same-sex marriage bill that reaches his desk; however, Mr. Corzine could still sign a same-sex marriage bill into law if the legislature approves it before January.

The city council in Washington, D.C., also appears poised to pass a same-sex marriage law, although opponents are seeking a referendum that would ask voters to ban it.

A more long-term, complex question is whether gay-rights supporters can reverse the constitutional bans on same-sex marriage in some 30 states that have enacted them since 2000. The outcome in Maine reinforces voters’ reluctance to endorse it, which national polls echo, too, though the gap is narrowing. And supporters acknowledge they would much rather avoid ballot questions.

"They tend to marginalize the group that is being targeted and inflame people’s passions in a way that is at best divisive and at worst terribly cruel," said Jennifer C. Pizer, marriage project director for Lambda Legal, an advocacy group based in Los Angeles. "Our founders did not intend to allow a majority to take basic rights from a minority."

Still, a group in Oregon announced Monday that it would seek a repeal of that state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, perhaps as soon as 2012. Oregon voters approved the ban in 2004, and gay-rights groups have been quietly building support for a repeal.

But in general, supporters are more likely to focus on states with statutory bans on gay marriage, which legislatures can reverse without voter approval. One such state is Washington, where preliminary returns in this year’s election showed voters approving an expansion of a domestic partnership law that would give gay couples more of the state-granted rights that married couples get. "The effort there has been a steady building of support in the legislature," Ms. Pizer said. "It’s unclear when they will ascertain there’s enough public support to change the marriage law, but it’s been a gradual process that will continue."

Opponents of same-sex marriage, led by the National Organization for Marriage, which contributed more than $1 million to the Maine repeal effort, said the outcome there should make lawmakers in other states nervous about endorsing same-sex marriage.

"We’re already hearing in both New York and New Jersey that they are noticing what’s happening here," Ms. Gallagher said. "Do other politicians really want to enter this particular culture war given all the stuff they are going to have to defend in the next election?"

The National Organization for Marriage is seeking to recruit two million opponents of same-sex marriage to "deploy wherever is necessary," Ms. Gallagher said, and provide a steady stream of donations. After New York and New Jersey, she said, the organization will look for other states in which to push constitutional bans.

A state ethics commission in Maine is investigating whether Ms. Gallagher’s group violated the state’s campaign finance laws by failing to disclose its donors, and Ms. Pizer, of Lambda Legal, said that if the commission finds a violation occurred, gay-rights groups will use it as ammunition in the national same-sex marriage movement.

She said gay-rights supporters would also have to hone their strategy for fighting the claim that legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to children learning about it at school. Leaders of the repeal effort in Maine used that claim successfully, as did those in California last year.

"Sadly and unsurprisingly there’s a consistent theme that somehow gay people are a threat to children," Ms. Pizer said. "And it’s hard to prove one’s nonthreatening, honest humanity with a soundbite. You prove it through relationships, and relationships take time."

The Associated Press: Report: Gay couples similar to straight spouses

2009-11-03T10:16:00.000-05:00

The Associated Press: Report: Gay couples similar to straight spouses

By LISA LEFF (AP) – 12 hours ago

SAN FRANCISCO — Same-sex couples who identify as married are similar to straight spouses in terms of age and income, and nearly one-third of them are raising children, according to Census data released Monday that provides a demographic snapshot of gay families in America.

The study released by a think tank based at UCLA also found that Utah and Wyoming were among the states with the highest percentages of gay spouses in 2008, despite being heavily conservative states with no laws providing legal recognition of gay relationships.

The data from the annual American Community Survey showed that nearly 150,000 same-sex couples in the U.S., or more than one in four, referred to one another as "husband" or "wife," although UCLA researchers estimate that no more than 32,000 of the couples were legally married.

The couples had an average age of 52 and household incomes of $91,558, while 31 percent were raising children. That compares with an average age of 50, household income of $95,075 and 43 percent raising children for married heterosexual couples.

"It's intrinsically interesting that same-sex couples who use the term spouses look like opposite-sex married couples even with a characteristic like children," said Gary Gates, the UCLA demographer who conducted the analysis. "Most proponents of traditional marriage will say that when you allow these couples to marry, you are going to change the fundamental nature of marriage by decoupling it from procreation. Clearly, in the minds of same-sex couples who are marrying or think of themselves as married, you are not decoupling child-rearing from marriage."

Gates said the report is the first to reliably compare same-sex couples who identify as married with gays who say they're in unmarried partnerships and with married opposite-sex couples.

In the past, same-sex couples who referred to one another as "husband" or "wife" automatically were recorded as unmarried partners, a step gay rights activists lobbied the Census Bureau to eliminate as more states have legalized same-sex unions.

Unsurprisingly, Massachusetts, where gay couples have been able to get married since 2004, had the highest proportion of same-sex couples who were either legally married or considered themselves married, 3.63 for every 1,000 households. Vermont, which allowed same-sex couples to enter in civil unions with all the rights and obligations of marriage in 1999 and made same-sex marriages legal this year, came in second, with a rate of 2.71 per 1,000.

But Hawaii, Utah and Wyoming — states with neither civil unions nor same-sex marriage — came in next, ahead of California, Nevada, Connecticut, New Jersey and Rhode Island. What accounts for the phenomenon is unclear, but "it does provide this evidence that there are clearly couples in conservative parts of the country who do use these terms and do see their relationships in that framework."

Melissa Bird, a 35-year-old Utah lobbyist, said she understood why her home state has so many same-sex couples who see themselves as married, even though the state government does not recognize them that way. Bird and her 26-year-old partner had a commitment ceremony two years ago in Utah that wasn't legally binding. They tied the knot legally in California last year before voters approved a gay marriage ban.

"There is very much a marriage mentality here in Utah," said Bird, whom considers her partner her wife. "We know a lot of people who get 'married' in quotes. It never crossed our minds not to do it."

Once same-sex couples who labeled themselves as unmarried partners were factored in, however, the geographic distribution changed significantly. The District of Columbia came in first, with same-sex couples — both unmarried partners and those who called themselves married — representing 14.12 of every 1,000 households. Maine, where voters on Tuesday will decide whether to repeal a law that legalized same-sex marriage, was next, with gay couples heading up a little more than eight of every 1,000 households.

Although the report includes the first official estimates for the number of same-sex couples who call themselves wives or husbands, Gates said collecting accurate data on the marital status of gay couples remains difficult because of the hodgepodge of laws affecting their relationships. In addition, many couples may be reluctant to identify themselves as such if their neighbors, families and employers do not know they are gay, he said.

The Census Bureau has promised to produce a report on the marital status of gay couples after the once-a-decade national census is completed next year. However, the bureau said there was too little time to change the questionnaire to separate out legally married gay couples in the nationwide tally.

PoliGazette » Conflicting Approaches To Same-Sex Marriage Raise Legal Issues

2009-11-02T07:59:00.000-05:00

Interesting analysis

PoliGazette » Conflicting Approaches To Same-Sex Marriage Raise Legal Issues

The recent endorsement of same-sex marriage by a few states is raising some unexpected but inevitable legal issues. Specifically, the Volokh Conspiracy points out that courts now need to grapple with the effects of same-sex marriage on civil litigation and criminal trials. To wit, do the confidentiality provisions for spouses shield same-sex partners from having to testify against one another?

Complicating the matter is the interaction between statutes and common law principles as well as the interaction between state and federal law. For those who don’t know (including our European readers, many of whom would be completely unfamiliar with a common-law legal system), statutes are laws created by legislatures and applied by the courts through a process of interpreting their text and underlying principles. Common law principles are creations of courts, based on lines of precedent that draw on previous decisions and doctrines of interpretation going back in some cases hundreds of years. When in conflict, statutes override common law, for the simple reason that any product of a legislature is more democratic and legitimate than a creation of a court.

With regards to state and federal law, under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution as well as many interpretations of other Constitutional clauses, federal law trumps any state laws that are in conflict provided (and this is important) that the provision relates to an area of law not reserved to the states. With the exception of criminal acts that cross state lines and a few provisions relating to national security or other narrow federal interest, most criminal laws are exclusively matters for the states. Most civil lawsuits are usually also governed by state laws, even when pursued in a federal court due for jurisdictional reasons. (Yes, this means that federal courts are often called upon to apply state laws.)

All this potential for conflict in laws and application of laws is coming to a head in a case in a federal court applying Iowa law (Iowa allows same-sex marriage) but involving parties that were married in a same-sex union in Toronto, Canada who are seeking to invoke a privilege derived from the federal rules of evidence that shields spouses from having to testify against one another. Confused yet?

In this case, the statute in question is the federal Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed by a Republican Congress and signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton. The most well-known provisions of the DOMA protect states that do not have same-sex marriage laws from being required to honor same-sex marriage laws passed (or more commonly enacted by their courts as common law implementations of Constitutional equal-protection provisions) in other states. A less-known but related provision protects states that have not endorsed same-sex marriage as well as the federal government itself from having to extend any federal law benefits or privileges derived from “marriage”. Thus, by default, any state provisions extending marriage rights to same-sex couples do not extend to courts in other states nor to federal courts. Thus, it would appear on its face that the privilege of spousal immunity does not apply and there is no shield of protection for same-sex partners in this case.

But wait! This is a case in federal court applying Iowa law. And Iowa law does recognize same-sex marriage as well as containing its own separate provisions for spousal privilege. And the marriage itself took place in Toronto, Canada, so it would seem to an amateur at least on its face that spousal privilege would apply, right? That’s the tentative conclusion that Volokh seems to come to.

But wait again! Same-sex marriage in Iowa is a common-law endorsement, created by the Iowa Supreme Court specifically overruling its legislature. So the protections derived from it would fall under any statute that both remains in force and conflicts with the common law marriage recognized by the Iowa Supreme Court. So, given the international character of the marriage itself and the conflict provided by the DOMA’s definition of what marriage is for purposes of federal law (which would presumably govern an international marriage), there’s no spousal privilege in this case, right?

But wait yet again! It turns out that the specific text of the Federal Rules of Evidence (a federal statute defining which privileges are recognized in federal courts) does not define spousal privilege, and instead simply allows state law to define which privileges will apply. So the DOMA might be completely irrelevant and the question would be whether Iowa law will apply (which gives spousal privilege to all couples, including same-sex couples), Canadian law (which presumably does as well, either through its common law roots or statutory code), or rather the state in which the same-sex couple in this case actually resides (which presumably does not, though the immediately available materials are unclear on this point).

But what yet again again! It turns out that some gay-rights advocates want the DOMA to apply to bar spousal privilege in this case so that they can use this case as an opportunity for a facial challenge to the Constitutionality of the DOMA on equal protection grounds. Their argument would probably be that the DOMA creates a situation where criminal defendants in a same-sex partnership would receive spousal privilege protections in some states, but not in others. This would deny them the equal protection of the laws required by the Fifteenth Amendment and thus render the DOMA itself unconstitutional and void. The individual risk to the defendant in this case is not as important to some activists as the opportunity to create a challenge to a DOMA law they find detestable. To them, the risk is worth the reward, especially since they themselves would bear none of the risk. Neat trick, that.

What a mess.

Setting aside the emotionally loaded issues that swirl around homosexuality and gay rights in modern politics, it is probably best to look at the underlying policy grounds for spousal privilege and simply decide if they are well-served by application to this case. The purpose of spousal privilege is to facilitate communication and trust between spouses (which is in the interest of the government as well for many reasons). Is any government interest served in keeping this narrow to deny its access to same-sex couples? Unless simply spiting same-sex couples is the goal, it is hard to see any government interest here. So it seems quite clear that the court can (given the swirling ambiguities in the statutory laws here) and should apply the privilege to bar the testimony in this case. The fact that same-sex couples want to submit themselves to the legal institution of marriage should be a benefit to society in how it stabilizes their relationships and brings them into line with other social and economic institutions. Other than socially conservative concerns grounded in religious belief systems, there is no good conservative argument against same-sex unions.

But the larger issue is that this specific case is not going to be the last problem with conflicts in laws raised by the issue of same sex marriage. The simple fact is that same-sex couples in stable, long-term relationships exist. Even those with personal moral codes that find their sexual activity to be repugnant can’t wish them away or have any hope or persuading them. And even the financial consequences of extending “marriage” claims on government benefits is probably outweighed by the benefits from the extension of the “marriage penalty” to their tax returns and the decrease in future litigation over contractual and other controversies resulting from legal ambiguities. After all, this case deals with just one potential issue of conflicting and ambiguous laws — spousal privilege. How about when complex litigation arises from conflicting interstate or international claims of spousal rights for wills, trusts, medical decisions, taxes, and contracts? This case is the tip of a very large legal iceberg.

Bottom line: Even conservatives applying an economic approach should see the wisdom of normalizing same-sex civil unions with full and equal rights and privileges under the law. The emotional objections of social conservatives just aren’t worth the cost and aggravation any longer. And the DOMA is a clumsy and obsolete tool for trying to deal with it. Its time is over.

Obama Defends DOMA…. Again - Lez Get Real

2009-10-31T23:41:00.000-04:00

Obama Defends DOMA…. Again - Lez Get Real

10/31/09-by Paula BrooksDOJDOMA
While the Obama administration has repeatedly called the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) discriminatory and President Obama has vowed to work for its repeal, nevertheless the Obama Justice Department again defended the law in a court filing.

In response to a lawsuit by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha M. Coakley, the Justice Department argued yesterday in court papers that states allowing gay marriage can’t force the federal government to provide benefits to those couples.

The state of Massachusetts has challenged DOMA, saying it denies federal marriage benefits to same-sex couples that are nonetheless legally married under Massachusetts law. Around 16,000 same-sex couples married in Massachusetts are being unfairly denied federal benefits given to heterosexual couples, according to Coakley’s suit. Those benefits include federal income tax credits, employment benefits, retirement benefits, health insurance coverage and Social Security payments

Massachusetts officials also say the federal law requires them to disregard the legally valid same-sex marriages in their state in relation to carrying out federal Medicaid and Veterans’ benefits programs. Such a requirement, they say, violates state sovereignty and is unconstitutional.

“This administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal,” says yesterdays Justice Department brief.

Nevertheless, Obama’s DOJ says, it has “long followed the practice of defending federal statutes as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of their constitutionality, even if the Department disagrees with a particular statute, as it does here.”

DOMA doesn’t regulate marriage, according to the administration, because they reason the states remain free to decide for themselves whether a same-sex couple can marry and how to spend state money on programs for married couples. But the DOJ brief also says Congress had a logical reason for restricting federal benefits to marriages between men and women.

“Congress may subsequently decide to extend federal benefits to same-sex marriages, and this Administration believes that Congress should do so. But its decision not to do so at this point is not irrational or unconstitutional,” the DOJ brief argues.

Judge Says Maine Can Make The National Organization for Marriage Disclose Donors - Lez Get Real

2009-10-30T12:30:00.000-04:00

Lets see Maggie and Brian get out of this one.

Judge Says Maine Can Make The National Organization for Marriage Disclose Donors - Lez Get Real

10/29/09-by Paula Brooks12428056781461336248Seal_of_Maine.svg.med_phixr
A federal judge has ruled that Maine’s reporting requirements for ballot question campaigns do not violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as claimed in a lawsuit filed last week by the National Organization for Marriage and has said the State of Maine can compel the National Organization for Marriage to disclose the identities of donors who contributed to its effort to repeal Maine’s gay-marriage law.

On Oct. 1, the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices voted 3-2 to investigate the fundraising practices of the National Organization for Marriage. One concern is whether the group has violated state law by not registering as a “ballot question committee” and by withholding its contribution records. Maine law requires any individual or group that raises or spends more than $5,000 to influence a ballot question vote to disclose contributors who gave more than $100 for that purpose.

Judge D. Brock Hornby order on Wednesday denied the request for a temporary restraining order, and said the National Organization for Marriage is not likely to succeed on any of its claims. Nom had asked for a temporary restraining order that would have let it operate outside of the state’s reporting requirements while the lawsuit was pending.

“Maine is entitled to conclude that its electorate needs to know, on an ongoing basis, the source of financial support for those who are taking positions on a ballot initiative,” Hornby wrote in his 32-page ruling.

“I conclude that the state’s interest to provide this information to voters is ‘not only compelling but critical’ to the proper functioning of the system of direct democracy,” Hornby wrote, quoting from a similar case in California in which the National Organization for Marriage is a plaintiff.

Reinforced by Hornby’s ruling, Maine’s attorney general challenged the advocacy group Wednesday night to make its records public before next week’s vote on Question 1.

“We are not going to give them legal advice. We trust that their legal counsel will advise them to comply fully,” said Attorney General Janet Mills. “The court has ruled that it is in the public interest to do so, and the law couldn’t be clearer.

“I would hope that they would file before the election,” Mills said. “Why not? What is there to hide?

Paterson Revives Call for Vote on Same-sex Marriage | Long Island Press | News, Long Island, Local News, Breaking News

2009-10-22T09:30:00.000-04:00

and we wait and wait and wait

Paterson Revives Call for Vote on Same-sex Marriage | Long Island Press | News, Long Island, Local News, Breaking News

By Michael Gormley, Associated Press Writer

Gov. David Paterson said Wednesday he wants to put a bill to legalize same-sex marriage to a vote during a special session within weeks.

The governor said the measure would be part of unfinished business from the regular session that ended this summer in a tumultuous coup in the Senate, later undone, after the Assembly approved its version of the measure.

“We have a number of issues that were not resolved,” Paterson told reporters, confirming a New York Daily News account. “I don’t see any reason not to address them.”

New York Gov. David Paterson, right, listens to Lt. Gov. Richard Ravitch during a news conference in Albany, N.Y., Thursday, Oct. 14, 2009. (AP Photo/Mike Groll)

New York Gov. David Paterson, right, listens to Lt. Gov. Richard Ravitch during a news conference in Albany, N.Y., Thursday, Oct. 14, 2009. (AP Photo/Mike Groll)

Paterson said he could call for a special session within weeks, primarily to address a $3 billion budget deficit.

He had promised to bring the issue to a vote in the Legislature regardless of whether its passage was guaranteed. He called same-sex marriage a civil right that requires the same kind of persistence in the face of opposition as other civil rights struggles.

Supporters have quietly been trying to build a coalition of 32 senators needed to pass a bill in the New York State Senate with a 32-30 Democratic majority. The main sponsor, Sen. Thomas Duane, a Manhattan Democrat who is gay, declined comment Wednesday.

Some Democrats have said they oppose the measure on religious grounds. But supporters say they are counting on at least a few moderate Republicans to vote for the bill if Democrats allow it to reach the floor.

Senate Minority leader Dean Skelos (R-Rockville Centre), who opposes the bill, said there will be no GOP position on the measure and Republicans are free to vote for it. The GOP has voted in a bloc against several measures since January, frustrating the Democratic majority.

Others forces are also at play.

If New York legalizes same-sex marriage, it would be the seventh state to do so, with others including New Jersey expected to act soon. That adds pressure on Democrats sponsoring the bill who have noted in floor debates that the state prides itself for being first in social change.

In addition, one of the most vocal opponents, Democratic Sen. Rube Diaz, stayed with the Democratic conference after the November elections because he said he was assured by then Democratic Senate leader Malcolm Smith that a gay marriage bill wouldn’t reach the Senate floor. Smith is no longer the sole leader of the conference because a vote this summer during a Republican-led coup made Sen. John Sampson of Brooklyn the leader.

Further, Diaz on Tuesday angered several of his Democratic colleagues when Diaz called them racists for calling for the resignation of another one-time Democratic dissident, Sen. Hiram Monserrate of Queens. Monserrate faces disciplinary action by the Senate after he was convicted of misdemeanor assault involving his girlfriend.

One of the state’s leading advocacy groups for gay rights, the Empire State Pride Agenda, praises Paterson for his continuing role in trying to pass the measure.

“I personally know from my conversations with him he wants New York to once again be a leader in providing equality for all its citizens,” the group’s executive director, Alan Van Capelle, said in a statement.

Paterson is expected to attend the group’s fall meeting in Manhattan on Thursday.

Gays Prefer Working in States with Marriage Equality : MarketingProfs

2009-10-20T07:57:00.000-04:00

Gays Prefer Working in States with Marriage Equality : MarketingProfs

Other factors being equal, 71% of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) adults would prefer a job with an employer based in a state where marriage equality is recognized over an employer based in a state that does not yet recognize marriage equality for same-sex couples, according to the 2009 Out & Equal Workplace Survey, conducted jointly by Harris Interactive, Out & Equal, and Witeck-Combs Communication.

When the same question is asked of lesbian and gay adults only, 79% would prefer working for an employer based in a state allowing same-sex marriage:

Key findings:

* Respondents were asked to imagine themselves in a hypothetical scenario: They live in a state that recognizes marriage equality, and their employer is requiring that they transfer to a state that does not. Then they were asked how they would respond. More than 4 out of 10 (42%) of LGBT adults say they would consider changing jobs.
* Some 39% of LGBT adults would decline a promotion if it required transferring to a state that did not allow same-sex marriage.
* Among gay and lesbian adults, nearly half (47%) would turn down the promotion.

"As marriage equality reaches more states and touches more lives, more families, and more workplaces, employers based in states that deny this right will begin to face increasing challenges in trying to recruit and retain top LGBT talent," said Out & Equal Founding Executive Director Selisse Berry. "Marriage equality is a real business issue for all of America's business leaders as they strive to achieve a diverse, well-qualified, and loyal workforce."

Recession

The survey results highlight how the weak economy is changing attitudes and openness among LGBT workers:

Key findings:

* One in five (21%) LGBT adults report the current economy has had an impact on their willingness to be open about their sexual orientation with coworkers or colleagues.
* Some 22% percent of LGBT adults say that today's economy has had an impact on their willingness to be open about their sexual orientation with their boss or manager.
* 41% of LGBT adults say they are "out" to their coworkers/colleagues, which represents a modest decrease from the 49% of LGBT respondents who said they were out in a September 2008 survey.

Diversity

More than half (55%) of LGBT respondents said that is important that they work for a company known to recruit employees from a variety of diverse backgrounds, compared with 34% of heterosexual respondents:

Click link above to see full article

Time to take the plunge -- Page 1 -- Times Union - Albany NY:2843:

2009-10-20T07:52:00.000-04:00

Time to take the plunge -- Page 1 -- Times Union - Albany NY:2843:

Whatever the Court of Appeals decides in two cases regarding same-sex marriage, one verdict is already in -- against the state Senate and its Democratic majority in particular for neglecting this issue for far too long.

Desmond hotels
It is time for Democrats to show that they were deserving of the trust placed in them last year when voters gave them control of the chamber. They must recognize that with power comes not only privilege, but the responsibility to use it. That means, among many other things, acting on one of their party's clearest planks and following through on an implicit promise to pass a gay marriage bill. Or, at the very least, to bring it to the floor for a vote.

Instead, what we see is "inactivity," the word that repeatedly came up last week as the state's top judges heard two cases over whether state and local governments could recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

That inaction has left it to politicians, government agencies, gay marriage opponents and gay and lesbian couples to fight this battle on the fringes. In the two cases before the court, the judges are deciding whether Westchester County and the state Department of Civil Service rightly or wrongly recognized same-sex marriages from neighboring states and Canada in providing couples with health benefits.

On one side is the Alliance Defense Fund, a self-proclaimed defender of religious liberty and what this group from Arizona declares to be the interests of New York taxpayers.

On the other is what New Yorkers are really about: equality and tolerance, and the real meaning of religious liberty. Last we read, it was the right to live in a nation where "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Implicit in that is not having religious views concerning marriage imposed on citizens by those like the Alliance Defense Fund.

As for the interests of New York taxpayers, the lawmakers who were elected to represent their interests could save some small measure of public funds by not leaving it to other governments and the courts to be their proxy on this issue.

The Democrat-led Assembly earlier this year passed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. Democratic Gov. David Paterson is ready to sign it. Only Senate Democrats, insistent on trying to first finesse this behind the scenes rather that put this bill on the floor and make every lawmaker stand up and be counted, are holding it up.

Enough. Senate Democrats should put this bill on the agenda when the Legislature next returns to Albany and let it win or lose in a fair, open fight.

It is time to bring clarity to this issue and stop leaving it to the courts to have to express the will of New Yorkers every time some right-wing group tries to challenge this state's progressive traditions.

The issue:

The Court of Appeals weighs two same-sex marriage cases.

The Stakes:

Only the Legislature can stop this battle from being fought over and over in the courts.

Judge Refuses to throw out Prop 8 and Demands Answers with the Ultimate Challenge - Lez Get Real

2009-10-15T07:40:00.000-04:00

Judge Refuses to throw out Prop 8 and Demands Answers with the Ultimate Challenge - Lez Get Real

As a most unusual October mega storm left our Bay Area, with downed electrical lines and trees in it’s a wake, a delightfully fresh aroma reveals another unique event– but this one we like…for the first time a Federal Judge in San Francisco asked the backers of California’s voter-enacted ban on same-sex marriage to explain how allowing gay couples to wed threatens straight marriages. Much to my personal delight the lawyer for the supporters of Prop 8, Charles Cooper acknowledged he did not know.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, wants to examine other issues that are part of the political rhetoric surrounding same-sex marriage but rarely surface in courtrooms. Among the questions he plans to entertain at the trial are whether sexual orientation is a “fixed or immutable characteristic, whether gays are a politically powerful group, and if same-sex marriage bans such as Proposition 8 were motivated by anti-gay bias.”

This refreshing exchange between the Judge and Cooper, came during a hearing on a lawsuit challenging the measure as discriminatory under the U.S. Constitution. Cooper had asked Walker to throw out the suit or make it more difficult for those civil rights claims to prevail.

The judge not only refused to toss out the case, but asserted that when the case goes to trial in January, Cooper and legal team are expected to present evidence showing that “male-female marriages would be undermined if same-sex marriages were legal”. …We love it….!

The Judge noted that the ban on same sex marriage proposes that gay marriages are not “naturally procreative relationships,” and so we must have an answer to the question “What is the harm to the procreation purpose you outlined of allowing same-sex couples to get married?” Walker asked. “My answer is, I don’t know. I don’t know,” Cooper answered.

Moments later, after assuring the judge his response did not mean Proposition 8 was doomed to be struck down, Cooper tried to clarify his position and tried to fluff out an amended yet unconvincing response.

Lisa Leff, of Associated Press reports that “Walker pressed on, asking again for specific “adverse consequences” that could follow expanding marriage to include same-sex couples. Cooper cited a study from the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, showing that straight couples were increasingly opting to become domestic partners instead of getting married. “Has that been harmful to children in the Netherlands? What is the adverse effect?” Walker asked. Cooper said he did not have the facts at hand.”

Then came the ridiculous notion “But it is not self-evident that there is no chance of any harm, and the people of California are entitled not to take the risk,” he said.” I personally loved this part of the banter:- “Since when do Constitutional rights rest on the proof of no harm?”

In allowing the case to move forward, Walker said significant questions remain about whether the California measure, which was approved by 52 percent of voters in November, unlawfully violates the rights of gays and lesbians to equality and due process guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. The measure overturned a state Supreme Court ruling earlier in the year that legalized same-sex marriages. As one of 18,000 gay couples wed before the law took effect, I remain in a state of discomfort as my special status highlights the fact that others cannot marry.

I am ecstatic, that not only did the Judge rule that the case must be heard but also that he is challenging years of conservatives homophobic and unsubstantiated rhetoric which has served only to steal our inherent rights. That is what will be on trial- the Bull-poop that is spewed as fact by those who simply cannot face the fact that we are who we are and we are absolutely and equally entitled. Their fear engendered hate can no longer hide behind the rhetoric that fuels it.

Although this does not denote a decision in favor of Gay marriage, to me given the challenge it is a huge victory, because the Court finds it necessary to keep unconstitutionality in play against a voter based assault on our inherent constitutional rights.

Melanie NathanBlogged by, MELANIE NATHAN, CEO of Private Courts, Inc. Consulting, mediation & private advocacy ; motivated by injustice, I blog about family law/mediation, politics, news and LGBT equality and anything that â€˜tickles my fancy.â€™ Otherwise blogging as O-blog-dee-o-blog-da. Websites and blogs include: http://www.privatecourts.com; http://www.divorcemediators.us; www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com. CONTACT:- nathan@privatecourts.com

Albany | 24 Hour Local News | TOP STORIES | Court debates same sex marriage

2009-10-14T15:03:00.000-04:00

video report on the oral arguments yesterday

Albany | 24 Hour Local News | TOP STORIES | Court debates same sex marriage

ALBANY, N.Y. -- “Our marriage certificate is no different than any other couple that goes to Canada and comes back and they're married when they cross the border,” said Michael Sabatino, Westchester resident.

The only difference, Michael Sabbatino says, is that his spouse is a man.

“Marriage is important for us because it's the only way I can protect my husband, my family, under the law,” said Robert Voorhees, Westchester resident.

But broad recognition of out-of-state marriages has been the law here, it's been the law for a very long time.

“We have historically granted recognition to all kinds of other marriages including one between an uncle and niece in Rhode Island,” said Susan Sommer, Lambda Legal Senior Counsel.

“The marriages that are recognized in New York involve a man and a woman,” said Brian Raum, Alliance Defense Fund Senior Legal Counsel.

But the Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona based Christian legal group, argued before the state's highest court Tuesday that state agencies overstepped their bounds when they offered benefits to same-sex couples married out of state.

“County executives and state officials have made broad proclamations that have to be reined in,” said Ruam.

Attorney Brian Raum says the rights and benefits that are afforded to domestic partnerships and civil unions fall short of those afforded by marriage and if New York wants to afford same-sex couples those rights, the legislature, not the court, must be the one to change the law.

The Assembly has twice passed bills allowing same-sex marriage in the state but the Senate has not. Until then, supporters for benefits for same-sex couples say New York's policy of recognizing out of state marriages should serve as precedent.

“We are hopeful that this court will not issue a ruling that will undue what is now well settled state policy,” said Sommer.

“Nothing will protect our family the way marriage will,” said Voorhes.

The court should announce its decision within a couple of months.

Law.com - Advocates to Argue for N.Y. State Recognition of Legal Same-Sex Marriages

2009-10-12T18:54:00.000-04:00

Well our case is tomorrow in the High Court of NY

Law.com - Advocates to Argue for N.Y. State Recognition of Legal Same-Sex Marriages

Joel Stashenko

New York Law Journal

October 09, 2009

* deliciousdel.icio.us
* redditReddit
* facebookFacebook
* googleGoogle Bookmarks

* newsvineNewsvine
* linkedinLinkedIn
* mixxMixx
* stumbleuponStumbleupon

* Print
* Share
* Email
* Reprints & Permissions
* Post a Comment

Image: Thinkstock

New York's highest court, which three years ago ruled that same-sex couples do not have a constitutional right to marry in the state, will get an opportunity to approach the issue from a different angle next week: Whether state and local governments can recognize same-sex marriages solemnized in jurisdictions where such unions are legal.

Two cases challenging the recognition of same-sex marriages will be heard together as the Court of Appeals begins its next session on Tuesday.

The Court also will hear cases next week and the week after challenging the use of eminent domain in one of the largest private developments in recent New York history, the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, and whether New York City can be held liable for injuries suffered by an elementary school teacher hurt when she stepped in to break up a fight between fourth-graders.

The same-sex marriage case will be the first time the Court has revisited the issue since 2006, when it ruled in Hernandez v. Robles, 7 NY3d 338, that the state Constitution contains no guarantee that same-sex couples can wed.

Lawyers for same-sex couples said they hope the Court will validate the status of marriages performed in Canada, Connecticut, Massachusetts and in other jurisdictions where such unions are legal.

They said they also hope the Court, if it upholds recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions, could nudge the Legislature toward approving such unions in New York. The Assembly in 2007 and 2009 approved bills legalizing same-sex marriage, but the Senate has yet to act on the legislation.

The two cases to be heard by the Court on Tuesday are Godfrey v. Spano, 147, and Lewis v. New York State Department of Civil Service, 148.

In Godfrey, a 2006 executive order by Westchester County Executive Andrew J. Spano authorized county agencies to give full benefits to employees who were validly married in states outside New York.

Lewis challenges a determination by the Civil Service Commission that upheld the granting of benefits to the spouses of state employees married where such unions are legal.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, unanimously affirmed the action in Westchester County (NYLJ, April 1) and a Third Department panel unanimously backed the Civil Service Commission's determination earlier this year (NYLJ, Jan. 23).

In the Third Department ruling, the judges split 3-2. The majority held that New York has a long-standing rule of recognizing marriages legally solemnized in other jurisdictions unless they expressly violated New York laws, such as those against polygamy, or public policy concerns against the marriages of close relatives.

The two concurring justices wrote that they would defer to the Civil Service Commission's discretion in deciding when health care benefits could be granted to spouses and dependents of state employees. But they said they did not want to get into the broader public policy questions whether the courts could validate same-sex marriages.

Susan L. Sommer, an attorney for Lambda Legal, said Thursday she would argue along the lines of what the majority in the Third Department in Lewis had determined.

"I expect to talk about the fact that there is a two-centuries-old, well-settled rule in New York, the marriage recognition rule, that provides that marriages entered out-of-state, unless narrow exceptions are applied that the state Legislature has expressly imposed, are to be recognized," said Sommer, who will represent intervenor couples in both Godfrey and Lewis. "We see there is absolutely no ban on recognition of out-of-state marriages to same-sex couples."

Sommer said she had no estimate of how many same-sex couples who were married in other jurisdictions live in New York, but said the number is now in the "thousands."

Sommer's co-counsel, Jeffrey Trachtman of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, said he believes another affirmance of the validity of a same-sex marriage, even if it was solemnized in a jurisdiction outside of New York, will increase the pressure on the Legislature to approve a bill legalizing gay marriage.

Trachtman said he and Lambda Legal first started to work on cases calling for recognition of same-sex marriages in 2004, before the litigation in the four cases were decided in Hernandez. Though Hernandez was a loss, Trachtman said he thought it helped focus attention on the issue in New York law.

"Everything in the civil rights area moves in fits and starts," Trachtman said Thursday. Hernandez "was clearly a setback. But on the other hand, the majority decision was wrong and it was seen as wrong," and helped fuel momentum in the Legislature.

Two of the judges who ruled in Hernandez are no longer on the Court of Appeals.

Former Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye, who dissented, stepped down from the Court at the end of 2008 due to mandatory retirement rules. She has been replaced by Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman.

Former Judge George Bundy Smith, who was in the majority in the ruling, was replaced in 2006 by Judge Eugene F. Pigott Jr.

Another ex-judge, Albert Rosenblatt, recused himself from the 2006 ruling.

The challenges to the recognitions of the marriages will be argued by Brian W. Baum, an attorney for the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Alliance Defense Fund. The conservative-Christian group represents clients it says are being victimized by laws that discriminate against them because of their beliefs.

In an interview earlier this year, Baum said his strategy has been to get the issue before the Court of Appeals and to argue that it is a matter for the Legislature and not the courts (NYLJ, Feb. 3).

Baum's co-counsel, James Campbell, said Thursday the Court of Appeals' ruling will extend far beyond those plaintiffs involved in the two matters.

"These cases are important, like Hernandez, because of the practical implications," Campbell said. "If the state of New York recognizes these unions on a widespread scale, then for all intents and purposes, same-sex marriages are recognized in the state of New York."

Trachtman countered that while Campbell and his group have a right to advocate in New York courts on behalf of their clients, the issue might best be left to New Yorkers to decide.

"They have a mission and they are entitled to their mission," Trachtman said. "But there doesn't seem to be any groundswell in New York against recognizing these marriages."

Assistant Solicitor General Sasha Samberg-Champion will argue in favor of recognizing the same-sex marriages on behalf of Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo and Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli.

Gov. Schwarzenegger Signs Milk Day, Marriage Recognition Into Law :: EDGE Boston

2009-10-12T18:43:00.000-04:00

Gov. Schwarzenegger Signs Milk Day, Marriage Recognition Into Law :: EDGE Boston

by Roger Brigham
EDGE San Francisco Editor
Monday Oct 12, 2009

Supporters of a special day to honor pioneering gay activist Harvey Milk have long been working toward this day. Now they can circle their calendars: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger late Sunday signed off on Harvey Milk Day as a state holiday.

The GOP governor last year had vetoed the creation of such a day and had threatened to do so again this year. But wait, as they say in the infomercials: There’s more. Much more.

Schwarzenegger has signed into law a bill that will call on the state to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples who were legally married in other states during the brief time that same-sex marriages were legal in California. He also approved legislation to expand services for LGBT survivors of domestic violence.

With the state mired in economic woes, Schwarzenegger threatened to let some 700 bills die without action. He said he wanted the Legislature to address efforts to fix the state’s water supply first.

That made the outlook gloomy for the LGBT bills, which had drawn the scorn of far-right critics. Schwarzenegger did veto the "Equal ID Act," which would allow transgender individuals to obtain revised birth certificates certifying their current gender. He also vetoed a "LGBT Prisoner Safety Act," which would have called for gender identity and orientation to be considered when housing prisoners.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported that after the legislators closed their talks on the water system without a deal, Schwarzenegger decided that enough progress had been made. He then signed at least 230 bills overnight before the midnight deadline--and vetoed more than 220 others.

Supporters wanted to mark May 22 as an annual Harvey Milk Day. They had pinned their hopes on the attention garnered by the film "Milk" late last year after Schwarzenegger’s previous veto. But the governor countered Milk’s accomplishments were not well known enough outside the Bay Area to merit a holiday.

"The Harvey Milk Day bill marks the first time in the nation’s history that a state will officially recognize and celebrate the contributions of an openly LGBT person with an annual day of special significance," said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California. "Californians will now learn about Harvey’s amazing contributions to the advancement of civil rights for decades to come. He is a role model to millions, and this legislation will help ensure his legacy lives on forever."

Kors expressed gratitutde to the Governor for signing these measures into law "and rising above partisan politics to improve the lives of LGBT Californians."

"The Marriage Recognition and Family Protection Act" calls on the state to recognize same-sex marriages conducted in 2008 outside the state before voters enacted Proposition 8 ended marriage equality in California.

"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 the bill’s author, Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco). "Now those couples and their families are in limbo because their rights and protections under law are not clear. This new law will ensure that same-sex couples are protected by existing California law that recognizes all marriages equally, regardless of where they are performed."

Harvey Milk Day is largely ceremonial. State offices won’t close, although schools are encouraged to provide information about Milk on that day. More immediate and concrete results may be seen from the "LGBT Domestic Violence Programs Expansion Bill", which will fund LGBT-specific domestic violence programs throughout the state through a $23 fee tacked onto domestic partnership registrations. The bill also modifies the requirements funding seekers must meet.

"Given the shortage of adequate care for our community," said bill author Assemblyman John P√©rez (D-Los Angeles), "I am thrilled that this legislation will help ensure that all LGBT survivors of domestic violence will have increased access to culturally competent care and resources."

Roger Brigham, a freelance writer and communications consultant, is the San Francisco Editor of EDGE. He lives in Oakland with his husband, Eduardo.

D.C. City Council Introduces Same-Sex Marriage Legislation - NYTimes.com

2009-10-06T15:28:00.000-04:00

D.C. City Council Introduces Same-Sex Marriage Legislation - NYTimes.com

By IAN URBINA
Published: October 6, 2009

WASHINGTON — City Council members introduced legislation Tuesday to allow same-sex marriage here. If it passes, as expected, Washington would be the first city below the Mason-Dixon line to allow such unions. The city’s bill is expected to become law by December.

But the measure is likely to draw harsh criticism from Congressional Republicans and conservative Democrats, many of whom face mid-term elections next year, and they could act to overturn it.

After Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, who supports the measure, signs it, Congress has 30 days to enact a joint resolution of disapproval. President Obama would have to sign that resolution for the city law to be blocked.

But even if, as most gay rights advocates predict, such a resolution is not passed, members of Congress could still try to attach a rider to another piece of legislation blocking same-sex marriage here.

“Opposition by some in the House already has been announced,” said Eleanor Holmes Norton, the city’s delegate to the House, adding that she did not believe the opposition would be enough to block the city’s measure.

“Opposition to civil rights is not new,” she said. “We should approach the rights of gay couples and families with the same resolution and results as we had for others who have sought their human rights in Congress and in the District.”

Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont. In May, Washington passed legislation to recognize such unions from other jurisdictions, and Congress did not try to override that decision.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Republican from Utah, said he did not believe his fellow opponents of same-sex marriage would be able to block the city’s measure legalizing it.

“Given the other issues Congress is focused on, such as health care, it hasn’t got much attention,” said Representative Chaffetz, the ranking member of the House subcommittee that oversees the District. “You couple that with the Democrats’ stranglehold on House rules, and the minority is left out of the legislative process.”

For the city, the issue has piqued race and class tensions, as most of the vocal opponents represent inner-city black churches, while the more liberal and white population largely backs the measure.

Advocates of the bill hope its success will accelerate efforts to pass similar legislation in Maryland. Maine voters will consider the issue on a ballot initiative in November. New Hampshire is scheduled to begin same sex marriages in 2010.

The City Council has two openly gay members and around 5 percent of the city’s couples identify themselves as gay or lesbian, the second highest rate in the country, according to a 2000 survey by the Human Rights campaign.

If passed, the city would phase out its local domestic partnership law and instead allow two persons who are currently in a valid domestic partnership, as recognized by the city, to apply for and receive a marriage license free of charge.

But the measure still faces some obstacles.

Last month, opponents of same-sex marriage filed a petition for a referendum on the subject. If approved by the Board of Elections and Ethics, the initiative would give city residents the chance to vote next year on whether to legalize same-sex marriage.

“ ‘Let the People Vote,’ is the cry that is rising among the many ministers and churches in the D.C. area,” said Bishop Harry Jackson, senior pastor of Hope Christian Church and chairman of a group called Stand4MarriageDC.

Bishop Jackson, who helped file the petition for a referendum, said: “The faith community has been concerned for months, that it’s been cast as bigots, racists, and worse. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

The board rejected a similar attempt in May seeking a referendum on the city’s law recognizing same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.

David Catania, a D.C. Council member and the bill’s main author, said that while it amends the city’s statutory requirements for civil marriage, it also provides protection to members of the clergy or any church from marrying gay couples against their religious beliefs.

“I have an enormous amount of respect for our many communities of faith,” he added, “and I would not support any legislation which would interfere with the freedoms they enjoy.”

Offering the naked truth on same-sex marriage - Bangor Daily News

2009-10-05T23:49:00.000-04:00

I just love this letter it is right on

Offering the naked truth on same-sex marriage - Bangor Daily News

By Dr. Erik Steele

I’ve seen thousands of people naked. I have inspected their insides and outsides, felt their pain and sometimes their souls, and after all that, I can see we all are pretty much the same. That equality in human essence makes it impossible for me to see why gay people are not allowed the right of civil marriage.

We have been told that right would damage the institution of marriage, rock the foundations of the American family and runs contrary to the intentions of our Maker. But the clothing of rationality and God’s word have been used forever to hide the naked truth of racism, sexism and other prejudices. The arguments against the right of gays to civil marriage is no different; if you peel off the clothing, what lies underneath most opposition to civil marriage rights for gays is just naked fear, ignorance and prejudice.

It is the same old stuff we have heard forever. We were told women were too emotional to vote and that giving them equality in the home would ruin the institution of marriage. Equality of women was once thought here to be against God’s order. So was equality for African-Americans and Native Americans, who were too “ignorant” or “savage” to be allowed equal status. Many states banned marriage between whites and blacks for some of the same reasons we still ban gay marriage; bad for marriage, bad for children, bad for our values, yada yada.

In each of those cases, Americans have slowly overcome their baser instincts with their better instincts, gradually eroding institutional and cultural inequality with steady application of our founding principle that all of us must be equal before the law. The fear that marriage will suffer should not stop us from doing the same for gays who want to be legally married.

Marriage does not need protection from gays; it needs protection from the things I see in my office every day that tear half of American marriages apart. Nothing, in my experience, corrodes love and marriage like the grind of existence on the margins of economic survival. Drug and alcohol addiction will ruin more marriages than gays’ access to civil marriage ever will. With notable exceptions such as the Catholic Church, few of those who oppose gay marriage fight as hard against poverty, lack of access to good drug and alcohol treatment programs, or lack of social support for young parents, as they do against the right of gays to civil marriage.

Nor do our children need protection from the concept of gay marriage. Some opponents have argued that the right of gays to civil marriage will lead to more support for a gay lifestyle in the education of our children. Forget it; there is no education left to be done. Our teenagers already know about gays and for most of them, this debate about gay rights is so yesterday. They have gay friends, live in a world that exposes them to gay lifestyles, and most of our teenagers think the gay marriage debate is fiddling with a dead issue while the world warms around us and the federal deficit threatens to bury their futures in a sea of debt.

In the end, though, gay marriage is not about marriage or teenagers, and it is not even about gays as much as it is about us. Over the last 250 years, Americans have slowly chipped away the bias and ignorance used to deprive almost every American except wealthy, white men of equal standing before the law. The right of civil marriage for gays is about continuing that same march toward “one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” You cannot oppose it without betraying American values and the rights hard won for you by those victims of prejudice in almost every family tree who fought in their time for the rights we have in ours.

So on Nov. 3, be true to those who fought for the freedom that you now wear to cover you against injustice and vote No on Question 1. Like it or not, rights such as access to civil marriage for gays are as American as apple pie, and so is protecting them.

Erik Steele, D.O., a physician in Bangor, is chief medical officer of Eastern Maine Healthcare Systems and is on the staff of several hospital emergency rooms in the region. He is also the interim CEO at Blue Hill Memorial Hospital.

Your Money - The Higher Lifetime Costs of Being a Gay Couple - NYTimes.com

2009-10-02T22:07:00.000-04:00

Your Money - The Higher Lifetime Costs of Being a Gay Couple - NYTimes.com

Your Money
The Costs of Being a Gay Couple Run Higher

* Sign in to Recommend
* Twitter
* comments (70)
* Sign In to E-Mail
* Print
* ShareClose
o Linkedin
o Digg
o Facebook
o Mixx
o MySpace
o Yahoo! Buzz
o Permalink
o

By TARA SIEGEL BERNARD and RON LIEBER
Published: October 2, 2009

Much of the debate over legalizing gay marriage has focused on God and Scripture, the Constitution and equal protection.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Laura Pedrick for The New York Times

Two-year-old Evan plays with his dads, Kevin Yoder, right, and Harvey Hurdle at their Philadelphia home.
Multimedia
Your Money Podcast with Ron Lieber and Tara Siegel Bernard
Readers' Comments

Share your thoughts.

* Post a Comment »
* Read All Comments (70) »

But we see the world through the prism of money. And for years, we’ve heard from gay couples about all the extra health, legal and other costs they bear. So we set out to determine what they were and to come up with a round number — a couple’s lifetime cost of being gay.

It was much more complicated than we initially imagined, and that’s probably why we’ve never seen similar efforts. We looked at benefits that routinely go to married heterosexual couples but not to gay couples, like certain Social Security payments. We plotted out the cost of health insurance for couples whose employers don’t offer it to domestic partners. Even tax preparation can cost more, since gay couples have to file two sets of returns. Still, many couples may come out ahead in one area: they owe less in income taxes because they’re not hit with the so-called marriage penalty.

Our goal was to create a hypothetical gay couple whose situation would be similar to a heterosexual couple’s. So we gave the couple two children and assumed that one partner would stay home for five years to take care of them. We also considered the taxes in the three states that have the highest estimated gay populations — New York, California and Florida. We gave our couple an income of $140,000, which is about the average income in those three states for unmarried same-sex partners who are college-educated, 30 to 40 years old and raising children under the age of 18.

Here is what we came up with. In our worst case, the couple’s lifetime cost of being gay was $467,562. But the number fell to $41,196 in the best case for a couple with significantly better health insurance, plus lower taxes and other costs.

These numbers will vary, depending on a couple’s income and circumstance. Gay couples earning, say, $80,000, could have health insurance costs similar to our hypothetical higher-earning couple, but they might well owe more in income taxes than their heterosexual counterparts. For wealthy couples with a lot of assets, on the other hand, the cost of being gay could easily spiral into the millions.

Nearly all the extra costs that gay couples face would be erased if the federal government legalized same-sex marriage. One exception is the cost of having biological children, but we felt it was appropriate to include this given our goal of outlining every cost gay couples incur that heterosexual couples may not.

Our analysis is not exact science. Not every couple would get married if they could, and others would not want to have children. We also made a number of assumptions based on average costs, life spans, state of residence and gender.

Our gay family is made up of two women living in New York State in a committed partnership that lasts 46 years, until the first partner dies at age 81. We ran two sets of calculations: in the one that turned out to be our worst case financially, one woman earned $110,000 and the other $30,000. In our second couple, both partners earned $70,000. We started running the numbers when both were age 35.

We received assistance from Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, who performed our tax analysis, which required simulating more than 900 income tax returns, in part because we followed the partners for 50 years. We also decided to run all scenarios across the three states so that the results would not be skewed by different state taxes. We’ve outlined all the detail in a workbook linked to the online version of this column.

As for the emotional costs of living with these added complexities, they can’t be quantified. Frederick Hertz, a lawyer in Oakland, Calif., who works with same-sex couples, likens heterosexual marriage to being in the car pool lane. “Being part of a same-sex couple, it’s always stop. Wait. Pay a toll,” he said.

Harvey Hurdle, who lives in Philadelphia with his partner and their young son, said he was reminded of the disparities every time his Social Security statement arrived in the mail. “It’s pretty insulting,” he said. “It says your spouse would get this much. And it’s like, ‘Oh no he won’t!’ ”

Health Insurance

In our worst case, the lower earner’s employer did not provide health insurance and her partner’s employer didn’t cover domestic partners. So the lower earner had to buy coverage on the private market, while the higher-earning partner provided coverage for herself and the two children. All this cost the gay couple $211,993 more than their heterosexual married counterparts, who were able to take advantage of the higher-earner’s family coverage.

In our best case, health coverage cost the gay couple $28,595 more. We assumed both gay partners were eligible for employer-provided coverage. The higher-earner’s employer also provided domestic partner coverage, which covered her partner for the five years she stayed at home. When she returned to work, she used her own employer’s insurance.

Even though the couple paid nearly $29,000 more in premiums than an identical heterosexual married couple, it was cheaper than using domestic partnership coverage throughout because of the onerous tax implications, according to Mr. Williams of the Tax Policy Center. A nondependent partner’s coverage is taxable income, and she can’t use pretax dollars to pay the premiums, according to Todd A. Solomon, a partner in the employee benefits department of McDermott Will & Emery in Chicago.

Social Security

All our hypothetical individuals started collecting Social Security when they were 66. Same-sex couples are not entitled to a variety of Social Security benefits, including spousal benefits (heterosexual spouses can receive up to 50 percent of a spouse’s benefits while the spouse is alive, if they are higher than their own); survivor benefits (surviving spouses can receive their deceased spouse’s benefits in lieu of their own, if they are higher); and a flat death benefit of $255.

In the worst case, the gay partner who earned $30,000 could not receive higher spousal benefits or survivor benefits from her partner’s much higher earnings record. Nor was she entitled to the death benefit. In total, the gay women collected $88,511 less in Social Security than a similar heterosexual couple. Some couples might try to buy life insurance in an attempt to replace the benefit.

In our best case, when the gay partners had largely identical incomes, neither was at a huge disadvantage because they ended up with about the same monthly benefits. So the only extra benefit a heterosexual married couple received was the $255 death benefit.

Estate Taxes

Heterosexual married couples can transfer an unlimited amount of assets to each other during their lives and at death without paying estate taxes. Everyone else, including married same-sex couples, must pay federal estate taxes on amounts that exceed the 2009 exemption of $3.5 million. Many states also levy their own estate or inheritance taxes, though same-sex couples may be shielded from those in states that recognize their unions. Our couple lived in New York, where the estate tax exemption is $1 million. And though New York recognizes marriages performed elsewhere, that recognition does not extend to state income or estate taxes.

In our worst case, the gay partner who died first in 2055 left an estate that exceeded the state’s threshold by $171,528. That meant a tax bill of $43,378, according to Ron L. Meyers, an estate-planning lawyer with a significant same-sex clientele at Cane, Boniface & Meyers in Nyack, N.Y.

Meanwhile, their identical heterosexual counterparts owed nothing.

The gay couple in our best case had a smaller estate, in part because they were careful to title their home as tenants-in-common, so only the deceased partner’s half of the home was taxable. The estate didn’t exceed the federal or state threshold. So they owed nothing.

Childbearing

Two women who want to have a biological child together need sperm to do it. They may need to purchase sperm from a bank and use a medical professional to inseminate one of the partners. There are also adoption costs.

The worst case here totaled $40,000. It included 12 months of sperm and insemination costs, but the big wild card was the possible need to move to a state where same-sex second-parent adoptions were legal. While this may seem extreme, couples often do it, according to Joyce Kauffman, a lawyer in Cambridge, Mass., who has worked with many of them. We estimated a minimum of $20,000 for this cost, including real estate brokerage fees to sell a home and moving costs.

In the best case, there might be no cost at all: the couple could use sperm from a relative of the partner who isn’t bearing the child or from a friend, inseminate at home and take their chances with free legal forms on the Web. Ms. Kaufman does not recommend such a cavalier approach to vital documents.

The cost for men to have a biological child would be much higher if they used a surrogate.

Pension

We assumed that one partner, in both best and worst cases, received a small pension. In both cases, the partner with the pension plan died first.

Employers do not have to provide survivor pension benefits to a same-sex spouse, but many do anyway (which would put our best case at $0). In our worst case, however, the higher-earning partner died first and did not work for such a company. So the surviving partner got nothing. A similarly situated heterosexual surviving spouse would receive $32,253 before dying herself several years later.

Spousal I.R.A.

You generally need to earn income to contribute to an Individual Retirement Account. But heterosexual married couples can contribute up to $5,000 annually to a spousal I.R.A. for a nonworking spouse. Stay-at-home gay partners, however, cannot make these contributions. So they end up with smaller retirement accounts.

We assumed that all the couples would have either saved 7 percent of the stay-at-home parent’s previous year’s salary, or $5,000, the maximum contribution. So the gay couple with one partner who started out earning just $30,000 would have saved less (had she been legally able to) than someone earning $70,000. In both cases, that five-year gap in savings early on in the partners’ lives haunted them later because they weren’t able to benefit from decades of compounding returns.

The couple with the lower-earning partner at home ended up $48,654 behind by the time that partner died, assuming she invested in a portfolio mixed equally between stocks and bonds that returned 5.94 percent annually. The surviving spouse from the gay couple with equal incomes ended up $112,192 behind.

Tax Preparation

Instead of filing one joint federal tax return and one state income tax return, same-sex couples must file two sets of returns. In both best and worst cases, those couples paid an additional $12,300 in tax preparation fees over the 46 years they are together.

Financial Planning

Even married same-sex couples are encouraged to create a number of documents that try to replicate the protections and rights of heterosexual marriage because their unions are not universally recognized. In the worst case, our gay couple spent $5,500 more than their heterosexual counterparts on their additional paperwork. That included a revocable living trust, which is more difficult to contest than a will, and what is known as a pour-over will, which ensured that anything left out of the trust would be included. They also each set up financial powers of attorney, health care proxies, living wills and a domestic partnership agreement.

In the best case, our couple didn’t spend any more than a prudent heterosexual couple would. Both couples created two wills, financial powers of attorney, health care proxies and living wills.

Income Taxes

Married heterosexual couples with two working spouses with similar incomes often pay more in federal taxes than if they remained single because of the so-called marriage penalty. This occurs when a couple’s combined income pushes them into a higher tax bracket than they would have been in if they filed as singles. But some couples — especially those with a wide disparity in income or with a stay-at-home parent — usually pay less when they file jointly. They benefit from what’s known as a marriage bonus.

In our worst case, where one gay partner earned $110,000 and one earned $30,000, the couple paid $15,027 less in taxes over their lifetimes than their heterosexual counterparts.

Though the gay and heterosexual married couple had identical salaries, the married couple collected more income in retirement — a direct result of their marriage status — and thus owed more in taxes (though they still benefited from the marriage bonus). For instance, the married couple collected higher Social Security spousal benefits and survivor benefits, pension income and income derived from a spousal I.R.A. The gay couples weren’t entitled to any of these benefits.

In our best case, where the partners each earned $70,000, the gay couple paid $112,146 less in income taxes. “That is the marriage penalty rearing its ugly head,” Mr. Williams said.

Judge calls Texas' gay-marriage ban into question | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Texas Politics | The Dallas Morning News

2009-10-02T10:26:00.000-04:00

this is a good decision

Judge calls Texas' gay-marriage ban into question

By ROY APPLETON / The Dallas Morning News
rappleton@dallasnews.com

In a first for Texas, a judge ruled Thursday that two men married in another state can divorce here and that the state's ban on gay marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.

Both a voter-approved state constitutional amendment and the Texas Family Code prohibit same-sex marriages or civil unions.

Although the case is far from settled, and the state's constitutional ban on gay marriage is a long way from being thrown out, Dallas state District Judge Tena Callahan's ruling says the state prohibition of same-sex marriage violates the federal constitutional right to equal protection.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott had intervened in the two men's divorce case, arguing that because a gay marriage isn't recognized in Texas, a Texas court can't dissolve one through divorce.

Callahan, a Democrat, denied the attorney general's intervention and said her court "has jurisdiction to hear a suit for divorce filed by persons legally married in another jurisdiction."

"This is huge news. We're ecstatic," said Dallas attorney Peter Schulte, who represents the man who filed the divorce. The man, identified in court documents as J.B., asked that he and his former partner not be identified.

Schulte said that the ruling was a surprise and that he hoped to have a divorce order for the judge to sign in the "next few weeks."

In a prepared statement, Abbott said he would appeal the ruling "to defend the traditional definition of marriage that was approved by Texas voters."

His statement also said, "The laws and constitution of the State of Texas define marriage as an institution involving one man and one woman. Today's ruling purports to strike down that constitutional definition – despite the fact that it was recently adopted by 75 percent of Texas voters."

Gov. Rick Perry, who pushed for the constitutional prohibition on gay marriage in 2005, expressed confidence that the ban would stand up to this challenge.

"Texas voters and lawmakers have repeatedly affirmed the view that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman," he said in a prepared statement. "I believe the ruling is flawed and should be appealed."

The men married in Cambridge, Mass., in September 2006 and later returned to Dallas.

J.B., citing "discord or conflict of personalities," sued in January to dissolve the union in what is believed to be the first such action in Texas.

"My client is ready to get on with his life," Schulte said. "We're ready to roll."

If the ruling were to stand, it would be a break from recent decisions elsewhere.

An Indiana judge last month denied the divorce of two women married in Canada, concluding it would violate Indiana law. And two years ago, the Rhode Island Supreme Court rejected the divorce of a lesbian couple married in Massachusetts. Neither Indiana nor Rhode Island allow same-sex marriage.

In March 2003, a Texas court became the first one outside Vermont to grant the dissolution of a civil union. The judge reversed his decision after a challenge by Abbott, a Republican.

Beyond Massachusetts, gay marriages are legal in Vermont, Connecticut and Iowa. In New Hampshire, a same-sex marriage law goes into effect in January. Maine legalized gay marriages this year, but opponents challenged the decision and the law is on hold pending the outcome of a vote next month.

Civil unions providing rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples are allowed in New Jersey. And domestic partnership laws provide spousal rights to same-sex couples in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.

In a court filing, Schulte challenged the state's opposition, saying its arguments were an attempt to "mislead this court in an effort to pursue the attorney general's own political agenda."

He cited wording in the state Family Code that "the law of this state applies to persons married elsewhere who are domiciled in this state. And he noted that "Black's Law Dictionary defines a person as a 'human being.' "

The Family Code section deemed unconstitutional by Callahan prohibits the recognition of any same-sex marriage or civil union, and it bars the state and cities from extending any legal protection or benefits that flow from such unions.

The constitutional amendment, passed by the Legislature in 2005 and approved by an overwhelming majority of voters that November, defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and it prohibits the recognition of any other type of union.

In his filing, Schulte also wrote that the state "is obviously confused or worried that the court, by granting this divorce, would somehow open the floodgates for same-sex marriages to occur in the state. A divorce clearly ends a marriage.

"If a divorce is granted in the case, the court is NOT creating, recognizing or validating a marriage between persons of the same sex; rather the effect of a divorce immediately ends a marriage, which furthers the 'public policy' of this state as written in the Family Code."

Schulte also argued that the men had the right to divorce under Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which states, in part, that "full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state."

The clause "requires that a valid judgment from one state be enforced in other states regardless of the laws or public policy of the other states," he wrote.

In a filing, the attorney general's office rejected that argument, saying the clause "does not require Texas courts to recognize or give legal effect to marriages between persons of the same sex under the laws of other jurisdictions."

J.B. could not be reached for comment Thursday. After filing the lawsuit, he said the marriage, in which he took his partner's surname, "was not entered into lightly."

After 11 years together, the breakup is painful, he said.

But "I believe all people should have the same rights to do what they want to with their private lives."

Staff writer Christy Hoppe contributed to this report from Austin.

NOM loses two fights today

2009-10-01T23:34:00.000-04:00

The national organization for Marriage and other anti same sex marriage groups lost a fight to keep their records confidential see below. Fred Karger of Californians against Hate has been instrumental in getting the release of these records.

The Associated Press: Maine marriage campaign probe gets OKJudge: Prop 8 campaign must release campaign data
The Associated Press
Posted: 10/01/2009 06:47:19 PM PDT
Updated: 10/01/2009 06:47:19 PM PDT

SAN FRANCISCO—A federal judge in San Francisco says the sponsors of California's same-sex marriage ban must hand over some internal campaign records to lawyers seeking to overturn the voter-enacted initiative.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker denied a request Thursday by the Protect Marriage campaign to shield all e-mails, memos and reports dealing with its strategy, voter messages and rationale for preventing gay couples from marrying.

The group had argued that releasing the information violated the free speech rights of its supporters and potentially subjected them to harassment from gay marriage advocates.

But the judge dismissed those arguments, saying that the campaign had failed to show that providing the documents would inhibit the political activities of people who oppose same-sex marriage.

Maine marriage campaign probe gets OK

(AP) – 11 hours ago

AUGUSTA, Maine — Maine's ethics commission has overruled a staff recommendation and authorized an investigation into fundraising by groups that oppose Maine's gay marriage law.

The commission voted 3-2 Thursday after some members said there was sufficient evidence to warrant a closer look at fundraising by the National Organization for Marriage, a major contributor to Stand for Marriage Maine.

Californians Against Hate founder Fred Karger complained that NOM is circumventing Maine law by not reporting the names of many donors. Stand for Marriage is leading the push for a people's veto referendum of Maine's gay marriage law Nov. 3.

But NOM said it asks for donations nationally without designating them for specific campaigns, so it does not need to report contributors' names.

Blaze - Gay Entertainment, Gay Lifestyle and Gay Photography for South Australia - Portugal next for gay marriage? - Blaze - Gay Entertainment, Gay Lifestyle and Gay Photography for South Australia

2009-10-01T07:38:00.001-04:00

- Portugal next for gay marriage?

Written by Ron Hughes
Thursday, 01 October 2009 14:35

Portugal may be the next country to see gay marriage legalised, if re-elected Prime Minister José Sócrates can make good on his election promise, Pink News reports.

Sócrates (pictured), of the Socialist Party, promised the legalisation of same sex marriage during his re-election campaign, but his party has been returned without an absolute parliamentary majority.

Despite not having a total majority, most Portugese MPs are from left-wing parties, all of which support same sex marriage.

Attempts to institute gay marriage in the past have been met with fierce resistance from conservatives and the Catholic church.

In July this year, a legal challenge saw the Portugese constitutional court uphold the ban on same sex marriage.

The recent election also brought in Portugal’s first openly-gay MP. Miguel Vale de Almeida is an independent Socialist.

GOP wants public to vote on marriage - NJ.com

2009-09-29T07:59:00.000-04:00

GOP wants public to vote on marriage - NJ.com

Mary Fuchs
STAR-LEDGER STAFF

Republican lawmakers and socially conservative activists yesterday renewed their push for a constitutional amendment so voters -- rather than lawmakers -- would decide whether gay marriage should be legal in New Jersey.

Momentum is slowly growing among Democrats in the Legislature to pass a bill allowing same-sex marriages during the lame duck session following the November general election.
Advertisement

But Republican lawmakers at a Statehouse news conference said they preferred an amendment on the 2010 November ballot that would propose changing the state's constitution to permit marriage only between a man and a woman.

Sen. Gerald Cardinale (R-Bergen) yesterday said Gov. Jon Corzine made a deal with another prominent lawmaker to vote on it during a lame-duck session that follows Election Day.

"I can say I know that there was a conversation between the governor and a key chairman because I was in the room. After, not before the election, was their determination," said Cardinale.

Responding to Cardinale's assertion, Democratic State Committee Chairman Joseph Cryan called it "perhaps the most ridiculous accusation in the gubernatorial race so far from the Republicans."

"The governor's on the record supporting fairness and equality for everyone," Cryan said. "In our state, there's no mystery to that."

During a forum at Rider University last week, Corzine said it's unlikely he would support a ballot question to decide the definition of marriage because he believes decisions on marriage equality should be made by elected officials.

"I understand this is a deeply divisive issue," Corzine said. "All people are created equal."

The lawmakers and advocates at the Statehouse news conference yesterday pointed to other states that have already limited marriage to heterosexual couples through constitutional amendments. "Thirty states, three-fifths of the United States, have voted to amend their state constitution to make marriage one man, one woman. And I sincerely believe that would happen here in New Jersey if the people had the right to vote," said Gregory Quinlan, Director of Government Affairs for New Jersey Family First.

"This is not like raising the sales tax one percent or lowering it one percent. This is a far deeper-reaching issue and it should be decided by the people," said Cardinale.

Garden State Equality, the leading advocate for gay marriage, criticized the lawmakers for renewing their efforts against gay marriage on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar.

Claire Heininger contributed to this report. Statehouse Bureau reporter Mary Fuchs may be reached at (609) 989-0341 or mfuchs@starledger.com.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Clinton speaks out on decision to support same-sex marriage « - Blogs from CNN.com

2009-09-26T08:36:00.000-04:00

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Clinton speaks out on decision to support same-sex marriage « - Blogs from CNN.com

(CNN) — Former President Bill Clinton is speaking out about his decision to change his personal stance on same-sex marriage.

In an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, the former president said that while he still believes the issue should be left up to the states, he is no longer personally opposed to same-sex marriage as he once was.

"I was against the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage nation-wide, and I still think that the American people should be able to play this out in debates," Clinton said. "But me, Bill Clinton personally, I changed my position.

"I am no longer opposed to that," he added. "I think if people want to make commitments that last a lifetime, they ought to be able to do it."

The full interview will air on Anderson Cooper 360 at 10 p.m. ET.