Has Seeing Gay Marriages Change the Minds of Utah Residents?

HRC and other organizations have long argued that coming out can be the most powerful act of advocacy that one can undertake.  Once gays are no longer some faceless quantity but instead friends, family members, neighbors, etc., it becomes much more difficult to hold on to one's hate and bigotry.   New surveys in Utah suggest that perhaps the same phenomenon holds true with gay marriage.  People find it easy to oppose same sex marriage until they see living, breathing, normal looking same sex couples actually marrying and exhibiting joy and happiness - just like other couples getting married.   The Salt Lake Tribune looks at what's happening in Utah in the wake of the December 20, 2013, court ruling striking down Utah's gay marriage bans.  Here are story highlights:

A new poll for The Salt Lake Tribune shows that Utahns’ views on same-sex couples’ relationships have dramatically shifted in the decade since voters amended the state’s constitution to prohibit them from receiving any legal recognition.

Residents are now evenly split on whether same-sex couples in Utah should be allowed to get state-issued marriage licences — 48 percent for and 48 percent against — and nearly three-fourths (72 percent) said same-sex couples should be allowed to form civil unions or domestic partnerships in lieu of marriage.

On one side: Paul, who lives at Sundance in Utah County and participated in the survey.

"I just don’t have any religious basis for why marriage should be between a man and a woman, and, personally, I don’t see that there is a meaningful difference between the rights of heterosexual couples as opposed to homosexual couples," the 24-year-old said in an interview. "I’ve never really understood the idea that two people should not be able to be married if they want to be."

And on the other: LaNae, 50, of Orem, who also took the survey.   "I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman," LaNae said. "That is what marriage means — a man, a woman and God.

 

The latest poll follows landmark decisions this year on marriage rights of same-sex couples by a federal judge in Utah as well as the U.S. Supreme Court.

Support for same-sex marriage was strongest among non-Mormons, people between ages 18 and 34 and those who described themselves as Democrats. Slightly more than a third of respondents (36 percent) said their views on same-sex marriage have shifted over time, something that was equally true of Mormons and non-Mormons. Overwhelmingly, people in both of those demographic categories said their views had become more accepting.

But perhaps in one surprise, the broad support for civil unions or domestic partnerships included 65 percent of respondents who said they were members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Sixty-nine-year-old Mike, of American Fork, said he opposes marriage rights for same-sex couples but over time has come to believe civil unions should be an option. . . . .  "Years ago, I would have thought that homosexuality was an individual choice," said Mike, who is Mormon and came to his views during discussions through the years with friends who are gay. "I’ve come to conclude more and more that it’s not a choice, but something that is inborn and a lifelong attraction rather than something someone chooses. If people choose to live in a same-sex relationship, they should enjoy all the legal benefits that occur with a marriage, without calling it a marriage and still using that term for man-woman relationships."

Very interesting findings.  Moreover, I believe that something similar is happening in Virginia where now a slight majority of Virginians support gay marriage.  The message again is to live out and authentically.  It's the way to change hearts and minds. 

Post DOMA Legal Rights and Federal Benefits of Married Same Sex Couples

In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Windsor many questions remain as to what federal rights will now be available to married same sex couples.  It will be a matter of time before the availability of many federal benefits becomes clarified.  Federal employees will benefit under new rulings of the Office of Personnel Management regardless of whether or not they live in an anti-gay state like Virginia.  The impact on benefits under Social Security and other programs/benefits remains unclear.  One thing that is clear is that couples with civil unions and domestic partnerships will not receive federal benefits.  Here is a summary via a Washington Post story:

FEDERAL BENEFITS:
The Obama administration responded to the Supreme Court ruling by making health, vision and dental benefits available to all same-sex spouses and children of legally married federal employees. In a memo on Wednesday, OPM said those guidelines will apply to all federal workers, regardless of whether they live in states that have banned same-sex marriage — Virginia, Ohio and Mississippi, for example.

That means same sex couples living anywhere in the U.S. will qualify for federal-employee benefits as long as they hold marriage licenses from any of the 13 states that recognize same-sex marriage, as well as from the District of Columbia, which has also legalized such unions.

SOCIAL SECURITY/VETERANS BENEFITS:
Questions remain about how the administration will treat same-sex couples and domestic partners outside the federal workforce, including with Social Security, tax and veterans’ benefits. The agencies that handle those programs have not issued guidance.

OPM has given legally married same-sex couples until Aug. 26 to apply for federal-employee benefits and two years to change their status for retirement benefits.

DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS:
couples who are not legally married “will remain ineligible for most federal benefits programs.” However, any existing benefits provided to domestic partners will remain intact, OPM said.

Here are excerpts from OPM's July 3, 2013 Memorandum:

[A]ll legal same sex marriages that predate the decision are being treated as new marriages; enrollees will have 60 days from June 26, 2013 (i.e., until August 26, 2013) for enrollment actions.

Benefits coverage is now available to a legally married same sex spouse of a Federal employee or annuitant, regardless of the employee’s or annuitant’s state of residency.

Legal same sex marriages entered into following this decision will be treated in the same

manner as opposite sex marriages, regardless of an employee’s or annuitant’s state of residency.

Coverage is available to a legally married same -sex spouse of a Federal employee or annuitant, regardless of his or her state of residency.  This decision does not extend coverage to registered domestic partners or  individuals in civil unions.

In addition, the children of same sex marriages will be treated in the same manner as those of opposite sex marriages and will be eligible family members according to the same eligibility guidelines. This includes coverage for children of same sex spouses as stepchildren.

One thing is clear:  in Virginia and many other anti-gay states, same sex couples will continue to hold an inferior level of citizenship and will have no employment non-discrimination protections and will be deemed legal strangers under state law.  There remains much work to be done.

  

Washington Post: Gay Marriage = Equal Treatment Under the Law

The verdict is out and among all legitimate experts (i) homosexuality is a normal form of sexuality for a portion of the population, (ii) it is not a "choice" and (iii) it is not changeable despite the claims of witch doctor like "ex-gay" ministries.  Some of us a simply drawn romantically and sexually to those of our own gender and trying to deny this reality can and does cause emotional and psychological problems not to mention lead failed marriages between gay and straight spouses.  Yet in the Christofascist briefs filed with the U. S. Supreme Court, the argument is made that there is no discrimination involved in forcing gays to marry straights.  It's the all too typical batshitery of those who ultimately seek to punish gays for their refusal to live their lives according to Christofacists' fear and hate based religious beliefs.  It also underscores the reality that the Christofascists don't give a rat's ass about the straight spouses in these doomed marriages or the children who will grow up in families very likely to fail.  It is, in the last analysis, all about Christofascists forcing their toxic beliefs on gays.  In its main editorial, the Washington Post accepts true reality and opines that gay marriage is all about equal treatment under the law for those who through no fault of their own are born gay.  Here are excerpts:

IN A BRIEF FILED Thursday with the Supreme Court, the Obama administration didn’t quite argue that the Constitution’s equal-protection clause guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry. But Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. came awfully close.

Mr. Verrilli’s brief asks the high court to repudiate Proposition 8, a California ballot measure barring same-sex marriage that voters passed in 2008. Since California offers same-sex couples in domestic partnerships all the substantive rights and responsibilities of marriage between a man and a woman, denying the dignity of the term to gay men and lesbians can obviously serve no important governmental purpose, he argues. Prop 8 is therefore particularly offensive to the 14th Amendment. If the court accepts this line of reasoning, seven states with similar legal provisions could also see their bans on same-sex marriage eliminated.
 
It also dismantles the claims of Prop 8’s backers, who say that marriage is primarily about the capacity to procreate, justifying differential treatment. The brief points out that marriage is about far more; otherwise, states would be allowed to deny marriage rights to sterile or older couples.

These arguments apply to any state that restricts same-sex marriage, not just to those with strong domestic-partnership laws such as California. They are also persuasive. Yet the brief stops just short of calling for a sweeping, 50-state ruling. 

[O]n an issue of basic civil rights, halfway is ultimately legally and morally unsatisfying. Mr. Verrilli deserves credit for couching the administration’s understandable caution in legal principle. Still, it has shortcomings; it could, perversely, encourage other states to avoid offering same-sex couples legal protections short of marriage, in case the federal courts would then force them to take the last step. And if the court agrees that discrimination against gay men and lesbians deserves heightened constitutional scrutiny but stops short of a 50-state ruling, how could it justify any marriage ban?  The answer is that, after more hard work in courtrooms and on Election Days, none can or should exist in a nation that cherishes equal treatment under the law.

Washington State Gov. Gregoire Supports Gay Marriage Bill

As I have noted before, two of my children now live in Washington State - a place the Boyfriend and I plan to visit later this year. In some ways Washington State is a polar opposite of Virginia. Washington is pretty progressive while in Virginia the Republican Party of Virginia wants to drag the state back to the Dark Ages. And in terms of gay rights, in Virginia LGBT citizens are the modern day balcks in terms of state backed legal discrimination. In Washington State, gays already have rights that are only dreamed of in Virginia. And now, Washington State's governor, Christine Gregoire (pictured at left) , has vowed to back a gay marriage bill to bring full equality to LGBT citizens in that state. The Seattle Times looks at the issue and here are some highlights:

OLYMPIA, Wash. — Gov. Chris Gregoire is publicly supporting legalizing same-sex marriage in Washington state, saying Wednesday that she came to the decision after several years of battling her own uncertainty on the issue. . . . "It has been a battle for me with my religion," said Gregoire, who is Catholic.

The Democrat previously had supported efforts to expand the state's current law on domestic partner rights for gay couples, but had not come out in favor of full marriage rights. "I've always been uncomfortable with the position I took publicly," she said. "Then I came to realize, the religions can decide what they want to do, but it's not OK for the state to discriminate."

The state's underlying domestic partnership law, which the Legislature passed in 2007, provided hospital visitation rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations, and inheritance rights when there is no will. Under state law, senior heterosexual couples can register as domestic partnerships as well.

In 2009, the Legislature passed, and voters later upheld, a bill that greatly expanded those rights and was known as the "everything-but-marriage" bill. Nearly 19,000 people in Washington are registered as domestic partners.

Democratic Sen. Ed Murray of Seattle, a gay lawmaker . . . . acknowledged that it would be a tough battle in the Senate, where Democrats hold a 27-22 majority, but where some conservative Democrats have voted with Republicans in opposition to the state's domestic partnership law.

"We're not there yet," he said. "We're a few votes short, but I think we can get there." Democrats hold a 56-42 majority in the House. Two of the more conservative members of the Senate Democratic caucus expressed reservations about the measure on Wednesday.

Gregoire called the idea of delaying action because of a challenging budget situation "reprehensible." "The idea that we would say to someone, I'm sorry, we're going to continue to discriminate and deny you equality because we have a budget problem ... that makes no sense to me," she said.

Not surprisingly, the Roman Catholic Church - while still demonstrating in instances literally all around the world that it favors child rapists over children and youths - is opposing the same sex marriage bill.

GOP Controlled North Carolina Legislature (with Help of Black Uncle Toms) Pass Anti-Gay Marriage Measure

Click image to enlarge

Sadly, today the GOP controlled North Carolina Senate followed in the foot steps of the GOP controlled North Carolina House and passed a measure placing an anti-gay amendment on the statewide ballot next May. The measure would not only ban same sex marriage but also recognition of civil unions or domestic partnership. In short, all recognition of same sex relationships would be banned.

Even more disturbing is the fact that joining those voting for passage were black members of the legislature who were spurred on by many "Uncle Toms" in the ranks of the black clergy who continue to be the water carriers for white Christianists who given their druthers would re-institute slavery. The historical ignorance of these blacks is frightening. Would these boot licking water carriers have supported putting interracial marriage on the ballot and "letting the majority decide?" No wonder the far right wants to re-write history so that the ignorant of all races can be successfully duped and played for fools.

The chart above from Gallup suggests where interracial marriage equality would be if it had been up to the majority to decide if blacks and whites could legally marry. Yes, you are reading the chart properly: majority approval wasn't achieved until about 1995. Where would these water carrying bigots be today if their rights had depending upon achieving a popular vote majority?

The GOP Jihad Against LGBT Citizens

Some days the viciousness of the GOP is truly stomach wrenching. A case in point, Wisconsin's GOP governor, Scott Walker, who apparently believes that same sex life partners are not entitled to something as simple as the right of hospital visitation. Naturally, Walker is being cheered on by the hate filled Christofascists at Wisconsin Family Action who strive daily to make LGBT citizens less than human under the law. It's part and parcel with the opposition these falsely pious and self-congratulatory monsters mount whenever and wherever efforts are made to enact anti-bullying laws that could save lives and end the deliberate torment of other human beings. Both the GOP and Christianity have become something foul and ugly at the hands of people like Walker. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has coverage on Walker's move to cease defending Wisconsin's domestic partnership registry law. Here are some highlights:
*
Madison - Gov. Scott Walker believes a new law that gives gay couples hospital visitation rights violates the state constitution and has asked a judge to allow the state to stop defending it.
*
Democrats who controlled the Legislature in 2009 changed the law so that same-sex couples could sign up for domestic partnership registries with county clerks to secure some - but not all - of the rights afforded married couples.
*
Wisconsin Family Action sued last year in Dane County circuit court, arguing that the registries violated a 2006 amendment to the state constitution that bans gay marriage and any arrangement that is substantially similar.
*
Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen refused to defend the lawsuit, saying he agreed the new law violated the state constitution. Then-Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, hired Madison attorney Lester Pines to defend the state. Walker, a Republican, replaced Doyle in January and fired Pines in March. On Friday, Walker filed a motion to stop defending the case.
*
In 2006, 60% of state voters signed off on changing the constitution to ban gay marriage and a "legal status identical or substantially similar to marriage" for same-sex couples.
*
Wisconsin Family Action advocated for the amendment. The group first sued the state over the same-sex registries shortly after they were created in 2009, taking its case directly to the state Supreme Court in hopes of getting a quick verdict. The high court declined to hear the case, and the group then filed a lawsuit last year in Dane County circuit court.
*
Once again, I cannot help but believe that the world would be a far better place if Christianity - or at least the Christofascist version - were a dead religion. If there is a God, I suspect many of the reserved seats in Hell will be for the Christianists and not the gays.

Washington State to Recognize Marriages from Other Jurisdictions

Washington State has voted to recognize same-sex marriages from other states as legal domestic partnerships under a bill approved by the state Senate. Meanwhile, here in Virginia, one's ownership of a dog or cat is afforded more legal recognition than a life commitment between same sex couples. Heavens forbid that the Virginia GOP offend the Christian Taliban at The Family Foundation. The vote in Washington State will obviously make that state more competitive for the best and brightest in the work force regardless of the sexual orientation. My son has moved back to Washington State - he could not stand Virginia's social and cultural backwardness - and one of my daughters will soon be headed there to be with her boyfriend. Naturally, the boyfriend and I will be making a visit out there later in the year. The Seattle Times looks at this legislative development and here are some highlights:
*

Washington would recognize same-sex marriages from other states as legal domestic partnerships under a bill approved by the state Senate Wednesday. The Senate voted 28-19 to pass the bill, HB 1649. It now heads to Gov. Chris Gregoire to sign into law. The bill would not authorize same-sex marriage in Washington, but such marriages from elsewhere would be eligible for the rights granted to domestic partnerships in this state.

*

Currently, five states, the District of Columbia and Canada allow same-sex marriages, according to The Associated Press.

*

“This bill is about making sure that people who love one another - and that love and friendship respected and honored in another state or another country - when they come here they have the same opportunity,” Sen. Kevin Ranker, D- San Juan Island, said on the Senate floor.

*
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Laurie Jinkins, D-Tacoma, cleared the House with a 58-39 vote earlier this month.
*

Note the wide margins for passage in both houses of the legislature. Here in Virginia a gay friendly bill cannot even get out of committee in the House of Delegates which might as well be called the House of Christofascists. My advice to LGBT couples thinking of moving to Virginia continues to be: don't do it.

Next Up for Obama: Marriage Equality for Gay Americans

As indicated in my post earlier today about the DOMA related case going forward in California, like it or not Barack Obama is going to have to stop trying to sit on the fence. You either support full equality for all citizens under the CIVIL laws or you do not. And frankly, Obama's ducking and weaving to avoid taking a categorical position in support of full equality is beginning to getting to ridiculous. You cannot be only a little bit pregnant. And the reality is that the battle for gay marriage is just beginning in the courts and in the court of public opinion, with public support growing if not yet a majority view. Moreover, the outcome of the battle for full gay equality under the civil laws will determine whether or not the U. S. Constitution's promise of equality and freedom of religion mean anything whatsoever. Kerry Eleveld has an op-ed in tomorrow's print edition of the Washington Post that looks at the inevitability of Obama having to take an all or nothing position and bear the political consequence of whatever his decision may be. . Here are some column highlights:
*
Less than a month after President Obama repealed "don't ask, don't tell," his Justice Department filed its latest brief defending the so-called Defense of Marriage Act - the law that makes gay Americans second-class citizens by outlawing federal recognition of their legal marriages. This action underscores the point that the battle over gay rights is just beginning.
*
As Obama was preparing to sign the repeal legislation late last month, I was granted the first ever one-on-one interview with him as president by a journalist from a news outlet for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community.
*
Given that openly gay men and women would soon be fighting and, in some cases, dying for their country, I wondered whether the president thought it was time that those women and men be entitled to full marriage rights.
*
[T]he president is facing new terrain now that some gays in the military will undoubtedly be lawfully wedded to their partners. For example, will the families of those service members have access to the same benefits and support networks that their heterosexual counterparts have? Will their spouses be the first informed if they pay the ultimate sacrifice in the course of defending their country?
*
There is a serious flaw in the president's position of viewing civil unions as a path to giving same-sex couples equal relationship recognition: The federal government does not recognize civil unions for the purposes of spousal benefits. In fact, no legislation to formalize civil unions exists at the federal level.
*
That means that advocates of civil unions, Obama included, are suggesting for lesbian and gay couples a status for which the federal government has no definition and no frame of reference within its codes, and one that provides no path to legal recognition.
*
With equality legislation stalled in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, one of the most significant advances Obama can make between now and his 2012 reelection campaign is to evolve fully on marriage equality. The repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" was a turning point in the marriage discussion. It poses a major challenge and an opportunity for the president.

Supreme Court Decision in Washington State R-71 Case Expected Soon

One can only hope that the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the names of those who sign ballot initiative petitions can and should be made public. Should the Court rule otherwise, a Pandora's Box will have been opened for all kinds of clandestine conspiracies by groups plotting against the legal rights of others. The only purported reason why secrecy is needed is fear of harassment. The real fear, however, is likely on the part of anti-equality organizations that fear it will be more difficult to obtain petition signatures if signers know that their bigotry will be made public. Indeed, a ruling against public disclosure would reward cowardice and undemocratic behavior. I have always been one to publicly stand behind my convictions and believe that, if one is afraid to have their name associated with a political or religious position, then they ought not be supporting it in the first place. The whole point of public disclosure is to keep the system open and allow others to know who financial contributors and supporters of measures are so as to avoid fraud. The Seattle Post has details on the case. Here are highlights:
*
The U.S. Supreme Court will likely rule by next Monday on a high-profile Washington state case concerning the names of people who signed petitions for Referendum 71 in an attempt to overturn a new gay rights law.
*
David Ammons, spokesman for Secretary of State Sam Reed, said the court now has 11 cases left to decide this term. Thursday and June 28 are the next regularly scheduled opinion says and it's probable that the decision in the R-71 case, Doe v. Reed, will come on one of those days, Ammons said.
*
Protect Marriage Washington, asked justices to shield the names of the 138,000 people who signed R-71 petitions in hopes of overturning the "everything but marriage" same-sex domestic partner law. In November Washington voters upheld the new statute. Gay rights groups have said they'll post the petition signers' names online, and some fear harassment or threats if their names are revealed.
*
State officials had said there are laws in place to protect people who might be threatened. When people sign petitions or referendums they are acting as legislators, state Attorney General Rob McKenna said, because they are trying to enact or change laws.
*
The ultimate decision could have far-reaching impacts, not just on the state's initiative and referendum process, but also for other "open government" laws like the disclosure of who contributes to political campaigns, and how much they give. Legal scholars nationwide followed the case.

Optima Health - A Health Insurer that Discriminates Against Same Sex Couples

It is only within the last couple of years that Virginia law has allowed employers to offer health insurance benefits to domestic partners of their employees. Sadly, even though the Virginia General Assembly has finally enacted legislation that allows employers - both large and small - to offer health care coverage to the domestic partners of their employees (it was the last state in the USA to do so), many health insurance providers continue to discriminate against same sex couples. A case in point is Optima Health - an affiliate of Sentara Health Care Systems which has a near monopoly in hospital care facilities in the Hampton Roads of Virginia. Yes, it's true that on the Virginia Peninsula Riverside Health Systems has dodged a Sentara take over so far, as has Chesapeake General Hospital and two Catholic owned hospitals in the region.

*

Obviously, the disingenousness of the Optima Health logo above is obvious if your business is a gay owned business or employs partnered gays as employees (i.e., like my business). In that case, one is SOL unless your company has over 100 employees. That's right, Optima does not offer coverage to partners of covered employees of businesses in small group plans. While individual policies for non-covered domestic partners may be available, they typically (1) cost considerably more and (2) have significantly inferior coverage. Personally, I find this situation outrageous.

*

I urge readers who believe that Optima's discriminatory practices need to go to contact Optima via one of the following avenues (locals also have the option of patronizing a non-Sentara controlled hospital until such time as Optima's anti-gay discrimination ends):
*
Optima Health
4417 Corporation Lane
Virginia Beach, VA 23462
Main number: (757) 552-7401
*
Carol Via Flynn
Corporate Director
Marketing & Communications
cavia@sentara.com

*
Emma Inman, APR
Director, Corporate Communications
eainman@sentara.com

*
Becky Lawson, APR
Corporate Communications Consultant
rrlawson@sentara.com

Supreme Court Hears Washington State Referendum 71 Case

One of the ironies of the activities of the Uber-Christians is that in addition to wearing their religion on their sleeves much like the ostentatious Pharisees condemned in the Bible, they also pat themselves on the back and claim to be "real Americans" and pretend to be the defenders of democracy. That is except for when democracy and political disclosure laws are inconvenient and might demonstrate to the world that they are actually nasty bigots who prefer to harm the civil rights of other citizens anonymously. The case that was just argued before the U.S. Supreme Court involving the Christianist effort to block the release of the names of those who signed petitions to place a potential repeal of same sex domestic partnership rights on the ballot shines a bright light on the hypocrisy of these self-congratulatory "Christians." Few things pose a bigger threat to democracy than ballot measures put in place by anonymous parties - conspirators if you will - with no transparency as to who and what money interests are behind the anti-liberty initiatives. The Advocate looks at this story and surprisingly, Antonin Scalia may not help out his fellow religious extremists. Here are some highlights:
*
Gay rights opponents arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court to keep secret the names of petitioners who opposed a Washington state domestic partnership law said on Wednesday that such disclosure would have a chilling effect on freedom of speech.
*
During oral arguments in Doe v. Reed — a lawsuit arising from Washington’s Referendum 71, in which voters ultimately approved an “everything but marriage” law for gay couples — Protect Marriage Washington attorney James Bopp. Jr. argued that “no person should suffer harassment” as a result of participating in the political process by signing a petition.
*
Several justices appeared skeptical of Bopp’s arguments, however. Justice Antonin Scalia, who has historically voted against protecting anonymous speech, was particularly aggressive in questioning Bopp, saying that, “Running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage.”
*
“The First Amendment does not protect you from criticism, or even nasty phone calls when you exercise your political rights to legislate,” Scalia said. Scalia told Bopp that he is asking the Court “to enter into a whole new field” by asking the justices to overturn Washington’s open records law.
*
"The people of Washington evidently think that this is not too much of an imposition upon people's courage, to stand up and sign something and be willing to stand behind it," Scalia said. Scalia further ridiculed Protect Marriage Washington's attempt to block disclosure of the signatures, calling the arguments "touchy-feely."
*
Washington attorney general Rob McKenna argued that public disclosure of petition signatures, is, like campaign contributions and voter rolls, vital to the state’s interest in protecting against fraud.
*
A majority of Washington voters approved the expanded domestic partnership rights for same-sex couples in November. Following the referendum, Protect Marriage Washington sued to block the release of the signatures it had collected, fearing that those in favor of stripping gays and lesbians of expanded domestic partnership rights would face harassment and retribution.
*
I can think of few things more un-American or more cowardly than wanting to attack the civil rights of other citizens and then hide behind anonymity rather than stand up publicly for their convictions. Indeed, the Protect Marriage Washington crowd come across as some what akin to Nazi informants who anonymously turned in Jews.

How to Get Married in Washington, D.C.

Many gay and lesbian Virginians are eagerly awaiting the ability to get married in the District of Columbia. While the marriages will not be recognized in Virginia, for many being legally married somewhere is important from a emotional perspective. Moreover, once legally married in the District, if one moves to Maryland or New York, the marriages will be recognized in those states even though they do not allow for same sex marriages to be performed in those states themselves. Lane Hudson passed along a link with some information on the District government web site that is useful for those who may be considering a visit to Washington, D.C., to get married. As has been the case in other jurisdictions that have same sex marriage, Washington, D.C., will likely see an increase in tourism spend from couples traveling there to secure marriages that their home states deny them. Here are the details via the DC website:

*

The following is information about marriage and domestic partner registration and the most current information about the implementation of the "Jury and Marriage Amendment Act of 2009".
*
*Marriage: *
*
As of March 3, 2010* (*date subject to change pending completion of 30-day congressional review), it will be possible for same sex couples to get legally married in the District of Columbia. Here is some basic information on marriage in the District.
*
To apply for a marriage license in the District of Columbia you must visit the D.C. Superior Court Marriage Bureau located in H. Carl Moultrie Courthouse, 500 Indiana Avenue N.W., Room #4485. The office hours are 8:30am to 5:00pm Monday through Friday.
*
By law, three full days must pass between the day of application to the day that the license can be issued. (e.g. if one files an application on Monday the license cannot be issued until Friday).
*
Each party to the marriage must bring proof of identity, such as a driver’s license, government issued non-driver’s identification, birth certificate, passport, or a similar official document. The application requires the parties to identify the name of the officiant who will perform the marriage ceremony. The officiant is any District of Columbia Judge or anyone who is authorized by a religious organization to officiate marriages, such as a minister, priest, rabbi, imam, so long as he or she is registered with the Marriage Bureau to officiate marriages. In addition, the couple should bring the $35 license application and an additional $10 if you would like a certified copy of the marriage certificate. The fee must be paid in cash or by a money order made out to “Clerk of the Court, D.C. Superior Court”.
*
The $35 marriage license application fee is waived if you are already registered as Domestic Partners in the District of Columbia. If you are part of a District of Columbia Domestic Partnership, upon marrying, your Domestic Partnership automatically dissolves and you are simply married. If you are part of a Domestic Partnership or Civil Union from another state, the other state’s law may require you to dissolve it prior to marrying in the District of Columbia. Check the other state’s law about your responsibilities and obligations relating to dissolving that legal relationship prior to marrying.
*
You Must Have Your Receipt To Pick-Up the License. Marriage Licenses are not issued by mail.
*
For more information visit D.C. Superior Court Web Page or call 202/879-4840.

Ireland, Once a Catholic Bastion, Promises Civil Unions for Same-Sex Couples

In some ways the timing of the latest explosion of the sexual abuse scandal in Ireland seems Heaven sent - with the Roman Catholic Church almost totally discredited, the passage of comprehensive domestic partner benefits for same sex couples is almost assured. These rights will go a long way towards approximating marriage. Were everyone not stunned in revulsion at the latest report on the rampant sexual abuse of minors in the Diocese of Dublin - not to mention the implication of many members of the current Irish Church hierarchy - I suspect the Church would seek to kill the proposed legislation. Instead, the Church is struggling to retain any respectability and credibility. God seems to work in strange ways. Would that there would be another huge flood of disclosures embarrassing to the Church in the USA. The Christian Science Monitor looks at these strange circumstances that few would have found believable even a decade ago in a new article. Here are some highlights:

*

Dublin, Ireland – As the United States engages in a heated debate over gay marriage, European Union countries are rapidly striding toward total recognition of same-sex civil unions, if not marriage. The most recent example is Ireland.Last Thursday saw Ireland become the latest country to edge toward marriage equality for homosexual couples. The Irish parliament read and debated the Civil Partnership Bill 2009, introduced by Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern.
*
Despite Ireland’s socially conservative image, opposition to the bill is virtually non-existent and will likely pass into law this month with widespread support from opposition parties Fine Gael and Labour as well as the governing coalition of Fianna Fáil and the Green Party. . . . In the US, meanwhile, Maine and New York last month became the 31st and 32nd states, respectively, to vote against same-sex marriage though five states allow it and New Jersey may soon make six.
*
The Irish bill would grant same-sex couples rights in relation to domestic violence, residential tenancies, succession, refugee law, pensions, medical care, and equal access to state benefits and immigration.
*
Ireland is a less religious country today than at at any point in its history. The Catholic Church, long the lodestone of Irish life, has been hard-hit by seemingly endless revelations about child sex abuse perpetrated by priests – and covered-up by the Church hierarchy with the support of police.
*
Ireland’s transformation has been relatively rapid. Condoms were legalized in 1985 and divorce in 1997. Homosexuality ceased to be a criminal offense in 1993 after the country was taken to the European Court of Human Rights by academic David Norris, an openly gay man who is now a senator in the Upper House of Ireland’s parliament.

False Claims of Right to Privacy Loom Over Gay Rights Vote

I am not one who is afraid to say what I think and publicly put myself out in support or opposition of matters about which I believe passionately. Some, however, are cowards and prefer to work against others and figuratively stab them in the back while safely remaining anonymous - or at least hoping to stay anonymous. Such is the case of the anti-gay Christo-fascists in Washington State who signed petitions to set the stage for the potential extinguishment of civil rights for same sex couples but who now don't want the world to see their handiwork and know that they are bigots. I n short, they are the worse kind of gutless cowards. One of the supposed keystones to America's legal system is that one have the right to know the name of your accuser and to have the ability to cross examine them. In the context of ballot initiatives, the Christianists want to do their dirty work unseen and without any accountability. It's not right and one could even argue that it's un-American. The New York Times looks at the legal efforts of those in Washington State who seek to undo the rights of other citizens, but lack the balls and decency to be identified. Here are some story highlights:

*

At a time when voters in many states are using petitions to qualify ballot measures on issues from gay rights to property rights, a legal dispute over the identity of 138,000 petition signers here is raising new questions about privacy, free speech and elections in the Internet age.

*

On Tuesday, voters in Washington State will decide whether to extend to registered domestic partners the same rights married couples have, short of marriage. But the campaign over the referendum, placed on the ballot by opponents of same-sex marriage, has been overshadowed by one issue: whether the individual names of the petitioners should be made public, and ultimately, circulated on the Web.

*

The case, legal experts say, could chart new territory well beyond Washington State. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had ordered the release of the signatures, said the case presented “novel questions of whether referendum petition signatures are protected speech under the First Amendment.”

*

Some advocates for releasing the names who support the expansion of the state’s domestic partnership rights say they want to post the names of petition signers as a check against fraud but also to encourage potentially “uncomfortable” conversations with the people who signed the petitions.

*

Signing a petition, these groups say, can be a step toward making law, and in fact, many ballot measures are intended to bypass or override the legislative process. That argument echoes one made by the Washington secretary of state’s office, which was barred by the courts from releasing the names even though the state’s public records law does not exempt the signatures from release; the office has released names of petition signers on other ballot measures in the past. “Our disclosure law demands that we know who’s influencing the legislative process,” said David Ammons, a spokesman for Secretary of State Sam Reed, a Republican.

*

Opponents of releasing the names, led by Protect Marriage Washington, the group behind the referendum, say gay rights groups are threatening free speech by intimidating petition signers.

*

The names need to be released and if the anti gay Chritianists are too cowardly to have their names disclosed, then maybe they need to rethink what they are doing. Their lack of courage of their convictions is telling.