Rhode Island is one of the few states that didn't pass a Defense of Marriage Act after Bill Clinton signed the federal DOMA back in 1996.

Now, because RI's Attorney General Patrick Lynch advised, in a nonbinding opinion, that out-of-state same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts (or Canada or other nations where it is legal) should be recognized, the wingnuts have come out of the woodwork.

HB 6159, "An act relating to domestic relations - persons eligible to marry," says:



The bill was introduced by five Democrats: Representatives William San Bento (D - N. Prov/Pawtucket), Arthur Corvese (D - N. Prov), Peter Palumbo (D - Cranston), Jon Brien (D - Woonsocket), and Helio Melo (D - E. Prov).

New Mexico lawmakers returned to the Capitol on Tuesday, recalled by Gov. Bill Richardson to deal with several bills including domestic partner legislation that died when the legislature's session ended.

In 2003, Governor Bill Richardson issued an executive order providing state employees, both gay and straight, with the option of providing their partners health insurance through domestic partner coverage. Under the order, domestic partner coverage is not available to employees after they retire, while spousal coverage is provided.

Late last year Richardson, who is eyeing the Democratic nomination for President, joined LGBT activists in calling for a statewide domestic partner law that would provide the same benefits as marriage.

The measure passed the House but the Senate stripped out many of the bill's provisions, making it according to gay rights groups meaningless. When the revised bill returned the House the original language was restored but the session ended before the Senate could vote again.

[...]

On Saturday, Richardson will be the keynote speaker at a major event in Los Angeles sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign. The governor's office denies any link between the two.

Minority Whip Leonard Lee Rawson (R) doesn't buy it. Rawson said the session is "150 percent" about the partnership bill.

[...]

Rawson suggested the lawmakers may take up the two other measures and then adjourn without dealing with the partner bill.

In the first month that civil unions have been legal in New Jersey at least 219 same-sex couples have been united according to statistics released Tuesday by the state Health and Senior Services Department.

[...]

Garden State Equality, New Jersey's statewide LGBT rights group called the numbers released by the state Tuesday "extremely low" but added it was not surprised.

"There¹s a huge sense in the gay community that we¹re going to win full marriage equality here soon," chair Steven Goldstein told the New York Times.

"In the context of a civil rights movement, that means the next couple of years, given the momentum we have in the State Legislature. Couples are saying to themselves, ŒWe¹re going to get marriage anyway, why get civil unioned?" he said.

A bill to amend the civil union law and provide marriage has been filed in the legislature. Meanwhile, opponents of gay marriage are trying to get a proposed amendment on the ballot to ban gay marriage. Democrats in both houses have said they would not post a vote for a constitutional amendment that would undermine the rights of same-sex couples.

The New Mexico House has approved a domestic partner bill during a special session called by Gov. Bill Richardson.

[...]

Wednesday Republicans failed in an attempt to adjourn the House. The domestic partner bill - which covers same-sex couples and unmarried opposite-sex couples - passed on a 30 - 23 vote. The measure now goes to the Senate which so far is boycotting the special session.

South Carolina officially banned gay marriage Thursday as legislative leaders ratified a constitutional amendment approved by voters in November. New Hampshire, meanwhile, moved in the opposite direction, with a state House panel endorsing the creation of civil unions for same-sex couples.

[...]

Nearly four out of five South Carolina voters approved the amendment, which reads, "A marriage between one man and one woman is the only lawful domestic union that shall be valid or recognized in this state."

The state already had a law against same-sex marriages, but proponents said the amendment was needed to prevent judges from opening the door to civil unions, which offer gay couples the legal benefits of marriage but not the title.

[...]

In New Hampshire, the House Judiciary Committee recommended the passage of civil unions Thursday by a bipartisan 15-5 vote.

[...]

Gov. John Lynch opposes gay marriage but supports providing health care benefits to state workers' same-sex partners. He has not taken a public position on civil unions.

The new President of the Massachusetts Senate has announced she will not try to block a vote on a proposed amendment that would end same-sex marriage in the state. Therese Murray was elected by Senate Democrats on Thursday to replace former Sen. Robert Travaglini.

An opponent of the amendment, Murray said she would work with state LGBT civil rights groups to defeat the measure, but said she would not use her power to prevent the issue from coming to a vote.

To amend the state constitution a joint session of the House and Senate must approve a proposed amendment in two consecutive sessions of the Legislature then put the issue to voters. Only 50 votes in the joint session are needed for a proposed amendment to advance.

Ottawa Citizen In a landmark decision, a US court has ruled that gay couples who tie the knot in Canada can be treated as legally married in New York state.

The growing opposition by some of Indiana's largest employers to a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriages seems more rooted in the state's image than any legal concerns about the loss of domestic-partner benefits.

"This sends the message that Indiana is an intolerant state," Carla Cox, a spokeswoman for Eli Lilly and Co., said of the amendment. "That's going to impact our business, our recruitment and retention of employees."

Lilly, Central Indiana's largest private employer, on Wednesday became the fourth major Indiana company to announce its opposition to the amendment working its way through the Indiana legislature. Cummins, WellPoint and Dow AgroSciences also oppose the amendment.

CONCORD - A bid to outlaw gay marriage in New Hampshire went down in defeat yesterday.

The House voted 233-124 to quash a constitutional amendment that would have defined marriage between one man and one woman as the only legal union in the Granite State.

Chester Democrat Charlotte Lister said she was puzzled why same-sex marriage opponents "went to all the trouble" of trying to amend the state constitution. Lister counts herself among the people who do not see why granting legal status to same-sex unions will harm anyone else.

"We're all very sure the real issue here is homosexuals," Lister said. She was one of few Rockingham County lawmakers who voted to defeat the ban on gay marriage.

Emmis Communications Corp. today became the latest major Indiana employer to speak out against a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.

...

"We believe the passage of this constitutional amendment will hurt our ability to recruit and retain a diverse workforce, and creates the damaging impression that we are not a welcoming and inclusive community," wrote Smulyan, a Democrat.

"I add Emmis' voice to the growing chorus of Indiana-based employers urging you to reject this proposal."

A proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage failed to pass a key House committee Tuesday, and some lawmakers said the proposal is dead for this year.

The House Rules Committee voted 5-5 on a resolution supporting the amendment, with five Democrats voting against it and four Republicans and one Democrat voting for it. Since there was not a majority of votes for the resolution, the highly contentious measure that has stirred emotional debate for weeks failed to pass.

Committee Chairman Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, said the emotional issue is over for this legislative session.

"I consider the matter dispensed with," Pelath said. "We took a vote and the matter is dispensed with."

Resolution sponsor Sen. Brandt Hershman, R-Wheatfield, agreed that the proposal appeared dead.

The breaks have been slammed on a bill to create civil unions in New Hampshire that was to have gone to a vote next Wednesday in the state Senate.

Senate President Sylvia Larsen (D) tells the Associated Press that she made the decision to put off the vote because "I didn¹t want the senators to be rushed when it came time to be voting."

No new date for a vote has been scheduled and some lawmakers are blaming the heavy hand of Gov. John Lynch (D).

Lynch has not stated his position on the bill. He already has said he opposes same-sex marriage.

[...]

Asked if Lynch had put pressure on her to put off the vote, the governor's spokesperson, Colin Manning, did not directly answer questions from the AP, saying only that "the governor is certain the Senate will give this bill thoughtful consideration."

[...]

Sen. Bob Clegg (R) voted against the bill in committee, but believes it would pass a full Senate vote was surprised when a reporter told him the vote had been postponed.

"Why would we fast-track the bill and then hold it? It has to be for purely political reasons," Clegg told the AP. "The only factor left is the governor."

Senate President Sylvia Larsen (D)... Gov. John Lynch (D)

Sold out by the Democrats *again*. Why am I not surprised?

Gov. John Lynch said Thursday he will sign legislation establishing civil unions for gay couples in New Hampshire.

"I believe it is a matter of conscience, fairness and preventing discrimination," Lynch told The Associated Press.

New Hampshire would become the fourth state to adopt civil unions, following Connecticut, Vermont and New Jersey. Massachusetts established gay marriage.

[...]

The Senate votes next week, and Lynch said he is confident the legislation will pass. It would authorize civil unions beginning next year.

(Hartford, Connecticut) In less than two weeks the Connecticut Supreme Court will hear arguments in a lawsuit by same-sex couples seeking the right to marry - but absent from the bench will be the chief justice, after declaring a possible conflict of interest.

Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers has recused herself because her husband's law firm prepared a friend-of-the-court brief in the case on behalf of a national LGBT civil rights organization.

The brief by Robinson & Cole was written for the Lambda Legal Defense Fund. Although it was not directly written by Rogers' husband, Edward O'Hanlan, he is a partner in the firm.

Robinson & Cole has 225 lawyers and offices in Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York.

The high court will hear the gay marriage case on May 14.

BOSTON - Gay marriage supporters won a huge victory this afternoon, with Massachusetts lawmakers voting to kill a proposed ballot question seeking to overturn a 2003 court decision that legalized same-sex unions.

Meeting in a joint constitutional convention, 151 lawmakers voted against putting a proposed ballot question seeking to ban gay marriage off the ballot.

Among lawmakers who switched from previous support of the ban were state Reps. James Vallee (D-Franklin), Brian Wallace (D-South Boston), Richard Ross (R-Wrentham), Robert Nyman (D-Hanover) and Paul Loscocco (R-Holliston), among others. Senators who switched included Gale Candaras (D-Wilbraham)and state Sen. Michael Morrissey (D-Quincy).

...

Lawmakers who switched sides to vote against the ban appeared to do so for different reasons, with some saying they were affected by the stories of gay families and others indicating they were persuaded it is wrong to subject minority rights to a popular vote.

Gay marriage advocates and foes spent more than $1.5 million last year to lobby Massachusetts lawmakers and shape public opinion over the proposed state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Several groups backing gay marriage, led by MassEquality, spent a total of more than $1 million in 2006 to keep a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage off the ballot, according to state records. Gay marriage opponents, led by VoteOnMarriage.org, spent about $500,000 to get the amendment before voters, the records show.

The proposal needed the votes of 50 legislators in two consecutive sessions to make it on the 2008 ballot as a referendum. In January, the measure passed its first convention with 62 votes, but it fell short today by 5 votes.

Joyce Durst, an opponent of same-sex marriage from Mattapan, had come the State House today to pray that the measure passed. When the amendment failed, she pulled a crumpled tissue from her pocket and began to sob.

"I'm sick," said Durst, 60. "I'm sick."

The New York State Assembly just voted to pass the marriage bill by a vote of 85 to 61. The vote comes a bit over a month after Gov. Spitzer introduced the bill into the Legislature and a bit under a year since the NYS Court of Appeals ruled that it’s the Legislature’s job to decide on the issue of same-sex marriage. We’ll post the vote tally shortly.

...

Now the only thing that stands between gay New Yorkers and their ability to marry is the State Senate, and Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno has mentioned more than once that the marriage bill will not be moving under his watch. His majority, however, has been steadily shrinking—most notably (and most recently) with Craig Johnson’s victory this past February as an openly pro-marriage equality candidate in a traditionally Republican district.

President Bush issued a warning to Congress on Wednesday that he will veto budget appropriations for the District of Columbia unless the measure contains language barring the district from using any of the money for its domestic partner registry.

The registry allows same and opposite-sex unmarried couples to register their relationships.

Three quarters of the District of Columbia's budget comes from local revenue - city taxes and fees. But, about $120 million in additional funds comes from the federal government.

That money is contained in the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act.

Under Republicans the legislation stated that none of the federal money could be used to support the partner registry. When Democrats took control of Congress the requirement was removed.

In threatening a veto the White House on Wednesday issued a statement saying: "The Administration strongly opposes the bill’s exclusion of a longstanding provision that disallows the use of Federal funds to register unmarried, cohabitating couples in the District, to enable them to qualify for benefits on the same basis as legally married couples. Under Federal law, legal marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Federal tax dollars are not used to extend employment benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees, and D.C. should not enjoy an exception to this rule."

The Domestic Partner registry includes such partner rights as hospital and nursing home visitations, medical decisions, and inheritance rights.

A bill providing federal funding to the District of Columbia has passed the House after a clause stating the money could not be used to fund a domestic partner registry was reinstated.

[...]

When the bill came to a vote on the House floor late Thursday Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) offered an amendment adding back the anti-gay language.

The amendment passed by a vote of 224 to 200.

[...]

The District of Columbia established a local domestic partnership registry in 1992. However, the Republican congressional leadership routinely prevented the registry from being enacted until 2002.

Since that time, the Republican-led Congress have repeatedly attached anti-gay language to past appropriations bills which stipulate that federal funds cannot be used to operate the program.

Since local funds are used, observers have noted that the provision was simply used as a way for Republicans to demonstrate their disapproval for the law and for same-sex families.

Kalamazoo has found a way around a court ruling that said providing health insurance to the same-sex partners of city workers violated the state amendment banning same-sex marriage.

The solution: don't call it a domestic partner benefit. Under a motion agreed to by City Commissioners Friday the plan now will be called an "Other Qualified Adult" program and is available to any two people living together in a dependent relationship where one person is a city employee.

Earlier this year a Court of Appeal panel ruled the state's constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage made it illegal to offer same-sex domestic partner benefits for public employees.

[...]

The ruling is under appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court but the justices said that until it renders a decision the appellate ruling must go into effect.

[...]

The compromise worked out by city staff is similar to a plan that was approved for Michigan State University. City commissioners voted to allocate $40,000 to the scheme. The number of people who might join is not known. Four workers had participated in the same-sex partner plan. Over the next two weeks city staff will go over the details with Kalamazoo' unions.

Following the vote Vice Mayor Bobby Hopewell said he was pleased with the outcome. "This is an issue of being a good employer," he said.

...[A]n "Other Qualified Adult" program... is available to any two people living together in a dependent relationship where one person is a city employee.

Ross and Richard Cash were among the hundreds of couples who hurried to get their licenses. With Cash unemployed and his private health insurance costing $480 a month, the couple hoped the new law would be their financial white knight -- compelling Ross's employer to give his partner the same spousal benefits as heterosexual married couples.

But more than four months after New Jersey's civil union law went into effect, Ross, 46 and Cash, 54, are among the many same-sex couples severely disillusioned with their prospects for legal equality. Citing federal regulations that allow many employers to effectively ignore state laws regarding corporate benefits, the Fortune 500 company where Ross has worked as a computer specialist for 21 years denied the couple's request for joint coverage.

"I feel beaten up and deflated," said Ross, who asked that his company's name be withheld out of concern for his job. "Everyone celebrated when this thing passed because we thought it would be equal to marriage, that the only thing different would be that we called it 'civil unions.' But civil unions aren't giving us the legal rights we hoped for."

[...]

A recent study by Garden State Equality, New Jersey's leading gay advocacy group, indicated that as many as one in eight of the 1,092 same-sex couples who have registered for civil unions there have been denied all or part of the benefits they hoped to gain from the law. That is particularly significant because New Jersey, as the first state outside New England to approve civil unions, was seen as a bellwether in gauging how they would take root outside the bluest of the blue states.

"The supporters of this law hoped this measure would be implemented and enforced without any major difficulties or consequences," Rep. Joseph J. Roberts Jr., speaker of the New Jersey General Assembly, wrote in a letter to the state banking and insurance commission. "Regrettably, this apparently has not been the case."

Most vexing for gay couples in New Jersey is that they have little legal recourse. Smaller companies that buy private health insurance plans for their employees are compelled to offer them to same-sex couples under the state's civil union laws. But most legal experts agree that federal regulations give companies with self-funded insurance plans -- a group covering 55 percent of the country 105 million working-age employees -- the power to ignore state laws regarding corporate benefits.

And when companies choose to follow federal laws, they often cite the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and woman as a reason to deny coverage to same-sex couples. New Jersey officials estimate that almost 90 percent of the reports of noncompliance to date have been linked to companies covered by these federal laws.

After last year's unexpected trouble, the city has struggled mightily to balance the First Amendment rights of bigoted blowhards with the rights of those who just want to enjoy their Saturday in the sun.

A plan for well-intentioned but troubling "free speech zones" has been more or less scrapped, which is a good thing. When America works like it's supposed to, an antiwar protestor's right to be seen and heard outside a Bush rally gets the same protection as a bully preaching the gospel of intolerance.

Under the revised rules, signs and bullhorns won't be banished for the parade. "They can protest in any lawful manner, " says city attorney John Wolfe. Lawful being key.

Afterward, the big signs and bullhorns won't be allowed inside the areas that are covered by the festival's permit. And expect police to keep a sharp eye out for anyone disrupting the event.

Don't expect, however, to see Mayor Rick Baker hanging around. On this subject he is oft-quoted as having said he doesn't support the event's "general agenda." (I wonder if he likes any of the specifics, such as how it may boost the city's reputation and potential for tourist dollars as a gay-friendly place.)

Hey, maybe St. Pete could adopt Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio as a sort of step-mayor, just for today.

[...]

Who might learn from it? Anyone who thinks the battle for tolerance is won, that there's room for complacency, that events that gather together people who share a difference aren't necessary. Anyone who thinks what happened to Matthew Shepard was long ago and far away. Anyone who didn't already know the kind of prejudices gay people regularly endure.

Could the presence of a protest so ugly even help sway some people toward a more live-and-let-and-let-live attitude? Hope springs eternal.

The best revenge: The Pride event has blossomed into the city's biggest single-day event and attracted impressive corporate sponsors (take that, Festival of States).

The best revenge: The Pride event has blossomed into the city's biggest single-day event and attracted impressive corporate sponsors

The great state of Massachusetts was recently offered the chance to reinstate bigotry against same-sex couples and politely declined. Less than 25% of that state's 200 legislators voted to make equality a popularity contest. Equal marriage rights for lesbian and gay couples are now and forever the law of the land in Massachusetts. Amen.

Could this vote mark the end of bigotry disguised as social policy? Or was that milestone marked in 2006, when voters in that other great state, Arizona, voted against a gay marriage ban in their state's Constitution? A look at the numbers shows that the end is, indeed, near.

[..]

Eventually, of course, the entire country will understand that no one thrives when anyone faces discrimination. Sadly, until that day comes, Michigan may find itself losing even more of its best and brightest -- and with them, their talent, tax money and disposable incomes -- because this state refuses to catch up with the times.

And gay marriage just isn't happening in the rest of America - which is almost shocking considering the political proclivities of some of the most liberal states. Also, what major Democratic presidential candidate supports gay marriage?

A Polk County judge on Thursday struck down Iowa's law banning gay marriage.

The ruling by Judge Robert Hanson concluded that the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and he ordered the Polk County recorder to issue marriage licenses to six gay couples.

...

Polk County is expected to appeal the ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court.

County Attorney John Sarcone said the county would immediately seek a stay from Hanson, which if granted would prevent anyone from seeking a marriage license until an appeal could be heard.

The case will be appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court, which could refer it to the Iowa Court of Appeals, consider the case itself or decide not to hear the case.

Iowa Permits Same-Sex Marriage, for 4 Hours, Anyway

By MONICA DAVEY
Published: September 1, 2007

DES MOINES, Aug. 31 — From towns around the state, places like Cedar Falls, Ames and Cedar Rapids, same-sex couples converged on this city as early as dawn on Friday as word spread that a judge had overturned a state law banning gay marriage.

“Imagine this — right here in Iowa,” Amanda Duncan said as she and her partner of three years, Aleece Ramirez, filled out their application for a marriage license and put down $35. “Hopefully, this starts a fire that spreads to other places.”

“It really is a monkey wrench that sort of is thrown into the process for some of them,” Steffen W. Schmidt, a professor of political science at Iowa State University, said. “It’s potentially more dangerous for the Democrats, where the front-runners have been trying to finesse this issue.”

OCEAN GROVE — A pending renewal of a state tax exemption on land including the embattled boardwalk pavilion could become an issue in the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association's ban on same-sex civil unions in the pavilion, and could end up costing the association hundreds of thousands of dollars.

That's because one of the requirements for land qualifying for the exemption — administered by the state Department of Environmental Protection's Green Acres program — is that the land "must be open for public use on an equal basis," according to the program's rules.

And whether the pavilion is open to the public on an equal basis or a religious structure subject to conditions imposed by the Methodist Church Book of Discipline is at the heart of the controversy, which has now spread to a federal courthouse in Trenton.

Our first President...?

Maryland's highest court Tuesday rejected same-sex marriage and upheld the state's 34-year-old statute defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

In a case watched closely around the nation, the Maryland Court of Appeals' 4-3 ruling dealt a blow to gay and lesbian advocates who launched their fight to overturn the state's marriage law three years ago. Tuesday, those advocates pledged to take the battle for marriage to the General Assembly, where two lawmakers have already vowed to sponsor legislation to legalize same-sex marriage.

...

The court's majority opinion rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the 1973 statute discriminates on the basis of gender. In addition, the court concluded that while marriage is a fundamental right, it is not a right extended to gays and lesbians under current state law.

In addition, the court concluded that while marriage is a fundamental right, it is not a right extended to gays and lesbians under current state law.

something fundamentally wrong with the law

SSM has lost in every state high court to consider the issue since the stunning success in Goodridge in Massachusetts in 2003. SSM legal advocates lost outright in Washington state and New York in 2006. New Jersey's high court also rejected an SSM claim in 2006, though it did order the recognition of civil unions and left open the possibility of a future pro-SSM ruling. A case is still pending in California's supreme court.

When you consider that SSM legal advocates have carefully chosen the most sympathetic venues since Goodridge, this record of losses is especially significant. It means that strong anti-SSM precedents are being created in the friendliest states, making pro-SSM rulings in other states even more unlikely in the near future. Once California is decided, the initial phase of post-Goodridge litigation will have pretty much run its course. That was the phase that was supposed to start an avalanche of pro-SSM judicial rulings that would quickly lead to gay marriage around the country. It didn't happen. Other cases are pending in states like Iowa, and there's nothing to stop gay couples from filing anywhere else, but the odds are now longer. If SSM is to advance much in the near future, it will probably have to come legislatively.

If SSM is to advance much in the near future, it will probably have to come legislatively.