Renewed resolve to pass and oppose marriage equality legislation, and to pass constitutional marriage amendments banning same-sex marriage

04/09/09 NY Times:

"Advocates for same-sex marriage in New York and New Jersey said the action in Vermont was one more reminder that now, more than ever before, is the time for the states to grant full marital rights for gay and lesbian couples ... On Wednesday, as both sides moved to seize the momentum, Gov. David A. Paterson vowed to introduce a bill that would legalize gay marriage ... New York and New Jersey are both closer to legalizing same-sex marriage than they were a year ago, but it still could be some time before either state acts ... Gov. Jon S. Corzine of New Jersey has said he will sign a bill allowing gay couples to marry."

Source of reference to NY Times article: ADF Alliance Alert

04/09/09 Ben Smith's Politico Blog:

"The National Organization for Marriage, a prominent backer of the successful campaign against same-sex marriage in California, is launching a $1.5 million ad campaign this morning aimed at forestalling same-sex marriage support in other key states."

"UPDATE: The gay rights group Human Rights Campaign responds to the ad's assertions."

Source of reference to Politico Blog: ADF Alliance Alert

The NY Times reports on the ad:

"The first television commercial, with people describing same-sex marriage as a threat to their personal and religious freedoms against a backdrop of dark clouds and bolts of lightening, began appearing on Wednesday [April 8th]."

04/09/09 Leonard Link:

Summarizing the latest developments on the legal status of same-sex couples, New York Law School Professor Arthur Leonard considers evidence that it has reached a "tipping point" for the marriage-equality movement to spread to other states. He thinks that

"the Iowa decision is causing the more thoughtful conservatives to think anew about the marriage issue. After all, it was a unanimous, bipartisan ruling from the heartland of America, written in plain English, making cogent arguments, exploding popular right-wing myths, and ultimately leading to the most important question in this entire debate: 'Why not?'"

He also speculates on the timing of the recent challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act on behalf of eight Massachusetts same-sex couples and three same-sex widows. The Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, which co-filed the lawsuit,

"studiously avoided any head-on challenges to DOMA until there was some momentum towards same-sex marriages - until a tipping point seemed to be reached - so clearly filing the lawsuit was a sign that the point has arrived to seek FULL marriage rights, which requires federal recognition of the marriage status created under state law."

04/07/09 NY Times:

"MONTPELIER, Vt. — Gay-rights groups say that momentum from back-to-back victories on same-sex marriage in Vermont and Iowa could spill into other states, particularly since at least nine other legislatures are considering measures this year to allow marriage between gay couples ... New York, New Jersey, Maine and New Hampshire are among the states where such proposals have gained legislative support in recent months ... Several groups that oppose same-sex marriage suggested Tuesday that the successive victories for gay rights advocates would give the opposition movement new energy." (On expressions of opposition, see also this Christian Post article.)

Jennifer C. Pizer, the marriage project director for Lambda Legal, told the NY Times that in states whose constitutions ban same-sex marriage, "we will have a period that we really haven’t ever seen before in American history of people needing to undo state constitutional amendments — which is not an easy thing to do."

Source of reference to NY Times article: ADF Alliance Alert

04/04/09 NY Times:

"But for now, New England remains the nucleus of the same-sex marriage movement, with a campaign under way to extend marriage rights to gay men and lesbians in all six of the region’s states by 2012."

Source of reference to NY Times article: ADF Alliance Alert

04/08/09 Florida Baptist Witness:

Douglas Napier, an attorney with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, called the ruling [in Varnum v. Brien]“astonishing.” A native Iowan, he has practiced law there for 16 years. “I don’t think it’s over in Iowa yet. If you look at the track record in the states, 30 out of 30 times when marriage has been put to the people, the people have upheld traditional marriage,” he told Baptist Press. “I expect Iowans to follow that. ... If a marriage amendment was put before the people of Iowa today, I think we would probably see some of the highest numbers in the country in all of the marriage amendment elections in favor of marriage. This decision does not represent Iowa.”

Source of reference to Baptist Witness article: ADF Alliance Alert

04/07/09 Church Executive:

Groups supporting traditional marriage say they expect the Iowa ruling to prompt other states to seek constitutional marriage amendments. ‘This (ruling) will catapult all of those states forward in the marriage amendment process,’ said Douglas Napier, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group, according to the Associated Press. ‘I think they’re going to work hard to get it on their constitution before another renegade court goes out and creates new law,’ he told AP.”

Source of reference to Church Executive article: ADF Alliance Alert

04/06/09 Google News comment by ADF Senior Legal Counsel Douglas Napier, in response to Evan Wolfson, author of Why Marriage Matters; America, Equality, and Gay People’s Right to Marry:

Napier, in his comment, faults Iowa legislators for not pursuing a state constitutional amendment to reverse the Varnum ruling:

"The [Iowa] politicians who are keeping the marriage amendment bottled up in committee know that if the legislature voted on the amendment, it would pass, and it would pass again during the next qualified session of the legislature, and it would then be approved by the people of Iowa. They know that in 30 out of 30 states when the people have had the opportunity to decide the issue of marriage, marriage as defined as a union between one man and one woman has always won. They know that, when the people decide, their elusive rainbow fades away."


Source of reference to Napier's comment: ADF Alliance Alert

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PROP8LEGALCOMMENTARY HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR IS PROP8LEGALCOMMENTARY ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.