06/11/09 Washington Post:
The battle over same-sex marriage in the District moved to the city election board yesterday as supporters and opponents packed into a hearing room to debate whether the city should put the issue on the ballot.
ADF attorney Brian Raum, the Washington Post reports, testified that, under his interpretation of a 1995 ruling, the referendum does not violate the District's Human Rights Act.
06/10/09 Washington Post D.C. Wire (source: Gay Marriage Watch):
The D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics held a hearing today on "whether the City Council bill to recognize same-sex marriages performed in others states can be put to a referendum ... A decision will likely come Friday, or early next week, but the board appeared sympathetic to the gay community's argument that a referendum would be a violation of elections law because of the the Human Rights Act."
06/10/09 Washington City Paper City Desk Blog (source: ADF Alliance Alert):
ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum cited
two cases supporting his contention that District human rights law does not apply to the marriage-recognition law. One was a New York state decision; the other was the landmark Dean v. D.C. case, which the D.C. Court of Appeals handed down in 1995 [Dean v. District of Columbia, 653 A.2d 307 (D.C. App. 1995)]. That decision ... ruled that D.C.’s gender-neutral marriage statute in itself did not allow the city to issue gay marriage licenses.
06/11/09 Washington Post:
Raum, the Washington Post reports, testified that, under his interpretation of the 1995 Dean ruling, the referendum does not violate the District's Human Rights Act.
06/11/09 American Prospect Tapped Blog (source: ADF Alliance Alert):
Mark Levine, (lawyer and radio host) who was there on behalf of the Gertrude Stein Club, argued that the [Dean] court at the time was exercising judicial restraint by simply saying that only the City Council, rather than the courts, could legalize same-sex marriage. Levine also points out that it made sense for the court to rule that restricting marriage in 1995 wasn't discrimination, because there were no gay couples to discriminate against. So while the referendum might have been legal prior to other states accepting gay marriage, it no longer would be.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
On the politics of religious-liberty exemptions in same-sex marriage laws
06/09/09 Washington Post On Faith Blog (source: Gay Opinion Blog)
Law professor Dale Carpenter has distinguished between substantive and political reasons for including religious-liberty exemptions in same-sex marriage laws. He believes that such exemptions may be needed in anti-discrimination laws, but finds no substantive reason to (also) include them in same-sex marriage laws. However, adding them to same-sex laws would "allow legislators to alleviate reasonable fears and reduce the opportunity for demagoguery against gay marriage – all while protecting gay families in the law."
Susan Brooks Thistlewaite provides support for Carpenter's view on the politics of religious-liberty exemptions. She is a former president of the Chicago Theological Seminary. She considers New Hampshire Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson's comments on the importance of religious-liberty exemptions to passing New Hampshire's same-sex marriage law. Robinson said that if passed the legislation "stated, re-stated and overstated that no religious institutions or practices would be affected." Thistlewaite adds,
There is even more evidence, beyond New Hampshire, that 'stating, re-stating and over-stating' religious liberty in marriage equality struggles increases the chances of legislative success. Over half of mainstream pastors support same-sex marriage, especially when it is made clear that they will not necessarily have to perform these marriages says a recently released report by Public Opinion Research ... Protecting the freedom of religion, when that is a faith-based case, is a way to undercut the "moral monopoly" of the religious opponents to gay equality under the law. The broad middle of the American public seem ready to accept those arguments when they are linked, as the passage of the New Hampshire bill demonstrates.
Law professor Dale Carpenter has distinguished between substantive and political reasons for including religious-liberty exemptions in same-sex marriage laws. He believes that such exemptions may be needed in anti-discrimination laws, but finds no substantive reason to (also) include them in same-sex marriage laws. However, adding them to same-sex laws would "allow legislators to alleviate reasonable fears and reduce the opportunity for demagoguery against gay marriage – all while protecting gay families in the law."
Susan Brooks Thistlewaite provides support for Carpenter's view on the politics of religious-liberty exemptions. She is a former president of the Chicago Theological Seminary. She considers New Hampshire Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson's comments on the importance of religious-liberty exemptions to passing New Hampshire's same-sex marriage law. Robinson said that if passed the legislation "stated, re-stated and overstated that no religious institutions or practices would be affected." Thistlewaite adds,
There is even more evidence, beyond New Hampshire, that 'stating, re-stating and over-stating' religious liberty in marriage equality struggles increases the chances of legislative success. Over half of mainstream pastors support same-sex marriage, especially when it is made clear that they will not necessarily have to perform these marriages says a recently released report by Public Opinion Research ... Protecting the freedom of religion, when that is a faith-based case, is a way to undercut the "moral monopoly" of the religious opponents to gay equality under the law. The broad middle of the American public seem ready to accept those arguments when they are linked, as the passage of the New Hampshire bill demonstrates.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
ADF Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum to testify tomorrow at D.C. hearing on “A Referendum concerning the Jury and Marriage Amendment Act of 2009”
06/09/09 Aliiance Defense Fund Press Release:
Tomorrow the Washington, D.C., Board of Elections and Ethics will hold a hearing on a proposed referendum to let D.C. voters approve or reject the new law that allows D.C. to recognize out-of-state marriages. ADF Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum will testify.
“The people of the District of Columbia should have the right to determine how marriage will be recognized in their district,” said Raum. “The D.C. city council decided to recognize ‘marriages’ from other jurisdictions that are not legal in the District of Columbia. It’s only common sense that the people of D.C., like Americans across the county, should have a say on something that runs contrary to so much of the district’s and the nation’s laws and history.”
Tomorrow the Washington, D.C., Board of Elections and Ethics will hold a hearing on a proposed referendum to let D.C. voters approve or reject the new law that allows D.C. to recognize out-of-state marriages. ADF Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum will testify.
“The people of the District of Columbia should have the right to determine how marriage will be recognized in their district,” said Raum. “The D.C. city council decided to recognize ‘marriages’ from other jurisdictions that are not legal in the District of Columbia. It’s only common sense that the people of D.C., like Americans across the county, should have a say on something that runs contrary to so much of the district’s and the nation’s laws and history.”
When Same-Sex Couples Adopt: Problems of Interstate Recognition
06/09/09 Findlaw (source: ADF Alliance Alert)
Joanna Grossman, a FindLaw columnist, is a professor of law at Hofstra University. She observes that
[t]he marked trend ... is towards permitting same-sex couples and gay and lesbian individuals to adopt on the same terms as other couples and individuals ... But there is another end of the spectrum, where four outlier states reside: Florida, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Utah. Section 63.042 of the Florida Code provides that "No person may adopt if that person is a homosexual." This categorical ban on adoption by homosexuals is the only one in the nation ... Mississippi and Utah bar same-sex couples from jointly adopting children, although neither state bans gay or lesbian individuals from adopting individually.
Joanna Grossman, a FindLaw columnist, is a professor of law at Hofstra University. She observes that
[t]he marked trend ... is towards permitting same-sex couples and gay and lesbian individuals to adopt on the same terms as other couples and individuals ... But there is another end of the spectrum, where four outlier states reside: Florida, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Utah. Section 63.042 of the Florida Code provides that "No person may adopt if that person is a homosexual." This categorical ban on adoption by homosexuals is the only one in the nation ... Mississippi and Utah bar same-sex couples from jointly adopting children, although neither state bans gay or lesbian individuals from adopting individually.
Conservatives divided over referendum to repeal Washington's domestic partnership law
06/08/09 LA Times:
Washington Governor Chris Gregorie recently signed the state's domestic partnership law (Senate Bill 5688). According to the Times, the law
has been dubbed the "everything but marriage" bill. When it takes effect in July, it will expand previous domestic partnership laws to include issues like adoption, child support, pensions and other public-employee benefits.
The Times describes a campaign within "the Christian conservative community" to repeal the law by referendum. Participants have started collecting petition signatures. But the Times reports that
some conservatives fear that public support for domestic partnership rights and a preoccupation with the economy could doom the effort -- and make it harder to battle same-sex marriage down the road.
Same-sex partners tend to view domestic partnerships as inherently unequal. Nevertheless, as I have suggested elsewhere, even more limited domestic partnership laws have the potential to weaken public support for statutory and constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. Divisions among opponents of same-sex marriage show their concern over whether their reaction to domestic partnerships can do more harm than good to their long-term goal of sustaining such bans.
Washington Governor Chris Gregorie recently signed the state's domestic partnership law (Senate Bill 5688). According to the Times, the law
has been dubbed the "everything but marriage" bill. When it takes effect in July, it will expand previous domestic partnership laws to include issues like adoption, child support, pensions and other public-employee benefits.
The Times describes a campaign within "the Christian conservative community" to repeal the law by referendum. Participants have started collecting petition signatures. But the Times reports that
some conservatives fear that public support for domestic partnership rights and a preoccupation with the economy could doom the effort -- and make it harder to battle same-sex marriage down the road.
Same-sex partners tend to view domestic partnerships as inherently unequal. Nevertheless, as I have suggested elsewhere, even more limited domestic partnership laws have the potential to weaken public support for statutory and constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. Divisions among opponents of same-sex marriage show their concern over whether their reaction to domestic partnerships can do more harm than good to their long-term goal of sustaining such bans.
Same-sex marriage advocates say New England is paving way
06/09/09 Vermont Public Radio:
Jennifer Pizer is the National Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal. She said,
"The shift in New England ... has affected how people think about the issue nationwide."
Brian Brown is executive director of the National Organization for Marriage. He said,
"[T]here's been a concerted effort to focus on the Northeastern states that don't have initiative and referenda and to pass same-sex marriage through these legislatures and then the people don't have a chance to have their say."
Jennifer Pizer is the National Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal. She said,
"The shift in New England ... has affected how people think about the issue nationwide."
Brian Brown is executive director of the National Organization for Marriage. He said,
"[T]here's been a concerted effort to focus on the Northeastern states that don't have initiative and referenda and to pass same-sex marriage through these legislatures and then the people don't have a chance to have their say."
Monday, June 8, 2009
Petition for rehearing filed in Strauss v. Horton
The docket shows that the petition was filed on June 5th.
06/09/09 statement from Shannon Minter, legal director, National Center for Lesbian Rights:
The document must be titled petition for rehearing because that is the only procedural vehicle for requesting any modification, but we are simply asking the Court to correct a factual error, not to rehear the entire case.
06/11/09 The Bay Area Reporter:
"It is a very significant mistake," said Minter. "This decision will be on the books forever. Future courts might be swayed by that fact."
06/09/09 statement from Shannon Minter, legal director, National Center for Lesbian Rights:
The document must be titled petition for rehearing because that is the only procedural vehicle for requesting any modification, but we are simply asking the Court to correct a factual error, not to rehear the entire case.
06/11/09 The Bay Area Reporter:
"It is a very significant mistake," said Minter. "This decision will be on the books forever. Future courts might be swayed by that fact."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
