Part of the Bay Area News Group

Archive for the 'same-sex marriage' Category

Local House members pose for NOH8 Campaign

As the federal court drama over Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage continues, three Bay Area members of Congress have loaned their likenesses to a national campaign for same-sex marriage rights.

The NOH8 Campaign, now in its fourth year, is “a photographic silent protest created by celebrity photographer Adam Bouska and partner Jeff Parshley in direct response to the passage of Proposition 8,” according to its website. “Photos feature subjects with duct tape over their mouths, symbolizing their voices being silenced by Prop 8 and similar legislation around the world, with ‘NOH8’ painted on one cheek in protest.”

The campaign went to Capitol Hill last week to ask members of Congress to pose; 10 members, all Democrats, did so.

Jackie Speier

Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough: “NOH8 because we are a country of equality and inclusion, not hate and segregation. NOH8 because the state should not dictate love or marriage. I proudly join with the NOH8 campaign to stand up for marriage equality and oppose laws that suppress it.”

Lynn Woolsey

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma: “I’m proud to participate in this extraordinary campaign, to make this statement of protest against the treatment of LGBT Americans as second-class citizens. I believe this is the defining civil rights struggle of our time — where you stand today on marriage equality will determine how you are judged by history. What’s at stake is the human dignity of LGBT people. To deny equal rights and freedoms based on sexual orientation does violence to American values.”

Barbara Lee

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland: “Hate does not belong in our communities, families, schools, or the workplace, and certainly not in our government.”

Posted on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012
Under: Barbara Lee, Jackie Speier, Lynn Woolsey, same-sex marriage, U.S. House | 10 Comments »

What they’re saying about the Prop. 8 ruling

My esteemed colleague Howard Mintz has the full story on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision that Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, and you can read the opinion yourself (assuming the court’s website doesn’t get overloaded again) by clicking here.

Meanwhile, here’s a treasury of quotes from elected officials.

From House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco:

“Today’s decision is a victory for civil rights and for progress for the LGBT community and for all Californians.

“By declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional, the Ninth Circuit made a strong statement that laws must not target the LGBT community for discrimination and all of our state’s families deserve to enjoy fair and equal treatment under the law.

“As this battle moves through the appeals process, we must, and will, continue the fight for the fundamental rights of LGBT couples and every American. We will keep up the charge for change and equality in state legislatures and in the courts, and work in Congress to repeal and overturn the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. Together, we will make every discriminatory marriage amendment and law a thing of the past.”

From Gov. Jerry Brown:

“The court has rendered a powerful affirmation of the right of same-sex couples to marry. I applaud the wisdom and courage of this decision.”

From Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom:

“Today’s decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stands as a victory for the fundamental American principle that all people are equal, and deserve equal rights and treatment under the law. This is the biggest step that the American judicial system has taken to end the grievous discrimination against men and women in same-sex relationships and should be highly praised.

“Proposition 8 has done nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that same-sex couples are inferior to heterosexual couples. These men and women are our firefighters, our paramedics, our law enforcement, our service-members, and to treat their relationships differently is unfair, unlawful, and violates the basic principle of who we are as a nation.

“Today however, it has been made clear that this type of discrimination will not be tolerated—there is no state power or law that can claim one type of love is more deserving of status and benefits than another. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has fulfilled its obligation to all Americans by protecting the fundamental right of all people to marry those whom they love. It has upheld the overall integrity of the American judicial system by placing individual characteristics of judges and justices secondary to their duty and commitment to true justice and equality.

“Although countless people have worked tirelessly to achieve this ruling, I would like to recognize the inspiring dedication demonstrated by the American Foundation for Equal Rights. They have never relented in their mission for equal marriage rights and should be highly commended for these efforts.

“While today marks a historic milestone towards equality for all Americans, our journey is not over until the highest court in the United States reaches the same decision that the Court of Appeals did today. It is on that day that the struggle for equality will be over and the dream on which this great nation was founded will become a reality.”

From state Attorney General Kamala Harris:

“Today’s ruling is a victory for fairness, a victory for equality and a victory for justice. Proposition 8 denied to gay and lesbian couples the equal protection to which all Americans are entitled. By striking this unconstitutional law from our books, the court has restored dignity, equality and respect to all Californians.”

For some counterpoint (although he’s not an elected official), here’s SaveCalifornia.com President Randy Thomasson:

“God created a man and a woman to fit together in marriage. The People of California have twice affirmed this beautiful, natural, and exclusive pro-family institution between a husband and wife, a man and a woman. The Ninth Circuit ruling to strike down man-woman marriage, by a Carter judge and a Clinton judge, is unfair to the voters, against our republic, against our democratic system, against the United States Constitution, against Nature, and against God and His beneficial design of family.

“It’s illogical and unconstitutional to claim that natural, unchangeable race and ethnicity is the same as sexual behavior. That’s not fair or true. Race and ethnicity are inherited, but science has never found homosexuality, bisexuality, or transsexuality to be inherited or unchangeable. Neither is this about commitment. As the divorce of leading anti-Prop. 8 lesbians Robin Tyler and Diane Olson demonstrates, the notion of homosexual ‘marriage’ is not really about ‘commitment,’ but is a political agenda forcing acceptance of homosexuality upon the children of America. Yet nothing is equal to marriage between a man and a woman. If you don’t have a man and a woman, you don’t have marriage.

‘Judicial activists like Stephen Reinhardt and Michael Daly Hawkins need to be reined in like Newt Gingrich has been saying about judicial activists. Marriage is not in the United States Constitution, so this case should never have gone to federal court. Now it will be appealed to the nation’s high court, with Anthony Kennedy being the deciding vote. Fortunately, in past rulings favoring homosexuality, Kennedy has written against redefining marriage, making it likely that he will affirm California’s right to reserve marriage licenses for ‘a man and a woman.’”

Lots more, after the jump…
Read the rest of this entry »

Posted on Tuesday, February 7th, 2012
Under: Anna Eshoo, Assembly, Barbara Boxer, Barbara Lee, California State Senate, Darrell Steinberg, Gavin Newsom, Gov. Jerry Brown, Jackie Speier, Jerry Brown, Kamala Harris, Leland Yee, Mark Leno, Mike Honda, Mike Thompson, Nancy Pelosi, Nancy Skinner, same-sex marriage, U.S. House, U.S. Senate, Zoe Lofgren | 1 Comment »

Occupy, taxes and Prop. 8 on ‘TWINC’

Last night on KQED’s “This Week in Northern California,” we talked about the Occupy movement’s status and future; new evidence of income disparities in California; and whether the movement has helped spur new moves toward tax increases here and around the world. Also, Scott Shafer led the discussion on this week’s Prop. 8 action before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Posted on Sunday, December 11th, 2011
Under: same-sex marriage, taxes, TWINC | No Comments »

State Supreme Court to rule on Prop. 8 standing

The California Supreme Court has just announced it will file a written opinion at 10 a.m. tomorrow, Thursday, Nov. 17, in Perry v. Brown, the same-sex marriage case.

The case involves whether an initiative measure’s official proponents have standing to defend that measure’s constitutionality when the public officials charged with that duty decline to do so. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals – which is considering the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that amended the state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman – had asked the state Supreme Court to rule on this particular issue; the court heard oral arguments on it Sept. 6 in San Francisco.

The ruling will be publicly available online.

UPDATE @ 12:37 P.M. THURSDAY: Read the full story on today’s ruling here, and read the ruling itself here.

Posted on Wednesday, November 16th, 2011
Under: ballot measures, same-sex marriage | 2 Comments »

Committee OK’s Defense of Marriage Act’s repeal

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-8 along party lines Thursday to approve Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s bill to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law defining marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman.

“DOMA was wrong when it passed in 1996 and it is wrong now,” Feinstein, D-Calif., said in a statement issued after the vote. “There are 131,000 legally married, same-sex couples in this country who are denied more than 1,100 federal rights and protections because of this discriminatory law. I don’t know how long the battle for full equality will take, but we are on the cusp of change, and today’s historic vote in the committee is an important step forward.”

Among other inequalities, married same-sex couples can’t file joint federal income taxes and claim certain deductions; receive Social Security spousal benefits; take unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act; get protection from the estate tax when one spouse tries to leave property or assets to the other.

Feinstein’s S.598 has 30 co-sponsors, all Democrats.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the committee’s ranking Republican, said at the hearing that the vote was a waste of time given the bill lacks enough votes to pass the Senate floor. “This Orwellian bill does not restore anything,” he said. “Restoring marriage would mean restoring marriage as it has existed for thousands of years. The rights that the bill would create for same-sex couples are not a restoration of any rights. They are new rights that same-sex couples have never had under federal law.”

Same-sex marriage equality advocates disagreed.

“For the first time in history, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to make gays and lesbians whole people,” Courage Campaign founder and chairman Rick Jacobs said Thursday. “This truly historic vote today should never have been necessary because this absurd law should never have been on the books. Thanks to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, we have a bill that can move to the Senate floor where fair-minded people who believe in a nation united, not divided, can end federal discrimination against gay and lesbian couples legally married in six states and the District of Columbia. Sadly, the Republicans think this is a partisan issue, but then some thought the same about the other great civil rights issues of this nation. Eventually, America is just.”

Posted on Thursday, November 10th, 2011
Under: Dianne Feinstein, same-sex marriage, U.S. Senate | 1 Comment »

Prop 8 contributions must be public, judge rules

The identities of past, present and future contributors to committees that backed California’s Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, must remain publicly disclosed, a federal judge ruled today.

ProtectMarriage.com–Yes on 8 and the National Organization for Marriage-California had challenged the state Political Reform Act’s campaign disclosure requirements for contributions to ballot measure committees, arguing individual donors to this measure should be treated the same as members of groups such as the NAACP in the 1960’s and be exempt from disclosure.

Contributions to the Yes on 8 campaign already are public. The plaintiffs had wanted the court to permanently block future disclosure of all of contributors to such groups, expunge all records of past contributions, and invalidate as unconstitutional the state law’s $100 disclosure threshold for contributors to ballot measure committees.

But U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr. of Sacramento ruled from the bench today in favor of the defendants including the Fair Political Practices Commission, the state attorney general and the California secretary of state.

The FPPC issued a news release saying the Yes on 8 committees’ arguments “attacking the Act’s disclosure laws that exist to serve and inform the People of the State of California were ultimately too weak to overcome this State’s important interest in, as Judge England stated, instilling sunshine into the initiative process.”

“They sought to permanently enjoin the future disclosure of all of plaintiffs’, and groups like plaintiffs, contributors, expunge the records of all of plaintiffs’ past contributors, and to invalidate as unconstitutional the Act’s $100 disclosure threshold for contributors to ballot measure committees, among other things,” the FPPC’s release continued. “The Commission vigorously and successfully defended all of the Act’s challenged provisions. The Judge’s decision denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granting the Defendants’ cross motion on all counts will be followed up with a written order.”

I’ve reached out to various Yes-on-8 spokespeople and attorneys, and will update this item if/when they respond.

UPDATE @ 6:29 P.M.: This just in via e-mail from ProtectMarriage.com Executive Director Ron Prentice:

“Campaign disclosure laws were enacted in order to give the public knowledge of a campaign’s primary financial sponsors. To think that donations of $100 represent major donors – in an $82 million battle – is ridiculous on its face. In addition, the evidence of using these public lists to intimidate and harass is plain. The court’s disregard of this fact will contribute to ongoing abuse of the initiative process.”

Posted on Thursday, October 20th, 2011
Under: ballot measures, campaign finance, same-sex marriage | 2 Comments »

It’s no NY, but CA still mulling same-sex rights

New York State on Friday enacted a law allowing same-sex couples to marry, and while the California Legislature is somewhat stymied from following suit until courts figure out whether our state constitutional ban on the practice will stand, it is moving on other same-sex equality fronts.

SB 651 by state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, would eliminate the requirement that couples must live together before entering into a domestic partnership. The state Senate passed this bill June 1 on a 24-15 vote; the Assembly Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hear it at 9 a.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, June 28.

SB 117 by state Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, would require that all state contractors paid more than $100,000 don’t discriminate on the basis of gender or sexual orientation of their employees’ spouses or domestic partners. Current law requires agencies to ensure contractors don’t discriminate between married employees and employees in domestic partnerships when providing benefits, but doesn’t cover same-sex couples who married during the period from when the statutory ban on it was voided by the California Supreme Court in May 2008 until voters approved Proposition 8’s constitutional ban in November 2008. The state Senate approved this bill May 9 on a 21-15 vote; it’s now awaiting an Assembly floor vote.

And AB 1349 by Assemblyman Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, would clarify that courts can consider the relationship between a child and his or her biological and non-biological parents are when they’re asked to rule on who that child’s legal parents are. Current law lets biological parents sign a Voluntary Declaration of Paternity that can be used to cut off a non-biological parent’s relationship. The Assembly passed this bill May 2 on a 52-22 vote; it’s now awaiting a state Senate floor vote.

Posted on Monday, June 27th, 2011
Under: Assembly, California State Senate, Jerry Hill, Mark Leno, same-sex marriage | 2 Comments »

Marriage, state budget & San Jose on ‘TWINC’

I was on KQED’s “This Week in Northern California” last night to discuss this week’s developments in the same-sex marriage wars. With me were KQED’s John Myers to discuss the state budget fiasco, and the Wall Street Journal’s Bobby White to discuss how San Jose is grappling with its monumental budget deficit.

Posted on Saturday, June 18th, 2011
Under: same-sex marriage, state budget, TWINC | No Comments »

Tim Pawlenty glitter-bombed by activists in SF

Republican presidential candidate and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty was sprinkled with glitter and confetti by a pair of gay-rights activists today in San Francisco.

Pawlenty was attending the American’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) Institute 2011 at San Francisco’s Moscone Center when he was approached by activists Nancy Mancias, 41, and Chelsea Byers, 24, both of San Rafael, from the women’s peace group CODEPINK. “Where’s your courage to stand up for gay and reproductive rights? Welcome to San Francisco, home of gay hero Harvey Milk!” they said as they were being led away.

In a news release issued after the incident, the activists said they were inspired by another glitter attack mounted against Republican presidential candidate and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich last month in Minneapolis.

“We are on the cusp of a important civil rights movement and Pawlenty wants to end it. He has expressed his desire to reinstate ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’”, Mancias said in the release. “He’s vetoed equal rights legislation in his home state of Minnesota.”

UPDATE @ 3:10 P.M.: All glitter aside, Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse issued a statement noting Pawlenty was in San Francisco to speak to health insurance executives, “and he’s getting paid to do it.”

Woodhouse noted Pawlenty recently endorsed House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s Republican budget plan that would convert Medicare into a voucher system for future generations.

“Perhaps being bought and paid for by the health insurance executives is something Tim Pawlenty is fine being known for, but it won’t help future seniors who will be forced to pay more for less in terms of health care if Republicans get their way and end Medicare,” Woodhouse said. “Perhaps pocketing thousands of dollars in cash to give a speech outlining his plan to repeal health reform is a plus for Tim Pawlenty, but it won’t help seniors afford their prescription drugs or preventive care, it won’t help young people access health insurance and it won’t help people being denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition.”

Pawlenty campaign spokesman Alex Conant quickly returned fire.

“This lame attack is just more evidence that President Obama has a campaign plan, not an economic plan,” Conant said via e-mail. “Given the inordinate amount of attention the DNC spends on Governor Pawlenty, it’s clear they recognize that Pawlenty’s record of results is a stark contrast to Obama’s empty rhetoric. We’re not going to be lectured by Democrats who have failed to address out-of-control health care costs, deficits and unemployment.”

Conant declined to comment on the glitter-bombing.

Posted on Thursday, June 16th, 2011
Under: 2012 presidential election, same-sex marriage | 3 Comments »

Poll numbers shift, ads launched on marriage

Days after a recent poll showed Californians becoming more accepting of same-sex marriage, the national advocacy group Freedom to Marry is rolling out a “Why Marriage Matters” national ad campaign.

The organization says the $10 million, three-year effort will be the largest-ever national public education campaign on this issue, launching Monday – Valentine’s Day – with a national cable buy on CNN. Here’s the first ad:

In partnership with local and state groups, the “Why Marriage Matters” campaign will include a variety of TV, radio, and online ads, plus a website of its own.

“Across the country the thinking of many Americans, from the president to the people next door, continues to — as President Obama put it — ‘evolve’ toward support for same-sex couples joining in the freedom to marry. Freedom to Marry’s team has crunched over a decade’s worth of polling data and field experience to crack the code on moving the reachable but not yet reached,” Freedom to Marry founder and president Evan Wolfson said in a news release. “By engaging friends, families, and neighbors in personal conversations about why marriage matters, each of us can help fair-minded people wrestling with a lack of information and uncertainty, and change hearts and minds.”

Freedom to Marry says its data showed that people who have had conversations with their gay and lesbian friends about why marriage matters to them are more likely to support the freedom to marry.

“As Americans see their gay and lesbian friends, families, and coworkers in loving and committed relationships, they realize there is no good reason to withhold the protections and support that only come with marriage,” said Thalia Zepatos, the group’s public engagement director. “It is as simple as the Golden Rule.”

Here in California, 52.2 percent of voters in November 2008 approved Proposition 8, which amended the state’s constitution to say that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” A federal judge has deemed the measure unconstitutional, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is now considering the case.

But a recent poll indicates Californians’ minds might be changing on the issue even as the courts weigh it. A Public Policy Polling survey of 892 California voters, conducted from Jan. 28 to 30 with a 3.3 percent margin of error, found that when asked, “Do you think same sex marriage should be legal or illegal?,” 51 percent said legal, 40 percent said illegal and 10 percent said they weren’t sure. When PPP had last asked the question in September 2010, a 46 percent plurality was in support, but an almost equal 44 percent was opposed.

The poll showed Democrats remained stable, with two-thirds in support and a quarter opposed both then and now. But Republican voters moved from 76-15 opposed in the earlier poll to 64-29 in this new one; independent voters went from 47-41 to 51-35.

It’s still a generational divide, to some extent: 47 percent of senior citizens oppose same-sex marriage, while only 42 percent support it. Take them out of the poll, and support for legalization grows to 51 percent in favor, 38 percent against – indicating once again that legal acceptance of same-sex marriage may only be a matter of time.

Posted on Wednesday, February 9th, 2011
Under: same-sex marriage | 1 Comment »