What Does the Top-Secret California Marriage Polling Reveal?
At 11:30am PST today, an umbrella group of gay organizations like the Courage Campaign, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Marriage Equality U.S.A., and Equality California will deliver the results from its polling of where California’s voters stand on same-sex marriage. Yes, this is the same data Fresno organizers wanted to keep secret. To those involved, the data is of utmost importance, because it could determine whether to push for a ballot measure overturning Prop 8 in 2010, or whether the analysis shows we should wait until 2012, or even head in another course of action. The results of the poll will be delivered over a conference call (only media are invited to join). But Queerty received a preview of what to expect.
“Opinion on marriage for same-sex couples in California is almost evenly divided, with opponents holding a 1% to 2% edge,” says the data from the Poll4Equality Coalition, which conducted the survey. Depending on how you look at it, that’s either good or bad news. Bad, because it shows we still have more convincing to do. And good, because it shows there’s only a small margin to overcome.
But knowing the state is nearly evenly divided on gay marriage, the important information the poll delivers is: If we’re going to put the issue on the ballot, how do we phrase the wording?
When asked, “Do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose allowing same-sex couples to be legally married?,” the survey found 47 percent saying “favor” and 48 percent saying “oppose.” The data shows “support increases if the language specifically includes a provision that says no clergy will be required to perform a service that goes against their faith,” according to the the document provided to Queerty.
As for the 2010 vs. 2012 issue? “Modeling turnout scenarios for 2010 and 2012 indicate that there is a small advantage to same?sex marriage supporters in a 2012 electorate. This is based on a considerably higher turnout that is expected in 2012 due to the Presidential election. However, the additional voters that will come to the polls in a Presidential election are divided in their view of marriage for same?sex couples. Voters
that will only turn out in a 2012 scenario are divided between younger voters who strongly support same?sex marriage and older Anglo, Latino and African American religious voters who are opposed to marriage for same?sex couples. While our modeling does indicate that 2012 will provide an extra 1?2 points of support for a marriage equality ballot measure, this difference may be impacted by many other factors in the larger political landscape at that time.”
See What Does the Top-Secret California Marriage Polling Reveal? Queerty
See What Does the Top-Secret California Marriage Polling Reveal?
Queerty
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/what-does-top…
Gay marriage closer in NH
(Concord, N.H.) The New Hampshire State Senate voted today 14-10 to pass the equal marriage compromise bill – but locals say that the House is a harder sell.
The compromise bill includes a provision that allows any religious institution to decide who they will marry.
“The changes augment, buttress and bolster the …
Alta. to enshrine gay protections – but let parents pull kids from class
EDMONTON — Alberta introduced changes Tuesday to recognize sexual orientation in the province’s human rights laws.
But the move to expand protections under the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act was accompanied by a provision allowing parents to pull their kids from school discussions of religion, sexuality or sexual orientation — a move that could let parents yank students from classes on such topics as evolution.
“There’s nothing that’s in our curriculum that’s contentious or controversial really,” Culture and Community Minister Lindsay Blackett said after he tabled the bill in the legislature. “There’s very few parents that go and have their children opt out, (and) nothing’s going to change that.
“I don’t think there’s going to be a stampede of people going to the human rights commission because there’s nothing to go for.”
See Alta. to enshrine gay protections – but let parents pull kids from …
Ottawa Citizen -
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/alta-to-enshr…
Wisconsin Trial Court Dismisses ACLU Lawsuit Seeking Domestic Partner Benefits For Lesbian and Gay State Employees
The Court’s opinion states: “The plaintiffs have offered a strong showing that the employment benefits in issue have been provided on a discriminatory basis. The defendants’ explanations offered for the continuing discrimination against these plaintiffs are unpersuasive and inadequate.”
“Losing doesn’t get any better than this,” said Larry Dupuis, Litigation Director of the ACLU. “We knew we had an uphill battle in the trial court because of the earlier case. But the court agreed with us that discrimination based on sexual orientation should be subject to strict judicial review and that it is unconstitutional for the state to deny equal benefits.”
The Court also found that providing the benefits would not be barred by the anti-gay marriage amendment that passed in 2006. After the amendment passed, the state had argued that the amendment barred the state from providing the benefits.
The ACLU filed the lawsuit in April 2005 on behalf of six lesbian state employees and their partners. The lawsuit charges that it is a violation of the state’s equal protection guarantees to deny lesbian and gay state employees access to the same health insurance and family leave protections that it provides to straight employees who are able to cover their spouses. The lawsuit was stalled for years because a number of Wisconsin municipalities tried to inject themselves into the lawsuit. The issue ultimately went up to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which ruled that they were not entitled to become a party to the litigation.
“While we are heartened by the court’s decision, we urge the legislature to pass the domestic partner bill so there will be no need to appeal,” added Chris Ahmuty, Executive Director of the ACLU of Wisconsin. “Our clients are forced to pay expensive prices for inferior health coverage and sometimes even to forego necessary care. They suffer every day this issue goes unresolved.”
Wisconsin Department of Corrections employee Jayne Dunnum and her partner, Robin Timm, pay nearly $450 a month for private insurance for Timm who works on the couple’s organic farm and food store in Platteville. “We don’t care if it happens through the courts or the legislature. We just really need the health insurance coverage,” said Dunnum. “It’s a matter of basic fairness. I work just as hard has my straight colleagues and shouldn’t be denied the equal employment benefits.”
The case is Dunnum v. Department of Employee Trust Funds. The couples are represented by John Knight and Rose Saxe of the ACLU’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project, Larry Dupuis of the ACLU of Wisconsin, and cooperating attorneys Linda Roberson and Christopher Krimmer of the Madison law firm Balisle & Roberson.
Biographical information for all of the couples, today’s decision, the complaint, and additional information are available at http://www.aclu.org/getequal/caseprofiles.htm.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/wisconsin-tri…
Gay & Lesbian community responds to Gov. Gibbons veto
Monday, Governor Jim Gibbons vetoed SB 283-the Domestic Partner Bill that Revises provisions governing the rights of domestic partners. SB 283 would establish a Domestic Partner registry through the Secretary of State’s office where couples, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, could register their relationships with the state and enjoy the protections granted to spouses under Nevada Revised Statutes. State Senator David Parks introduced the bill in an effort to provide same-gender and opposite-gender couples the legal protection and obligations for one another not otherwise allowed under current law in Nevada.
Gibbons writes that he vetoed the bill based on his opinion that it violates Section 21 of Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution. He surmises the will of the voters expressed in Question 2-which amended the Nevada Constitution in 2002, to define Marriage as, “Only a marriage between a male and female person shall be recognized and given effect in this state,” without providing any basis for his opinion. Legal opinions expressed by experts in legislative testimony during hearings on SB 283, and the opinion issued by the Legislative Council Bureau contradict his reasoning. Gibbons also claims in his letter that couples can contract privately through “estate planning…living wills..and amendments to leases and deeds of trust.” “If legal contracts were as simple as Governor Gibbons claims, more people would enter into them-same-gender couples or otherwise. The process of drawing up legal documents is expensive, time consuming and easily challenged in court. There is no guarantee that these contracts will stand up in court. LGBT couples seek only to provide security for their partners and families and that the decisions they make for one another will actually be binding,” said, Jennifer Bolton, Center Board Vice President. See Gay & Lesbian community responds to Gov. Gibbons veto
KTNV Las Vegas * Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/gay-lesbian-c…
Protests take on teen violence bill that ignores LGBTs
(Columbia, South Carolina) Dozens of gay rights advocates demonstrated at the South Carolina Capitol on Tuesday, protesting against a provision in a teen dating violence bill that specifically excludes same-sex coupled young people.
The provision was added by the state House last week and LGBT groups say it sends a dire …
New Study Says Obama Can Halt Gay Discharges With Executive Order
Military Law Experts Chart Course to End 16-Year Ban
SANTA BARBARA, Calif. — A study released today by a team of military law experts shows that the president has the legal authority to end gay discharges with a single order. The idea of ending the ban by executive order has gained momentum in the wake of news that mission-critical personnel, including Arabic language speaker Dan Choi, continue to be fired under the Obama administration because they’re gay. Congressman Rush Holt endorsed an executive order to end the ban on Saturday and National Security Adviser James Jones was asked about it by George Stephanopoulos on Sunday morning. The report, “How to End Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: A Roadmap of Political, Legal, Regulatory, and Organizational Steps to Equal Treatment,” is sponsored by the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Many have argued that only Congress can lift the ban on service by openly gay troops. But according to the study, Congressional approval is not needed. Dr. Aaron Belkin, Director of the Palm Center and a study co-author, said “The administration does not want to move forward on this issue because of conservative opposition from both parties in Congress, and Congress does not want to move forward without a signal from the White House. This study provides a recipe for breaking through the political deadlock, as well as a roadmap for military leaders once the civilians give the green light.”
There are three legal bases to the president’s authority, the report says. First, Congress has already granted to the Commander in Chief the statutory authority to halt military separations under 10 U.S.C. 12305, a law which Congress titled, “Authority of President to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, retirement, and separation.” Under the law, the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States during a “period of national emergency.” The statute specifically defines a “national emergency” as a time when “members of a reserve component are serving involuntarily on active duty.”
The second and third bases of presidential authority are contained within the “don’t ask, don’t tell” legislation itself. The law grants to the Defense Department authority to determine the process by which discharges will be carried out, saying they will proceed “under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulation.” Finally, the law calls for the discharge of service members if a finding of homosexuality is made, but it does not require that such a finding ever be made. According to the study, these provisions mean that the Pentagon, not Congress, has the “authority to devise and implement the procedures under which those findings may be made.”
Diane H. Mazur, Professor of Law at the University of Florida College of Law and another study co-author, said the presidential authority to stop firing gay troops, known as “stop-loss,” is different from the highly unpopular stop-loss policy that the Army recently announced it would phase out. “That use of stop-loss forcibly extends service by those who wish to leave the military,” she said, “whereas suspending discharges for homosexuality would do the opposite: allow ongoing service by those who wish to remain in uniform.” The study says the provisions of the stop-loss law, which are granted by Congress, are “sensible because they give the President authority to suspend laws relating to separation when a national emergency has strained personnel requirements.”
The other four authors of the study in addition to Mazur and Belkin are Dr. Nathaniel Frank, a Palm researcher and author of “Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America”; Dr. Gregory M. Herek, Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Davis; Dr. Elizabeth L. Hillman, Professor of Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law; and Bridget J. Wilson, who practices law at Rosenstein Wilson & Dean in San Diego. The report will also be published in a forthcoming book, “Department of Defense Social Policy Perspectives 2010,” edited by James Parco, David Levy and Fred Blass.
The Palm Center is a research institute at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The Center uses rigorous social science to inform public discussions of controversial social issues, enabling policy outcomes to be informed more by evidence than by emotion. Its data-driven approach is premised on the notion that the public makes wise choices on social issues when high-quality information is available. For more information, visit www.palmcenter.ucsb.edu * Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/new-study-say…
House adds same-sex benefits provision for U.S. diplomats to budget proposal
Congress has inserted a provision into the State Department authorization budget that would require the State Department to confer the same benefits to same-sex partners as it does to married couples.
Congressman Howard Berman, Chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, included the provision in the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 (H.R. 2410) to “end the long-standing practice of excluding the committed partners of Foreign Service officers from the benefits routinely provided to the spouses and children of officers serving abroad.” The provision now must make its way through the budget process, including the conference committee where many-a-well intentioned proposal hits the chopping block. But in this case, it would be hard to imagine that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is lead by Chairman John Kerry and the moderate republic ranking member Richard Lugar, would do anything to strip out this provision.
This would be progress. For too long, gay and lesbian diplomats have had to chose between their families and their service. “I’m happy that efforts to redress these discriminatory policies are being undertaken,” emails Michael Guest a former Foreign Service officer currently affiliated with the Center for Global Equality. “This is all about ensuring the safety, effectiveness and equal workplace conditions for those who serve our country abroad, and for the families who accompany them on those assignments.” Amen!
House adds same-sex benefits provision for U.S. diplomats to budget proposal
UN Dispatch (5/15) * Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/house-adds-sa…
Former DC Mayor Marion Barry Lone Dissenter On Gay Marriage
Listen Now [12 min 6 sec] Tell Me More, May 15, 2009 · City council members in the nation’s capitol voted recently to recognize the marriages of gay couples who relocate to the area from states that have legalized the unions, such as Iowa and New Hampshire. Former Mayor and current councilman Marion Barry was the only member to vote against the provision, making him both the subject of praise and criticism.
Barry defends his stance and explains how his predominantly black constituency influenced his decision. See Former DC Mayor Marion Barry Lone Dissenter On Gay Marriage
NPR * Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/former-dc-may…
“It’s not easy being gay,” says director of the Ohio Department of Insurance
“It’s not easy being gay,” said Mary Jo Hudson, director of the Ohio Department of Insurance. She wasn’t referring to political opposition and other obstacles, but the plight of same-sex couples who are trying to get and keep health insurance.
“You’ve got to go through a lot of hoops,” said Ms. Hudson, who is openly gay and has lived with her partner for eight years.
Same-sex couples have been making headlines; Maine followed the lead of Iowa and Vermont this week in legalizing same-sex marriage, and several other state legislatures are now considering it. But Ms. Hudson says that fairer and more comprehensive health care coverage for partners — whether they are legally married or not — is not necessarily part of the package.
“For the vast majority of gay couples,” she said, “getting health insurance for a domestic partner is still a challenge.”
Currently about one-third of companies with more than 500 employees offer domestic partner benefits. That’s up from about 12 percent in 2000, according to a study from Mercer, an employee benefits consulting firm. But the percentage drops off sharply when smaller employers are counted, Ms. Hudson said.
And there is no provision for domestic partner benefits for federal employees, although there are some legislative efforts to change that. Some states and municipalities offer their employees domestic partner coverage, depending on the state laws.
Even if the relationship is formalized with the state in a marriage or union, that does not always obligate the employer to cover a same-sex spouse. For one thing, self-insured employers are not regulated by the states. See Patient Money For Gay Couples, Obstacles to Health Insurance
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/its-not-easy-…
