Gay marriage stalls as RI lawmakers wrap up
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Rhode Island seems almost certain to remain the only New England state that does not recognize gay marriage after measures legalizing same-sex unions stalled just before the part-time General Assembly ended the bulk of its annual work.
None of the bills legalizing same-sex marriage in Rhode Island advanced to a floor vote this session, continuing a trend begun in 1997.
The lack of State House action on gay unions means that Rhode Island is unlikely to allow same-sex marriage anytime soon, despite decisions this year by lawmakers in New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont to join Connecticut and Massachusetts in legalizing marriage equality.
“I was hoping the momentum that was going around New England and the support we had in the House would get enough representatives to ask for it,” said Rep. Frank Ferri (D-Warwick), who is gay and sponsored same-sex marriage legislation. He and his partner wed in Canada.
Equally disappointed were marriage equality opponents, who wanted voters to be able to decide whether the state constitution should be changed to ban gay marriage.
“I think that if you put it to the voters on a statewide basis, gay marriage would fail,” said Rep. Jon Brien, D-Woonsocket.
See Gay marriage stalls as RI lawmakers wrap up
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/gay-marriage-…
Schwarzenegger says Proposition 8 may violate U.S. Constitution
The governor’s decision to remain neutral in a federal challenge to Proposition 8 means no statewide official will be defending the measure in federal court.
Proposition 8 resurrected a ban on same-sex marriage, receiving 52% of the vote in the November election. The California Supreme Court ruled 6-1 last month that the measure did not violate the state constitution.
See Schwarzenegger says Proposition 8 may violate U.S. Constitution
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/schwarzenegge…
LA Times Editorial: A court battle California doesn’t need
The Supreme Court’s ruling last week in the case of a grandiosely unethical West Virginia justice opened a new field of constitutional review — the high court may now consider when an elected state court jurist has been so tainted by politics that due process requires him to recuse himself from a case.
In West Virginia, a coal executive spent more than $3 million to unseat a sitting state Supreme Court justice; it was money well spent, as the justice was defeated by voters and replaced by Brent Benjamin. Benjamin then did what was expected of him and cast a deciding vote in overturning a $50-million jury award against the executive’s coal company.
Indeed, California has wrestled with this problem before — and quite possibly could again.
California’s system for selecting Supreme Court justices is much better than West Virginia’s. Candidates for the court here are nominated by the governor, confirmed by a state commission and then placed on the bench. They must periodically stand for retention, but they are not, as they are in West Virginia, subject to direct challenge by rival candidates. A retention election can cost a justice his or her seat, but it does not let voters kick out one justice and install their own replacement.
California’s rules have helped balance the judiciary’s independence with the public’s fair insistence on accountability, but even this state’s reasonable retention process has been subject to tilt. Most notable was the 1986 retention election that removed Chief Justice Rose Bird and two associate justices, Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin. Much reflection has gone into that race in the decades since, and opinions differ on its merits. Two truths, however, stand the test of deep inquiry: The forces arrayed against Bird were not motivated solely by her opposition to the death penalty — that was cover for a second complaint, which was her defense of consumer rights against corporate power — and Reynoso and Grodin were victims of a special-interest crusade against a vulnerable chief.
Would that we could relegate that episode to California’s history. In fact, the state rumbles with discontent over its high court and chief, and those stirrings contain alarming echoes of the battle of 1986.
At issue are the court’s rulings on same-sex marriage and Proposition 8, and its chief justice, Ronald M. George. In May 2008, the court overturned the state’s ban on gay marriage, striking a victory for civil rights in the grandest tradition of constitutional protection of minorities. A few months later, after voters approved Proposition 8 and amended the state Constitution to ban the same institution that the court had upheld, George and his colleagues upheld the amendment. Both times, George wrote for the majority. He thus angered opponents of gay marriage in 2008 and supporters of it in 2009.
By California’s rules, George faces a retention election in 2010, and some predict that he could face challenges from either side — or even both — in this polarizing debate.
That would be a shame for the state’s judiciary, an unfortunate attack on judicial independence and an unfair castigation of one of this state’s most principled and admirable public officials. In the gay-marriage cases, George’s votes demonstrated conscience, professionalismand restraint. He voted to uphold same-sex unions out of the strong conviction — which this page shares — that the Constitution does not allow society to deny the protection of marriage to gay couples any more than it once denied it to those united across race. The ruling was right on the law, and will certainly be validated over the long march of history.
Months later, voters tacked in the other direction, narrowly rejecting gay marriage and amending the Constitution to allow California to recognize only the unions of heterosexual couples. That was challenged, naturally, and the lawsuit offered the court the opportunity to extend its earlier ruling, though on shaky constitutional grounds — advocates for same-sex marriage argued that Proposition 8 was such an affront to the rights of Californians that it revised the Constitution rather than merely amending it. Scholars split on the merits of that argument, and although the strong consensus of legal opinion rejectedit, an opportunistic justice might have seized the chance to solidify his legacy.
Instead, George subordinated his politics — as evidenced by his writing — to the weight of constitutional opinion. He voted to uphold the proposition, even though it undid his own work. Permitted latitude within the strictures of the Constitution in the first case, George was able to vote his conscience; bound by the Constitution in the second case, he yielded.
Such is the lot of a principled judicial officer, but those concerned only with results already have signaled their unhappiness with George. The moneyed interests that supported Proposition 8 last fall are considering whether to finance a campaign against George next year. Supporters of gay marriage, who championed his heroism in 2008, were bitterly disappointed when the court upheld the hateful initiative.
This is not West Virginia. Corporate interests are not knocking off justices who disagree with them and seating more accommodating replacements. But intimidation has no place in our judicial life any more than it does in Appalachia. The 1986 campaign against Bird and her colleagues now stands for many as a reminder that well-intentioned systems of accountability may be hijacked by special interests, a lesson learned too often and at great cost in California. It was misguided in its first iteration; it would be regrettable in its second.
See A court battle California doesn’t need
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/la-times-edit…
Gay Marriage Battle Heats Up In Nation’s Capital NPR
Until 2004, same-sex couples couldn’t wed anywhere in the country. Now, gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine and most recently New Hampshire.
Despite these historic strides by the gay rights movement, though, the United States is still a nation divided over whether to redefine marriage.
The California Supreme Court on May 26 upheld the state’s voter-approved constitutional ban on gay marriage, but ruled that some 18,000 same-sex couples who wed before Proposition 8 took effect would still be married under state law.
Twenty-nine other states have enshrined voter-approved prohibitions blocking same-sex marriage in their state constitution as a way to keep state judges from overturning the bans. See Gay Marriage Battle Heats Up In Nation’s Capital NPR
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/gay-marriage-…
California court upholds marriage ban; existing unions still legal
The California Supreme Court today upheld a ballot measure that amended the state Constitution to deny marriage rights to lesbians and gays. But the ruling did confirm the legality of 18,000 California marriages that were conducted between the time of a previous judicial order and the November election. Los Angeles Times (5/26) , ABC News (5/26) , San Jose Mercury News (Calif.)
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/california-co…
Polls show Pa. resisting tide favoring gay marriage
ONE OF the big political stories of 2009 has been the surge in American public approval for gay marriage and the growing number of states - including the heartland bastion of Iowa - that have legalized the practice, but here in Pennsylvania the pages of this political thriller are still blank.
Even as the neighboring states of New York and New Jersey seem to be racing to legalize gay marriage, perhaps as early as this year, advocates for gay rights in Pennsylvania find themselves still locked in a defensive posture. Indeed, Republican state Sen. John Eichelberger, of Blair County, intends today to introduce an amendment to the state constitution aimed at blocking any courts from approving same-sex marriage in the Keystone State.
“Clearly, Pennsylvania is among Alabama and Mississippi in terms of gay rights,” said Malcolm Lazin, the executive director of the Equality Forum, the gay-rights-advocacy group based in Philadelphia.
See
Polls show Pa. resisting tide favoring gay marriage
Philadelphia Inquirer -* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/polls-show-pa…
Anti-gay amendment resurfaces in Penn.
(Harrisburg, Pennsylvania) A proposed amendment to Pennsylvania’s state constitution banning same-sex marriage that failed twice before resurfaced Tuesday.
Republican state Sen. John Eichelberger, pointing to the legalization of gay marriage in Iowa and four New England , time is running out to preserve the “traditional family” in Pennsylvania.
The state already has …
Tags: Anti Gay, Harrisburg Pennsylvania, Legalization Of Gay Marriage, marriage, New England, Pennsylvania State, Republican State, same sex marriage, State ConstitutionConservatives press for gay marriage ban in NJ
(Trenton, New Jersey) A coalition of socially conservative groups is pressing the New Jersey legislature to ask voters in 2010 to amend the state constitution to bar same-sex marriage.
The call came as Maine became the fifth state to legalize same-sex marriage and a similar bill in New Hampshire passed the …
Tags: Conservative Groups, Conservatives, Gay Marriage Ban, Maine, marriage, New Hampshire, New Jersey Legislature, same sex marriage, State Constitution, Trenton New JerseyCalifornia Gay Marriage Backers to Try Again
Same-sex marriage backers in California, anticipating a loss in court, are preparing to make their case at the ballot box in 2010 rather than waiting until 2012.
“The right time is now,” San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom told ABC News. “And if that means going back in 2010, I couldn’t be more supportive.”
“Wait almost always means never,” he added, invoking Martin Luther King Jr.
California voters approved Proposition 8 in November, a change to the state constitution banning same-sex marriage. Although a decision has not yet been rendered in the legal challenge to Proposition 8, many gay marriage proponents in California expect the state Supreme Court to uphold the voter-approved ban on new gay marriages while leaving intact the gay marriages performed in 2008 when a decision of the state’s High Court had temporarily legalized the practice.
See California Gay Marriage Backers to Try Again
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/california-ga…
Utah prime location for gay-rights movement
Salt Lake City » Valerie Larabee is a lesbian, out and living in Salt Lake City, where the shadow of the Mormon church can feel long and cold for people who are gay. “My friends who don’t live here think I’m nuts,” said Larabee, a former Air Force officer and financial planner, who moved to Utah in 1997 and now runs the Gay Pride Center on Salt Lake City’s west side. While much of the country moves in fits and starts toward greater acceptance of gay people and endorsement of equal rights, the politically active Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the often ultra-conservative Mormon-dominated Utah Legislature have found themselves squarely on the opposite side of that trend. In the U.S., gay marriage is legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, and Vermont. Utah has made it illegal twice: Once in statute and again when voters banned the practice in the state constitution. Undaunted, activists say the current political and social climate in many ways make this “the best time” to be gay in Utah. The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community — especially along the population-dense Wasatch Front — is growing and energized. “I think we are the frontline of the culture war,” said Troy Williams, a former Mormon and the gay host of “Radioactive,” a talk show on public radio. “This is where the fight is and this is where the really exciting stuff is happening.”
Utah prime location for gay-rights movement
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/utah-prime-lo…
