And now there are four. In the space of a week, the number of states allowing same-sex marriage has doubled, with Iowa and then Vermont joining Massachusetts and Connecticut. In California, gay and lesbian couples were exchanging vows for five months before voters put a stop to the practice in November. Californians are still talking it over, though, and loudly. New York and New Jersey may be next to debate the question.

In other contexts, this sort of turmoil might amount to an invitation for the United States Supreme Court to step in. But there are all sorts of reasons the court is likely to keep its distance, and a central one is the endlessly debated 1973 decision that identified a constitutional right to abortion.

“The concern about creating another Roe v. Wade looms large,” said Nathaniel Persily, who teaches law and political science at Columbia. “At least five members of this court, if not more, would probably be reluctant to weigh in on this controversy, especially given the progress that is being made in state legislatures, state courts and public opinion.”

Court decisions on issues like school desegregation, abortion and same-sex marriage can raise questions about the judicial branch usurping the democratic process. But there are strategic issues as well. The Supreme Court not only decides cases but also decides which cases to decide. In jurisprudence as in life, timing is everything.

Even some strong supporters of abortion rights believe, for instance, that Roe went too far too fast and may have been counterproductive. One of them is Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

 See Gay Marriage Issue Steering Clear of the Supreme Court

New York Times - 

Gay rights advocates fear that Mormons in Nauvoo might try to undermine civil unions up for debate in Springfield today. They point to the church’s overwhelming financial support of California’s Proposition 8, the successful ballot measure that made it illegal for lesbian and gay couples to marry.

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, accused the Latter-day Saints of sending a private e-mail to Illinois members, urging them to contact state legislators and voice opposition to the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act, a bill that would define “civil union” as a legal relationship between two persons, of either the same or opposite sex. It would also entitle both parties of a civil union to the same legal obligations, responsibilities, protections, and benefits afforded to spouses.

The bill has been scheduled for a hearing in the Illinois House of Representatives Youth and Family Committee today. If the bill is voted out of committee, it becomes eligible for a vote before the full Illinois House of Representatives.

But Kim Farah, a spokeswoman for the national church, said the e-mail was not part of a church wide opposition campaign. The church’s engagement with political causes is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. It is unclear if the Illinois legislation would violate church doctrine as interpreted by Latter-day Saints.

“As is widely known, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of traditional marriage,” she said in a statement. “The Church has not taken a position on any legislation currently being considered by the Illinois State Legislature … An e-mail was sent from a local Illinois Church leader to his congregation – one of 129 congregations in the state — who was free to express his own views.”

The e-mail in question was sent to at least one Mormon ward in Illinois and authorized by Bishop Chris Church of Nauvoo.

The message warns recipients that the legislation would “empower the public schools to begin teaching this lifestyle to our young children regardless of parental requests otherwise.” 

MORE @ The Seeker – Chicago Tribune Blog

As gays and lesbians have fought for rights and won elected office, public opinion has shifted. Back in 1977, singer Anita Bryant of Florida was leading a Bible-based campaign against homosexuals, claiming they were sinners and a threat to children and family life. When pollsters asked more than 1,000 Californians – face to face, in their homes – whether they agreed with her, 45 percent said yes. Emotions still run high on the issue, but more Californians now say they know gays and lesbians, and approve of same-sex marriage. The shift is particularly pronounced among residents ages 18 to 29. Following are notable twists and turns in the history of California’s gay rights movement.

1951: The Mattachine Society, one of the first gay advocacy organizations in the United States, is incorporated in Los Angeles to combat oppression of homosexuals.

1955: The Daughters of Bilitis, a national lesbian organization, is founded in San Francisco.

1961: José Sarria runs for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, becoming what is believed to be the nation’s first openly gay candidate for public office.

1975: Assembly Bill 489, by Assemblyman Willie Brown, decriminalizes sexual acts performed in private by consenting adults in California.

1977: The state Legislature overwhelmingly votes to define civil marriage as a contract between a man and a woman. Harvey Milk later becomes the first openly gay person to be elected to public office in California, winning a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

1978: Voters defeat Proposition 6, the Briggs initiative, named for Sen. John Briggs, which would have barred gays, lesbians and their supporters from teaching in public schools.

1979: Gov. Jerry Brown issues an executive order barring discrimination against state employees based on sexual orientation.

1984: Gov. George Deukmejian vetoes Assembly Bill 1, the first bill that would have banned job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

1989: Senate Bill 202, by Sen. Diane Watson, requires law enforcement agencies to report hate crimes, including those in which a motivating factor is the victim’s sexual orientation.

1991: Gov. Pete Wilson vetoes Assembly Bill 101, by Assemblyman Terry Friedman, prohibiting discrimination against gays in the workplace.

1992: Wilson signs Friedman’s narrower measure, Assembly Bill 2601, which adds sexual orientation protections to the Labor Code.

1994: Sheila Kuehl is elected to the Assembly, becoming the state Legislature’s first openly lesbian or gay member.

1999: Assembly Bill 26, by Assemblywoman Carole Migden, creates the first statewide domestic partnership registry, allowing the partners of gay state employees to receive health benefits.

1999: Assembly Bill 1001, by Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa, adds sexual orientation to anti-discrimination provisions of the state Fair Employment and Housing Act.

1999: Assembly Bill 537, by Assemblywoman Sheila Kuehl, makes it illegal to harass students in public schools because of sexual orientation.

2000: Voters pass Proposition 22, which banned same-sex marriage.

2001: Migden’s Assembly Bill 25 greatly expands the rights of domestic partners to include health benefits through private group insurance, death benefits, sick leave, tax deductions and adoption of stepchildren.

2002: The nation’s first legislative Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Caucus is formed in the Legislature. It comprises Assembly members Kuehl, Migden, Jackie Goldberg and Christine Kehoe.

2002: John Laird and Mark Leno are elected to the Assembly, becoming the first openly gay men in the Legislature and members of the LGBT Caucus.

2003: Assembly Bill 205 by Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg extends to registered domestic partners nearly all the same rights and responsibilities provided to opposite-sex spouses in California.

2004: San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom orders city officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. More than 4,000 couples receive licenses and are married before the California Supreme Court orders a halt to the process until its constitutionality can be determined.

2004: Assembly Bill 2208, by Assemblywoman Christine Kehoe, bars insurance providers from discriminating against domestic partners.

2005: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes Assembly Bill 849, by Assemblyman Mark Leno, which would have legalized same-sex marriage. Schwarzenegger urged gay rights advocates to wait for court rulings on Proposition 22 or ask the voters to repeal the ban.

2008: In a 4-3 decision May 16, the California Supreme Court rules that the state constitution gives gays and lesbians the right to marry. On Nov. 4, voters approve Proposition 8, the ban that’s now being challenged.

Sources: Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life; the American Civil Liberties Union; Encyclopedia Britannica; World Book Encyclopedia; Bee news archives.

Bee research/Aurelio Rojas, Pete Basofin and Micaela Massimino.

 See California gay rights timeline
Sacramento Bee – CA, USA

A proposal to allow civil unions in Illinois between same-sex couples has been stalled in the state legislature and seems likely to stay that way, as gay rights activists Wednesday plan nationwide “Day Without a Gay” rallies to protest California‘s Proposition 8 and other measures opposing gay marriage.

“This is going to be focusing on the economic aspect of what the deprivation of equal marriage rights means to our community,” said Andy Thayer of the Gay Liberation Network in Chicago, which is planning a rally 11 a.m. Wednesday outside the Cook County clerk’s office.

The demonstration to highlight pensions and survivors’ benefits in Chicago occurs as the future of the Illinois Religious Freedom and Civil Unions Act grows uncertain. See Illinois civil union bill appears to be stalled
Chicago Tribune

ANCHORAGE — To get elected in Alaska to the United States Senate as a Democrat sometimes requires not acting like one. Talk up drilling for oil in wildlife refuges. Talk up gun rights. Insist that those liberals who control Congress will never push you around.

And when your Republican rival is convicted in federal court shortly before Election Day, do not gloat. He is, after all, Senator Ted Stevens, once decreed by the State Legislature as Alaskan of the Century.

Of course, that was last century.

Mayor Mark Begich of Anchorage is the Democrat who last month pulled off what once seemed unimaginable, becoming only the second Democrat from Alaska to win a seat in Washington since his father was a member of the House of Representatives nearly four decades ago.

Mr. Begich’s seat in the Senate has been occupied by Mr. Stevens since Mr. Begich was 6 years old and the state of Alaska was just 9. But Mr. Begich, 46, suggests there is something larger at work in his victory than just good timing in taking on a suddenly vulnerable Mr. Stevens, who was convicted in October of failing to disclose gifts and home renovations he received from a wealthy oil services industry executive.

“We’re a much more mature state in many ways,” Mr. Begich told reporters a day after he declared victory.

 See Alaska’s new senator sees change at work
New York Times