A recent bill proposed last week to Wyoming state legislators would end the state’s recognition of gay marriages performed elsewhere.  A second bit of legislation would actually define marriage as something only between a man and a woman, outright banning same-sex marriage.  Opponents of the bill argue that this would undermine laws from other states and will leave room for lawsuits brought by gay couples against the state.  The bill is scheduled for a third reading today, and if it passes, will move to the Senate.

Last week in New Hampshire, a straw poll was conducted regarding presidential nominees and the importance of issues which the Republican presidential nominee should focus on.  According to the poll, 49% of residents believe that reducing the size of the federal government is the top priority, which a mere 1% view outlawing gay marriage is the most important issue.  This is a sign that Republicans should stop pushing the social agenda and focus on fiscal policy, limiting the federal government, and reducing government deficit.

Last week, former Peru president, Alejandro Toledo, announced that he looks to legalize same-sex marriage if he is elected in the upcoming April elections.  He plans to propose legislation which would take out gender from civil union laws, allowing gay and lesbians to legally marry. He believes that it “is a question of principals, it aims to recognize the full civil rights of citizens and to be a step, among others, to achieve social inclusion of all Peruvians.”  A second presidential candidate also would push for same-sex marriage if elected, saying that “it is a proposal to recognize rights without discrimination.”

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled in favor of three same-sex couples suing California Public Employees’ Retirement System over denial of a federally approved benefits package for their same-sex spouses.  The agency had previously denied these benefits in accordance to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.  Judge Wilken, however, denied a request for dismissal of the case by the Obama administration.

In Wilken’s ruling, she states that DOMA is in fact “robbing states of the power to allow same-sex civil marriages that will be recognized under federal law.”  Her rulings also struck down certain provisions within DOMA such as the idea that this legislation would promote and preserve both procreation and heterosexual marriage:  ‘”Marriage has never been contingent on having children,’ Wilken said, and denying federal benefits to same-sex couples ‘does not encourage heterosexual marriage.”’

Continuously we are seeing federal judges striking down laws and amendments that limit same-sex marriage, Judge Wilken is just another who is advancing marriage equality.

The Supreme Court of the United States rejected the appeal of the Beltsville, MD Bishop Harry Jackson, who had sued the DC Board of Elections and Ethics, seeking to get the issue put to a ballot vote. This is very welcome news but not the least bit surprising. This was about legislative purview and not gay marriage. There is no constitutional right to submit every law to referendum. In this case, a democratically elected legislature voted almost unanimously to approve a bill that local courts don’t object to, was not unconstitutional itself, the Congress didn’t overturn it under its review period and the mayor signed it. The Supreme Court rightly saw there was nothing here to discuss.