The first case was brought by the state of Massachusetts. Judge Tauro declared Congress violated the Tenth Amendment by originally passing DOMA. They took away the states decisions determining which couples can be considered married.

His second ruling was on Gill v. Office of Personnel Management. It was decided that DOMA violated equal protection embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This case was argued by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), GLAD represented eight married couples and three widowers in the suit.

 Two other major equality court cases continue to develop in California, the Prop. 8 trial and Log Cabin Republicans trial against the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. The decision in Boston today is a great step toward equality for all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation.

“Supporters of same-sex marriage are understandably giddy with excitement over the impending decision from U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker. There’s pretty much universal agreement that the liberal-conservative tag team of David Boies and Ted Olson made an excellent and compelling argument for why the voter-approved Proposition 8 in California violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of due process and equal protection. But the prospect of victory has me and more than a few others concerned about what may follow.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger is not the only marriage equality case out there. Folks have their eyes on one out of Massachusetts. But no matter how Judge Walker rules in the Prop 8 suit, which is expected sometime this summer, the case is certain to be appealed to the federal Ninth Circuit and then to the Supreme Court. And therein lies the danger. If the current ideological makeup of the court doesn’t change by then, the victory that could come at the hands of Judge Walker could turn into a defeat in the Roberts Court. And even if the justices put ideology aside, it might still be reluctant to impose its will on the country.

Jonathan Rauch wrote an excellent piece for the New York Times last Saturday that also expressed concern about same-sex marriage and the high court. The foundation of his argument was something Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan said cast a spotlight on that latter point. “The Supreme Court, of course, has the responsibility of ensuring that our government never oversteps its proper bounds or violates the rights of individuals,” she said. “But the court must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people.”

To understand the importance of that last sentence we need to go back to the 1986 ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick. This case involved two consenting adult gay men who were arrested for violating Georgia’s anti-sodomy law. Michael Hardwick challenged the law’s constitutionality in federal court. When the case reached the Supreme Court, the question before it was whether consensual sodomy by homosexuals was a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. The answer was no in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Byron R. White. This is a key paragraph in the majority opinion to file away for a moment.

Sodomy was a criminal offense at common law, and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights. In 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, all but 5 of the 37 States in the Union had criminal sodomy laws. In fact, until 1961, all 50 States outlawed sodomy, and today, 24 States and the District of Columbia continue to provide criminal penalties for sodomy performed in private and between consenting adults. Against this background, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” or “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” is, at best, facetious.

The constitutionality of sodomy laws returned 17 years later in Lawrence v. Texas. The question before the Supreme Court in 2003 was “the validity of a Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct.” The 6-3 decision, which overturned Bowers v. Hardwick and invalidated anti-sodomy laws across the country, was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. His majority opinion remains heralded as the most pro-gay decision to come from the high court. In a key rebuttal to Bowers, Kennedy wrote:

In our own constitutional system the deficiencies in Bowers became even more apparent in the years following its announcement. The 25 States with laws prohibiting the relevant conduct referenced in the Bowers decision are reduced now to 13, of which 4 enforce their laws only against homosexual conduct. In those States where sodomy is still proscribed, whether for same-sex or heterosexual conduct, there is a pattern of nonenforcement with respect to consenting adults acting in private. The State of Texas admitted in 1994 that as of that date it had not prosecuted anyone under those circumstances. State v. Morales, 869 S. W. 2d 941, 943.

The historical trend between the two cases is obvious. In addition to recognizing the violation of equal protection and due process guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court in the Lawrence case also noted that society was moving away from criminalizing the consensual intimate relationships of same-sex couples. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of society’s acceptance of marriage equality.

Yes, there has been progress, much of it within the last 10 years. Same-sex couples are able to legally wed in five states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire) and, most recently, the District of Columbia. Maryland, Rhode Island and New York legally recognize marriages performed in other jurisdictions. But in that same period, 30 states passed constitutional amendments or statutes that define marriage as being between one man and one woman. In fact, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled unanimously on June 30 to uphold that state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions. Remember what Kagan said about the court recognizing the limits on itself and respecting “the choices made by the American people”? Given the current landscape, it would be astounding if the court overturned the will of the people as expressed through state constitutions, acts of the legislature and at the ballot box.

Here’s something else to consider. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that ushered in marriage equality there in 2004 also kicked off a push to enshrine discrimination in the Constitution through an amendment banning same-sex marriage. It went nowhere then. I’m not so sure today. Two-thirds of the states — 38 — are needed to amend the U.S. Constitution. As I just mentioned 30 states have already done it on their own. Or look at it this way, 45 of the 50 states currently do not permit same-sex marriage.

Legally speaking, the kindling is there for a controlled blaze confined to California or an inferno that could stop the national march toward marriage equality in its tracks possibly for decades either through a constitutional amendment (extremely difficult, but not impossible) or, as Rauch put it, through an “aggressively dismissive ruling” from the Supreme Court. All that’s needed is a spark. Right now, Judge Walker is the man holding the matches.” -Jonathan Capehart

 Final statements were heard this week in the California federal trial of Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage.  Walker questioned the argument that marriage is aimed at serving society’s importance in procreation.

The judge asked Ted Olson, who represents the two same-sex couples, why domestic partnerships aren’t sufficient. Mr. Olson responded with testimony from gay and lesbian witnesses describing the humiliation they felt by not being allowed to marry.

However Judge Walker rules, the case is likely headed for the 9^th Circuit and then the Supreme Court.

(For more information on closing arguments, check these articles on NYT, WSJ, and LAT.)

 “We have come together in a nonpartisan fashion because the principle of equality before the law transcends the left-right divide and cuts to the core of our nation’s character. This is not about politics; it’s about an indispensable right vested in all Americans,” stated the advisory board of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, a supporter of the Perry case.

 American courts have ruled on issues such as marriage since their forming. When the court faced the subject of interracial marriage, a Gallup poll stated that 74 percent of Americans disapproved, yet the courts voted for equality. A recent same-sex marriage poll showed 47 percent of people support same-sex marriage. The odds for equality are set much better and the uphill battle from the public is less resistant than for interracial marriage.    

 “Among individuals ages 18 to 29, an estimated 65 percent support marriage equality. Our history will soon be written by young people who are seizing the reins from the baby boomers’…. As the country evolved the meaning of one small word — “all” — has evolved as well,” stated Robert A. Levy, co-chair of the advisory board of the American Foundation for Equal Rights.

The city began registering domestic partners, most of whom are not gay, at the city clerk’s offices in 1993. Up until now, the nearly 50,000 domestic partners who signed up received nothing more than a piece of paper.

Registering as a same-sex domestic partner is not the same as gay marriage – which the state Senate nixed last year – but it does convey some legal benefits, especially if one partner is a city employee.

…

With last year’s rejection of a gay marriage law by the state Senate, a domestic partnership ceremony “is a good gesture,” agreed Councilman James Van Bramer (D-Queens). “Not everyone is going to want a ceremony, but if they do they should be able to have it,” Van Bramer said.

The idea of providing a ceremony was suggested by a group of Fordham Law School students who spent time last year working with the City Council’s legal division.

Unlike married spouses, domestic partners don’t usually receive inheritances. They also don’t have marital-type confidentiality privileges.

At least now, they can have a party.

I’m a bystander in the same-sex marriage debate — I haven’t given to any cause on either side. But in 2006 I did vote against a Virginia same-sex marriage amendment, which passed. I didn’t, and don’t, think social issues should be subjected to votes like that. I don’t support much direct democracy in general — this is a republic, and we shouldn’t throw these kinds of decisions to the electorate at large.But why was I willing to be so disrespectful to one group of activists? Unlike with most activists, I don’t really see the direct impact on their lives, or on the lives of the people who agree with them, of the cause they oppose. Antitax protesters are threatened by higher taxes. Anti-health-care-bill protesters fear their coverage will get worse. Anti-meat-eating protesters believe animals are being murdered and the environment is being made worse.

Even the birther movement has always made a kind of sense — oust Obama from office, and you get a chance to reverse what damage you think he’s done to your country.

But who’s threatened by legal same-sex marriage? Whose life is made worse? If there was science suggesting that children raised by same-sex parents are worse off than children raised by traditional families, that would be one thing, but I haven’t seen it. We’ve watched legal same-sex marriage in several European countries and several states, and it hasn’t ushered in some decline in the quality of life, or marriage, for those who don’t participate in it.

That’s what I don’t understand. That’s my bias, for now. I’ll happily entertain arguments for the contrary.

Marriage equality in the ‘Aloha State’ has a long history, as it was in 1991, in a decision by the State Supreme Court that invalidated laws that prohibited same sex couples from wedding. However as a reaction to this action, voters passed a constitutional amendment empowering the legislation to define marriage as a heterosexual insitution. That referenda did not close the door on civil unions though.

If approved, Hawaii will become one of six states including California, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington granting civil union status to same sex couples. Full civil marriage are legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington, DC. Marriages performed in other states are recognized in Maryland, New York and Rhode Island.

The legislation has sparked an intense lobbying effort by the Catholic Archdiocese and many religious groups seeking a veto from Governor Lingle.

Reade more about Hawai’i’s new civil union law and the efforts surrounding the legislation in the Honolu Advertiser.

“In 2004 the social question that animated the campaign was gay marriage. Before the election season had unfolded, I had talked to George about not making gay marriage a significant issue. We have, I reminded him, a number of close friends who are gay or whose children are gay. But at that moment I could never have imagined what path this issue would take and where it would lead.”

Read more excerpts from Spoken From The Heart at the Daily Beast.

“Our job is to get an accurate count. … One of the most important things is for same-sex couples to know that it is 100 percent safe to participate in the census.”

Safe for two reasons:

First, individuals’ census data are confidential. Second, nowhere on the 2010 census form does the government actually ask for anyone to identify his or her sexual orientation. Boxes exist for “male,” “female” and for spousal relationship. The existence of a same-same marriage or partnership is surmised from the data.

The 2010 Census form does not actually have a category for same-sex couples or gays and lesbians to self-identify. Rather, the Bureau is asking same-sex couples to mark the appropriate gender box and select “married” on the Census form, regardless of whether same-sex marriage is legal in their respective state or not.  In previous years the Census Bureau has assumed it was a mistake when a Census form included two individuals of the same sex and the “married” box was checked, and the Bureau graciously corrected the gender on those forms to reflect a heterosexual couple.  In 2010, the Bureau is assuming that where a form indicates two individuals of the same gender and “married”, that in fact it is a married couple and will count it as such.  The Bureau will extrapolate data based on marital status and gender to determine how many same-sex couples there are in the United States for the first time since the government began collecting this information.

Prior to the ruling, Culver said he would be willing to call legislators into special session to “do whatever it takes to protect marriage between a man and a woman.” On the day of the court’s decision, Culver released a tepid statement, saying he wanted to review the ruling with the attorney general before “reacting to what it means for Iowa.” It was nearly a week before the governor released a statement saying that while he personally believed marriage was between one man and one woman, he was “reluctant to support amending the Iowa Constitution” to overturn the court’s ruling.

Flash forward to this week, just a few days before the ruling’s one-year anniversary, and Culver’s position has become more steadfast.

“We stood firm for the civil rights of every Iowan by saying loudly and clearly that any and all efforts to add discriminatory amendments to our state constitution have no place in our state constitution,” Culver said, later adding: “The overwhelming majority of Iowans do not want to amend our constitution in such as a way that’s discriminatory. I think that’s the bottom line.”

Two people who have been involved in the gay marriage debate are Anthony Brown,  Director of the Cedar Rapids Gay and Lesbian Resource Center, and Reverend Tom Capo of the People’s Choice Unitarian Universalist church in Cedar Rapids.  Brown and Rev. Capo note that the change in Iowa over the past year has been a positive one:

Brown said all Iowans are equal, and the ruling has made such a difference in how the rest of the country views Iowa. He said it’s made Iowa on top when it comes to be progressive with civil rights issues.

Reverend Capo at  has seen many couples get married in his church, many even from out of state. “I was in Texas before I came to Cedar Rapids. All I could do was bless unions that were not legal. It was wonderful to bless these unions, but to be able to say I actually married a gay or lesbian couple and they have the same rights as everybody else, is just a wonderful thing,” said Rev. Capo.  Despite the changes, he says he’s found people that didn’t notice any changes. “Most of them say they haven’t seen any difference and actually most of them are coming around to a point where they say it’s not affecting them, so live and let live,” said Rev. Capo.