…to my community « What Marriage Means

Updates

Former First Lady Gives Insight Into 2004 Marriage Debate

Former First Lady Laura Bush, in her soon-to-be-release memoir Spoken From The Heart has gone on the record to outline her counsel to her husband about the use of same-sex marriage as an election strategy in the 2004 elections:

“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.

Census Bureau Seeks to Count Same-Sex Couples as ‘Married’

Same-sex marriage may not yet be legal at the federal level or in every state, but the U.S. Census Bureau is seeking to count same-sex married couples in the 2010 Census, and is reaching out to gay and lesbian communities across America to solicit their help in capturing an accurate picture of their relationships. Che Ruddell-Tabisola, the national LGBT partnership leader for the Census Bureau, commented on the Bureau’s efforts to capture same-sex couples in its count:

“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.

One Year of Gay Marriage in Iowa, and the Tone is ‘Live and Let Live’

As Iowans set to celebrate the one year anniversary of the Iowa Supreme Court same-sex marriage ruling this Saturday, the general political tone in the state seems to be one of acceptance. After a year of gay marriage in the mid-Western state, many Iowans are simply not phased by the change and they say society has not changed dramatically. The political tide of the gay marriage issue in Iowa has also changed over the course of the year, just follow Iowa Democratic Governor Chet Culver on the issue:

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.

D.C. Marriage Debate Continues After Passage

Soon after the D.C. law allowing same-sex marriage went into effect, a challenge to the law continued to press on, despite Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court from taking any action to prevent the new law from taking effect.

The National Organization for Marriage is seeking a challenge to the D.C. marriage law in an effort to put the issue on the ballot for voters in the District to decide on the issue, not the city council, taking advantage of a section in the D.C. Charter that allows citizens to gather signatures to place the issue on the ballot. The D.C. Charter allows for two types of citizen-backed measures: a referendum, which applies only to a bill that has passed the council and has yet to go into effect, and an initiative, which can appear on the ballot at any time. The organization already appealed to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts who as chief justice oversees D.C. matters; Roberts noted that since Congress and the Court did not take action to stop the law from taking effect the referendum process would not apply but that “the D.C. Court of Appeals will have the chance to consider the relevant legal questions on their merits, and petitioners will have the right to challenge any adverse decision through a petition for certiorari in this Court at the appropriate time.”

However, petitioners from the Alliance Defense Fund and Stand for Marriage D.C. already filed a lawsuit and were pursuing a ballot initiative but were denied by the D.C. Board of Elections and by various courts, which upheld the board’s stance that such an initiative would “authorize discrimination” against homosexuals, a violation of the D.C. Charter and Human Rights Act. In a ruling earlier this year, D.C. Court of Appeals Judge Judith Macaluso stated, “The fact that the proposed initiative, if passed, would violate the Human Rights Act provides an independent basis for upholding the Board’s decision: the initiative runs afoul of an implied exclusion barring provisions that violates the state’s law,” she ruled. Following the ruling of Judge Macaluso, Chief Justice John Roberts noted to petitioners of the D.C. marriage law that “It has been the practice of the Court to defer to the decisions of the courts of the District of Columbia on matters of exclusively local concern.”

Conservative Republican Ted Olson defends right to marry in California

The historic Proposition 8 trial in California is nearing the final stages as lawyers on both sides of the same-sex marriage argument set out their views on the evidence presented throughout the course of the trial lasting much of January. Conservative republican and former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson is representing a same-sex couple in California challenging the passage of Proposition 8. Lawyers on both sides have one more shot at arguing their case before Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in closing arguments before a decision is rendered.

Based upon the ruling issued by Judge Walker, the wording of his decision could have minimal implications for California residents or more far-reaching implications for civil rights at all levels of government:

Prop. 8, approved by 52 percent of the voters in November 2008, amended the California Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, overturning a May 2008 state Supreme Court ruling that extended marital rights to gays and lesbians. The state court upheld the initiative last May while also upholding 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in the state before Prop. 8 passed.

Because Prop. 8 eliminated rights that the California court had granted, plaintiffs in the federal suit want Walker to put it in the same category as a 1992 Colorado initiative that overturned local gay-rights laws and prohibited future anti-discrimination measures. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Colorado initiative in 1996 and said its sole purpose was to harm a disfavored minority.

Prop. 8’s “express and stated purpose … was to strip gay and lesbian individuals of constitutional rights” they had won in the state court, plaintiffs’ lawyers said. They said Yes on 8 campaign messages “echoed fears that children must be ‘protected’ from gay and lesbian people.”

Read more in the San Francisco Chronicle

Walker, sensing the challenge ultimately may be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, held a full-blown trial to give each side the opportunity to provide a factual basis for their arguments for and against same-sex marriage.

The trial briefs in many respects reflect the fact the trial was primarily focused on testimony from the plaintiffs’ side, with experts who testified on everything from the history of discrimination against gay people to the scope of gay and lesbian political clout.

The plaintiffs also presented more emotional testimony, including from the two couples themselves and San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, a Republican who testified on his political change of heart after learning his daughter is lesbian.

...to my community