On Sunday, a number of California State and local officials joined hundreds of people outside the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center in Hollywood to kick off a national grass-roots campaign demanding equal Social Security benefits for same-sex couples.  The demonstration is a kick off to a national grassroots campaign fighting for same-sex partners to receive federal Social Security benefits, the same benefits afforded to heterosexual married couples if a spouse becomes disabled or dies.

Currently, people in same-sex relationships are denied Social Security survivor benefits from their deceased partners because the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages recognized by a handful of states  or domestic partnerships as valid relationships.  One rally member was quoted on the issue of same-sex Social Security benefits saying:

“Same-sex couples should get Social Security benefits,” Tran said. “It’s different from the marriage argument — this is more about a need for economic equality.”

Two U.S. Representatives who were present at the rally announced their intent to introduce and support legislation to provide equal Social Security benefits for same-sex couples.

For more on this article, visit the Los Angeles Times

Since 2004, when the Civil Partnerships Act was passed in Britain, gay couples can be recognized under a ‘civil partnership’ and are afforded the same legal treatment as married couples with regards to a wide range of matters; however, the 2004 law stopped short of terming gay partnerships as a ‘marriage.’

On Sunday, George Osborne, Britain’s Shadow Chancellor and member of the Conservative Party, met with gay rights leaders to discuss equality issues and advancing the issue of gay marriage in Britain.  Britain’s Conservative Party leader, David Cameron, has suggested in an interview with Total Politics magazine that same-sex marriage is no different than traditional marriage:

“I stood up… and said that marriage was important, and as far as I was concerned it didn’t matter whether it was between a man and a woman, a man and a man or a woman and a woman”.

Although the present Government introduced same-sex civil partnerships some years ago, it has stopped short of calling these ‘marriages’.

Last year Mr Cameron said that any tax break for married couples introduced by the Conservative Party would also apply to same-sex couples in civil partnerships.

The Conservative Party in Britain is showing progress toward marriage equality for all, regardless of sexual orientation, and is beginning to take steps to move the country forward on issues of gay rights, including marriage equality.

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.

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.

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.”