GRAPHIC: The Flag of Equal Marriage

This is what the flag of the United States would look like if you only included the states where marriage equality is currently law. This ongoing online protest is a project of MakeItEqual.org.

Hat/tip to LGBT Think Progress.

33% Of U.S. Population (100+ Million People) Living With Marriage Equality

One decade ago there were exactly zero states that had marriage equality, even though the Defense of Marriage Act had been federal law for seven years. In November 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the state constitution required equal marriage rights for same-sex couples under the law and issued an order to go in effect on May 17, 2004. Note that the second state, Connecticut did not have marriage equality until November 2008 (and for a brief 173 days starting in June 2008 Californians had access to same-sex marriage prior to the passage of Proposition 8). So, really in a little over 5 years marriage equality has increased from roughly 10 million to another order of magnitude.

With New Jersey becoming the 14th state to enact marriage equality this week there are now well over 100 million people who live in states with marriage equality, about 33% of the entire U.S. population.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) summaries the astonishingly rapid progress:

State	Date Effective	Population	Percent
Massachusetts	May 2004	6,547,629	2.12%
Connecticut	Nov. 2008	3,574,097	1.16%
Iowa	Apr. 2009	3,046,355	0.99%
Vermont	Jun. 2009	625,741	0.20%
New Hampshire	Jan. 2010	1,316,470	0.43%
Washington, D.C.	Mar. 2010	601,723	0.19%
New York	Jun. 2011	19,378,361	6.28%
Washington	Dec. 2012	6,724,540	2.18%
Maine	Dec. 2012	1,328,361	0.43%
Maryland	Jan. 2013	5,773,552	1.87%
Delaware	Jun. 2013	897,934	0.29%
California	Jun. 2013	37,253,956	12.07%
Minnesota	Aug. 2013	5,303,925	1.72%
Rhode Island	Aug. 2013	1,052,567	0.34%
New Jersey	Oct. 2013	8,791,894	2.84%
	Total	102,216,846	33.11%

Any predictions for when the United States will hit 50%? Remember Illinois, Hawaii, New Mexico and Oregon are widely expected to legalize civil marriage for same-sex couples sooner rather than later.

New Mexico AG Announces He Won't Defend State's Marriage law

Interesting news out of New Mexico today. Democratic Attorney General Gary King has announced that he is not going to defend the state against a lawsuit that seeks to declare that same-sex couples have a right to marry in New Mexico (because he believes that the state's equal protection guarantees demand marriage equality), but he is also arguing that the particular lawsuit be thrown out on procedural grounds.

The Santa Fe New Mexican reports:

In written arguments filed with the court, King said the justices should invalidate the state’s ban on gay marriage if they agree to resolve the issue in a lawsuit filed by two Santa Fe men who were denied a marriage license. 

King, a Democrat who plans to run for governor next year against Republican Gov. Susana Martinez, said New Mexico law effectively doesn’t allow gay marriages although there’s no statutory provision that specifically prohibits, or authorizes, gay couples to be married. 

“New Mexico’s guarantee of equal protection to its citizens demands that same-sex couples be permitted to enjoy the benefits of marriage in the same way and to the same extent as other New Mexico citizens,” King said in the filing. 

The five-member court had asked King’s office to respond to the lawsuit. No hearing has been scheduled in the case so far, and it’s uncertain whether the Supreme Court will issue a decision resolving the same-sex marriage dispute. 

The lawsuit was filed directly with the justices to try to get a speedy decision. However, the court could decide that the case should be handled differently and has to work its way through the legal system as an appeal from a lower court ruling.

New Mexico is an interesting locus for battles around marriage equality because it is one of the very few states in the Union which does not have explicit statutory or constitutional language barring same-sex marriage.

It will be interesting to see what steps the New Mexico Supreme Court takes to resolve this issue. The last state Supreme Court to enact marriage equality was Iowa, which did it by a unanimous vote in 2009 in Varnus v Brien. Other state courts which have ruled in favor of marriage equality are California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut

WATCH: History Of Marriage Equality Laws In United States

With Delaware's dramatic movement yesterday to become the 11th state to enact marriage equality since 2003 (and the second state this year after Rhode Island) it's a good time to look back at how far the issue of marriage equality has come in the last four decades. The cool graphic created by The Atlantic (shown above) does just that.

For the record these are the years and states that have enacted marriage equality:

• 2013: Delaware, Rhode Island
• 2012: Maine, Maryland, Washington
• 2011: New York
• 2009: New Hampshire, Vermont, Iowa, District of Columbia
• 2008: Connecticut (and California*)
• 2003: Massachusetts

*California had marriage equality from June 15, 2008 to November 5, 2008. California is the only state where same-sex couples have had the right to marry and then have had that right revoked by the passage of Proposition 8. Whether Proposition 8 is constitutional is a question the United States Supreme Court is currently considering, in the case Hollingsworth v Perry. 

As I reviewed the 11 states that have enacted marriage equality I noticed that the only Republican governor to sign a marriage equality bill into law was Jodi Rell of Connecticut, and she did so after the state Supreme Court had already enacted marriage equality and the legislature passed a bill codifying the Kerrigan decision. Republican governors in California (2005 and 2007), New Jersey (2011) and Vermont (2009) have all vetoed marriage equality bills. Only Governor Jim Douglas's veto has been over-ridden. Chris Christie's veto is subject to override until January 2014 and may happen.

All 11 states that have passed marriage equality are "blue states," i.e. states that consistently vote for Democratic candidates for president. Iowa is probably the least blue of these states, and is primarily a red state at the state level. New Hampshire is probably purplish-blue, and has had a Republican legislature since marriage equality was enacted. These are probably the two states where marriage equality is the most vulnerable to repeal efforts. However, in the last few years the movement has been in the direction of more marriage equality. In fact, since 2004 every year has ended with more people living in jurisdictions that allow same-sex couples than the year before. Does anyone think that process is going to be reversed? Only bigoted heterosexual supremacists, but they are quickly receding into a vortex of delusion, denial and demagoguery.

All eyes are now looking at Illinois and Minnesota where there are Democratic majorities in the legislature and Democratic governors eager to sign marriage equality bills into law. And California may have marriage equality after June's Supreme Court decision. In 2014, there will be ballot measures on marriage equality in Oregon, Nevada (and possibly California).

New sources say that Minnesota may enact marriage equality as soon as next week!

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

GRAPHIC: Current Map Of Marriage Equality

USA Today published an update on the current state of marriage equality and published the above graphic so that readers could visualize the changes.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Saturday Politics: Majorities In 12 States Support Marriage

In 2012, there was majority support for marriage equality in 12 states and the District of Columbia, according to a recent report released by UCLA's Williams Institute. Those states were Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Hawaii, Oregon, New York, Maine, Washington, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Colorado and California. (The District of Columbia had the largest support, at 62%.) The seven jurisdictions in bold already have marriage equality, while Hawaii (54%), Oregon (54%), New Jersey (51%), Rhode Island (50%), Colorado (50%) and California (50%) all have either civil unions or comprehensive domestic partnerships. Hawaii, Oregon, Colorado and California all have voter-approved state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. However, Oregon and possibly California and New Jersey may be voting to enact marriage equality at the ballot box in the near future.

The Williams Institute report's analysis indicates that ballot measures in several states (including Oregon, California and New Jersey) may be successful in the very near future.

This research brief identi ed that there 12 states plus the District ofColumbia presently with a majority (50% or above) in support of same-sex marriage. And, given current trends in public opinion on this issue, an additional 8 states will join this group by 2014. 

[...] 

Finally, there are 10 states that have previously passed constitutionalamendments to not introduce same-sex marriages that now have a majority or are within five percentage points of a majority in favor same-sex marriage (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, South Dakota, and Wisconsin). These states may be the future political arenas where existing constitutional amendments may be repealed in order to perform marriages for same-sex couples in those states.

This does put the poll question I previously asked back on the table: now that majority support is indicated for marriage equality, should those in favor of it use the ballot box to enact our public policy aims of enacting the civil right to civil marriages in those states? The dilemma is that it has long been a policy position of civil rights activists that "civil rights should never be subject to the tyranny of the majority." So, to now say that we will use the majority now that it is in our favor could be perceived as hypocritical. However, there are clear real and tangible harms to LGBT citizens by sticking to principle and not using every available means to end discrimination against same-sex couples as soon as possible. What do you think? Vote now:

Should New Jersey LGBT activists agree to allow a referendum on marriage equality in November 2013?
	Yes, since polls indicate a wide majority support marriage equality, the measure would pass easily.
	No,because allowing a vote on marriage equality violates a core principle of civil rights.
	Unsure, this is a tough question!
pollcode.com free polls

The Williams Report gives the level of support for marriage equality in every state in 2004 (numbers in green) and 2012 (numbers in blue) and uses that data to conclude that the rate of support is about 1.6 percentage points per year, on average, in every state. (It should be noted that that is the average rate; in some states the rate of increase of support for marriage equality is increasing at a more rapid rate, in some it is doing so at a slower rate. The key point is that support for marriage equality is increasing in every state.) This is shown in the figure below:

I think the proper thing to do is probably wait for the United States Supreme Court to weigh in on the civil rights of LGBT people in the Hollingsworth (California's Proposition 8) and Windsor (Defense of Marriage Act) cases. If the judiciary branch refuses to play its traditional role in our democracy of protecting the civil rights of minorities, then going to the ballot box to enact those rights seems perfectly justifiable.

Celebrity Friday: Andrew McDonald, openly gay CT High Court justice

Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy has named his state's first openly gay State Supreme Court justice: Andrew J. McDonald. McDonald, 46,  currently serves as general counsel to the Office of the Governor and has been a longtime aide and confidant of Malloy.

The Darien Times reported:

“Having had the opportunity to work alongside Andrew McDonald in several capacities over the years, including both as a lawyer and as a public servant, I am convinced that he will be an excellent addition to our state’s highest court and will serve the people of Connecticut well when he is confirmed to the bench,” Governor Malloy said. “In each of the roles he has served, Andrew has proven to have an exceptional ability to understand, analyze, research and evaluate legal issues.  He has undertaken his legal work with a focus on giving back extensively to his community and a commitment to the equal rights of all residents.  He will be an exceptional justice on the Connecticut Supreme Court.”

“I’m immensely grateful to the governor for the honor he has shown me through this nomination,” McDonald said.  “Honoring the law and serving the people of this state have been the focus of my professional life, and I will be humbled by the opportunity to continue to do both on the Supreme Court if confirmed by the General Assembly.”

Malloy was elected to the Connecticut legislature as an openly gay candidate in 2002 and is a graduate of Cornell University and University of Connecticut Law School.

Malloy will join a small number of other openly LGBT state supreme court justices around the country. Hawaii (Sabrina McKenna), Colorado (Monica Marquez), Massachusetts (Barbara Lenk), and Oregon (Virgina Linder and Rives Kustler) are the states with open;y LGBT justices.

DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional By 2nd Circuit Panel!

For the umpteenth time this year, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) has been ruled unconstitutional, this time in the Windsor v. United States of America case in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals which covers the states of New York, Connecticut and Vermont, all of which have marriage equality as the law of the land.

Metro Weekly has the dish:

Specifically, the court ruled that "heightened scrutiny" must be applied in the case:

In this case, all four factors justify heightened scrutiny: A) homosexuals as a group have historically endured persecution and discrimination; B) homosexuality has no relation to aptitude or ability to contribute to society; C) homosexuals are a discernible group with non-obvious distinguishing characteristics, especially in the subset of those who enter same-sex marriages; and D) the class remains a politically weakened minority.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, which is aiding Windsor in her suit, this is the first federal appeals court ruling to state that government discrimination against gay people deservces heightened judicial review.

The appeals court's ruling comes three weeks after oral arguments were heard in the case. Windsor's case reached the 2nd Circuit Appeals Court after a federal judge sided with Windsor in June, ruling that the government must refund the more than $363,000 in taxes paid by Windsor following the death of her wife, Thea Spyer. Windsor is suing to recoup about $363,000, federal estate tax she was forced to pay on her inheritance from Spyer. The federal government does not tax inheritances that pass from one spouse to the other, but because of DOMA the federal government has refused to recognize Windsor and Spyer's marriage.

This is a "BFD"! Not only that DOMA has been struck down by another federal court (that is becoming commonplace), but that an appellate court has finally ackowledged that sexual orientation is a characteristic which can place people in a suspect class and requires heightened judicial scrutiny is the big news out of today's 2-1 decision in Windsor. It's pretty astonishing that the decision was released a mere 3 weeks after oral arguments were held

There are now four cases (all of which have ruled DOMA unconstitutional) from three circuits that are pending before the United States Supreme Court. And this is yet another loss from the Republican heterosexual supremacists on BLAG, who have spent $1.5 million of United States taxpayers money defending this discriminatory law.

Bush-Appointed Federal Judge Strikes Down DOMA

This is getting almost comical. On Tuesday, yet another federal judge ruled the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. This time it was in the case of a federal lawsuit filed by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) representing a number of same-sex couples married in Connecticut who are suing the federal government for denying them access to federal benefits provided to other married couples under the discriminatory provision of Section 3 of DOMA.

The name of the case is Pedersen v Office of Personnel Management and the name of the federal judge is Vanessa L. Bryant, an appointee to the district court for Connecticut by President George W. Bush in 2007.

Ruthann Robinson, a well-regarded constitutional law professor, provides this analysis of Bryant's voluminous (over 100 pages) and thoughtfully reasoned opinion:

Judge Bryant's opinion is especially worth reading on the "political powerlessness" prong in light of arguments regarding President Obama's opinions on sexual orientation.  Having considered all four factors, the judge found that " homosexuals display all the traditional indicia of suspectness and therefore statutory classifications based on sexual orientation are entitled to a heightened form of judicial scrutiny."  She then quickly defaulted to another rationale:  "However, the Court need not apply a form of heightened scrutiny in the instant case to conclude that DOMA violates the promise of the equal protection as it is clear that DOMA fails to pass constitutional muster under even the most deferential level of judicial scrutiny." 

Thus, Judge Bryant applied rational basis scrutiny requiring a "legitimate interest" that is reasonably served by the statute.  The legislative history of DOMA advanced four interests for the statute: "(1) defending and nurturing the institution of traditional, heterosexual marriage; (2) defending traditional notions of morality; (3) protecting state sovereignty and democratic self-governance; and (4) preserving scarce governmental resources."  In litigation, BLAG asserted five: 1)  To employ caution in the face of a proposed redefinition of the centuries-old definition of marriage; 2)  To protect the public fisc; 3)  To maintain consistency and uniformity with regard to eligibility for federal benefits;  4)  To avoid creating a social understanding of bearing, begetting, and rearing children separate from marriage; and 5)  To recognize an institution designed to ensure that children have parents of both sexes.  One by one, Judge Bryant considered the interests and their rational relationship to the statute, concluded that not one of them was sufficient.

Chris Geidner has the full text of today's ruling. It will be up to the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the United States House of Representatives, represented by superlawyer Paul Clement to decide when or whether they want to appeal the ruling to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, or perhaps bypass the federal appellate level and appeal to the Supreme Court. There are already 9th U.S. Appellate Circuit and 1st U.S. Appellate Circuit DOMA cases pending before the nation's highest court, plus several other cases at the district court level.

At this point it is only a matter of when, not whether, DOMA will cease to be legally enforceable.

Analyzing The Cost Of Banning Same-Sex Marriage

This graphic demonstrates the financial cost to society of the lack of legal recognition for same-sex couples.

 Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Analysis Of Marriage Equality On Marriage Rates

This above graphic comes from an analysis by Slate magazine of marriage rates in jurisdictions which have legalized marriage equality (Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire and District of Columbia) versus the national marriage rate. Do you see a trend or correlation? Me neither!

Neither does Slate, according to "Does Gay Marriage Destroy Marriage?":

Start with Massachusetts, which endorsed gay marriage in May 2004. That year, the state saw a 16 percent increase in marriage. The reason is, obviously, that gay couples who had been waiting for years to get married were finally able to tie the knot. In the years that followed, the marriage rate normalized but remained higher than it was in the years preceding the legalization. So all in all, there’s no reason to worry that gay marriage is destroying  marriage in Massachusetts. 

The other four states that have legalized gay marriage—New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire—have done it more recently, somewhere between 2008 and 2011. But from the little data we have, it looks as if the pattern will be more or less the same—a temporary jump in marriage followed by a return to virtually the same marriage rates as before gay marriage became legal. Washington, D.C., which started accepting same-sex marriages in March 2010, saw a huge 61.7 percent increase in marriage that year, though it’s too soon to see where it will settle. Again, no signs of the coming apocalypse.

The piece also goes on to look at divorce rates in the states where same-sex couples can get legally married (and divorced) right now to try to determine if such activity has any impact on the divorce rates of opposite-sex couples. The data just does not indicate that there is any impact of marriage equality on divorce or marriage rates in a state, unsurprisingly. What a shock, another talking point by religious extremists and heterosexual supremacists turns out to be obviously false.

Hat/tip to Americablog

GRAPHIC: Death Penalty Across the United States

The Economist analyzed every single execution that has occurred in the United States since 1977 and produced this handy-dandy graphic reproduced above. As I noted when I blogged about Connecticut becoming the 17th state to repeal the death penalty earlier this year, the data shows that  more than one-third of all people executed in this country have occurred in the state that gave the world Governor Rick Perry and Governor George W. Bush: Texas.

Hat/tip to Think Progress

CT Legislature Abolishes Death Penalty!

Connecticut will become the 17th state in the United States, and the fifth in the last five years (Illinois in 2011 , New Mexico in 2009 and New Jersey in 2007), to abolish the death penalty in favor of life without parole after a vote in the State legislature on Wednesday night.

The bill, which Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has pledged to sign, advanced after a 9 1/2-hour debate focused largely on a provision that still mandates capital punishment for Connecticut's 11 death row inmates.  

The bill passed 86-62, with votes from 78 of 99 Democrats and eight of 52 Republicans. Senate Democrats passed the bill 20-16 last week, with two Democrats joining all 14 Republicans in opposition.

This is great news! The death penalty costs more money, is applied in a racially discriminatory way, does not deter crime and is logically (and ethically) indefensible. Let's hope Californians recognize this and vote to pass the End the Death Penalty Initiative in November 2012 to become the 18th state to bar the practice.

The New York Times notes that since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 1289 executions have occurred in the United States, with 935 in the seven states along the Southern U.S. border with Texas accounting for a whopping 481 executions by itself. The only states in the Northeastern U.S. which still allows state-sanctioned killing are Pennsylvania and New Hampshire.

NJ Assembly Passes Marriage Equality Bill 42-33!

The New Jersey State Assembly passed a marriage equality bill by a vote of 42-33, becoming the seventh state legislature in history to pass a marriage equality bill. (The bill passed the State Senate 24-16.) Previously, state legislatures in California (2005 and 2007), Vermont (2009), Connecticut (2009), Maine (2009), New Hampshire (2009), New York (2011) and Washington (2012) had passed marriage equality bills through both houses. Of these states which enacted marriage equality legislatively, only Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and New York currently have marriage equality currently legal in their state. It should also be noted that the District of Columbia enacted marriage equality through its legislature in December 2009. California has an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples which are legally married but no more can get married until the Perry v Brown federal lawsuit is finally resolved. Massachusetts and Iowa also allow marriage equality, thanks to rulings by their respective state supreme courts.

In New Jersey, marriage equality will not go into effect because Republican Governor Chris Christie has announced his attention to veto the bill.

Garden State Equality sent out a press release on this historic achievement:

Since Stonewall, we have been on a 40-year journey toward our freedom.  Today, the legislature has brought us to the edge of the promised land.  We know the Governor won’t let us enter, but we finally behold the view of our dreams and we will never turn back.

Today’s milestone came in the face of some of the toughest obstacles in the history of the marriage equality movement.  Instead of a Governor twisting arms on our behalf, we have a Governor who twisted arms against us right up until the final votes in each chamber.    And Garden State Equality’s budget was one-tenth of what it was two years ago.

But we had the people and the passion – and the greatest leaders in Senate President Steve Sweeney, Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver, Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg, Assembly Majority Leader Lou Greenwald, Assembly Speaker Pro Tempore Jerry Green, Democratic Party Chair Assemblyman John Wisniewski, and the peerless pioneer in the New Jersey legislature, Assemblyman Reed Gusciora.   We thank the unsung heroes of the legislative process – the legislative staff, especially the Assembly Majority and Senate Majority staff.

We are exuberant advocates but also methodical strategists.  To win an override, we will take the time we need, assisted by a changing world.  Look how the world changed since the last vote two years ago.   We have until the end of the legislative session, January 2014.  The key is winning.

We could not have achieved this milestone without our partner organizations.  Freedom to Marry was the national linchpin that never stopped believing in Garden State Equality, not even after our profound disappointment two years ago, and made this milestone possible.

The Human Rights Campaign lent us a spectacular field director and was invaluable and gracious at every juncture.  The ACLU, The Task Force and Marriage Equality NY/USA gave us additional power.   Our sisters and brothers in labor, especially the Communications Workers of America, have been relentless fighters by our side.   Our state’s progressive blog, Blue Jersey, has been an unsurpassed voice for justice.

And once again, we thank our spectacular lobbying firm, the Kaufman Zita Group, including Jeannine LaRue, Tom Wilson, Adam Kaufman and Trish Zita.  They are second to none.

Pursuing all roads to justice, Garden State Equality and seven-same sex couples will continue our lawsuit for marriage equality, where we are represented by Lambda Legal and the nationally renowned Gibbons law firm.  With this victory, the courts will see the legislature’s clear intent to replace the state’s failed civil union law with marriage equality.

Congratulations to the Garden State!

NYT Reports on Nationwide Marriage Equality Fight

The New York Times had an interesting editorial on the fight for nationwide marriage equality in light of the recent 10-8 vote in the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. The above image indicates the current state-by-state recognition of same-sex relationships. The highlights are that only three states: Rhode Island, New Mexico and New Jersey have no laws banning marriage equality. In two of those three states (Rhode Island and New Jersey) civil union statutes have been enacted which purport to provide all the rights and responsibilities of marriage while reserving the name of "marriage" to opposite-sex couples only.

The editorial ("A Long, Winding Road to Marriage Equality") says:

Twenty-nine states have enacted constitutional amendments blocking same-sex marriage. In 18 of those states, the amendments also ban domestic partnerships or civil unions. Twelve states bar same-sex marriage by statute, and in two, Minnesota and North Carolina, anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendments will go before voters next year. At this point, nearly 60 percent of Americans live in places that do not protect gay couples in any way. 

With New York, same-sex marriage is still allowed in only six states and the District of Columbia. Only 13 states provide some recognition of gay relationships with broad domestic partnerships or more limited rights, for things like medical decisions and inheritance (this includes 11 states with constitutional amendments or statutes barring gay marriage).

In addition to the attempts to ban marriage equality in Minnesota and North Carolina via the ballot box in 2012, there will be attempts to legalize marriage equality by ballot measure in Maine. There will be no such attempt in California, however. (Thank Goodness!)  Also, in Washington, New Jersey and Maryland there are on-going efforts to legalize same-sex marriages in those states.

Of course at MadProfessah.com we will be covering all these political stories in 2012!

REPORT: Over 50,000 Legally Married Same-Sex Couples

The Williams Institute of UCLA Law School issued a report this week, Patterns of Relationship 
Recognition by Same-Sex Couples in the United States, which details that over 50,000 couples have legally married in the United States and over 140,000 have entered into some form of governmental recognition of their relationship at the state level.

From the press release:

LOS ANGELES, CA – Over 140,000 same-sex couples have formalized their
relationship under state law in the United States.  Nearly 50,000 same-sex couples have
married.  These findings from a new Williams Institute study, Patterns of Relationship
Recognition by Same-Sex Couples in the United States, are based on state administrative
data from those states where same-sex couples can marry, enter civil unions or domestic
partnerships, or enter other legal relationship statuses.  The study also finds that same-sex
couples prefer marriage over other non-marital legal relationship statuses.   

“We see a lot of evidence that same-sex couples strongly prefer marriage over civil
unions or domestic partnerships. Same-sex couples marry at higher rates in the first year
they have the option than we see in civil union states, for example,” M.V. Lee Badgett,
Research Director of The Williams Institute and professor of economics at the University
of Massachusetts Amherst.  “Our findings are consistent with other research showing that
couples value marriage more for its social meaning than for its practical benefits.”   

The new study also provides a snapshot of the couples who enter legally-recognized
relationship statuses.  These couples are predominantly female, tend to be younger than
currently married different-sex couples, and tend to be older than newly-married
different-sex couples. When a state allows marriage for same-sex couples, couples will
travel to that state to marry from other states in which they do not enjoy that same
opportunity.  

“When we look at the residency of same-sex couples who marry, around 60 percent live
outside of the state where they got married,” said Jody L. Herman, Peter J. Cooper Public
Policy Fellow at The Williams Institute.  “Couples are much less likely to travel out of
state to enter non-marital legal statuses.  This is further evidence that same-sex couples
prefer marriage.”

The graphic at the top illustrates the impact of same-sex marriage in Iowa on the surrounding states in the midwest of the country. Currently, New York, Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and the District of Columbia all allow legal same-sex marriage.

Which state will be next? Perhaps Maine or Maryland?

GLAD Files For Summary Judgment In DOMA Case

GLAD Files Motion for Summary Judgment in 2nd Circuit DOMA Challenge, Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management

Plaintiffs Ask Court for Heightened Scrutiny

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) filed a motion for summary judgment in Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, its 2^nd Circuit challenge to the federal so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

GLAD argues that the equal protection claims of the plaintiffs, six married couples and one widower fromConnecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire, require heightened scrutiny from the court. The brief shows how DOMA fails heightened scrutiny, or even a rational basis review.

“No interest advanced to defend DOMA can in fact withstand any level of scrutiny,” the brief reads.  “The reasons offered by Congress at the time of DOMA’s passage are either nonsensical or just another way of saying that Congress wanted to denounce and harm those gay men and lesbians who form long-term relationships and seek to have those relationships recognized and respected through civil marriage.”

GLAD also filed supporting affidavits from experts Michael Lamb, Ph.D, Gary Segura, Ph.D, Lititia Anne Peplau, Ph.D, George Chauncey, Ph.D, and Nancy F. Cott, Ph.D.

The next step is for Congress to respond to GLAD’s motion for summary judgment on or by August 15, 2011.

GLAD filed Pedersen v. OPM in Hartford, CT on November 8, 2010.  GLAD’s DOMA challenge Gill v. OPM won a July 8, 2010 ruling in Massachusetts federal district court that DOMA is unconstitutional.  That case is now on appeal. 

Co-operating counsel on Pedersen are Jenner & Block LLP (Washington, DC), Horton, Shields & Knox (Hartford), and Sullivan & Worcester LLP (Boston).  Co-counsel in the Gill case are Foley Hoag LLP, Sullivan & Worcester LLP, Jenner & Block LLP, and Kator, Parks & Weiser, PLLC.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is New England’s leading legal organization dedicated to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status, and gender identity and expression.

# # #

CT Gov Signs Transgender Rights Bill Into Law!

Democratic Governor Dan Malloy

Democrats have full control of the legislature and governor's office in Connecticut and one of the most important bills that has been acted recently is a bill to include transgender people in the state's civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination. (Note the state has had marriage equality since 2008!)

Raw Story has more details about HB 6599 which Mallow signed into law on July 6, 2011.

The new law adds the phrase "gender identity or expression" to all existing state sex discrimination laws, making Connecticut the 15th state to specifically protect transgender people. 

Anything under authority of the state's Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities is subject to the new rules, including employment, housing, public accommodations and credit. 

"An Act Concerning Discrimination" -- or HB-6599 -- defines "gender identity or expression" as follows: 

a person's gender-related identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or assigned sex at birth, which gender-related identity can be shown by providing evidence including, but not limited to, medical history, care or treatment of the gender-related identity, consistent and uniform assertion of the gender-related identity or any other evidence that the gender-related identity is sincerely held, part of a person's core identity or not being asserted for an improper purpose.

The law will go into effect on October 1, 2011 and Connecticut will become the 15th state to ban transgender discrimination, not just in employment but in the areas of most traditional civil rights laws such as housing, credit, public accommodations and education.

With full Democratic control and since the state now has basically almost every LGBT protection imaginable I would hope the next bills Connecticut enacts are progressive priorities like an increase in the minimum wage and same-day voter registration (and restitution of voting rights for felons after they have served their time).

Now There Are 4: GA Black Gay State Rep Comes Out

Georgia State Representative Rashad Taylor,
comes out at a press conference May 27, 2011

There are now four openly gay, African-American male state elected representatives nationwide. Previously known were Marcus Brandon of North Carolina, Gordon Fox of Rhode Island and Jason Bartlett of Connecticut. State Representative Rashad Taylor of Georgia joined these three on Friday by coming out as gay at a press conference in Atlanta on Friday.

Taylor, 30, came out in order to respond to and refute charges of improper conduct which had been emailed to various state legislators from a jealous former lover of Rashad's current boyfriend. You can watch video of the press conference here.

Georgia Voice reports:

According to the national Victory Fund which works to elect openly gay officials, Taylor is only the sixth openly black LGBT person to serve in a state legislature. State Rep. Bell was the first black lesbian elected to a state legislature in 2009. 

Yesterday and in days prior, a man who is the ex-boyfriend of Taylor's partner sent an email to state legislators outing him and alleging Taylor misused his office by promising men jobs in exchange for sex. Taylor denied those allegations today, but did say the truth is is he is gay. 

"For some it may take two days, for some it take two years or 20 years [to come out]," he said.  

"I serve in public office and try to retain some semblance of a private life. This is a journey I've been on," he said. "i wouldn't want to expedite anyone else's journey. It ought to be a personal decision."

Taylor admitted that if the allegations against him had not been made he would not have come out.

"I would not be standing here today," he said, adding he considered ignoring the allegations.

But now was the time to tell the truth, Taylor added.

"I felt like honestly this was it unless I spoke the truth," Taylor said, saying he didn't want someone to feel like they had something "over his head."

He said before today, he could "count on one hand" the people who knew he was gay. Taylor also said that he came out to his mother and family in the past 24 hours. He thanked his mother for his support and she hugged him warmly after he spoke to the media.

MadProfessah has previously blogged about Simone Bell's election as the first Black lesbian state representative in December 2009. In Maryland, Mary Washington is the other openly lesbian elected state representative in the country. There are 6 openly LGBT, Black elected representatives nationwide.


Hat/tip to Wonder Man.