WA: Gov. Gregoire Signs Marriage Equality Bill!

As promised, Democratic Governor Chris Gregoire of Washington, signed the marriage equality bill into law today which was passed by the legislature last week. The bill will not go into effect until June 7th at the earliest, and with her signature today opponents now have the opportunity to collect 120, 557 signatures by that date to place a referendum on the enactment of SB 6239 on the November 2012 ballot. The referendum process prevents the law from going into effect unless and until the referendum is approved by the voters. If you're feeling a sense of déjà vu you are not alone. In 2009, Washington State enacted a comprehensive domestic partnership statute (which on the east coast they call "civil union" or an "everything but the title marriage" law) that became subject to a referendum, Referendum 71.

The ballot measure was later approved by voters and went into effect on December 7, 2009. However, since we all know that separate but equal does not work, Washington marriage equality advocates continued to work for full equality and now have convinced the Legislature and Governor to enact a marriage equality bill. It is quite likely that Evergreen State voters will again approve of equality for same-sex couples and become the first state to enact marriage equality at the ballot box in the process.

If so, Washington will join Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, District of Columbia and New York as granting equal marriage rights to same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

WA Legislature Passes Marriage Equality Bill!

Wow! Another day of great news in the ongoing kulturkampf about marriage equality. 15 years after the Washington State legislature enacted a defense of marriage act over the veto of Democratic governor Gary Locke, the same body has passed a marriage equality legislature bill and sent it to Democratic governor Christine Gregoire for her enthusiastic signature.

Last week the State Senate passed the marriage equality bill SB 6239 by a bipartisan vote of 28-21. Earlier today, the State House of Representatives passed the bill by another bipartisan vote of 55 to 43.

The Advocate reports:

A spokeswoman for Gov. Christine Gregoire said Wednesday afternoon that she expects to sign the bill early next week, making Washington the seventh state plus the District of Columbia to legalize same-sex marriage. 

A round of amendments from Republicans looking to stop the bill all failed. One of the failed amendments had tried to require a referendum before same-sex marriage could be approved.  

Sen. Ed Murray, the gay man who has led much of the push for same-sex marriage in the state, said he and others are already gearing up for an expected referendum in November spurred by a petition drive. He told TVW that first a "decline to sign" drive would try to keep a repeal measure off the ballot.

Interestingly, as a result of yesterday's decision in Perry v Brown, the only chance that heterosexual supremacists may have to stop Washington from becoming the 7th state to allow same-sex couples to legally marry is through the referendum process. If they allow the marriage equality law to go into effect on June 7th and use an initiative to repeal it they will be repeating the state of facts which occurred in California in 2008 and that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday ruled are legally impermissible in the 9th circuit (which includes Washington state).A referendum puts the law on hold until the voters decide whether they want to approve it or not. In November 2009, Maine voters rejected a similar marriage equality referendum by rejecting Question 1.

Regardless, Washington state voters have previously affirmed a same-sex relationship law by referendum in November 2009 (Referendum 71 in a non-presidential year) and will almost certainly do so again in 2012 where the President and a U.S. Senator is on the ballot. Bizarrely, it is somewhat likely that both Maine and Washington will have simultaneous ballot fights going on again in November 2012.

Congratulations to Washington!

WA: State Senate Passes Marriage Bill 28-21!

The Washington State Senate, as expected, passed marriage equality bill SB 6239 last night by a vote of 28-21. The vote was bi-partisan.

The umbrella group Washington United for Marriage issued a statement:

OLYMPIA – Washington United for Marriage, a broad statewide coalition of organizations, congregations, unions and business associations that will work to obtain civil marriage for lesbian and gay couples in Washington State in 2012, today cheered the Washington State Senate’s vote in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage legislation in Washington State.  The measure passed by a bipartisan vote of 28-21, with 23 Democrats and four Republicans joining together to advance the bill.

“We thank Majority Leader Brown, Sen. Murray and the bipartisan coalition of senators who stood with us today in the name of equality,” said Lacey All, Chair of Washington United for Marriage.  “The overwhelming support we’re seeing from businesses, labor, faith communities and people all across the state is a testament to the momentum of this movement and sensibilities of Washingtonians.  Volunteers from every part of the state have contributed thousands of hours of their time to make today possible, and we thank them for their commitment to this issue.”

“As small business owners who pride ourselves on contributing to our community, we are so grateful that today has arrived, and especially for the support of our senator, Mary Margaret Haugen,” said Larry Lowary and Gerry Betz, longtime residents of Washington who live on Whidbey Island.  “We’ve been together for 23 years and entered into our domestic partnership five years ago.  Now we’re looking to the day when we’ll be able to look into each other’s eyes, exchange our vows and finally say ‘I Do’ just like anybody else.”

“The action of the senate today means so much to us, and we thank all the senators who supported this legislation” said Tara Wolfe and A.J. Stolfus, longtime partners from Olympia.  “We moved to Washington years ago in part because of the open and welcoming nature of the people here – something we didn’t always see in Kansas.  We’re simply overjoyed that our friends, family and neighbors can soon recognize us as spouses and our family as being whole.”

The bill now awaits final house approval, which could come as early as next week.  Once the house has passed the legislation, Gov. Chris Gregoire would have five business days to sign it into law, which she has indicated she will do.  Opponents wishing to challenge the new law would have until June to collect 120,557 valid signatures – the amount required to place a referendum on the November 2012 ballot.


Washington United for Marriage is a coalition of organizations, congregations, unions, and business associations working together to secure civil marriage for loving, committed gay and lesbian couples. To find more information and learn how you can help, visit WashingtonUnitedForMarriage.org. Engage with Washington United for Marriage on social media at Twitter.com/WA4Marriage and at Facebook.com/WashingtonUnited.

Cnogratulations to Washington! Now all wehave to do is defend it against the inevitable referendum which will occur on the Nvember 2012 ballot. But Washington has defended gay rights at the ballot before (Referendum 71 in 2009).

WA: Majority Of Senators Support Marriage Equality

Excellent news! In Washington State, there is now a majority of Senators who have publicly announced their support for pending marriage equality legislation.

According to the Seattle Times ("Legislature has the votes"):

Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, announced Monday that she supports gay-marriage legislation in the Senate, giving proponents the 25 votes needed for passage.

The state House already has enough lawmakers in support of the measure to approve it. Gov. Chris Gregoire backs the bill as well.

[...]

"I know this announcement makes me the so-called 25th vote, the vote that ensures passage. That's neither here nor there. If I were the first or the seventh or the 28th vote, my position would not be any different," Haugen said in a statement.

"I happen to be the 25th because I insisted on taking this much time to hear from my constituents and to sort it out for myself, to reconcile my religious beliefs with my beliefs as an American, as a legislator, and as a wife and mother who cannot deny to others the joys and benefits I enjoy," she added. Haugen said her preference would be to send the issue to voters to decide, but there aren't the votes in the Legislature to do that.

It is widely expected that the same heterosexual supremacists who forced a referendum in 2009 on Washington's comprehensive domestic partnership bill (which they lost!) will do so again when Governor Gregoire signs the marriage equality bill into law.

The legislative majority correctly is refusing to include a ballot measure provision in the legislation because marriage equality is a civil right and they are supporting the  principle that the rights of a minority should not be decided by a majority vote.

In other exciting marriage news, the Democratic Governor of Maryland, Martin O'Malley is expected to introduce a marriage equality bill today.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God.

WA: Marriage Equality Bill Introduced 2 Votes Short

Good news! In Washington state, a marriage equality bill (SB 6239) has been introduced in the legislature. The organization Washington United for Marriage issued a press release commending the decision:

OLYMPIA – Washington United for Marriage, a broad statewide coalition of organizations, congregations, unions and business associations that will work to obtain civil marriage for lesbian and gay couples in Washington State in 2012, today applauded the introduction of SB 6239, an act relating to providing equal protection for all families in Washington by creating equality in civil marriage and changing the domestic partnership laws, while protecting religious freedom.  The bill needs 25 votes in the senate for passage and was introduced with 23 sponsors.

“Today we take the next step towards making the promise of equality a reality in Washington State,” said Zach Silk, Campaign Manager for Washington United for Marriage.  “The introduction of this bill not only recognizes the value that lesbian and gay families in Washington make to our united community, but also upholds the longstanding tradition of the separation of church and state in this country.  Marriage is about dignity, commitment, love and respect – it is the ultimate expression of a pro-family society.  The foundation of marriage helps us build stable families, and now is the time to recognize the importance of treating all families in Washington State equally.”

At this time, six states plus the District of Columbia recognize marriage for same-sex couples under state law: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont.  Nine states—California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington—provide same-sex couples with access to the state level benefits and responsibilities of marriage, through either civil unions or domestic partnerships.  Same-sex couples do not receive federal rights and benefits in any state.

You can read the full text of the marriage equality bill. It is currently lacking two votes needed to pass in the Senate, where Democrats hold a 27-22 edge, since there are 23 co-sponsors. The Governor, Christine Gregoire, has already announced her strong support for marriage equality.

Names Of Referendum 71 Signers Released

Finally! After losing a Supreme Court decision Doe v. Reed last year, the heterosexual supremacists who forced the voters of Washington State to vote on whether that state's comprehensive domestic partnership law should go into effect have lost their battle to keep secret the names of the voters who signed the petitions to get the measure on the ballot.

A federal judge ordered the state of Washington to release the names on Monday, and the Secretary of State released a DVD with 138, 000 names of petitioners to the press.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports:

The 138,000 people who signed petitions to force a vote on a 2009 domestic partnership law are unlikely to face harassment if their names are disclosed a judge said Friday while ordering the release of signatures.

U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle said the petitioners who advocated for privacy provided only a few experiences of indecent statements and other uncomfortable conversations. Also, there was only speculation that those incidents were connected to the issue, he said.

Disclosure would become the exception, rather than the rule, if just a few instances of harassment were used as the standard for preventing the release of names, Settle said.

And the heterosexual supremacists lost the referendum campaign in 2009 as well. Washington voters approved the referendum (upheld Washington's comprehensive domestic partnership law) and it has been in effect since November 2009.

SCOTUS Rules 8-1 To Support R-71 Names Disclosure

The Supreme Court has ruled 8-1 in the case of Doe v. Reed that heterosexual supremacist petition signers in Washington who placed Referendum 71 (which would have repealed a comprehensive domestic partnership statute) on the ballot have no implicit First Amendment expectation of privacy, affirming last year's excellent 9th Circuit appellate decision.

Washington Families Standing Together, the organization that managed the campaign to defend the domestic partnership law by approving Referendum 71 issued a statement:

The Court has made clear today that public disclosure requirements are an important means of making sure measures are not put on the ballot by fraudulent means or mistake.

“Public disclosure thus helps ensure that the only signatures counted are those that should be, and that the only referenda placed on the ballot are those that garner enough valid signatures. Public disclosure also promotes transparency and accountability in the electoral process to an extent other measures cannot. In light of the foregoing, we reject plaintiffs’ argument and conclude that public disclosure of referendum petitions in general is substantially related to the important interest of preserving the integrity of the electoral process.”

This 8- 1 ruling by the highest court in the land is a significant defeat for those who have sought to enshrine discrimination into law at the ballot box. Nowhere is the integrity and transparency of elections more important than where the ballot box is being used in an attempt to take away fundamental rights. Nowhere is it more important for the public to know that attempts to affect the lives of their fellow citizens by promoting ballot measures are free from fraud and error. Perhaps no other group has witnessed its rights put up for public vote more than LGBT Americans. Social conservatives have used ballot measures in state after state, over more than 30 years, to keep LGBT Americans from being able to adopt children, to marry and even to be protected from discrimination in housing and employment.

This is the third loss for these groups in our state over the past year as they tried to repeal legislation ensuring that all families are treated equally under Washington State law. First the State PDC said no when these same groups tried to hide their donors. Then voters approved Referendum 71, retaining the law, by more than 53%. Now the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against the proponents’ attempt to undermine disclosure laws.

With regard to the assertion by the anti-gay groups that they would be harmed if petition signatures were subject to public disclosure, as Justice Stevens said in his concurring opinion,

“Any burden on speech that petitioners posit is speculative as well as indirect. For an as-applied challenge to a law such as the PRA to succeed, there would have to be a significant threat of harassment directed at those who sign the petition that cannot be mitigated by law enforcement measures.”

The Supreme Court has in the past allowed narrow exemptions to public disclosure where there’s a clear minority party that has suffered both official and societal retaliation by the majority and where there is strong evidence that such disclosure presents a serious threat. With regard to Referendum 71, however, the groups making this claim were not the minority, but to the contrary, were the ones trying to diminish the rights of the minority. They will be hard pressed to convince a judge the record here is otherwise.

In an amicus brief provided to the Supreme Court in Doe v. Reed, a group of political scientists reported that not only was the assertion of alleged harassment unsubstantiated in Washington State, but the plaintiffs did not present a single verified threat to any signer of a ballot measure petition in any state in any election. As their brief said, “More than a million names of signers of petitions for referenda and initiatives opposing gay marriage have been posted on the Internet, yet there is no evidence that any of these signers has faced any threat of retaliation or harassment by reason of that disclosure.”

WAFST applauds today’s decision and thanks all those who filed briefs and supported our collective efforts as we fought over the last year to protect the rights of all Washingtonians.

Congratulations to Washington State, this is a big loss for the heterosexual supremacist haters like National Organization for Marriage.

SCOTUS Hears Doe v. Reed Argument Today

Today is the final oral argument of the 2009-10 Supreme Court term, and the last one of John Paul Stevens long career. The case in question is Doe v. Reed, which involves whether petition signers of Washington state's Referendum 71 can have their identities shielded, in violation of that state's robust open records law. Referendum 71 asked voters whether they approved of Washington state's comprehensive domestic partnership law, commonly known as the "everything but marriage" law.

SCOTUSblog covers the issues in today's oral arguments:

The Court, perhaps, has tipped its hand in the case, not only by its order in October, temporarily protecting the Washington signers’ privacy, but also by its 5-4 ruling in January in the Proposition 8 TV trial coverage ruling. But both of those actions tend largely to exhibit sympathy for the argument that opponents of gay marriage do face threats and other forms of harassment or outright violence. That sentiment, perhaps, cannot be translated directly into a conclusion that signing a petition is a form of protected political speech.

The Court has never before analyzed, as it must in this case, just exactly what occurs – in a constitutional sense – when a citizen writes a signature, and enters personal information, on a political petition. The Referendum 71 case presents that issue very directly, with the signers making a vigorous argument that it is a purely expressive form of political speech, while those favoring public disclosure of petitions make an equally vigorous argument that the role of citizen as legislative sponsor is no different from that of an elected lawmaker. To side with the former and against the latter, the Court would have to make a sizeable constitutional leap from past rulings on electoral anonymity. Perhaps some of the Justices voted to grant review of the case precisely anticipating that they might well do just that. The briefing, though, has sharpened the issue, far more than did the content submitted to the Court prior to the October order and that presented before review was granted.

For a Court that has recently shown, especially in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision in January, that it reads the First Amendment expansively in the context of election campaigns, there may be little hesitancy now in deciding the Referendum 71 case by lengthening that trend, to elevate the constitutional significance of signing a political petition. Much may be revealed on this score at oral argument.

Whether the Court will see this case as a test of the Constitution’s role in mediating the heavy political controversy, being waged across the country, over gay rights, is unclear at this point. That controversy, to be sure, has a bearing on the intimidation issue that is so central to the Referendum 71 signers’ case.

However, just as central to the other side’s argument is a plea for open government, coupled with a plea for state control of their own initiative and referendum processes. Choosing between those two conflicting approaches to the case may be difficult, indeed.

More than 24 states allow citizen-initiated ballot measures, so a ruling in Doe v. Reed could have a wide impact, especially in California where another Proposition 8-like battle over marriage equality will happen in the future, probably sooner rather than later.

UPDATE: 04/28/2010 11:51AM PDT
It should be noted that LGBT groups have filed a very strong amicus brief in support of the respondents (Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed) and today issued a press release where they basically mock the arguments of the homophobes who want the right to legislate their position from the ballot box while wearing a shroud of First Amendment non-disclosure.

From the release:

Some of the instances of supposed "intimidation" cited by opponents and noted in the amicus brief include:

- A country club member in California, a supporter of Proposition 8, noted that "the openly gay members of the country club have changed their attitudes toward me. They used to greet me warmly; now, they give me looks of disdain and do not greet me as I pass."

- A person with a yard sign supporting Proposition 8 was disturbed on Halloween that some people "pointed and whispered to one another in disapproval" during trick-or-treating.

- A woman was upset that her brother, who is gay, would no longer speak to her after she told him she might vote for Proposition 8.

As the amicus brief says, these complaints "are not only trivial, they reflect a fundamental refusal to accept the legitimacy of speech that disagrees with the complainants' viewpoints, deeming it 'hateful' or 'harassing' simply because they do not like hearing it."

"There's nothing to see here, folks," said Jon Davidson, Legal Director of Lambda Legal. "There's no comparison between a few scattered instances of whispers and disapproving glares and the very real discrimination, harassment and even violence LGBT people experience every day all over the country. After all, more hate crimes are reported against gay people than any other group per capita in the United States."

"The Petitioners are attempting to create a through-the-looking-glass world in which the aggressors are the victims and the victims the aggressors," said Gary Buseck, Legal Director of GLAD.

"This is an outrageous attempt by anti-gay groups to use false claims of persecution to undermine laws that protect the integrity of the democratic process," said Shannon Price Minter, NCLR Legal Director.

We'll see what the Supremes say about that. As always, they have the last word.

SCOTUS Oral Argument in Doe v. Reed: April 28

The Supreme Court has set the oral argument date of April 28th in the closely watched case of Doe v. Reed, which is the case in which proponents of the anti-gay ballot measure Referendum 71 (which, if rejected by voters would have prevented Washington's comprehensive domestic partnership statute from going into effect) won an emergency injunction from the US Supreme Court prior to the November 2009 election barring the release of the information of those who had signed to get the question on the ballot. Referendum 71 was approved so that the anti-gay side lost their bid to use the ballot box to write their homophobic views into state law, but the question of whether Washington State's public disclosure law trumps the right of heterosexual supremacists who sign petitions to eliminate the rights of others is still a matter of judicial dispute.

Specifically, the questions to be considered on April 28th will be:

1. Whether the First Amendment right to privacy in political speech, association, and belief requires strict scrutiny when a state compels public release of identifying information about petition signers.

2. Whether compelled public disclosure of identifying information about petition signers is narrowly tailored to a compelling interest, and whether Petitioners met all the elements required for a preliminary injunction.

I believe that both the answers to these questions could be Yes (though, actually there are two questions in Question #2, the second of which is moot at this point) and Petitioners should lose their case. Respondent (the State of Washington being represented by Secretary of State Sam Reed) should rely heavily on the excellent 9th Circuit Court appellate opinion in this case.

Even conservative UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh believes that "you don't have a constitutional right to essentially engage in a legally significant action anonymously" and election law expert Rick Hasen is similarly dubious about petitioner's chances of prevailing. This is on appeal from the 9tyh Circuit, the Circuit the conservative majority loves to slap down.

Also, even though the issues are different from the Proposition 8 injunction case, it is clear which side if the "pro-gay" side (Respondent) and which is the "anti-gay" side (Petitioner) so it should be very interesting to see the final ruling in this case by the end of June.

SCOTUS To Hear WA's Referendum 71 Case Doe v Reed

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in the now high-profile case of Doe v. Reed on Friday, just like I had hoped for in late October.

This was the second time this week the nation's highest court has intervened in the controversy over whether heterosexual supremacists will be able to shield themselves from public oversight while advocating for public policy changes which would harm the LGBT community. The first action was in their ruling upholding a stay preventing the broadcast of the Perry v. Schwarzenegger federal trial.

The second action is summarized by the Washington Post:

The court agreed to decide whether it was unconstitutional for the state of Washington to make public the names of 138,500 voters who signed a petition for a referendum on whether to overturn a state "everything-but-marriage" law. The statute expanded rights for those who entered into domestic partnerships, both homosexual and heterosexual.

The group that championed the referendum said rival organizations planned to make the petitioners' names available on the Internet and subject them to "threats, harassment and reprisals." Those groups denied such intentions, and the state said its public-records law required disclosure of the names as part of the transparency that comes with democratic participation.

Protect Marriage Washington was successful in getting the issue to referendum last fall, but not at the ballot box. Washington voters endorsed the law by a margin of 53 percent to 47 percent.

But the petition-signers' names have not been disclosed. The Supreme Court blocked the release in October while considering whether the case presented a significant question about political speech. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said Washington's public-records law did not violate constitutional protections.

It should be interesting to see if the Supreme Court will really decide to strike down Washington State's public disclosure law because of an alleged right of people to participate in enacting (and abolishing) laws through the electoral process anonymously.
This claim makes a mockery of the notion that democracy occurs in an open exchange of ideas and I hope the Supreme Court realizes that and rules for the defendant-appellants, the State of Washington, and upholds the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

(It should be noted tat the Supreme Court under Chief Justices Roberts and Rehnquist has taken great delight in overturning the 9th Circuit on multiple occasions.)

UPDATED 11:59 01/17/2010:

The specific questions the Supreme Court has asked both sides to consider are:

1. Whether the First Amendment right to privacy in political speech, association, and belief requires strict scrutiny when a state compels public release of identifying information about petition signers.

2. Whether compelled public disclosure of identifying information about petition signers is narrowly tailored to a compelling interest, and whether Petitioners met all the elements required for a preliminary injunction.

I would say the answer to both questions is "Yes." Let's hope the SCOTUS agrees.

Top 10 Most Significant LGBT Events of 2009

It's that time of year! No, I'm not talking about Chrismuhkwanzakkuh, I'm talking about the annual ritual of making of Top 10 lists. Herewith is my list of the Top 10 Most Significant LGBT Events of 2009 in the United States.

10. Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed to the United States Supreme Court: August 6, 2009.

Hey, the United States Supreme Court doesn't get new members every year. Lots of presidents don't get to appoint any justices, and their influence can extend far beyond a presidential quadrennial or octennial term of office. So it must have been music to the ears of former University of Chicago Law School professor Barack Obama when Associate Justice (and confirmed bachelor) David Souter announced he wanted to return to New Hampshire and leave the nation's highest court. With 60 votes in the majority caucus, Obama could have forced almost anyone through the Senate (including openly gay law school deans Elana Kagan and Kathleen Sullivan) but he chose the person at the top of everyone's short list: Sonia Sotomayor, the New Yorker of Puerto Rican descent who went to Princeton and Yale Law School and went on to become the the first female, Hispanic justice. Although she was asked (and politely declined to answer) her thoughts on LGBT issues there's no question that Sotomayor's vote will be key to achieving full equality under the federal constitution for LGBT Americans in my lifetime.

9. The Vermont Legislature overrides the Governor's veto to enact marriage equality: April 7, 2009.

In a breathtakingly brief period of a few weeks late this Spring, the legislatures of Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Vermont all passed marriage equality measures.Vermont was particularly stunning, because the Republican governor had the temerity to veto the measure and the Legislature was able to achieve a two-thirds majority in both Houses (by a margin of one vote in the lower body) to enact the law ending discrimination against same-sex couples having their relationships recognized by civil authorities in the Great State of Vermont.

8. The District of Columbia becomes the first Southern jurisdiction to pass marriage equality legislation: December 18, 2009.

Just squeaking in before the end of the year, the District of Columbia, which has a population slightly larger than the state of Wyoming and slightly less than the state of Vermont, passed a marriage equality ordinance through its unicameral legislature, the DC City Council 11-2. What makes the action so significant is the fact that the District of Columbia is below the Mason-Dixon line, which means that it is the first jurisdiction in the Southern United States (which also has a majority African American population) to affirm the principle that equality for all includes gay and lesbian couples access to civil marriage.

7. Barack Obama becomes 2nd sitting President to address LGBT rights fundraising event, reiterates promises to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell": October 10, 2009.

After an increasingly impatient LGBT community complained that the Obama administration's moves towards institutionalizing LGBT progress were distressingly slow, the President agreed to attend the Human Rights Campaign's annual DC gala, which this year was occurring a few hours before hundreds of thousands of LGBT citizens would walk the streets of DC for the National Equality March. At the dinner, Obama gave a typically stirring speech where he reiterated his opposition to Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act and called for Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act and the federal hate crimes act for his eager signature. Obama became the first president to attend an LGBT fundraising event in the first year of his first term (Clinton attended in 1997 after his re-election the year before) but it was not enough. LGBT critics complained that Obama did not layout a timeline for when his legislative accomplishments would be achieved.

6. Openly lesbian Annise Parker is elected mayor of Houston, the nation's 4th largest city: December 12, 2009.

After being elected by her hometown six consecutive times statewide in races for City Council and as City Controller, Annise Parker built up a resume and reputation that one would expect for a leading contender to be elected mayor of the nation's fourth largest city. That she was also openly gay and had been so for her entire electoral career gave the race against African-American Gene Locke extra media attention. In the end, Parker was elected handily. Whose to say that she will stop at Mayor? What her election does show is that there is no lavender ceiling for openly LGBT politicians in electoral politics.

5. California Supreme Court refuses to strike down Proposition 8 but affirms marriages of same-sex couples entered into prior to its passage: May 26, 2009.

Almost exactly one year after the California Supreme Court released its landmark ruling In Re Marriage Cases (which struck down Proposition 22 and the state's 1974 marriage statute, legalized marriage for same-sex couples and elevated sexual orientation to a category receiving the highest level of judicial analysis) the same court disappointed millions of people by refusing to exhibit similar judicial courage to invalidate Proposition 8. In a 6-1 vote (only Justice Carlos Moreno, under consideration by President Obama for the United States Supreme Court at the time, was willing to strike down the constitutional amendment which stripped same-sex couples of the right to marry) the Court upheld the legality of Proposition 8 under the California constitution. The Court also unanimously upheld the legal principle that all people married during the 173 days between June 15, 2007 and November 3, 2008 had all the rights and responsibilities of civilly married couples. This will not be the last word on whether Proposition 8 will remain in the California Constitution, however, the legal superduo of Ted Olson and David Boies have filed a federal lawsuit against the measure, and a full trial has been scheduled for January 11, 2010.

4. The Iowa Supreme Court unanimously rules in favor of marriage equality: April 3, 2009.

In the last three years all of the half-dozen or so state Supreme Court decisions which have decided marriage equality prior to Iowa's unanimous Varnum v. Brien decision had been 4-3-vote majorities (Favorably: Massachusetts, 2004; California, 2008; Connecticut, 2008. Unfavorably: New Jersey, 2005; New York, 2006; Washington, 2006; Maryland, 2007). That's what makes the ruling by the Iowa State Supreme Court so significant. The logic that there is no rational basis or legitimate state purpose for preventing same-sex couples from being issued civil marriage licenses is unassailable. The decision went into effect three weeks later, and same-sex couples have been getting married ever since without much publicity. In Iowa, the state constitution can only be amended by passing through the state legislature and the Democratic majority is refusing to consider such a measure. Iowa puts paid to the idea that gay marriage is an idea that is a purely liberal or geographically centered. If same-sex couples are getting married in Iowa, can Kansas be far behind?

3. On election day, Maine voters reject marriage equality law while Washington voters retain "everything but marriage" comprehensive domestic partnership statute: November 3, 2009.

The weeks and months leading up to election day were dominated by the "Proposition 8-redo" in Maine called Question 1 where heterosexual supremacists again forced a public vote on whether private relationships would be treated equally by the state. Another public vote, another devastating loss. For the 31st time in 32 tries, the public voted against marriage equality for LGBT couples, this time by a margin of 52.75% Yes to 47.25% No (even larger than Proposition 8's 52.3 Yes to 47.7% No in 2008). However, thousands of miles away in Washington State, voters overwhelmingly Approved Referendum 71 (by a margin 0f 53.15% to 46.85% or 113,00 votes) to retain a recently enacted comprehensive domestic partnership law modeled after California's landmark AB 205 from 2003. (Interestingly, Nevada was able to enact their comprehensive domestic partnership act over their Republican governor;s veto on May 31, 2009.)

2. John A. Pérez is named the next Speaker of the California Assembly, the first openly gay person of color to head a state legislative body: December 10, 2009.

John A. Pérez is someone I have hung out with at parties and sat next to at banquets and stood next to at rallies. He is also the first LGBT person of color ever to be elected to the California legislature (in 2008). In January 2010, he will become the Speaker of the Assembly, one of the Top 3 positions in California politics. Yes, he's the cousin of the Mayor of Los Angeles and had to defeat my own Assemblyman Kevin de Leon in order to win over a majority of the California Democratic caucus as a first-term legislator in order to have up to 4 years of eligibility to serve as head of the lower body of the California Legislature, the first gay and third Latino to do so. His elevation among his peers, along with Annise Parker demonstrates the assimilation of sexual orientation into the mainstream of Democratic politics. It is more likely John's sexual orientation helped him rather than hurt him in becoming Speaker of the California Assembly and that speaks volumes for the trajectory of the LGBT civil rights movement in the future.

1. President Barack Obama signs the federal hate crimes bill (the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr Hate Crimes Prevention Act) into law: October 28, 2009

Despite the carping from some corners that the legislation only gives rights to LGBT people only after they are victimized or dead, the historic echoes of the President's signature on H.R. 1913 should not be under-estimated. The federal hate crimes bill became the first piece of federally enacted legislation to ever include the words "gender identity" and only the second to expand rights based on sexual orientation. Yes, the measure was attached to a "must-pass" piece of legislation, the Defense Reauthorization Act of 2009, instead of a stand-alone bill. But this did not make Republican opposition any less fierce or morally questionable.

WA State Comprehensive DP Law Now In Effect!

The Approval of Referendum 71 was made official Thursday December 3rd. From the official blog of the Washington State Secretary of State:

Referendum 71, placed on the ballot by foes of same-sex marriage, was approved by a margin of more than 110,000 votes, or more than 6 percentage points. National media describe it as the country’s first voter-approved domestic partnership or “everything-but-marriage” law.

The new law had been on hold pending the public vote, and will now go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday, 30 days after the Nov. 3 General Election. The law is Senate Bill 5688 and applies to state-registered domestic partners, both same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples where at least one partner is 62 or older.

Congratulations, Washington! Now California (2005), Oregon (2008), Nevada (2009), and Washington (2009), as well as Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire have eliminated as many disparities between how the state treats opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples under state law. On the west coast we tend to call these laws "comprehensive domestic partnership" statutes. On the east coast they call them civil unions. Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont have now passed marriage equality laws (NH's goes into effect January 1) and New Jersey may join them very soon.

VIDEO: Stephen Colbert Comments On Recent Gay Controversies

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Skeletons in the Closet
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor U.S. Speedskating

Today is Approved Referendum 71 Day in Seattle!

This is pretty cool. The City of Seattle is declaring today, November 14, 2009, Approved Referendum 71 day. [Note the change in tense from Approve to Approved]

Whereas, civil rights and liberties have long been values of the City of Seattle; and

Whereas, the council recognized the importance of the extended domestic partnership law by endorsing the Approve Referendum 71 Campaign; and

Whereas, equality for all Seattleites is important and has a lasting effect on the city; and

Whereas, the LGBT community is an important and integral part of what makes the City of Seattle a great place to live, work, and go to school; and

Whereas, the historic vote to approve Referendum 71 in Washington State sends a message to the rest of the country that the rights and responsibilities afforded to heterosexual married couples are now available to same-sex domestic partners registered with Washington State, and provides important protections to all Washington families; and

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED THAT THE SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL DECLARES NOVEMBER 14, 2009 TO BE VICTORY, REFERENDUM 71 APPROVED DAY IN THE CITY OF SEATTLE.

Referendum 71 Update: Victory Mathematically Certain

The latest tallies on Referendum 71 from the Washington State Secretary of State election results page show that the good guys are ahead 593,956 (51.65%) Approve to 556,090 (48.35%) Reject with 394,282 ballots still to be counted! However, mathematically there is almost no chance that Referendum 71 will be rejected when all the votes are tallied.

The current margin of victory is 37,876 votes. However, 129,000 of the outstanding ballots are from King county which is approving Referendum 71 at a 66%-34% rate that will be a net gain of another 42,000 votes. The rest of the state will not be able to overcome that margin unless they sustain a margin of 58% Reject for ALL of the non King County votes. In order to actually surpass the boost from the uncounted King County ballots combined with the current lead of 37,876 the outstanding non-King county 265,000 ballots would have to be rejecting Referendum 71 at a rate of 65%.

That simply is NOT going to happen. We won!!

Having a statewide vote to approve a comprehensive domestic partnership bill affirmatively is a huge leap forward for the LGBT equality movement. I would note that the last time LGBTs won a statewide vote it was in 2006 when Arizonan's defeated an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment so homophobic it would also have outlawed domestic partnerships. That initiative was rejected in 2006 and then a marriage-only measure was approved by voters in 2008.

I think this makes it clear that states that have anti-marriage constitutional amendments or do not have marriage equality yet should move forward in enacting comprehensive domestic partnership statutes and not be afraid of facing the voters.

2009 Election Results: Maine Bad, Washngton Good

The New York Times website ends up coming through...

Maine: Reject Gay Marriage Law

Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?

50% reporting Washington: Domestic Partnerships

Maine: Reject Gay Marriage Law

Answer	Party	Votes	Pct.
Yes	—	240,647	52.4%
No	—	218,478	47.6

Washington: Domestic Partnerships

Answer	Party	Votes	Pct.
Approve	—	506,936	51.1%
Reject	—	484,567	48.9

3-2-1 Countdown for Equality: No Bittersweet Victories

Washington:

Who we are: Approve Referendum 71 is the campaign to preserve domestic partnerships in Washington State. By voting to approve, voters retain the domestic partnership laws that were passed during this year's legislative session, including using sick leave to care for a partner, adoption rights, insurance rights, and more.

What we need: We need phone bankers to get our supporters out to vote. Washington is an all mail-in ballot state, and we need to ensure our supporters put their ballots in the mail. Also, youth turnout is a critical component of our campaign, and youth turnout historically drops in off-year elections. So we need a lot of help to turn them out.

How you do it: Sign up here to make remote calls for Approve 71. We'll then contact you for a training, and you can make GOTV calls.

Maine:Who we are: The No On 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign is working to protect Maine's recently-passed law legalizing marriage equality for same-sex couples. Our opponents have put the issue on the ballot for Nov 3, 2009. Because of Maine's early voting election laws, people are already voting at the polls, so we need help immediately to turn out our side at the polls.

What we need: We need you to devote a few hours to Call for Equality. Call for Equality is a virtual phonebank set up so that you can call Maine voters wherever you are. Much of Maine is rural, where canvassing isn't effective, so we need to reach these voters- along with other supporters- by phone. All you need is a phone and internet connection. No experience required! We'll provide the training, and all you need is a a few hours to help get a win in Maine.

How you do it: Click here to sign up for a training and your shift. There are lots of times available for your convenience.

Kalamazoo, MI:

Who We Are: The Yes on Ordinance 1856 / One Kalamazoo campaign is working in Michigan to support the City Commission of Kalamazoo's twice approved ordinance for housing, employment, and public accommodation protections for gay and transgender residents. Opponents forced a public referendum on the ordinance so dedicated local volunteers, led by former Stonewall Democrats Executive Director Jon Hoadley, are working to ensure voters say YES to fairness and equality and keep Ordinance 1856.

Why The Urgency: In the final weeks, the opposition has gone all out with aggressive disinformation and misleading red herrings to try to defeat the ordinance. This includes signs that say "No to Discrimination" (even though voting No actually supports continued discrimination of GLBT residents), transphobic door hangers and fliers, and now radio ads that falsely suggest that criminal behavior will become legal when this simply isn't true. The Yes on Ordinance 1856 supporters are better organized but many voters who want to vote for gay and transgender people are getting confused by the opposition.

How To Help:

1) Help the One Kalamazoo campaign raise a final $10,000 specifically dedicated to fight back against the lies on the local TV and radio airwaves and fully fund the campaign's final field and GOTV efforts.

Give here: http://www.actblue.com/page/3-2-1-countdown

2) If you live nearby and can physically volunteer in Kalamazoo sign up here. If you know anyone that lives in Kalamazoo, use the One Kalamazoo campaign's online canvass tool to remind those voters that they need to vote on November 3rd and vote YES on Ordinance 1856 to support equality for gay and transgender people.

Contact voters: http://www.onekalamazoo.com/tellfriends2

Referendum 71 Has Big Leads In Recent Polls

Washington Families Standing Together, the group protecting that state's comprehensive domestic partnership laws, released a poll showing a very strong lead for the Approve Referendum 71 side.

Approve: 53%
Reject: 36%
Undecided: 11%

This is a poll of 500 likely voters. Additionally, the Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality at the University of Washington conducted a poll of 724 voters with margin of error of +/-3.6 points which shows registered voters approve referendum 71 56% to 39%, while likely voters it's leading 57% to 38% and among those who have already voted Referendum 71 is ahead 55% to 45%.

Stephen Colbert Takes On Washington's Referendum 71

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Don't Ask Don't Tell
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Michael Moore

US Supreme Court Shields WA Referendum-71 Petitioners

On Thursday October 22nd, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 (Justice Stevens dissenting) in Doe v. Reed (pdf)to grant Protect Marriage Washington's appeal for an injunction against Washington State's Secretary of State Sam Reed from revealing the names of the 138,500 people who signed petitions to place Referendum 71 (which would repeal that state's comprehensive domestic partnership statute) on the November 3rd ballot.

The Supreme Court overruled a quite good decision (pdf) from a 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit which had ruled that signing a petition anonymously is not protected under the First Amendment. In a unanimous decision the 9th Circuit Court said:

We conclude that each of the State’s asserted interests is sufficiently
important to justify the PRA’s incidental limitations on referendum petition
signers’ First Amendment freedoms. See O’Brien, 391 U.S. at 376-77. We
conclude also that the incidental effect of the PRA on speech is no greater than
necessary. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 798-99 (holding that a
restriction need not be the least restrictive means of furthering the State’s interest
to survive intermediate scrutiny).

Finally, no one has claimed that the State’s interests are at all related to the
suppression or regulation of expression. The stated aim of the PRA, which itself
was passed through the initiative process, is to keep the citizens “informed so that
they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created.” Wash.
Rev. Code § 42.56.030. There is no indication that despite this clear statement, the
PRA was nonetheless intended to suppress free expression.

Accordingly, we hold that the PRA as applied to referendum petitions does
not violate the First Amendment.

Unfortunately, the High Court's action means that Referendum 71 will be decided without the information of who initiated the process being revealed and even whether the measure was properly qualified.

However, the legal dispute over whether petition signatories can have their names shielded is very much alive, and appears in a front page story in today's Los Angeles Times by David Savage, that paper's excellent court reporter.

Several constitutional (and election law) experts are quoted expressing doubt over the proposition that Protect Marriage Washington's legal position will eventually prevail:

First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh of UCLA questioned whether petition signers have a constitutional right to anonymity.

"As a matter of 1st Amendment law, you have the right to speak anonymously but you don't have a constitutional right to essentially engage in a legally significant action anonymously," he said. "The state can demand you identify yourself on a petition, and at that point it seems the state is entitled to publish it."

Signing a petition is more akin to a lawmaker's vote, which is usually required to be made in public so the citizenry can monitor the progress of the laws that will govern them, legal analysts say.

But Richard Hasen, a Loyola law professor, noted that the Supreme Court in the past has protected civil rights groups and socialists from revealing the names of their members because of fears they could be harassed and intimidated.

"The court would not necessarily construe signing a ballot measure as a 1st Amendment-protected activity," Hasen said. "But if it is, in fact, true that signers face harassment, I think that's troubling."

I'd love to see a full hearing on whether people who have signed petitions have been harassed or not. In Proposition 8, it was the names of donors to Proposition 8, not the names of the 1.1 million people who signed the petitions that were revealed and led to boycotts.

The question is whether the Court will grant certioriari on this legal question after the election, when the question may be moot (if the Referendum is approved). I hope that they do.