GODLESS WEDNESDAY: Mormons Trying To Influence Ballot Measures in Western States (AZ,CO,CA,NV)

The Mormon Church notoriously (and somewhat disastrously) got involved with a California ballot measure in 2008 called Proposition 8 that purported to amend the United States California Constitution to ban same-sex marriage that was eventually struck down in a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision on June 26, 2013. has decided that it didn't learn its lesson 8 years ago and is getting involved in opposing a series of ballot measures involving social issues in various West Coast states.

The Deseret News reports:

The LDS Church's First Presidency is asking the faith's members in four western states to oppose bills that would legalize doctor-assisted suicide and recreational marijuana use.
Church President Thomas S. Monson and his counselors sent a letter Wednesday to Mormons in Colorado, where Proposition 106 would legalize physician-assisted suicide. 

"We urge church members to let their voices be heard in opposition to measures that would legalize physician-assisted suicide," said the letter signed by President Monson, President Henry B. Eyring and President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, who make up the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

They sent a similar letter Wednesday to Mormons in Arizona, California and Nevada about marijuana legislation.
"We urge church members to let their voices be heard in opposition to the legalization of recreational marijuana use," the letter said.

The Mormon Church does not get involved in political issues very often (which is one reason their involvement in the Proposition 8 fight over same-sex marriage was so striking) so it is noteworthy that they are urging their adherents in California, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada to follow the Church's leadership instead of voting their conscience in these particular matters. It's also interesting that the LDS Church did not weigh in on Proposition 62 (abolish death penalty) and Proposition 66 (maintain death penalty) in California.

27 States Now Have Marriage Equality!

The march to a  nation of marriage equality made another huge step today when  Nevada and West Virginia became the 26th and 27th states where same-sex couples can get legally married.

9th U.S. Circuit Strikes Down Marriage Bans In Nevada and Idaho, Citing Heightened Scrutiny

Well, that was fast! Just one day after the Supreme Court denied appeals from the 4th, 7th and 10th circuits, essentially opening up marriage equality to 5 states immediately and to 6 more eventually, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals chimed in and immediately struck down same-sex marriage bans in Nevada and Idaho, and almost certainly leading to the addition of three more states in short order. That would bring the total number of states with marriage equality up from 19 last week and the 30 as a result of yesterday's actions to a stunning total of 35 when the dust rom all the legal skirmishes settles.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Latta v. Otter and Sevcik v. Sandoval that the heightened scrutiny that laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation must survive to be deemed constitutional leads to the conclusion that state bans on same-sex marriage are null and void under interpretations of equal protection under the federal constitution.

Equality on Trial highlights this excerpt from today's ruling:

We hold that the Idaho and Nevada laws at issue violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because they deny lesbians and gays who wish to marry persons of the same sex a right they afford to individuals who wish to marry persons of the opposite sex, and do not satisfy the heightened scrutiny standard we adopted in SmithKline.

Today's ruling from the 9th Circuit was the fourth appellate court to rule in favor of marriage equality this year in the last three months and was a unanimous 3-0. Somewhat surprisingly, a mandate from the court has already been issued, putting it into effect, which should allow couples to immediately get married in Nevada and Idaho if no appeals are filed. The Governor of Nevada has agreed not to appeal so marriage equality has gone into effect in the Silver State. Couples will be able to get marriage licenses in Las Vegas starting at 2pm on Wednesday.

An interesting feature of the 9th Circuit's ruling is that although it was unanimous two of the judges wrote separately to say that they would have struck down the marriage bans on other grounds. Judge Stephen Reinhard said that he would have used the Due Process Clause to say that the bans violate the fundamental right to marry of same-sex couples and Judge Marsha Berzon wrote to sat that she would have used the idea that bans on marriage equality are based in unconstitutional sex discrimination. Sadly, neither judge signed on to the other's separate ruling so neither of these ideas have the force of law in the 9th Circuit, although I would agree with BOTH of them.

9th Circuit Refuses To Reconsider Sexual Orientation Discrimination Ruling

Big news from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals! The now fully staffed court has denied a sua ponte request to reconsider their important ruling in SmithKline Beecham. That case is the about juror discrimination where the 9th Circuit ruled that sexual orientation is not a valid characteristic for removing a potential juror, by declaring that sexual orientation is a suspect classification that requires heightened scrutiny. A majority of judges on the 26-member court agreed that an en banc hearing was not warranted, while the three most conservative members of the court signed on to a 10-page decision dissenting in the decision of the court. Neither of the parties in the underlying dispute had asked the court to review the question of what standard of review sexual orientation should receive, that was instigated by an anonymous member of the 9th Circuit. The fact that the decision is now final means that in order to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in the 9th Circuit's jurisdictional area, an exceedingly persuasive reason has to be given. As  Joe Jervis says, this will almost certainly lead to marriage equality in the states of the 9th Circuit which do not have it yet: Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana and Nevada.

SCOTUS Blog also discusses the implications of the permanence of SmithKline:

 Of the twelve federal appeals courts to confront the issue, ten have taken the position that challenges to laws which allegedly discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation should be analyzed only by the least-demanding standard — that is, “rational basis” review.   Using that standard, at least some courts have upheld bans on same-sex marriage. 

[...] 

In the cases now awaiting Ninth Circuit review, state officials are attempting to defend same-sex marriage bans only in the Idaho case.  State officials in Oregon and Nevada have given up the defense of such bans, and Hawaii has moved on its own to allow such marriages.   Because the panel’s decision in the SmithKline decision is now binding in that circuit, in the wake of denial of en banc review, it sets the standard for judging the state bans throughout the geographic region included in the Ninth Circuit.

The other appellate court to decide sexual orientation should receive heightened scrutiny is the 2nd U.S. Circuit, which did so in their ruling which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act in Windsor v United States, a decision the Supreme Court upheld last year (but did not address the level of review question).

Important 9th Circuit Gay Rights Ruling May Not Be Permanent

Uh-oh! Although the date passed on March 7, 2014  by which the parties involved could appeal the 9th Circuit's important ruling in SmithKlinBeacham v Abbott in which the federal appellate court ruled earlier this year that sexual orientation must receive heightened scrutiny when laws are being analyzed for equal protection purposes, now comes word that the ruling may not be final and that an en banc hearing on the case may be in the works.

"A sua sponte en banc call having been made, the parties are instructed to filewithin 21 days of the filing date of this order simultaneous briefs setting forth theirrespective positions on whether the case should be reheard en banc. See G.O.5.4c(3). An original and fifty copies shall be filed. See Ninth Cir. R. 35-4(b)."

The court published an order today (excerpted above) which gives interested parties 21 days to file briefs as to why or why not a panel of 11 judges should hear the case, and possibly reverse it. What happens now is that after 21 days the entire 9th Circuit (which has something like 26 judges) will vote as to whether an en banc hearing should occur. If a majority votes in favor, then there is a possibility that a randomly selected 11-judge panel or the U.S. Supreme Court could reverse the ruling.  The current 3-judge panel that issued the unanimous ruling has some of the most liberal members of the circuit on it (Berzon, Reinhardt and Schroeder).

SmithKline is incredibly important ruling and the question of whether marriage equality will come sooner or later to atleast two states in the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction (namely Nevada and Oregon) depends on whether the idea that sexual orientation is indeed a suspect class, which is a key corolary of the SmithKline Beacham decision.

MadProfessah will be watching developments in this case very closely!

Hat/tip to Equality on Trial

Lambda Legal Files Marriage Equality Lawsuit In Arizona!

Good news out of Arizona regarding LGBT equality! Lambda Legal has filed a lawsuit seeking to gain the right to marriage for same-sex couples in Arizona.

In the lawsuit, Lambda Legal, joined by pro bono co-counsel from Perkins Coie LLP, argues that the Arizona constitutional amendment and state statutes barring same-sex couples from marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  

The lead plaintiffs, Nelda Majors, 75, and Karen Bailey, 74, of Scottsdale, have been together for more than 55 years, and together have raised two children, Karen’s great grand-nieces Marissa and Sharla, as their own daughters since the girls came into their home as toddlers. Marissa is now 15 and Sharla 21. 

“Karen and I have been together since 1957,” Majors said.  “We’re a committed, loving family, have raised two amazing girls together, have seen each other through thick and thin, in sickness and in health. After five decades together, we want to celebrate and affirm our deep love for each other as other couples do, before our friends and family, through marriage. We’re also getting up there in years. I want to know that, should anything happen to me, there would be no question about Karen being allowed to be with me at the hospital, and vice versa. If we were married, there would be no question and we both would feel more secure.” 

“Arizona’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples serves no legitimate state interest, brands these loving couples and their children as second-class citizens, and encourages private bias and discrimination,” Pizer said. “And because the State does not even offer a lesser status such as civil union or domestic partnership, these loving couples live every day with the uncertainty that their families and relationships lack even basic protections.”

The name of the lawsuit is Majors v. Horne. As I have said, repeatedly, the fact that in the 9th U.S. Circuit (Washington, California, Oregon, Arizona, Idaho, Nevada and Montana) laws in these states that classify based on sexual orientation must receive heightened scrutiny that they are not violating the equal protection rights of LGBT people makes it very likely that bans on same-sex marriage in these states are toast. The deadline to appeal the decision that declared sexual orientation subject to heightened scrutiny passed last Friday, and this lawsuit I'm sure is a consequence of that decision.

Important Deadline Passes To Appeal Landmark LGBT Equality Case

The Human Rights Campaign noticed that today was the deadline for the appeal to be filed in the landmark case of Abbott Laboratories v. SmithKline Beecham in which the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled recently that laws that classify based upon sexual orientation require heightened scrutiny.

Abbott is an incredibly significant ruling that already has had immediate impacts on the lives of LGBT citizens. As a direct result of the issuance of this ruling the Attorneys General of Nevada and Oregon declined to continue to defend their state's marriage licenses.

It is hard to see how marriage laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation survive judicial review anywhere in the 9th Circuit as long as Abbott is good law.

Juror Discrimination Case Will Not Be Appealed
Ninth Circuit's Application of Heightened Scrutiny for Sexual Orientation Will Stand
WASHINGTON – In January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in a pharmaceutical contract dispute, Abbott Laboratories v. SmithKline Beecham, that it violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection to exclude someone from jury service because of his or her sexual orientation.  In doing so, the court also concluded that discrimination based on sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny, a higher standard of judicial review that requires a stronger justification for laws and policies that treat gays and lesbians differently.  Only days after the Ninth Circuit's decision, the Attorney General of Nevada ended the state's defense of its marriage ban in another case before that court, concluding that Nevada's justifications for excluding same-sex couples from marriage could not withstand that higher level of review.  

Yesterday, the deadline passed for AbbVie (the pharmaceutical spin-off of Abbott Laboratories that is a party in this litigation) to seek review of the January decision by a larger panel of the Ninth Circuit.  Furthermore, HRC has learned that AbbVie will not seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court.     

 “AbbVie’s decision not to appeal this ruling may turn out to be a pivotal moment in the quest for marriage equality in every state in this country and greater constitutional protections for all LGBT Americans,” said HRC President Chad Griffin.  "We thank the company for standing on the right side of history."   

The Human Rights Campaign is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against LGBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.

###

Oregon Becomes 6th State Where Attorney General Won't Defend Marriage Ban

Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum has announced that she will no longer defend that state's constitutional marriage ban in light of the recent 9th Circuit ruling in GlaxoSmithKline v Abbott that declared sexual orientation is a suspect class that requires the government to provide increased justification for laws that discriminate against LGBT people. Rosenblum said in a filing in the lawsuit Rummel v. Kitzhaber that:

State Defendants will not defend the Oregon ban on same-sex marriage in this litigation. Rather, they will take the position in their summary judgment briefing that the ban cannot withstand a federal constitutional challenge under any standard of review. In the meantime, as the State Defendants are legally obligated to enforce the Oregon Constitution’s ban on same-sex marriage, they will continue to do so unless and until this Court grants the relief sought by the plaintiffs.

Interestingly, Rosenblum joins at least 5 other attorneys-general who have refused to defend their state's laws banning marriage equality. California's Jerry Brown was one of the most prominent (and significant) to do so way back in December 2008 and the election of Kamala Harris in 2010 insured that California's attorney general would continue to support marriage equality. Others have been Illinois's Lisa Madigan in June 2012, Pennsylvania's Kathleen Kane in July 2013, Virginia's Mark Herring in January 2014 and Nevada's Catherina Cortez Masto in February 2014.

Oregon is an interesting case because signatures have been collected to go back to the ballot but the attorney general's switch, the state of law in the 9th circuit and the fact that the case is being heard before openly gay federal judge Michael McShane makes it likely marriage equality will come to Oregon sooner rather than later and that the ballot fight might not be necessary. Signatures do not have to be submitted until July 2014 for the November election.

In fact, Mike Marshall the campaign manager for Oregon United for Marriage issued a  statement responding to AG Rosenblum's action:

"If we get marriage (from the federal court) in the spring and nobody appeals and marriage licenses are being issued, nobody has any hunger for a ballot measure we don't need."

It should be noted that every federal judge who has ruled on a marriage equality lawsuit since last year's United States v. Windsor Supreme Court ruling has found in favor of equality, and this has often been under a rational basis level of review and not the heightened scrutiny required in the 9th circuit.

QUEER QUOTE: Nevada Gov. Agrees To Stop Defending Marriage Law In Court

Republican Nevada Governor Bruce Sandoval apparently agrees with his Democrat attorney general Catherine Cortez Masto that the impact of the 9th U.S. Circuit's recent decision declaring that sexual orientation requires heightened scrutiny means that the state will almost certainly lose its defense of its law banning same-sex marriage and thus has decided to stop doing so.

Masto issued an order "respectfully requesting the 9th U.S. Circuit allow her to withdraw her previously filed brief" defending Nevada's discriminatory marriage law on Monday.

Gov. Sandoval was quoted agreeing with decision, saying:

"Based upon the advice of the attorney general's office and their interpretation of relevant case law, it has become clear that this case is no longer defensible in court."

You know the end of the kulturkampf is getting near when even conservative Republicans like Sandoval are recognizing that fighting in court to preserve heterosexual privilege is not worth their time.

QUEER QUOTE: NV AG Rethinking Defense of State Marriage Ban

The Attorney General of Nevada raised some eyebrows last week when she filed a brief defending Nevada's marriage statutes that appeared to implicitly compare same-sex marriage with polygamous and incestuous ones. The case in question is Sevcik v. Sandoval and is being managed by Lambda Legal and the Attorney General is a Democrat named Catherine Cortez Masto who was re-elected in 2010 and is term limited from running again in 2014.

Today comes word that in light of the recent decision by the 9th Circuit that laws which discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation require heightened scrutiny, the AG is changing her tune. She released a statement which is today's Queer Quote:

“A potentially significant case was decided by the Ninth Circuit on Tuesday of this week, the same day that a brief was filed on behalf of the State in Nevada’s same-sex marriage case. The Ninth Circuit’s new decision, entitled SmithKline Beechum Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories, appears to impact the equal protection and due process arguments made on behalf of the State. After careful review of the SmithKline decision these arguments are likely no longer tenable in the Ninth Circuit. 

This office will conduct further review over the weekend in order to evaluate the State’s argument in light of SmithKline. We will be discussing this with the Governor’s Office next week.

It would be interesting if the AG of Nevada stopped defending its discriminatory marriage statute(s) in light of  the decision in GlaxoSmithKline, like the Democratic Attorney General of Virginia, Mark Herring did last week. He made his decision on the strength of the Supreme Court's language in United States v. Windsor, which makes it pretty clear that laws which disfavor same-sex couples do not serve a legitimate governmental interest and are almost certainly unconstitutional. 

If sexual orientation does receive heightened scrutiny nationwide it is hard to imagine that state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage survive competent judicial review. Currently, that is the standard of review in the Ninth Circuit, where Nevada (and Oregon) reside, so we may have more states joining the marriage equality caucus sooner rather than later.

Hat/tip to LGBT Think Progess

Missouri To Recognize Marriage Equality For Tax Purposes

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon (D) announced this week that he supports marriage equality as a matter of public policy and issued an executive order that would allow legally married same-sex couples who file taxes in Missouri to do so jointly, despite the existence of a state constitutional amendment passed in 2004 which said that "to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman."

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports

Nixon said he was making the change because state tax law is linked to federal tax law. 

After the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated part of the Defense of Marriage Act in June, the IRS ruled that legally married same-sex couples will be treated as married for federal tax purposes, no matter where they live. 

At a news conference in his Capitol office, Nixon told reporters he will issue an executive order today telling the Missouri Department of Revenue to accept the couples’ joint state returns if they file joint federal returns.

Think Progress explains how the legal situation for same-sex couples has changed since the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor:

When the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, it opened up the possibility for same-sex couples to file their federal tax returns jointly for the first time. In the past, such couples living in states that recognized their marriages could file jointly at the state level but had to file separately at the federal level. The situation is now switched, so any couple who legally married in one state but then moved to another that didn’t recognize their union can file jointly for federal taxes, but will still have to file separately for state taxes. Missouri will become the first exception to this. 

As I have been saying, we are running out of blue states to make advances in marriage equality and the next frontier in ending discrimination against LGBT people will be occurring in conservative red states. The only remaining blue states that do not have marriage or civil unions are Virginia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. It's curious that these are some of the most populous states in the country and currently all of them (except Virginia) have Republican governors but have gubernatorial elections in 2014. Virginia is the location of a high profile federal marriage lawsuit, and there are active lawsuits in many of the other states as well. Blue states which are expected to have enacted marriage equality in the foreseeable future are New Mexico, Oregon, Colorado and Nevada.

Delaware Becomes 11th State To Enact Marriage Equality!

Today is a pretty historic day in Delaware! The marriage equality bill HB 75 passed the state senate 12-9, with the two last undecided senators, Bethany Hall-Long (D) and Catherine Cloutier (R) both voting in favor of expanding the right to marry to same-sex couples.

Governor Jack Markell (D) signed the bill into law a few hours later. It goes into effect on July 1, 2013, so Delaware will actually leap frog Rhode Island as the 10th state where same-sex couples can get married in the United States.

And then this happened during the debate:

BREAKING: Delaware Sen. Karen Peterson comes out as gay during marriage debate #lgbt
— Victory Fund (@VictoryFund) May 7, 2013 

For the second time this year, a state senator has used the debate over the civil rights of LGBT citizens to reveal that they are part of the LGBT community themselves.

Black Gay Nevada State Legislator Comes Out

Nevada State Senator Kelvin Atkinson (D)

The Nevada State Senate voted 12-9 to approve Senate Joint Resolution 13, a measure that if passed by the entire Legislature in two consecutive sessions would lead to a referendum in November 2016 that would repeal and replace the Silver State's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage which dates from 2002.

Tuesday night's legislative action makes the Nevada State Senate the first legislative body in the United States to vote to repeal a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. But, there was an even more historic event that occurred during the debate, and that was the coming out by one of the state Senators:

After a little more than an hour of debate in which one senator publicly declared that he was gay for the first time, the Nevada Senate voted 12-9 to repeal the state's 2002 amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman and replace it with language requiring the recognition of all marriages between two people, "regardless of gender."

In addition to out LGBT Sens. David Parks and Pat Spearman, Sen. Kelvin Atkinson declared on the floor during the debate, "I am a black, gay male." Because he was speaking about his sexual orientation publicly for the first time Monday night, he said he had heard negative comments about the marriage amendment repeal from others prior to the vote. But, he said, "People should mind their business and allow people to do what they want to do."

State Sen. Ben Kieckhefer was the sole Republican to vote for the marriage amendment's repeal.

Amazingly, the 21-member Nevada State Senate now has 3 openly LGBT members (1 in 7!): Kelvin Atkinson, Senate President Pro Tem David Parks and Pat Spearman. 2 of the 3 are Black and LGBT. There are two other openly LGBT members of the Nevada State House.

This is a very interesting development in the history of LGBT equality. I wonder how long it will be before other blue states with "mini-DOMA" (state constitutional amendments banning marriage equality) will start taking legislative action to repeal them?

Godless Wednesday: Which States Are Less Religious?

This is not your typical red/blue map of party affiliation or presidential preference but instead a map depicting religious affiliation. This map was produced by David Jarman of DailyKos.com who explains it thusly:

The red states are those where the plurality of adherents are Evangelical Protestants; the blue states are home to a plurality of Catholics. Yellow are Mainline Protestants, while green states have "Other" as a plurality, which clearly means Mormon in the three states in question.

The curious aspect of the map is that Jarman decided to ignore the data of "unclaimed" persons in each state. These are people who are either non-believers (welcome, my fellow godless Americans!) or are not associated with any "organized" religion. If he had included that data, the map would look very different, but he was trying to show the correlation between evangelical belief and partisanship.

However, if you look at the actual data yourself (which is publicly available), you can see that in most states the unclaimed dominate the population, with the Top 5 "unclaimed" states being Maine (72%), Oregon(69%), Vermont (66%), Alaska (66%), and Nevada (66%).

That's today's lesson in godlessness, folks!

Nate Silver Vindicated: Prediction Matches Reality

Elections have consequences. I strongly suggest that there should be consequences for pundits like Newt Gingrich, Michael Barone, Karl Rove and Dick Morris who all made outlandish predictions based on "secret" data that Mitt Romney would win the presidential election, with some of these fantasy-based commentators suggesting the Republican would win a landslide.

The media should refuse to take anything these people (and other partisan hacks who eschew a reality-based view of the world in lieu of an attempt to choose their own "facts") say in the future about politics without acknowledging how wrong they had previously been in their analysis of the 2012 election.

Nate Silver, on the other hand, should probably be awarded a special McArthur "genius grant" fellowship for the accuracy of his predictions and for what he has done to promote the importance of mathematics and quantitative thinking to millions of Americans.

This tweet, demonstrating the unerring accuracy of Silver's predictions of the 2012 presidential election results compared to the actual results, is pretty stunning.

For the Nate-haters, here’s the 538 prediction and actual results side by side twitter.com/cosentino/stat…
— Michael Cosentino (@cosentino) November 7, 2012

Celebrity Friday: Tara Borrelli Named CA Top 100 Lawyer

Tara Borelli is an acquaintance of mine who works in the Western Regional Office of Lambda Legal in Los Angeles on impact litigation impacting the LGBT and HIV/AIDS communities. It is with great pleasure I get to declare that she is today's subject of Celebrity Friday thanks to the fact that the Daily Journal (which is basically the daily newspaper for lawyers in the state of California) has named Tara one of the Top 100 lawyers in the state of California!

The Journal recognized Borelli for her work in four of the cases in which she is leading litigation:

• Golinski v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, in which Lambda Legal won a district court ruling that a key portion of the federal so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional.
• Diaz v. Brewer, in which Lambda Legal represents seven lesbian and gay Arizona state employees in federal court and has blocked the state's discriminatory attempt to eliminate the health care benefits that they rely on to safeguard their families' health.
• Sevcik v. Sandoval, Lambda Legal's federal case challenging Nevada's law prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.
• Esquivel v. Oregon, in which Lambda Legal represents a state employee denied medically necessary surgery because he is transgender.

These are all very important cases, with Diaz v. Brewer on the docket before the United States Supreme Court as it considers whether to grant certiorari in Governor Jan Brewer's non-sensical appeal of an injunction against the state of Arizona from dropping domestic partner benefits for state employees. Golinksi is another one of the many recent cases which have been used to demonstrate the legal abomination which is the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), although it is unlikely to make it to the high court at the same time as some other cases which are further along, but the Department of Justice has asked the Supreme Court to consider it along with the myriad other courses in which DOMA has been struck down at either the federal district or appellate court level.

POLL: NV Marriage Equality Supported By 47%

A new poll from PPP of Nevada shows that support for marriage equality is up in the Silver State, now at 47% support compared to 42% who oppose it. This in response to a question on a poll conducted August 23-26, 2012 of 831 likely Nevada voters which asked "Do you think same-sex marriage should be legal or illegal?" Unfortunately, this margin of 5 percentage points is well within the margin of the error of the poll of ±3.4 points.

Interestingly, black voters in Nevada now are more likely to support marriage equality and civil unions than they had been previously.

However the other good news in the poll is that if you ask the "tri-partite" question (legal same-sex marriage, civil union, no legal recognition) then a whopping 80% support either marriage or civil unions, with the hard-hearted group favoring no recognition down to 17%. Nevada has had a comprehensive domestic partnerships law (often called civil unions in other places) since the state legislature overrode a veto by the state's governor to enact the law on May 31, 2009.

Hat/tip to LGBT think Progress.

(UPDATED) Black, Lesbian, Veteran, Pastor Wins NV Primary

Patricia Spearman has (and has had) lots of titles: Minister, Military Policeman, Veteran, Black Lesbian. But after, Nevada's Primary Election on Tuesday, she will soon have another: State Senator. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal:

Progressive Democrat Patricia Spearman scored an upset victory Tuesday over two-term incumbent state Sen. John Lee in the Senate District 1 primary.

Backed by liberal-leaning groups, Spearman, who is black, gay and an evangelist minister, had attacked Lee for being too moderate and not doing enough to help constituents. She picked up 63 percent of the vote, compared with 37 percent for Lee, a 15-year legislator.

"This was a victory for the people," said Spearman, who is expected to win the Democrat-dominated district in North Las Vegas in November. "I am so humbled by the people's response and the confidence they placed in me. I commend my opponent for a spirited campaign and wish him the best in his future."

Spearman became the first openly lesbian person elected to state office in Nevada, and one of the very few openly LGBT and African-American people elected to a state legislative seat in United States' history! She would be the 4th openly lesbian, Black legislator to be serving, after Mary Washington in Maryland and Simone Bell and Keisha Waites in Georgia. Marcus Randall of North Carolina, Rashad Taylor of Georgia and Gordon Fox of Rhode Island are the only openly gay Black men currently serving in state legislatures.

hat/tip to Rod 2.0


UPDATED 06/14/2012 08:01

Daily Kos Elections points me to some more information about Spearman's astonishing win: She was out-raised by a 15:1 ratio and her opponent had the endorsement of Nevada's top Democrat, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The Las Vegas Sun reports:

Democratic state Sen. John Lee was defeated in a stunning upset Tuesday by political newcomer Patricia Spearman despite having a huge money advantage and the backing of the Democratic establishment.

With about 90 percent of the precincts reporting in Senate District 1, Spearman, a gay minister, had more than 60 percent of the vote to top the incumbent from North Las Vegas,

Lee raised more than $200,000 for his re-election bid, dwarfing Spearman's estimated $13,000 fund-raising take.

But he was targeted by environmentalists and conservationists upset over Lee's sponsorship of 2011 bill that paved the way for Nevada to withdraw from a partnership with California that governs development and environmental regulations at Lake Tahoe.

Lee, who has served in the Senate since 2004, also ran afoul of the more liberal members of the Democratic Party for opposing a 2009 domestic partnership law that extended rights to cohabitating gay and heterosexual couples. Lee also opposed a failed Democratic plan last year to raise taxes.

Wow, what a piece of work: an anti-gay, anti-environment, anti-tax corporate Democrat gets taken out by a progressive, openly gay female minister! LOVE THIS!

Lambda Files NV Marriage Lawsuit in Federal Court

Well, well, well! After complaining for years about groups going off filing ill-timed and ill-considered lawsuits to attempt to legalize marriage equality, Lambda Legal has apparently decided to join the party, and filed a federal lawsuit in Nevada on April 10, 2012 to attempt to win marriage equality for its Nevada-based clients.

Professor Arthur Leonard analyzed the lawsuit at his blog Leonard Link:

Lambda Legal has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Nevada, contending that the state's failure to open up marriage to same-sex couples violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.  The lawsuit, Sevcik v. Sandoval, Case 2:12-cv-00578, was filed on behalf of eight same-sex couples who reside in Nevada and whose attempts to marry in the state or to get their out-of-state same-sex marriages recognized in the state have been unsuccessful.  The defendants are Governor Brian Sandoval, a Republican, and three county clerks who have denied marriage licenses to same-sex couples in recent days.  The defendants are sued only in their official capacities.

Nevada has a constitutional amendment very similar to California Proposition 8, stating that only different-sex marriages are valid or recognized.  The state also has a so-called "mini-DOMA," a statutory provision limiting marriage to different-sex couples.  However, Nevada also has a domestic partnership law, under which both same-sex and different-sex couples can enter into registered partnerships that provide almost all of the state law rights of marriage.

Having adopted a domestic partnership law, Lambda asserts that Nevada cannot credibly argue that it has a policy against recognizing a legal status for same-sex partners, or that it has a policy against LGBT families as such.  Neither can it argue that it is necessary to exclude same-sex couples from marriage in order to "protect children," inasmuch as the domestic partnership law and Nevada family law accord full parental rights and recognition in this context.  Indeed, with a broad domestic partnership law in place, the main function of the constitutional amendment and mini-DOMA are to "send a message."  These measures become to a large extent "expressive" enactments, and the question is: What is the message that they send? 

The answer is clear to LGBT people in Nevada.  The message is that their intimate family relationships are unequal and inferior to the relationships of non-LGBT people.  Is it constitutional for a state to embody such a message in a constitutional and statutory structure that creates separate and, in absolute terms, unequal statuses for same-sex and different-sex couples? 

The case is brought by Lambda based solely on a 14th Amendment Equal Protection claim.  Avoiding the necessity to argue that access to marriage for same-sex couples is a fundamental right protected as a liberty interest under the Due Process Clause, the complaint focuses solely on equality theory, arguing that in light of the domestic partnership law, Nevada has no legitimate justification for excluding same-sex couples from marriage. 

I am sure we will be following developments in Sevcik v. Sandoval closely here at MadProfessah.com!

Nevada Legislature Passes Transgender Rights Bill(s)

The Nevada Legislature has completed work on Assembly Bill 211, a bill to prohibit employment discrimination based on gender identity or gender expression, passing it by votes of 29-13 in the Assembly and 11-10 in the Senate to reach Republican Governor Brian Sandoval's desk.

Additionally, the Nevada Senate had previously passed bills to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations (Senate Bill 331) and housing (Senate Bill 368) on the basis of gender identity or expression. These bills are still pending in the Assembly.

The Senate killed Senate Bill 180, which would have added gender identity or gender expression to the state's hate crimes law, even though the Federal Hate Crimes Law already has provisions which include sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.

The National Gay and Lesbian task Force sent out a statement praising the Nevada's legislature's positive legislative actions to protect transgender individuals:

"This is a wonderful victory for the people of Nevada. We commend lawmakers for ensuring that all Nevadans, regardless of gender identity or expression, are protected from discrimination in employment. The startling statistics and personal stories found in our national survey on transgender discrimination show just how critically necessary these protections are. No one should fear being jobless, homeless and going hungry because of discrimination. Without legal protections, transgender people are made particularly vulnerable to bias and abuse. This law will literally save lives. We thank the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada for its hard work leading to this victory and we're proud to be a partner in this effort. We look forward to the governor's signature on this important measure."

The Hawaii Legislature passed and Democratic Governor Neil Abercrombie signed into law a measure prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity of gender expression earlier this year.