And in other news...

To round out the super-big gay news day, here are some bits you may have missed on the interweb this afternoon:

• Illinois' civil union bill has died, left floundered and unvoted on as the session ended. It passed the House fairly easily, but the Senate let it sit along with a lot of other bills, including cigarette taxes, medical marijuana, and a helmet law. It can come back next session, however, as they have two sessions to bring it up again.
  
• Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler is seeking a legal opinion about whether that state can acknowledge same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, despite laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Former Assistant AG Robert Zarnoch wrote an opinion that it would not be allowed under current law, but stated the issue was far from settled.
  
• Maine's voter drive to repeal the same-sex marriage law there is taking shape. Rev. Bob Emrich has said that 5,000 petitions are being circulated to collect the requisite 55,000 signatures to put a referendum on the ballot to overturn a legislative action.
• After the House in New Hampshire came to a compromise on the seemingly never-ending process that is their marriage equality bill, Gov. Lynch has said that he supports the new language and will vote for it. A vote is expected this week; we may have another state by Friday.
  
• On June 3rd, the Uniting American Families Act, which would allow individuals to sponsor their same-sex partners from a different country for citizenship, is holding its first hearing this Wednesday. The House bill (HB 1024) currently has 102 cosponsors; the Senate bill (S. 424) has 17.
• IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (H. 2517) was introduced into the House by Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) to give certain benefits to the partners of federal employees on May 20. There are currently 64 co-sponsors, and it has been referred to three different committees for consideration.

And, finally and most important locally, the Equal Housing and Employment Act will hold its second hearing in the Government Committee of the Ohio legislature. Slated to speak: Lynne Bowman (Equality Ohio), Michael Payton (Ohio Civil Rights Commission), Bishop Ough (of the United Methodist Church), Mayor Warren Copeland (Springfield, OH), Jimmie Beall, Jim McCarthy (Miami Valley Fair Housing Coalition), and Ron Templin (on behalf of Cardinal Health, which will be the first time the Cardinal has ever made a political testimony on anything). Testimonies will be up at Do What's Right, Ohio by Thursday morning.

Two bits on Marrage Equality

Two quick bits to keep you in the know:

• Vermont is fast tracking the marriage equality bill. It may be a rocky ride, as the Senate is overwhelmingly Dem (23-7) in support, but the House will be a little dicier. Governor Jim Douglas has not yet said whether he would sign it, but will wait for it to come out of Congress (which is a wise move politically -- he doesn't piss anyone off, but he has not been supportive in the past). Vermont's Legislative Session reconvenes on the 17th of March.
• Illinois' civil union bill made it out of the Judical Committee on a disappointing 4-3 vote for consideration by the greater House. We'll watch it.

Now, remember, I have it on good authority that Maine may be the first legislatively passed equal marriage bill. We'll see whether my source is as right as they think they are.

California and New Hampshire

In case you've lived under a rock...

... you probably know that California's Supreme Court is hearing arguments about gay marriage again. This time, whether or not Proposition 8 was legal to pass this year. Oral arguments start on Thursday. The only reason I bring it up is this: a piece in the LA Times that does a great job talking about the legal issues surrounding this challenge. I have been decidedly ignorant on the legal issues being thrown around, so it was an excellent and informative primer in case you were interested.

What you may not have heard...

... on the back of the 6 by 12 campaign, and by the multitudes of New England equal marriage bills being proposed, the New Hampshire legislature is considering a bill to open up civil unions to heterosexual couples. Really? "We're going to create a special class for you homosexuals, but not let you into our club, but now we're going to let us into your special class." I don't mind, but, come on.

In related news, I have it from a person in the know, that the likely first state to legislatively pass an equal marriage bill will be Maine, followed probably by New Hampshire or Vermont, and finally Rhode Island. And most of those before then end of 2010.

Six By Twelve: Update

For those who don't know, Six by Twelve (term coined by Joe.My.God.) is a strategy to make New England a full marriage equality zone by 2012.

Rhode Island just started down their path, and is officially the last New England state that we had not heard from in the quest for marriage equality. (Mass -- done; Conn -- done; VT/NH/ME -- laws proposed, court cases ready)

Welcome RI to the fray:

The fight for marriage equality in the Ocean State will be front and center on Thursday,February 26, as the Senate Judiciary Committee hears testimony pertaining to two bills - one prohibiting same-sex marriage and the other granting equal access to marriage for same-gender couples.

S0136, introduced by anti-gay Senator Leo Blais (R-Coventry), would amend the state constitution to limit the definition of marriage as "the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

In addition, the measure would prohibit the state from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Blais has sponsored similar legislation in the past and has been an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage.

S0147, introduced by Senators Rhoda Perry (D-Providence), Susan Sosnowski (D-New Shoreham), Juan Pichardo (D-Providence), Joshua Miller (D-Cranston), and Charles Levesque(D-Bristol), would allow the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The bill also guarantees protection of freedom of religion in marriage, stating:

"No court or other state or local governmental body, entity, agency or commission shall compel, prevent, or interfere in any way with any religious
institution’s decisions about marriage eligibility within that particular faith’s tradition."

"Anything less than full marriage equality is discrimination," Miller said. "This is about your friends, neighbors, and relatives being discriminated against."

Oh yea, kids, there are two bills. My guess, though, is that people will feel its an all-or-nothing type thing and then some "brilliant" "compromising" statesman will step forward and say, "I have a solution! Let's do civil unions!"

And we all know how that goes.

But seriously, folks, what's with all the "discrimination" talk coming from the Christian right. This from the religion that has persecuted everyone -- including themselves -- throughout history? Now you're concerned about a little man-on-man, or woman-on-woman love that threatens to destroy your world? Seriously. No one is discriminating against you.

Just laughing at you.

After all, it seems like all the big couples stirring up this marriage trouble end a few weeks after they get wed, so, no big deal, right? Oh, right, divorce bad too...

In other news, apparently the threat of death because of someone's sexual orientation is not enough to grant someone asylum in this country. Details, no doubt.

Straight People Getting civil Unions

Added @LeftCoastOracle to my list of people I actually follow on Twitter, seeing as how she seems to have some amazing news stories. This one included... (Note: she had also posted on the DADT thing just posted, but I had not seen it until QC.com had posted it.)

From The Washington Post...

The brief procedure of the Civil Solidarity Pact, or PACS in its French-language abbreviation, put Arnaud and Aurélie among the growing number of French men and women who are choosing a novel legal and social status, halfway between living together and marriage, that is helping change the way France organizes its families.

"It's a first step toward marriage," Arnaud explained after the businesslike ceremony in a corner of Marseille's graceful courthouse complex, the Palais de Justice. Then he rushed back to his office, and the beaming Aurélie returned to her art history classes. The white dress, champagne and honeymoon would be for later, perhaps much later -- perhaps never.

The PACS was introduced a decade ago by France's then-Socialist Party government. Parliament approved the measure only after a fierce debate because, although its wording was deliberately ambiguous, the arrangement was understood mainly as a way for gay couples to legalize their unions even though under French law they are not allowed to marry.

In passing the law without making it specific to gays, however, France distinguished itself from other European countries that have approved civil unions or even marriage for same-sex couples. As a result of that ambiguity, the PACS broadened into an increasingly popular third option for heterosexual couples, who readily cite its appeal: It has the air of social independence associated with the time-honored arrangement that the French call the "free union" but with major financial and other advantages. It is also far easier to get out of than marriage.

A long time ago, a friend of mine made the argument that Civil Unions and DPs are for gay people and "progressive straight couples," which is an argument that I always thought was wrong. Politically, it makes sense, but I never thought straight people would actually choose civil unions/DPs over marriage.

Apparently, I was wrong.

Gay Marriage Anecdote

So we have an African (from Nigeria) doctor here in the ED -- totally cool, totally liberal -- but tonight, I was wearing my WhiteKnot, and he asked me to explain it. He responded:

"I don't get it; do you want the legal rights or marriage? I mean, if you just want the rights, then why even bother with marriage if that's what everyone is so upset about."

Towhit I responded: "Practically speaking, it makes sense to put everyone into marriage as its an existing institution and all the special rights are set up under the phrase marriage, not civil union or domestic partner. It just makes more sense to have one institution rather than two things doing the same thing."

He thought about it for a moment. "Oh. I guess that makes sense."

"And would you and your wife choose the term civil union over marriage?"

He laughed. "Hell no! That's a downgrade!" He stopped, very suddenly, and I saw it. "Oooooo..."

I guess that's one of my three.

There's got to be a lesson in here somewhere.

Programming note: I'm also eliminating the post label "GAY STUFF" -- DUH.

Hawaii Considers Civil Unions

Hawaii -- the state that caused all the problems in 1993 when the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, prompting the passage of the 1996 Federal Defense of Marriage Act -- is back in gay news. This time, they are considering civil unions as an alternative.

From Forbes:

Civil union proposals would be designed to give gay couples the same rights as married couples, said Majority Leader Rep. Blake Oshiro, D-Aiea-Halawa.

"It's always been about equality and equal rights," Oshiro said.

Civil unions have broader support from labor unions and some religious groups this year than in the past, said Rep. Jon Riki Karamatsu, D-Waipahu-Waikele, the new House Judiciary Committee chairman who will hear the bill.

No word yet on the likelihood of passing, but, with a Democratic House/Senate and a Dem for Governor... and being one of the bluest states west of the Mississipi, it seems like a possibility.

Is it obnoxious to anyone else that Forbes entitled this as "Hawaii considers gambling, gay marriage"?

I am not reading a damn thing about marriage equality.

Oh, and PS, Hawaii is very much where I dream to be in five years. It's now part of the ever-changing five year plan. The University of Hawaii-Manoa's Master of Public Health program is looking very tempting on this 15-degree night.

Update: Thanks to the indomitable JereKeys, I stand corrected: Hawaii's Supreme Court did not rule that gay marriages were legal or required under the Hawaiian Constitution. Rather, the ruling said that the state had to prove that there was a compelling interest that gays could not get married under the Equal Rights Amendment, that denying equal marriage was not equitable to discrimination based on sex. In other words, the Supreme Court asked the state: "Gay marriage? Well, why not?" The court case is called Baehr v. Lewin, and a great summary of it can be found on Findlaw here.

So much for my excellent research skills. :-)

But, my point remains the same: Hawaii really did set off this whole process and put it on the national stage -- despite some halting attempts through the 1970s and 1980s, this was the case that really started the flame (teehee) and eventually led to the passage of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act 3 years late.

GAY STUFF: Civil Unions.... in URUGUAY

Uruguay was the first country in Latin America to approve civil unions for gay couples.

That's right, folks. Uruguay beat us to the punch; oh, and made a punch line out of our country.

The Advocate story here.