Tag Archives: Defense of Marriage Act

President Obama’s Official Statement On DOMA, Prop 8

by D Gregory Smith
Yes we can!!

Yes we can!! (Photo credit: TijsB)

 

Obama: “I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. This was discrimination enshrined in law. It treated loving, committed gay and lesbian couples as a separate and lesser class of people. The Supreme Court has righted that wrong, and our country is better off for it. We are a people who declared that we are all created equal – and the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.

 

This ruling is a victory for couples who have long fought for equal treatment under the law; for children whose parents’ marriages will now be recognized, rightly, as legitimate; for families that, at long last, will get the respect and protection they deserve; and for friends and supporters who have wanted nothing more than to see their loved ones treated fairly and have worked hard to persuade their nation to change for the better.

 

So we welcome today’s decision, and I’ve directed the Attorney General to work with other members of my Cabinet to review all relevant federal statutes to ensure this decision, including its implications for Federal benefits and obligations, is implemented swiftly and smoothly.

 

On an issue as sensitive as this, knowing that Americans hold a wide range of views based on deeply held beliefs, maintaining our nation’s commitment to religious freedom is also vital. How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions. Nothing about this decision – which applies only to civil marriages – changes that.

 

The laws of our land are catching up to the fundamental truth that millions of Americans hold in our hearts: when all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free. ”

 

Montana Congressional Delegation Statements About DOMA, Prop 8

by D Gregory Smith

In stark contrast, here are the statements issued by Montana’s Congressional delegation in light of the historic DOMA and Prop 8 rulings today:

Gay Rights in America

Gay Rights in America (Photo credit: Poldavo (Alex))

Daines “I am disappointed by the Supreme Court’s ruling today. Marriage, as the union of one man and one woman, matters for our children, and I remain a strong believer in defending the family.

While I do not agree with the Court’s ruling concerning the application of federal benefits, I am encouraged that the Court did not rule against states’ rights, ensuring that the voice of the people, not a ruling from a court, is the driving force behind marriage laws in Montana and the other states.”

Tester: “The Supreme Court today made the right decision.  The federal government has no place telling Americans who they can love and who they can marry.”

Tester affirmed his support for same-sex marriage earlier this year, saying “how Montanans define a family should be their business and their business alone.”

Baucus: “Today is a proud day in American history when we can say to all Montanans, Americans and their children: your love and your family are just as good as everyone else’s under the law.  For too long, same-sex couples and their children have been denied more than 1,000 federal rights and obligations that married couples enjoy. That was wrong. In the United States of America, no one should be treated as a second class citizen simply because of who they choose to love.

I believe each of us has a moral obligation to leave this place in better shape than we found it, and today’s decision puts our country on the right side of history. Now it’s time to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and guarantee all Montanans the same opportunity to succeed in the workplace.”

Related articles

Pride Foundation Executive Director On SCOTUS Rulings

by D Gregory Smith
 Truly unbelievable—it’s hard to know where to begin, what to feel, how to put into words what this day represents for our community and for our country.
Equality, fairness, and love won. Twice.
Today, Wednesday, June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) “as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment,” allowing same sex couples legally married in 13 states and the District of Columbia access to federal protection and benefits. The Court also ruled that proponents of Prop 8 did not have “standing” to appeal the federal court ruling that invalidated Prop. 8, reinstating the right of same sex couples to marry in California once again.
As the DOMA and Prop 8 challenges wound through various federal courts, we patiently and anxiously waited for this moment—the recognition that the U.S. Constitution guaranteed equal protection for all, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. We persisted as a community in spite of every obstacle faced along the way.
The legal implications of these rulings are significant and complex. Over the next few days and months to come, experts will translate the details of the decisions so that we can understand what the rulings mean long-term and how each will impact the day-to-day lives of LGBTQ people and our families—both for those same-sex couple who are legally married and for LGBTQ people who live in states that do not currently have relationship recognition laws.
If you’re not already connected to us on Facebook or Twitter, please do and we’ll be sure to keep you posted as we learn more along the way.
As we celebrate the enormity of this historic moment, let’s hold on to and remember what it took to reach this mountain top. We are here thanks to the courage and leadership of pioneers who toiled through the decades and carried us to this moment.
We have gained another victory to guide us as we strive for equality in all aspects of our lives and for all LGBTQ people, here in the Northwest and across the country. Because of our hard work as a community and the help of passionate allies, we are closer to that vision. Today represents a giant leap forward. It will take our ongoing commitment and continuous energy to keep crossing the mountains to full and lasting equality.
Congratulations to all of us—this celebration is for everyone. Thank you for all that you have done and will continue to do to bring full equality home to every person and every family.
With great Pride,
Kris Hermanns
Executive Director
http://www.pridefoundation.org | info@pridefoundation.org | 1.800.735.7287 | Headquarters Mailing Address: 1122 E Pike St PMB 1001 | Seattle, WA 98122 US
Related articles

DOMA, Prop 8 DOWN

by D Gregory Smith

The Federal government will now recognize people who are legally married in any state. It’s unclear if they will recognize marriages if the participants move to a state where it is not legall recognized- like Montana. Would it mean that MT couples could go get married in WA and then file federal income taxes together?

 

Prop 8 is struck down- which means that it is legal for a CA clerk of court to give a marriage license to a same-sex couple- maybe a brave one will do that today…

 

The rainbow flag, sometimes called 'the freedo...

The rainbow flag, sometimes called ‘the freedom flag’, has been used as a symbol of gay and lesbian pride since the 1970s. The different colors symbolize diversity in the gay community, and the flag is often used as a symbol of gay pride in gay rights marches. It originated in the United States, but is now used around the world. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Related articles

 

Odawa Indian tribe hosts Michigan’s first legal same-sex marriage

by D Gregory Smith

In case you missed it:

Tim LaCroix, 53, of Boyne City, and his longtime partner Gene Barfield, 60, of Boyne City are married at the government headquarters complex of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians on Friday March 15, 2013 in Harbor Springs.
Tim LaCroix, 53, of Boyne City, and his longtime partner Gene Barfield, 60, of Boyne City are married at the government headquarters complex of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians on Friday March 15, 2013 in Harbor Springs. / Ryan Garza/Detroit Free Press

ByJohn Carlisle

Detroit Free Press Columnist

The groom wore a black sweater. The other groom wore a red one.

Tim LaCroix, 53, and Gene Barfield, 60, were in the enrollment office this morning (March 15th) at the Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians government facility.

The couple took turns filling out an application to get married, paid the $15 fee and received a marriage license. Both smiled nervously.

It was a historic day. Not just for them and not just for the tribe that LaCroix belongs to, but for Michigan too.

The two men were about to be the first same-sex couple to be legally married in this state.

Last year, the Odawa tribal council debated a resolution to recognize gay marriage, but the measure failed by one vote. When it was reintroduced, the language was changed to require at least one spouse to be a tribal citizen, and that swayed support. On March 2, it passed by a 5-4 vote.

All that was needed was the signature of tribal chairman Dexter McNamara, whose veto would have required a difficult 7-2 council majority to override.

McNamara not only signed it, but also asked to perform the wedding ceremony.

“I’ve always felt that either you believe in equal rights or you are prejudiced,” McNamara said. “We don’t have a dividing line in this tribe. Everyone deserves to live the lives of their choice.”

Out of 500 federally recognized tribes in the country, and a dozen in Michigan, the Odawa tribe became the first ever to legalize gay marriage in the state and only the third in the nation.

And because of tribal sovereignty, neither the state’s constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage nor the federal Defense of Marriage Act can stop them.

“This is their turf,” Barfield said, standing in the tribal offices. “They have their own government, they have their own police force, they have their own rules and regulations. They’re very big on respect, and for them to say to us ‘We respect your relationship and your prerogative to define it as you choose’ is really special.”

“I’m so proud of my tribe for doing this,” LaCroix added. “I just can’t say enough.”

The couple met in 1983 while both were on active duty in the Navy. They live in northern Michigan, where they garden, assemble model railroads and share two dogs and a cat.

“We’ve been partners for 30 years in the way people use the word ‘partner’ for a same sex couple,” Barfield said. “Now we’re not going to be partners anymore. We’re going to be spouses.”

They wanted to get married at the signing ceremony for the statute, which gave them barely two weeks to prepare.

They hastily ordered cupcakes for the impromptu reception to follow. They found a tribal member to perform a traditional ceremony, alongside the secular one. They made little pouches of tobacco to hand out in a nod to tribal custom. And they invited friends and family from this small-town region.

About three dozen guests filled the seats arranged in the lobby this morning. There were relatives from both sides, beefy tribal members, employees who work in the building and wanted to wish the couple well, and a contingent from the hardware store where LaCroix works.

“We’re just all giddy over it,” said Kathy Hughes, his longtime coworker. “They’re like family to us.”

Once McNamara signed the bill, tribe communications coordinator Annette VanDeCar acknowledged it was a controversial decision.

“I’ll be honest,” she told the crowd. “There are people in our community that aren’t supportive of what is happening today, but that’s OK. We as Indians are taught to respect people as individuals, and as individual people have the right to decide what is best for them.”

For this couple, a few tweaks were necessary in both the paperwork and the ceremony, like changing the word “wife” in the vows and on the license application to “spouse.” But it otherwise was a standard civil ceremony.

The chairman read the vows, and LaCroix went first in repeating them.

For better or for worse, to love and to cherish, from this day forward.

“I do,” he said.

Then came Barfield’s turn, and his composure melted a little. As he read the vows, his voice began to crack and his eyes grew moist. All the while, he looked at LaCroix with a beam of a smile.

“I do.”

They exchanged rings, and the chairman pronounced them married. They punctuated the ceremony with a brief kiss and a long, long hug.

Then they repeated it with a tribal ceremony using the sage, the feathers, the maple branch and the drum that were carefully laid out on a table.

There were no activist speeches, no protesters — only a crowd witnessing a wedding that was unlike any they’d ever seen, but was really no different than any other.

“We’re just so excited for them,” Hughes said. “They’ve been together 30 years. It’s longer than a lot of marriages have lasted.”

John Carlisle is a columnist and can be reached at jcarlisle@freepress.com or 313-222-6582.

Still Wearing Red?

by D Gregory Smith

tumblr_inline_mkbku2uIVq1qz4rgp

You should- the arguments to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act are being heard today. So if you changed your Facebook profile photo yesterday (and most of mine did) don’t change it yet! One of my friends has vowed to keep his red equality pic up until they hand down the decisions.

For a good brief on the impact of DOMA, see today’s Washington Post.

And if you don’t have your facebook pic changed yet- feel free to borrow from yesterday’s post.

Related articles

Stand For Marriage Today

by D Gregory Smith

 

rally_mainimage-600x400-liveupdates

 

Supporters of marriage equality will gather outside the Supreme Court on the first day of hearings: March 26 at 8:30 a.m. in Washington, D.C. Together we will show the nation that we believe all Americans deserve to be treated fairly and equally under the law — no matter who they love.

Wear red, share this graphic as your facebook profile pic:

hrc

 

Related articles

In One of His First Acts as Congressman, Daines Supports Unconstitutional DOMA

by MontanaRiverRat

DainesToday, the country bid a not-so-fond farewell to the 112th Congress (including Denny Rehberg), and swore in the new 113th Congress with Steve Daines.

What was the first thing this shiny new Congress did?

Well, Daines, who ran on a “more jobs, less government” platform, cast one of his first votes in favor of the House continuing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) which denies hundreds of benefits to legally married same-sex couples.

Apparently when Daines said “more jobs” he meant “more jobs for lawyers defending blatantly unconstitutional archaic laws.”

DOMA is the Clinton-era law that prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex unions. This law denies benefits to the same-sex partners of military members killed while fighting for our country. It also prohibits the federal government from recognizing bi-national same-sex couples in immigration cases, which has led to several high-profile deportations. It also refuses to acknowledge same-sex spouses in relation to Social Security survivor benefits.

This law is clearly unconstitutional, which is why in early 2011 the Obama administration’s Department of Justice announced they would no longer defend the law. Our illustrious House members though chose to pick up the torch of bigotry and continued to defend the law at the taxpayer’s expense. Thus far, Steve Daines, John Boehner and the Republicans in the House have spent more than $1.7 million defending this law.

The latest expenditure in support of DOMA was actually buried within the House of Representative rules that the new Congress approved today. Generally these rules simply lay out the process for how the House will run. To bury an appropriation inside this bill is an unprecedented abuse of the process.

This is just the latest example of the clear hypocrisy of Daines and his tea party colleagues advocating for smaller government except for when they don’t.

DOMA, ruled as unconstitutional ten different times in seven different cases, will face the US Supreme Court later this year.

Related articles

 

BREAKING: Supreme Court will hear DOMA discrimination case and Proposition 8 case in 2013

by D Gregory Smith

From Freedom To Marry:

By Adam Polaski
Dec 07, 2012 at 03:25 pm

Moments ago, the Supreme Court announced in an order that it has decided to hear the Proposition 8 case and a challenge to the so-called Defense of Marriage Act in 2013. Now, the Court must schedule the cases for oral arguments, which are likely to be heard in the spring of 2013. We should hear final news on rulings in both cases by June of 2013.

Our founder and president Evan Wolfson reflected on the news that the Supreme Court will hear Windsor v. United States, one of the key challenges to DOMA:

By agreeing to hear a case against the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, the Court can now move swiftly to affirm what 10 federal rulings have already said: DOMA’s  ‘gay exception’ to how the federal government treats married couples violates the Constitution and must fall. When it comes to the whole federal safety net that comes with marriage – access to Social Security survivorship, health coverage, family leave, fair tax treatment, family immigration, and over 1000 other protections and responsibilities – couples who are legally married in the states should be treated by the federal government as what they are: married.

With the clock now ticking on a Supreme Court marriage decision in 2013, it is more urgent than ever that we make the same strong case for the freedom to marry in the court of public opinion that our advocates are making in the courts of law. With momentum from Election Day victories for the freedom to marry in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington, the way to maximize our chances of winning in court over the next several months is to win more states and win over more hearts and minds. We can show the justices that when they do the right thing, it will stand the test of time and be true to where the American people already are.

He also commented on the Court’s decision to hear the Proposition 8 case, Hollingworth v. Perry:

Gay and lesbian couples in California – and indeed, all over the country – now look to the Supreme Court to affirm that the Constitution does not permit states to strip something as important as the freedom to marry away from one group of Americans.

Windsor v. United States dates back to November 2010, when the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit on behalf of Edie Windsor, the 83-year-old widowed lesbian from New York who sued the government for the $363,000 in estate taxes that she was forced to pay under DOMA following the death of her late partner Thea Spyer in 2010. Windsor and Spyer were together for more than 40 years and wed in Canada in 2007. Because of DOMA, their marriage was not respected by the federal government.

In June 2012, U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Jones sided with Windsor by ruling DOMA’s Section 3 – which explicitly restricts marriage to different-sex couples – unconstitutional. In October 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld that lower ruling, and the case was subsequently petitioned to be heard by the nation’s highest court.

The Proposition 8 case, Hollingworthy v. Perry (formerly Perry v. Brown) dates back to March 2009, when the American Foundation for Equal Rights filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to challenge the constitutionality of Proposition 8. Prop 8, which passed in California on November 4, 2008, is a citizens’ initiative that repealed the freedom to marry in the state, overturning a May 2008 decision from the California Supreme Court legalizing marriage for same-sex couples across the state.

You can help Freedom to Marry create the climate for pro-marriage decisions in both the Prop 8 trial and the DOMA trial. Tell us that you’re on the Right Side of History by DONATING TODAY. 

Yeah, I left the donation link in for a reason….
Help if you can.
~G

Related articles

Rehberg’s Anti-LGBT Record

by D Gregory Smith

…is spelled out by ThinkProgress:

Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT)

In June, Montana Republicans nominated Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT) to challenge incumbent Sen. Jon Tester (D). Unlike Tester, a fairly reliable supporter of LGBT equality, Rehberg has opposed the LGBT community at every opportunity.

Over his time as Lt. Governor of Montana, his unsuccessful 1996 Senate campaign, his 12 years in the House of Representatives, and this Senate campaign:

1. Rehberg proudly pranked a fellow Congressman with a gay-mocking “Idaho Travel Package.” In 2008, after Idaho’s Sen. Larry Craig (R) plead guilty to lewd conduct involving a male police officer in a Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport restroom, Rehberg decided to leave a care-package for Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID). On a congressional trip to the Middle East, Rehberg reportedlyleft “a stuffed sheep with gloves attached to it, a Village People CD, books on cross-dressing and sign language and a T-shirt that reads, ‘My senator may not be gay, but my governor is Butch.’” The governor of Idaho’s name is C.L. “Butch” Otter. A spokesman claimed “no offense was intended,” Rehberg boasted that he was proud of the travel package and “spent a bit of time putting the things together.”

2. Rehberg has consistently fought against marriage equality and even domestic partnership benefits for same-sex couples. In his Senate campaign kickoff, he told supporters: “I will never, ever, ever be ashamed to stand for the life of the unborn child and the sanctity of traditional marriage.” He has indeed shown no shame, votingtwice for a federal constitutional amendment requiring “marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.” He also voted for a 2011 amendment reaffirming the unconstitutionalDefense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a 2007 amendment restricting the District of Columbia government from using any federal funding to provide domestic partnership benefits, and a 2004 bill of questionable constitutionality to strip federal courts of the right to review whether DOMA is unconstitutional. In May, he reiterated his support also for his state’s same-sex marriage ban, saying “Montana’s state constitution says ‘Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state,’ and I agree.”

3. Rehberg railed against hate crimes protections for LGBT Americans, calling them “extremist.”….

There’s much more. AND a video.

If you’ve needed some clearly spelled out reasons to deny this man the Senate seat the Tea Party is so desperately seeking to claim, click the link below.

Rehberg’s anti-LGBT Record.

 

Related articles