New Hampshire same-sex marriage: almost impossible to repeal

New Hampshire same-sex marriage goes into effect tonight at 12:01am and, unlike Maine, it will be almost impossible to overturn. The New Hampshire constitution does not provide for the referendum process used in Maine to overturn Maine's same-sex marriage law. Amending the New Hampshire's constitution is extremely difficult. A 3/5 vote of each house of the General Court (state legislature) is required to send a proposed constitutional amendment to the people at the next biennial November election. A 2/3 vote of the qualified voters participating in an election is required to adopt a new amendment. The only other possibility is a constitutional convention which would need 3/5 of the delegates to send a proposed amendment to the voters which would also take 2/3 to pass. Both of these are extremely remote possibilities because, bottom line, at least 1/3 of New Hampshire's voters support same-sex marriage and everyone knows it. So, this is one battle which will not be fought. Of course, some die-hard homophobes are still trying to amend the New Hampshire constitution but they will not get far. In most other states it is much easier to overturn a court decision or a law passed by the legislature so New Hampshire represents a very limited strategy for success.

Lies We Tell Ourselves: Same-sex marriage is NOT marriage equality

e-qual-i-ty 1. the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability. 2. uniform character, as of motion or surface.
Legal Dictionary
the quality or state of being equal: as a : sameness or equivalence in number, quantity, or measure b : likeness or sameness in quality, power, status, or degree

Equality does not mean it is the same. It means equal. Neither same-sex marriage nor domestic partnerships have federal rights, therefore, neither are marriage equality. However, if domestic partnerships had federal rights and same-sex marriage did not then domestic partnerships would be marriage equality and same-sex marriage would not. To define same-sex marriage as marriage equality is a lie. Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and California proves that. None of those marriage are legally equal to heterosexual marriage. However, same-sex marriages in those states are equal to domestic partnerships in California and the State of Washington.

Big Lies we tell ourselves
1. Sames-sex marriage is marriage equality
2. Domestic partnerships can never be marriage equality

Queer Action Rhode Island Makes Progress While Marriage Equality Rhode Island Fails [linked]

While Marriage Equality Rhode Island was turning up their noses at getting real life rights & benefits for the LGBT citizens of Rhode Island, Queer Action Rhode Island met with the conservative Republican governor and changed his mind. The governor now supports an "everything but (the word) marriage" comprehensive domestic partnerships policy our community fought so hard to have in the State of Washington. MERI did not want it if it did not have the word marriage, proving they are more concerned with the RITES of marriage than the RIGHTS of marriage. Shame on you MERI. Good going Queer Action!

Some gays seek renewed focus on civil unions [Linked]

By Lisa Leff of THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 28, 2009

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Leland Traiman, who runs a sperm bank in California, worries about his lesbian clients in more conservative parts of the country when he hears fellow gay rights activists talk about winning the right to wed.

With 34 states lacking any legal recognition of same-sex relationships, Traiman wonders if all the emphasis on matrimony is misplaced.

''When I speak to women from Florida or Wisconsin or Minnesota, they are like, 'I don't care what it's called, I just want to be able to visit my wife in the hospital and cover my children with my health insurance,''' said Traiman, who helped pass the nation's first domestic partnership law a quarter-century ago in Berkeley.

In the weeks since Maine voters handed the gay marriage movement its 27th electoral defeat in five years, other activists have voiced similar qualms about making marriage their main goal. Gay rights leaders have insisted that anything less than full marriage equality is unacceptable, but some are asking whether the uncompromising strategy has forestalled interim steps that could improve the lives of gay men, lesbians and their families.

''They think the best way to achieve their goal of marriage with all the rights and benefits of marriage is a complete frontal assault, and any other strategy is a betrayal of their goal,'' Traiman said.

Activists like Traiman point to the success of efforts to extend spousal rights and other civil rights protections to same-sex couples, even as the passage of gay marriage bans grab headlines.
(See rest of this article at the Associate Press.)

Adam Lambert Is Hurting Gay Marriage? NOT!

In an amazingly stupid article in the usually intelligent Huffington Post, Jennifer Vanasco, the Editor in Chief of 365gay.com, wrote that Adam Lambert's sexually racy performance on TV is hurting the cause of gay marriage. Jennifer, you should know better than that. It seems everyone supporting the marriage-only strategy is trying to find someone to blame for its failure to win even one single election. Some blamed our Maine loss on misleading TV ads from the opposition and the President for not speaking out against it. We saw the homophobes put on the SAME misleading ads in over 30 previous elections. This should have surprised no one! Since beginning his campaign for the presidency Obama has never supported same-sex marriage. So, blaming the President for not speaking out is stupid and counter-productive. The President has been very clear he supports federal rights for all same-sex couples in any "legally-recognized unions" and not only "marriage." Now they are trying to blame this young performer. Come off it! The marriage-only strategy is to blame for our failure, not the President and not Adam Lambert. If you want someone to blame, how about the marriage-only activist taking responsibility for their own actions. (That is something I am trying to teach my 4 year old.) They are continuing to try to achieve a worthy goal with a failed strategy. We need a new strategy.

LESBIANS 'ARE BEST MUMS' (UK news)[linked]

Scottish Daily Express

Monday November 16,2009
By Natalie Chalk

TRADITIONAL family supporters raised the alarm yesterday after Government research claimed that lesbians made the best parents.

Campaigners said that research paid for with taxpayers’ money to pander to same-sex couples only succeeded in marginalising fathers to the detriment of society.

The National Academy for Parenting Practitioners struck a blow to the heart of the conventional family after it said the latest research showed that children prospered when raised by two women.

The findings gave a boost to gay and lesbian families who claim they face discrimination over wanting to adopt or use sperm donations.

Marriage-only Strategy Sinks DOMA Repeal

Same-sex marriage activists are destroying our chance of repealing DOMA. The President's suggestion for repealing DOMA & granting marital right to all states that had any form of "legally-recognized unions," which would have covered 14 states, was pushed aside. The marriage-only activists insisted on a bill which would only cover same-sex marriage, at present this is only 5 states(Congressman Nadler's bill). This would only cover 4 New England states and Iowa. This bill totally ignores the needs of the LGBT citizens in the West as California, Washington, Oregon and Nevada have domestic partnerships & Hawaii and Colorado have other forms of recognition.

However, much more significant is the fact that the President's "legally-recognized unions" would have had a better chance of passage (still slim) because it appeared more like domestic partnerships even though it would also have covered the 5 states with marriage. In politics, appearances can be more powerful than reality. The Nadler Bill has zero chance of passage because it is all about the "M" word and will not get the support it needs to pass because, sadly, only about 35-40% of American voters support same-sex marriage. Even openly gay Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank has refused to co-sponsor the bill because it is doomed. Members of Congress read the polls and so should we.

Sinking DOMA repeal during the current congressional session is the most tragic example of how marriage-only activists are slowing the progress of marriage equality. The marriage-only activists have probably sunk DOMA repeal for the next 10-20 years because there will probably be more Republicans in the House and Senate after the next election.

Many Voices Against Marriage-only Strategy

Yesterday both of San Francisco's weekly LGBT newspapers ran commentary criticising our marriage-only strategy. My guest editorial, New Marriage Strategy Needed, appeared in the Bay Area Reporter and We Need a Radically New Approach for Gay Ballot Props by Michael Petrelis appeared in the San Francisco Bay Times. This morning I saw my fourth article in a week on the Huffington Post questioning the wisdom of our marriage-only strategy, Good News or Bad Ideas? State Re-examine Marriage Amendments by Bil Browning.

Marriage Equality Rhode Island Rejects Marriage Equality (this title links to original article)

Rhode Island Republican Governor Don Carcieri, who has opposed gay marriage & civil unions, now says he may back domestic partnerships for same-sex couples similar to one passed by voters a month ago in Washington state. Washington state's domestic partnership law was dubbed "the everything but marriage" law because their domestic partnership law has all the marital rights and benefits the state can offer but is not labeled "marriage."

Carcieri said domestic partnerships are different from civil unions because a partnership system benefits gay couples and other nontraditional households, for example, two widows living together to save money.

"I'm prepared to look at something that would be more global and not specifically exclusive to same-gender" relationships, Carcieri said.

Leaders of Marriage Equality Rhode Island have found Carcieri’s efforts and ideas to be inadequate. The group now exclusively lobbies for the rights for same-sex couples to marry.

By rejecting the governor's offer Marriage Equality Rhode Island is proving that they are not interested in achieving more rights for LGBT citizens (or trying to give greater choice to all citizens) but are primarily interested in having Big Brother approve of their relationships.

I thought our community was about expanding choice, not limiting it. WOW, Rhode Island could really open up the entire issue of marital benefits but Marriage Equality Rhode Island refuses because it does not fit their narrow definition of marriage equality.

You Win Rights With New Laws, Not "Dignity" or "Respect"

Those trying to "win marriage" for same-sex couples in Oregon just said, “There is no substitute for the respect and dignity that comes with marriage.” A legal category labeled "marriage" will not win us respect or dignity. We either imbue ourselves with dignity that commands respect or it was not there to begin with. Homophobes will not recognize our dignity nor give us respect regardless of the legal title of our relationships. Similarly, those who have respect for all people will recognized the dignity of our relationships regardless of the title.

We want to gain our rights, not have the hand that so recently slapped our face pat us on the head.

If I were a homophobic person I would be delighted the LGBT leaders are making such statements. It insures the continuation of a strategy which has never won an election.

Our strategy should be about equal rights under the law and not an emotional claim, no matter how true it may be, that our relationships are just as good as heterosexual marriages. To take our eye off the prize, which is rights, is just bad politics. No wonder marriage has never won an election.

Washington's domestic partnership election was about fairness and we won! 55-60% of American voters support equal rights and benefits for same-sex couples but only 40% support calling it marriage. Of course this is illogical but it is an electoral fact we must live with.

I am a proud gay man and I don't give a damn how my rights are labeled, I just want equal rights. I want marriage equality in rights and benefits, not labeling! The marriage-only strategy, and it is a strategy not a goal, has set us back and has lost sight of our true goal: rights, not rites.

Justice Carol Corrigan

Carol Corrigan is an Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court. She is 61 year old, considered a moderate Republican, Catholic, never married and, I am told, lives with another woman. I saw her excoriate the attorney of a physician who had refused to perform an insemination on a plaintiff because the plaintiff was a lesbian. Justice Corrigan said that it was completely OK for a physician to decide not to perform a particular procedure. However, once a physician offers a procedure to clients in general, it was wrong to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. The doctor's "religious conscious" argument held no weight with Justice Corrigan. She was angry! The CA Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the doctor.

Justice Corrigan was one of the justices in the minority who voted against same-sex marriage in May of 2008. For that she has been chided for being a "bad lesbian" in the LGBT press. However, her dissenting opinion, which few have bothered to read, is far from homophobic! The following excerpt sounds like it could have been written by a justice who was also a member of the Radical Faeries:

“While their unions (comprehensive domestic partnerships) are of equal legal dignity, they are different because they join with partners of the same gender. Plaintiffs (those seeking same-sex marriage) are in the process of founding a new tradition, unfettered by the boundaries of the old one.”

"......founding a new tradition, unfettered by the boundaries of the old one."

That sounds good to me!!

She also wrote that, although she would vote in favor of same-sex marriage in an election, a court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage would provoke a reaction which would, ultimately, slow down the process of expanding marital rights. I guess the fact that same-sex marriage had never won an election (29 losses at that point, now 33) gave her a hint of things to come.

But to the average LGBT person in San Francisco or L.A., she is an enemy of our community.

This is an example of our marriage-only campaign for same-sex marital rights is distorting our perspective on who our friends are and who our enemies are.

Legally-recognized unions

President Obama supports federal rights of marriage for all "legally-recognized unions" (I think this term was invented by his campaign) regardless of title, marriage, civil union or domestic partnership. Cleverly, he has avoided calling federal marriage rights anything. He want to leave it up to the states to create the label. Currently, "legally-recognized unions" would cover 14 states. California law says that all laws, regulations and court decisions which apply to spouses in a marriage equally applies to registered domestic partnerships. If the President's suggestion was passed by Congress then we Californians would have true marriage equality, all of the rights of marriage, both state and federal, under the title of domestic partnerships.

Unfortunately, Congressman Nadler of New York is introducing a bill to grant federal marriage rights only to same-sex couples who are married.(DOMA Repeal Plan Disappoints Local Activists ,Bay Area Reporter, 9/17/2009) Currently that covers only 5 states and would totally screw the western US as California, Washington, Oregon and Nevada have domestic partnerships and Hawaii and Colorado have another form of recognition. Since Nadler's bill is all about the M word and not about rights, it has zero chance of passage. Even Barney Frank has refused to sign on as a co-sponsor.

Adopting the President's "legally-recognized unions" might (might) give the bill more chance of passage because same-sex marriage, per se, has never won an election, 33 losses so far. "Legally-recognized unions" would also cover millions more people. Tell your representatives you want federal marriage rights legislation which will cover all "legally-recognized unions" and not just married couples by going to 3 Clicks for Equality.

A new marriage rights strategy is needed!

Same-sex marriage has never won an election. 33 lost elections. Domestic partnerships have never lost an election. Our quest for the rites of marriage has obscured our quest for the rights of marriage. It is time to work for a new strategy.

More attacks on Domestic Partnerships to come

Due to the fact that we almost lost domestic partnerships in liberal Washington State (53% to 47%) we should, unfortunately, brace ourselves, because, in all probability, our enemies will be going after civil unions and domestic partnerships.
So far, domestic partnerships have never been directly repealed. I hope we can still say that several years from now.