Indiana Senate Passes Anti-Marriage Amendment
Posted on Jan 30, 2008 at 02:19 pm
365Gay.com
January 30, 2008
Indiana's Senate has approved a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. The Senate vote sends the measure to the House, which is controlled by Democrats. Speaker Patrick Bauer (D) has said repeatedly that an amendment is not needed because same-sex marriages are already banned under Indiana law. [Link]
January 30, 2008
Indiana's Senate has approved a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. The Senate vote sends the measure to the House, which is controlled by Democrats. Speaker Patrick Bauer (D) has said repeatedly that an amendment is not needed because same-sex marriages are already banned under Indiana law. [Link]
Here comes the judge
Posted on Sep 07, 2007 at 04:19 pm
Pride Source
September 6, 2007
IA Judge Hanson spelled out clearly that there are not shades of equality under the constitution. Either you are equal, or you are not. The institution of marriage, Hanson wrote, is "so woven into the fabric of daily life and so determinative of legal rights and status" that denial of a marriage license "amounts to a badge of inferiority" imposed on gay couples and their children. [Link]
September 6, 2007
IA Judge Hanson spelled out clearly that there are not shades of equality under the constitution. Either you are equal, or you are not. The institution of marriage, Hanson wrote, is "so woven into the fabric of daily life and so determinative of legal rights and status" that denial of a marriage license "amounts to a badge of inferiority" imposed on gay couples and their children. [Link]
BLOG: Activist judge enforces Constitution
Posted on Sep 03, 2007 at 04:21 pm
Subject to Complete Defeasance
September 3, 2007
In this case, the judge noted that U.S. Supreme Court and Iowa Supreme Court have deemed marriage a fundamental right. On that basis he applied strict scrutiny and shot down the law because the purported state interests — (1) promoting procreation, (2) promoting child-rearing in a mother-father setting, (3) promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships, (4) conserving public and private resources, and (5) "promoting the concept or integrity of traditional marriage" — are not compelling. In addition, the means of promoting those interest, namely a total ban on same-sex marriages, isn't narrowly tailored to produce those results. For instance, the defense never managed to articulate exactly how precluding gays from marrying promotes procreation. [Link]
September 3, 2007
In this case, the judge noted that U.S. Supreme Court and Iowa Supreme Court have deemed marriage a fundamental right. On that basis he applied strict scrutiny and shot down the law because the purported state interests — (1) promoting procreation, (2) promoting child-rearing in a mother-father setting, (3) promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships, (4) conserving public and private resources, and (5) "promoting the concept or integrity of traditional marriage" — are not compelling. In addition, the means of promoting those interest, namely a total ban on same-sex marriages, isn't narrowly tailored to produce those results. For instance, the defense never managed to articulate exactly how precluding gays from marrying promotes procreation. [Link]
Marriage victory in IA district court
Posted on Aug 30, 2007 at 04:26 pm
Gay City News
August 30, 2007
This article provides a good summary of the Iowa decision. From a legal perspective, the critical portion of the opinion is the judge's explanation of why the record compels the conclusion that the state's anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. He accepts the argument that the relevant issue under the state Constitution from a due process perspective is not whether 'gay marriage' is a fundamental right, but rather whether same-sex couples have the right to marry, since the right to marry is in itself a fundamental right. [Link]
August 30, 2007
This article provides a good summary of the Iowa decision. From a legal perspective, the critical portion of the opinion is the judge's explanation of why the record compels the conclusion that the state's anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. He accepts the argument that the relevant issue under the state Constitution from a due process perspective is not whether 'gay marriage' is a fundamental right, but rather whether same-sex couples have the right to marry, since the right to marry is in itself a fundamental right. [Link]
OPINION: No one’s benefit in MI
Posted on Jul 09, 2007 at 04:19 pm
The Michigan Daily
July 9, 2007
When Michigan voters passed the discriminator ban on gay and lesbian couples' marriages in 2004, they made a mistake. When Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox used his position to further his personal beliefs and ban same-sex benefits as well, he made the voters' mistake much worse. Now, the University is in a tough spot as it must mitigate these realities. Its attempts to deal with the dumb law and Cox's dumber interpretations are flawed. The only solution is that Michigan voters must abolish the nonsensical "gay marriage" ban. [link]
July 9, 2007
When Michigan voters passed the discriminator ban on gay and lesbian couples' marriages in 2004, they made a mistake. When Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox used his position to further his personal beliefs and ban same-sex benefits as well, he made the voters' mistake much worse. Now, the University is in a tough spot as it must mitigate these realities. Its attempts to deal with the dumb law and Cox's dumber interpretations are flawed. The only solution is that Michigan voters must abolish the nonsensical "gay marriage" ban. [link]
Tide turning on anti-gay measures?
Posted on Jul 09, 2007 at 11:52 am
EDGE Miami
July 9, 2007
Anti-gay constitutional amendment initiatives may no longer be the sure-fire "slam-dunk" they were even a couple of years ago, throwing a measure of doubt onto a Florida effort to ban gay and lesbian couples' marriages in 2008. [Link]
July 9, 2007
Anti-gay constitutional amendment initiatives may no longer be the sure-fire "slam-dunk" they were even a couple of years ago, throwing a measure of doubt onto a Florida effort to ban gay and lesbian couples' marriages in 2008. [Link]
A GA family’s heartache
Posted on May 21, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Southern Voice Online
May 21, 2007
In a January ruling Judge John Lee Parrott argued that the state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages also prohibited same-sex couples from adopting children, and accused Hadaway of attempting to "sham" the court by applying as a single person when she was involved in a seven-year relationship with a woman. Hadaway tried to return the child to the biological mother, who again gave her parental rights to Hadaway. Hadaway, who had ended her seven-year relationship and moved to Bibb County, then attempted to pursue adoption in that county. But when Parrott learned that Emma Rose was still living with Hadaway, he had the child placed in foster care. After Bibb County Superior Court Judge Tilman Self granted Hadaway custody in March, Parrott refused to recognize Self's ruling and ordered the young girl to remain with her DFCS foster family, despite a DFCS social worker calling that "the worst possible scenario" for the young girl. [Link]
May 21, 2007
In a January ruling Judge John Lee Parrott argued that the state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages also prohibited same-sex couples from adopting children, and accused Hadaway of attempting to "sham" the court by applying as a single person when she was involved in a seven-year relationship with a woman. Hadaway tried to return the child to the biological mother, who again gave her parental rights to Hadaway. Hadaway, who had ended her seven-year relationship and moved to Bibb County, then attempted to pursue adoption in that county. But when Parrott learned that Emma Rose was still living with Hadaway, he had the child placed in foster care. After Bibb County Superior Court Judge Tilman Self granted Hadaway custody in March, Parrott refused to recognize Self's ruling and ordered the young girl to remain with her DFCS foster family, despite a DFCS social worker calling that "the worst possible scenario" for the young girl. [Link]
Anti-gay marriage ban collapses in IN
Posted on Apr 04, 2007 at 02:24 pm
The Indianapolis Star
April 4, 2007
An Indiana House committee rejected a proposed constitution ban of gay and lesbian marriages Tuesday, signaling a major victory for the gay community and big employers that opposed the amendment. [Link]
April 4, 2007
An Indiana House committee rejected a proposed constitution ban of gay and lesbian marriages Tuesday, signaling a major victory for the gay community and big employers that opposed the amendment. [Link]
OPINION: The constitution is not the place to make law
Posted on Mar 09, 2007 at 12:44 pm
The News and Observer
March 9, 2007
Putting gay and lesbian couples' relationships in the political arena scarcely helps anyone. It gives grandstanding pols a chance to show off, but it's hard to argue that a little tolerance of differing views on the issue threatens the American family structure. It's even harder to make a case for an unnecessary constitutional amendment. [link]
March 9, 2007
Putting gay and lesbian couples' relationships in the political arena scarcely helps anyone. It gives grandstanding pols a chance to show off, but it's hard to argue that a little tolerance of differing views on the issue threatens the American family structure. It's even harder to make a case for an unnecessary constitutional amendment. [link]
Pearce puts stop on bill against same-sex unions
Posted on Jan 18, 2007 at 03:34 pm
Arizona Republic
January 18, 2007
Two months after Arizona voters became the first in the nation to reject an amendment for the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriages, a bill that would put the issue before voters again in 2008 is now being called a mistake by its sponsor. [Link]
January 18, 2007
Two months after Arizona voters became the first in the nation to reject an amendment for the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriages, a bill that would put the issue before voters again in 2008 is now being called a mistake by its sponsor. [Link]