The details are slim, so I’m just going to reprint the entire article from the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama plans to extend health care and other benefits to the gay and lesbian partners of federal employees. White House officials say Obama plans to announce decision on Wednesday in the Oval Office. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the president had not yet made the announcement.

The move would give partners of federal employees access to health care and financial benefits such as relocation fees for moves. Officials say Obama would detail more details of the decision on Wednesday.

What to say to this except, “It’s about time.”

More as it develops…

Number six is now official.

From MSNBC:

CONCORD, New Hampshire – New Hampshire became the sixth state to legalize gay marriage after the Senate and House passed key language on religious rights and Gov. John Lynch — who personally opposes gay marriage — signed the legislation Wednesday afternoon.

After rallies outside the Statehouse by both sides in the morning, the last of three bills in the package went to the Senate, which approved it 14-10 Wednesday afternoon.

Cheers from the gallery greeted the key vote in the House, which passed it 198-176. Surrounded by gay marriage supporters, Lynch signed the bill about an hour later.

The new law will take effect January 1, 2010, but already states are seeing an economic boost as a result…

The phones started ringing at the Timberholm Inn in Stowe, Vt., in April, as soon as lawmakers voted to override a gubernatorial veto and allow same-sex marriage in the state. “It doesn’t go into effect till Sept. 1, but people are thinking ahead,” says the inn’s co-owner, Susan Barnes. “We’ve got two same-sex weddings booked for October.” Those bookings are good news for Barnes, who says the gay-friendly inn takes in a “couple of thousand” dollars with every wedding it hosts. And they are part of the reason some same-sex-wedding advocates are now pointing out a new legalization angle: the economic payoff.

In the five years since legalizing same-sex marriage, Massachusetts has gained $111 million in spending from gay weddings, according to a new study published by UCLA’s Williams Institute, which studies sexual-orientation law and public policy. “That’s money buying flowers, hotels, caterers, hiring a band—all the things that go into a wedding,” explains M. V. Lee Badgett, a coauthor of the study.

Typically, same-sex couples spent about $7,400 per wedding, says Badgett, an economist who is also director of UMass Amherst’s Center for Public Policy & Administration, and one in 10 couples spent more than $20,000. And then there were the wedding guests: “We estimated that each same-sex couple was associated with $1,600 in hotel-occupancy tax revenue,” she says.

Next up: New York and New Jersey.

More as it develops…

“I think that freedom means freedom for everyone. As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay, and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish.”
- Dick Cheney on the hottest topic of the day

Now, he did go on to say that this should be decided at the state level and that’s how it has always been decided, which is nonsense if you know the legal history of marriage restriction, in particular Loving v. Virginia.

However, it is interesting to note that on this issue, one of the leading conservative voices is seemingly more progressive than the most liberal President since FDR.

Here’s more of what he said…

The question now…when will Obama come around?

This was a bit of a surprise when I heard about it, but apparently Ted Olson has joined forces with the Equal Rights Foundation and they’ve just sent out a press release about yesterday’s decision.

Here are some key excerpts (.pdf) …

“Yesterday, the California Supreme Court said that the California Constitution compels the State to discriminate against gay men and lesbians who have the temerity to wish to express their love and commitment to one another by getting married,” Olson said. “These are our neighbors, coworkers, teachers, friends, and family, and, courtesy of Prop 8, California now prohibits them from exercising this basic, fundamental right of humanity. Whatever discrimination California law now might permit, I can assure you, the United States Constitution does not.” [...]

Today’s lawsuit argues that the California’s Constitution — as amended by Proposition 8 — violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, a provision with which all state laws must comply.

Relegating gays and lesbians to “separate but unequal” domestic partnerships violates the U.S. Constitution, the suit states. California’s domestic partnership law is not an adequate substitute for access to the State’s institution of civil marriage, the suit states, because domestic partnerships do not provide all of the legal and government benefits and protections that marriage does.

“More than 30 years ago, the United States Supreme Court recognized that marriage is one of the basic rights of man,” the suit states, referring to the Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down bans on interracial marriage.

According to the suit, Proposition 8:

• Violates the Due Process Clause by impinging on fundamental liberties.
• Violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Singles out gays and lesbians for a disfavored legal status, thereby creating a category of “second-class citizens.”
• Discriminates on the basis of gender.
• Discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.

That’s a lot stronger case than I thought it would be, and maybe they’re right to challenge this one. But the key difference between Loving v. Virginia and this case is that racial identity is pretty much fixed, while it can be argued that sexual identity is not necessarily. Sure, we make sure folks can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation, but that doesn’t infer marital rights to those folks. Of course, then it gets into the idea that bisexuals should be allowed to marry whoever they want, and I’m obviously fine with that too. But there’s a difference and it will be brought up.

Also, common sense tells me that if the liberal CA Supreme Court voted against overturning Prop 8 by 6 to 1, does anybody think the US Supreme Court will overturn that? Seems highly unlikely, so they could be handing their opponents a very easy win. (Note: This case is different than the one the CA Supreme Court just decided. My apologies for the confusion, but it also means their case is MUCH stronger now.)

Regardless, it’ll be an interesting case and this could be a watershed moment for gay marriage…one way or another.

(h/t: Volokh)

Anybody who reads this blog knows where I fall on the gay marriage issue, but the Supreme Court of California wasn’t reallly deciding the validity of gay marriage itself, so the ruling was actually dead on in my opinion.

This article from Bloomberg points out why…

The court legalized gay marriage a year ago before California voters overruled it in November. Fifty-two percent of them approved the ban, amending the state constitution to recognize only marriages between a man and a woman. The court ruled 6 to 1 today in favor of upholding Proposition 8, saying it was ruling only on the ability of voters to pass a ballot measure rather than whether gay marriage should be legal.

“The principal issue before us concerns the scope of the right of the people, under the provisions of the California Constitution, to change or alter the state constitution itself through the initiative process,” the court wrote, “not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound.”

Yes, it’s the law and it’s specific. And if they ruled against that provision, it would harm the citizens’ rights to amend the Constitution. That’s not a precedent the courts want to set just to prove a point.

But here’s the most important part of this entire argument…all the marriages that happened before the ban are legal!!!

The court ruled unanimously that the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed before the ban remain valid. The November ban sparked protests across California and led activists to create Web sites that identified individuals who donated money to support the measure and boycott donors’ business. The ballot measure overrode the court’s May 15, 2008, ruling that laws barring same-sex marriages were unconstitutional.

So to all of you gay marriage advocates, I know this seems like a loss today but it’s not.

Actually, this is a VERY big win as it signals continuous positive movement. Because you know there will be another ballot initiative to overturn Prop 8 at some point and it’ll pass and California will join the growing number of states where marriage is equal for all. But you have to get out there and fight for it if you want it to happen.

More as it develops…

“Having two parents who can feel and express love for each other, and give it in abundance to their children, that’s what matters. It doesn’t matter what the identities of those parents are.”
- Heidi Nortonsmith, one of the original gay couples to marry in Massachusetts in 2004.

Here’s more about how things have gone for the past 5 years…

At the time of those first weddings, the debate was red-hot — protests were frequent, expectations ran high that legislators would allow a referendum on whether to overturn the court ruling ordering same-sex marriage. Now, although Roman Catholic leaders and some conservative activists remain vocally opposed, there is overwhelming political support for same-sex marriage and no prospect for a referendum.

According to the latest state figures, through September 2008, there had been 12,167 same-sex marriages in Massachusetts — 64 percent of them between women — out of 170,209 marriages in all. Some consequences have been tangible — a boom for gay-friendly wedding businesses, the exit of a Roman Catholic charity from the adoption business — and some almost defy description.

“Having your committed relationships recognized — to say it’s deeply meaningful is to trivialize it,” said Mary Bonauto, lead lawyer in the landmark lawsuit. “I know people who’d been together 20 years who say, ‘Getting married — it knocked my socks off.’”

Still there are issues that these folks have to deal with, not the least of which is that their unions aren’t recognized federally. So that creates a whole host of problems, not the least of which is taxation. And with a president in the White House who claims he doesn’t think gays should be allowed to get married, it might be a long time before these problems are solved.

Thankfully, the trend continues…

AUGUSTA, Maine — In a banner day in New England for advocates of gay marriage, Maine legalized the practice Wednesday, and the New Hampshire Legislature voted to do the same.

Maine Gov. John Baldacci, a Democrat, signed LD 1020 shortly after the legislation passed the Senate with a 21-13 vote — a margin not large enough to override a veto.

“In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions,” Baldacci said in a statement read in his office. “I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.”

As the article goes on to point out, New Hampshire is likely the next state to drop, and legislation is being drafted in New Jersey and New York. So the Northeast is definitely leading this charge.

Any guesses as to which state will be next after the ones I just mentioned?

“I’ve had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they’re people, and they’re going to do their thing.”
- Joe Wurzelbacher sharing his views on friendship

Now, does anybody here think that Joe actually has gay friends? No, me neither.

But wait, there’s more!

Because in an interview with Christianity Today, he also let slip yet another misguided, bigoted pearl…

In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?

At a state level, it’s up to them. I don’t want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it’s wrong. People don’t understand the dictionary—it’s called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It’s not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we’re supposed to do—what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we’re supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins.

And this is a guy who has a book deal, is being paid to speak and covered the situation in Gaza for Pajamas Media.

Good times.

Take a look at the following at see how many of these you agree with.

From ABC:

Support for gay marriage, legalizing illegal immigrants and decriminalizing marijuana all are at new highs. Three-quarters of Americans favor federal regulation of greenhouse gases. Two-thirds support establishing relations with Cuba.

But hold tight.

If some views that may be perceived as liberal are ascendant, so are some conservative ones: Opposition to gun control is also at a new high in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll. There’s continued broad support for tighter border controls. And contrary to President Obama, half of Americans wouldn’t flatly rule out torturing terrorism suspects.

I agree with every single one of those views except ruling out torture. I don’t think that should be in our playbook, and I’m sure the readers of this blog know exactly why so I won’t get into it.

But everything else I’m on board with. And, yes, I oppose gun control and I want tighter border security.

The first because it’s not our guns that are making us less safe, it’s our drug laws and prison systems that breed criminality. And look at any study where you have conceal and carry. Crime goes down. Sorry folks, but when more people have guns, society gets more polite.

Turning to illegal immigration, in this new, post 9/11 world, it only makes sense to have much tighter border control. And if we want to begin legalizing illegal immigrants, we’re going to have to lock the border up tight. There’s no other way. You can’t have one without the other, and anybody who tells you otherwise is selling you snake oil.

What this tells me is that we’re definitely a moderate nation, and probably leaning a little bit more towards being center left. And after 30 years of being center right, that’s to be expected.

So, how do you compare?

I’m telling you, it’s going to happen one way or another, and now it seems to be tipping away from civil unions and towards full marriage rights.

In fact, a new NYTimes/CBS poll reveals that…

• In March, 35% thought same sex couples should have no legal recognition. That numbers has dropped 7% since then.
• 69% of liberals support gay marriage, while only 28% of conservatives support it. But when you add that 28% with the 28% who favor civil unions, well, 56% of conservatives are for some sort of recognition.
• While only 31% of those over 40 support gay marriage, 57% of those under 40 support it. And that’s really all you need to know to realize this will happen sooner or later.

But hey, Republicans should keep fighting it and see if that’ll work.

OR…they could realize that this issue is over and move on.

More as it develops…

And so we have the inherent problem with every single argument coming out of the religious right wing opposing gay marriage…none of them can be defended by anything other than distorted facts or personal opinions. It was the same with the anti-miscegenation laws back in the 60s.

By the way, isn’t it insane to think that we actually had laws against interracial marriage less than 50 years ago?

In any event, I know I sound like a broken record, but it’s only a matter of time before gay marriage is legal across the country. It might take another decade for it to be legal everywhere, but it’ll happen nonetheless.

Due to D.C.’s strange system of governance, the District’s laws are subject to approval by Congress. If D.C. passes a gay marriage ordinance, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the subcommittee that handles District matters will have to either reject D.C.’s decision or accept it.

If they reject it, the outrage from gay donors and activist groups will be overwhelming.

If they approve it, even on federalist grounds, the Right will argue that Congress has literally approved gay marriage.

Given this, is gay marriage in D.C. a lot less likely? Maybe. But I’m sure a lot of Dem politicos are looking for a chance to federally approve gay marriage in an official/unofficial way and this could be a way to do that.

More as it develops…

UPDATE:
Seems like there’s a much more likely scenario than Dems approving this…

What Klein doesn’t quite get right is that Congress need not actively “approve” D.C.’s decision. If lawmakers do nothing about the bill for 30 days, it’s law.

In fact, no District statute has been actively disapproved by Congress; what is more common is that “riders” are attached to District appropriations prohibiting spending on the controversial legislation—which is what happened when D.C. first passed domestic-partnership laws.

So there you go. No real conflict for D.C. to pass a gay marriage law.

More good news…

Domestic partnerships are already legal in the nation’s capital. But yesterday’s vote, billed as an important milestone in gay rights, explicitly recognizes relocated gay married couples as married.

The initial vote was 12-0. The unanimous vote sets the stage for future debate on legalizing same-sex marriage in the District and a clash with Congress, which approves the city’s laws under Home Rule. The council is expected to take a final vote on the legislation next month.

Council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1), who is gay, called the amendment a matter of “basic fairness.”

The city’s laws on same-sex unions have been murky, he explained. Couples ask, he said, “Is my marriage valid in D.C.? For years now, it has not been clear.”

“It’s high time we send a clear, unequivocal message to those persons of the same sex and married in another jurisdiction that their marriage is valid in D.C.,” said Graham, who added, “I hope this city recognizes this is a human rights struggle.”

This doesn’t mean that gay marriage has been legalized in the district, but that legislation is apparently in the pipeline so be on the lookout for it to happen soon.

And this time it was done through the legislative branch. So this is a much more significant win for equal rights advocates because people can’t pin this on “activist” judges.

From WCAX:

The Vt. Senate voted to override the governor’s veto of the same-sex marriage bill. This morning, the Senate voted 23 to 5 to override that veto. Two senators were absent and Washington County Republican Bill Doyle who had initially supported same sex, this time voted to sustain the veto.

The Vt. House voted around 11 a.m. to override the veto. The vote was 100-49. 100 votes were needed. Rep. Sonny Audette of South Burlington did not vote. It wasn’t clear whether he intended to vote to override. Audette opposed gay marriage but also opposed the governor’s early announcement of a veto as “interference.”

Vermont is now the fourth state to permit same-sex marriage, but the first to do so with a legislature’s approval. Approval of gay marriage in Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa came from the courts.

So, think this issue be front and center in 2012?

This is why I’m telling folks that the marriage between the social conservatives and the fiscal conservatives is done. Because this next generation of voters favors progressive social policy in bigger numbers than any other generation in history. And fiscal conservatives ignore this at their own peril.

A genuine surprise from the Hawkeye State today because the ruling was unanimous.

Expect more of this type of thing to happen in the next couple years and challenge Obama’s opinion that gay marriage shouldn’t be legal…

“The Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution,” the justices said in a summary of their decision.

The court rules that gay marriage would be legal in three weeks, starting April 24. [...]

The ruling is viewed as a victory for the gay rights movement in Iowa and elsewhere, and a setback for social conservatives who wanted to protect traditional families.

So what does this mean for 2012?

Well, since Iowa is the first state in the primary cycle, this puts folks like Huckabee and Palin at the head of the pack. Because you know this will be THE issue.

UPDATE:
Here’s the opinion and an excerpt…

We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification. There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this determination.

We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law. Faithfulness to that duty requires us to hold Iowa’s marriage statute, Iowa Code section 595.2, violates the Iowa Constitution. To decide otherwise would be an abdication of our constitutional duty. If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded.

More as it develops…

From a NY Times Article…

For years I’ve been arguing that the government should simply get out of the institution of marriage all together, and some folks in Cali are trying to put that idea into motion.

From The Herald:

California’s top election official gave two Southern California college students the go-ahead Tuesday to start collecting signatures for a proposed ballot initiative that would end marriage as a state-sanctioned institution.

Ali Shams, 22, a senior at the University of California-San Diego, and Kaelan Housewright, 21, a student at the California Institute of the Arts, want all couples to be eligible only for domestic partnerships, the designation now reserved for elderly couples and same-sex couples who can not legally wed.

The two friends, who say they are straight, submitted their proposal to the secretary of state in late December in response to the gay marriage ban that California voters approved in November.

Their constitutional amendment would repeal the ban, known as Proposition 8, and strike the word “marriage” from licenses, tax forms and other state documents while retaining the rights and responsibilities of marriage for domestic partners.

“The purpose of which is to provide equality amongst all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, without offending the religious sect,” the pair wrote in their application for an initiative title and summary. “Legally speaking, ‘Marriage’ itself would become a social ceremony, recognized by only non-governmental institutions.”

This is the type of compromise our country desperately needs on this issue. After all, the idea that government is essentially sanctioning a religious ceremony has always been a slippery slope, and this initiative addresses it a direct and honest way. And yes, there are some other laws that would need to be changed, but the ball needs to get rolling and solution has to be found. Now more than ever.

The initiative needs almost 700,000 signatures by August 6th so if you’re in Cali and you believe in this, try and find out how you can add your name to the list or volunteer.

However, check out the last question/answer around 4:15 of this video.

All I can say is…it’s about time.

I’ve never understood the claim that somebody disclosing their sexuality would destroy troop morale, especially when it has been well documented that members of our military have served as openly gay and yet admired by their fellow soldiers.

Add to that the fact that openly gay soldiers serve in every single first world military in the world and you have a situation that clearly favors honesty and transparency.

Simply put, “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” is completely outdated and it’s about time we get rid of it once and for all.

Done and done.

“In 2006, when then-Sen. Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, he said, “Decisions about marriage should be left to the states.” He was right then; and as I have come to realize, he is right now in concluding that DOMA has to go. If one truly believes in federalism and the primacy of state government over the federal, DOMA is simply incompatible with those notions.”
- Bob Barr today arguing against the Defense of Marriage Act in an LA Times editorial