America’s long journey towards equality has been guided by countless small acts of persistence, and fueled by the stubborn willingness of quiet heroes to speak out for what’s right.
Few were as small in stature as Edie Windsor – and few made as big a difference to America.
I had the privilege to speak with Edie a few days ago, and to tell her one more time what a difference she made to this country we love. She was engaged to her partner, Thea, for forty years. After a wedding in Canada, they were married for less than two. But federal law didn’t recognize a marriage like theirs as valid – which meant that they were denied certain federal rights and benefits that other married couples enjoyed. And when Thea passed away, Edie spoke up – not for special treatment, but for equal treatment – so that other legally married same-sex couples could enjoy the same federal rights and benefits as anyone else.
In my second inaugural address, I said that if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. And because people like Edie stood up, my administration stopped defending the so-called Defense of Marriage Act in the courts. The day that the Supreme Court issued its 2013 ruling in United States v. Windsor was a great day for Edie, and a great day for America – a victory for human decency, equality, freedom, and justice. And I called Edie that day to congratulate her.
Two years later, to the day, we took another step forward on our journey as the Supreme Court recognized a Constitutional guarantee of marriage equality. It was a victory for families, and for the principle that all of us should be treated equally, regardless of who we are or who we love.
I thought about Edie that day. I thought about all the millions of quiet heroes across the decades whose countless small acts of courage slowly made an entire country realize that love is love – and who, in the process, made us all more free. They deserve our gratitude. And so does Edie.
Michelle and I offer our condolences to her wife, Judith, and to all who loved and looked up to Edie Windsor.Hat/tip to Talking Points Memo
1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?It is likely there will be oral arguments in April (90 minutes on Question 1, 60 minutes on Question 2) and a final decision issued in the case(s) by June 2015.
“Today’s ruling arises out of the oldest active marriage case in the country, filed in Oklahoma ten years ago; and follows more than two dozen favorable rulings for marriage in the past year. The legal consensus is clear: marriage discrimination is unconstitutional and inflicts concrete harms on committed gay and lesbian couples and their families. From the heart of the Southwest and as far as the Mountain West, the federal rulings from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals from Oklahoma and Utah affirm that all of America is ready for the freedom to marry. It is time for the Supreme Court to end this patchwork of discrimination and bring our country to national resolution as soon as possible.”The Washngton Blade reports that the vote count was 2-1 and that the 46-page opinion was written by Carlos Lucero, a Clinton appointee. The court basically says that its decision in Bishop is controlled by its earlier decision in Kitchen.
This has important implications for where public opinion is headed. If the stable linear trend were the right one, then by 2016 just over 56 percent of the public would be expected to support same-sex marriage. However, the accelerated trend predicts that support for same-sex marriage will be about 5 points higher by 2016. It is appropriate to infer that opinions are trending positively and changing exponentially as time goes on.Regardless how you slice it, this is "good for the gays"!
“I support traditional marriage. Under President Obama, the federal government has tried to re-define marriage, and to undermine the constitutional authority of each state to define marriage consistent with the values of its citizens. The Obama Administration should not be trying to force gay marriage on all 50 states. We should respect the states, and the definition of marriage should be left to democratically elected legislatures, not dictated from Washington. This bill will safeguard the ability of states to preserve traditional marriage for its residents.”Happily, this bill is unlikely to become law anytime soon. The part I can not understand is how does it effect person A if person B has their marriage recognized by the federal government? How does person B's marriage affect person A or person A's marriage? I would really love to hear an answer from a heterosexual supremacist like Sen. Cruz.
A federal judge Wednesday struck down Kentucky’s ban on recognizing valid same-sex marriages performed in other states, saying it violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.
U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II joined nine other federal and state courts in invalidating such bans. Ruling in a suit brought by four gay and lesbian couples, Heyburn said that while “religious beliefs ... are vital to the fabric of society ... assigning a religious or traditional rationale for a law does not make it constitutional when that law discriminates against a class of people without other reasons.”
Heyburn said “it is clear that Kentucky’s laws treat gay and lesbian persons differently in a way that demeans them.”
 |
| AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite |
Each of the changes is related to the way the Justice Department handles recognition of married same-sex couples. They range from rights in civil and criminal cases, rights as inmates and access to benefits programs:This is not surprising since the Social Security Administration and the Defense Department have already announced that they are fully implementing the Windsor decision as well. However, this is good news that the nation's "top cop" is strongly supportive of eliminating discrimination against legally married same-sex couples by the federal government.
• The Justice Department will recognize that same-sex spouses of individuals involved in civil and criminal cases have the same legal rights as straight married couples, including the right to decline to give testimony that might incriminate a spouse.
This new rule applies in non-marriage equality states. The government won't object to couples in same-sex marriages invoking this right if they marry in another state, but their current jurisdiction doesn't recognize their union.
• In bankruptcy cases, the U.S. Trustee Program will take the position that same-sex married couples should be treated in the same manner as opposite-sex married couples. Consequently, same-sex married couples will be eligible to file for bankruptcy jointly; certain debts to same-sex spouses or former spouses will be excepted from discharge; and domestic support obligations should include debts, including alimony, owed to a former same-sex spouse.
• Federal inmates in same-sex marriages will be entitled to the same rights and privileges as inmates in opposite-sex marriages. These rights include spousal visitation; inmate furloughs to be present during a crisis involving a spouse; escorted trips to attend a spouse’s funeral; correspondence with a spouse; and compassionate release or reduction in sentence if an inmate’s spouse is incapacitated.
• The Justice Department will recognize same-sex couples for the purposes of a number of benefits programs it administers, such as the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program and the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund.
Also among these programs is the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Program, which provides death benefits to surviving spouses of public safety officers, such as law enforcement officers and firefighters, who suffer catastrophic or fatal injuries while on duty.
The lawsuit asks Nixon's order be declared unconstitutional. It was filed by officials from the Missouri Baptist Convention Christian Life Commission and the Missouri Family Policy Council.
Missouri's tax code is tied to the federal code. Nixon said couples who file joint federal returns must file state taxes jointly. Federal officials determined legally married same-sex couples would be treated as married regardless of where they live.PROMO, Missouri's LGBT advocacy group issued a statement responding to the lawsuit whose sole purpose is to deny an equal benefit to a class of people from people who already enjoy that benefit.
"Gov. Nixon's pragmatic and reasonable order ensures that Missouri income tax law continues to mirror the Federal Treasury and IRS. This order gives clear and equal guidance to all legally married couples in Missouri about how to complete their state income tax returns. The plaintiffs have no grounds to file this case, the Governor's order should stand."Apparently there is another lawsuit in Kansas challenging that state's decision to not allow same-sex couples who are married to file joint state tax returns.
"I am pleased to announce that, effective today, Social Security is processing some widow’s and widower’s claims by surviving members of same-sex marriages and paying benefits where they are due. In addition, we are able to pay some one-time lump sum death benefit claims to surviving same-sex spouses. As I stated shortly after the Supreme Court decision on Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, our goal is to treat all Americans with dignity and respect.
We ask for continued patience from the public as we work closely with the Department of Justice to develop policies that are legally sound so we can process claims.
If you believe you may be eligible for Social Security, I encourage you to apply now to protect against the loss of any potential benefits. We will process claims as soon as additional instructions become finalized."More information about how the SSA will treat same-sex couples can be accessed here.
I have been involved in the fight for marriage equality since the early 1990s when we thought Hawaii would be the first state where gay couples would be able to get married. That state turned out to be Massachusetts, in 2004.Hawaii's marriage laws allow couples to register for a license and be married the same day, a process conducive for tourists only in the state a short time.Couples can sign up for a license online then be verified by any license agent throughout the state. Agents have set up shop throughout the islands, from resorts on Maui and the Big Island to hard-to-reach places on Kauai.Saralyn and Isajah Morales began filling out license applications a few minutes after midnight along with other couples. Several license agents huddled around four laptops in a tiny conference room, refreshing their web browsers to coax a state-run website to load. A few feet away, wedding guests sipped champagne, dined on curried shrimp and portabella mushroom sliders, listened to piano music and took pictures with each of seven cakes on display for the occasion.[...]Hawaii is often credited with starting the national gay marriage discussion, when couples applying for a marriage license led to a court fight that eventually helped prompt Congress to pass the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Part of the law was struck down earlier this year by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Oklahoma law is clear. The state of Oklahoma does not recognize same-sex marriages, nor does it confer marriage benefits to same-sex couples.The decision reached today allows the National Guard to obey Oklahoma law without violating federal rules or policies. It protects the integrity of our state constitution and sends a message to the federal government that they cannot simply ignore our laws or the will of the people.This is simply astonishing. Previously Fallin was one of eight governors identified by the Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel as being in violation of military policy. Curious how the other 30-something states that have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage didn't interpret their laws in such a virulently homophobic way. I wonder why not? Tulsa World goes on to explain the context of Fallin's statement, which is today's Queer Quote.
Although Oklahoma owns most of the state's National Guard armories and training centers, the facilities were built almost entirely with federal funds.
The federal government provides about 90 percent of the budget for the Oklahoma Military Department, which includes the National Guard.
Toby Jenkins, executive director of Oklahomans for Equality, blasted Fallin, saying, "The governor is sending the message that Oklahoma desires to be an island of prejudice and continues to uphold laws crafted out of fear and drafted by bigots and hypocrites.
"Once again she has insulted our citizen soldiers who daily stand in harm's way for the people of Oklahoma," Jenkins said.
The current controversy began in early September, when the Defense Department said it would recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in states where such unions are recognized. This followed a U.S. Supreme Court decision that all legal marriages, regardless of the spouses' genders, must be honored by the federal government.Some people really don't understand the concept of "equality for all"!
When the Supreme Court issued its decision on the Defense of Marriage Act this summer, the Department of Defense immediately began working on providing the same benefits to all eligible spouses, regardless of sexual orientation. We did it because everyone who serves our country in uniform, everyone in this country, should receive all the benefits they deserve, and they've earned, and in accordance with the law. Everyone's rights must be protected.
This means that all spouses of service members are entitled to DoD ID cards, and the benefits that come with them. But several states today are refusing to issue these IDs to same-sex spouses at National Guard facilities. Not only does this violate the states' obligations under federal law, but their actions have created hardship and inequality by forcing couples to travel long distances to federal military bases to obtain the ID cards they're entitled to.
This is wrong. It causes division among our ranks, and it furthers prejudice, which DoD has fought to extinguish, as has the ADL.
Today, I directed the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, General Frank Grass, to take immediate action to remedy this situation. At my direction, he will meet with the Adjutants General from the states where these ID cards are being declined and denied. The Adjutants General will be expected to comply with both lawful direction and DoD policy, in line with the practices of 45 other states and jurisdictions.It should be noted that the text of Sec. Hagel's remarks were distributed publicly (to media outlets, LGBT bloggers and others) by the White House Office of Communications a few hours after he gave the speech so the Obama Administration is sending a clear message to red state governors that it will not countenance defiance on this issue. There are nine states that the Rachel Maddow show identified as not being compliant with DOD policy on same-sex couples benefits, although that list is now under dispute.
The House, where the vote is likely to be closer, may try to put more religious exemptions into the measure. It currently exempts clergy members who oppose same-sex marriage from having to perform such unions, but it does not allow for-profit businesses to refuse, on religious grounds, to provide wedding-related services to gay couples. An amended bill would have to go back to the Senate for another vote.An interesting historical footnote here is that Hawaii was the site of the beginning of the modern movement to legalize marriage equality when the state Supreme Court issued a ruling in 1993 that it believed denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples was sex discrimination requiring the government to provide a compelling state interest to justify it. Within 3 years the Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in a hysterical response to the possibility that Hawaii would legalize same-sex marriage and the rest of the country would be "forced" to recognize these marriages. In 1998, Hawaii voters enacted a constitutional amendment giving power to the legislature to ban same-sex marriage. Because that measure did not explicitly define marriage as between a man and a woman, the Legislature also has the power now to enact marriage equality.
The ineligbility of same-sex couples for federal benefits is currently harming same-sex couples in New Jersey in a wide range of contexts: civil union partners who are federal employees living in New Jersey are ineligible for marital rights with regard to the federal pension system, all civil union partners who are employees working for businesses to which the Family and Medical Leave Act applies may not rely on its statutory protections for spouses, and civil union couples may not access the federal tax benefits that married couples enjoy.
[...]
This unequal treatment requires that New Jersey extend civil marriage equally to same-sex couples to satisfy the equal protection guarantees of the New Jersey Constitution as interpreted by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Lewis. Same-sex couples must be allowed to marry in order to obtain equal protection of the law in New Jersey.Republican Governor Chris Christie opposes marriage equality and has previously vetoed legislation to allow same-sex couples to marry in New Jersey despite super-majority popular support for marriage equality among New Jersey voters.
