In Valentine's Week, Marriage Equality Advances: Update

If anyone still has any doubts that marriage equality is on the move in the US, just consider how  many advances there have been in just the past few days, in this week of St Valentine:

• In Washington state, on Monday governor Chris Gregoire signed the enabling legislation.

• Also on Monday in New Jersey, the state Senate approved a bill, which then passed in the state House Thursday. Gov Christie vetoed, as promised, on Friday.  Proponents now have two years to muster enough votes to override. (Or they could try next year to go the referendum route, after all, or they could hope for a favourable ruling from the state Supreme Court.)
• In Maryland on Tuesday, Valentine's day, key committees approved a bill which was due to go to the full House of Delegates Thursday, and was finally passed late on Friday. It must still go to the Senate, but as they approved a similar bill last year, that should not present a problem. Thereafter, Governor O'Malley has promised to sign.
• In Colorado, a bill for civil unions (not full marriage) was approved by a state Senate committee yesterday. It is expected to pass easily in the Senate, and will then go to the House.

These have been on the radar for some time, with extensive press reporting. Two others were less widely predicted:

• The Illinois General Assembly introduced a gay marriage bill yesterday, after it cleared the House rules committee February 8th.
• Legislation is due to be introduced in Rhode Island today.

• A West Virginia delegate introduced a bill for civil unions.

Meanwhile, the Maine campaign to repeal Proposition  and reinstate marriage equality, appears to be going well. Organisers submitted far more petition signatures than required, and polling shows strong support.

These are steps forward, not achievements completed. There are still hurdles to be overcome, in each:

• Even after signature by the governor, Washington's new law faces a voter's referendum for repeal.
• Any override of Gov Christie's veto in New Jersey will be a tough ask. It may not happen.
• The Maryland bill can pass in the House (where it came short last year). As in Washington, there will likely be a voter referendum for repeal.
• Prospects in Illinois, R.I. and Colorado are also uncertain.
• The WV bill is largely just symbolism. It's unlikely to pass.

And in Minnesota and North Carolina, there are existing proposition campaigns to write discrimination into the state constitutions.

Even so, the momentum is clearly in the direction of equality. That's seven states where the initiative is moving forward, and two heading in the other direction. Even if there are some setbacks, these will be reversed - just as New York last year reversed it's earlier Senate defeat with the help of three Republican senators, and as Maine is on course to reverse 2009's proposition for repeal, with a counter proposition to re-instate marriage for all, free of discrimination.

In every vote taken in state legislatures so far, there have been a few Republican legislators crossing party lines to vote their consciences, for equality. Catholic bishops and some other religious leaders are actively campaigning to restrict marriage - but in every public campaign, there are other faith leaders and prominent
Catholic politicians who are arguing, from religious principles, for justice for all.

Full marriage equality is clearly on the way - and that will include full inclusion, in at least some churches.

Related articles

• A GOP Reckoning On Marriage Equality (andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com)

Rutgers-Eagleton: 52% of NJ voters support same-sex marriage | Politicker NJ

Fifty-two percent of New Jersey voters believe same-sex marriages should be legal, according to today's Rutgers-Eagleton Poll.

Support for legalizing gay marriage jumps to 61 percent when the issue is framed in terms of “marriage equality,” the favored description of advocates for same-sex couples.

Almost four-in-10 respondents (39 percent) oppose legalizing gay marriage while 9 percent are unsure. Twenty-seven percent are against marriage equality, while 3 percent are unfamiliar with the term and 9 percent have no opinion."

 Politicker NJ"

Majority Favor Gay Marriage In New Jersey | On Top Magazine :: Gay & Lesbian News, Entertainment, Commentary & Travel

"A majority of New Jersey voters favor the legalization of gay marriage, a new poll found.
Fifty-two percent of respondents said they support marriage equality, 32 percent were opposed, and 16 percent unsure. Pollsters at Rutgers University's the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling surveyed 615 registered voters by telephone from August 9 – 15. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 3.9 percentage points.
“We were surprised by the margin favoring gay marriage, which is much greater than previously reported,” said David Redlawsk, director of the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll and professor of political science at Rutgers."

On Top Magazine

New poll: Majority prefer marriage for gay and lesbian New Jersey couples

"Four out of five New Jersey voters are now in favor of legal recognition of same-sex unions. This is according to a new Public Policy Poll (PPC) released today. The poll says 81 percent prefer legal recognition over no recognition for LGBT couples. Voters prefer same-sex marriage 47 – 42 percent, when asked about marriage equality as a simple yes or no question. They prefer legal civil marriage over civil unions when that component is added to the mix.

When asked. 'Do you think same-sex marriage should be legal or illegal?, 'voters chose legal 47 percent over illegal, 42 percent.

When asked if 'gay couples should be allowed to legally marry, or gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry, or there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship?, 'voters picked marriage 41 percent, civil unions 40 percent, and neither, 17 percent."

Out In Jersey:

NJ Gay Marriage Court Initiative Failed.

In New Jersey, the recent focus for news on marriage equality was the unsuccessful political process which aimed to slip legislation in during the dying days of the last legislature, before the new anti-marriage Governor took office. Later, there was a much less well-publicized attempt to pursue a litigation route. Some years ago, the state Supreme Court had ruled that the state had an obligation to provide equal treatment to all its citizens. IT was on the strength of this judgement that the state legislature then introduced civil unions as an alternative.

Experience since then has shown that in NJ, as elsewhere, separate is not equal. After the failure of the political process, six same-sex couples initiated court proceedings to secure the equality which had been promised, but not provided by the political process. That application today hit a road block: the court declined to hear the case.

This looks though, like a temporary delay. The reason given was that the suit must first make its way through the lower courts. Even so, the decision was close - a 3-3 split. Equality could still come to New Jersey. (Marriage opponents probably have more reason to be disappointed than equality supporters do over this decision: they were hoping for a total rejection:

Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council, which supports the traditional view of marriage as between one man and one woman, said, “We were hoping the Supreme Court would just reject the application outright.”

(New York Times)

From Washington Post:

NJ Supreme Court rejects gay marriage case

TRENTON, N.J. -- The New Jersey Supreme Court has declined to hear a case from six same-sex couples seeking the right to marry, saying the case needs to wind its way through the lower courts first.

Gay couples unsuccessfully sued New Jersey four years ago for the right to marry. They claim that by creating civil unions, the state has not fulfilled a court order to treat them the same as heterosexual couples seeking to marry.

The Supreme Court said Monday that it cannot consider whether the civil union law provides equal rights to gay couples until there is a trial record.

The justices were split 3-3, one vote shy of the four needed for the motion to be granted.