Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper signs civil unions bill into law

Joins eight other states that have civil unions or similar laws

Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper today signed into law a measure that legalizes same-sex civil unions in his state.

The new law provides gay and lesbian couples with such legal protections and responsibilities as the ability to take family leave to care for a partner, to make medical and end-of-life decisions for a partner, to live together in a nursing home, and to adopt children together.
During his annual State of the State address in January, Hickenlooper challenged the state legislature to move forward by saying: 'This year, let's do it. Let's pass civil unions!'
He had also publicly supported civil unions during his address a year earlier.
The law takes effect May 1.
It was just seven years ago that the state voted to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage. It will join eight states that have civil unions or similar laws. Nine states and the District of Columbia allow gay marriage.
Among those present at the signing was Colorado House Speaker Mark Ferrandino, a gay Denver Democrat who backed the bill.
'With the Governor’s signature here today, the protection of Colorado’s laws will now extend equally to all,' Ferrandino said in a statement. Thousands of Colorado families will now be able to receive the recognition they deserve.'
He added: 'Ladies and gentlemen, the Colorado sun now warms all our people.

West Virginia Delegate John Doyle Plans Civil Unions Bill

"West Virginia Delegate John Doyle has said he plans to introduce a bill that would recognize gay and lesbian couples with civil unions.

On Thursday, the 69-year-old Doyle said he would not seek re-election next year after nearly 20 years of service.

“I have represented the 57th House of Delegates district for the last 19 years and I have decided not to run for reelection,” he said, WEPM Radio News reported.

Doyle did not say what was next for him: “I love the Legislature. I'd love to stay in it, but there are some other things I want to do and I think I better get to them while I still have a good bit of energy.”

He added that he would sponsor a civil unions bill during the upcoming legislative session.

“I'm not going to introduce a gay marriage bill simply because it has no chance of passing the West Virginia Legislature. We just might be able to get a civil union bill through, so I'm going to give it a shot.”

If approved, West Virginia would join Rhode Island, New Jersey, Hawaii, Illinois and Delaware in offering the union. Lawmakers in Colorado are also expected to debate the issue next year."

West Virginia Delegate John Doyle Plans Civil Unions Bill: 

Majority Of Virginians Support Civil Unions, Not Marriage, For Gay Couples

"A majority of Virginian voters support civil unions, not marriage, for gay and lesbian couples, a new survey found.

According to a Public Policy Polling survey released last week, a majority (53%) of respondents oppose the legalization of gay marriage, while 34 percent approve. Thirteen percent refused to answer.

When pollsters asked, “Which of the following best describes your opinion on gay marriage: 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?” support for gay marriage dropped to 31 percent.

But a majority of voters (59%) said they supported marriage (31%) or civil unions (28%) for gay couples. Thirty-eight percent said there should be no legal recognition and 3 percent refused to answer. 

-On Top Magazine

Democrats lead in support of gay unions with 70 percent, followed by 66% of independent and 39% of Republicans."

'via Blog this'

The Fall of Rome, Reality Based History - and Gay Adoption

The vocal opponents of family equality are fond of making sweeping statements (in flagrant disregard of the evidence) about how marriage has "always" been between one man and on woman, how the proponents of equality are "redefining" evidence, quite ignoring the ways in marriage has been constantly redefined in the past - not least by the Christian churches. A variation on the theme has been that homosexuality has destroyed great civilizations, such as that of Rome. Illinois state Rep. Ronald Stephens has repeated this claim, blaming "open homosexuality" for the fall of Rome.

In a fun, sane response in the Chicago Sun-Times, Neill Steinberg dismisses the claim, basing his response on, well, historical fact, not what he calls Stephens' talking points. His most important observation is that the best known extensive study of the fall of Rome, Edward Gibbons "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", concluded that Roman civilization collapsed not because of homosexuality, but because of - guess what? Christianity.

Would that be a argument to ban Christianity today, for fear that it could cause the collapse of modern Western civilization?

The point I want to make is not that Gibbons was either right or wrong, but to heartily endorse Steinberg's larger point, that grand claims about the lessons of history really ought to be checked against the facts. This is certainly true in the secular sphere, but also in religious discourse. The often -repeated Vatican claims of Catholic "constant and unchanging tradition" are a smokescreen, often used to used to hide the importance of recently introduced changes, as Martin Pendergast noted recently, writing about gradualism in Benedict's theology.

But today, I do not want to explore this theme of the Church's constantly changing tradition. Let's just enjoy, instead, Steinberg's thoroughly delightful response to rep Stephens' ignorance. Here are some extracts:

The Fall of Rome, Reality Based History – and Gay Adoption

The vocal opponents of family equality are fond of making sweeping statements (in flagrant disregard of the evidence) about how marriage has "always" been between one man and on woman, how the proponents of equality are "redefining" evidence, quite ignoring the ways in marriage has been constantly redefined in the past - not least by the Christian churches. A variation on the theme has been that homosexuality has destroyed great civilizations, such as that of Rome. Illinois state Rep. Ronald Stephens has repeated this claim, blaming "open homosexuality" for the fall of Rome.

In a fun, sane response in the Chicago Sun-Times, Neill Steinberg dismisses the claim, basing his response on, well, historical fact, not what he calls Stephens' talking points. His most important observation is that the best known extensive study of the fall of Rome, Edward Gibbons "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", concluded that Roman civilization collapsed not because of homosexuality, but because of - guess what? Christianity.

Would that be a argument to ban Christianity today, for fear that it could cause the collapse of modern Western civilization?

The point I want to make is not that Gibbons was either right or wrong, but to heartily endorse Steinberg's larger point, that grand claims about the lessons of history really ought to be checked against the facts. This is certainly true in the secular sphere, but also in religious discourse. The often -repeated Vatican claims of Catholic "constant and unchanging tradition" are a smokescreen, often used to used to hide the importance of recently introduced changes, as Martin Pendergast noted recently, writing about gradualism in Benedict's theology.

But today, I do not want to explore this theme of the Church's constantly changing tradition. Let's just enjoy, instead, Steinberg's thoroughly delightful response to rep Stephens' ignorance. Here are some extracts:

Irish Civil Partnership Bill Signed.

Irish President Mary McAleese has signed into law the provision of Civil Partnerships, which will provide Irish gay and lesbian couples with a legal status almost identical to that of heterosexual married couples - but not adoption rights. This is very similar to the UK Civil Partnership legislation. That too does not cover adoption, which was provided for separately.

In this deeply Catholic country, the legislation was strongly opposed by the Catholic bishops - who lost badly, It is notable that this legislation was not just passed, but warmly welcomed by the Justice Minster as "one of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation ...  since independence"  

Signing into law of new civil Bill welcomed

THE SIGNING into law yesterday of the Civil Partnership Bill was welcomed across the political spectrum and also by groups that have campaigned for legal recognition for same-sex couples in Ireland.

The Bill was signed into law by President Mary McAleese at Áras an Uachtaráin yesterday morning.

Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern said it was “one of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation to be enacted since independence”.

The Green Party’s justice spokesman Trevor Sargent also warmly welcomed the development, describing it as a significant step forward and a stepping stone towards greater equality in society.

While the Bill has now been enacted, it cannot fully commence until commensurate changes take place in social welfare, tax and pensions legislation.

Those changes are likely to be made in the Finance Bill and Social Welfare Bill drafted following December’s budget.

The changes will pave the way for the first civil partnership registrations to take place in January next year.

-(Full report from the Irish Times)

In Vermont, 10 Years of Civil Unions

It is now 10 years since the start of legal recognition for same sex unions in Vermont, just 11 years after a comparable start in Denmark. For a time, both Vermont in the US and Denmark internationally were seen as remarkable exceptions: idiosyncracies in that were unlikely to be emulated in more mainstream states and nations. However, after some initial delay, and increasing number of others followed, and even upped the game. 

From Silicon Valley Mercury News:

MONTPELIER, Vt.—When Lois Farnham and Holly Puterbaugh were joined in civil union 10 years ago Thursday, some of their friends didn't come for fear they'd lose their jobs, and the church asked that plainclothes police officers attend the ceremony in case there was trouble.

A decade later, Vermont and four other states—Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Iowa, as well as the District of Columbia—have instituted full marriage for same-sex couples, and the Burlington couple say many people view their relationship as "ho-hum."

Vermont was the first jurisdiction in the country to offer most of the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples. Massachusetts instituted full same-sex marriage in 2004 in response to a state court's order. Last year, Vermont's Legislature became the first to approve full marriage for those couples without a court's prompting.

"At the time, civil unions were so radical," Farnham said this week. "Now it's the fallback, conservative issue."

What has been remarkable in recent years though, is how quickly, after the slow beginning, the idea has spread. In Europe, almost all countries have or are planning some form of provision for same sex partnerships, and seven have already upgraded to full marriage, with more on the way. In the US, early progress towards marriage equality was meet with a strong political backlash, but even here progress has been substantial and is accelerating.

Even with the heartbreaking ballot losses in California and Maine, five states now have full state level provision for marriage equality, and many more states and even cities have local provision for varying grades of partnership recognition, from simple registration of domestic partnerships, to strong unions which are "marriage in everything but name". On the other hand, the political push against equality appears to have run out of steam: in Iowa, the NOM made highly visible donations to promote the primary elections campaigns of marriage foes - and lost badly. In this year's mid-terms, there are no new states with anti-marriage ballot initiatives, while it's a fair bet that in 2010 California will be the first state to have a ballot question to remove restrictions on marriage - which is likely to be successful. Other states will follow.

It is also arguable that the fight for marriage equality, while i has been slow, has been a catalyst for many other, lower profile moves which have been finding it easier to gain public acceptance, and which are now bearing fruit in national, state and local government, and in private businesses. 

All big movements build gradually, with small incremental gains increasing over time. However, there are also major landmarks along the way to add impetus and momentum. Stonewall was one of the major landmarks on the route to LGBT equality. Vermont's civil union legislation was another. Let us all join in congratulations, and thanks, to the small state of Vermont for the giant contribution of their vision and foresight.

Hawaii Surprise: Civil Unions Approved.

Who saw this coming? The path to gay marriage began in Hawaii way back in 1993, with a state Supreme Court decision. Five years later, a popular vote placed a ban on same sex unions. Since then, the supporters of marriage equality have launched repeated attempts to get civil unions approved, but have struggled even to bring it to a vote. A determined push last year fizzled out, and this year looked to be headed the same way - until this week, when a last minute decision on the final day of the session brought success.

Cross fingers now, that the Republican governor does not veto it.

From the Honolulu Advertiser:

Historic civil-unions bill gets House OK

State House lawmakers yesterday approved a bill that would give same-sex and heterosexual couples the ability to enter into civil unions and enjoy the same rights as married couples under state law. The 31-20 vote followed an improbable decision by state House Majority Leader Blake Oshiro, the bill's sponsor, to revive civil unions on the last day of the 60-day session. The House, focusing primarily on the state's budget deficit and concerned about the influence of civil unions on election year politics, had indefinitely postponed action on the bill after it passed the state Senate in January.

Earlier this week, Oshiro said he would not bring back the bill but indicated that others might. He said he decided on Wednesday evening, when it became clear that another lawmaker would try to force a vote, that he should be the one to make the motion.

The bill now goes to Gov. Linda Lingle,  a Republican, who has not said whether she would sign, veto or allow the bill to become law without her signature.

(Read the full report)

Civil Unions for Pennsylvania?

While Maggie Gallagher's NAM (National organisation Against Marriage) continues to insist that the momentum towards marriage equality has been reversed, the evidence contradicts her.  The much vaunted New Hampshire town hall meetings to begin a process to undo last year's legislation turned out to be a damp squib. In Maryland, moves to impeach the AG for his opinion on recognising out of state nuptials were rejected. In Iowa, on the anniversary of the recognition of marriage for all, attempts to ignite a popular repeal are going nowhere.  In California, opinion polls now show a clear majority in favour of marriage, and the repeal of prop 8 is now just a matter of timing the ballot. Elsewhere across the globe, advances for marriage are seen in more and more countries, including somewhat unexpectedly, Slovenia, Albania, Cyprus and Nepal. It is not the movement towards marriage equality that has stalled, but the attempts to impose constitutional bans.

Meanwhile, in the Pennsylvania  state legislature, the recent failure of attempts to ban marriage have now been followed by an attempt to introduce civil unions.  State rep Mark Cohen says he has 24 co-sponsors signed up, with another 10 "considering".  Even so, he believes that his chances of success are low - this year. I like this approach, which is more honest than sitting on bills until passage can be assured. Bringing a bill to the vote is a way to force opponents to crawl out of the woodwork and declare their opposition publicly - and may even flush out some surprising supporters. More importantly, the process begins public discussion.  If the bill does not pass this year, it will be re-introduced repeatedly until it does - and will then pave the way for full marriage.

As in California and Maine,New York and New Jersey, the disappointments of the past eighteen months will be overcome.

"To those who persevere, failure is only temporary".

Full marriage recognition is on its way. The only real question is - "When?"

From Philadelphia Gay News:

Civil-union bill to hit PA House

A Pennsylvania lawmaker is gathering legislative support for a bill that would make civil unions for same-sex couples a reality in the Keystone State.

The measure, the first of its kind in the Pennsylvania legislature, is being spearheaded by Pennsylvania Rep. Mark Cohen (D-202nd Dist.).

Cohen said he’s so far secured cosponsorships from 24 lawmakers and another 10 are considering signing on. He expects to officially introduce the bill by April 14.

Cohen said that while he supports full-marriage equality for same-sex couples, he believes the more logical approach would be to first have the state adopt a civil-union law.

“Civil unions are more attainable in a reasonable period of time than gay marriage is,” Cohen said. “Civil unions don’t give gays the status of marriage, they’re not as good as marriage, but I think right now it’s a much more attainable goal.”

Civil unions preceded the adoption of same-sex marriage in Vermont, Connecticut and New Hampshire, although New Jersey, which approved civil unions several years ago, earlier this year saw a failed attempt at marriage equality.

Pennsylvania Sen. Daylin Leach (D-17th Dist.) last year introduced a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in the state, which currently has two cosponsors.

Leach said this week that while he supports Cohen’s efforts, civil unions set up only a “second-class marriage.”

“I am a believer in incremental progress and understand that this is a process to get the best we can in the short-term, and I wish Mark the best of luck. But we have to make sure that this isn’t a final resolution to the issue,” Leach said, noting that he has not heard of a similar measure in the Senate.

Cohen said he doesn’t believe marriage equality is a “realistic possibility in the near future,” adding that even the chances of his own bill passing this session are low. He predicted it could be a multi-year effort, but said he’s willing to re-introduce the measure in the next several sessions if it doesn’t pass this year.

Cohen said many lawmakers have so far been hesitant to put their name on the bill, but that he believes their reluctance will decrease over time.

“As I’ve been going around seeking sponsors, there are very large numbers of people who assured me they’d vote for it but they just don’t want to sponsor it,” he said. “This bill has statewide support and if we can get more demonstrations of support from these legislators, more will feel comfortable making their identities known as sponsors.”

PGN confirmed that Reps. Babette Josephs (D-182nd Dist.), Mike O’Brien (D-175th Dist.), Kathy Manderino (D-194th Dist.), Jewell Williams (D-197th Dist.), Rosita Youngblood (D-198th Dist.), Tony Payton (D-179th Dist.) and Ron Buxton (D-103rd Dist.) have agreed to sign on as cosponsors.

“I think it’s important that everybody’s entitled to the same rights,” Youngblood said about her reason for signing on to the bill. “It’s as simple as that.”

Johnna Pro, spokesperson for Rep. Dwight Evans (D-203rd Dist.), said the representative is “on board” with the legislation but, as he’s chair of the appropriations committee, he typically doesn’t cosponsor any non-budget measures.

Rep. James Roebuck (D-188th Dist.) said Tuesday that he supports civil unions but has not yet read the legislation and come to a decision on cosponsorship. A spokesperson for Rep. Robert Donatucci (D-185th Dist.) said the lawmaker would review the bill and “go from there.”

Calls to all other state representatives from Philadelphia were not returned by press time.

Payton said civil unions should function as a sufficient compromise until full marriage equality can be achieved.

“People should be able to live their lives,” Payton said. “They should be allowed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, just like everybody else. And civil unions would set up the structure to do that. There’s a lot of different people with different views in Pennsylvania, but I think this should be something that’s acceptable to ultimately the majority of the body.”

O’Brien noted that his colleagues have been “hesitant” to bring bills such as Rep. Josh Shapiro’s (D-153rd Dist.) measure to include sexual orientation and gender identity in the state’s hate-crimes law or Rep. Dan Frankel’s (D-23rd Dist.) nondiscrimination bill to the floor for a vote.

He postured that, while Cohen’s measure may face less of an uphill battle than Leach’s, both bills help to further the discussion about LGBT rights among lawmakers.

“In all honesty, I think what we need to do is to use any vehicle possible to keep the question before the legislature,” O’Brien said. “I think tactically it’s the best thing to continue to put the issue before the General Assembly. It’s bringing it to the forefront and just keeping the ball rolling. But do I believe civil unions would have a better chance of passage than marriage? Yeah, I do.” 

Jen Colletta can be reached at jen@epgn.com.