marriage equality

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing


click to enlarge

Here is the audio of the show:

Today I was a guest on NPR's The State of Things (WUNC), hosted by Frank Stasio, to discuss the impact of the California Supreme Court ruling and its impact on the NC amendment effort. Also on the "Same-Sex Marriage and NC" segment were Wake Forest University Professor of political science John Dinan, and Steven Petrow, the past president of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association.

I think there was consensus that the ruling -- and the upcoming ballot initiative, is being watched closely by other states, some for guidance on how to extend marriage equality, and others, like North Carolina, which already has a state DOMA and an onerous amendment has been introduced for the fourth time into the state Senate by good old boy Sen. James Forrester.

Marriage is the union of one man and one woman at one time. This is the only marriage that shall be recognized as valid in this State. The uniting of two persons of the same sex or the uniting of more than two persons of any sex in a marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar relationship within or outside of this State shall not be valid or recognized in this State. This Constitution shall not be construed to require that marital status or the rights, privileges, benefits, or other legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried individuals or groups.

The significance of the California ruling is that, unlike Massachusetts, the Golden State does not have a no residency requirement for obtaining a civil marriage license -- and that means North Carolinian same-sex couples would be able to marry -- and contest the constitutionality of the state DOMA here. Steven Petrow mentioned that fact that the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund has asked the California Supreme Court for a stay issuing same-sex marriage licenses until after the election -- and the outcome of the November ballot initiative.

More below the fold.

Those of us eagerly waiting for the day when same-sex marriage is finally legalized across the land owe a debt of gratitude to Mildred Loving, whose 1967 case (Loving v. Virginia) resulted in a landmark Supreme Court decision that broke down a major social and legal barrier - interracial marriage.

Mildred Loving, a black woman whose challenge to Virginia's ban on interracial marriage led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling striking down such laws nationwide, has died, her daughter said Monday.

Peggy Fortune said Loving, 68, died Friday at her home in rural Milford. She did not disclose the cause of death.

...Richard Loving died in 1975 in a car accident that also injured his wife.

In a rare interview with The Associated Press last June, Loving said she wasn't trying to change history — she was just a girl who once fell in love with a boy.

"It wasn't my doing," Loving said. "It was God's work."

I believe that couples in committed, long-term relationships should have the same rights, benefits, and responsibilities, whether they are straight couples or same-sex couples. I support civil unions to guarantee gay and lesbian couples the same rights as straight couples, including inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, equal pension and health care benefits, and all of the 1,100 other legal protections government affords married couples. I support the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act provision that prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex relationships. Gay marriage is an issue I feel internal conflict about and I continue to struggle with it. However, I believe the right president could lead the country toward consensus around equal rights and benefits for all couples in committed, long-term relationships.

-- the money quote from the questionnaire

Former NC Senator and 2008 White House hopeful John Edwards has completed Human Rights Campaign's presidential candidate survey, which was passed on to me by Tracy Russo, online communications manager of the Edwards campaign.

Hopefully we'll get a hold of one from all of the candidates.

See his answers on a variety of topics after the jump.
<

(Note: One of the biggest concerns I had coming out of the bloggity conversation the other day in Raleigh is over the idea that a Marriage Amendment is on its way. To me, this trend of referendums is the most sick political tactic I've ever witnessed. They do nothing to "protect" marriage and are solely a ploy to drive up social conservative voters. This is merely another use of "the other" for political gain.
Wondering when Democrats are going to draw the line. Also wondering when we'll see somebody introduce a constitutional amendment to make it easier for people--all people--to get partner benefits, form civil unions and enjoy custody rights?)

Here's the column via Ex:

Tangled up in rules

A few thousand wary eyes are peeled for what's in the set of changes to the operating rules of the N.C. House now under consideration. The promise, in theory, is a more open environment where bills no longer get tangled up in the Rules Committee and each has a review on the merits in an appropriate venue.

My marriage is sowing the seeds of societal destruction in NC once again.

Yes, it's that time of year again. A group of scared, middle-aged white men (and this year, one woman)  is so threatened by my relationship with Kate that they've gone back to the drawing board to write discrimination into our state constitution.

Senate Bill 13 (SB13) was filed yesterday. The pertinent language:

Marriage is the union of one man and one woman at one time. This is the only marriage that shall be recognized as valid in this State. The uniting of two persons of the same sex or the uniting of more than two persons of any sex in a marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar relationship within or outside of this State shall not be valid or recognized in this State. This Constitution shall not be construed to require that marital status or the rights, privileges, benefits, or other legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried individuals or groups."

The prior three attempts have died in committee. The Dem controlled General Assembly has kept it bottled up. That, friends, is the only reason that this state hasn't had an amendment on the ballot. If it ever made it to the polls, it would most certainly pass. The larger question to ask all legislators:

In your opinion, is it appropriate for the people of North Carolina to determine the civil rights of their fellow citizens by direct vote at the ballot box?

It's all or nothing folks, because if they truly believe this is the case, then I want the right to vote on the marriages of the rest of me fellow neighbors and a whole host of other rights, including placing some restrictions on religious fundamentalism. But the answer to this question should be "no." The civil rights of a minority of people should never be determined by the majority.

With stronger Dem numbers this year, we're hoping the same will happen again, but we have to deal with the clowns below stirring up trouble and shameless bigotry.

Primary sponsor of this "essential legislation" --

Email: Jamesf@ncleg.net
District:  41
Counties Represented: Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln

See the rest of the Tarheel homophobes in favor of discrimination after the flip.