Colorado governor says he supports gay marriage
DENVER—Gov. John Hickenlooper has come out as a supporter of gay marriage.
The Colorado Democrat has been a vocal backer of gay rights but generally stopped short of formally endorsing same-sex marriage. However, on Monday he provided a statement in support of a gay rights group that kicked off a campaign to bring gay marriage to Colorado.
“If all people are created equal,” Hickenlooper said in the statement, “then by extension of law, logic and love, every adult couple should also have the freedom to join in marriage.”
Hickenlooper last year signed a bill legalizing civil unions in Colorado, and spokesman Eric Brown said the governor has spoken at several gay marriage rallies. Hickenlooper is running for re-election this year. Colorado voters in 2006 banned gay marriage.
Gay rights groups on Monday pledged to pursue a ballot measure in 2016 to legalize gay marriage unless courts strike down Colorado’s ban first. Two lawsuits are making their way through state court to do just that.
Judges have struck down gay marriage bans in several conservative states recently. The appeals of those rulings will be heard in a federal court in Denver.
Colorado gay marriage supporters say if they lose in court, they will go to the ballot box to overturn the state’s ban.
Source: The Denver Post, “Colorado governor says he supports gay marriage,” The Associated Press, 03/04/2014 03:42:23 PM MST | Updated: a day ago
Republicans From the West Give Support for Gay Marriage
Evoking Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, a group of Western-state Republicans plans to enter the battle in favor of same-sex marriage on Tuesday, urging a federal appeals court to declare gay marriage bans in Utah and Oklahoma unconstitutional.
The most prominent of the approximately 20 signers of the brief are former Senator Alan K. Simpson of Wyoming, a longtime supporter of gay rights, and former Senator Nancy L. Kassebaum of Kansas, who said last year that she had reconsidered her former opposition to same-sex marriage. The document says that “marriage is strengthened” and “the social stability of the family unit are promoted” by allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry.
The document is a friend-of-the-court brief, being filed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver. That court is hearing appeals from Utah and Oklahoma to reinstate their restrictive marriage laws.
The brief was the latest sign of widening cracks in Republican opposition to same-sex marriage, even deep in the country’s conservative heartland.
Last month, a New York Times/CBS News poll found a rapid shift in Republican attitudes nationwide. Forty percent of Republicans said same-sex marriage should be legal, up from 33 percent last May and only 24 percent in September 2012.
Sean Gallagher, a lawyer and Republican Party activist in Denver who helped prepare the brief, said many Republicans were rethinking their positions. “The themes of liberty and freedom resonate especially well in the West,” said Mr. Gallagher, who was chief counsel in Colorado for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign in 2012.
Early last year, dozens of Republicans, including four former governors and former White House officials, joined in a similar legal brief to the Supreme Court, arguing that gay people have a constitutional right to marry. Neither Mr. Simpson nor Ms. Kassebaum signed that document.
In December, a federal court in Utah overturned the state’s amendment restricting marriage to a man and a woman. In January, a federal court in Oklahoma struck down that state’s ban on gay marriage.
Utah and Oklahoma appealed, and the cases are on a fast track in Denver, with hearings scheduled in April.
If the appeals court upholds the current rulings, same-sex marriage could become legal throughout the judicial circuit — in Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming — barring a counterdecision by the United States Supreme Court.
In other signs of change in the mountain West, in December the New Mexican Supreme Court ruled that gay and lesbian couples have a right to marry. Gov. Susana Martinez, a Republican, accepted the decision as “the law of the land.”
In Nevada, the state prevailed in court in 2012 in its defense of marriage restrictions. The gay and lesbian plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, and last month Nevada’s Republican governor, Brian Sandoval, agreed to withdraw from the case, saying that defense of a same-sex marriage ban was not legally tenable.
Historic Injunction for Marriage Equality in Texas
Today, U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia ruled that Texas’ ban on marriage for lesbian and gay couples is unconstitutional in the lawsuit brought by Cleopatra DeLeon, Nicole Dimetman, Vic Holmes and Mark Phariss who were represented by the law firm Akin Gump. The ruling is stayed pending appeal, meaning marriages will not occur immediately in the state. Human Rights Campaign (HRC) President Chad Griffin issued the following statement:
“This injunction sends a powerful message that gay and lesbian Texans are being harmed everyday by inequality, and that these plaintiff couples who we’re proud to call members of the HRC family are very likely to succeed in striking down Texas’ ban on marriage equality. This is a historic day in the heart of the South, and I can’t stress enough how important it is to move quickly until loving couples in all 50 states feel the full reach of this victory for equality.”
The Texas ruling comes on the heels of a year-long string of electoral, judicial and legislative victories for marriage equality. Recently the New Mexico Supreme Court and federal district judges in Virginia, Utah, Oklahoma, Ohio and Kentucky have ruled in favor of marriage for lesbian and gay couples.
Source: HRC Blog, “Historic Injunction for Marriage Equality in Texas,” February 26, 2014 by Paul Guequierre
BREAKING: Nine same-sex couples file suit against Colorado same-sex marriage ban
Nine Colorado same-sex couples seeking to marry in the state filed suit today in Denver District Court, with the claim that being denied a marriage license on Feb. 18 in Denver was a violation of their rights.The lawsuit argues that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, passed to the Colorado Constitution by voters in 2006 as Amendment 43, is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. This lawsuit comes on the heels of favorable rulings in Utah, Oklahoma and most recently Virginia, striking those states’ laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
The lawsuit identifies Gov. John Hickenlooper and Denver County Clerk and Recorder Debra Johnson as defendants, since both of them are responsible for upholding the existing state law in their jurisdictions, though both Hickenlooper and Johnson personally support extending marriage to lesbian and gay couples.
Neither the plaintiffs nor their lawyers are speaking to media today.
One of the couples in the lawsuit is Arvada couple Wendy and Michelle Alfredsen, whose family has been previously covered in Out Front. The text of the lawsuit states, “Despite believing that these laws are unconstitutional, defendant Johnson, in her official capacity and through her authorized deputy, refused their marriage license application because they are both women. Wendy and Michelle wish to marry in the state of Colorado where they live, and they and their child have been harmed by Colorado’s refusal to allow them to do so.”
While this is not the first litigation challenging Colorado’s law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, it is the first case to do so on such a scale and with such open backing of Colorado LGBT advocacy and policy groups. Five LGBT advocacy organizations in Colorado — One Colorado, the GLBT Community Center of Colorado, the ACLU of Colorado, the Colorado GLBT Bar Association and the Faithful Voices Coalition, released a joint statement in conjunction with the lawsuit.
From the press release:
Dave Montez, Executive Director of One Colorado:
“Just like thousands of other loving, committed couples across Colorado, the courageous plaintiffs who brought forth today’s case simply want to take care of their families and make a lifelong promise to the person they love. We share their goal of achieving marriage equality as quickly as possible, but we also want to ensure that victory endures – which means creating a climate where all Coloradans are free to live openly in their own communities. There’s a difference between having a civil union or marriage license and feeling comfortable enough to put a picture of your spouse on your desk at work. So as this issue moves toward resolution – either by our courts or at the ballot box – it’s critical that we keep building public support for the freedom to marry by talking to Coloradans about why marriage matters to our families. And One Colorado is proud to be doing that work right now, in every corner of our state.”
Nathan Woodliff-Stanley, Executive Director of ACLU of Colorado:
“The American Civil Liberties Union has been working for decades to secure marriage equality throughout the country, including here in Colorado. Over the past few years and especially the last few months, we’ve seen an astonishing and welcome shift toward Americans embracing equality and the freedom to marry. As the country progresses, Colorado’s marriage ban increasingly places our state at a competitive and moral disadvantage. We recognize the courage and resolve of these couples and their attorneys as they pursue, through the courts, the freedom to marry that all Coloradans deserve. And as advocates for full equality, we will continue to facilitate the important conversation across our state about why all families deserve the full dignity and protection that only marriage can provide.”
Mindy Barton, Legal Director of the GLBT Community Center of Colorado:
“The GLBT Community Center of Colorado has been supporting equality for gays and lesbians in this state for almost four decades. As this litigation moves forward, we are proud of the plaintiffs and their attorneys for standing up to show that no one should be treated differently just because of who they are and who they love. In parallel with these efforts, we know it’s vital to keep doing the important work of educating the public and talking to the people of Colorado about why marriage matters to all loving, committed couples – gay and straight alike. And The Center remains dedicated to having that important statewide conversation.”
Kyle Velte, President of the Colorado GLBT Bar Association:
“As an organization comprised of LGBT attorneys and focused on equality, it is inspiring to see this litigation filed. We recognize that litigation is one of several ways to achieve full marriage equality in this state, and we applaud the courage of the attorneys and plaintiffs – some of whom are members of our Association – as they move forward in this important legal fight.”
Jeremy Shaver, Spokesperson for the Faithful Voices Coalition, a coalition comprised of 215 faith leaders and 60 faith-based organizations in support of marriage equality:
“As people of faith, we believe in the Golden Rule – to treat others as we would want to be treated. In light of the litigation filed today, it is important to remember that freedom means freedom for everyone, and none of us should be treated differently just because of who we are. We believe marriage is best defined by love, commitment, and the ability to protect your family – and that is why we support the freedom to marry for gay and lesbian couples across our state.”
Source: “BREAKING: Nine same-sex couples file suit against Colorado same-sex marriage ban,” By Out Front Colorado, February 19, 2014 | 1:26 pm, (Updated: February 19, 2014 | 3:37 pm)
One Colorado’s V-Day Marriage Equality Video!
VIDEO: This Valentine’s Day, we are helping to spread the love by talking about why marriage matters to our families! Personal stories like the ones in our video below — highlighting loving, committed couples here in Colorado — are part of an important conversation that we need to be having with Coloradans in every corner of our state.
“Maple and Vine” – A new play written by Jordan Harrison exploring technology and society
The play “Maple and Vine”
by Jordan Harrison
Collaboration with Merely Players
A new play written by Jordan Harrison exploring technology and society
Friday–Saturday, March 14–15 at 7:30 p.m.
Thursday–Saturday, March 20–22 at 7:30 p.m.
$22 General / $19 DAC Members
Overwhelmed by their 21st century lives, Katha and Ryu discover a way to escape – moving to a planned community perpetually located in the 1950’s. Exchanging cellphones and computers for Tupperware parties and milkmen, the couple is confronted with the question: Which life is really simpler? Jordan Harrison’s clever and darkly comedic adult play won rave reviews when it recently played in New York. The play touches on sexism, racism, and homophobia, as the characters are confronted with the narrow world of the 1950s.
4cGLAD is delighted to collaborate with the Durango Arts Center and to be a proud Sponsor of the play “Maple and Vine.”
Victory in Virginia: Federal court rules on marriage equality
The Federal District Court ruled that Virginia’s marriage ban violates the U.S. Constitution. It said that loving couples like our plaintiffs, Tim Bostic & Tony London and Carol Schall & Mary Townley are entitled to the same basic rights and protections as every other American.
This is a monumental victory—for Virginia and our country—and the first of its kind for a state in the South.
While the decision will not go into effect immediately—it has been stayed pending appeal—this is a great cause for celebration.
Source: AFER, Marriage News Blog, “Victory in Virginia: Federal court rules on marriage equality”, February 13, 2014
Kansas House passes bill allowing refusal of service to same-sex couples
(CNN) — Denying services to same-sex couples may soon become legal in Kansas.
House Bill 2453 explicitly protects religious individuals, groups and businesses that refuse services to same-sex couples, particularly those looking to tie the knot.
It passed the state’s Republican-dominated House on Wednesday with a vote of 72-49, and has gone to the Senate for a vote.
Such a law may seem unnecessary in a state where same-sex marriage is banned, but some Kansas lawmakers think different.
They want to prevent religious individuals and organizations from getting sued, or otherwise punished, for not providing goods or services to gay couples — or for not recognizing their marriages or committed relationship as valid.
This includes employees of the state.
The politics
The law claims to protect the rights of religious people, but gender rights advocates such as Equality Kansas are dismayed.
“Kansans across the state are rightly appalled that legislators are spending their efforts to pass yet another piece of legislation that seeks to enshrine discrimination against gay and lesbian people into law,” state chairwoman Sandra Meade said.
“HB 2453 is a blatant attempt to maintain second-class citizen status for taxpaying gay and lesbian Kansans.”
Despite the blowback, its chances of passing seem pretty good.
Republicans dominate the state’s Senate and Gov. Sam Brownback is a conservative Christian known for taking a public stand against same-sex marriage.
Brownback has already praised the bill in an interview with a local newspaper.
“Americans have constitutional rights, among them the right to exercise their religious beliefs and the right for every human life to be treated with respect and dignity,” he told The Topeka Capital-Journal.
The details
HB 2453 is titled “An act concerning religious freedoms with respect to marriage” and covers many bases.
It reads, in part: “No individual or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:
“Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement.”
Anyone who turns away a gay couple not only can’t face a civil suit, but if anyone tries to sue, they could get nailed with the other side’s legal fees.
There are some small concession in the bill to gay couples.
If an employee at a nonreligious or government business refuses to serve a gay or lesbian couple for religious reasons, the manager is obligated to find another employee who will oblige.
It also explicitly says that the law does not authorize discrimination against anyone, including clergy, who performs or supports same-sex unions.
The trend
The Kansas bill would seem to buck the trend.
Laws approving same-sex marriage have recently passed in many parts of the United States, bringing the total number of states where it is legal to 17. Add to that the District of Columbia.
Worldwide, 16 other countries (and parts of Mexico) also have laws allowing same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships. Most of the nations are in Europe and South America.
Judge rules Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages
Nevada stops defending ban against same-sex marriage
- Gay and lesbian couples in Kansas may be refused service more often
- A bill protects individuals, groups and organizations that turn them away for religious reasons
- It “seeks to enshrine discrimination,” rights group leader says
- If one employee refuses to serve, the employer must ask others to
Source: “Kansas House passes bill allowing refusal of service to same-sex couples,” By Ben Brumfield and Dana Ford, CNN, updated 7:59 AM EST, Thu February 13, 2014
CNN’s Sonya Hamasaki contributed to this report.
Kentucky ban on gay marriages from other states struck down by federal judge
In a ruling that could open the door to gay marriage in Kentucky, a federal judge on 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.”
MORE | Bluegrass Poll says Kentucky attitudes shifting on gay marriage
MORE | Like us on Facebook, join the discussion about this story
Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling throwing out the Defense of Marriage Act, Heyburn struck down the portion of Kentucky’s 2004 constitutional amendment that said “only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky.”
The suit asked only that Kentucky be required to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere; it is unclear whether the ruling also opens the door to allowing gay couples to get married in Kentucky, which the state’s constitution forbids.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers say they believe it may, while the Kentucky Attorney General’s Office, which defended the case, is reviewing that question, spokeswoman Allison Martin said.
Heyburn did not rule that Kentucky must allow gay marriages to be performed in the state.In a 23-page ruling, Heyburn said Kentucky’s sole justification for the the amendment was that was it was “rationally related to the legitimate government interest of preserving the state’s institution of traditional marriage.”
But Heyburn noted that over the past 40 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to allow mere tradition to justify marriage statutes that violate individual liberties, such as the ban on interracial marriages that was once the law in Virginia, Kentucky and other states.
Heyburn also rejected the arguments of the Family Foundation of Kentucky — that recognizing same-sex marriages would undermine the fundamental role of marriage in ensuring procreation.
Heyburn said there is no requirement that opposite-sex couples agree to procreate to get married.
He also said “no one has offered any evidence that recognizing same-sex marriages will harm opposite-sex marriages.”
Responding to the ruling, Martin Cochran, an analyst for the Family Foundation of Kentucky, said in a news release that it “nullifies the right of Kentucky to determine policies regarding marriage” and that “Kentucky marriage policy will now be dictated from places like Boston and San Francisco.”
“If a state like Utah were ever to legalize polygamy, Kentucky would be forced to recognize it under this decision,” Cothran added.
Cothran said Kentucky voters will be disappointed with the practical effects of this decision. “This decision puts Kentucky voters on notice that if their reasons for defining marriage as between a man and a woman don’t correspond with the political ideology of liberal judges, their votes don’t count.”
The suit was filed on behalf of Gregory Bourke and Michael Deleon of Louisville, who were married in Ontario, Canada, in 2004; Jimmy Meade and Luther Barlowe, who live in Bardstown and were lawfully married in Davenport, Iowa, in 2009; Randell Johnson and Paul Campion, who live in Louisville and were married in Riverside, Calif., in 2008; and Kimberly Franklin and Tamera Boyd, who live in Cropper and were married in Stratford, Conn., in 2010.
The complaint also named their children.
Kentucky Ruling is the Latest Sign of Growing Marriage Equality Momentum
Today, Kentucky became the latest state to have its ban on marriage equality ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge, and the case will soon join others based in Utah, Nevada, Ohio and Oklahoma at the appellate level.
U.S. District Court Judge John G. Heyburn II ruled that Kentucky ’s marriage amendment violates the constitutional principal of equal protection and that the Commonwealth cannot refuse to recognize valid same-sex marriages conducted in other states. The judge, who was appointed to the bench by President George H. W. Bush, sided with four plaintiff couples who had legally married elsewhere before seeking state recognition in Kentucky.
In light of the news, HRC President Chad Griffin issued the following statement:
“Today, this nation took another bold step toward its fundamental constitutional principles of equal justice under the law. This amendment is unconstitutional, and we believe the only true solution to the injustice faced by these plaintiffs is full marriage equality. We hope all parties act swiftly and fairly to allow all loving and committed Kentucky couples the opportunity to marry in the state they call home.”
This new marriage ruling is not final and is likely to be appealed, joining other federal court cases in Utah, Nevada, Ohio and Oklahoma—all of which are currently at the appellate level. This week, the Attorney General in Nevada withdrew that state’s defense of its marriage ban in a case currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. A new ruling is expected soon in a federal marriage case in Virginia (Bostic v. Rainey).
Source: HRC Blog, February 12, 2014