Gay marriage rights denied by Maine voters - Proposition 1 passes

Gay-marriage foes claim victory in Maine

 

By GLENN ADAMS and DAVID CRARY (AP)


PORTLAND, Maine — Gay-marriage opponents are claiming victory in a closely watched referendum in Maine on a new state law that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed.

The law in question was passed by the Legislature in May but never took effect because of a petition drive by conservatives.

With more than 84 percent of precincts reporting Tuesday, the side seeking to repeal the law had 53 percent of the vote. Their campaign organizer, Frank Schubert, claimed victory and declared that Maine voters had helped preserve the institution of marriage.

Gay-marriage supporters refused to concede, holding out hope that that the tide might turn as the final returns came in. They had been hoping Maine would become the first state to approve same-sex marriage at the ballot box.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information.

AP's earlier story is below.

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — Gay marriage appeared in danger in Maine in a closely watched referendum Tuesday that the nation's gay rights movement had hoped would yield a breakthrough victory at the ballot box.

Voters were asked to decide whether to repeal or affirm a state law that would allow gay couples to wed. The law was passed by the Legislature in May but never took effect because of a petition drive by conservatives.

With 481 of 608 precincts reporting, the pro-repeal side had 52 percent to 48 percent for gay-marriage's supporters.

A vote to uphold the law would mark the first time that the electorate in any state endorsed gay marriage. That could energize activists nationwide and blunt conservative claims that same-sex marriage is being foisted on states by judges or lawmakers over the will of the public.

However, repeal — in New England, the region of the country most supportive of gay couples — would be another heartbreaking defeat for the marriage-equality movement, following the vote against gay marriage in California a year ago.

It would also mark the first time voters had torpedoed a gay-marriage law enacted by a legislature. When Californians rejected same-sex marriage, it was in response to a court ruling, not legislation.

Maine's secretary of state, Matthew Dunlap, said turnout seemed higher than expected for an off-year election and voter interest appeared intense. Even before Tuesday, more than 100,000 people — out of about 1 million registered voters — had voted by absentee ballot or early voting.

Frank Schubert, organizer for the campaign to repeal gay marriage, said a victory by his side would be a "backbreaking loss" for gay-rights activists, given the heavy mobilization and fundraising efforts put into their campaign.

Jesse Connolly, manager for the pro-gay marriage campaign, said the results bore out his prediction of a "razor thin" election.

"At the end of the day we're going to see a positive result," he said late Tuesday. "We might not see that tonight. It might be tomorrow."

Five other states have legalized gay marriage — Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut — but all did so through legislation or court rulings, not by popular vote. In contrast, constitutional amendments banning gay marriage have been approved in all 30 states where they have been on the ballot.

"If we don't win, then Maine will have its place in infamy because no state has ever voted for homosexual marriage," said Chuck Schott of Portland, who stood near a polling place in Maine's biggest city with a pro-repeal campaign sign.

Another Portland resident, Sarah Holman said she was "very torn" but decided — despite her conservative upbringing — to vote in favor of letting gays marry.
"They love and they have the right to love. And we can't tell somebody how to love," said Holman, 26.

Hundreds of gay-marriage supporters gathered in a Portland hotel ballroom in the evening to await the results. On display was a three-tiered wedding cake topped with two grooms on one side, two brides on the other, and the words "We All Do."

In addition to reaching out to young people who flocked to the polls for President Barack Obama a year ago, gay-marriage defenders tried to appeal to Maine voters' independent streak — a Yankee spirit of fairness and live-and-let-live.

The other side based many of its campaign ads on claims — disputed by state officials — that the new law would mean "homosexual marriage" would be taught in public schools.

Both sides in Maine drew volunteers and contributions from out of state, but the money edge went to the campaign in defense of gay marriage, Protect Maine Equality. It raised $4 million, compared with $2.5 million for Stand for Marriage Maine.

Elsewhere on Tuesday, voters in Washington state decided whether to uphold or overturn a recently expanded domestic partnership law that entitles same-sex couples to the same state-granted rights as heterosexual married couples. And in Kalamazoo, Mich., voters approved a measure that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Among other ballot items across the country:

• In Ohio, voters approved a measure that will allow casinos in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Toledo. Four similar measures had been defeated in recent years, but this time the state's reeling economy gave extra weight to arguments that the new casinos would create thousands of jobs.
  
  
• Maine voters defeated a measure that would have limited state and local government spending by holding it to the rate of inflation plus population growth. A similar measure was on the ballot in Washington state.
  
  
• Another measure in Maine, which easily won approval, will allow dispensaries to supply marijuana to patients for medicinal purposes. It is a follow-up to a 1999 measure that legalized medical marijuana but did not set up a distribution system.
  
  
• The Colorado ski town of Breckenridge voted overwhelmingly to allow adults to legally possess small amounts of marijuana.

Read more...

Ben & Jerry's Renames Ice Cream to Hubby Hubby in Support of Gay Marriage in Vermont

BURLINGTON, Vt.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Ben & Jerry’s, known for its euphoric ice cream flavors and dedication to social justice, celebrates the beginning of the freedom to marry for gay and lesbian couples in Vermont with the symbolic renaming of its well-known ice cream flavor “Chubby Hubby” to “Hubby Hubby.” In partnership with Freedom to Marry, Ben & Jerry’s aims to raise awareness of the importance of marriage equality and, to show its support, will serve “Hubby Hubby” sundaes in Vermont Scoop Shops throughout the month of September.

Ben & Jerry’s has a long history of commitment to social justice, including gay rights. Its partnership with Freedom to Marry, a national leader in the movement for marriage equality, aims to raise awareness of the importance of marriage equality and to encourage other states to follow the blazing trails of Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Maine. Freedom to Marry promotes the national conversation about why marriage equality matters and brings together partner organizations into a larger whole – a shared civil rights campaign.

“At the core of Ben & Jerry’s values, we believe that social justice can and should be something that every human being is entitled to,” said Walt Freese, Chief Executive Officer of Ben & Jerry’s. “From the very beginning of our 30 year history, we have supported equal rights for all people. The legalization of marriage for gay and lesbian couples in Vermont is certainly a step in the right direction and something worth celebrating with peace, love and plenty of ice cream.”

To kick off the celebration, Ben & Jerry’s and Freedom to Marry will be publicly supporting the first marriages of gay and lesbian couples in Vermont and raising awareness for marriage equality and how to take action by driving consumers to www.freedomtomarry.org. By logging onto the site, people can show their support, sign a Marriage Resolution Petition, have conversations about why marriage matters and learn more about how they can support the cause.

“It’s not polite to talk with your mouth full, but the most important thing that all us ice cream lovers can do to support the freedom to marry is speak with the people we know about why marriage matters and the need to end marriage discrimination in every state”,” said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry. “Thanks to Ben & Jerry’s, starting those needed conversations has never been sweeter – and thanks to Freedom to Marry, we all now have a great excuse to eat more ice cream.”

For more information on why marriage equality matters and to take action in your state, please log on to www.freedtomarry.org. To find your local Ben & Jerry’s Scoop Shop or learn more about Ben & Jerry’s social mission, log onto www.Facebook.com/benjerry.

www.benjerry.com

Read more...

Judge sets January trial date for Prop. 8 case

In a two-hour hearing Wednesday morning, Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the U.S. District Court’s Northern District of California set Jan. 11 as the date for the trial to begin in a federal challenge to California’s recently enacted ban on marriage for same-sex couples. And the judge ruled the city of San Francisco may play a supporting role in the legal fight.

Walker ended the hearing by lobbing a gentle chide to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, one of the government defendants in the case. Schwarzenegger has not disputed any of the lawsuits’ allegations. The governor has indicated he is not going to actively defend Prop 8, but he has not made a legal statement about the questions raised by the lawsuit.

Noting the current budget crises and wildfires raging in the state, Walker told Schwarzenegger’s representative at the hearing he wished "the governor and other public officials would weigh in on these constitutional issues."

Theodore Olson and David Boies, the attorneys representing two same-sex couples challenging Prop 8, had wanted a trial to begin this year. Charles Cooper, the attorney representing Yes on 8, had said no trial was necessary, but that if one were held it should not start until July. Walker made it clear he wanted a trail record for any future appeal. And he told the attorneys to begin the work of gathering evidence, identifying expert witnesses, and taking depositions immediately. A pre-trial conference has been scheduled for Dec. 16.

"We have a situation where we will have a resolution now," Boies said in a press conference after the hearing. "The question is whether we are going to include gays and lesbians in the umbrella of all human beings. This is about a fundamental human right. The Supreme Court of the United States has made it clear that removing rights a state has already recognized is a violation of the right to equal protection."

State Attorney General Jerry Brown, who had filed papers supporting a previous unsuccessful challenge to Prop 8 in state court, is one of the defendants in the federal case. He has said his office agrees with the plaintiffs’ assertion California’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples violates 14th Amendment’s equal protection and the due process provisions and will not play an active role to defend it.

In his ruling, Walker limited San Francisco’s role to the governmental interests and directed District Attorney Dennis Herrera’s office to work with Brown’s office to identify those governmental concerns. Herrera said those financial concerns included such things as the impact on tourism income and public health care costs.

In other rulings Wednesday, Walker denied a petition from Campaign for California Families, which led the ballot campaign to pass Prop 8, from joining the defense team. The judge blocked Our Family Coalition, Lavender Seniors of the East Bay, and Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays from joining the plaintiffs’ side.

Both parties are trying to see which of several dozen stipulations of fact on which they can agree. They both agree, for instance, marriage is of deep meaning to Californians, but the Prop 8 attorneys do not agree with the challengers’ assertion that marriage "is a public expression of love and long-term commitment."

One of the marriage points of contention is over the relative historical stability of marriage as a civil institution. The challengers in court papers filed Monday stipulated, "Civil marriage has never been a static institution. Historically, it has changed, sometimes dramatically, to reflect the changing needs, values and understanding of our evolving society."

Prop 8 attorneys countered.

"Civil marriage has been a remarkably static institution," they said. "It has rarely changed throughout history, and then only in minor ways. Despite any changes in its precise contours, it always has been and nearly always still is limited to the union of a man and a woman."

The two sides also clash in their submissions on whether sexual orientation can or should be changed and the extent of gay political power.


COURTESY:

Edge San Francisco

Roger Brigham,  EDGE San Francisco Editor
Thursday Aug 20, 2009

Read more...

NY Gay Marriage Bill Could Go to Vote Soon - NY Governor to Call Special Sessions for Hung Senate

New York Governor David Paterson ordered the state Senate into special session beginning Tuesday in an effort to end the struggle for power over the chamber. After a staged coup by Republican Senators two weeks ago, the New York Senate became "hung" when the GOP leader (a Democrat who originally joined the renegade Republican takeover) stepped down and left the chamber vote at a tied 31-31, an incomplete forum for passing bi-partisan legislation.

For LGBT citizens of New York, this could mean that the proposed gay marriage bill by Governor Paterson may go up for vote after all. When polled by NY1, a local news station, nearly two thirds of the Senators either did not respond or indicated that they did not support same sex marriage.

The Governor said he will make Senators stay in Albany indefinitely until they act.

According to the Associated Press, Patterson said "I will convene a special session every day until they do. That means Saturday, Sundays, that includes July 4. There will be no excuses and there will be no tolerance to noncompliance with this order."

The 2009 session ends today.

Read more...

Dick Cheney Announces 'Support' for Gay Marriage, But Only Half Ass

Former Vice President Dick Cheney spoke out at the National Press Club on Monday, announcing his support of gay marriage, but only on the state level.

"I think that freedom means freedom for everyone," replied the former V.P. "As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don't support. I do believe that the historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis. ... But I don't have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that." [quote courtesy The Huffington Post]

Gee, thanks Cheney.  But, personally, I believe that basic human rights like marriage should not be considered on a state-by-state basis.  It only further alienates Americans in this union we call a country.  Are we Americans 1st or are we state residents first?  I'm confused.

I think I'm an American first - I just happen to reside in New York.  I can choose to live anywhere in America because I love the country and I have the basic right to move to any U.S. state as a citizen.  I should be afforded other basis human rights that my country affords me as a citizen of its union, like marriage.  If there's too much power put on the state level in terms of these rights...what's next?  States succeeding from the union?  I mean - come on already.  Thanks, Cheney, for HALF ASS standing up for your lesbian daughter.  I wonder how she'll feel if she gets married one day, but it's not recognized by other states that she visits or decides to move to....

Pushing these kinds of things back to the state is a total cop-out in my opinion, and it's a completely political thing to do.  Think about it:  if these decisions were made federally, then politicians would have to answer to the constituents who fund their programs - constituents who may disagree with politicians' decisions.  Legalizing same sex marriage on the federal level would piss off all those private sector investors who urge politicians to "move" bills through the hopper.

Legalizing marriage in Massachusetts is great.  But, not legalizing it in California only further alienates U.S. citizens as free peoples.  This divides our country; it does not bring us together.

On the other hand, I understand that some decisions should be on a state-by-state basis.  Giving ALL the power to the U.S. government would create a totalitarian structure, thus depleting democractic core values and principals.

Basic human rights, however...those should be a no-brainer for a country - these rights should be afforded to EVERY citizen of a country, not on a state-by-state basis.

Read more...

California Supreme Court Prop 8 Ruling Challenged, Cases to be Heard in U.S. District Court

On Tuesday, May 26, the California Supreme Court ruled six to one in favor of upholding Proposition 8, the state amendment that denied same sex couples the right to marry.  The initial passing of Prop 8 in November 2008 also revoked the 18,000 marriage licenses granted previously in California.  Although the Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, it ruled to recognize the 18,000 marriage licenses that were granted prior to the Supreme Court's decision.

Tuesday's decision caused an uproar when thousands took to the streets in major cities all across America to rally against Prop 8.  Organized by Robyn Tyler, a plaintiff in one of three cases filed against the State of California, the "Day of Decision" rally brought together congressional district leaders, LGBT rights organizations, members from LAMBDA Legal, LGBT citizens and straight allies to send a clear message that the fight for equality is not over.

Day of Decision rallies merely took a seat behind other breaking news in the media when President Obama nominated the first ever Latina to the U.S. Supreme Court the same day as California's ruling on Prop 8.

Tyler announced in a statement to Daily Queer News on May 27, 2009:

"No civil rights movement has ever lost.  Never.  We will win.  It’s not an “if” its a when.  Only we are going to have to fight like hell.  Shame on the California Supreme Court.  Six of them, except Justice Moreno, issued a cowardly decision based on one word...not amendment, not revision, but re-election.

I pledge that my wife Diane Olson and  I, and the 18,000 other couples who were married in the California prior to Nov. 5, 2009, will be part of a grassroots army of love warriors, and will never stop fighting until all of our rights are won, here in California, and on a Federal level for all of us in every State. Let us take our anger, and our passion to the streets, and never, ever get off. And if the National Democratic party does not, after 35 years of promises to our community, make sure we have full equal rights in this country, the gay divorce you are going to see is the gay communities divorce from the Democratic party.   We are a civil rights movement.  It’s time we acted like one."

The three cases filed against the State of California have now been elevated and are set to be heard federally in a U.S. District Court on July 2, 2009, sources say.

Stay up-to-date on all advances of marriage equality and LGBT rights issues by subscribing to Anything But Straight Blog.

Read more...

California Supreme Court to Decide on Prop 8 Tuesday May 26 @ 9 a.m. PST

Proposition 8, the California state bill that denied and revoked same sex marriage licenses, will go in front of the Supreme Court today at 9 a.m. Pacific Standard Time.

The controversial bill has received millions of dollars in funding from right-wing conservatives leading up to the initial passing of the state constitutional ammendment during the 2008 November election.

While millions of people worldwide rejoiced at the election of President Barrack Obama, millions of others were shocked at the result of Proposition 8, especially in a seemingly liberal state like California.

Expect to watch live coverage of the Supreme Court's decision on CNN.

Read more...

Proposition 8 Campaign Can't Hide Donors' Names

Proposition 8 proponents' complaint that a California campaign-finance disclosure law has led to harassment of same-sex marriage opponents failed to sway a federal judge, who refused Thursday to throw out the law or shield donors' names.

"If there ever needs to be sunshine on a particular issue, it's a ballot measure," U.S. District Judge Morrison England said after a one-hour hearing in his Sacramento courtroom.

A lawyer for the Prop. 8 campaign said it would ask an appeals court to modify or overturn the law, which requires disclosure of all contributors of $100 or more.

Prop. 8, approved by voters Nov. 4, amended the state Constitution to recognize only marriage between a man and a woman, overturning the state Supreme Court's May 15 ruling that gay and lesbian couples have a constitutional right to marry.

Same-sex couples and local governments led by the city of San Francisco have filed suits to overturn Prop. 8, a case that the state's high court could hear as early as the first week in March.

The federal lawsuit, unrelated to the validity of Prop. 8, was filed Jan. 8 by the ballot measure's sponsoring committee, Protect Marriage. The suit said Internet disclosure of donors' names and other identifying information in state-mandated reports has led to consumer boycotts, picketing and even death threats.

By requiring disclosure, "The government is getting in the middle (of the issue) and saying, 'Here are the people to go after,' " Richard Coleson, a lawyer for the committee, told England.

He argued that the $100 disclosure requirement - adopted by California voters in 1974 - should be struck down, modified to raise the dollar limits, or at least not applied to Prop. 8's contributors. As a first step, Coleson said, the campaign should be exempted from the state's post-election contribution report, due Monday.

Otherwise, he said, in future initiative campaigns "you will have donations dry up, and one side will be able to overcome another by intimidation and not by persuasion."

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld campaign disclosure laws in 1976 but ruled in 1982 that the Socialist Workers Party in Ohio could shield its donors' names because of a history of attacks and reprisals.

Protect Marriage argued that it was entitled to the same exemption because of retaliation against some of its contributors, but lawyers for the state said the two cases weren't comparable. They noted that the Prop. 8 campaign raised nearly $30 million from 36,000 donors.

If the Prop. 8 campaign was exempted from disclosure because of reports of harassments of individual donors, said Deputy Attorney General Zackery Morazzini, the same case could be made for any controversial initiative. Courts would have to "keep the entire California electorate in the dark as to who was funding these ballot measures," he said.

England agreed.

He noted that some of the reprisals reported by the Prop. 8 committee involve legal activities such as boycotts and picketing. Other alleged actions, such as death threats, mailings of white powder and vandalism, may constitute "repugnant and despicable acts" but can be reported to law enforcement, the judge said.

Even if there have been illegal reprisals, that would be insufficient reason to grant a wholesale exemption for a multimillion-dollar initiative campaign, England said. He also rejected the Prop. 8 campaign's argument that the $100 disclosure limit established in 1974 should be increased for inflation, saying some states require reports of contributions as low as $25 and the Supreme Court has never invalidated them.

Any desire by donors to remain anonymous is outweighed by the state's authority to require "full and fair disclosure of everyone who's involved in these political campaigns," England said.

Protect Marriage still has a request pending before England to require the state to remove its past disclosure reports from the Internet. But the state says such an order would be futile because the reports have been widely distributed on private Web sites.

Coleson said the campaign would take its case against the disclosure law to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Referring to the donors whose names will appear in Monday's public report, campaign spokesman Frank Schubert said England's ruling "puts 1,600 people in harm's way."

Courtesy:  Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle

Read more...

Add Your Name To Overturn Proposition 8

Be part of the largest LGBT civil rights movement in the United States since Stonewall. Join the fight to overturn Proposition 8, a 2008 California state constitutional ammendment that denied marriage rights to LGBT citizens.

This monumental movement has already begun to be the catalyst in pushing forward LGBT equality across America. Be part of history by standing up and taking action now.

For the third of five actions to overturn Prop 8, add your name to a scrolling list of members at www.eqca.org.

Have one minute?
Add your name to scroll on the homepage of www.eqca.org. Show the world you support the freedom to marry and oppose equality being put up for a vote.

Have two minutes?
Call, email, text your friends and family to add their names as well. Follow up with at least three people personally and tell them why this is so important to you.

Add Your Name To Overturn 8

The day after Prop 8 passed, Equality California—on behalf of our members—challenged Prop 8 in the California Supreme Court. On March 5, our case will be heard.

And by being a member of EQCA—the only organizational plaintiff in the case—you are a part of this moment in history.

We know that being out as an LGBT person, or as an advocate for equality, is essential to our fight.

That is why we are asking you to come out in a big way—by adding your name to a scroll of supporters on the homepage of eqca.org.

Take a minute to add your name to publicly show your support for the freedom to marry and for protecting minorities from having their equality put up for a popular vote.

Add Your Name To Overturn 8

The brilliant attorneys at the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, ACLU, Munger Tolles and Olson, LLP and the Law Office of David C. Codell have worked tirelessly so we all live in a state where equality can’t be voted away. Now each of us must do our part.

While our opponents try to hide who their supporters are, we can show the world that we are everywhere and are proud to be on the side of equality. Add your name now.

Add Your Name To Overturn 8

And what about the people you care about and who care about you?

Forward this email to everyone one your list and ask them to become part of this historic moment by joining you. And follow up with at least three personally—tell them why it matters to you that they add their names to the list. And explain that the case is about more than marriage—as important as that is—but is about keeping other minorities from having their rights voted on.

Add Your Name To Overturn 8

By showing our neighbors, co-workers, family and friends that we are proud to be out in support of the freedom to marry and for the rights of other groups who will be at risk if Prop 8 is allowed to stand—and asking them to join us—we will build a true state of equality here in California.

In Solidarity,

Geoff Kors
Executive Director
Equality California

P.S. This is the third of five actions to overturn Prop 8 before EQCA’s Lobby Day to Overturn 8 next week. Keep looking for more actions until the big day, February 17!

www.eqca.org

Read more...

Proposition 8 - The Musical starring Jack Black and an All-star Cast

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Read more...

LGBT Organizations in LA to Host Virtual Town Hall Meeting - Open to Public

A virtual town hall meeting entitled “Prop 8: The Facts and Future,” accessible to anyone with a computer and Internet connection.

The 90-minute online forum will be hosted by Karen Ocamb, news editor at Frontiers and IN Los Angeles. It will be broadcast live via streaming audio. Audience members can send questions to the moderator in advance at: TownHallModerator@gmail.com or send questions/comments to her during the broadcast.

The town hall meeting will be recorded for those who are not able to participate in the live session.

Panel members include:

• Amy Balliett, founder of Join the Impact
• Lorri L. Jean, CEO of the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center
• Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California
• Rev. Eric Lee, president/CEO of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference Los Angeles
• Shannon Minter, legal director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights
• John A. Perez, assembly member-elect of California’s 46th District
• Steve Smith, No on 8 senior campaign consultant of Dewey Square.

To join the town hall meeting, visit: www.lagaycenter.org/Prop8TownHall

Read more...

Proposition 8 Contributors - Search the Database

No 'Milk' for Cinemark!

Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage in California, has become the most expensive social-issue election in the history of the country, according to Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles. By Oct. 18, the campaigns for and against the proposition had raised a combined $56 million, nearly evenly split between the two sides.

Contributions to the campaign to pass Proposition 8 helped fund anti-gay advertisements that led up to the election. Political contributions are public domain, open to the public for viewing.

You may be very surprised to see who made substantial monetary contributions to fund this hatred campaign. CEOs of major coporations, like Alan Stock of Cinemark Theaters, donated thousands of dollars to SUPPORT Proposition 8 (to ban gay marriage). The significance of Mr. Stock's contribution lies in the fact that Cinemark will be screening the upcoming film Milk, the story of Harvey Milk, one of America's most memorable gay rights advocates. Mr. Stock essentially will greatly profit from showing Milk in Cinemark Theaters.

Now, you can search the database, thanks to an analysis performed by a reporting specialist for the Associated Press.

Search the database here:

http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/

Read more...

Same Sex Marriage Legal in Connecticut

Connecticut’s Supreme Court ruled Friday that gay couples have the right to marry, making the state the third behind Massachusetts and California to legalize such unions through the courts.

The ruling comes just weeks before Californians go to the polls on a historic gay-marriage ballot question, the first time the issue will be put before voters.

Connecticut’s court ruled 4-3 that gay and lesbian couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry under the state constitution. It was a logical next step for a state that was the first to voluntarily pass laws affirming and protecting civil unions.

"I can’t believe it. We’re thrilled, we’re absolutely overjoyed. We’re finally going to be able, after 33 years, to get married," said Janet Peck of Colchester, who was a plaintiff with her partner, Carole Conklin.

"I’m just ecstatic. It’s such a relief, the joy of it," said another plaintiff, Jodi Mock of West Hartford, who sued with partner Elizabeth Kerrigan.

"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote in the majority opinion that overturned a lower court finding.

"To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others," Palmer wrote.

The Family Institute of Connecticut, a political action group that opposes gay marriage, called the ruling outrageous.

"Even the legislature, as liberal as ours, decided that marriage is between a man and a woman," said executive director Peter Wolfgang. "This is about our right to govern ourselves. It is bigger than gay marriage."

Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Friday that she disagreed with the ruling, but will not fight it.

"The Supreme Court has spoken," Rell said in a statement. "I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision - either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution - will not meet with success."

But House Speaker Jim Amann, a Democrat, said he expects the issue to be taken up by the General Assembly.

"The legislature, as the lawmaking branch of government, debated this issue and made Connecticut one of the few states that offers civil union status for same-sex couples," Amman said.

The lawsuit was brought in 2004 after eight same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses and sued, saying their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process were violated.

They said the state’s marriage law, if applied only to heterosexual couples, denied them of the financial, social and emotional benefits of marriage.

Peck said that as soon as the decision was announced, the couple started crying and hugging while juggling excited phone calls from her brother and other friends and family.

"We’ve always dreamed of being married," she said. "Even though we were lesbians and didn’t know if that would ever come true, we always dreamed of it."

by Dave Collins
Associated Press

Read more...