GODLESS WEDNESDAY: "Religiously Unaffiliated" Are A Plurality In 13 States!

The Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) has set up an American Values Atlas website which allows you to see the geographic distribution of the various polling data they have collected about Americans.

One result that gladdens my heart is the news that the percentage of what PRRI called "religiously unaffiliated" (and who I would call "godless") is now 22% of Americans overall, and among younger people it is closer to 34%.

In fact, in numerous states (13) a plurality of respondents are godless! Some of those states are Oregon (37 percent), New Hampshire (35 percent), Washington State (33 percent), Vermont (32 percent) and Montana (29 percent).

That's all the geographic-based data on godlessness for today!

CELEBRITY FRIDAY: Kate Brown To Become United States First Openly Bisexual Governor (D-OR)

Kate Brown will become the nation's first openly bisexual Governor today when she is sworn in next Wednesday after Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber resigned announced his resignation in the wake of an ethics scandal. Brown was formerly the Secretary of State of Oregon (since the state does not have a Lieutenant Governor!)

The Washington Post The Fix blog reports:

An open LGBT governor has never been elected, although New Jersey did have an openly gay governor briefly in 2004, after Gov. Jim McGreevey (D) came out as gay and admitted an affair with a man he had appointed to a key job. He resigned three months later. 

Brown is married to husband Dan Little; she has publicly discussed her bisexuality in past campaigns. She is already arguably the highest-ranking bisexual elected official in America; Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) became the first bisexual member of Congress in 2013. There are about 525 openly LGBT public officials in office at all levels of government, according to the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund. Most of them are Democrats, said interim executive director Denis Dison, and only about 20 are Republicans.

Strange we haven't had an openly LGBT person elected as Governor yet, but maybe that will happen soon, maybe if Brown decides to run for the office in 2016?

9th Circuit Refuses To Reconsider Sexual Orientation Discrimination Ruling

Big news from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals! The now fully staffed court has denied a sua ponte request to reconsider their important ruling in SmithKline Beecham. That case is the about juror discrimination where the 9th Circuit ruled that sexual orientation is not a valid characteristic for removing a potential juror, by declaring that sexual orientation is a suspect classification that requires heightened scrutiny. A majority of judges on the 26-member court agreed that an en banc hearing was not warranted, while the three most conservative members of the court signed on to a 10-page decision dissenting in the decision of the court. Neither of the parties in the underlying dispute had asked the court to review the question of what standard of review sexual orientation should receive, that was instigated by an anonymous member of the 9th Circuit. The fact that the decision is now final means that in order to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in the 9th Circuit's jurisdictional area, an exceedingly persuasive reason has to be given. As  Joe Jervis says, this will almost certainly lead to marriage equality in the states of the 9th Circuit which do not have it yet: Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana and Nevada.

SCOTUS Blog also discusses the implications of the permanence of SmithKline:

 Of the twelve federal appeals courts to confront the issue, ten have taken the position that challenges to laws which allegedly discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation should be analyzed only by the least-demanding standard — that is, “rational basis” review.   Using that standard, at least some courts have upheld bans on same-sex marriage. 

[...] 

In the cases now awaiting Ninth Circuit review, state officials are attempting to defend same-sex marriage bans only in the Idaho case.  State officials in Oregon and Nevada have given up the defense of such bans, and Hawaii has moved on its own to allow such marriages.   Because the panel’s decision in the SmithKline decision is now binding in that circuit, in the wake of denial of en banc review, it sets the standard for judging the state bans throughout the geographic region included in the Ninth Circuit.

The other appellate court to decide sexual orientation should receive heightened scrutiny is the 2nd U.S. Circuit, which did so in their ruling which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act in Windsor v United States, a decision the Supreme Court upheld last year (but did not address the level of review question).

SCOTUS Denies NOM Request For Stay On Oregon Marriage Equality

Marriage equality came to Oregon on May 19 when openly gay federal district court judge Michael McSchane struck down the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. The National Organization for Marriage was displeased with this and filed a motion to intervene in the case when the attorney general and governor of the state indicated they agreed with the decision, going to the extreme position of asking Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy to issue a stay while they appeal the decision of the court to deny their request to intervene in the case.

Today the United States Supreme Court denied NOM's motion for a stay so marriage equality is safe for the near and foreseeable future in Oregon, as well as 18 other states where marriage equality is the law of the land.

The appeal of the intervention denial now continues at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but same-sex couples will continue to be able to marry during the time that is happening. 

The 9th Circuit, which is hearing that appeal, denied NOM’s request to stop the trial court decision striking down the ban from going into effect during the appeal. NOM then went to Justice Anthony Kennedy to ask him to stop the marriages while that appeal is pending before the 9th Circuit. 

Kennedy, who hears procedural matters brought to the court from the 9th Circuit, referred the request to the full court, which denied the request without comment on Tuesday. 

NOM’s appeal of the denial to intervene is the only matter left pending in the case because Oregon state officials had not fought the lawsuit, having agreed with the plaintiffs that the ban is unconstitutional. They had said that they would not appeal the decision if U.S. District Court Judge Michael McShane struck down the ban.

The only state that has had marriage equality is California, and it has since had marriage equality restored since last summer's Supreme Court decision in Hollingsworth v Perry.

Hat/tip to Buzz Feed

POLL: National Suport for Marriage Equality Now At 55%

The most recent Gallup poll indicates that support for marriage equality among the American people is at an all-time high of 55% nationwide. That is up 1 percentage point from last year's previous high water mark of 54%.

While recognizing the recent victories in Oregon and Pennsylvania, Gallup notes that there is still a majority against marriage equality among those who live in the Southern U.S.:

An important region on the radar of gay marriage advocates is the South, where a condensed cluster of bans on same-sex marriage exists. All southern states have constitutional bans on same-sex marriage, from Louisiana in 2004 through North Carolina in 2012, though bans have been challenged in Arkansas and Kentucky. The South (48%) is the only region where same-sex marriage support falls below the 50% mark. Support is highest in the East, where two-thirds (67%) of residents support gay marriage. 

For proponents of marriage equality, years of playing offense have finally paid off as this movement has reached a tipping point in recent years -- both legally and in the court of public opinion. The latest gains are in Pennsylvania and Oregon, with court challenges in Utah, Oklahoma, and Virginia likely to be determined soon. Having spent years trying to influence state lawmakers to take action, gay marriage supporters' game strategy has officially pivoted to challenging state bans in court. One key question in the legal battle is the constitutionality of voter-approved state bans. 

Younger Americans are more supportive of same-sex marriage, and this will likely continue to drive overall support at the gradual pace it has increased over recent years. While the map of gay marriage is regionally diverse, it is not so in the South, where traditional marriage advocates still hold a majority of support. Public opinion in southern states will be a barometer to observe, as the bulk of future legal battles will play out there in the months and years to come.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God 

19 And Counting! Federal Judge Strikes Down Pennsylvania Ban On Marriage Equality

For the second time in two days, a federal judge has brought marriage equality to a blue state. Yesterday, openly gay federal judge (nominated by President Barack Obama in 2013) Michael McShane ruled that Oregon's marriage laws were unconstitutionally prohibiting same-sex marriage. Today federal judge John E. Jones II (nominated by George W. Bush in 2002) struck down Pennsylvania's state ban on marriage equality. The attorney general of Pennsylvania refused to defend her state's statutory ban on same-sex marriage. Pennsylvania does not have an LGBT non-discrimination law or a constitutional ban on recognizing or invalidating same-sex marriages.

In the case of Whitewood v. Wolf the judge concluded that

Based on the foregoing, we hold that Pennsylvania’s Marriage Laws violate both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because these laws are unconstitutional, weshall enter an order permanently enjoining their enforcement. By virtue of this ruling, same-sex couples who seek to marry in Pennsylvania may do so, and already married same-sex couples will be recognized as such in theCommonwealth.  

The issue we resolve today is a divisive one. Some of our citizens are madedeeply uncomfortable by the notion of same-sex marriage. However, that same-sex marriage causes discomfort in some does not make its prohibitionconstitutional. Nor can past tradition trump the bedrock constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection. Were that not so, ours would  still be a racially segregated nation according to the now rightfully disregarded notion of "separate but equal." [citations omitted] In the sixty years since Brown was decided "separate" has faded into history, and only "equal" remains. Similarly, in future generations the term same-sex marriage will be abandoned, to be replaced simply by marriage. 

We are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them to the ash heap of history.

Since no stay was issued and it is unlikely (but possible) that the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals will issue a stay in the near future, Pennsylvania becomes the 19th marriage equality state!

Oregon Becomes 18th Marriage Equality State!

As widely expected, openly gay federal judge Michael McShane today issued the 13th federal ruling since last year's Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Windsor deciding in favor of marriage equality. The judge's 26 page decision in Geiger v. Kitzhaber was issued promptly at noon after an emergency stay in the proceedings filed by the National Organization for Marriage was denied by the 9th U.S. Circuit.

The Washington Blade reports:

Neither the timing nor the outcome of the case was a surprise. On Friday, McShane had announced he would make his decision in the litigation on Monday at noon Pacific Time (3 pm local time). In fact, Oregon United for Marriage had planned media coverage for the ruling and same-sex couples marrying afterward over the weekend without knowing the decision.  

McShane also rules against the state ban on same-sex marriage after not a single party would defend the law in court. It’s the first time ever that no party defended a ban on same-sex marriage during the course of a lawsuit seeking marriage equality.  

Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum announced in February the law was indefensible, as did attorneys for Multnomah County, who were also named as a defendant in the lawsuit and had pledged to hand out licenses to same-sex couples as soon as law was struck down. 

[...] 

Oregon’s ban on same-sex marriage, Measure 38, is a state constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2004 by a 57-43 margin. But public opinion on marriage equality in Oregon is just about reversed since that time. Last year, Public Policy Polling found that 54 percent of Oregon residents would vote to legalize same-sex marriage at the ballot. 

Marriages should begin shortly in Oregon, although typically a 3-day waiting period is required after getting a marriage license, it can be waived in extenuating circumstances.

The judge's ruling means that an expensive ballot measure campaign to overturn measure 36 will not be unnecessary.

Congratulations to Oregon to joining the rest of the West Coast in Marriage Equality!

Important 9th Circuit Gay Rights Ruling May Not Be Permanent

Uh-oh! Although the date passed on March 7, 2014  by which the parties involved could appeal the 9th Circuit's important ruling in SmithKlinBeacham v Abbott in which the federal appellate court ruled earlier this year that sexual orientation must receive heightened scrutiny when laws are being analyzed for equal protection purposes, now comes word that the ruling may not be final and that an en banc hearing on the case may be in the works.

"A sua sponte en banc call having been made, the parties are instructed to filewithin 21 days of the filing date of this order simultaneous briefs setting forth theirrespective positions on whether the case should be reheard en banc. See G.O.5.4c(3). An original and fifty copies shall be filed. See Ninth Cir. R. 35-4(b)."

The court published an order today (excerpted above) which gives interested parties 21 days to file briefs as to why or why not a panel of 11 judges should hear the case, and possibly reverse it. What happens now is that after 21 days the entire 9th Circuit (which has something like 26 judges) will vote as to whether an en banc hearing should occur. If a majority votes in favor, then there is a possibility that a randomly selected 11-judge panel or the U.S. Supreme Court could reverse the ruling.  The current 3-judge panel that issued the unanimous ruling has some of the most liberal members of the circuit on it (Berzon, Reinhardt and Schroeder).

SmithKline is incredibly important ruling and the question of whether marriage equality will come sooner or later to atleast two states in the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction (namely Nevada and Oregon) depends on whether the idea that sexual orientation is indeed a suspect class, which is a key corolary of the SmithKline Beacham decision.

MadProfessah will be watching developments in this case very closely!

Hat/tip to Equality on Trial

QUEER QUOTE: Oregon AG Declares Marriage Ban Serves "No Rational Purpose"

The Attorney General of Oregon has followed through on her conclusion that the marriage laws of her state are discriminatory and has filed a brief to that effect.

This excerpt from the conclusion of the state's brief in support of marriage equality is today's Queer Quote.

Instead of living in a climate in which same-sex couples are feared and citizens look to their government to protect children from those couples, we now live in a state that recognizes and values same-sex couples and their families. Given what we know today, the state defendants in this case recognize that the ban on same-sex marriage serves no rational purpose and harms Oregon citizens.  

This case presents that rare case in which there simply is no legal argument to be made in support of a state law. If this Court determines that Oregon’s prohibition on same-sex marriage violates plaintiffs’ rights under the federal constitution, the state is prepared to implement that ruling. The state defendants ask for a declaration limited to the specific issue presented in these cases:that Oregon’s marriage laws violate the federal constitution to the extent they do not permit the State to issue marriage licenses solely on the ground that both parties requesting the license are of the same sex or to recognize a valid marriage from another jurisdiction solely because both parties to the marriage are of the same sex. Similarly, the state defendants ask for a limited injunction prohibiting Oregon from enforcing those laws only to the extent that the state denies same-sex couples the right to marry on the same terms as opposite-sex couples.

Looks like marriage will be coming to Oregon sooner rather than later!

Lambda Legal Files Marriage Equality Lawsuit In Arizona!

Good news out of Arizona regarding LGBT equality! Lambda Legal has filed a lawsuit seeking to gain the right to marriage for same-sex couples in Arizona.

In the lawsuit, Lambda Legal, joined by pro bono co-counsel from Perkins Coie LLP, argues that the Arizona constitutional amendment and state statutes barring same-sex couples from marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  

The lead plaintiffs, Nelda Majors, 75, and Karen Bailey, 74, of Scottsdale, have been together for more than 55 years, and together have raised two children, Karen’s great grand-nieces Marissa and Sharla, as their own daughters since the girls came into their home as toddlers. Marissa is now 15 and Sharla 21. 

“Karen and I have been together since 1957,” Majors said.  “We’re a committed, loving family, have raised two amazing girls together, have seen each other through thick and thin, in sickness and in health. After five decades together, we want to celebrate and affirm our deep love for each other as other couples do, before our friends and family, through marriage. We’re also getting up there in years. I want to know that, should anything happen to me, there would be no question about Karen being allowed to be with me at the hospital, and vice versa. If we were married, there would be no question and we both would feel more secure.” 

“Arizona’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples serves no legitimate state interest, brands these loving couples and their children as second-class citizens, and encourages private bias and discrimination,” Pizer said. “And because the State does not even offer a lesser status such as civil union or domestic partnership, these loving couples live every day with the uncertainty that their families and relationships lack even basic protections.”

The name of the lawsuit is Majors v. Horne. As I have said, repeatedly, the fact that in the 9th U.S. Circuit (Washington, California, Oregon, Arizona, Idaho, Nevada and Montana) laws in these states that classify based on sexual orientation must receive heightened scrutiny that they are not violating the equal protection rights of LGBT people makes it very likely that bans on same-sex marriage in these states are toast. The deadline to appeal the decision that declared sexual orientation subject to heightened scrutiny passed last Friday, and this lawsuit I'm sure is a consequence of that decision.

Important Deadline Passes To Appeal Landmark LGBT Equality Case

The Human Rights Campaign noticed that today was the deadline for the appeal to be filed in the landmark case of Abbott Laboratories v. SmithKline Beecham in which the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled recently that laws that classify based upon sexual orientation require heightened scrutiny.

Abbott is an incredibly significant ruling that already has had immediate impacts on the lives of LGBT citizens. As a direct result of the issuance of this ruling the Attorneys General of Nevada and Oregon declined to continue to defend their state's marriage licenses.

It is hard to see how marriage laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation survive judicial review anywhere in the 9th Circuit as long as Abbott is good law.

Juror Discrimination Case Will Not Be Appealed
Ninth Circuit's Application of Heightened Scrutiny for Sexual Orientation Will Stand
WASHINGTON – In January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in a pharmaceutical contract dispute, Abbott Laboratories v. SmithKline Beecham, that it violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection to exclude someone from jury service because of his or her sexual orientation.  In doing so, the court also concluded that discrimination based on sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny, a higher standard of judicial review that requires a stronger justification for laws and policies that treat gays and lesbians differently.  Only days after the Ninth Circuit's decision, the Attorney General of Nevada ended the state's defense of its marriage ban in another case before that court, concluding that Nevada's justifications for excluding same-sex couples from marriage could not withstand that higher level of review.  

Yesterday, the deadline passed for AbbVie (the pharmaceutical spin-off of Abbott Laboratories that is a party in this litigation) to seek review of the January decision by a larger panel of the Ninth Circuit.  Furthermore, HRC has learned that AbbVie will not seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court.     

 “AbbVie’s decision not to appeal this ruling may turn out to be a pivotal moment in the quest for marriage equality in every state in this country and greater constitutional protections for all LGBT Americans,” said HRC President Chad Griffin.  "We thank the company for standing on the right side of history."   

The Human Rights Campaign is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against LGBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.

###

POLL: Potential Oregon Ballot Measure On Marriage Equality Leads 55-41

An internal poll conducted by Anzalone Liszt Grove for Oregon United for Marriage indicates that support for marriage equality in the Beaver state has increased to a healthy 14-point margin, 55-41.
This is interesting because although the coalition has collected enough signatures to put the question before voters in November 2014, they are waiting to see what a federal judge does with a pending federal lawsuit challenging Oregon's constitutional ban on marriage (which the state's attorney general claims will not survive any standard of legal review) before deciding whether to submit them or not.

Oregon Becomes 6th State Where Attorney General Won't Defend Marriage Ban

Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum has announced that she will no longer defend that state's constitutional marriage ban in light of the recent 9th Circuit ruling in GlaxoSmithKline v Abbott that declared sexual orientation is a suspect class that requires the government to provide increased justification for laws that discriminate against LGBT people. Rosenblum said in a filing in the lawsuit Rummel v. Kitzhaber that:

State Defendants will not defend the Oregon ban on same-sex marriage in this litigation. Rather, they will take the position in their summary judgment briefing that the ban cannot withstand a federal constitutional challenge under any standard of review. In the meantime, as the State Defendants are legally obligated to enforce the Oregon Constitution’s ban on same-sex marriage, they will continue to do so unless and until this Court grants the relief sought by the plaintiffs.

Interestingly, Rosenblum joins at least 5 other attorneys-general who have refused to defend their state's laws banning marriage equality. California's Jerry Brown was one of the most prominent (and significant) to do so way back in December 2008 and the election of Kamala Harris in 2010 insured that California's attorney general would continue to support marriage equality. Others have been Illinois's Lisa Madigan in June 2012, Pennsylvania's Kathleen Kane in July 2013, Virginia's Mark Herring in January 2014 and Nevada's Catherina Cortez Masto in February 2014.

Oregon is an interesting case because signatures have been collected to go back to the ballot but the attorney general's switch, the state of law in the 9th circuit and the fact that the case is being heard before openly gay federal judge Michael McShane makes it likely marriage equality will come to Oregon sooner rather than later and that the ballot fight might not be necessary. Signatures do not have to be submitted until July 2014 for the November election.

In fact, Mike Marshall the campaign manager for Oregon United for Marriage issued a  statement responding to AG Rosenblum's action:

"If we get marriage (from the federal court) in the spring and nobody appeals and marriage licenses are being issued, nobody has any hunger for a ballot measure we don't need."

It should be noted that every federal judge who has ruled on a marriage equality lawsuit since last year's United States v. Windsor Supreme Court ruling has found in favor of equality, and this has often been under a rational basis level of review and not the heightened scrutiny required in the 9th circuit.

Oregon Religious Extremists File "Right To Discriminate" Initiative

Hmmm, there's an update from Oregon, where a proposed 2014 ballot measure to repeal a 2004 constitutional amendment that banned same-sex marriage is expected to qualify soon. According to Think Progress, Oregon United for Marriage they have 115,000 signatures of the 116, 284 signatures required to qualify an initiative.

As I have mentioned before, heterosexual supremacists are starting to recognize that the kulturkampf over marriage equality is almost over, and the forces for equality are winning. As a rearguard action, they are trying to change the argument from whether marriage equality should be enacted to "how can religious people be exempted from having to interact with legally married same-sex couples and acknowledge their existence." This shift is reflected in the fights over religious exemption amendments to marriage equality statutes that have been enacted in Delaware, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Illinois and Minnesota this year. It also explains why there is currently a case pending before the United States Supreme Court which revolves around the question of whether the refusal of a New Mexico religious photographer to provide services to a lesbian couple for their commitment ceremony is violating the Land of Enchantment's public accommodations statute.

Now in Oregon, the group that was preparing to fight the marriage equality initiative is filing their own initiative to "protect [the] religious freedom" of private citizens serving in non-governmental capacities from being published for  "declining to solemnize, celebrate, participate in, facilitate, or support" a same-sex marriage or commitment ceremony.

The full text of the initiative is:

Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:

SECTION 1. This 2014 Initiative shall be known as the Protect Religious Freedom Initiative and is intended to exempt a person from supporting same-sex ceremonies in violation of deeply held religious beliefs.

SECTION 2. Religious freedom is the first freedom guaranteed by the United States Constitution. It is a fundamental human right and is the right to express, think and act upon what you deeply believe. Religious freedom upholds stability in a diverse society. Wherever religious freedom is high, there is better health, more economic prosperity, lower income inequality and sustained democracy. Religious freedom protects the rights of all individuals and groups, whether religious or not. Unfortunately, there are groups pushing the view that religion is purely a private matter and that religious voices or opinions should be silenced. Religion is more than just private worship. It involves public expression on moral and social issues. Religious freedom, our first freedom, needs protection as this Initiative intends to do.

SECTION 3. (1) As used in this section:

(a) “Person” includes individuals, sole proprietorships, nonprofits, corporations, associations, firms, partnerships, limited liability companies, or other legal entities defined in ORS 174.100(5).

(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if doing so would violate a person’s deeply held religious beliefs, a person acting in a nongovernmental capacity may not be:

(a) Penalized by the state or a political subdivision of this state for declining to solemnize, celebrate, participate in, facilitate, or support any same-sex marriage ceremony or its arrangements, same-sex civil union ceremony or its arrangements, or same-sex domestic partnership ceremony or its arrangements; or

(b) Subject to a civil action for declining to solemnize, celebrate, participate in, facilitate, or support any same-sex marriage ceremony or its arrangements, same-sex civil union ceremony or its arrangements, or same-sex domestic partnership ceremony or its arrangements.

(3) This section must be construed in favor of the broad protection of religious exercise to the maximum extent permitted by the Oregon Constitution and the United States Constitution. 

I would vote against this initiative if it qualified for the ballot, but I'm not sure that I am completely against a carveout in public accommodations law to allow religious people an exemption related to marriage equality ceremonies. However, I would only support an exception limited to this one area. The problem is that I am sure the religious extremists who are circulating this initiative would make the argument that if you are willing to exempt religious people from public accommodations law for the purpose of marriage ceremonies, why not also do so for other areas like housing or other "intimate" services like manicures, massages, etc.? Once you have a carve out for one area of public accommodation how would you prevent the accommodation from being extended to various other areas?

After all, in the grand scheme of things, if you are a religious person and you are offering your services to the public, that means that you are going to offer services to people who may do things that are completely anti-thetical to various aspects of your religion. Why is it that religious people want a carve out for not supporting same-sex marriages, but not for people who are getting married when the bride is pregnant, or the couple is interracial or for couples who violate some other religious principle. It is very hard to believe that this initiative is motivated by a desire to protect religious freedom and not a desire to protect religious-based homophobia.

Missouri To Recognize Marriage Equality For Tax Purposes

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon (D) announced this week that he supports marriage equality as a matter of public policy and issued an executive order that would allow legally married same-sex couples who file taxes in Missouri to do so jointly, despite the existence of a state constitutional amendment passed in 2004 which said that "to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman."

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports

Nixon said he was making the change because state tax law is linked to federal tax law. 

After the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated part of the Defense of Marriage Act in June, the IRS ruled that legally married same-sex couples will be treated as married for federal tax purposes, no matter where they live. 

At a news conference in his Capitol office, Nixon told reporters he will issue an executive order today telling the Missouri Department of Revenue to accept the couples’ joint state returns if they file joint federal returns.

Think Progress explains how the legal situation for same-sex couples has changed since the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor:

When the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, it opened up the possibility for same-sex couples to file their federal tax returns jointly for the first time. In the past, such couples living in states that recognized their marriages could file jointly at the state level but had to file separately at the federal level. The situation is now switched, so any couple who legally married in one state but then moved to another that didn’t recognize their union can file jointly for federal taxes, but will still have to file separately for state taxes. Missouri will become the first exception to this. 

As I have been saying, we are running out of blue states to make advances in marriage equality and the next frontier in ending discrimination against LGBT people will be occurring in conservative red states. The only remaining blue states that do not have marriage or civil unions are Virginia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. It's curious that these are some of the most populous states in the country and currently all of them (except Virginia) have Republican governors but have gubernatorial elections in 2014. Virginia is the location of a high profile federal marriage lawsuit, and there are active lawsuits in many of the other states as well. Blue states which are expected to have enacted marriage equality in the foreseeable future are New Mexico, Oregon, Colorado and Nevada.

Illinois House Passes Marriage Equality, Will Become State #15 Soon!

The Illinois House of Representatives narrowly passed a marriage equality bill 61-54 today, basically ensuring that the Land of Lincoln will become the 15th state in the United States to allow same-sex couples to marry legally. The measure, SB 10, had previously passed the State Senate overwhelmingly 34-21 and heads back there today for concurrence with some amendments and then on to Governor Pat Quinn's enthusiastic signature.

The Chicago Tribune reports:

The bill got 61 votes, one more than the bare minimum needed to send the measure back to the Senate for final approval that’s expected later today. Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn has said he would sign the bill into law should it reach his desk.

The House vote followed more than two-and-a-half hours of debate in which supporters said it’s time for Illinois to make marriage equal for all and opponents raised concerns about protecting the institution of marriage and the religious beliefs of those who say marriage should be between a man and woman.

Sponsoring Rep. Greg Harris told colleagues that a series of “proud moments and difficult decisions that have brought honor upon the people and the state of Illinois, and we find ourselves at another one of those moments today.”

The openly gay Democratic lawmaker from Chicago said the state’s civil union law has saddled Illinois with “inequality, unfair burden and harms added layer by layer to people simply because they live in the state of Illinois.”

“To treat all our citizens equally in the eyes of the law, we must change this,” Harris said.

The bill received three yes votes from Republicans and 11 no votes from Democrats. Just last week Greg Harris was picketed by marriage equality supporters for his delay in calling the bill to a vote. However, I'm sure all will be forgiven now that another blue state has entered the ranks of marriage equality.

The real question in my mind is what will be the first red state to have marriage equality?

Marriage Equality Starts In New Jersey; Christie Drops Appeal

As expected, marriage equality reached New Jersey at 12:01am this morning and soon afterwards U.S. Senator-elect Cory Booker officiated his first marriage as Mayor of Newark, the state's largest city.

Interestingly, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie announced a few hours later that he had decided to drop his administration's appeal of the September 26 ruling that is being implemented today to the New Jersey Supreme Court, thus removing any ambiguity about the future status of marriage equality in the Garden State.

Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry released a statement making it clear that his organization is not willing to stop at the 14 states (and Washington, DC) that now have marriage equality:

"At long last, the freedom to marry is now permanently law of the land in New Jersey. The marriages of loving, committed couples throughout the Garden State, combined with Governor Christie's withdrawal of his appeal, is joyous news to New Jerseyans, both gay and non-gay. The momentum continues to build nationwide and we are working hard to deliver victories in Hawaii, Illinois and New Mexico yet in 2013."

And Chad Griffin of Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBT rights group in the country, emailed supporters reminding them of their goal to reach 50 marriage equality states within 5 years of this year's Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Windsor and listed the states that they are focused on in the foreseeable future:

• In Hawaii, we've sent three senior field organizers to work with the Hawaii United for Marriage campaign, and we're expecting a vote in the legislature any day now.
• In Illinois, we have invested more than $255,000 in the legislative marriage campaign. Nine HRC organizers are on the ground working to generate constituent contacts and secure a favorable House vote for the marriage equality bill, which has already passed in the Senate.
• In New Mexico, we have hired two field organizers to mobilize support as a marriage equality lawsuit is pending before the State Supreme Court.
• In New Jersey, we have deployed four field organizers and a senior field organizer to partner with the New Jersey United for Marriage campaign following Governor Christie's appeal of a pro-marriage trial court decision and his veto of the marriage equality bill.
• In Oregon, HRC is part of the governing board of the Oregon United for Marriage campaign that seeks to replace the state's existing marriage amendment with full marriage equality. HRC is also funding the campaign's faith director and has deployed a senior field organizer to be part of the campaign.
• In Indiana, HRC is fighting alongside the bipartisan coalition Freedom Indiana to defeat an anti-marriage constitutional amendment.
• In Arizona and Ohio, we helped launch educational campaigns with the aim of repealing and replacing the states' "Defense of Marriage" Amendments at the ballot in 2016.

Only time will tell what will happen next. What do YOU think? Will there be 50 states with marriage equality within 5 years?

I think it is possible, but I would probably give it until 2020. In order to do so one would need a ruling from the United States Supreme Court recognizing that the freedom to marry explicitly includes the right to marry someone of the same-sex. In order for that to happen within the next five years it is likely one needs to reach a majority of states (twenty-six) that have marriage equality as well as a majority of Supreme Court justices (five) that would endorse the concept. That would almost certainly require at least one (if not more) Republican-appointed justices to retire.

What do you think?

New Jersey Poised To Become 14th Marriage Equality State Monday!

More big news out of New Jersey today. Wednesday night Cory Booker made history by becoming only the fourth black man to ever been elected to the Senate (one went on to become our President of the United States!) Today's big news is that New Jersey will become the 14th marriage equality state on Monday because the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously denied Governor Chris Christie's motion for a stay to delay implementation of a lower court ruling that said the state must start issuing marriage licenses October 21. The New Jersey Supreme Court had earlier decided to hear the appeal of the lower court decision and the current skirmish was over whether the ruling would go into effect prior to its ratification or nullification by the state's highest court. The fact that the Court left the ruling go into effect would seem to signal they will uphold the ruling. And even if they don't there is a pending vote in the New Jersey legislature to override Christie's veto of a marriage equality bill.

The Court allowed marriage equality to begin in New Jersey by saying:

A spokesperson for Governor Christie has issued a statement saying "The Supreme Court has made its determination. While the governor firmly believes that this determination should be made by all the people of the state of New Jersey, he has instructed the Department of Health to cooperate with all municipalities in effectuating the order of the Superior Court under the applicable law."

New Jersey may not even be the last state this year to enact marriage equality. Hawaii has a special session of the legislature starting on Monday October 28th in order to consider a marriage equality bill and Illinois also still has a pending bill which has passed the State Senate and is stalled in the House (and there's a pending lawsuit). The New Mexico State Supreme court will hear oral arguments to determine whether every county has to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples next Wednesday October 23.

Oregon To Recognize Legal Same-Sex Marriages (From Out of State)

Good news today out of Oregon. The "Chief Operating Officer" of Oregon, Michael Jordan, (not that Michael Jordan!) sent  a memo to all state agencies informing them that they should treat legally married same-sex couples as married under state law.

That means that gay couples who were legally married in other states are entitled to the same benefits in Oregon as any other married couple, said Matt Shelby, spokesman for the Department of Administrative Services. That would apply to everything from medical benefits to taxes to business licenses, he said.  

Jordan wrote the memo after receiving the seven-page legal opinion, which he had sought because of other states, including neighboring California and Washington now recognize same-sex marriage. 

Deputy Attorney General Mary Williams wrote that Oregon's constitutional prohibition on same-sex marriage "would likely be construed as also prohibiting recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages." However, she added, "such a construction would likely violate the federal constitution."

That's a big deal, because Oregon is sandwiched between two states, California and Oregon, which both have marriage equality. 

 Hopefully this will increase not decrease for marriage equality coming to Oregon itself, as the question of whether the state constitution should be amended to end marriage discrimination against same-sex couples will be on the November 2014 ballot and things look good for the discriminatory provision to be repealed. 

In addition, there is now a federal lawsuit working its way through the system in Oregon to win the freedom to marry for same-sex couples as well.

But until they can get married in their home state, Oregonian same-sex couples can atleast rest easy knowing they can get married and have their unions recognized in their home jurisdiction (and by the federal government!)

UPDATE: Oregon Marriage Equality Fight Going Well

Good news from Oregon! The Beaver State is the only remaining state of the three Pacific states that does not have marriage equality. LGBT activists have announced that they intend to change that by passing a ballot measure in the 2014 statewide election to repeal Oregon's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and enact marriage equality.

Oregon United for Marriage is the lead organization which is responsible for gathering the necessary 116, 248 valid signatures to place the marriage equality measure on the ballot. The text of the initiative language is:

“Article XV, section 5(a). Policy regarding marriage. It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage. It is the policy of the State of Oregon to recognize and protect the right to marry, while also preserving and protecting the right of religious institutions and clergy to refuse to perform a marriage.

(1) Right to Marry: The state and its political subdivisions shall issue marriage licenses to all couples who otherwise meet the requirements of Oregon law regarding age, marital status, capacity to consent to marriage, and degree of kinship.

(2) Religious Protection: The existing right of religious institutions and clergy to refuse to perform a marriage shall be protected.

(3) Non-Discrimination: All legally valid marriages shall be treated equally under the law.”

That seems pretty clear, doesn't it? The official summary of the ballot language (which will most likely be known as Ballot Measure 8 if, as expected, it qualifies for the ballot) is:

Result of “Yes” Vote:  “Yes” vote amends constitution; recognizes the right of same-gender couples to marry; protects right of clergy and religious institutions to refuse to perform marriages.

Result of “No” Vote:  “No” vote retains existing constitutional ban on marriage of same-gender couples; retains constitutional provision that recognizes only marriage between one man and one woman.

Summary:  Oregon Constitution currently bans marriage between couples of the same gender by providing that only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or legally recognized.  Oregon statutes currently limit the right to marriage based on age, capacity to consent, marital status, and degree of kinship.  Measure amends Constitution to recognize the right of couples of the same gender to marry provided they meet statutory qualifications.  Measure requires state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on the same basis as opposite-sex couples.  Measure provides that marriages between same-sex couples are subject to the same laws that govern marriages between opposite-sex couples.  Measure protects the existing right of religious institutions and clergy to refuse to perform a marriage.  Other provisions.

It appears as if the fight for marriage equality in Oregon is going well. In the first 10 days of collecting signatures, OUM gathered well over 30,000 signatures, more than 3 times its original goal of 10,000. Elections in Oregon are entirely vote by mail. If you are a registered voter in Oregon you can download a petition yourself at Oregon Says I Do and sign in a petition to help the Freedom to Marry to come to Oregon in 2014!

Hat/tip to HRC Blog