Census count: 23,000 of California’s gay couples consider themselves married September 23, 2009

By Denis C. Theriault

dtheriault@mercurynews.com

Posted: 09/22/2009 06:46:03 PM PDT

Updated: 09/22/2009 10:14:56 PM PDT

SACRAMENTO — As many as 23,000 same-sex couples in California identified themselves as married last year, according to the first census figures to deal with gay marriage — a number starkly higher than a previous estimate for the state had indicated. That amounts to more than a quarter of the 84,000 gay couples estimated in the state, a percentage that places California just ahead of the national average. The U.S. Census Bureau says nearly 150,000 same-sex couples across the nation consider themselves married, out of more than 560,000 same-sex couples overall. Previously, the most commonly cited tally of married gay couples in California was 18,000. Although the statistics are sure to stoke the state’s ongoing political debate about same-sex nuptials — especially in the wake of the court decision upholding Proposition 8 — demographers caution that the numbers remain imprecise. In California, for example, marriage certificates don’t track gender. So there’s no way to differentiate between couples who have actually received marriage certificates, they say, and couples who consider themselves married even though their partnerships lack official recognition. “It’s clear there are a lot of same-sex couples who define themselves as spouses even in the absence of any formal legal protection,” said Gary Gates, a demographer at the University of California-Los Angeles. “That says something about the commitment levels of the couples and how they view their relationships, regardless of how the government might.”

Gates actually came up with the oft-quoted 18,000 figure, derived by comparing the uptick in weddings last summer and fall, when same-sex marriage was legal, to those during the same time period the year before.

In contrast, the census data relies on respondents’ answers to survey questions.

Other than California, which allowed gay weddings only from June to November 2008, Massachusetts, Iowa and Connecticut also permitted same-sex marriages last year.

Given the shifting legal landscape — changing far faster than the methodical pace preferred by number crunchers — Martin O’Connell, head of the census bureau’s fertility and family statistics branch, said that reliably tracking same-sex marriages has proved to be a difficult task.

Some gay couples may report themselves as wed because they received a church’s blessing, though not the government’s. Some may do so because they share a house or are raising children or doing both. Others have been together for so long, they can’t see themselves as anything but married.

O’Connell said the bureau for the 2008 count refined the way it collected data about gay couples, reducing the chance that couples who identified themselves merely as domestic partners and straight couples who made errors on their surveys wouldn’t be mistakenly counted.

In previous years, before those changes, both the overall number of gay couples and the number of couples listed as married was dramatically higher.

That work will be important as the bureau gears up for the 2010 census — the first that will include raw data examining same-sex couples — but O’Connell said a truly accurate count of married gay couples remains a long way off.

“I don’t think there will be any definitive answer for several years,” he said.

For some, that census officials are even attempting to produce a solid number amounts to a victory.

“We’re not going away and we’re not a threat,” said Art Adams, a plaintiff whose lawsuit last year opened California’s brief window for gay marriages. “It’s about time people actually notice how many of us there are and how active we are. We’re just like everyone else.”

US to sign UN gay rights declaration March 18, 2009

 

US to sign UN gay rights declaration

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration will endorse a U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality that then-President George W. Bush had refused to sign, The Associated Press has learned.

U.S. officials said Tuesday they had notified the declaration’s French sponsors that the administration wants to be added as a supporter. The Bush administration was criticized in December when it was the only western government that refused to sign on.

The move was made after an interagency review of the Bush administration’s position on the nonbinding document, which was signed by all 27 European Union members as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries, the officials said.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Congress was still being notified of the decision. They said the administration had decided to sign the declaration to demonstrate that the United States supports human rights for all.

“The United States is an outspoken defender of human rights and critic of human rights abuses around the world,” said one official.

“As such, we join with the other supporters of this statement and we will continue to remind countries of the importance of respecting the human rights of all people in all appropriate international fora,” the official said.

The official added that the United States was concerned about “violence and human rights abuses against gay, lesbian, transsexual and bisexual individuals” and was also “troubled by the criminalization of sexual orientation in many countries.”

“In the words of the United States Supreme Court, the right to be free from criminalization on the basis of sexual orientation ‘has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom’,” the official said.

Gay rights and other groups had criticized the Bush administration when it refused to sign the declaration when it was presented at the United Nations on Dec. 19. U.S. officials said then that the U.S. opposed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but that parts of the declaration raised legal questions that needed further review.

According to negotiators, the Bush team had concerns that those parts could commit the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction. In some states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; on the federal level, gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military.

It was not immediately clear on Tuesday how the Obama administration had come to a different conclusion.

When it was voted on in December, 66 of the U.N.’s 192 member countries signed the declaration — which backers called a historic step to push the General Assembly to deal more forthrightly with anti-gay discrimination.

But 70 U.N. members outlaw homosexuality — and in several, homosexual acts can be punished by execution. More than 50 nations, including members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, opposed the declaration.

Some Islamic countries said at the time that protecting sexual orientation could lead to “the social normalization and possibly the legalization of deplorable acts” such as pedophilia and incest. The declaration was also opposed by the Vatican.

Is Rev. Rick Warren the right choice? December 21, 2008

Do you think Obama made the right choice to elect Rev. Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration? Do you think this will provoke the anger of abortion and same-sex marriage supporters?

Do you believe the defending statement published on “The New York Times”:

The Rev. Randall Balmer, a professor of American religious history at Barnard College, said that he and Mr. Warren were friends, but they disagree on issues like gay marriage and abortion. And yet, he said, “I think it is a terrible mistake for anyone to view Rick Warren as being in the same category as James Dobson or Chuck Colson,” who are among the most prominent leaders of the religious right.

“He’s a new breed,” said Father Balmer, a longtime scholar of American evangelicals, who recently became rector of an Episcopal church.

He said that unlike many other evangelical pastors, Mr. Warren had not devoted as much time or effort in support of Proposition 8, a measure on the California ballot in November that amended the State Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

In a recent interview with the Web site Beliefnet, Mr. Warren said that allowing same-sex couples to marry was no different from allowing a brother and sister to marry.

But he also said that same-sex marriage was less of a threat to the American family than divorce. Mr. Warren said that he supported partnership rights for gay people, including insurance coverage and hospital visitation rights, a position that is not widely accepted among evangelical conservatives.

A Commentary on the Document “Six Consequences if Proposition 8 Fails” October 22, 2008

This document contains very convincing points to attack the same-sex marriage opposition party.

http://www.noonprop8.com/downloads/Thurston-Memo.pdf

Mormon Scholar’s Memo Debunks Prop 8 Ads October 22, 2008

Oct 20, 2008

Mormon Scholar’s Memo Debunks Prop 8 Ads

Well-known Mormon Legal Scholar Confirms Prop 8 has Nothing to do with Education

On the day that the Proposition 8 campaign released a new television ad repeating for the third time a charge that has been exposed as untrue, the NO on Prop 8 campaign challenged the Prop. 8 campaign to end its campaign of deception.

For Immediate Release
October 20, 2008

Contact: Ali Bay or Eddie Fernandez
Phone: 916.284.9187 or 916.425.3363

Mormon Scholar’s Memo Debunks Prop 8 Ads
Well-known Mormon Legal Scholar Confirms Prop 8 has Nothing to do with Educatiom

SACRAMENTO–On the day that the Proposition 8 campaign released a new television ad repeating for the third time a charge that has been exposed as untrue, the NO on Prop 8 campaign challenged the Prop. 8 campaign to end its campaign of deception.

Opponents of Prop. 8 said that the new ad is clearly false – citing an analysis by a respected Mormon scholar finding that the claims included in Prop. 8 ads are completely “untrue” and “misleading.”

Morris A. Thurston, a professor at Brigham Young University law school, confirms what others have been saying for weeks – that the advertising claims that the measure would affect teaching or schools are “untrue” and “misleading,” and that nothing in Prop. 8 would affect California schools. The Thurston memo has been posted to www.mormonsformarriage.com, a website sponsored by Mormons who do not support their Church’s active campaign against gay marriage.

The NO in Prop. 8 campaign is posting the Thurston memo in its entirety to www.noonprop8.com later this morning, and a copy is also attached with this release.

Kate Kendell, an Executive Committee member of the NO on Prop. 8 campaign, issued the following statement:

“I have reviewed this memorandum. It exposes their shameful scheme to deceive the voters. The memo clearly states the Prop. 8 ads are based entirely on claims that are not true.

“Educators and other experts have been saying this for weeks. So have newspapers.

“Now we have it from one of their own – a prominent Mormon scholar who says claims in the Prop. 8 ads are ‘untrue’ and ‘misleading.’

“In his memo, this Mormon scholar concludes Prop 8. has nothing to do with education or teaching.

“What is particularly disturbing is that the Mormon Church has asked its members to fund a campaign based on these lies. As this Mormon scholar says: ‘Relying on deceptive arguments is not only contrary to gospel principles, but ultimately works against the very mission of the Church.’

“There is a reason behind their deception: Californians don’t support taking away rights or treating people differently. That’s why Californians will vote NO on Prop. 8.”

Most oppose bid to ban gay marriage in California, poll finds August 28, 2008

 

Fifty-four percent of likely voters are against Prop. 8, with 40% supporting the measure. But when asked if same-sex couples should be allowed to wed, respondents were evenly split.

By Jessica Garrison, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
10:36 PM PDT, August 27, 2008

California voters remain closely divided on the concept of gay marriage, but a significant majority of likely voters oppose a measure to ban it, according to a poll released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California.

Proposition 8, which would amend the state Constitution to allow marriage only between a man and a woman, is trailing 40% to 54% among likely voters, according to the poll. In a separate question, pollsters asked respondents if they support or oppose allowing gay men and lesbians to marry. On that question, Californians were evenly split, 47% to 47%.

 

• 

  Tracking the money

• 

  A dead heat

• California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban

Mark Baldassare, president of the policy institute, said the election probably will be close, in part because of the even split in the general attitude toward gay marriage, but also because those supporting Proposition 8 were more likely to describe the issue as important to them than were voters on the other side.

The polling, he said, “shows a deeply divided electorate.”

Wednesday’s poll was in line with previous surveys. Support for Proposition 8 has slipped slightly in the institute’s poll since a survey last month that showed 51% of voters against and 42% in favor.

In other findings, the poll found:

* Barack Obama was leading John McCain by 48% to 39% among likely voters in the state — a margin that was down six points since July, with most of the decline coming among self-described independents. The survey was taken before the Democratic convention began.

* An overwhelming majority, 84%, say the state’s budget impasse is a serious problem, but likely voters were more closely divided on solutions. The largest group, 44%, favored a mix of spending cuts and tax increases, while 38% would close the state deficit by cutting spending. A solution that relied mostly on increasing taxes drew only 8% support, while 4% would support borrowing money and running a deficit.

* On abortion, likely voters were divided 47% in favor, 44% opposed on Proposition 4, a measure that would require parents to be notified 48 hours before a minor has an abortion. Voters rejected similar proposals in 2005 and 2006.

* Another ballot measure, on legislative redistricting, is drawing support from about four in 10 likely voters. Proposition 11, which is backed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, would give a commission of registered voters the authority to determine state legislative districts. The survey showed 39% in favor, 36% against and 25% undecided.

Campaign strategists frequently say ballot measures that begin the fall campaign with less than 50% support face long odds because propositions usually lose support as the campaign proceeds.

The findings are based on a telephone survey of 1,047 likely voters between Aug. 12 and 19. The results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

On same-sex marriage, the poll did not reveal why the split on the ballot measure differed from attitudes on the general issue of gay marriage. But Jennifer Kerns, a spokeswoman for the Proposition 8 campaign, cited the language voters will see on the ballot, which pollsters also read to respondents, that describes the proposition as a measure to “eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.”

That legal right has existed since May, when the California Supreme Court ruled that the state Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the same access to marriage that heterosexual couples have. That ruling overturned Proposition 22, passed by voters in 2000, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

The Protect Marriage coalition circulated petitions for Proposition 8 this spring in order to amend the Constitution and take the issue away from the courts. At the time, the petitions said the measure would amend the state Constitution “to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Earlier this summer, state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown altered the ballot language, saying the change was necessary to accurately reflect the effect the measure would have in overturning the court’s decision. The Protect Marriage coalition filed a lawsuit to block that change, but lost.

Both sides predicted an intense campaign between now and election day.

Supporters of Proposition 8 had raised more than $10.1 million as of 4 p.m. Wednesday. Opponents had raised more than $9.4 million.

Both sides were dependent on dollars from out of state, with opponents of the measure getting $4.9 million — more than half of their money — from outside of California. Proponents collected $3.8 million from outside the state.

jessica.garrison@latimes.com

Feds Shouldn’t Force States to Recognize Same-Sex Marriage, Frank Says August 15, 2008

Thursday, August 14, 2008
By Josiah Ryan, Staff Writer

On the Spot (CNSNews.com) – States that do not allow same-sex marriage should not be forced to legally recognize same-sex marriages contracted in California and Massachusetts where the practice is allowed, says Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who nonetheless supports repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Frank, the most prominent openly homosexual member of Congress, replied “No” when CNSNews.com asked him during a teleconference if other states should be required to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in his home state of Massachusetts.

“It’s always been the case that states have had the right to make their own decision on whether or not to allow gay marriage,” Frank said. “No supreme or federal court ever said they [states] had to recognize each other’s marriages. Well before DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act), the principle was settled that states make their own choices.”

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws. It also prohibits states from being forced under the U.S. Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause to recognize homosexual marriages contracted in other states.

The congressman told CNSNews.com that, though he would like to see DOMA repealed, he does not believe parts of the bill are valid because, he argues, the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” was never meant to be defined by Congress.

“Whether or not DOMA is repealed has no affect on [forcing states to recognize same-sex unions contracted in other states],” Frank said.

“The ‘Full Faith and Credit Clause’ is interpreted by the Supreme Court, not by Congress. Frankly, the section of the Defense of Marriage that purports to say what the ‘Full Faith and Credit’ means has no constitutional validity whatsoever, because the Supreme Court has never allowed Congress to make those decisions,” he added.

The language of clause itself, however, appears to envision a role for Congress. It says: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”

In July 1996, Frank led House Democrats in opposition to the federal DOMA and voted against the bill along with 65 other House Democrats.

The Democratic Party’s 2008 platform draft, which will be submitted to delegates at the Democratic National Convention for final approval in late August, explicitly opposes DOMA.

“We will enact a comprehensive bipartisan employment non-discrimination act,” the draft says. “We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act and all attempts to use this issue to divide us.”

The platform reflects the desires of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to do away with DOMA.

Obama has not spoken to CNSNews.com on the issue, but the “pride” section of his campaign Web site reads: “Obama also believes we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions.”

Pelosi (D-Calif.), meanwhile, told CNSNews.com on Aug. 1 that she would support Obama if he attempted to repeal DOMA as president.

Frank told CNSNews.com in an exclusive telephone interview Thursday afternoon that he doubts that, even if Obama is elected president, DOMA will be repealed in the next four years.

“I am skeptical that we would have the votes,” said Frank. “I think it is very unlikely that the whole thing will be repealed. I am not optimistic, though, I welcome the fact that he [Obama] is for repealing it.”

They deserve the same treatment August 10, 2008

gay marriage, gay wedding, same sex marriage, love equality

My friends Alston and 10-year boyfriend Frank have just tie the knot couple weeks ago in Los Angeles. It’s a great ceremony, indeed a significant one, that celebrates the milestone of human right achievement.

God Bless You All…