(Washington, D.C.)  Proponents and supporters, including D.C. religious leaders, will attend the scheduled mark-up of the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009 at 2 p.m. Tuesday.

The Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary, chaired by Councilmember Phil Mendelson, will review the text of the current bill for changes and amendments stemming from the 269 testimonies submitted during public hearings on Oct. 26 and Nov. 2. 

Over 80% of those who testified at the council hearing testified in support of marriage equality.

The committee is expected to debate sections of the bill that address D.C.’s current domestic partnership law and the impact of the legislation on religious institutions in the District. The final bill, including mark-up, is expected to be sent to the full committee for a vote following the meeting.

“Residents of the District of Columbia are eager for our friends and neighbors to gain full and equal recognition under law through the passage of the Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009,” said Aisha Mills, member of the board for the Campaign for All D.C. Families.

“We anticipate that this mark-up will emphasize the protections allotted to domestic partners and protect the religious freedoms of District residents,” Mills said.

With about 72 percent of the expected vote counted Thursday in unofficial returns, Referendum 71 was leading 52 percent to 48 percent, with a margin of about 60,000 votes.

Sen. Ed Murray, a Seattle Democrat who spearheaded the law, called it “a great step forward for equality in Washington state.”

“I’m relieved,” he said. “I was very concerned that if the voters had said no, it would have been a major setback for gay and lesbian families in Washington state.”

The measure asked voters to approve or reject the latest expansion of the state’s domestic partnership law, granting registered domestic partners additional state rights previously given only to married couples.

Full-fledged gay marriage is still not allowed under Washington law.

Gary Randall of Protect Marriage Washington, which opposed the law and pushed to get the referendum on the ballot, said they weren’t ready to concede.

“We’re just going to wait and watch it play out,” he said.

Randall said that while they’re waiting until all the votes are counted, “going in, we knew that we had a pretty tough task ahead of us.”

“We knew there was a chance we would not prevail,” he said.

Two national gay rights groups – the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Family Equality Council – say that voter approval of such a measure was a first. Gay equality laws in other states, ranging from civil rights to gay marriage, have either been implemented by the courts or legislative process. Voters have rejected gay marriage 31 states, most recently in Maine, where voters repealed a gay marriage law on Tuesday.

“Our state made history today,” said Anne Levinson, chairwoman of Washington Families Standing Together, which fought to keep the law on the books. “This is a day for which we can all look back with pride.”

The expanded law in Washington state adds benefits, such as the right to use sick leave to care for a domestic partner, and rights related to adoption, child custody and child support.

During the campaign, opponents argued the law is a stepping-stone to gay marriage. Gay rights activists countered that while the marriage debate was for another day, same-sex couples need additional legal protections and rights in the meantime.

The law was to take effect July 26, but was delayed because of the referendum campaign. It will now take effect Dec. 3, according to the secretary of state’s office.

The underlying domestic partnership law, which the Legislature passed in 2007, provided hospital visitation rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations, and inheritance rights when there is no will.

Last year, lawmakers expanded the law to give domestic partners standing under laws covering probate and trusts, community property and guardianship.

More than 12,000 people in Washington state are registered as domestic partners, and most are gay. Under state law, senior heterosexual couples can register as domestic partners as well, if at least one partner is 62 years old or older. That provision was included by lawmakers to help seniors who don’t remarry out of fear they could lose certain pension or social security benefits.

Washington state, along with California, Oregon, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia, have laws that either recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships that afford same-sex couples similar rights to marriage.

Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont, and will start in New Hampshire in January. Voters in Maine on Tuesday repealed a gay marriage law that was passed by the Legislature there earlier this year.

Gov. Chris Gregoire said that the vote on R-71 made her “very proud.”

“I think Washington state stood out in this country on Tuesday by saying one of the inherent values in our state is equality,” she said Thursday.

Results weren’t known until Thursday because almost all voters in Washington cast their ballots by mail, and even those ballots postmarked on Election Day are valid. That means close elections often drag on for a few days or longer.

U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle in Tacoma granted the preliminary injunction involving petitions for Referendum 71 while a related case moves forward on the constitutionality of the state public records act.

The referendum, sponsored by a group called Protect Marriage Washington, asks voters to approve or reject the “everything but marriage” domestic partnership law that state lawmakers passed earlier this year.

In his ruling, Settle said he was “not persuaded that waiver of one’s fundamental right to anonymous political speech is a prerequisite for participation in Washington’s referendum process.”

Brian Zylstra, spokesman for Secretary of State Sam Reed, said that the judge’s decision “is a step away from open government.”

“When people sign a referendum or initiative petition, they are trying to change state law,” he said. “We believe that changing state law should be open to public view.”

A spokesman for the state attorney general’s office, which is representing Reed in the case, said they are weighing whether to appeal the preliminary injunction.

At a hearing before Settle last week, attorneys for Protect Marriage had argued that referendum signers’ names and addresses should be exempt from the public records disclosure law because release of the information would put them at risk of harassment, amounting to an unconstitutional infringement of free speech rights.

Referendum campaign organizer Larry Stickney said he’s already been subjected to threats and harassment for his involvement in the effort. The campaign also said it has heard from supporters who didn’t want to sign the petition for fear of reprisals.

However, Assistant Attorney General Jim Pharris told the judge that Protect Marriage hasn’t shown significant harm beyond rude comments or phone calls – nothing that would “be appropriate to overturning the state’s strong tradition for open government.”

In his ruling, Settle agreed with the state that there must be measures in place to prevent referendum fraud. But because of the secretary of state’s process of verifying signatures, “at this time the court is not persuaded that full public disclosure of referendum petitions is necessary,” the judge said.

Protect Marriage turned in nearly 138,000 signatures in July, with 121,780 being accepted. That was about 1,200 more than the minimum required to qualify for the ballot.

Two gay rights groups, WhoSigned.Org and KnowThyNeighbor.org, previously said they would post the names online, which sparked the legal action to keep them private.

Protect Marriage was unsuccessful in an effort to keep the names of its political donors secret when the state Public Disclosure Commission ruled last month that donors weren’t exempt from campaign finance laws requiring disclosure.

Protect Marriage Attorney Stephen Pidgeon said he was still deciding whether to appeal that decision. But in the meantime, he said that he is happy that the names of those who signed the referendum petitions will not be released.

“The court has said, and said rightly, that the ability to participate, even anonymously, in the political process is a long and respected right in the United States,” he said.

The legal battle to keep the referendum off the Nov. 3 ballot ended Wednesday when supporters of expanded rights for domestic partners said they wouldn’t appeal a Thurston County Superior Court judge’s refusal to block the vote.

Washington Families Standing Together chairwoman Anne Levinson said the group will now focus on a campaign to ensure the law is retained by voters.

After passage by the Legislature, the law was supposed to take effect July 26, but the referendum campaign put it on hold. Now, it will take effect only if approved by voters.

If the law is rejected at the polls, previously enacted legislation on domestic partnerships would remain in place.

More than 5,900 domestic partnership registrations have been filed in Washington since the first law took effect in July 2007.

“When the people have spoken by amending our Constitution, I will abide by their command,” said Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, who believes the law is unconstitutional. “When policy makers have ignored their words, I will not.”

The law, which took effect Aug. 3, allows gay and lesbian partners to receive dozens of the same legal protections as married spouses. So far, 413 couples have been added to the state registry and more have applied.

The conservative Wisconsin Family Council asked the state Supreme Court last month to invalidate the law. The group argued that it conflicts with a 2006 constitutional amendment approved by voters that banned gay marriage and any “substantially similar” relationships.

Wisconsin was the first state to grant domestic partnerships to gay couples despite having the constitutional ban. It was also the first Midwestern state to give gay couples some legal protections legislatively.

Van Hollen, a Republican, said the domestic partnerships as defined by the law are “substantially similar” to marriage. He accused the Democratic-controlled Legislature and Gov. Jim Doyle of ignoring the will of the people.

The decision by Van Hollen to declare the law unconstitutional will force the state to pay the expense of hiring an outside counsel to defend the law, a task normally performed by the attorney general’s office. Outside lawyers typically cost taxpayers about $175 per hour.

The high court last week asked the state to respond to the lawsuit by Aug. 31 as it considers whether to take the case. Four of the seven justices would have to agree to do so. If they decline, the law would stand but the group could file a challenge in circuit court.

Attorney Brian Raum, who is representing the conservative group, said Van Hollen’s decision strengthens the group’s case.

“I certainly think it helps,” he said. “The attorney general’s opinion in regard to the registry’s unconstitutionality may be a positive factor in helping the court to make a decision on this.”

Rep. Mark Pocan, an openly gay Madison Democrat who championed the law, said Van Hollen was trying to score political points with his conservative base.

“That’s clearly a statement by J.B. Van Hollen the politician, not J.B. Van Hollen the attorney general,” he said. “He’s trying to make a name for himself but this is the kind of sloppy political decision that hurts the institution.”

The governor and lawmakers who supported the law have expressed confidence it will be upheld since the rights granted to same-sex couples gives them only 43 of the 200 rights given to married couples.

Registering will make it easier for same-sex couples to complete legal transactions like transferring property and executing wills, and can be used to obtain health insurance through employers that extend coverage to domestic partners.

They also will be guaranteed the right to visit each other in hospitals and care facilities, make end-of-life-decisons and take off work under the Family and Medical Leave Act to care for each other. They will not have the right to jointly file taxes, among others.

The nonpartisan Legislative Council concluded the law should survive a legal challenge because it does not give “comprehensive, core aspects of the legal status of marriage to same-sex couples.” Those include the ability to divorce and to share marital property.

According to Bajko’s story, Nadler felt the need to focus on Federal recognition of gay marriage first, and so his bill will not apply to civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Nadler felt that covering civil unions and domestic partnerships would complicate his bill too much, since the laws vary from state to state. His bill would repeal the ban on federal recognition of same-sex marriage, which he sees as a first step to overturning DOMA as a whole.

Read the full article at the Bay Area Reporter.

The expanded “everything but marriage” domestic partnership law was scheduled to take effect Sunday, but is now delayed until the signatures can be counted, a process that could take up to a month.

To qualify for the November ballot, supporters of Referendum 71 must have 120,577 voter signatures. Supporters say they have about 138,000 signatures.

“I feel our signatures are pretty clean,” said campaign spokesman Gary Randall.

If they have enough signatures, the law will be delayed until the outcome of the referendum. If they fall short, the domestic partnership expansion will immediately take effect.

The signatures were turned in a day after opponents of the new law announced a final push to force a public vote, calling their effort “too close to call” and asking people to show up on Saturday at the Capitol to turn in their signatures to the secretary of state’s office.

Greg MacPherson of Kent, Wash. said he drove two hours in traffic to turn in about a dozen signatures.

“We want to stand up and be counted,” he said.

The new domestic partnership law expands on Washington’s existing partnerships. The newest version adds registered domestic partners to all remaining areas of state law that presently apply only to married couples. Those statutes range from adoption and child support rights and obligations, to pensions and other public employee benefits.

The underlying domestic partnership law, which passed the Legislature two years ago, provided hospital visitation rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations, and inheritance rights when there is no will.

Last year, lawmakers expanded it to give domestic partners standing under laws covering probate and trusts, community property and guardianship.

Josh Friedes, a spokesman for Washington Families Standing Together, said that if the referendum does end up on the ballot, he is optimistic that voters will retain the law.

“We need to have a conversation about the needs of gay and lesbian families,” he said. “So in some ways, this referendum brings to the foreground a lot of issues, and to that extent the dialogue can propel the movement forward.”

A political group called WhoSigned.Org has already said it will publish online the names of people who signed petitions. The petition-listing effort is not supported by the official campaign trying to keep R-71 off the ballot.

“Equality is equality is equality,” St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman said during a brief ceremony Wednesday evening at the Camp nightclub. “You can’t have equality for some and not for others.”

Gay couples can now purchase certificates for $20 that make their partnership somewhat legal, though it is unclear if the certificate will allow for things such as health benefits can be extended to the couples by the state.

“I think it’s a really good symbolic St. Paul gesture. That’s as far as it goes,” said C.J. Griffiths, 25, of St. Paul.

Read the full Pioneer Press article here.

“Providing employment benefits, including healthcare, to the domestic partners of our City of Miami employees is a common sense idea that has been far too long in coming. This is nothing more than treating people equally,” said Commissioner Marc Sarnoff. “I am proud to say our City is doing the right thing.”

Miami is now the third municipality in Miami-Dade County to pass this Ordinance, which was previously adopted by the City of Miami Beach and the City of North Miami. County employees in Miami-Dade County also receive similar benefits thanks to the work of Safeguarding American Values for Everyone (SAVE) Dade, who pushed for the most recent City of Miami Ordinance.

The bill, working its way through the legislature, is expected to pass later this week. But Gibbons has reiterated his threat to veto the measure when it reaches his desk.

The governor said that domestic partnerships are essentially the same as marriage and state law limits marriage to opposite-sex couples. In 2002, voters approved a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.

The bill, however, makes it clear that domestic partnerships does not equal marriage.

The bill states domestic partners would have the “same rights, protections, benefits, responsibilities, obligations and duties” as traditionally married couples and be subject to the same divorce laws, such as those involving community property.

The bill also has been amended to state that public sector employers would not be required to provide health care benefits to employees’ partners. It does not block similar benefits from being provided in the private sector.

It would allow same-sex couples to register their relationships with the secretary of state’s office.

The bill was written by Sen. David Parks, an openly gay Las Vegas Democrat.

Republicans have opposed the bill throughout its movement in the legislature. It is doubtful Democrats could muster enough votes to override a veto.

A public opinion poll released Tuesday by The Las Vegas Review-Journal found that 38 percent of Nevadans favor domestic partner legislation, while 50 percent oppose it and the remainder are undecided.

Broken down by party support, the poll found that those who said they were Democrats back partnerships by a 46 percent to 36 percent margin, while independents support it 47 percent to 42 percent.

Nevertheless, Republicans oppose the proposal by a 71 percent to 23 percent margin, more than off-setting the Democrat and independent support.

The agreement ends a lawsuit filed in 2007 by three lesbians whose domestic partner benefits ended when they retired from state jobs.

In 2003, Bill Richardson issued an executive order providing state employees, both gay and straight, with the option of providing their partners health insurance through domestic partner coverage. Under the order, domestic partner coverage is not available to employees after they retire, while spousal coverage is provided. 

The retired state workerswith the help of the ACLU filed suit claiming the state discriminated against them in canceling the health benefits. 

The lawsuit charged that the state’s policy of denying lesbian and gay state retirees equal health insurance for their partners violated the state constitution’s equality guarantees. 

Unlike their straight colleagues, lesbian and gay employees are barred from marrying in the state and therefore, in the absence of domestic partner benefits, are denied equal compensation.

Tuesday, the state agreed to extend the benefits retroactive to 2003.

“We are very pleased that the state has agreed to settle this litigation and provide the insurance.  It wasn’t fair that the state forced lesbian and gay employees to pay the high cost of health care for often inferior health insurance for their families when they worked just as hard as their straight colleagues,” said Peter Simonson of the ACLU of New Mexico.  

“I’m sure this will be welcome news to all lesbian and gay state employees, but especially to those who have retired or are planning to do so soon.” 

Under the settlement, the state has agreed to develop a process for enrolling those interested during the next open enrollment period, which comes this fall.  

“This is fantastic news.  We can finally start planning our retirement,” said Havens Levitt, who has been a teacher for the Albuquerque public school for 25 years. 

 “Until now, our only option was for me to keep working because my partner’s employment doesn’t provide insurance for her and private insurance was just too expensive.  It means a lot that the state has acknowledged I should be treated the same as my straight colleagues.”