“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.

The bill was marked up last week by the House Judiciary Committee.

A wide coalition of national civil rights, human rights, and faith communities is calling for swift approval of the bill. Among the groups is the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

“Violence against people because of who they are, where they worship, or the color of their skin, is the antithesis of what we stand for as a nation. Hatred that leads to violence is a matter of fundamental concern to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and its 200-member coalition and we are unified in our support of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act,” said Wade Henderson, president of the LCCR.

“The right to be protected and to be safe and free from physical harm or intimidation is the most fundamental of civil and human rights. We urge Congress to quickly pass the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, legislation that will enhance protections against hate crimes and give local police departments the resources they need to crack down on hate motivated violence,” said Benjamin Jealous, president and CEO of the NAACP.

“As Jews, we cherish the biblical commandment found in Leviticus 19:17: ‘You shall not hate another in your heart,’” said Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.

He added, “We know all too well the dangers of unchecked persecution and of failing to recognize hate crimes for what they are: acts designed to target and terrorize an entire community. All violent crimes are reprehensible, but hate crimes rend the fabric of society and fragment communities. By providing federal officials the authority to investigate and prosecute cases in which violence occurs because of victims’ real or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender or disability, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act will significantly strengthen federal response to these horrific crimes.”

Gay rights groups have been fighting to have the legislation passed for over a decade.

Because there is no federal law mandating states and municipalities to report hate crimes, they are often under-reported.  However, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s own statistics, based on voluntary reporting, show that since 1991 over 100,000 hate crime offenses have been reported to the FBI, with 7,624 reported in 2007, the FBI’s most recent reporting period.

Violent crimes based on sexual orientation constituted 16.6 percent of all hate crimes in 2007, with 1,265 reported for the year. In addition, while not captured in the federal statistics, transgender Americans too often live in fear of violence.

The legislation gives the Justice Department the power to investigate and prosecute bias-motivated violence where the perpetrator has selected the victim because of the person’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

It provides the Justice Department with the ability to aid state and local jurisdictions either by lending assistance or, where local authorities are unwilling or unable, by taking the lead in investigations and prosecutions of violent crime resulting in death or serious bodily injury that were motivated by bias.

It also makes grants available to state and local communities to combat violent crimes committed by juveniles, train law enforcement officers, or to assist in state and local investigations and prosecutions of bias motivated crimes.

President Obama has said that if the bill is passed he would sign it. If the House approves the current bill it would still need to be passed by the Senate.

“After 10 years, and tens of thousands more victims, this critical legislation combating hate violence is long overdue,” said Joe Solmonese, President of Human Rights Campaign.

” On behalf of the overwhelming majority of the American people, and more than 300 law enforcement, religious and civil rights organizations, we urge Congress not to delay in sending this bill to the President’s desk where he has stated he will sign it into law.  We must not miss this opportunity to provide local police and sheriffs’ departments with the tools and resources they need to ensure that entire communities are not terrorized by hate violence,” he said.

It is expected the bill will be marked up and be sent to the full House for a vote, possibly before the end of the month.

The bill was introduced with bipartisan support by Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Mark Kirk (R-IL). In addition to LGBT rights groups, the bill has the support of more than 300 law enforcement, civil rights, civic and religious organizations.

Gay rights groups have been fighting to have the legislation passed for over a decade.

Because there is no federal law mandating states and municipalities to report hate crimes, they are often under-reported.  However, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s own statistics, based on voluntary reporting, show that since 1991 over 100,000 hate crime offenses have been reported to the FBI, with 7,624 reported in 2007, the FBI’s most recent reporting period.

Violent crimes based on sexual orientation constituted 16.6 percent of all hate crimes in 2007, with 1,265 reported for the year. In addition, while not captured in the federal statistics, transgender Americans too often live in fear of violence.

The legislation gives the Justice Department the power to investigate and prosecute bias motivated violence where the perpetrator has selected the victim because of the person’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

It would provide the Justice Department with the ability to aid state and local jurisdictions either by lending assistance or, where local authorities are unwilling or unable, by taking the lead in investigations and prosecutions of violent crime resulting in death or serious bodily injury that were motivated by bias.

It also makes grants available to state and local communities to combat violent crimes committed by juveniles, train law enforcement officers, or to assist in state and local investigations and prosecutions of bias motivated crimes.

President Obama has said that if the bill is passed he would sign it.

The legislation  passed the House in 2007, but President Bush threatened to veto it if it passed in the Senate.

In an effort to get around a veto, the Senate version was tied to the 2008 defense authorization bill.  It passed but then went to conference, where it was stripped out.

The Assembly Judiciary Committee voted 7-3 to put the legislature on record as opposing Prop 8. The resolution goes next to the full Assembly.

The vote came as about 1000 members of the state’s LGBT communities converged on the legislature to lobby lawmakers.  

The group ignored heavy rain, but many members of the Senate were unavailable – tied up in meetings trying to resolve California’s financial crisis. Nevertheless, the gay volunteers pressed on, buttonholing lawmakers to press the case that Prop 8 enshrined discrimination in the state Constitution.

Voters approved Prop 8 in November with a slim 52 percent majority. 

The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the vote.  They were joined by additional suits by the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles. 

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case on March 5.

The lawsuits charge that Proposition 8 is invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution’s core commitment to equality for everyone, by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group – lesbian and gay Californians. 

They also say that Proposition 8 improperly attempts to prevent the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of protecting the equal protection rights of minorities. The suits say that under the California Constitution, such radical changes to the organizing principles of state government cannot be made by simple majority vote through the initiative process, but instead must go through the state legislature first.

The California Constitution itself sets out two ways to alter the document that sets the most basic rules about how state government works, the groups said in a written brief to the court.

Through the initiative process, voters can make relatively small changes to the constitution.  But any measure that would change the underlying principles of the constitution must first be approved by the legislature before being submitted to the voters.  That didn’t happen with Proposition 8, and that’s why it’s invalid, the petitioners said.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown is also asking the Court to invalidate Proposition 8 on the ground that certain fundamental rights, including the right to marry, are inalienable and can not be put up for a popular vote.

In a brief submitted to the court, Brown’s office said the measure should be invalidated because it deprives people of the right to marry—an aspect of liberty that the Supreme Court has concluded is guaranteed by the California Constitution.

On the other side, Protect Marriage Coalition, the umbrella group that put Prop 8 on the ballot, argues in its brief to the court that the will of the people must be respected by the court and that the measure also invalidated those marriages performed prior to the vote.

The coalition has hired Ken Starr, who led the inquiry into President Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica L. Lewinsky, to argue its case before the high court.

The Supreme Court justices will have to determine three main issues: Is Prop 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution; Does it violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution; and if it is legal what is the status of the 18,000 marriages that were performed last year.

After the court hears the legal arguments, it will be several months before a decision is issued.

The measure would legalize civil unions with all of the benefits, protections and responsibilities of marriage.  It also would recognize domestic partnerships entered into in other states. Marriages from Massachusetts and Connecticut would be regarded as civil unions.

Under the legislation, same-sex couples would have to obtain a license and then have the civil union performed by a judge, a retired judge or a member of the clergy.

“It’s really inspiring for me today,” said state House Majority Leader Blake Oshiro (D) the bill’s sponsor. But its main opponent, State Rep. Gene Ward (R) said it was the beginning of a “slippery slope” and that gays would not be satisfied until they got same-sex marriage. “This is not to condemn individuals, it’s to protect an institution,” he said.

In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court was the first in the country to rule that barring same-sex marriage could be a violation of the state constitutional protection of equal rights.

In 1997, the Legislature passed a domestic partner law allowing gay couples to register with the state Department of Health. It allowed couples to have rights as reciprocal beneficiaries in hospital visitations, inheritance and property, and the ability to sue for wrongful death.

But in 1998 as calls for same-sex marriage increased,  nearly 70 percent of Hawaii voters passed a constitutional amendment giving the Legislature the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.

The committee room was packed as senators took up the death damages bill.  

 It would have allowed any two people who live together and are mutually dependent and are named in a will or trust access to a wrongful death court action if tragedy occurs.

In addition to same-sex couples, the legislation would have applied to siblings or other family members.

But two senators who voted against the measure said they were concerned that approving it would be a move toward legalizing gay marriage. Utah has a so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and in 2004 the state constitution was amended to bar same-sex marriage. 

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Scott McCoy (D) disputed the concerns. 

“It doesn’t single anyone out based on a cohabiting relationship or a sexual relationship. It doesn’t matter the gender, rather it’s the economic relationship,” he said.

The defeat of the measure does not bode well for the other five measures - including health care, a clarification of the marriage ban, a partner registry, and a bill to include gays in job and housing protections.

Nevertheless, McCoy said he will press ahead with the bills.

Earlier this month, a poll commissioned by Equality Utah found that 63 percent support gay legal protections including some rights for same-sex couples.

The survey found that 62 percent believe it should be illegal to fire someone for being gay and 57 percent said it should be illegal to deny housing to someone for being gay.

On the issue of partner rights, 73 percent said they would support health insurance coverage for a partner or other designated adult for state employees. Utahans however are not ready for same-sex marriage.  Only 20 percent said they supported gay marriage.

Bruno, a Republican, retired from the Legislature in July after more than a dozen years leading the Senate.

An eight-count indictment by the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of New York accuses Bruno of using his office to defraud the people of New York from 1993 through at least 2006.

Court papers allege he received $3 million in payments from people and businesses seeking state and union contracts.

Following a court appearance he blamed the investigation on his political foes.

“This is not the first time we’ve seen deeply flawed, dysfunctional or even illegal behavior by those with prosecutorial power,” Bruno said.

During his career in the state Senate he was the Legislature’s most vocal opponent of LGBT civil rights.

In 2007, the NYS Assembly passed legislation that would allow same-sex couples to marry.  The measure had the approval of then Gov. Elliott Spitzer and more recently current Gov. David Paterson.

Bruno used his position as Senate leader to block the bill from being considered in the Senate.

For seven years in a row, the Assembly passed the Dignity For All Students Act.  Bruno opposed the anti-bullying bill in the Senate over its inclusion of gender identity.

Bruno also opposed the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act, or GENDA, which bans discrimination against transgender people in housing, employment, credit, public accommodations, and other areas of everyday life.

Considered the oldest serving state legislative leader in the country, Bruno  ran the Senate with an iron fist for more than a dozen years and was the state’s top Republican.

He was known as a formidable opponent who crippled the administration of Democratic Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who resigned amid a prostitution scandal last March.

Sen. Dennis S. Damon (D) said the legislation would amend existing laws defining partners of a marriage to be “the legally recognized union of two people.”

He said the bill would eliminate discrimination in marriage licenses and would affirm that no religion would be forced to conduct a same-sex marriage.

The legislation, he said, also would recognize same-sex marriages from other states where they are legal.

Damon was joined at the new conference by leaders of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, Maine Freedom to Marry Coalition, Equality Maine, the Maine Civil Liberties Union, and the Maine Women’s Lobby.

Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders is the Boston-based group that won equal marriage rights in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

It said last fall that it intended to fight for gay marriage rights in the other four New England states and predicted success by 2012.

Same-sex marriage bills already have been announced in Vermont, New Hampshire and Rhode Island.

The chances of success in Maine are unclear at this stage.

In November, the leader of Maine’s Roman Catholics told churchgoers across the state they have a moral duty to oppose moves to legalize same-sex marriage in the state.

Following Damon’s announcement, the conservative Maine Marriage Alliance said it would press for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

Caroline Kennedy is widely believed to be the frontrunner but Paterson also is said to be considering New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo who has been touted as a possible challenger to Peterson’s re-election bid for the governorship.

Other names that have come up include openly gay Assemblymember Daniel O’Donnell who introduced a gay marriage bill in 2007 in the legislature and shepherded it to passage in the house. The GOP-controlled Senate refused to consider the bill.

O’Donnell, who is the brother of lesbian celebrity Rosie O’Donnell, has said he will introduce the bill in the new session.

O’Donnell has confirmed he has been approached by Paterson and met with the governor on Christmas eve for a very “informal” discussion. But he also said that he did not approach the governor and is not actively campaigning for the Senate appointment.

O’Donnell was the first openly gay man elected to the Assembly. If he were appointed to replace Clinton he would be the first openly gay US senator.

Paterson said that 15 contenders are interested in the job and he’s already spoken to or interviewed about 10.

Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi of Long Island and representatives Carolyn Maloney, Steve Israel, Jerrold Nadler, Kirsten Gillibrand and Brian Higgins are reportedly among the 15.

Paterson said he will not make an appointment until Clinton is confirmed as Secretary of State.

Kennedy has the support of the vast family’s political machine and is believed to be the favorite of President-elect Barrack Obama, although he has not publicly voiced an opinion. Kennedy, along with her uncle Sen. Ted Kennedy, was an early supporter of Obama.

Paterson said for the first time Thursday that Caroline Kennedy’s lack of legislative experience is a “minus” to her qualifications as a possible appointee to the  Senate.

The governor also said Kennedy has many positives despite never holding elective office.

“Caroline Kennedy obviously does have a tremendous relationship with [President-elect Barack Obama] that’s certainly a plus,” Paterson said. “She does not have much political, I mean, legislative experience, which is a minus.”

Kennedy is on record as supporting marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples.

New York

Forty years of Republican rule in the New York state Senate came to an end in November with Democrats now in control of both houses in the Legislature and the governor’s mansion.

But whether that is enough to see a marriage equality bill enacted in the Empire State remains unknown.

A bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry in New York passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly last year, but Republicans who then controlled the Senate refused to consider the legislation.

At least three Democratic Senators say that when the bill is reintroduced this year, they will vote against it. That could be enough to defeat the bill.

In 2006, the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, ruled that same-sex couples do not have a constitutional right to marry. It said that the issue, however, could be taken up by the Legislature.

Gov. David Paterson has said he would sign the measure if it passes.

Last year, Paterson issued an executive order recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples who were married in areas where they are legal. That has resulted in a large number of gay and lesbian couples going to Connecticut, Massachusetts or Canada to wed and then returning to New York to have the marriages recognized.

New Jersey

New Jersey also could see passage of equal marriage legislation.

In 2006, the state Supreme Court ruled same-sex couples must have all the rights of marriage.

The Court gave the New Jersey State Legislature 180 days to act on the decision to grant same-sex couples the rights and benefits enjoyed by different-sex married couples, but left it up to the legislators to decide whether to call it marriage or civil unions.

The legislature opted for civil unions. But that, said civil rights groups, amounted to a situation that was separate but equal.

A commission established by the state to study same-sex civil unions in New Jersey agreed with that argument.

The commission held three public hearings last year at which the majority of the testimony came from people who were in civil unions who said they were still not being treated the way married couples are by government agencies, employers and others.

For instance, the commission found that many companies in the state that are self-insured – and therefore are regulated by federal, rather than state, law – refuse to provide health insurance to the partners of their employees.

A bill to allow for same-sex marriage was filed in the last session of the New Jersey legislature but gained little support in an election year from either House or Senate leaders. With a new legislature the bill is expected to be refiled and Garden State Equality believes it will have a strong chance of passage.

Gov. Jon Corzine has said he would sign a marriage bill if it were passed.

New Hampshire

There is a strong likelihood a gay marriage bill will pass in New Hampshire.

Rep. Jim Splaine, who sponsored the state’s civil unions law, said he believes there will be enough votes to pass his same-sex marriage bill.

But state Republicans not only oppose the marriage bill, they say they will bring in legislation that repeal the civil union law that went into effect last January.

Vermont

Vermont was the first state in the country to legalize civil unions in 2000.

An 11-member commission was set up by the leaders of the Vermont House and Senate, both Democrats, to look into Vermont’s civil unions law to see if it is providing equality for gay and lesbian couples.

It submitted its report to the legislature last April, but made no recommendations on revising the law to allow for same-sex marriage.

The legislature is expected to consider a bill this year that would amend the state’s civil union law to provide for full marriage.

Gov. Jim Douglas has said he would veto the bill if it passes.

Two other states also are likely to have marriage equality bills: Rhode Island and Maryland.

A bill to allow same-sex marriage was filed in the Maryland legislature last year but failed to gain traction. It is expected to be refiled in the new session but its fate is unknown. Legislation is also expected in Rhode Island.

Other States

In the state of Washington, lawmakers this year will consider adding new rights and obligations to the 2007 Domestic Partner law. It already covers areas such as hospital visitation rights among the 200 rights offered to same-sex couples and opposite-sex coupled seniors.

Openly gay Sen. Ed Murray (D-Seattle) says he thinks it still is too early to push for full marriage rights but believes that can be achieved in increments.

He is proposing adding pension and parenting rights and tax obligations. His draft already covers 1900 pages.

The New Mexico legislature will consider a domestic partner registry in the new session. It would allow any two people who live together in a committed and economically dependent relationship to register.

Both same and opposite-sex couples would be allowed to register with county clerks. The legislation would provide few direct benefits but could be used as proof of a relationship for benefits at private companies that have domestic partner insurance plans for their workers.

Several other states will take up bills expanding human rights laws to include members of the LGBT communities.