But, wait! There are more bills in the air: Michigan has one seeking to repeal its constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and New Hampshire has one seeking to repeal its newly approved-but-not-yet-enacted marriage equality law.

And, of course, there is still Maine, a dropped ball.

Ever since last Tuesday, when voters in Maine voted to repeal the state’s newly approved-but-not-yet-enacted marriage equality law, opponents of same-sex marriage have touted the vote as a decisive renunciation of equal rights for gay couples.

They claim Maine was a “liberal New England state” where they were “grossly outspent.” Supporters of equal rights, who did eventually concede the defeat, the struggle is “about love and family and that will always be something worth fighting for.”

Both sides of the same-sex marriage issue have re-positioned their resources from Maine to these five other states.

New York

In New York State on Tuesday, the Senate was slated to take up a marriage equality bill. The bill  already passed the state Assembly, but the volatile Senate –where Democrats cling to a 32 to 30 majority—has been reluctant to take it up.

That reluctance continued: The Senate did not take up the bill Tuesday. Instead, Senate leaders huddled with Gov. David Paterson and, according to the New York Times, came up with yet another “vague agreement” to vote on the bill “before the end of the year.”

That may be as soon as Monday of next week, but many observers say they doubt the Senate will put the bill on the floor unless the Democratic leadership knows the bill has 32 votes.  Two Democrats have already said they would not vote for the measure, and the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage sent out a statement this week, saying it would “build a $500,000 war chest to fund a primary challenge to any Republican senator who votes for gay marriage –regardless of the outcome” of the Senate vote.

Washington, D.C.

 Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., counting votes is not an issue. A D.C. council committee voted 4 to 1 on Tuesday to approve a marriage equality bill there. The full Council will vote on Dec. 1; 10 of the 13 Councilmembers are sponsors of the legislation.

But inevitability is not translating into a smooth victory. The Council Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary heard more than 160 witnesses over two days of hearings testify for and against a bill that will provide for gay couples to be able to obtain marriage licenses. Simultaneously, the D.C. elections board heard testimony for and against a proposal to let D.C. voters decide by initiative whether to ban same-sex marriage.

Wait! Wasn’t it just last month that the elections board said there could be no ballot battle over same-sex marriage? Yes, but that was only in regard to D.C.’s just recently passed law recognizing marriage licenses same-sex couples obtain elsewhere, like in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, or Iowa. (New Hampshire’s law doesn’t go into effect until Jan. 1.)

Now, opponents are before the elections board seeking an initiative to establish a statute limiting the definition of marriage to straight couples. The board is expected to rule on that request in the next two weeks, says Human Rights Campaign regional field director Sultan Shakir.  Those opponents are being aided by the aid of the National Organization of Marriage and have the legal aid of another staunch conservative anti-gay group, the Alliance Defense Fund.

Perhaps trying to head off some of the controversy, the Council Committee on Tuesday agreed to amend the marriage equality bill by giving religious institutions more leeway to discriminate against same-sex couples. The original bill allowed religious institutions to refuse to accommodate same-sex weddings through such services as rental of space as long as they did not accommodate straight couples.

 But the Committee agreed to allow religious institutions to refuse only gay couples in spaces owned by the institution. One committee member tried to expand that even further to non-religious institutions, but the Committee said no.

The Committee also amended the legislation to continue providing a domestic partnership option for both straight and gay couples.

 New Jersey

Gay marriage supporters are considering a hurried run at the New Jersey legislature –a hurry necessitated by the defeat of incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine (D) in the Nov. 3 election. Corzine has said he would support of equal rights for gay couples, but his successor, Chris Christie (R), has promised to veto any such legislation.

 The New Jersey legislature passed a civil unions law after the state supreme court ruled that the state constitution required gay couples be able to obtain the same benefits of marriage as straight couples can obtain. Momentum has been growing, however, for full marriage equality.

But New Jersey is also the original home-base for the National Organization for Marriage and that group is already playing its “save the children” radio ads warning that allowing gay couples to marry will lead to homosexuality being “forced” on school children.

The Star-Ledger in Newark reported that NOM funded robo-calls to “every household in selected legislative districts” and that the Catholic church has been distributing letters statewide to rally opposition to any marriage equality bill.

Like New York, passage of a marriage equality bill in New Jersey will require some Republican votes.

Oregon, Michigan, New Hampshire

Meanwhile, efforts are underway in a couple of states to untie the constitutional binds that currently prevent states from treating same-sex couples the same as straight couples when it comes to marriage licensing.

In Oregon, the statewide gay group Basic Rights Oregon announced last week that it is launching a petition drive to put on the ballot in 2012 an initiative to repeal the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage there. Voters approved the ban by initiative in 2004, but in 2007, the state legislature approved a law to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and another law to allow same-sex couples to register as domestic partners.

In Michigan, the House speaker pro tem, State Rep. Pam Byrnes, made good on a promise she announced in June: She introduced a measure seeking repeal of the constitutional ban approved by voters there in 2004. If the bill receives two-thirds approval in the House and Senate, it will then go to voters in 2010.

But in New Hampshire, there is an attempt to repeal a marriage equality law approved earlier this year. The law is set to go into effect Jan. 1.

The idea for the bill emerged long before the vote in Maine, but the conservative Union Leader newspaper got the ball rolling last week with a blistering editorial, claiming that the repeal vote in Maine jostles the neighboring domino.

The paper said at least two bills are already being drafted to undo the marriage equality law –one by legislative repeal, one by voter repeal.

Openly gay State Rep. Jim Splaine, who sponsored the marriage equality bill earlier this year, said he expects opponents to file the repeal bill in January. Because the marriage equality bill passed on very close votes last spring, said Splaine, “we shouldn’t take anything for granted.”

© 2009 Keen News Service

The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from the St. James Anglican Church in the Diocese of Los Angeles. It is one of several dozen individual parishes and four dioceses nationwide that voted to split from the national church after the 2003 consecration of the first openly gay Episcopal bishop in New Hampshire.

California courts have ruled that, while St. James had the right to split off from the larger church, the congregation could not take parish property with it, even though the parish has held the deed to the church for decades.

The Episcopal Church has argued that its rules bar anyone from walking away with denomination property, which often includes large endowments and land worth millions of dollars. The conservatives who want to separate say they have spent years, even decades, spending money to maintain and improve the buildings.

St. James is now allied with an Anglican diocese in Uganda.

The case is St. James Parish v. Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles, 08-1579.

It was an easy set up. Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman contacted thinkers and writers who have penned a lot of words on the ills of gay marriage and asked them to make predictions of what social problems will happen in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire now that those states have marriage rights.

You would think that given an opportunity to warn of the apocalypse would have these folk jump at the chance, but alas heavy hitters like Maggie Gallagher and Stanley Kurtz demurred. I’m surprised at Kurtz and will give him  a pass. He is the only marriage rights foe I can think of who does not come from the topic with anti-gay animus.

David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values and author of “The Future of Marriage,” nibbled at the bait, but declined to give any specific predictions.

“I disagree with those who say it will have no impact at all,” Blankenhorn said. “But beyond that, I don’t think you can say.”

Proclaim same sex marriage will destroy the country but you can’t tell me how. Riiiiiight.

Those in favor of marriage rights played along.

M. V. Lee Badgett, an economist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and author of  “When Gay People Get Married: What Happens When Societies Legalize Same-Sex Marriage,” made this observation:  “In Europe, there’s no evidence that patterns have changed for marriage, divorce or non-marital births because of same-sex marriage or registered partnerships.”

I’m disappointed in the anti-gay marriage team. You would think after Chapman put down the gauntlet,  they would have swung for the fences.

And you wonder why we are winning the debate.

Post-script: this really shouldn’t be added but Gallagher did respond with some weak mess. Come on gurl. You can do better than people who don’t like same sex marriage will feel uncomfortable.

“What we have to work against is countless centuries of tradition which has judged homosexual people to be an abomination before God,” said Robinson, the Episcopal church’s only openly gay bishop.

Robinson sat in the front row of the gallery in the state House of Representatives last week, hands clasped at times, praying for lawmakers to push a little green button that indicates a “yes” vote.

In the end, there were 198 green lights to legalize gay marriage, and 176 red ones.

The gallery erupted and Robinson was caught up in a sea of hugs, which continued as he walked through the Statehouse to a rally outside.

“There are a lot of people standing here who, when we grew up, could not have imagined this,” Robinson said. “You can’t imagine something that is simply impossible. It’s happened, in our lifetimes.”

But Robinson, who was elected bishop six years ago this month, said more must happen to change attitudes in churches.

“The law says that every church gets to choose what it will do,” he said, meaning they can refuse to perform gay marriages. Robinson approves, saying the law protects religious freedom.

“But now we need to be working in our religious institutions to come to this new place about what is God’s will about this,” Robinson said. “I think a close look at that will reveal God loves all of God’s children, not just certain ones, and that’s the harder work.”

The law spells out that churches, their employees and religious groups cannot be forced to officiate at gay marriages or provide other services.

They were key elements pushed by Gov. John Lynch to win his approval.

But gay marriage opponents said the constitution already provides those protections to religious institutions. They argued the protections should be expanded to cover commercial vendors, such as photographers and caterers. That drew fire from gay marriage supporters who said the state’s anti-discrimination laws would be unraveled by allowing people to discriminate at will.

The law goes into effect in January.

In a speech in Washington last month, Robinson said despite recent momentum, the struggle continues for gay rights supporters in churches.

“Religion in general still presents the greatest obstacles we face in full equality,” he said. “Ninety-five percent of the oppression that we know in our lives comes from the religious community.”

Robinson’s election in 2003 caused a rift in the global Anglican Communion, intensifying a long-running debate over what Anglicans should believe about salvation, sexuality and other issues. The Episcopal Church, the Anglican body in the U.S., is more liberal than growing Anglican churches in Africa and elsewhere.

Meeting in Egypt in February, Anglican leaders requested their churches continue a temporary ban – enacted after Robinson’s election – on consecrating openly gay bishops and writing prayers for gay unions.

New Hampshire legalized civil unions for gay couples last year, but in a pastoral letter, Robinson told Episcopal clergy he would prefer they not preside at civil unions, instead, presiding over a blessing, afterward.

“It is my hope that we will be able to provide for the private, pastoral needs of the faithful people entrusted to our care, while causing a minimum of further furor in the Church,” he wrote in February, 2008, a month after civil unions became legal in the state.

But he said he would be “personally and institutionally supportive” of clergy who did not want to bless a civil union.

Robinson and his partner of 20 years were united in a civil union a year ago this month.

He said legislators recognized that gay marriage is more than a policy question and hopes churches will do the same.

“A lot of New Hampshire families have come to know people in their families who are gay, co-workers, former classmates and that’s what really made this difference. We are no longer talking about an issue,” he said. “We are talking about people.”

Requirements for marriage licenses vary from state to state, and couples  determining where to get married can find it baffling. Here’s a state-by-state equal marriage guide:

Connecticut:

The “Constitution State” followed Massachusetts  on Nov. 12, 2008, in allowing same-sex marriage. On Oct. 1, 2010, all existing civil unions will be automatically transformed into marriages.

* Where: Connecticut allows couples from out-of-state to get married, though they must apply for a license in either the town in which one of the individuals lives  or in the town in which the couple plans to marry. Couples can get the license from a local vital records office.
* How: Both partners must be present and must apply for the license in person.
* Out of state couples: Connecticut allows non-residents to get married.
* Waiting period: None.
* Cost: $35, cash only.
* ID: In addition to a photo ID (divers license, visa, passport, or military ID), those wishing to get a license will need to know their social security number, their mother’s maiden name, their parent’s birthplace, the date and location of the wedding, and the contact information of the wedding officiant.
* Other: The license expires after 65 days.

Iowa:

As of April 27, 2009, Iowa allows  gay residents and non-residents of the state to get married.
* Where: Couples should contact the county clerk’s office in the city they live in or wish to get married in to find out where to apply for a license.
* How: Both partners wishing to get married must be present when applying for the license.
* Out of state couples: Couples from out of state are allowed to marry in Iowa, though couples should contact the county clerk’s office to make sure no additional information is needed for non-residents.
* Waiting period: Iowa requires a three-day waiting period.
* Cost: $30, cash only. This does vary from county to county.
* ID: Along with a photo ID and social security information, Iowa requires one witness over the age of 18 be present when applying for the license.
* Other: Licenses are valid for six months.

Maine:

Though the state passed an equal marriage bill on May 6, 2009, the law will not go into effect until Sept. 14. A  people’s veto could prevent the law from taking affect – conservative activists are working to overturn the law now.

* Where: Couples should contact the local county clerk office to find the location of the town office where they need to get their license.
* How: Both partners must be present at the town office in order to get a license
* Out-of-state couples: Out-of-state residents can apply in any city or town office in the state;  it does not have to be in the same town as the wedding.
* Waiting period: None.
* Cost: $10 per person, cash only. Couples must also pay the cost of the certified documents, which varies.
* ID: A photo ID may be required, along with social security information.
* Other: The license is valid or 90 days, and no blood tets are required.

NEXT PAGE: Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire

“It will be a selling point when it comes to trying to lure people with same-sex partners who are being wooed for a job,”  M.V. Lee Badgett, a University of Massachusetts economist who studies gay and lesbian issues, told Reuters.

Gay and lesbian couples who are part of the “creative class” – highly educated professionals, entrepreneurs and artists – were 2.5 times more likely to move to Massachusetts in the three years following the approval of same-sex marriage, according to a study released in May by the Williams Institute of the University of California.

The relocating couples were more likely to be younger and female than before same-sex marriage was approved.

Even straight members of the “creative class” regard states with marriage equality as more appealing places to live.

“It broadly suggests you have an environment in which people who are seen as different are accepted,” said Gary Gates, the UCLA demographer  and the lead author of the study.

See the full Reuters story here.

That was the message today from a conference call organized by the Center for American Progress with Rev. Gene Robinson, the openly gay Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire and Rev. Rebecca Voekel, Director of the Institute for Welcoming Resources and Faith Work of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, plus the authors of two new reports on gay marriage and religion.

What was most interesting is that the two reports -  one analyzing an anti-gay marriage propositon in Michigan that passed, and one analyzing the Prop 8 campaign in California – come to the same conclusion: It is very important for the gay marriage movement to break the monopoly that the religious right has on religious and moral arguments around marriage.

In the past, the battle has gone like this: The anti-gay right uses Biblical and religious language, plus the infrastructure of religious institutions, to make the case that equal marriage invalidates the sacredness of limited straight marriage.

Gay activists, on the other hand, have a secular message of civil and human rights, focusing on the benefits gays and lesbians get from marriage. We reach out to religious groups, sure, but only once the battle lines have been drawn, and then haphazardly.

This is why we lose, when we do.

The solution?

First, that we acknowledge that religious opposition requires a religious response. Those on the call said that it is very important that we call on GLBT’s who are religious to speak up both in their faith communities and in their queer communities in order to help find common ground.

We must cultivate and support progressive religious leaders who speak out in the media and in the pulpit on our issues. We must show the media and the public that the Religious Right does not speak for all people of faith, or even all Christians.

We must emphasize to legislators and the public that religious marriage and civil marriage are two different states that share the same noun. We must say, as Robinson does, that forbidding gay marriage is a case where religions are infringing on a state’s right to marry those they deem fit.

We must build “strong and authentic alliances” with religious leaders and convince them that gay rights is a matter of justice.

And we must not write off any religious group as unmovable – all denominations and religions have moderate voices.

Voekel said that there are 5 million members of Welcoming Congregations across the nation – congregations that have voted to affirm that they are open to GLBTs. Younger evangelicals are twice as likely as evangelicals over all to support gay marriage, said Winne Stachelberg, vice president for external affairs for the Center for American Progress. 60 percent of Catholics under 30 support gay marriage. 2/3 of mainline Protestant clergy support gay relationships.

New Hampshire showed us the way to a new strategy: confirm religious liberties in the same law that passes equal marriage. Robinson said that “this is a new dimension to the discussion and a very effective one.”  He said that the religious liberties confirmed in the NH marriage law are redundant ones, already part of state law. But if re-affirming them is what leads to gay marriage passing, then so be it.

Robinson said, “We need to change the attitudes of religious people and clergy toward LGBT’s, but that’s a fight for another day. That’s a conversation that needs to take place in the denominations. We’re here to change the civil law.”

What a difference a week makes (too bad Dinah Washington isn’t around to give us a rendition of her signature song). Seven days ago there was teeth gnashing over the California Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Prop 8 vote. Heck we even had some keyboard revolutionaries leaving messages here about how it’s time to either shoot straight people or burn a few churches (how is that going you little pink Mau Maus?).

Today there is nothing but jubilation. Yesterday New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch put his signature on a gay marriage bill and starting in 2010, same sex couples will be able to walk down the aisle in the Live Free or Die State. The happiness is well deserved because it proves what Dan Savage pointed out: we are winning.

Attention now turns to New York and there is conflicting data. State Sen.Tom Duane, who is leading the fight in Albany, says there are enough votes to pass same sex marriage legislation. This turned Duane’s colleague, Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr., hissy and the anti-gay marriage advocate released a statement telling Duane to “shut-up” (Diaz has a history of press releases filled with operatic histrionics).

Wish I had a crystal ball that would show how the New York Senate will vote, but I have no idea what is going to happen. Nate Silver, over at 538.com, crunches the numbers and says it’s going to be a tough haul but nothing is definitive.

It makes my day to think like Nate.

PS: RIP Koko Taylor.

Gay marriage became legal in Iowa in April after the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that denying gays the right to marry is discriminatory. In New Hampshire, the Legislature approved a gay marriage bill Wednesday that will take effect Jan. 1.

While some see opposition to gay marriage easing nationwide, that’s not the case among Iowa Republicans – especially the relatively small number who dominate the state’s leadoff precinct caucuses. Social and religious conservatives dominate that group, and their opposition to gay marriage is solid.

To be competitive among Iowa Republicans, presidential candidates likely will have to toe that line, key strategists said.

“I’m guessing that most of the serious candidates will be for a constitutional amendment to define marriage,” said David Roederer, a veteran activist who managed John McCain’s campaign in the state. “I don’t think there’s going to be much of a difference.”

Steve Scheffler, head of the Iowa Christian Alliance, said the debate over gay marriage is part of a larger discussion of what he sees as the declining social culture of the country. Candidates must address that, he said, and gay marriage is a key element.

“I think there’s a whole wide range of issues they need to address – the state of our economy, the decline of our culture. All of those things have to be put on the table,” said Scheffler. “It’s absolutely essential, and it would behoove them to talk about it. I don’t think they can dodge it or duck.”

That isn’t the case in New Hampshire, where Republicans tend to be more fiscally conservative and socially moderate. New Hampshire has allowed civil unions since 2007; Iowa never allowed them.

“When presidential candidates campaign here, they have traditionally focused on the economy, foreign policy, health care,” said political analyst Dean Spiliotes. “Social issues have never really played a major role here in the campaign.”

A poll conducted by Dartmouth College in May found New Hampshire voters evenly split on gay marriage. Broken down by party, gay marriage had the support of 63 percent of Democrats, 43 percent of undeclared voters and 17 percent of Republicans.

Although the two states vote only days apart, candidates have a history of switching gears between Iowa and New Hampshire and will continue to do so, Spiliotes said, pointing to former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who won Iowa’s GOP caucus in 2008.

“When he was in Iowa, it was all about social conservatism, and then when he came to New Hampshire, that almost completely vanished,” he said. “So I don’t think that it’s going to have a huge impact on how people campaign here because I think to some extent, the state already had the reputation for being more libertarian, if not more moderate.”

New Hampshire’s primaries are open to independents, who outnumber those registered with either party and hold significant sway. Many are likely to vote Republican in 2012 if President Barack Obama seeks re-election and faces no primary opposition.

In Iowa, there’s very little party switching or involvement by independents, and history shows that a relatively small number of the parties’ hard-core activists determine the outcome. Giving an easy victory to Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister, speaks volumes of the mindset of the Republican activists who dominate the party and the precinct caucuses.

“We’ve gone so far to the social right, particularly in caucus attendees, that unless you meet certain litmus tests, you have a very difficult time competing in Iowa,” said Doug Gross, the party’s 2002 gubernatorial nominee.

Gay marriage might pose a different kind of litmus test in New Hampshire, said Jennifer Donahue, political director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics.

“The way people interpret this issue tells more about their feelings about government’s role in their personal lives than it does about gay marriage,” she said. “It becomes almost a litmus test for the candidates as to how libertarian they are.”

The Senate passed the equal marriage compromise bill this morning; this afternoon, the House passed the bill 198-176.

“With Gov. Lynch signing legislation passed by the state Senate and House, New Hampshire has become the latest state to recognize that loving, committed couples, and their families, should receive equal dignity and respect under the law,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.  “No religious institution will have to recognize any marriage under this law, as the language proposed by Gov. Lynch and agreed to by the legislature made abundantly clear.”

Only Rhode Island is the outlier in New England – the very Catholic state will be a much longer fight, even though a May poll showed that most Rhode Islanders actually favor a gay marriage bill.