VIDEO: Gay Marriage Measure Clears Senate Panel

By Andrea Salazar

Hill lawmakers are once again at odds, this time over a bill Democrats are pushing that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

Unlike DOMA, which defines marriage on a federal level as being between one man and one woman, the Respect for Marriage Act recognizes a state’s right to allow gay marriage. Six states currently allow same-sex marriage: Vermont, Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, New York and New Hampshire.

The bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday in a 10-8 party line vote.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sponsored the bill, called DOMA “discriminatory.” 

“DOMA prevents people legally married in a state to get the same federal rights and benefits that a heterosexual couple would get,” she told reporters. “It treats one class differently from another class.”

Republicans have cited moral reasons in their defense of DOMA, but today Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) made a new argument; that repealing the law would cost the government too much money.

“No one has paid into the Social Security system expecting benefits to be paid to same-sex partners, and it would be unfair for state laws to determine the eligibility for  social security survival benefits, which are a federal benefit,” Cornyn said during the committee’s meeting this morning.

The bill now heads for an uncertain vote in the Senate. Regardless of what the upper chamber does, the measure will likely die in the Republican-led House, where conservative GOP leaders strongly support DOMA.

House Republicans Condemn Prop 8 Ruling

District Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision last week to overturn a California ballot initiative that prohibited same-sex marriage was an example of “judicial activism at its worse,” according to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas).

Smith and fellow House Republicans Steve King (Iowa) and Michele Bachmann (Minn.) introduced a resolution this morning disapproving of Vaughn’s ruling. The resolution, according to Smith, has 15 co-sponsors in the House. However, it is uncertain whether it will attract the support of Republican leadership in the lower chamber.

In his decision, Walker ruled that moral objection to gay marriage on the part of California voters was not a rational enough reason to uphold Proposition 8. In addition, Walker wrote that the measure violated Equal Protection laws for homosexuals.

The trio of highly conservative lawmakers insisted today that their opposition to the ruling does not stem from the fact that it benefits the gay community, but rather that it highlights a growing trend of activism from behind the bench. Bachmann said she found the ruling “infuriating.”

“Are we now in the position of giving the judge the decision to decide whether or not the American people are rational when they go to the voting booth and make their wishes known?” she asked. “It certainly seems the answer would be in the negative.”

Supreme Court Rules Narrowly That Petition Signatures Not Secret

The Supreme Court today sidestepped the question of releasing signatures from a petition asking for a referendum on Washington state’s civil union law. Pro-civil union groups had asked for the names and addresses of everyone who had signed the petition, but signers argued the release would violate a First Amendment right to anonymous political speech and association.

In an opinion joined by six Justices, Chief Justice John Roberts declined to address specific threats against signers of this petition and instead ruled that, in general, the First Amendment does not prohibit releasing signatures supporting a petition. Roberts wrote that petition disclosure laws, like campaign finance disclosure laws, must be justified by the state, and in this case he accepted Washington’s argument that release of the names would help combat fraud and eliminate duplicate names and signatures by people who were not registered voters.

Roberts said that a lower court should be able to hear arguments over whether names on this particular petition should be released. Some signers have argued that they face possible retribution, including boycotts or violence, if their names are disclosed.

Unusually, several Justices wrote separately to give their opinions on the disclosure of these names while maintaining that the high court is correctly leaving the issue to the lower courts. Justice Samuel Alito said he thought the signers would likely prevail in the lower courts, while Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer said they thought the signers would not. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote separately to say he did not think the Constitution supported a right to anonymous speech, noting that even voting in elections used to be public.

Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the Court’s decision, arguing that disclosure would chill participation in democratic processes and that computer searches could adequately protect against mistakes and fraud.

The case is Doe v. Reed.

There Is A Place for Gays In Conservative Politics, Says British Politician

By Chingyu Wang - Talk Radio News Service

Conservatism is not only compatible with the principle of equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals, but such equality is an essential element of conservatism, says prominent British politician Nick Herbert.

Herbert, who was elected and became the first openly gay conservative member of Parliament in 2005, participated in a panel discussion on Wednesday hosted by the Cato Institute, along with notable gay blogger Andrew Sullivan and National Organization for Marriage President Maggie Gallagher.

"If we stand against equality of opportunity, which should be an article of faith for the Right, it becomes the preserve of the Left," said Herbert. "For the modern Conservative Party, embracing gay equality is neither a temporary phenomenon, nor an agenda which can be reversed."

Herbert said that although his party was once against homosexuality, current leadership has helped changed its agenda.

Gallagher, who opposes gay marriage, doesn't see the U.S. following the footsteps of the British political system, citing data produced from a recent Gallup Poll that showed 48% of Americans oppose gay marriage, while just 13% support it.

After sharing his experience of same-sex marriage, Sullivan pointed out that the GOP isn't as supportive of gay marriage as the British Conservative Party.

"In this country, those of who proudly call ourselves gay conservatives have struggled against the gay Left, and now we are struggling against the far Republican Right, which is now the Republican Party," said Sullivan.

Marriage Equality Moving Forward

By Courtney Costello- Talk Radio News Service

Since New Hampshire passed a gay marriage bill yesterday, legal conversations on the issue are heating. Today, The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy held an update on marriage equality in the United States and where the issue will stand in the future.

“When your challenging a marriage ban for same sex couples all they have to do is take out that gender requirement and everything else about marriage remains the same,” said Camilla Taylor, Senior Staff Attorney at the Midwest Regional Office for Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund.

New Hampshire joins Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine and Iowa, in legalizing gay marriage. New Hampshire Gay couples will be legally allowed to marry on January 1st, 2010.

“This is becoming a bipartisan issue where people from both sides, you’re seeing supporting equal rights and marriage equality,” said Chris Edelson, State Legislative Director for the Human Rights Campaign.