Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Flight Attendants for Marriage Equality

9th Circuit Court of Appeals DOMA Repeal DOMA trials Marriage equality Prop 8 trial Statements Videos

By Matt Baume

More positive polling in Maine and Washington. Gay couples get a green light to sue over civil unions in New Jersey. A vote on DOMA gets postponed until this week. And marriage equality gets a boost from the National Association of Flight Attendants.

We’re continuing the countdown to the next milestone in the Prop 8 case. Last week I told you that December 5th at 10am is the deadline for the California Supreme Court’s ruling on standing. And this week we learned that we’ll be back before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for oral arguments on December 8 at 2:30pm. We’ll be counting down to the 8th throughout this and future episodes.

The fight to repeal DOMA took a tiny step backwards this week — but then it took seventy steps forward. The Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the anti-gay marriage ban, was slated for a vote on Thursday, but at the last moment that vote was delayed for one week. Meanwhile, a group of 70 major employers filed an amicus brief in support of DOMA’s repeal.

Those employers include Microsoft, Starbucks, Blue Cross, Google, Nike, Time Warner, Xerox, and CBS, among many others. And they’re joined by an even wider array of organizations. That includes the Anti-Defamation League, the California Council of Churches, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Hindu American Foundation, People for the American Way, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Federation of Teachers, the Screen Actors Guild, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and, of course, the Association of Flight Attendants.

Among those opposing DOMA is Citizens for Responsibility for Ethics in Washington, who pointed out that DOMA creates a loophole that defeats ethics laws. Because DOMA prohibits government regulators from recognizing LGBTs’ marriages, we don’t have to abide by certain rules about nepotism or financial disclosure.

When the vote finally comes next Thursday, the Respect for Marriage Act will easily pass the Senate Judiciary Committee. Its success in the Senate is far less clear, but Freedom to Marry has been holding a series of salons to rally conservative support for the bill. The hope is that Republicans might find safety in numbers when they see how many of their colleagues support the freedom to marry.

Let’s take a look at news from the states. New polling in Maine shows a dramatic shift in favor of marriage equality among independent voters. The data from Public Policy Polling show that support among independents has increased from 46 percent to 53 percent — that’s 7 percentage points — in just two years. That’s good news for Equality Maine, which is preparing for a ballot fight in 2012.

There’s more good news in Washington state, where a new survey shows that if the legislature passed a marriage equality bill, 55 percent of voters would support it in a referendum. Unfortunately, lawmakers haven’t announced any plan to pursue marriage equality in 2012, since conservative lawmakers could potentially block such a bill.

In New Jersey, couples headed back to court in the latest round of a lawsuit over that state’s unequal civil unions. The case passed an initial hurdle on Friday, with a judge allowing the case to proceed on the grounds that civil unions don’t provide equal protection.

After one of its most successful legislative sessions in history, Equality California has been stumbling as leadership departs for other projects. This week the organization announced that Joan Garry, the former Executive Director of GLAAD, will help EQCA figure out its next steps.

And in Maryland, civil rights leader Julian Bond released a video in support of that state’s efforts to obtain marriage equality through legislative means. Bond is the third prominent African American to participate in the campaign. It’s a smart move, since earlier this year, African American churches in Prince George’s county played a role in defeating a marriage equality bill, so a diverse coalition is key to success in Maryland.

Those are the headlines for this week, remember to mark your calendars for December 8 at 2:30pm for the next arguments in the Prop 8 case. Join us at for more info on the case to overturn Prop 8, and for more info on all these stories and more. We’ll see you next week.


  • 1. dsc77  |  November 7, 2011 at 4:58 pm

    Why is my comment being instantly deleted by the administrator? I have no profanity in it. Just saying that we'll get the signatures we need here in Maine to get it on the ballot for 11/2012. Sheesh!!!!

  • 2. jpmassar  |  November 7, 2011 at 5:41 pm

    This one got through. Odd. Maybe some kind of glitch?

  • 3. Gregory in SLC  |  November 7, 2011 at 5:50 pm

    I've gotten that several times past couple of days too….yep, it would appear its a glitch.

  • 4. MightyAcorn  |  November 7, 2011 at 8:34 pm

    Me too, as you can see….Adam says we should email the admin at the email address that shows when your comments load.

  • 5. dsc77  |  November 8, 2011 at 8:27 am

    Speaking of glitches, is there a way that one can subscribe to BOTH replies and all new comments? I'm just not so active here anymore and these new-ish changes I'm not used to yet…

    Dave in Maine

  • 6. Adam Bink  |  November 8, 2011 at 7:32 am

    It's a glitch we're working through. Don't take it personally.

  • 7. dsc77  |  November 8, 2011 at 8:26 am

    Whew! I was afraid that there was some hidden meaning to "Yessah" that I didn't know about!

  • 8. _BK_  |  November 7, 2011 at 9:13 pm

    OT but important, at least to me:

    Does anyone know of a strong, solid, response to this article?

    One of my friends confronted me with this, and I have no clue on where to begin. If anyone knows of, and can find, a good refutation, I'd be extremely grateful!

  • 9. Steve  |  November 8, 2011 at 5:42 am

    Since when is the Catholic Church a good source of any information when it comes to sexuality? You can dismiss it out of hand simply because it comes from them.

    Besides, none of those practices are exclusive to gay people

  • 10. _BK_  |  November 8, 2011 at 8:00 am

    I know that it's incorrect; thankfully that's not the issue. (:

    My problem is that I know I lack the knowledge and eloquence to soundly smack down this piece. Also, simply throwing out the information won't do any good for my friend, whose mind I would really like to see changed.

  • 11. John  |  November 8, 2011 at 11:08 am

    If your friend/family is in the place where they believe the kind of things that were said in that article, then they're probably–at least for now–beyond your reach. That article is so filled with nonsense it's hard to know where to begin. Go to Box Turtle Bulletin for a good history of some of the fake researchers whose quotes get regurgitated by old-school bigots. Paul Cameron is mentioned below.

  • 12. John  |  November 8, 2011 at 11:10 am

    A typical trick is trotting out old (note the citations in the article), now discredited studies conducted with intentional bias, or misrepresenting a survey of a small group of people (eg, the people in a free-clinic waiting room) as representative of the general population. Again, Box Turtle Bulletin is very good.

  • 13. John  |  November 8, 2011 at 11:11 am

    Articles like this really are beneath a response. Consider what a person who believes all these things must be advocating, because it's not just opposition to equal rights, but ridding the world of LGBT people altogether. IMHO, it would be more meaningful, if you're committed to remaining friends/family with this person, to continue to live your life to your own higher standards, and demonstrate by example that you bear no relation to the monsters they imagine.

  • 14. Gregory in SLC  |  November 8, 2011 at 12:02 pm


  • 15. John  |  November 8, 2011 at 11:12 am

    One way to do that is by disengaging in a debate like this that's designed to demean you as a person. Since your friend/family is Catholic, think of it as similar to how Catholics sometimes describe their/our conversion process (currently–not in the past!). It's not evangelizing, but demonstrating an example of how to live, allowing others to follow, and accepting that you can't force other people to change.

  • 16. John  |  November 8, 2011 at 11:12 am

    Sorry for the ramble. It got away from me and I had to post separately to evade the current website blip.

  • 17. _BK_  |  November 20, 2011 at 11:58 am

    Nothing to be sorry about! You've been extremely helpful. Thank you!

  • 18. Steve  |  November 8, 2011 at 5:45 am

    Also, the lifespan BS? That sounds suspiciously like the crap Paul Cameron pushes and he has been thrown out of every professional psychological organization. The psychological stress doesn't exist because people are gay, but because organizations like the Catholic Church create a hateful social climate.

    This really, really isn't worth your time

  • 19. _BK_  |  November 8, 2011 at 8:04 am

    Note: This comment was originally 'deleted by the administrator' (Or moderator? I don't remember.)

    I don't believe the publication, but I would really like to show my friend how it's incorrect. I know the article isn't worth my time. I feel my friend is, though. I don't want them to be blinded anymore.

  • 20. Leo  |  November 8, 2011 at 5:51 am

    For a person who is interested in gay sex in the first place (i.e., gay or bisexual), the proper comparison for risk assessment is not with heterosexuals, but with gay (or bisexual) people who refrain from gay sex. It's the statistics in that latter group that the good doctor should be looking at. For example, maybe they have an even higher rate of depression and suicide?

  • 21. _BK_  |  November 8, 2011 at 8:05 am

    Thanks for the insight.

  • 22. New  |  November 8, 2011 at 10:21 am

    The church likes to marginalize, demonize, exclude and discriminate a minority group within the larger society, and then they count on the side effects of marginalization, demonization, exclusion and discrimination as their evidence against that same group.

  • 23. Dee  |  November 7, 2011 at 9:51 pm

    Comment deleted again?

  • 24. peterplumber  |  November 8, 2011 at 5:59 am

    I can't post a comment!! AUGH!!!!

  • 25. Gregory in SLC  |  November 8, 2011 at 6:41 am

    same…was trying to comment to BK…tried breaking up message, didn't work

  • 26. New  |  November 8, 2011 at 10:27 am

    I came across this video. I didn't watch in full yet but I guess its worth to share it here.
    " On the Bench and In the Game – Vaugh R, Walker "

  • 27. Ann S.  |  November 8, 2011 at 11:14 am

    Thanks, this looks very interesting! I noticed first off that the first introducer is probably the daughter of one of my favorite law school professors.

  • 28. Mike  |  November 8, 2011 at 11:06 am

    Bummer. Can't comment.

  • 29. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip  |  November 10, 2011 at 11:53 am

    […] you watched Matt Baume’s marriage news watch this week, you might have noticed this story already, but I thought it was worth examining in a little more […]

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!