CHANGE.ORG
Published January 30, 2009 @ 05:46AM PST
The big news out last night was that a California federal judge ruled that donors who gave money to the Yes on 8 campaign could not violate campaign finance laws and keep their donations secret. That's a huge victory for LGBT rights supporters, and a huge smackdown for donors looking to hide their donations to fund discrimination. Elsewhere in the country we're stopping by Florida, New York, and New Hampshire in today's 50 spot.
California: Supporters of the Yes on 8 campaign had sought an injunction from California federal courts to hide the names of all donors who gave money to help pass Proposition 8. Critics, including scores of LGBT rights groups and people who generally believe in the rule of law, argued that hiding the names of donors would prevent the public from knowing who exactly was behind a particular campaign. Yesterday, federal Judge Morrison England Jr. ruled in the matter, and he erred on the side of full disclosure. "If there ever needs to be sunshine on a particular issue, it's a ballot measure," said England in his ruling. That strikes us as a pretty funny statement to hear in a court of law ("sunshine"?), but the gist of the sentence is absolutely correct -- people shouldn't be able to hide their support of hateful ballot measures. Geoff Kors from Equality California agreed: "We are thrilled that the Court is requiring the Yes on 8 Campaign to play by the same rules and is preventing them from their attempt to circumvent the law."
Florida: Score another domestic partnership victory this week. The University of Tampa is going to start providing benefits for the partners of gay and lesbian employees. The same-sex domestic partnership plan will start April 1, and is (albeit unintentionally) a rebuff to county legislators in Tampa (technically Hillsborough county) which voted last week against implementing a same-sex domestic partnership plan for county employees.
New York: A New York state appelate court ruled in favor of a lesbian couple, after a lawsuit was brought by a group of nutjob radical rightwing religious people over the fact that the couple received state benefits. The radical religious group, the Alliance Defense Fund (based in Arizona, not even New York), sought to have the state of New York repeal benefits from Peri and Tamela Rainbow-Sloan, residents of Stone Bridge, New York, who were granted benefits from a state-run university after marrying in Canada in 2005. The Alliance Defense Fund argued that since same-sex marriage is not legal in New York, lesbian and gay couples in NY should not be afforded such coverage. But the court turned down their argument saying, "There is no New York court precedent holding that a New York statute… precludes recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages. To the contrary, several courts have recognized such marriages. … Once an out-of-state same-sex marriage is recognized, each party to the marriage is a legal spouse ... entitled to the benefits, rights and obligations of that status." Let's repeat that lesson for anti-LGBT foes who kvetch about same-sex benefits: there is NO court precedent precluding the recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages in New York.
New Hampshire: A host of civil union and same-sex marriage bills have been scheduled for a hearing in the New Hampshire House of Representatives on February 5. Among the bills to be discussed are measures to (1) grant civil unions to straight couples (New Hampshire already has a basic civil union structure for gay and lesbian couples); (2) recognize gay marriages in other states as civil unions in New Hampshire; (3) add civil union partners to all state insurance laws (hey, this one shows how civil unions aren't quite adequate to marriage rights -- civil union partners don't qualify currently for state insurance laws, while married couples do); and (4) recognize full and total marriage equality in the Granite state by legalizing same-sex marriage. These should be some pretty fun hearings.
No comments:
Post a Comment