Diane Curtis and Ellen Leuchs live in a state that provides fair and equal marriage rights to all its citizens, regardless of whether the person they want to marry is of the same sex. But in the 2010 census, the federal government won't recognize Diane and Ellen's very legal and legitimate marriage.

Their children Romy and Jamie will be counted as having single parents. They won't be counted as a family.

The Bureau followed the same procedure for the 2000 census, as a result of specific language in the Defense Of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. The law requires all federal agencies to recognize only opposite-sex marriages for the purposes of administering federal programs. The Census Bureau does not plan to change its procedure even though gay and lesbian couples can now marry in California and Massachusetts. Curtis was quoted in the Washington Post:

"It's like we've been Photoshopped out of the picture. How long is the federal government going to pretend we don't exist?"

This is just another example of how we need a new direction in this country. We need progressive leaders who will stand up for fairness and equality for all Americans and will recognize fairness and support it wherever it is. Electing Democrats is not enough -- we need truly progressive leaders who will go above and beyond.

Like most of you, my reaction to the ending of the same sex marriage ban was mixed.  Most of me was excited than an obvious case of discrimination was struck down.  A small part of me was still worried about November.  We've already seen the God and guns; here comes the gay issue.

Of course, even if this meant President McCain, I couldn't say this ruling was wrong.  You can't keep oppressing a minority out of fear of the voters.  In that case you won't stand for anything other than winning.  Fortunately though, I think this time, it's not going to be that big of a deal.  Follow me below the fold for the reasoning.

In a stunning 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court has ruled today that the ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional making it the second state after Massachusetts to allow gay couples to legally marry.

From calitics, the majority opinion concludes:

in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union "between a man and a woman" is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.  In addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand.

So what does this mean going forward?

Plaintiffs are entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandate directing the appropriate state officials to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling in this case so as to ensure that county clerks and other local officials throughout the state, in performing their duty to enforce the marriage statutes in their jurisdictions, apply those provisions in a manner consistent with the decision of this court.

Wow.

As you'll recall, in 2004, Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco authorized the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. 4,000 couples were married until they were halted by the...you guessed it...CA Supreme Court. A stunning turnaround in 4 short (although not short enough) years.

But as Lawyerish rightly points out, this is not the end of the fight. The anti-equality forces won't go down easy and in fact have already submitted a ballot initiative calling for a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to between a man and a woman. If it does make it to the ballot, it won't be until November where millions of motivated Californian liberals will be turning out in record numbers; in other words, I think the good guys just might win this one.

To his credit, Arnold Schwarzenegger has come out against it and reiterated his opposition in a statement today:

"I respect the Court's decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn the state Supreme Court ruling."

Word is that licenses will begin to be issued within 30 to 60 days. This is a huge day for equality and for all Californians. And it gets us closer to the day when the issue of gay marriage won't be perceived to be radioactive by our presidential candidates.

Crossposted to Vermont's Green Mountain Daily and Daily Kos

ISLAND POND, VT-- In an unprecedented move, conservative leaders took their boldest move yet this week in opposing same-sex marriage by threatening to divest themselves altogether from the institution of marriage should civil union laws be replaced with same-sex unions.

For the good of the site, Sandwich Repairman's Breaking Blue needs to be CHANGE immediately... Otherwise we sound like the main stream media or the GOP spewing inaccuracies as fact.

The NJ supreme court DID NOT approve gay marriage.  What they did was state that gays have a right to the same rights as marriage but there was nothing in the state constitution that GUARENTEED them the right to get married.  The ruling gives the legislature 180 days to either legalize gay marriage or pass a civil union law.  The ruling in NJ is similiar to the one in Vermont, but it should not be confused with the MASS ruling legalizing gay marriage.

Please try to be factually accurate.  It hurts us when we make those kind of mistakes.  

You know - life is hard and getting harder for a lot of people in this country.  I'm lucky.  My life is pretty good and, while I don't have or make a lot of money, I feel like a rich man.  I have a great family, wonderful friends, good health, and time to do the things I like to do.  There are a lot of wealthy people in this country who can't say that.

But not everyone is equally blessed.  I have a brother who lives in Phoenix, Arizona.  Like me, he has a great family and wonderful friends.  Unlike me, his health is not as good (he's been HIV positive for 22 years) and he doesn't have the time to do what he likes.  He paints houses for a living to make ends meet.  He also happens to be gay.

My brother's name is Andy.  He's a great guy.  I love him like a brother (ha! ha!).  He likes to work in his yard (yes, it's immaculate).  He's a big baseball and hockey fan.  He likes to drink beer and sip an occasional scotch.  He's more religious than I am.  He's a pretty good cook, but no better than me.  He has a great sense of humor and knows a lot of good jokes.  He pays his taxes and looks out for his neighbors.  Bill, his partner of fifteen years, is a great guy as well and I love him, too.

My brother is not a child molester.  He doesn't "sleep around."  He doesn't look, act, talk, or (yes, all you right-wingers will be surprised) walk like your stereotype of someone living "the gay lifestyle."  In fact, my brother's "lifestyle" isn't much different from mine or from most of the people I know, except when it comes to what goes on in his bedroom in private.  I don't like to think about that.  But, then again, I don't like to think about what goes on in most of my neighbor's bedrooms at night.  Most of them are in their forties and fifties.  Thinking about it just doesn't conjure up very pretty images, so I'll choose to just like them, respect their privacy, and leave their private lives alone.  The same goes for my brother.

I'm voting for Colorado Referendum i in November granting same sex couples basic rights because, even though my brother doesn't live in Colorado, there are many people like my brother who live here.  I know a few of them.  So do you.  Come on - admit it.  You may even have one in your own family.  They are in long-term, committed, same-sex relationships with each other.  But they don't have the same rights that my wife and I have.  That's just not right.  And this initiative will provide them with those rights.

For those of you on the political right, you need to know that I am a huge believer in marriage.  In fact, if you want to circulate petitions that make it a felony for a husband or wife to cheat on their spouse, I would be happy to sign it.  But don't take your hatred out on people who are different from you.  Don't make their lives harder than it already is just because you don't understand them, they're not like you, or somebody tells you that they are somehow evil.  They're not evil.  They're just people.  They're just the way God made them.

Cross posted from Stonewall Democrats of NYC's blog.

Peter Rosenstein wrote an OpEd in the Washington Blade calling for Dean's ouster because of his (according to Rosenstein purposeful) misstatements.  Now, to be fair, I'm none to pleased with Dean's latest "missteps" regarding our community, but I'm holding out passing any sort of judgement until I hear what he has to say at the NSD conference.  

Also, it is important to note that Rosenstein is a Beltway insider consultant and no doubt fairly wealthy.  This calls his motivation into question because those beltway folks HATE Dean.  Look, the guy puts his foot in his mouth and is trying to get the Democratic message out there.  However, he's been doing an amazing job as DNC Chair by building up and funding the state parties.  Rosenstein doesn't discuss that, instead he admits:

I long ago stopped contributing to the DNC, way back when I worried some of my money might go the re-election of Sam Nunn, the former senator from Georgia who came up with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

So here's a guy who stopped giving to the DNC in 1996.  A good 7 years before Dean was even on the national map.