Chastity Bono, civil rights advocate, journalist, author and musician, is in the early stages of changing his gender -- transitioning from female to male, TMZ has learned.

Bono, the child of legendary entertainers Sonny and Cher, began the process earlier this year, shortly after his 40th birthday.

"Yes, it's true -- Chaz, after many years of consideration, has made the courageous decision to honor his true identity," confirmed Bono's publicist, Howard Bragman.

"He is proud of his decision and grateful for the support and respect that has already been shown by his loved ones. It is Chaz's hope that his choice to transition will open the hearts and minds of the public regarding this issue, just as his 'coming out' did nearly 20 years ago.

We ask that the media respect Chaz's privacy during this long process as he will not be doing any interviews at this time."

ALBANY — Still reeling from a sudden revolt a day earlier that shifted control of the New York State Senate to Republicans, Democrats huddled behind closed doors in the Capitol on Tuesday morning, seeking a legal path to help them block the power grab.

But it was far from clear whether they would be able to keep Republicans from assuming control of the Senate, or whether they would even be able to keep more members from defecting and further cementing the new Republican majority.

“We have to maintain unity within our conference,” said Senator José M. Serrano, who represents parts of Harlem and the Bronx. “This is a real test for us, and this is the time when we show what we’re made of. I think there’s a lot of anger at what took place yesterday on the floor, but I think it’s important that we channel that to stay as unified as possible within the conference.”

Throughout Tuesday morning, stunned Democrats continued to insist that they were still the party in control of the Senate, and that Malcolm A. Smith — only five months into his role as head of the Senate majority — was still their leader.

“Until he’s removed, he’s still the majority leader,” said Senator Eric T. Schneiderman, a Democrat who represents parts of the Upper West Side and the Bronx.

But as Senate Democrats contemplated legal maneuvers, Gov. David A. Paterson told reporters who gathered in the sprawling Capitol complex here on Tuesday that he had no intention of personally involving himself in the dispute — legally or otherwise. The governor, who on Monday called Albany a “dysfunctional wreck,” said that he had no plans to meet with either Senator Dean G. Skelos, the Republican leader, or the newly defected Democrats who joined ranks with the Republicans.

“I’m not going to interfere,” Mr. Paterson said. “We recognize that Senator Smith is majority leader until such time that all parties in the Senate agree that he is not. There’s dispute over how the transfers of power did or did not take place. They have to resolve that.”

With the Senate leadership in flux and the line of succession to the governor’s office unclear, Mr. Paterson added that he would not be traveling out of state anytime soon.

“If there’s any type of misunderstanding or issue of who is next in charge,” he said, “I would think the best thing for me to do is stay here.”

The tumultuous coup on Monday was prompted by two dissident Democrats — Pedro Espada Jr. of the Bronx and Hiram Monserrate of Queens — who had been secretly strategizing with Republicans for weeks. The two bucked their party’s leaders and joined with 30 Republican senators to form what they said would be a bipartisan power-sharing deal. But the arrangement effectively re-establishes Republican control.

The change upends the agenda in Albany, where Democrats had assumed power in the Senate in January, with 32 seats, after more than 40 years in the minority. Democrats were pushing bills to give tenants more rights, strengthen abortion rights and legalize same-sex marriage this session. And the move underscores the continuing tumult of New York politics, where there have been three governors in less than three years and four Senate presidents since last summer.

Democratic leaders were caught off guard as the Republicans and their two new allies moved to topple them, and at one point became so flustered that they turned out the lights in the Senate chamber to try to prevent Republicans from installing new leaders.

Asked by a reporter what was occurring just moments after the announcement, Senator Smith, who was huddled in the hall with his staff, responded, “I’m trying to find out right now.”

A spokesman for Mr. Smith, who lost the titles of majority leader and Senate president in the shakeup, issued a statement later saying that Democrats would challenge the vote, but it was not clear that they had grounds to do so.

The toppling of Democratic control unfolded in swift and stunning fashion shortly after 3 p.m. as senators gathered in the lofty oaken chamber for what seemed like small-bore legislative action on an uneventful afternoon.

Then, Senator Tom Libous, a Binghamton Republican, offered a resolution to reorganize the Senate leadership, a parliamentary maneuver that captured the entire Capitol’s attention. Within minutes, reporters, staff members and Assembly members rushed to the Senate, crowding the chamber floor.

Democrats tried to stall the move, storming from the chamber and turning out the lights, but the Republicans continued the session as the two Democrats joined with them to elect new leaders.

Quickly and without a numerical majority, Dean G. Skelos, a Long Island Republican, reclaimed the title of Senate majority leader. Mr. Espada was made Senate president.

Both Mr. Espada and Mr. Monserrate said they would remain Democrats even as they work with Republicans to run the Senate.

Each man has legal troubles. Highlighting the often elastic nature of ethical stands and alliances in Albany, Republicans who earlier this year were calling on Mr. Monserrate to resign after his indictment on felony charges that he stabbed his companion with a broken glass are now welcoming him as part of their power-sharing coalition.

Asked about the reversal, Mr. Skelos said, “He’s an elected member, and the reforms are more important.”

Mr. Espada has been fined tens of thousands of dollars over several years for flouting state law by not disclosing political contributions.

The state attorney general’s office is also investigating the Soundview HealthCare Network, a nonprofit organization that Mr. Espada ran until recently.

The new leadership structure means that Mr. Espada would become governor if Governor Paterson were incapacitated.

Mr. Espada, who is the first Latino Senate president, called his ascension “a sobering moment.” He predicted that other Democrats would decide to join the coalition, saying there was broad frustration with Mr. Smith’s leadership.

“Frustration was obviously building,” he said in an interview later. “There was little prospect for change on a number of fronts. We experienced five months of the budget process, and the absolute lack of transparency and the hypocrisy and the rhetoric grew too much for me.”

But money also played a part. Mr. Espada said he was angered that a top aide to Mr. Smith had threatened to hold up his legislative earmarks, known as member items.

Mr. Smith, at a news conference Monday night, argued that the Senate had adjourned when the Republicans took power —both sides argued the procedural fine points of what took place — and insisted that “the Senate majority is still in Democratic hands.”

“I’m not going to have this institution, which is a very proud institution, be demeaned in a manner like this,” Mr. Smith said. But Mr. Smith’s support appeared shaky; at least half a dozen Democrats did not attend his news conference.

After installing their leaders, Republicans enacted a series of rules changes, including six-year term limits for the president and majority leader, steps to equalize the budgets of the majority and minority parties and mandating that pork barrel projects would be distributed equally among members of both parties.

The changes were pushed by Tom Golisano, the Rochester billionaire who spent heavily in the 2008 Senate election to elect members he believed were committed to a more open Albany. But he felt betrayed that Senate Democrats did not act more boldly when they took over in January.

Mr. Skelos said his legislative priorities would include resolving whether Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg could retain control over the New York City school system, reforming property taxes and reissuing property tax rebate checks that had been eliminated by Governor Paterson and lawmakers in budget negotiations earlier this year.

He said he had not discussed with Mr. Espada whether they would bring the same-sex marriage bill to a vote.

Mr. Skelos has said he opposes same-sex marriage, but Mr. Espada is one of the co-sponsors of the legislation, which has been one of the most closely watched issues this session.

Republicans almost kept control of the Senate after the November election by courting Mr. Espada and two other dissident Democrats, Carl Kruger of Brooklyn and Rubén Díaz Sr. of the Bronx. Neither man left the chamber with the other Democrats on Monday while Republicans took power.

Mr. Kruger was noncommittal when he was asked if he would consider joining Mr. Espada.

“It’s very early to talk about that right now,” he said. “Everybody has to take a deep breath.”

Mr. Golisano, who played a central role in brokering the deal, recently announced that he was moving his legal residence to Florida out of anger about the budget deal hammered out in April by Democratic leaders in Albany, which included an increase in taxes on high earners.

Appearing at a news conference with Mr. Skelos and Mr. Espada, he said talks had been under way for several weeks.

The shakeup most likely means that Republicans will take over the chairmanships of most of the Senate’s committees. Staff members, whose jobs often depend on which party is in power, were trying to assess the impact of the switch Monday night.

Participants hope Gay Pride parade will prompt anti-same-sex marriage politicians to reconsider

Organizers of this weekend's Queens gay pride parade are expecting the event's largest turnout yet as the push for a same-sex marriage bill appears to be gaining steam.

Participants are hoping to change the minds of three state senators in the borough who are opposed to legalizing gay marriage in New York.

"Most of the people who are going to be coming to the parade are going to be focusing on marriage equality," said parade co-founder Daniel Dromm.

The 17th annual Queens Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Pride Parade will kick off at noon Sunday at 37th Ave. and 89th St. in Jackson Heights. Dromm expects 40,000 attendees - about 10,000 more than last year.

"The senators need to realize that lesbian, gay, transgender and bisexual people are their friends, their neighbors," Dromm said. "We are, in fact, everywhere."

The Assembly passed a same-sex marriage bill last month. Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith (D-St. Albans) has said he won't bring the issue to a Senate vote until he's sure it will pass.

Onorato, in particular, has been targeted for his stance. Same-sex marriage advocates held a rally in Astoria on May 31 to convince the veteran lawmaker to change his position.

"Although I remain opposed to same-sex marriage, I deeply respect the views of the advocates and will not take any action to prevent the bill from coming up for a vote in the Senate," Onorato said yesterday.

"But I think a parade is the time to display the deep and broad support that the gay community enjoys," he said.

This year also is the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, widely credited for launching the gay rights movement.

New York's push for a gay marriage bill picked up steam after Iowa legalized same-sex marriages in April. New Hampshire legalized gay marriage on Wednesday, making it the sixth state to do so.

Scott Kramer, 41, of Jackson Heights encouraged all people, gay and straight, to attend.

"There is strength in numbers," said Kramer, who tied the knot with his partner of nine years in Connecticut last year. And, he said, "It's a lot of fun."

The California Supreme Court announced its deeply disappointing decision to uphold Proposition 8.

While we are pleased that the court recognized the legal marriages of the 18,000 same-sex couples married in 2008, we are saddened by the Prop 8 decision.

But we don't have time to mourn the failure of the state court to restore marriage equality to California.

It's time to go on offense. To be fearless in our fight for equality. Starting right now:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/Fearless

Last week, we asked our members to vote on which year -- 2010 or 2012 -- the Courage Campaign should support going back to the ballot to restore marriage equality. Your collective response was overwhelming -- 82.5% support a 2010 ballot measure. As a result, the Courage Campaign is announcing today its strong support for a 2010 initiative, while respecting that partner organizations are still discussing and deliberating this very important question.

In response to the court's decision, the Courage Campaign will hit the California airwaves in the next 72 hours with a 60-second TV ad version of "Fidelity" -- the heartbreaking online video viewed by more than 1.2 million people, making it the most-watched video ever in the history of California politics.

We are launching this provocative new TV ad in the spirit of Harvey Milk's call to "come out, come out wherever you are" and proudly tell the stories of the people most affected by the passage of Prop 8 -- in moving images set to the beat of Regina Spektor's beautiful song.

Be fearless. Watch this 60-second "Fidelity" TV ad now and -- if you want more people to see it -- contribute $25, $50, $100, $250 (or as much as you can afford) to expand our ad buy immediately in Bakersfield, Fresno, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego and San Francisco ASAP:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/Fearless

Did you cry when you saw the original 4-minute "Fidelity" video, inspired by pictures sent to us by our members? So did many of the people who watched the premiere of the TV ad version at recent Camp Courage training events in San Diego and Oakland, erupting in cheers and standing ovations, and spontaneously passing the hat to pay to put "Fidelity" on TV.

"Fidelity" is part of a larger strategy to build and empower a grassroots army of Courage Campaign Equality Teams across California. For three months now, 24 teams in 15 counties have been laying the foundation for the difficult battle ahead, knocking on doors in the heart of the Central Valley and coastal communities of California.

If you think "Fidelity" symbolizes the kind of fearless campaign you think should be waged to restore marriage equality, please contribute $25, $50, $100, $250 or more TODAY to put it on the air across California. We don't have much time, so please donate now:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/Fearless

Be fearless. We can't win without you.

Rick Jacobs
Chair, Courage Campaign

P.S. Need to know now where the "Day of Decision" rally is tonight in your town? Our brilliant friends at CREDO Mobile have teamed up again with the Courage Campaign and Join the Impact to make it super-easy to get the info you need ASAP. Just text "RALLY" and your zip code (example: RALLY 94131) to 27336 and you will immediately receive a text message with the event closest to your neighborhood!

There are only about 30 days left for the New York State Senate to pass the Same Sex Marriage Equality bill making same sex marriage legal in New York State. Please call your New York State Senator’s office and tell them you would like them to vote YES for this bill ( Senate Bill # S 4401) These senator need to hear from as many individuals as possible. Your voice does count!

If you do not know who your New York State Senator is, please go to this site to obtain that information www.nysenate.gov

After you have made the call, please forward this message and encourage as many of your friends and colleagues to do the same.

ALBANY - The state Assembly passed legislation last night that would allow same-sex marriages in New York, but the measure faces an uncertain future in the state Senate.

The Democratic-led Assembly voted 89-52 after nearly four hours of debate on whether New York should join five other states in allowing gay couples to receive marriage licenses.

"I am entitled to the same paper you have, whether you want me to or not," said Assemblyman Daniel O'Donnell, D-Manhattan, the first openly gay man in the Assembly.

In response, Assemblyman Michael Fitzpatrick, R-Suffolk County, said: "Dan, you may someday get that paper. It won't be with my vote."

The Assembly first passed the measure in 2007, but with fewer votes: 85-61. This time, five Republicans and one Independence Party member, Tim Gordon of the Albany area, supported it, compared with four Republicans in 2007.

Republican votes included Assemblyman Joel Miller, R-Poughkeepsie, who voted in favor of the legislation in 2007.

Five Assembly members have dropped their opposition since 2007.

Assemblywoman Sandra Galef, D-Ossining, said in 2007 that she supported civil unions for gay couples and voted against the measure. But she said she has since talked to more constituents and has studied the issue further and now recognizes the importance of same-sex marriage.

"I was wrong," she said on the Assembly floor.

"It's important to be able to change your vote," she said, urging others to consider doing the same.

Same-sex-marriage advocates said the Assembly's passage of the legislation would put added pressure on the Senate to act. Democrats took control of the Senate in January.

Gov. David Paterson said he would sign the bill into law if it came to his desk. But so far, there does not appear to be the 32 votes in the Senate to pass the measure.

O'Donnell, who sponsored the legislation, said that he hoped that passing the legislation in mid-May, compared with June in 2007, would give the Senate enough time to pass it. The legislative session ends in late June.

Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, D-Queens, reiterated that he won't bring the issue to the Senate floor until the 32 votes are secured.

"If we get the 32, I will do it," he said this week.

New York would join Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and Maine in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

But opponents said they would continue to fight the bill in the Senate.

Sen. Ruben Diaz, D-Bronx, is organizing a rally of the New York Hispanic Clergy Organization on Sunday outside Paterson's Manhattan offices to oppose same-sex marriage.

Other opponents said they think the national movement for same-sex marriage won't last, including in New York.

"I think the tide is about to turn on same-sex marriage across the country," said the Rev. Jason McGuire, legislative director for New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms.

"We are going to see that the redefinition of the family is stopped in its tracks," he added.

But Sen. Thomas Duane, D-Manhattan, who is sponsoring the bill in the Senate, said he's confident the Senate will pass the legislation this session.

"We'll have a majority and a few to spare," Duane predicted.

How they voted

Westchester and Putnam
- Gregory Ball, R-Patterson, No
- Adam Bradley, D-White Plains, Yes
- Richard Brodsky, D-Greenburgh, Yes
- Sandra Galef, D-Ossining, Yes
- George Latimer, D-Rye, Yes
- Amy Paulin, D-Scarsdale, Yes
- James Gary Pretlow, D-Mount Vernon, Yes
- Mike Spano, D-Yonkers, Yes
Rockland
- Nancy Calhoun, R-Blooming Grove, No
- Ellen Jaffee, D-Suffern, Yes
- Annie Rabbitt, R-Greenwood Lake, No
- Kenneth Zebrowski, D-New City, Yes

Information received on May 5, 2009 via Peter Harris - Co-Founder of Fleetwood Pride

Yonkers City Councilman, John Murtagh, will be introducing the below Resolution this evening. The resolution will have no "force of law", but is very significant because Mr. Murtagh is a Republican Conservative. Mr. Murtagh has been very supportive of the LGBT Community and same sex marriage.

WHEREAS, all citizens are created equal, and are deserving of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and;

WHEREAS, unfortunately, these principles have not always been equally applied to all our citizens, and it is only with determination and vigilance that true equality prevails, and:

WHEREAS, today, we must confront those laws that withhold from LGBT couples all the rights, protections, and basic benefits accorded to other couples through state sanctioned marriage., and;

WHEREAS, we recognize that marriage is one of our most venerable and cherished institutions. It represents commitment, mutual support, and love and for many, marriage also is a sacred rite, fundamental to the faith traditions represented in our community. Holding firm to the First Amendment of our Constitution, we believe that members of all faith traditions, including those that embrace same-sex unions, must have access to this legal and secular contract, and;

WHEREAS, in the end, we recognize that marriage, as an institution of our civil law, confers access to the 1,324 New York State statutes and regulations that apply to marriage, and to every benefit and responsibility they create. Denying access to marriage takes a toll on all of us. It can have a negative impact on the health and well-being of those who are excluded; it puts stress on their children, relatives, and friends; it has harmful economic consequences for individuals and the community; it puts LGBT families in a legal limbo, creating unnecessary burdens for courts and administrative agencies tasked with determining their status; and finally, marriage discrimination threatens the basic values upon which our country was founded, and:

WHEREAS, throughout our history, New York State has been central in advancing our nation’s core principles, it is only appropriate that we New Yorkers continue in this proud tradition by passing the Governor’s marriage equality legislation, and:

WHEREAS, we are not alone in this effort, and our momentum is growing. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont now support full marriage equality, and:

WHEREAS, the New York State Assembly passed a marriage equality bill in 2007, and;

WHEREAS, marriage equality already has the support of a majority of New Yorkers.

NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Yonkers urges our State representatives to pass Governor Paterson’s marriage equality bill and encourages all of its partners, both locally and across the State, to join us in advocating this legislation.

HARTFORD, Conn. – A decade-long battle for marriage equality in Connecticut ended when the General Assembly voted to update the state's marriage laws to conform with a landmark court ruling allowing gay and lesbian couples to tie the knot.

"It feels so good. It really does feel like the book is closing," said Anne Stanback, president of Love Makes a Family, a gay-rights group that has led the fight for same-sex marriage in the state.

A spokesman for Gov. M. Jodi Rell said she will sign the bill, which passed 28-7 in the Senate and 100-44 in the House of Representatives late Wednesday, into law. While Rell, a Republican, signed the state's 2005 civil unions law, she has said she believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

The bill comes six months after the State Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that same-sex couples have the right to wed in Connecticut, rather than accept the civil union law designed to give them the same rights as married couples.

It redefines marriage in Connecticut as the legal union of two people. State law previously defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Even if the bill hadn't passed, same-sex marriage would still be the law in Connecticut because of the court ruling. Proponents say the legislation is needed to phase out civil unions and make sure same-sex couples conform to the state's marriage laws.

Three other states — Massachusetts, Vermont and Iowa — also allow gay marriage.

The Connecticut bill transforms civil unions into marriages as of Oct. 1, 2010, unless they've been annulled or dissolved. Many couples with civil unions already have sought marriage licenses since the court decision.

In an effort to appease some gay marriage foes, lawmakers amended the bill to show they want to protect religious liberties. For example, it says religious organizations and associations are not required to provide services, goods or facilities for same-sex wedding ceremonies.

"We wanted to make it completely clear that the state of Connecticut fully embraces not only the rights of same-sex couples to marry, but we fully embrace the rights and protections afforded by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Connecticut Constitution to the free exercise of religion," said Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, a gay marriage proponent.

Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, which opposes gay marriage, considered the amendment "a significant improvement" because the original bill did not include any protections for religious groups such as the Knights of Columbus, which often rents out halls for weddings.

"It made a bad bill better," he said.

Carol Gignac, a 62-year-old Roman Catholic from Bristol, clutched her rosary beads as she watched Wednesday's debate from the Senate gallery. She said she was praying during much of the day for God's mercy on Connecticut.

While resigned to the fact that gay marriage is now the law, Gignac said it bothers her that the court made that decision.

"The sad day was the state Supreme Court changing the thousands-of-years definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, across cultures, across times," said Gignac, who wore a sticker on her lapel that read: "Religious Liberty: Our Freedom First."

Rep. Beth Bye, a West Hartford Democrat who is openly gay and recently married her partner, thanked her colleagues for supporting the bill.

"I'm grateful that this bill provides the respect and dignity that all marriages in Connecticut deserve," said Bye, who received hugs of congratulations after the final tally.

Wednesday's bill also strips language from a 1991 state anti-discrimination law that says Connecticut does not condone "homosexuality or bisexuality or any equivalent lifestyle," require the teaching of homosexuality or bisexuality "as an acceptable lifestyle," set quotas for hiring gay workers or authorize recognition of same-sex marriage.

McDonald, who is openly gay, said the language is outdated and offensive to gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

(Washington) Legislation to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of categories covered under federal hate crime law will be taken up Wednesday by the House Judiciary Committee.

It is expected the bill will be marked up and be sent to the full House for a vote, possibly before the end of the month.

The bill was introduced with bipartisan support by Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Mark Kirk (R-IL). In addition to LGBT rights groups, the bill has the support of more than 300 law enforcement, civil rights, civic and religious organizations.

Gay rights groups have been fighting to have the legislation passed for over a decade.

Because there is no federal law mandating states and municipalities to report hate crimes, they are often under-reported. However, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s own statistics, based on voluntary reporting, show that since 1991 over 100,000 hate crime offenses have been reported to the FBI, with 7,624 reported in 2007, the FBI’s most recent reporting period.

Violent crimes based on sexual orientation constituted 16.6 percent of all hate crimes in 2007, with 1,265 reported for the year. In addition, while not captured in the federal statistics, transgender Americans too often live in fear of violence.

The legislation gives the Justice Department the power to investigate and prosecute bias motivated violence where the perpetrator has selected the victim because of the person’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

It would provide the Justice Department with the ability to aid state and local jurisdictions either by lending assistance or, where local authorities are unwilling or unable, by taking the lead in investigations and prosecutions of violent crime resulting in death or serious bodily injury that were motivated by bias.

It also makes grants available to state and local communities to combat violent crimes committed by juveniles, train law enforcement officers, or to assist in state and local investigations and prosecutions of bias motivated crimes.

The legislation passed the House in 2007, but President Bush threatened to veto it if it passed in the Senate.

In an effort to get around a veto, the Senate version was tied to the 2008 defense authorization bill. It passed but then went to conference, where it was stripped out.

Originally Posted on Yahoo.com - April 7, 2009 - Original story link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090407/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_vermont

Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

By DAVE GRAM, Associated Press Writer Dave Gram, Associated Press Writer – 16 mins ago

MONTPELIER, Vt. – Vermont, the state that invented civil unions, on Tuesday became a pioneer once again as the first state to legalize gay marriage through a legislature's vote. The House barely achieved the votes necessary to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto of a bill that will allow gays and lesbians to marry beginning September 1. Four states now have same-sex marriage laws and other states soon could follow suit.

Bills to allow same-sex marriage are currently before lawmakers in New Hampshire, Maine, New York and New Jersey. The three other states that currently allow same-sex marriage — Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa — each moved to do so through the courts, not legislatures.

"For a popularly elected legislature to make this decision is a much more democratic process" because lawmakers have to answer to the voters every other November, said Eric Davis, a retired Middlebury College political science professor.

Courts typically deal with arcane points of constitutional law. While legislatures debate some of the same principles, the process may become much more personal. In Vermont, some of the most gripping debate came when gay and lesbian lawmakers took to the House floor last Thursday and told their own personal love stories.

Getting gay marriage approved in a political, rather than purely legal, forum is a big step, said Boston University law professor Linda McLain, an expert on family law and policy. "What may give courage to other legislatures is that this legislature managed to do it," she said.

She added that using the civil rights language of equality — the measure in Vermont was dubbed the marriage equality bill — could help make gay marriage more acceptable elsewhere.

Opponents said they, too, believe activists will be emboldened in other states. The action comes just days after the Iowa Supreme court ruled that not permitting gay marriage there was unconstitutional.

"To the millions of Americans who care about marriage, we say get ready: President Obama and Democrats will use Vermont as an excuse to overturn the bipartisan federal Defense of Marriage Act," said Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, which waged a radio campaign against the measure. "The next step is to ask the Supreme Court to impose gay marriage on all 50 states."

The Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman, and provides that states need not recognize the marriage of a same sex couple from another state.

To date, the same-sex marriage movement's main gains have been in New England, which some attribute to Yankee liberalism and the gradual acceptance of gay relationships after Vermont's groundbreaking civil unions law took effect in 2000.

Douglas had announced his intent to veto the gay marriage bill two weeks ago, saying he believed marriage should be limited to a man and a woman and calling the issue a distraction during a time when economic and budget issues were more important.

In Tuesday's vote, a "yes" was needed from two-thirds of those present to override the governor's veto. The goal was easily achieved in the Senate, which voted 23-5, but in the House it was much closer, 100-49.

The speaker's announcement of the results to a packed Statehouse chamber, set off whistles and cheers among supporters whose hopes had been temporarily dashed last month when the Republican governor announced he would veto the measure if it passed the Legislature.

Among the celebrants: Former state lawmaker Robert Dostis and his longtime partner, Chuck Kletecka. Dostis recalled efforts to expand gay rights dating to an anti-discrimination law passed in 1992.

"It's been a very long battle. It's been almost 20 years to get to this point," Dostis said. "I think finally, most people in Vermont understand that we're a couple like any other couple. We're as good and as bad as any other group of people."

Dostis said he and Kletecka will celebrate their 25th year together in September.

"Is that a proposal?" Kletecka asked.

"Yeah," Dostis replied. "Twenty-five years together, I think it's time we finally got married."

Craig Bensen, a gay marriage opponent who had lobbied unsuccessfully for a nonbinding referendum on the question, said his side was outspent by supporters by 20-1.

"The other side had a highly funded, extremely well-oiled machine with all the political leadership except the governor pushing to make this happen," he said. "The fact that it came down to this tight a vote is really astounding."

The measure had only 95 "yea" votes when it passed the House on Friday. But some changed their votes Tuesday.

Rep. Jeff Young, D-St. Albans, who voted no twice because he's philosophically opposed to gay marriage, joined most other Democrats in voting to override Douglas' veto.

"I think if I wanted to continue my career here and have any chance of being effective, I had to vote with my caucus," he said.

"You have some pet projects, you think you can help your district back home with things that need to happen," he said. "I want to get a railroading bill through. I wouldn't even have had a chance to testify, let alone get it through. Now, people will listen to me. It's the way the political game is played."

House Speaker Shap Smith said he didn't use any specific arguments to get lawmakers to switch. He said he had argued mainly that they should support the will of the legislative majorities on the bill's initial approvals — 95-52 in the House and 26-4 in the Senate.

"I thought it was to some degree just a vote to recognize the work that the Legislature had done," the speaker said.

Sitting next to him was Rep. William Lippert, D-Hinesburg, a gay man who championed both the 2000 civil unions bill and this year's gay marriage legislation.

"It's been an incredibly powerful personal journey," Lippert said. "I consider it my personal great good fortune to be a member of the Vermont Legislature under the leadership of speakers who have in fact prioritized civil rights for the community of which I'm a part. It touches me deeply."

Originally Posted on Washington Post - April 3, 2009 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/03/AR2009040301953.html

Iowa Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage

By AMY LORENTZEN

The Associated Press
Friday, April 3, 2009; 6:05 PM

DES MOINES, Iowa -- Iowa's Supreme Court legalized gay marriage Friday in a unanimous and emphatic decision that makes Iowa the third state _ and first in the nation's heartland _ to allow same-sex couples to wed.

Iowa joins only Massachusetts and Connecticut in permitting same-sex marriage. For six months last year, California's high court allowed gay marriage before voters banned it in November.

The Iowa justices upheld a lower-court ruling that rejected a state law restricting marriage to a union between a man and woman.

The county attorney who defended the law said he would not seek a rehearing. The only recourse for opponents appeared to be a constitutional amendment, which could take years to ratify.

"We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective," the Supreme Court wrote.

Iowa lawmakers have "excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."

To issue any other decision, the justices said, "would be an abdication of our constitutional duty."

The Iowa attorney general's office said gay and lesbian couples can seek marriage licenses starting April 24, once the ruling is considered final.

Des Moines attorney Dennis Johnson, who represented gay and lesbian couples, said "this is a great day for civil rights in Iowa."

At a news conference announcing the decision, he thanked the plaintiffs and said, "Go get married, live happily ever after, live the American dream."

Plaintiff Kate Varnum, 34, introduced her partner, Trish Varnum, as "my fiance."

"I never thought I'd be able to say that," she said, fighting back tears.

Jason Morgan, 38, said he and his partner, Chuck Swaggerty, adopted two sons, confronted the death of Swaggerty's mother and endured a four-year legal battle as plaintiffs.

"If being together though all of that isn't love and commitment or isn't family or marriage, then I don't know what is," Morgan said. "We are very happy with the decision today and very proud to live in Iowa."

In its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld an August 2007 decision by a judge who found that a state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of equal protection.

The Polk County attorney's office claimed that Judge Robert Hanson's ruling violated the separation of powers and said the issue should be left to the Legislature.

The case had been working its way through the courts since 2005, when Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, filed a lawsuit on behalf of six gay and lesbian couples in Iowa.

"Today, dreams become reality, families are protected and the Iowa Constitution's promise of equality and fairness has been fulfilled," Lambda Legal attorney Camilla Taylor said.

John Logan, a sociology professor at Brown University, said Iowa's status as a largely rural, Midwest state could enforce an argument that gay marriage is no longer a fringe issue.

"When it was only California and Massachusetts, it could be perceived as extremism on the coasts and not related to core American values.

"But as it extends to states like Iowa, and as attitudes toward gay marriage have evidently changed, then people will look at it as an example of broad acceptance," Logan said.

Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said his office will not ask for the case to be reconsidered.

"Our Supreme Court has decided it, and they make the decision as to what the law is, and we follow Supreme Court decisions," Sarcone said.

Gay marriage opponents have no other legal options to appeal the case to the state or federal level because they were not parties to the lawsuit, and there is no federal issue raised in the case, Sarcone said.

Bryan English, spokesman for the Iowa Family Policy Center, a conservative group that opposes same-sex marriage, said many Iowans are disappointed with the ruling and do not want courts to decide the issue.

"I would say the mood is one of mourning right now in a lot of ways," English said. He said the group immediately began lobbying legislators "to let the people of Iowa vote" on a constitutional amendment.

"This is an issue that will define (lawmakers') leadership. This is not a side issue."

Iowa has a history of being in the forefront on social issues. It was among the first states to legalize interracial marriage and to allow married women to own property. It was also the first state to admit a woman to the bar to practice law and was a leader in school desegregation.

Todd Pettys, a University of Iowa law professor, said the state's equal protection clause on which Friday's ruling was based is worded slightly differently than the U.S. Constitution. But Iowa's language means almost "exactly the same thing."

Still, he said, it's difficult to predict whether the U.S. Supreme Court would view the issue the same way as the Iowa justices.

Linda McClain, professor at Boston University School of Law, said she doubted Iowa's ruling would be "a realistic blueprint" for the U.S. Supreme Court," particularly considering the court's conservative leadership.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, a Democrat, said state lawmakers were unlikely to consider gay marriage legislation in this legislative session, which is expected to end within weeks.

Gronstal also said he's "not inclined" to propose a constitutional amendment during next year's session.

Iowa's Democratic governor, Chet Culver, said he would review the decision before announcing his views.

Associated Press writers Nigel Duara in Urbandale and Marco Santana, Melanie S. Welte, Michael Crumb and Mike Glover in Des Moines contributed to this report.

Originally Posted on LoHud.com - March 26, 2009 - Original story link: http://www.lohud.com/article/20090326/NEWS05/903260490

Mayor Bloomberg endorses gay marriage, again

NEW YORK (AP) - Mayor Michael Bloomberg is reaffirming his support for legalizing gay marriage.

The mayor told an audience last night that he will again ask state lawmakers to allow gays to tie the knot in New York. But he doesn't know whether Albany is ready to support such a measure.

Bloomberg made the remarks at an annual dinner of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center.

He says the tide of public opinion is turning in support of gay marriage. Bloomberg offered to testify in favor of any bill considered in the capital.

Originally Posted on Yahoo.com - March 24, 2009 - Original story link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090324/ap_on_re_us/schumer_gay_marriage_2

Sen. Schumer changes view, supports gay marriage

By MARCUS FRANKLIN, Associated Press Writer Marcus Franklin, Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK – Sen. Charles Schumer reached out to gay leaders earlier this month and convened a meeting at an upscale Manhattan restaurant to make an important announcement: He was supporting gay marriage after years of opposing it. The response from the crowd was swift. "The room applauded," recalled Alan Van Capelle, the executive director of Empire State Pride Agenda, who helped organize the dinner at Gramercy Tavern.

The reversal marked a significant shift for the Democratic senator and gave further momentum to gay marriage in New York, where every other statewide Democratic official supports such unions.

Schumer's change, some political observers suggested, stemmed from pressure to bring his position on gay marriage in line with the other officials, while coming at a time when support for same-sex unions is strong in New York. Also, it's likely New York's gay rights interest groups, which played a role in Democrats retaking control of the state Senate last November, were pressing Schumer to change his position.

"At this point we have a fair amount of knowledge that supporting gay marriage in the Northeast is not the kiss of death politically" that it could be as recently as a decade ago, said Lee Badgett, director of the Center for Public Policy and Administration at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and research director at the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at UCLA.

If anything, Schumer's support for gay marriage is likely to bolster momentum for legalizing gay marriage in New York, where a gay marriage bill passed the Assembly in 2007.

Massachusetts and Connecticut legalized gay marriage while New Jersey and New Hampshire allow same-sex civil unions. In Vermont, where civil unions also are legal, the state Senate on Monday passed a same-sex marriage bill.

Although support of gay marriage is less damaging than it used to be, the normally publicity hungry Schumer did not really promote his change, quietly issuing a three-sentence press release instead. It was Empire State Pride Agenda that made the announcement Monday, followed by a brief statement later that night.

Schumer declined a request for an interview to discuss the change, but spokesman Josh Vlasto released a one-paragraph statement the next day that read: "I have thought long and hard about it. I have always believed that one of the great traits in America is we seek equality and should always strive to achieve it. We may not have been ready in 1996 when this issue first arose in Congress but I believe we are now."

In addition to supporting gay marriage, Schumer said he supported a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which he had voted for in 1996.

"I'm surprised he didn't make more of a splash about it," said Tom McClusky, vice president of the Family Research Council's legislative arm. "Chuck Schumer likes cameras."

McClusky suggested that former Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's ascension to Secretary of State had something to do with the change of heart. Clinton opposed same-sex marriage, but her replacement, Kirsten Gillibrand, favors it. McClusky said that Clinton provided Schumer "cover" on the issue that disappeared after Gillibrand's announcement.

"He wasn't the only statewide elected Democrat who didn't support same sex marriage," he said.

But even with his newfound public position, Schumer's reversal isn't likely to have much impact nationally, political scientists say. The Defense of Marriage Act denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages and gives states the right to refuse to recognize such marriages.

"You'll need 60 votes in the U.S. Senate (to repeal the law)," said Justin Phillips, an assistant professor of political science at Columbia University. "It's hard to imagine at this point where those 60 votes would come from. I couldn't identify 60 senators who would support that right now."

The Empire State Pride Agenda said Schumer told gay leaders he would work "in the interim" toward changing federal laws and regulations to benefit legally married same-sex couples. Such an example would be tweaking federal tax codes to allow gay couples to file join returns.

"His support could not have come at a better time in our community," said Empire State Pride Agenda's Alan Van Capelle.