One Colorado, the group leading the lobbying effort for civil unions here, has repeatedly pledged to support any lawmaker — Republican or Democrat — who supports relationship recognition legislation. This week, campaign finance reports show the group has made good on its promise.

Two Republican state senators, Jean White, R-Hayden, and Ellen Roberts, R-Durango, were gifted $1,000 each by One Colorado’s small donor committee.

Both women voted in 2011 for a bill that would have established civil unions. A third Republican senator, Nancy Spence, also voted for the Colorado Civil Union Act last year, but is term-limited. A similar bill will soon be debated this year.

“(LGBT equality issues) are neither red nor blue,” said One Colorado’s Executive Director Brad Clark. “We will show support to any lawmaker who does the right thing. We pledge our support regardless of party affiliation.”

One Colorado organized its small donor committee in October 2011.

In the four months since the organization filed with the Secretary of State’s office, more than $8,000 has been raised.

One Colorado also donated $1,000 to two Democratic groups, one charged with keeping the party in control of the state Senate and another to win back the state House. The committee gave an additional $500 to the Ferrandino Leadership Fund, established by gay Denver lawmaker and House Minority Leader Mark Ferrandino.

Individuals are allowed to donate $50 per calendar year to small donor committees. In turn, those committees are allowed to donate up to $2,250 to candidates for both primary and general elections.

A who’s-who of LGBT power brokers and allies made up the committee’s initial filing with the Secretary of State.

Individuals who donated include Denver’s first openly gay city council member Robin Kneich, Tracks nightclub owner Andrew Feinstein, the Gill Foundation’s Bobby Clark, Leslie Herod and Tim Sweeney, the Matthew Shepard Foundation’s Jason Marsden, Dr. Mark Thrun, Babes Around Denver founder Dede Frain and lesbian state Rep. Sue Schafer.

“There is an energy and intensity in the LGBT community to support candidates that are doing the right thing,” Clark said.

Metropolitan State College of Denver political scientist Norman Provizer said One Colorado donating to Republican and Democratic lawmakers is all part of the American political process.

“At this juncture, there is a wide range of methods to get money to campaigns,” he said. “But they all have the same purpose: support your friends who support your policies.”

One Colorado also has a registered Political Action Committee. However, those coffers have remained dormant since the 2010 election cycle, according to reports filed with the state.

Clark said One Colorado will continue to raise money and invest its funds in individuals who are thoroughly vetted.

“We’ll go through a rigorous endorsement process later this year,” he said. “We’ll be donating to lawmakers based on their record.”

In a party line vote, the Republican majority House of Delegates voted 71-28 to pass the legislation, while a State Senate committee endorsed its version of the Republican-backed measure also on a 8-7 party-line vote.

Republican Governor Bob McDonnell is expected to sign the measure into law as soon as it crosses his desk.

Sponsors and supporters are claiming that the law will protect religious freedom. Critics charge that the state’s government, which contracts with dozens of private, state-licensed child placement agencies, in the commonwealth, is now in a position to sanction discrimination.

Opponents also argued that since the state is allowing this exemption then state funding should be eliminated.

The new rules run headlong into voter opinion — fifty-five percent of Virginia adults believe it should be legal for gay parents to adopt.

Nearly six thousand Virginia children live in foster homes.

Following a hearing of more than six hours, the Judiciary Committee passed the bill along party lines, 5-2, sending it to the full Assembly for a vote on Feb. 16, reported the New Jersey Star-Ledger.

At the same time the committee was taking testimony, Christie repeated before an overflow crowd at a town hall meeting in Morris County that he would veto any same-sex marriage bill that landed on his desk.

He again offered up the alternative he proposed last week: a referendum on the issue in November, noting that 31 other states had already done so. What he failed to say, however, was that such a referendum has never been approved by voters.

More: New Jersey Star-Ledger

Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester) said he would not allow a referendum on the issue.

“It’s time for everyone, from the governor to the chattering observers, to stop talking about a marriage equality referendum in terms of ‘if,’” Sweeney said in a written statement. “There will be no referendum on marriage equality in New Jersey, period.”

The state Senate is expected to take up the legislation on Feb. 13.

House Majority Leader Rep. David Bettencourt (R-Salem), who formally introduced the House Republican agenda, told reporters that the House was focusing on changes to economic and education policy that would bring job creators to New Hampshire and put citizens back to work.

Bettencourt also said that lawmakers did not need to spend much time on same-sex marriage, which is the target of several bills aimed at repealing repeal it.

“If their minds aren’t already made up, it’s something they’re intimately familiar with,” said Bettencourt of his fellow Republicans.

Other controversial social issues such as gun rights, immigration and labor laws were all also absent from the agenda.

Bettencourt said such bills distract from the Legislature’s real initiatives.

New Hampshire is one of six states — along with the District of Columbia — where same-sex marriage is legal. The others are New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, and Vermont.

In a unanimous decision, the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned a lower court’s ruling and concluded that the videotapes should remain under seal.

Siding with the ban’s supporters, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled the public doesn’t have the right to see the footage that former Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker had produced with the caveat it would be used only by him to help him reach a verdict.

Chief Judge Walker “promised the litigants that the conditions under which the recording was maintained would not change — that there was no possibility that the recording would be broadcast to the public in the future,” a three-judge 9th Circuit panel said in a unanimous opinion.

via: Associated Press

“Regrettably, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has decided not to unseal the video record of the historic twelve-day public trial of Prop. 8,” said Chad Griffin, Board President of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the sole sponsor of the federal court challenge to Proposition 8.

“It speaks volumes that the proponents of Proposition 8 spent millions on a political campaign to publicize their views, yet they have done everything they can to stop the public from seeing the weak case they put on at trial,” Griffin said, in a statement.

The same 9th Circuit panel is also considering whether Proposition 8 is constitutional. That decision, which could come any day, is expected to go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

WJW-TV

Jonathan Simcox and Steven Ondo

In court documents filed by the couple’s attorney — nationally-recognized civil rights attorney David Malik — Jonathan Simcox and his partner, Steven Ondo, claim they were subjected to “excessive force and undisguised prejudice,” because of their sexual orientation.

Simcox and Ondo alledge they were subjected to derogatory name-calling and then hauled off to jail in their underwear, despite repeated requests to change clothes.

The lawsuit also states that the men were ordered to stand outside in their front lawn for 5-10 minutes while they were publicly humiliated.

“We were called faggots a lot by police, and I consider that a fighting word.” His partner added; “It was more humiliating than I can even explain to you,” Simcox told WJW-TV.

The lawsuit stems from last April’s arrest of the couple for creating a public disturbance and assault on a police officer.

According to the couple, they were walking home from a bar when they started arguing. They say a neighbor, who happened to be an off-duty Cleveland police officer came outside and confronted them.

“He came out over shouting, saying, ‘Shut up, you`re disturbing the peace’,” said Simcox. “I pushed to get past him, as soon as I did that he knocked me on the ground, and just started beating me, hitting me, standing over top of me, and punching me repeatedly.”

A few minutes later, more officers arrived at their house, they were arrested and hauled off to jail.

“At the time my hands were all cut up, I was covered in blood,” said Simcox. Simcox and Ondo said they were later released from jail and told that no charges were being filed against them.

In the lawsuit filed this week, the men state that a week later, in an early morning raid, “6 or 7 members of the Cleveland Police Warrant Team” woke them, informing them they were wanted on a warrant for “assaulting a peace officer.”

The men state each time they tried asking questions, the officers became increasingly violent. “The officer in the glasses grabbed me by my shirt, and punched me twice in the face, after he punched me, he threw me up against the wall,” said Simcox.

Simcox says at the time of the arrest, he and his partner were wearing only underwear and t-shirts. When Simcox’s brother asked police if he could get them some pants and shoes, one of the officers allegedly responded by saying, “You can go get them shoes, but faggots don`t deserve to wear pants in jail.”

The lawsuit states that the men were ordered to stand outside in their front lawn for five to 10 minutes wearing only their t-shirts and underwear while they were publicly humiliated. The couple were then taken to jail and according to the lawsuit for, “at least one whole day their repeated requests for pants were denied.”

“The City of Cleveland is aware that the lawsuit has been filed and will appropriately address this legal matter in court. At this point, the City has no comment on this pending litigation,” Interim Law Director Barbara Langhenry told WJW-TV.

Civil rights attorney Sam Riotte told the station, “Jonathan and Steven’s rights were violated in part of who they are, because they are homosexuals.” As for the assault charge, Riotte said, “They went to trial, it was proven they didn’t do anything wrong, they were found not guilty.”

The bill, garnering three more votes than the required 25, passed with bipartisan support of 24 Democrats and four Republicans.

The bill now moves to the House, where it already has enough support to pass.

Lacey All, Chairperson of Washington United for Marriage, a broad statewide coalition of organizations, congregations, unions and business associations working to advance marriage equality in Washington state, released the following statement within minutes of the Senate adjournment for the evening:

“We thank Majority Leader Brown, Sen. Murray and the bipartisan coalition of senators who stood with us today in the name of equality. ”

The overwhelming support we’re seeing from businesses, labor, faith communities and people all across the state is a testament to the momentum of this movement and sensibilities of Washingtonians.

“Volunteers from every part of the state have contributed thousands of hours of their time to make today possible, and we thank them for their commitment to this issue.”

Senate Republicans introduced a series of amendments, which passed, that would ensure protections for religious bodies, churches, and institutions — including affiliated child adoption and fostering agencies — that would protect them from charges of bias or discrimination for refusing to sanctify, solemnise, or otherwise embrace same sex marriage.

An amendment to put the legislation on the November ballot was defeated after Sen. Lisa Brown (D-Spokane) reminded colleagues that the purpose of representational democracy was to prevent minorities’ civil liberties being infringed and voted on by the majority.

Following the vote, amid cheering Senators, a motion was made without objection to to immediately advance the bill to the state’s House of Represenatives for its consideration — a vote in the House could occur as early as next week, and supporters are confident there are enough votes for passage.

Once the state House has approved the legislation, Gov. Chris Gregoire would have five business days to sign it into law, which she has indicated she will do.

Gay and lesbian couples would then be able to wed beginning in June, unless opponents follow through on their threat to seek a ballot referendum.

A referendum cannot be filed until after the bill is passed by the Legislature and signed into law by Gregoire — opponents would need 120,577 signatures by June 6.

Washington has had a domestic partnership law since 2007 and an “everything but marriage” expansion of the domestic partnership law since 2009.

That law makes sex between individuals of the same gender a crime in Kansas.

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in the state legislature, Thomas Witt, Executive Director of the gay rights advocacy group Kansas Equality Coalition, urged lawmakers to repeal the outdated law, but the committee took no action on the bill.

“It’s an unconstitutional law and it makes no sense to have it on the books,” said Kerry Wilks, Chairperson of the Kansas Equality Coalition. “It has mattered to some people, and just the fact that it’s on the books should be enough.”

On January 20, 2012, Kansas Republican Governor Sam Brownback released his list of 51 “out of date, unreasonable, and burdensome” laws to be repealed — missing from that list was the unconstitutional law banning same-sex relationships.

“We are angry and disappointed that Governor Brownback has failed to keep his promise to repeal laws that are unreasonable. There is nothing more unreasonable than Sam Brownback’s preserving an unconstitutional law that’s used by government officials to harass gay and lesbian Kansans,” said Thomas Witt, spokesperson for the Kansas Equality Coalition.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that being gay or lesbian is not a crime, and Brownback’s announcement is a gross act of disrespect to our nation’s Constitution, and to the thousands of gay and lesbian Kansans singled out by this unjust law,” Witt said.

Upon taking office in 2011, Governor Brownback had made repealing unreasonable, out-of-date laws a top priority for his administration.

Wilks said anger is growing in the gay community that the bill did not make it onto the repealer’s list.

“It’s telling someone that who they are is wrong, and that’s not right,” she said.

Such secrecy once again reveals NOM is not a grassroots organization but serves the interest of a handful of wealthy anti-gay donors, said the HRC, which has called upon the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Disclosure Board to investigate NOM’s financial activity around the Minnesota ballot measure.

Reports filed with the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Disclosure Board reveal that marriage equality opponents received only seven individual donations and one donation from a family estate.

However, they have raised more than $1.2 million from just three entities: $750,000 contributed by the Minnesota Catholic Conference, $250,000 by the National Organization for Marriage and $226,000 by the Minnesota Family Council.

By contrast, Minnesotans United for All Families, the coalition working to defeat the ballot measure, openly reported contributions from over 5,000 individual donors, 75 percent of which were from Minnesota.

“NOM has deliberately evaded Minnesota’s public disclosure laws,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “We’ve seen this movie before in plenty of other states. This is part of NOM’s systematic attempt across the country to oppose public disclosure and hide its donors.”

“In Minnesota, they have taken it to a whole new level. We believe that NOM and others may be secretly telling people to contribute to them instead of directly to the campaign so that they can avoid public disclosure. The contrast between seven individuals opposing marriage equality and thousands of pro-equality supporters is quite revealing.”

For months, lawyers for NOM have battled the state over its public disclosure laws.

The Minnesota Campaign Finance and Disclosure Board has repeatedly told NOM and its allies that they must provide underlying disclosure by revealing, among other things, individual donors who are solicited to contribute to the ballot measure.

Today’s disclosure reports come on the heels of a court decision that rejected NOM’s arguments that it should not have to reveal donors solicited for the Maine marriage referendum in 2009.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit upheld Maine’s campaign finance disclosure laws from attack by NOM.

In 2009, NOM solicited contributions for Amendment 1 but refused to register and report as a ballot question committee as required by Maine law. The Maine Attorney General is currently investigating NOM for violating state law.

The panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston rejected the NOM’s argument that being forced to disclose donors who backed the effort was a violation of First Amendment speech rights.

The court’s decision on Tuesday means the National Organization for Marriage, which advocates that marriage be defined as being between a man and a woman, could have to reveal the names of people who gave more than $100 to its campaign efforts against same-sex marriage in Maine.

The Maine law says that groups that spend more than $5,000 “for the purpose of initiating or influencing” a referendum must disclose the names of their donors.

The decision by a panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston clears the way for the state to conduct an inquiry into whether the group was indeed raising money to influence the ballot initiative.

via: Reuters

The group’s lawyer, James Bopp Jr., said it was unfair that advocacy organizations should face the same disclosure requirements as political action committees.

“The homosexual lobby has launched a nationwide campaign to harass supporters of traditional marriage,” said NOM’s lawyer, James Bopp Jr.

Bopp called it “unfair” that advocacy organizations should face the same disclosure requirements as political action committees.

The bill to allow same-sex marriages in Maine was signed into law on May 6, 2009, by then-Gov. John Baldacci following approval by state lawmakers, but was overturned in a ballot referendum on November 3, 2009 after anti-gay opposition groups led by the NOM won that vote by 52.8 percent.

Two recent polls indicate that 53 percent of Mainers now favor same-sex marriage, and the measure appears to be headed back to the ballot for a second time.

Last week, marriage equality advocates submitted petitions signed by 105,000 voters, far more than the 57,277 needed to force a referendum in November.

If same-sex marriage passes at the polls, Maine could become the first state to approve gay marriage through a popular vote.

“Our staff and volunteers have been working hard to make sure senators hear from their constituents,” said Zach Silk, Campaign Manager of Washington United for Marriage.

“We have said from the beginning that we could only be successful in winning marriage equality if legislators heard the compelling stories from their constituents,” said Silk. “Those stories have literally changed hearts and minds over the course of this campaign.”

In addition to the 24,000 postcards being delivered today, advocates delivered 4,300 cards to priority senators following last week’s senate committee hearings. Advocates have also transferred more than 2,500 phone calls from constituents to their senators.

The full senate is expected to debate and vote on the legislation this evening, and final house approval could come as early as next week.

Once the senate and house has passed the legislation, Gov. Chris Gregoire would have five business days to sign it into law, which she has indicated she will do.

Opponents wishing to challenge the new law would have until June to collect 120,557 valid signatures – the amount required to place a referendum on the November 2012 ballot.

Mitt Romney

But R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the national Log Cabin Republicans, while also congratulating Romney, cautioned him against engaging in “anti-gay pandering or divisive social politics.”

Cooper told the Blade his comment was a reference to statements Romney has made in news media interviews over the past several months in which he appeared to be appealing to conservative voters hostile to gay rights.

Officials with Log Cabin’s chapters in the Miami, Fort Lauderdale and Tampa areas said support for Romney was strong among LGBT Republicans in the state. Romney won by a lopsided margin in a Jan. 28 straw poll of Log Cabin members at an informal gay Republican caucus in Miami.

“I’m pleased that Romney won,” said Andy Eddy, board member of Log Cabin Republicans of Broward County, which includes the city of Fort Lauderdale and the nearby gay enclave Wilton Manors.

“Many of our members support him and believe he has the best chance of beating Obama,” he said.

With 100 percent of the election precincts counted, Romney captured 46 percent of the vote. His closest rival, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich received 32 percent, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum received 13 percent, and Texas Congressman Ron Paul received 7 percent.

In Florida’s winner take all primary, Romney captured 50 delegates, giving him a boost going into a series of upcoming primaries and caucuses leading up to Super Tuesday on March 6, when 10 states hold primaries.

“This big win for Gov. Romney makes it all but certain that he will emerge as the nominee of the Republican Party,” said Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of the gay conservative group GOProud.

Rep. Dwight Kay (112th District) of Edwardsville filed the bill in the state general assembly Jan. 10, making it the fifth bill of its kind to be filed in the last year, according to Equality Illinois Director of Public Policy Randy Hannig, Jr.

“Catholic charities have gone through the courts and the courts have said ‘no,’” said Hannig. “The governor said that there’s no way that any adoption services will discriminate against same-sex couples. You’d think that when all three branches of government disagree with you, you’d give up.”

Currently, under the Illinois Religious Freedom and Civil Unions act, all benefits afforded to people united in a marriage are also afforded to those who are in a civil union, including the right to adopt. The new law requires that all agencies receiving state funds use one standard for placing children: What is best for the child, according to Hannig.

“What is in the best interest of the child?” he said. “Not their biased criteria.”

The bill is summarized on the Illinois General Assembly website, which states that, “… a child welfare agency that is religiously based or owned by, operated by, or affiliated with a bona fide religious organization may decline an adoption or foster family home application, including any related licensure and placement, from a party to a civil union if acceptance of that application would constitute a violation of the organization’s sincerely held religious beliefs …”

So far, Rep. David Reis (108th District) and Rep. Paul Evans (102nd District) have been added as chief co-sponsors.

Hannig doesn’t see the bill going any further.

“Obviously, this governor won’t sign the bill if it even makes it to his desk,” he said.

A call made to Kay’s office was not immediately returned.

In a 8-7 vote, the Senate General Laws and Technology Committee rejected Alexandria, Va. Democratic Sen. Adam Ebbin’s bill — S.B. 263,

The legislation had garnered the support of Virginia’s labor unions, educator and public-employee associations, and the AARP, senior citizen’s lobby group.

Members of anti-gay groups Family Foundation and the Virginia Association of Independent Baptists testified that the bill was unnecessary because there is no proof that gays are discriminated against.

A similar piece of legislation was passed by the state’s Senate last year — then led by a Democratic majority, only to be defeated in the Republican-led House of Delegates.

Republicans gained control of the Senate in the November 2011 election.

The Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee heard testimony on the Civil Marriage Protection Act throughout the afternoon on the last day of January, as lawmakers, experts, clergy and regular citizens from both sides of the issue shared their feelings on the bill at two minutes a piece.

The first witness to testify in favor of the bill was Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who has made the bill part of his 2012 legislative agenda. O’Malley, who had at one time hesitated to support extending full marriage rights to gay couples, has become a proponent of the legislation.

“As you know we already recognize civil marriages that come from other states,” Gov. O’Malley said during his brief testimony, “the civil marriage equality bill draws upon the lessons that we have learned from these other states.”

“This bill balances an individual’s civil marriage rights with the important protections of religious freedoms for all,” O’Malley continued. “And because it protects both of these inalienable rights, it is supported by a broad coalition of Marylanders, which includes clergy, community leaders, faith-based organizations, civil rights groups and those who hold the most important title of all in our democracy, and that title is citizen.”

O’Malley was followed by gay Sen. Richard Madaleno — who spoke about his long relationship with his partner and status as a parent — as well as Democratic Sens. Jamie Raskin and Robert Garagiola and Republican Sen. Allan Kittleman, as well as Attorney General Douglas Gansler, all of whom urged passage of the bill.

Also testifying in favor of the bill was Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake.

“I believe that all couples regardless of their sexual orientation, want their children protected under the law,” Rawlings-Blake testified. “Please don’t be mistaken, this bill is about more than those rights, it’s also about civil rights and about equality under the law.”

Both sides were given two hours each to present their witnesses in four parts — the first and third hours in support of the law, and the second and fourth in opposition.