Pat Lynch

Pat Lynch, who had been head football coach at Buffalo High School for 13 years and had led the team to two state football championships, resigned from that position earlier this week, but the school board has allowed him to retain his position as a guidance counselor at the high school under administrative supervision, reported the Casper Star-Tribune.

In the aftermath, Johnson County School District 1 superintendent Dr. Rod Kessler was supportive of Lynch and the efforts to repair his reputation.

“[Lynch] screwed up, he screwed up big time,” Kessler said.

“The coaching, we didn’t want that to be the issue anymore. We wanted him to have his priority back where it was as a counselor.

“None of us are happy that it happened. It’s a black eye to the district. And it’s a black eye to Pat.”

[...]

The board did, however, allow Lynch to continue in his position of guidance counselor at Buffalo High School, under administrative supervision.

“We’re going to work with Pat and have him continue doing the good things he was doing prior to this mistake,” Kessler said. “Our hope is that we can mend things we need to mend and gain back the trust and get the reputation that he needs to gain back as a professional.”

Casper Star-Tribune

The superintendent said the intent Lynch had for the survey is not being revealed publicly, but that his "personal opinion was the intent wasn’t to harm. It was probably to be a joke or something like that."

The community's response to the school board's action has been mixed, including some public outcry over Lynch being retained in the role of a counselor.

On parent said Lynch should have apologized to the players — not the school board.

The "Hurt Feelings" survey is here -- click to enlarge:

The decision overturns a trial judge's ruling that Wyoming courts had no authority to grant the divorce because the marriage wasn’t legally recognized in the state. The couple, Paula Christiansen and Victoria Lee Christiansen, were married in Canada in 2008.

The supreme court opinion, written by Justice Michael Golden, made clear the court’s decision only addressed the divorce issue.

“Nothing in this opinion should be taken as applying to the recognition of same-sex marriages legally solemnized in a foreign jurisdiction in any context other than divorce,” Golden wrote in a footnote.

“The question of recognition of such same-sex marriages for any other reason, being not properly before us, is left for another day.”

The opinion said that while common-law marriages entered in Wyoming were invalid, the court recognized, for limited purposes, the validity of common-law marriages entered in out-of-state jurisdictions.

The Senate vote was 16-14 against the measure.

Earlier in the day, the House approved the bill by a vote of 31-28.

As reported yesterday, the Wyoming legislative session ends Thursday, and today's vote came just hours after a House Committee passed the measure 4-2 on Tuesday night.

Republicans have been cramming this bill, quite literally, into the final possible moments of the session.

Had the Senate approved House Bill 74, any gay couple married in another state will automatically have their marriages invalidated as soon as they cross the Wyoming state line.

Senate Democrats spent much of the day fighting the bill, and called for a rules committee meeting on whether or not HB 74 was constitutional.

The bill was eventually brought back to the floor with a favorable recommendation from Rules. But even then, Republicans just could not muster enough support to pass the bill.

The bill has until Thursday -- when the legislative session ends -- to pass both the House and the Senate.

In order to pass the bill this year, rather than waiting until the next legislative session, Republicans conceded to remove the "civil unions" language from the bill altogether. So apparently out-of-state civil unions will still be valid in -- ironically -- the “Equality State.”

The Casper Tribune reports:

The House's version of the bill stated that same-sex marriages and civil unions aren't entitled to any obligations, benefits or protections under Wyoming law; the Senate added a clause guaranteeing people in a legal out-of-state civil union would have access to Wyoming courts.

But with the Legislature set to adjourn for the year on Thursday, the conference committee took out all language dealing with civil unions and court access.

While Democrats are opposed to the bill, they may not have enough votes to stop the bill from passing.

Supporters of the legislation, House Bill 74, said it’s needed to resolve a conflict in Wyoming law, which defines marriage as a contract “between a male and a female person” but also recognizes any valid marriage performed outside the state.

The Senate bill (SJ5), failed to be presented for a final reading in the House.

However, another measure still pending would change Wyoming law to specify that the state would only recognize a marriage as being between one man and one woman.

There has been contentious debate in both Wyoming's House and Senate over whether or not same-sex couples who entered civil unions elsewhere would have access to the state's court system to resolve any issues that arise in their relationships.

House Majority Leader Representative Tom Lubnau (R-Gillette) told reporters that he had no desire to spend valuable time and effort in debating a bill that didn't have the votes to pass. The measure had already passed the state's Senate but requires a two-thirds vote passage in both houses before being sent to the Governor for his signature.

Fellow GOP legislator Amy Edmonds, (R-Cheyenne) said that given the differences in the House and the Senate over the measure, she felt that its future is "tenuous at best." Edmonds serves on the legislative conference committee assigned to hammer out a compromise measure.

Currently, Wyoming constitutionally specifies marriage can only exist between a man and a woman, however Wyoming law also says the state will recognize valid marriages performed in other states. The measure calls for state law to be clarified now that same-sex marriages are being performed in other states.

An issue has already arisen in a pending case before the state's Supreme Court whether or not Wyoming courts have any authority over same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

The high court is reviewing a case in which a lower court judge ruled that he didn't have authority to preside over a divorce case involving two women who married each other in Canada.

Critics say that both measures attack gays and lesbians and contradicts the state's motto, "The Equality State."

But the Senate also amended the bill to specify that same-sex couples who entered civil unions or marriage contracts in other states could still access Wyoming courts to resolve any disputes that arise in their relationships.

Because of the amendment, the bill will now head back to the House to approve the changes. The House passed the legislation last month by a vote of 32-27.

Proponents of the bill say they want to preserve the traditional definition of marriage in the state. But opponents say the bill is an attack on gay and lesbian citizens.

"It seems to me that there are outside entities that are trying to come into the Equality State of Wyoming to try to dictate some of this bigotry and hatred," Sen. John Hastert, D-Green River, said during the debate.

Meanwhile, there are indications that a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage -- Senate Joint Resolution 5 -- may not pass the Wyoming House, according to the Casper Star-Tribune.

The anti-gay marriage amendment, which passed the Senate 20-10 late last month, has been languishing in the House for the past week.

House Majority Leader Tom Lubnau (R-Gillette), who controls when bills are voted on, said Friday that he hasn’t decided whether to bring up SJR5 before next Friday's deadline.

And several other states saw legislative moves toward or away from equality in the past week.

New Hampshire:

State Rep. David Bates (R-Windham) and 11 cosponsors filed a bill that would repeal marriage equality and prevent New Hampshire from recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples contracted outside the state. New Hampshire same-sex couples who married in the state before the bill became effective would continue to be recognized as married. Same-sex couples who married in another state would no longer be recognized.

The bill’s stated purpose is that, because most children “are conceived by acts of passion between men and women – sometimes unintentionally,” New Hampshire has “a unique, distinct, and compelling interest” in promoting committed marriages between men and women “so as to increase the likelihood that children will be born to and raised by both of their natural parents.”

That is the essentially the same argument used -- unsuccessfully -- by the defense in the federal district court trial that struck down California’s Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage.

State Rep. Leo Pepino (R-Manchester) and five cosponsors filed a separate bill that would repeal marriage equality and prohibit civil unions or any other form of legal recognition for same-sex couples.

The Associated Press reported January 25, however, that Pepino will ask the committee hearing the bill “to retain it until next year when they have more time.”

Bills cannot be killed in committee in New Hampshire, unlike in many other states. But a committee may choose to retain a bill for further study (in essence, tabling it), thus blocking consideration of it on the floor.

Governor John Lynch (D), who signed the original marriage equality bill into law, has said he would veto a repeal bill. But Republicans hold a veto-proof majority in both houses.

Mo Baxley, executive director of New Hampshire Freedom to Marry (NHFTM), said in an interview that she thinks supporters of the law can sustain the governor’s veto by finding supporters among older, more libertarian-leaning Republicans.

“It’s going to be a horse race,” said Baxley. She noted that the national gay marriage opposition group, D.C.-based National Organization for Marriage (NOM), spent over a million dollars trying to defeat Lynch in the last election, “and they want what they paid for.”

NOM is working in conjunction with an in-state group Cornerstone Action. Kevin Nix, director of communications for NHFTM, said that both NOM and Cornerstone are trying to “appear more tolerant,” and appeal to “people in the middle.”

“The public is solidly on our side,” Baxley asserted, but cautioned, “We can’t just presume that we’ve got the votes . . . .We’ve got to be full throttle out there.”

Baxley said that, with the state’s 400 House districts containing only about 3,100 people each, her group’s members are taking a “very grassroots” approach. They have been holding a series of town hall meetings with “a real mix” of attendees, gay and straight. They are also preparing for a public hearing on the bill.

She said state Republicans also plan to introduce a bill next year for a ballot measure that would amend the state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. With a spotlight on New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation presidential primary, she said, a ballot fight in 2012 could help motivate a stronger conservative turnout.

Maryland:

Marriage equality bills were introduced into both the Senate and House in the past week. Democrats have a majority in both chambers. Governor Martin O'Malley (D) has said he would sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

Co-sponsor Senator Jamie Raskin (D-Montgomery) said in a press briefing January 21 that he expects a fight on the Senate floor and will need 29 votes out of 47 to break a filibuster. An up-or-down vote on the bill, after the filibuster is broken, will require 24 votes. Democrats have a 35 to 12 majority in the Senate.

A public hearing on the Senate bill is scheduled for February 8.

Elsewhere this past week:

Hawaii: The full Senate on January 28 passed a bill to legalize civil unions for same- and opposite-sex couples. It now heads to the House, where it is expected to pass. Governor Neil Abercrombie (D) has said he will sign it.

Illinois: Governor Pat Quinn (D) signed a civil union bill January 31 giving same- and opposite-sex couples many of the same rights as married ones.

Iowa: The House Judiciary Committee passed a bill January 24 that would allow voters to decide on a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex couples from marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships. A public hearing on the bill was scheduled for Monday, January 31.

In the Senate, however, Senator Kent Sorenson (R-Indianola) attempted to bypass Senate rules and bring to the floor a vote on the Senate version of the bill. Democrats, who hold a 26-24 majority, voted down the attempt. Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (D-Council Bluffs) had said he would block a vote on the bill.

New Mexico: Three bills were introduced in the House and one in the Senate that would variously put before voters a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and ban New Mexico from recognizing such marriages enacted outside the state.

Wyoming: The House passed a measure January 25 to prevent the state from recognizing same-sex marriages contracted elsewhere. The next day, the state Senate passed a bill that would allow voters to decide whether to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

A civil union bill introduced by openly gay State Rep. Cathy Connolly (D-Laramie) failed by one vote to make it out of committee January 28. A separate bill by Connolly, for full marriage equality, died without a motion to vote.

The measure, House Bill 74, passed on its first hearing with 34 out of 60 votes. The bill must now pass a final vote next week before heading to the Senate, which appears supportive of the proposal, reports the Billings Gazette.

State Rep. Owen Petersen (R-Mountain View), the bill's sponsor, said the legislation was needed simply to resolve a conflict in Wyoming law. A Wyoming statute defines marriage as a contract “between a male and a female person,” but state law also recognizes any valid marriage performed outside the state.

But during a lengthy and impassioned debate on the House floor Thursday, legislators both for and against the bill said the issue went far beyond simply correcting a snafu in state law.

“This is the civil rights issue of our day,” said state Rep. Cathy Connolly (D-Laramie), the only openly gay Wyoming legislator. “It does not help anyone. It violates our principles of live and let live and our motto of the Equality State.”

The Wyoming House has voted down similar legislation twice in recent years, but with 12 opponents of the 2009 anti-gay marriage bill retiring or losing in the last election, supporters have said they're optimistic they have the votes to pass the bill this year.

Connolly said she is planning to introduce her own bill that would simply change existing Wyoming law's definition of marriage from a civil contract “between a male and a female person” to a contract between “two natural persons.”

Meanwhile, in the Senate chamber on Friday, the Judiciary Committee passed a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage by a 3-2 vote.

The resolution now heads to the full Senate for consideration, but even if it passes passes the Senate, Thursday's vote on HB74 indicates there might not be the two-thirds support needed to pass in the House.

After a 2010 with few marriage equality measures contested outside the courtroom, 2011 will likely see a number of battles state by state across the country.

Three states plus the District of Columbia are facing the prospect of losing marriage equality, an additional seven states could start the process of amending their state constitutions to ban marriage equality, five could gain marriage equality.

Here are the key states to watch.

States that could lose marriage equality:

New Hampshire:

LGBT advocates have considered New Hampshire -- with a new, veto-proof Republican majority -- one of this year’s most serious battlegrounds.

But House Majority Leader Rep. D.J. Bettencourt (R-Salem) said January 13 that repealing the state’s year-old marriage equality law is not a Republican priority in 2011. The party wants, instead, to focus on jobs and the economy.

But Bettencourt refused to say he would discourage the introduction of repeal bills. And gay marriage opponents Kevin Smith, executive director of the far-right group Cornerstone Action, and State Rep. David Bates (R-Windham), told the Associated Press they still plan to pursue a repeal.

The executive director of New Hampshire Freedom to Marry, Mo Baxley, said in a statement that she was “pleased” the repeal is not a priority for Republicans but added that her organization is continuing its planned efforts to preserve the existing law.

Iowa:

Republicans in the legislature plan to introduce a bill to pursue a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, in response to a 2009 ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court that made marriage legal for same-sex couples.

The change must be approved by two successive legislatures and then ratified by voters. Republicans control the House 60-40, but Democrats have a 26-24 edge in the Senate, and Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (D-Council Bluffs) has said he would block a vote on such a bill.

Several Republican legislators also want to begin impeachment proceedings against the remaining four of the seven justices who joined in the unanimous marriage ruling. The other three justices lost retention elections last November, after right-wing groups campaigned to oust them.

Impeachment would require a simple majority in the House and a two-thirds majority in the Senate, but the judges would be removed immediately if impeached by the House and could be reinstated only if found not guilty after a Senate trial. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy told The Cedar Rapids Gazette that Democrats would “shut the place down” if necessary to block an impeachment effort.

Update: On Feb. 1, The Iowa state House passed House Joint Resolution 6, an amendment that seeks to repeal the state’s marriage equality law, and deny any form of legal recognition for gay couples. The bill now moves on to the Iowa Senate, where Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (D) has vowed to fight attempts to pass the amendment.

Washington, D.C.:

A coalition of local anti-gay activists led by Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church in Maryland has been pushing for a referendum on the district’s year-old marriage equality law.

D.C. courts and the district’s Board of Election ruled last year that this would violate a district prohibition on referenda related to the city’s Human Rights Act -- which bans discrimination based on sexual orientation. Jackson has asked the Supreme Court to consider the case.

Update: On Jan. 18, the U.S. Supreme Court said it would not hear Jackson's appeal.

States that could win marriage equality:

Rhode Island:

Newly elected Governor Lincoln Chafee (I) expressed his support for marriage equality during his inauguration speech January 4. Legislators introduced marriage equality bills in both the House and Senate on January 6.

Democrats hold large majorities in both chambers, and House Speaker Gordon Fox (D), who is openly gay, is a cosponsor of the bill. The bill may face a bigger struggle in the Senate, where Senate President M. Teresa Paiva Weed opposes marriage equality.

Maryland:

Marriage equality bills are pending in both houses of the legislature, and supporters now form majorities on the key judicial committees that must first approve them.

State Senate Minority Leader Allan H. Kittleman, however, said he will introduce a bill to allow civil unions for both same- and opposite-sex couples.

Update: On Jan. 18, Kittleman announced he will step down as minority leader after Republican colleagues told him they would not support his civil unions bill.

On Jan. 21, Senate Majority Leader Rob Garagiola (D) introduced the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act. The legislation would permit same-sex couples to marry but would not require churches to perform the unions.

New York:

Although Republicans have a two-seat majority in the State Senate, Empire State Pride Agenda Executive Director Ross D. Levi said in a press release that LGBT advocates have “picked up at least two ‘yes’ votes.” Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo has said he would sign a marriage equality bill if it reaches his desk.

Update: On Jan. 17, New York state Sen. Thomas Duane (D-Manhattan), the Senate's biggest booster of gay marriage, said he'll introduce legislation "within weeks" to legalize same-sex marriage, and will push for a vote before the end of June.

All three of the above states already recognize marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions.

New Jersey:

The state Supreme Court last June refused to hear a case that claimed the state’s civil union law did not provide full equality. It said the case must first go through the trial court process.

Jennifer Pizer, National Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, said a trial court attempt is “a sensible next step for us to consider.”

Lambda Legal and state LGBT rights group Garden State Equality are also working on another round of marriage equality legislation, although Pizer could not yet share any details.

California:

The case to overturn Proposition 8, the state ban on same-sex marriage, is in a rather unusual spot.

It is awaiting a decision from the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, but the appeals panel said January 4 that it could not render a decision on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 until the California Supreme Court rules that there is some state law or authority to justify giving the Yes on 8 proponents of the initiative legal standing to appeal the case in federal court on behalf of California voters.

Pizer said that a 9th Circuit decision against Proposition 8 would have “a massive positive effect nationwide” as marriage equality became a reality on both coasts.

She also noted there are “serious efforts underway now” for potential ballot measures in 2012 to secure marriage equality in Maine, Oregon, and Washington.

States that could win civil unions:

Hawaii:

Acting House Majority Leader Blake Oshiro, who is openly gay, told KITV on Jan. 10 that he wants to pass a civil union bill early in the session. The Hawaii legislature is almost the same as the one that passed such a civil union bill last year only to see it vetoed by outgoing Republican Governor Linda Lingle.

Current Governor Neil Abercrombie, a Democrat and long-time supporter of equal rights for gays, has said he would support a new bill.

Update: On Jan. 28, the state Senate passed a civil unions bill that would grant same-sex and heterosexual partners essentially the same protections, rights and benefits currently extended to married couples. The measure moves to the state House, where, leaders said they expect it to pass by a wide margin.

Illinois:

The Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act passed in the Illinois state Senate on Dec. 1 after passing in the House the previous day. The civil unions bill will provide the same spousal rights to same-sex partners when it comes to surrogate decision-making for medical treatment, survivorship, adoptions, and accident and health insurance.

Update: On Jan. 31, Gov. Pat Quinn signed the civil unions bill into law. Gay and lesbian couples will be able to have their unions legally recognized by the state effective June 1, 2011.

Montana:

Montana bans same-sex marriage under the state constitution, but the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a case on behalf of seven couples to try and gain the protection of domestic partnerships.

Colorado and Delaware will also likely see civil union bills introduced.

States that could ban marriage equality:

Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Wyoming have statutes that prevent same-sex couples from obtaining marriage licenses, but efforts to protect those bans from legal challenges are expected through proposed constitutional amendments.

Lambda’s Pizer noted that anti-gay groups may wait until 2012 to do seek introduction of such measures in hopes of using them to rally conservative voters to turnout during a presidential election year.

This year, though, Wyoming State Rep. Cathy Connolly (D), the only openly gay member of the legislature, plans to introduce a bill for full marriage equality and one for civil unions, while Republican legislators are planning to reintroduce a defense of marriage law.

Update: On Jan. 20, the Wyoming state House advanced legislation to prohibit recognition of out-of-state gay marriages, while a Senate committee approved a resolution aimed at a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. The House measure passed on its first hearing with 34 out of 60 votes.

And New Mexico Attorney General Gary King issued a non-binding opinion January 4 stating that same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions would likely be recognized in the state.

Evan Wolfson, Executive Director of Freedom to Marry, said that this year, “we have the chance to really make some important strides in key states.” He stressed that wins in the states will help sway public opinion and move marriage equality forward on a federal level as well.

State Rep. Owen Petersen (R-Mountain View) and State Sen. Curt Meier (R-LaGrange) plan to co-sponsor a resolution in the 2011 general session that would allow voters to decide whether or not the state should give constitutional authority to same-sex marriage.

The current Wyoming law defines marriage as a legal union between a man and woman, but Wyoming also recognizes marriages performed elsewhere.

Petersen said the loophole raises questions about what happens when gay and lesbian couples from other states move into the state.

The proposal would allow Wyoming's voters to determine whether the state Constitution should define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Supporters say the time is right for the proposal to reappear. A 40-day general session means that there is more time for debate. A conservative majority on both sides of the state legislature also could give the resolution the additional support to pass the motion on to voters.

Representative Ken Esquibel, (D-Cheyenne), said he believes it's a proposal that does more to make social conservatives feel good than to protect traditional marriage.

"I don't see how we can call ourselves the Equality State when we are singling out a group of people," Esquibel said.

Similar legislation failed in 2009.

In September, Wyoming was among ten states that signed onto a legal brief opposing same-sex marriage, claiming a federal court “exceeded its judicial authority” when it ruled that California’s Proposition 8 — the 2008 voter-approved ban on gay marriage — was “unconstitutional.”