Plaintiffs in Donaldson and Guggenheim v. State of Montana.
Source: ACLU

[fbshare]

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and seven gay couples in Montana filed a lawsuit against the state this week for failing to offer legal protections to same-sex couples and their families.

The suit, Donaldson and Guggenheim v. State of Montana, claims same sex couples are being denied their rights of privacy, dignity and the pursuit of life’s basic necessities as provided for in the Montana Constitution.

Because there is a constitutional amendment in Montana barring same-sex marriage, the couples in the lawsuit are seeking the protection of state-recognized domestic partnerships, similar to those in place in several other states.

According to the ACLU, under Montana law, it is possible for same-sex couples to be barred from visiting their partners in the hospital and to be left out of conversations about emergency medical care. Montana inheritance laws refuse to recognize same-sex couples, and can leave surviving partners with nothing if their partners die without valid wills.

“It’s unfair for same-sex couples who have made commitments and formed families to be treated by the state like legal strangers,” said Betsy Griffing, Legal Director for the ACLU of Montana. “Lesbian, gay and bisexual Montanans are valuable and productive members of society who should be treated fairly if their partner is in the hospital or dies without a will.”

The suit seeks a mechanism such as the domestic partnership laws adopted by several other states to provide similar protections for committed same-sex couples.

The plaintiffs (pictured, clockwise from top-left) are: MJ Williams and Nancy Owens of Basin; Denise Boettcher and Kellie Gibson of Laurel; David Wilson and Casey Charles of Missoula; Mary Leslie and Stacey Haugland of Bozeman; Mike Long and Rich Parker of Bozeman; Jan Donaldson and Mary Anne Guggenheim of Helena; and Gary Stallings and Rick Wagner of Butte.

Lingle

[fbshare]

Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle vetoed a civil unions bill Tuesday that would have given same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, saying the issue needs to be put to a referendum.

Lingle said the bill was equivalent to marriage, which she believes should be reserved for a man and a woman.

“There has not been a bill I have contemplated more or an issue I have thought more deeply about during my eight years as governor than House Bill 444 and the institution of marriage,” Lingle said at a news conference.

“I have been open and consistent in my opposition to same-sex marriage, and find that House Bill 444 is essentially same-sex marriage by another name.”

The bill, approved by the state Legislature in late April, would have granted gay and lesbian couples the same rights and benefits the state provides to married couples.

Lingle called the issue too emotional and too important to be decided solely by the governor or the state Legislature, and recommended a state constitutional amendment be placed on the ballot for voters in 2012.

Lingle’s veto comes on the last day she had to take action, otherwise it would have become law without her signature.

Google announced on Thursday that it will begin compensating gay and lesbian employees for an extra tax they must pay when their partners receive domestic partner health benefits — a tax that married straight couples are not required to pay.

From the San Jose Mercury News:

While a few organizations, such as Cisco and the Kimpton Hotel chain, have already begun to “gross up” their employees pay to address the disparity in how workplace health benefits for same-sex and heterosexual married couples are taxed, Google’s powerhouse status could fuel the trend, putting pressure on other employers to follow suit and on policy-makers to restructure how domestic-partner health benefits are taxed.

“Google is really taking a leadership role here,” said Daryl Herrschaft, director of the Workplace Project for the Human Rights Campaign in Washington, D.C. “This is a really important step for gay and lesbian employees because it eliminates a tax burden they’re subject to because their families aren’t recognized under federal law.”

Under federal law, employer-provided health benefits for domestic partners are counted as taxable income, if the partner is not considered a dependent. The tax owed is based on the value of the partner’s coverage paid by the employer.

On average, employees with domestic partners will pay about $1,069 more a year in taxes than a married employee with the same coverage, reports The New York Times.

(Photo: Chicago Sun-Times)

The new policy will allow gay and lesbian employees of his office to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a sick partner or relative, the same benefit given to their married co-workers. It also would allow gay and lesbian employees to take time off for the birth or adoption of a child, reports the Chicago Sun-Times.

“Hard working men and women devoted to their families should not have to choose between their family and keeping their job. The bottom line is that we should not deny same sex domestic couples the same rights that are available to married couples.”

The order makes the office the first constitutional Illinois state office or state agency to adopt such a policy and one of only nine states and the District of Columbia to implement leave-related benefits for domestic partners.

In order to receive the benefit, couples will have to sign an affidavit affirming they are in a committed, long-term domestic partnership.

Giannoulias’ office employs approximately 180 people.

Kelly Glossip (seated) and Trooper Dennis Engelhard

From stltoday.com:

When Highway Patrol Cpl. Dennis Engelhard was killed in a Christmas Day traffic accident near Eureka, the agency described him as single with no children.

Gov. Jay Nixon called on Missourians to pray for Engelhard’s family, who “lost a beloved son and brother.”

Neither statement tells the whole story.

Engelhard, hit by a car that lost control in the snow, was gay. He left behind a partner of nearly 15 years who was not mentioned in his obituary or official information released by the Highway Patrol, although members of the agency knew about his sexual orientation.

If Engelhard had been married, his spouse — Kelly Glossip — would be entitled to lifetime survivor’s benefits from the state pension system, more than $28,000 a year.

Glossip, 43, said he and Engelhard were together for nearly 15 years, and has been ignored when it comes to the agencies that normally reach out to the families of fallen law enforcement officers.

“He was my true love and he always referred to me as his one and only true love and the man of his dreams,” Glossip said. “We were hopelessly in love with each other.”

The Justice Department might pay a large benefit to Engelhard’s partner, in this case around $300,000- in the case of . Unlike other benefits available through state and local groups, the Justice Department benefits when state troopers who die in the line of duty are available to anyone who is married to or can prove that they were the long time partner for the deceased.

But Glossip won’t receive similar payments from Missouri.

Under the rules of the state pension system that covers the Missouri Highway Patrol and Department of Transportation workers, if a trooper dies in the line of duty, his or her spouse is eligible for lifetime survivor benefits.

Missouri pension law is clear about defining a spouse, recognizing only a marriage between a man and a woman.

Officials say they’ve never paid benefits to long-term partners of heterosexual troopers either.

Mayor Jerry Sanders, a Republican, testified he now supports gay marriage, saying his views evolved after learning one of his daughters was a lesbian who wanted to marry her partner.

Sanders said he “came very close to making a very bad decision that would effect hundreds of thousands of people” when he almost vetoed a San Diego city council resolution in 2007 to support San Francisco’s pro gay-marriage stance.

“I think the decisions I made were grounded in prejudice,” Sanders testified. “I was discriminating even against my own daughter.”

Sanders

A declared supported of “civil unions as a reasonable alternative to same-sex marriage,” Sanders surprised many of his conservative supporters in a tearful announcement December 2007 that he was reversing his position and publically coming out in support of same-sex marriage.

Sanders testified that “if government tolerates discrimination against anyone for any reason, it becomes an excuse for the public to do the same thing.”

Also on the witness stand Tuesday, Lee Badgett, a University of Massachusetts professor and plaintiffs expert, who outlines conclusions she’s reached on Proposition 8′s impact in California, including a “substantial economic harm” to same-sex couples denied the right to marry, as well as damage to California’s overall economy.

Badgett said research shows domestic partnerships and civil unions are not an adequate substitute to marriage, telling Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, there is “very clear evidence that many people would marry but would not become domestic partners.”

Badgett

Badgett also testifies that research refutes the argument that same-sex marriage damages traditional heterosexual marriage, saying “there is no evidence of any harmful effect” in allowing same-sex couples to wed.

Prop. 8 lawyer Charles Cooper spent the better part of the day challenging Badgett’s assumptions that domestic partnership laws offer lesser protections and rights to same-sex couples, continually pressing her on her support for gay marriage.

Enduring several hours of cross-examination, at one point Badgett shot back, “Based on my research I think it’s good for people and doesn’t hurt anyone else.”

The trial to overturn the November 2008 voter-approved ban on gay Marriage resumes Wednesday morning with the testimony of Ryan Kendall, a gay man who is expected to recount going through “conversion therapy” in his youth.

Plaintiffs lawyers have indicated they may finish presenting their case Wednesday, and not have not yet indicated whether they intend to call any leaders of the Prop. 8 campaign.

The House, and then the Senate, voted to override Carcieri’s veto of a bill grating domestic partners the right to claim the bodies of, and make funeral arrangements for, their loved ones.

The House vote was 67 to 3 and the Senate vote was 29 to 3.

In his veto message on November 10, Carcieri said: “This bill represents a disturbing trend over the past few years of the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage, which is not the preferred way to approach this issue.”

At the time, Sen. Rhoda Perry and Rep. David Segal, the bill sponsors, promised they would seek to override the veto.

The funeral arrangements bill covers domestic partners regardless of their sexual orientation, but was passed after moving testimony of Mark Goldberg, who said it took well over a month for him to arrange the cremation of his longtime partner Ron Hanby because various state agencies refused to recognize their relationship and release Hanby’s body to him.

“Not being able to claim his body was certainly something that was beyond belief, was beyond human compassion from anyone,” Goldberg said. “There was just no compassion whatsoever from anyone in the state.”

Following the veto override Tuesday, Goldberg said he was “just thankful the [lawmakers] recognized the importance of this bill.”

The compromise, achieved after weeks of wrangling between the ruling Social Democrats and their conservative coalition partner in government, will give gay couples equal rights to heterosexuals with regards to pensions and alimony.

Partners will also be able to take each other’s name, if they wish.

But the new law will continue to ban adoption or artificial insemination for gay couples, said Justice Minister Claudia Bandion-Ortner, who had put forward the draft.

The law is to come into force on January 1 after final approval by parliament.

More from Agence France-Presse.

“Maybe it’s something we should consider,” said Carcieri, after meeting privately Thursday for more than an hour in his office with a half-dozen members of Queer Action of Rhode Island, a group that in the immediate aftermath of his veto had labeled him “a bigot.”

Among those attending was Mark Goldberg, the Providence East Sider whose five-week battle to claim the body of his partner of 17 years from the state morgue, had sparked the vetoed legislation.

Citing as a possible model the “everything but marriage” referendum that won approval in the state of Washington earlier this month, Carcieri said: “I don’t know enough, yet. All I am saying is I understand the circumstances. I understand the difficulties” that can arise for same-sex couples and others — such as widows living with widowers, and widows with other widows — outside the legal framework of a traditional marriage.

“Let’s see if we can find a way to solve that without discreet [pieces] of legislation every time something comes up. I just don’t think that is the right way to deal with it,” he said.

Full story at the Providence Journal.

The socially conservative Republican said the proposed protection represents a “disturbing trend” of the incremental erosion of heterosexual marriage. Rhode Island does not recognize same-sex marriage.

“If the General Assembly believes it would like to address the issue of domestic partnership, it should place the issue on the ballot and let the people of the State of Rhode Island decide,” Carcieri said in a letter to lawmakers.

Sen. Rhoda Perry and Rep. David Segal, the bill sponsors, said they would seek to override the veto. They proposed the legislation after one of their constituents was unable to retrieve the body of his late partner from the state medical examiner for weeks because they weren’t married or next-of-kin.

Democrats hold a veto-proof majority in the Legislature and frequently override Carcieri’s objections.

Full story at the Nashua Telegraph.

Mendelson, who chairs the Council committee that has jurisdiction over the bill, also broadened the bill’s exemption for churches and religious organizations.

As currently drafted, the legislation states that religious officials would have to offer wedding-related services to same-sex couples if those services are available to the public. But the Archdiocese of Washington and other religious organizations oppose that language.

Bowing to pressure, the revised to allow religious organizations to refuse to rent facilities or provide services for same-sex marriage ceremonies, even though such facilities and services are available to the general public.

The bill’s original version was written by Council member David Catania (I-At Large), who is gay, and was co-introduced by Catania and nine of his colleagues on the 13-member Council.

The revised draft released Monday leaves intact all of the major provisions written by Catania, including the key provision to allow same-sex marriages to be performed in the District of Columbia.

The council committee is expected to approve the changes Tuesday before sending the legislation to the full council.

The bill is expected to be approved before Christmas.

Full story at the Washington Blade.

The Democrat-controlled legislature in New Jersey, which currently recognizes same-sex couples in civil unions, is under pressure to pass a bill authorizing gay marriage before Gov. Jon Corzine ends his term in mid-January.

Corzine has promised to sign the bill if it gets there. Governor-elect Chris Christie, however, has promised to veto the legislation if it arrives after he takes office on Jan. 19, 2010.

The state’s position on gay partnerships has been evolving over the last five years.

In 2004 New Jersey allowed gay and lesbian couples to enter into domestic partnerships, which included some of the benefits of marriage. In 2007 the state began allowing “civil unions” with the idea this provided all the benefits of marriage.

To date, more than 3,800 New Jersey couples have entered into a civil union.

In Maine, voters on Tuesday rejected a law allowing gay marriage, a closely fought referendum on the one year anniversary of a similar outcome in California.

In repealing the law passed by the legislature last May, Maine becomes the third state in which voters reversed government rulings to permit gay marriages, after California and Hawaii.

Full story on Maine’s gay marriage vote, here.

But in an apparent victory for gay rights supporters, Washington voters seemed to be approving Referendum 71, which expands the state’s domestic partnership law.

The so called “everything but marriage” law will grant gay couples more than 200 additional rights currently reserved for married spouses, including ensuring extended work leave for people with critically ill partners and preserving pension benefits for the surviving partner in the event of the other’s death.

Full story on Referendum 71, here.

In other races across the nation:

Out lesbian Annise Parker in run-off for Houston mayor
From the Houston Chronicle:

The race for Houston mayor narrowed Tuesday to a choice between a veteran City Hall insider hoping to become Houston’s first openly gay leader and a former civil rights activist hoping to become only the second African-American to run the nation’s fourth-largest city.

City Controller Annise Parker and former City Attorney Gene Locke, the two candidates originally predicted by many to prevail at the race’s outset, will face each other in a Dec. 12 runoff election.

Addressing a jubilant crowd, Parker looked ahead to the runoff election. “This race is not over,” she said. “In five weeks, we’ll claim victory.”

Kalamazoo voters approve anti-discrimination law
From the Kalamazoo Gazette:

In Kalamazoo, Michigan, voters decisively adopted a city ordinance Tuesday that extends anti-discrimination protections to gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender individuals.

The ordinance passed 7,671 to 4,731, making Kalamazoo the 16th city in Michigan to adopt such a gay-rights ordinance that grants the protections in the areas of employment, housing and public accommodations.

The ordinance was approved in all but three of the city’s voting places. It also passed among heavy absentee ballot voting.

Chapel Hill elects first openly gay mayor
From the Chapel Hill News:

In Chapel Hill, N.C., two-term councilman Mark Kleinschmidt, a death-penalty defense lawyer and gay rights advocate, narrowly defeated colleague Matt Czajkowski to take the reins as mayor.

Kleinschmidt received 48.6 percent of the vote in the four-person mayoral race.

“We have a divided community right now, and that’s got to be job No. 1 to address that,” Kleinschmidt said. “The first thing is to talk to Matt.”

Kleinschmidt’s victory marks the first time an openly gay candidate has won Chapel Hill’s mayoral office, and only the third time an openly gay man has been elected mayor of a town in North Carolina.

St. Petersburg elects first openly gay official
From the St. Petersburg Times:

In St. Petersburg, Florida, The City Council will welcome one fresh face: Steve Kornell.

When he takes office Jan. 2, Kornell will become the first openly gay person elected to office in St. Petersburg. It’s a significant milestone in a city with a large gay community that has faced opposition to pride displays under conservative leadership.

Kornell has an extensive background working with city recreation centers, running both Childs Park and Shore Acres. He wrote a grant that still brings in millions for teen programs in the area.

Detroit elects openly gay city council president
From the Detroit Free Press:

Detroit elected openly gay former Fox News reporter Charles Pugh to the city council Tuesday.

By capturing the most votes, Pugh, who survived negative publicity due to his foreclosure woes, will be council president.

“This is unbelievable,” Pugh told the Free Press before a victory speech.

“It means Detroit has really wanted change for a very long time.”

The court offered no explanation in an order issued Tuesday.

The law took effect in August, allowing gay couples to register with counties so they could get about 40 of the 150 rights afforded married couples, such as hospital visitation rights.

Wisconsin Family Action, a conservative group, filed a lawsuit in July claiming the registry violates the state constitution’s ban on gay marriage and civil unions. The group asked the state Supreme Court to take it up directly without going through trial or appeals courts because of the issue’s statewide significance.

The court decided Tuesday not to take the case, but did not say why, although it rarely takes cases filed directly to the court, allowing most cases to come to it from lower courts.

The group’s attorneys, Richard Esenberg and Michael Dean, issued a statement saying they were disappointed but the they could now bring the suit at the trial court level.

More than 900 Wisconsin couples have signed up since it went into effect in August.

The results are a disappointment to religious conservatives, who had mounted an aggressive campaign against conferring additional benefits on committed gay couples and some senior couples.

The so called “everything but marriage” law will grant gay couples more than 200 additional rights currently reserved for married spouses, including ensuring extended work leave for people with critically ill partners and preserving pension benefits for the surviving partner in the event of the other’s death.

At last count, the measure had a narrow, but firm lead with 51.12% of voters in favor of the expanded domestic partner benefits, 48.88% opposed, and the trend is expected to hold once all the votes are tabulated.

According to the Seattle Times: “Referendum 71 passed overwhelmingly in King County and was being voted up throughout the Puget Sound region. Voters in Eastern Washington, meanwhile, were rejecting the measure by wide margins — including in Spokane County.”

In King County (Seattle), where more than 30 percent of the state’s voters reside, yes votes were running 66 percent.

The expanded domestic partnership benefits bill was signed into law by Gov. Chris Gregoire earlier this year, but in Washington state, bills approved by the Legislature can be put to a public vote if enough signatures are gathered, allowing for a “people’s veto.”

Protect Marriage Washington narrowly met the threshold of more than 120,000 valid signatures in early September, placing the measure on Tuesday’s ballot.

Passage of the referendum would mean that Senate Bill 5688 could be enacted in about a month, once the election is certified. The bill extends marriage-like benefits not only to same-sex couples but also to unmarried heterosexual couples where one partner is at least 62.

Other Election Results:

In other contests Tuesday, Maine voters on Tuesday rejected a law allowing gay marriage, a closely fought referendum on the one year anniversary of a similar outcome in California.

In Kalamazoo, Michigan, voters overwhelmingly supported upholding the city’s anti-discrimination law that extends protection to LGBT individuals.

Referendum 71 gives voters the final decision over a bill passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor earlier this year.

The so called “everything but marriage” law would grant gay couples 1,100 rights currently reserved for married spouses, including ensuring extended work leave for people with critically ill partners and preserving pension benefits for the surviving partner in the event of the other’s death.

“For all purposes under state law,” the bill said, “state-registered domestic partners shall be treated the same as married spouses.”

In Washington State, bills approved by the Legislature can be put to a public vote if enough signatures are gathered, allowing for a “people’s veto.” Protect Marriage Washington narrowly met the threshold of more than 120,000 valid signatures in early September, placing the measure on Tuesday’s ballot.

There has been confusion over what a yes vote means: Protect Marriage Washington put Referendum 71 on the ballot, but it wants voters to reject the measure. Referendum 71 asks voters to “approve” or “reject” the expansion to the state’s domestic partnership law.

In Maine, in another referendum on the ballot Tuesday, voters will determine the fate of a same-sex marriage bill passed by the state Legislature in May.

After lawmakers passed the state’s first domestic partnership bill in 2007, and then expanded it a year later, they completed the package with the so-called “everything but marriage” bill that was signed into law by Gov. Chris Gregoire earlier this year.

On Tuesday, voters get the final say on whether they think lawmakers overstepped their bounds.

Referendum 71 asks voters to “approve” or “reject” the final expansion to the state’s domestic partnership law, which grants registered domestic partners additional state-granted rights currently given only to married couples. Under state law, heterosexual seniors also can register as domestic partners.

Opponents of the law say R-71 is a vote on same-sex marriage.

Supporters of gay rights say that the marriage debate is for another day, but that in the meantime, same-sex couples need additional legal protections and rights.

The expanded law adds benefits including the right to use sick leave to care for a domestic partner, and rights related to adoption, child custody and child support.

The law was supposed to take effect July 26, but now will take effect only if approved by voters.

Full story, AP via the Seattle Times.

Apparently emboldened by recent legal victories — including a case being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court — groups opposed to Washington’s domestic-partnership law and working to defeat Referendum 71 are suing again in federal court, this time to lift the state’s limits on campaign contributions.

With some major funding in the offing, the Family Policy Institute of Washington, through its newly formed Family political-action committee (PAC), filed suit in U.S. District Court in Tacoma late Wednesday.

Family PAC wants a federal judge to declare unconstitutional the state’s public-disclosure laws, which limit to $5,000 contributions from businesses and individuals made within 21 days of the election.

The laws also require campaigns to disclose names and addresses of those who donate more than $25. Those contributing more than $100 must also include their employers’ names and addresses, as well as their occupations. The suit seeks to keep all that information from being disclosed.

The group acknowledges that there are substantial contributions the campaign wants to accept but can’t because of the limits.

The company made the donation on Friday to Washington Families Standing Together, a group supporting the law, which gives registered couples the same state-provided benefits as married couples.

Here is a link to the filing with the state’s Public Disclosure Commission, first spotted by The Stranger’s Slog.

Microsoft faced intense criticism in 2005 after taking a neutral stance on a state bill banning discrimination against gays and lesbians, which it had supported in the past.

At the time, the company was on the receiving end of pressure from Ken Hutcherson, pastor at Antioch Bible Church in Redmond and outspoken gay-rights critic. Chief Executive Steve Ballmer later changed the company’s position to support the bill.

Read more at the Seattle Times.

Currently, gay couples in Wisconsin can register for domestic partnerships rights, enacted through legislation that took effect August 3. Since then, about 1,000 couples have applied, according to gay rights advocacy group Fair Wisconsin. Now, those domestic partnerships are in jeopardy.

Family advocacy group Wisconsin Family Action has filed a lawsuit to overturn domestic partnerships, calling them unconstitutional. In 2006, the voters passed an amendment barring gay marriage or anything substantially similar to gay marriage.

Gay rights advocates Lambda Legal filed their own legal challenge on behalf of Fair Wisconsin on Tuesday. They argue the voters may have rejected gay marriage, but they did not reject gay rights.

Fair Wisconsin executive director Katie Belanger says the group is intervening “so that we can protect the interests of our members.”

The American Civil Liberties Union also filed a motion before the Wisconsin Supreme Court Tuesday on behalf of five same-sex couples asking that the couples be allowed to participate in the challenge that will determine the domestic partner law’s future.

Anti-gay activists have asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to strike down the domestic partner law as inconsistent with the marriage amendment.

Spokeswoman Janelle Guthrie says Attorney General Rob McKenna will ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review the decision on a fast track, and in the meantime, he wants the appeals court to lift an injunction that blocks the release of the names.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Ben Settle ruled that the Referendum 71 petitions should not be released because it would likely chill the First Amendment rights of petition signers. He said people have a right to participate anonymously in the political process.

Under Washington state law, the petitions are considered public records.

The referendum’s sponsor, Protect Marriage Washington, is hoping citizens reject the “everything but marriage” law passed by the Legislature earlier this year.

U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle (pictured) in Tacoma granted the preliminary injunction involving petitions for Referendum 71 while a related case moves forward on the constitutionality of the state public records act.

The referendum’s sponsor, Protect Marriage Washington, is hoping citizens reject the “everything but marriage” law passed by the Legislature earlier this year.

In his ruling, Settle said he was “not persuaded that waiver of one’s fundamental right to anonymous political speech is a prerequisite for participation in Washington’s referendum process.”

The referendum’s sponsors turned in nearly 138,000 petition signatures to qualify for the ballot.

The petitions are considered public records under state law. But R-71′s sponsors say the petition-signers could be harassed, amounting to an infringement on their free speech rights.

R-71′s conservative sponsors have collected enough petitions to force a vote on the latest expansion of domestic partnership rights, but gay-rights activists say that state election officials accepted thousands of improper signatures, and filed a lawsuit in Thurston County Superior Court, seeking to block Referendum 71 from the ballot.

Washington Families Standing Together and Anne Levinson, its chairwoman, filed the lawsuit Thursday against both Secretary of State Sam Reed and Protect Marriage Washington, a group that opposes the expanded benefits.

The group also contends Protect Marriage used deceptive practices to get people who actually support the expanded benefits into signing R-71 petitions, and that the petitions themselves included false information.

The measure was also being discussed in federal court Thursday. Referendum sponsors say their signed petitions should not be released to the public, because people who signed could face harassment.

The secretary of state’s office ruled Monday that the referendum had 121,486 valid voter signatures, nearly a thousand more than needed to make the ballot.

At the same time, the first court battle over R-71 was being played out in court.

During a hearing Monday afternoon, King County Superior Court Judge Julie Spector heard arguments from attorneys representing the secretary of state, proponents of R-71 and Washington Families Standing Together, the group opposed to the referendum.

Last week, Families Standing Together filed a lawsuit requesting an injunction that would keep the referendum off the fall ballot, claiming the the secretary of state has not complied with the law in processing R-71.

Signature gatherers are supposed to sign declarations saying that signatures they’ve collected are valid to the best of their knowledge and that they personally circulated the petition, the lawsuit says. Attorney David Burman said there were petitions with 2,058 signatures in which there was no name and no signature from the person collecting them.

The plaintiffs also say the secretary of state ignored requirements that only registered voters can sign petitions.

According to the lawsuit, on August 17 Secretary of State Sam Reed told his staff to ignore the date in voter files as the voter registration date and accept signatures from people who were not cleared to vote when they signed.

“If the secretary of state had followed what we believe was the correct legal advice this referendum would not have qualified,” Burman told the judge.

Spector said she will issue a ruling Wednesday morning.

The request to remove the names was made earlier this month by Protect Marriage Washington, the group backing Referendum 71, which seeks to put newly expanded domestic partnership benefits up to a public vote in November, citing threats of violence against supporters and churches.

But campaign finance regulators unanimously rejected the request, saying that while Protect Marriage Washington did provide some threatening e-mails and blog postings, it “provided no evidence from or about donors that have demonstrated that they have received threats of violence against their lives or property,” or that they were being targeted for boycotts, PDC assistant director Doug Ellis said during the hearing.

Washington gay-rights groups have threatened to publicly expose the signers of the R-71 petition.

Meanwhile, a proponent of the state’s new “everything but marriage” same-sex domestic partner law, Washington Families Standing Together, has filed suit in King County Superior Court to keep the state from certifying the measure for the fall ballot.

The group claims that the secretary of state has not complied with the law in processing Referendum 71. Signature gatherers are supposed to sign declarations saying that signatures they’ve collected are valid to the best of their knowledge and that they personally circulated the petition, the lawsuit says.

The plaintiffs say Secretary of State Sam Reed ignored requirements that say only registered voters can sign petitions. As a result, signatures by individuals not registered to vote at the time they signed a petition were counted toward the total number of signatures, “in contravention of state law,” the suit claims.

Attorneys are scheduling hearings for early next week.

In El Paso, city council members approved the measure in a 7 to 1 vote on Tuesday. Councilman Carl Robinson voted against the measure, saying it would violate the state’s ban on gay marriage.

The action created a stir in the Texas city, with dozens of citizens coming forward to condemn the city’s actions during the public comments portion of city council meetings, saying they opposed the measure on religious grounds. (Pictured, protesters outside El Paso city hall earlier this month.)

Councilwoman Susie Byrd scorned one citizen when he attempted to compare being gay to pedophilia, “One of the gentleman compared homosexuality to pedophilia, and that is just false, and I am absolutely not going to stand for that, ” she said.

Last month, the city came under fire from LGBT rights groups across the country when two men refused to leave a Mexican restaurant because they were kissing. Police officers took no action and told the men they could be cited for their “unlawful behavior.” The police department called the threat of citation as a rookie mistake.

In Reno this week, the council voted to extend benefits to domestic partners of city employees who are registered under the state’s new domestic partnership law, which takes effect October 1.

Reno is the first municipality in Nevada to offer its employees who are registered as domestic partners the same health benefits as people who are married.

Earlier this week, the Nevada secretary of state’s office began accepting domestic partner applications from both gay and straight couples in a month-long pre-registration period to accelerate the process when the new law takes effect.

The totals as of Monday evening are: 103,898 checked, 91,716 accepted and 12,182 rejected. The overall error rate is 11.72 percent. In order to make the November statewide ballot, the referendum’s overall rejection rate must not go over 12.4 percent.

R-71 sponsors need 120,577 valid Washington voter signatures for the measure to go before voters. The secretary of state’s office hopes to finish the count by the end of this month.

Protect Marriage Washington, a consortium of religious conservatives, is the force behind R- 71, a measure to repeal a recently passed state law that would give registered domestic partners the same state-offered benefits married people now receive.

Washington gay-rights groups have threatened to publicly expose the signers of the Ref. 71 petition, prompting Protect Marriage Washington last week to ask the Public Disclosure Commission an emergency hearing because it said there had been violent threats against churches, property and supporters of the campaign.

A federal judge has granted a temporary restraining order to bar the release of signatures on R-71 petitions while they are still being counted. The PDC will hear arguments on August 27 as to why donors to the effort to repeal the law should remain secret.

Secretary of State Ross Miller announced the month-long pre-registration period last week, saying it will help accelerate the process when the law becomes effective October 1.

The law was approved by the 2009 Legislature over the veto of Gov. Jim Gibbons. It extends rights similar to those held by married couple, including community property and debt and the right to seek financial support after a breakup. The law does not require employers to provide insurance coverage to partners of employees.

To be eligible, couples must be older than 18, not be related by blood, share a common residence at least part-time, not be married to or in a partnership with anyone else and declare that they are in an “intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring.”

Van Hollen believes the state’s new domestic partnership law, which took effect August 3, is unconstitutional. It allows gay and lesbian partners dozens of the same legal protections as married spouses. To date, more than 400 couples have been added to the state registry.

The conservative Wisconsin Family Council asked the state Supreme Court last month to invalidate the law, saying it conflicted with a voter-approved 2006 constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage and any “substantially similar” relationships. The Supreme Court has not yet decided if it will take up the case. If it does, the state would likely have to hire an outside attorney to defend the law.

Gov. James E. Doyle, a Democrat, responded, “The attorney general’s job is to represent the state and defend state law when there is a good-faith defense to be made. His representation should not be based on whether he likes the state law.”

Van Hollen is a registered Republican.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Health Services cautions the numbers are incomplete because only 58 out of 72 counties responded to the department’s request for numbers. Dane County had the most with 115 couples.

Applicants need to sign a document in front of a notary and file it with the register of deeds to become official. The registry gives same-sex couples dozens of the same benefits as married couples, such as hospital visitation, medical leave and inheritance rights.

Tamara Packard (left) and Renee Herber leave the Dane County Clerk's Office after signing up for the state's new domestic partner registry.

Wisconsin is the first mid-western state to pass such a law through legislation, with governor Jim Doyle signing the bill in June. Iowa allowed gay marriage earlier this year through a court ruling.

However, it is expected that the law will give gay couples fewer than 50 of the 200 legal rights available to straight married couples.  Some of the rights still not afforded to same-sex couples via the domestic partnership registry include the ability to file taxes jointly and federal benefits of marriage, including Social Security and veterans benefits. Same-sex partnerships in Wisconsin also are not a mandate for health care coverage from private employers.

In November 2006 voters in the state approved a ban on gay marriage. More from The Capitol Times in Madison, WI., and from AP below: