This week's Marriage News Watch is here:

Following is the text of Matt Baume's report:

Civil unions are legal starting now in Delaware. State offices are closed on Monday, but one county clerk opened early on New Year's Day to solemnize eight unions. Among those: Lisa Goodman, President of Equality Delaware.

Hawaii's civil unions also started on January First, despite a last-minute lawsuit by an Oahu church group. The two congregations in Waipahu claim that allowing civil unions violates their freedom of religion. It's a weird argument: they're saying that the civil unions law forces them to rent out their facilities to LGBT couples. The state has responded, saying in essence, "no it doesn't." And a judge agreed.

And despite a ruling expected any day now in the Prop 8 case, California still doesn't have marriage. And its civil unions still fall short of offering the same protections. But that gap will close slightly this month, with the enactment of the Domestic Partner Equality Act. The bill was authored by Senator Mark Leno of San Francisco and passed with the help of Equality California, and it corrects numerous inequalities between civil unions and marriage. Among them: residency requirements, age limitations, divorce procedures, and confidentiality. Previously, straight couples were allowed to seal their names for privacy when getting married, while LGBTs were prohibited from doing so.

Of course, this patchwork approach to civil unions gets us closer to equality, but it doesn't change the ultimate goal: marriage.

This week the cause got a boost in North Carolina, with the state Psychological Association stating its opposition to a constitutional ban on marriage equality. The NCPA wrote, "There is no empirical evidence that supports the denial of marriage rights to people in same-sex relationships," and added, "differentiation based on sexual orientation is an expression of prejudice."

In international news, eight couples will marry in Cancun, where marriage equality isn't explicitly allowed, but it also isn't prohibited.

We've seen a lot of progress around the globe in the last year, particularly in South America and Europe, but some countries still lag behind. A new poll in Lithuania shows just 4% support civil unions. But that number may not be right. We know Lithuania's not a great place for equality, but a survey in 2009 showed support at 42%, and a 2006 survey came in at 17%. The timing is also a little suspicious, since a civil unions bill is currently stalled in Parliament.

Those are the headlines, visit us over at MarriageNewsWatch.com for more on all these stories and to sign up for email alerts for breaking news stories. And check out AFER.org for details on the fight for federal marriage equality. I'm Matt Baume at the American Foundation for Equal Rights. We'll see you next week.

KGMB-TV

Donna Gedge and Monica Montgomery

The dual ceremonies were held in a private residence on the island of Oahu with around 90 people in attendance.

The gathering waited for the civil union applications to become available on the Internet after midnight. When they finally came on-line, it took each couple about ten minutes to complete the forms. Then, it took another five minutes for each of the three civil union officiants to apply for their licenses to perform the ceremony. And then there was a short delay because of an in-house computer glitch.

But the couples were ready when, one hour after midnight, the ceremony began, led by Rev. Kyle Lovett of the Church of the Crossroads, Rev. Jonipher Kwong of the First Unitarian Church of Honolulu, and Rev. Pam Vessels. The couples exchanged vows and rings.

Then, the three officiants said, in unison, "We now pronounce that you are legally joined as partners in life." The celebrants cheered as the couples kissed.

KGMB-TV

Hawaii's civil unions law grants same-sex and heterosexual couples the same rights, benefits and responsibilities as marriage under state law.

"It represents the culmination of almost 20 years of an effort to achieve equality in Hawaii," said guest Valerie Smith, co-chair of Equality Hawaii. "It's one step close to full marriage equality."

The other same-sex couple who participated in the celebration of the rites, Gary Bradley and Paul Perry have been together for three and-a-half years.

Under Hawaii's new law, not only are the four same-sex couples legally recognized in the state, any same-sex couple legally married or in a civil union in any other state or country now also have those relationships legally recognized in Hawaii as well.

With Hawaii and Delaware joining the list Sunday, five states now recognize same-sex civil unions, while six other states -- New Hampshire, New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, and Vermont -- and the District of Columbia, allow same-sex marriage.

While only one state -- New York -- enacted full marriage rights for same-sex couples, it was the most populous state to do so. Five other states also moved closer to marriage equality than ever before. Public opinion shifted dramatically towards supporting equality. And the Obama administration announced that it no longer considers a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act constitutional.

On the negative side, however, three states failed to pass marriage equality bills that had been introduced in their legislatures, and two states passed bills to put measures on their ballots in 2012 that will seek to ban marriage for same-sex couples under their state constitutions.

Despite the negatives, Evan Wolfson, president of the national Freedom to Marry group, said in an interview that 2011 was “an epic year of real transformation.”

On the federal level, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote a letter to Congress in February, stating that the administration believes Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional and will no longer defend it.

Section 3 of DOMA states that the federal government will not, for any federal purposes, recognize the marriages of same-sex couples.

Holder’s letter said the administration believes laws disfavoring persons based on sexual orientation should have to pass the most stringent judicial review—heightened scrutiny. And it said the administration would argue so in two cases challenging DOMA in the 2nd Circuit.

LGBT legal advocacy group Lambda Legal, in its December “State of the Law 2011” report, called Holder’s letter “game changing.”

Wolfson said it represented “an immense historical shift.”

Another sign of this shift, he said, was the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the military’s ban on openly gay servicemembers. DADT repeal will help fuel the marriage equality effort, Wolfson said, “because Americans are now going to see the women and men serving our country as openly gay members of couples and openly gay members of families.”

On the state level, the biggest win in 2011 was in New York, where the legislature passed a marriage equality bill in June. When Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) signed the bill, he doubled the percentage of same-sex couples living in states that allow them to marry. New York is also the only state to have passed marriage equality through a Republican-led legislative chamber, its state Senate.

Governor Cuomo, by adding his vocal support to the bill, “put his political capital on the line,” Wolfson said. His success prompted politico.com to call him a “national contender” and leader of the Democratic Party’s progressive base. The Washington Post said his triumph made him “a first among equals when it comes to the jockeying for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.”

“The freedom to marry went from being a perceived and presumed ‘third rail’ that politicians ran from to now being a pathway to political gain,” said Wolfson.

Five other states came closer to marriage equality than ever before. Maryland for the first time passed a marriage equality bill out of a legislative chamber, its Senate, although the measure fell short of winning in the House.

And Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, and Rhode Island each passed civil union legislation.

But there were disappointments.

In Colorado, a civil union bill was killed on a party-line vote in the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee, after passing the Democrat-controlled Senate.

And in Rhode Island, the civil union bill disappointed many because a bill for full marriage equality had been on the legislature’s agenda. It was dropped after it failed to gain enough support, despite large Democratic majorities in both chambers and Governor Lincoln Chafee’s (I) promise to sign it.

LGBT groups were also disappointed with a provision in Rhode Island’s civil union bill providing extensive exemptions on religious grounds for those who don’t wish to recognize those unions. Chafee himself said the civil union law “fails to fully achieve” the goal of providing same-sex couples with equal rights.

Two states saw progress in lawsuits that could lead to marriage equality. In New Jersey, marriage equality advocates have sued the state, claiming that the state’s existing civil union laws do not provide them with full equality—an equality the state Supreme Court said, in October 2006, is guaranteed by the state constitution.

In California, a three-judge panel of the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments December 8 on procedural matters related to the case to determine the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the state’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples. Regardless of the outcome, the case will almost certainly be appealed to the full 9th Circuit court and/or the U.S. Supreme Court.

Three states successfully played defense in 2011.

Iowa, New Mexico, and Wyoming held firm against attempts to pass bills for ballot measures that sought to ban marriage for same-sex couples under their state constitutions. If passed, Iowa’s bill would have taken away the right to marry that same-sex couples gained in 2009.

But there were some clear setbacks in 2011 as well.

North Carolina and Minnesota passed bills for ballot measures in 2012 that seek to ban marriage for same-sex couples under the state constitutions. And Indiana and Pennsylvania started the process for such ballot measures, which could see further action in 2012.

In Maine, however, LGBT advocates gained enough signatures to place a measure in favor of marriage equality before voters on the 2012 ballot -- although advocates in California and Oregon decided to postpone such attempts and continue to build support.

These ballot measures could be impacted by what was perhaps the most significant win in 2011: a shift in public opinion towards support for marriage equality.

Support for marriage equality nationwide rose about one percent per year between 1996 and 2009, but jumped to a rate of five percent per year in 2010 and 2011, according to a July analysis of over a decade’s worth of polling data by Joel Benenson, President Barack Obama’s lead pollster, and Dr. Jan van Lohuizen, President George W. Bush’s lead pollster. Freedom to Marry commissioned the study.

The average level of support for marriage equality was 41 percent in 2009, but 51 percent in 2011, based on four leading national polls -- CNN-ORC International, Gallup, Pew, and Washington Post-ABC News.

This change is driven in part by “overwhelming generational momentum,” Wolfson explained, with almost 70 percent of voters under 40 supporting marriage equality.

But the analysis also concluded that since 2006, support has risen 15 percent among seniors, 13 percent among Independents, and 8 percent among Republicans.

Additionally, it found that marriage equality supporters now hold their views as strongly as opponents, which was not the case in the past.

“The politics of the freedom to marry have changed dramatically, as has public support,” said Wolfson.

All told, he said, the events of 2011 mean that “We now have real wind in our sails as we go forward.”

Hawaiian Democratic Governor Neil Abercrombie had signed the civil unions’ bill into law last February 23, making the state the fifth in the nation to recognize same-sex civil unions. While civil unions are not considered marriage, the legally binding agreement provides same-sex couples in Hawaii with many of the same legal rights and benefits of marriage.

Local Honolulu television station KHON-TV reported that one of the four couples taking part in the New Year’s Eve event has been together for thirty-three years.

Tambry Young and Suzanne King, two women who were married in Massachusetts in 2009, are helping the couples coordinate the event as members of the CU in Hawaii 2012 Planning Committee.

"They've seen some of their friends pass away before this actually could be enacted, so it's an important step for them," said Young. "The Department of Health did a tremendous job in getting this system up and running. So basically what happens is twelve midnight the system goes live."

"We can help them kind of walk through that to make sure that they have everything up and running ... I think everybody's realizing that this is the next step in our evolution to get full equality and I think everyone's taking it serious," said Young.

For both Young and King, January 1 will also mark a turning point in their thirty year relationship. Their marriage in Massachusetts will also be recognized as a civil union in Hawaii.

Young and King were forced to terminate their reciprocal benefits agreement in Hawaii before the state could recognize their partnership as a civil union.

KHON-TV

For the past ten months the State Health Department has been drawing up plans for an online application process for same sex couples who want to take advantage of Hawaii’s new law.

Other state agencies have also been updating their rules and regulations in order to make certain that civil union couples have the same rights as heterosexual married couples.

The couple, Diane Cervelli and Taeko Bufford, claim the Honolulu inn denied them public accommodation because of their sexual orientation.

Diane Cervelli and Taeko Bufford

Hawaii’s public accommodation law prohibits any inn or “other establishment that provides lodging to transient guests” from discriminating based on sexual orientation, race, sex, gender identity or expression, religion, ancestry or disability.

“When you open the doors of your business to the public, Hawaii law absolutely forbids you from discriminating against your customers," said Peter Renn, staff attorney at Lambda Legal.

"You can’t roll up the welcome mat when you see a lesbian or gay couple, just as you can’t refuse to do business with Jewish customers, African-American customers, or disabled customers,” said Renn.

“No business owner is above the law. If you choose to open a business, then you must play by the same rules that apply to everyone else—you don’t get to pick and choose the laws that you like.”

According to the suit, Cervelli and Bufford were traveling to Hawaii to visit a close friend and her newborn baby. The friend recommended Aloha Bed & Breakfast based on its proximity to the friend’s residence.

In their first call to the business, the owner wanted to know whether Cervelli and Bufford were lesbians. When they answered truthfully, the owner refused to rent them a room because they were a lesbian couple.

Cervelli and Bufford filed discrimination complaints with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, which conducted an investigation and found reasonable cause to believe that illegal discrimination had occurred.

During the investigation, the inn's owner, Phyllis Young, admitted that she turned the couple away because they were lesbians.

Young explained her personal belief that same-sex relationships are “detestable” and that they “defile our land.”

In another development Monday, the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission moved to intervene in the lawsuit as a plaintiff in order to protect and enforce the state anti-discrimination law, which Aloha Bed & Breakfast claims does not and cannot constrain its conduct.

“I can’t tell you how much it hurt to be essentially told, ‘we don’t do business with your kind of people.’ We don’t want anyone else to experience that and made to feel like they have no place in society. It still stings to this day,” Cervelli said.

“We aren’t asking the owner to change her beliefs; we just want her to follow the law applicable to all Hawaii businesses and not to deny us the same roof over our head that she provides to every other paying customer."

A copy of the complaint is here.

This week's Marriage News Watch is here:

Following is the text version of Matt Baume's report:

How exciting was that Prop 8 hearing last week? It was about as exciting as hearings can be, which is to say, kind of. The real excitement, though, is that with these arguments out of the way, we get a ruling on California's marriage ban any day now.

If you missed AFER's thrilling live-tweets from the courthouse, don't worry: we've collected some of the moments from the trial. Here's just a few of our favorites: The first is Charles Cooper, lead counsel for the Prop 8 Proponents, admitting that marriage equality wouldn't hurt any heterosexual couples. And the second is Ted Olson making it clear that the Prop 8 Proponents' claims about intimidation and harassment are pure speculation, not based on any actual evidence.

"But I do not believe and we have never maintained and we have disavowed the notion that any individual marriage is going to be negatively affected."

"There is no affidavit or any specific evidence of any harm to any witness. There is no affidavit from any witness that said the witness was intimidated or feared or his safety. ... And the facts that the proponents put forward are not in the form of evidence. The are the ultimate definition of conjecture. Witnesses might be concerned about their safety. There is no actual factual evidence of any of that."

It's been more than a year since the Federal District Court found Prop 8 to be unconstitutional, and since then the Proponents have been keeping the courts busy with all kinds of stall tactics -- from objecting to videotapes to trying to get the judge's ruling thrown out after he disclosed that he was gay. Now that that's all done, we'll be getting a ruling soon. And then we'll be even closer to full federal marriage equality.

In other news, a lesbian couple in Hawaii has filed suit against the state, saying that the impending civil unions law is insufficient. Like the case against Prop 8, this case argues that marriage discrimination violates the equal protection clause of the US Constitution. The couple's first court date is in March of 2012.

Continuing west, the Australian Labor party has added marriage equality to the official party platform. But Prime Minister Julia Gillard may undermine their work by allowing what's called a conscience vote. In that situation, legislators are not bound to vote along party platform, so Labor politicians could still vote against marriage. That's in spite of a recent survey showing that the party would gain five percentage points in elections by supporting equality.

But if a marriage equality bill did come up, other parties could opt for a conscience vote as well, which would likely result in additional votes for our side. It's become a complicated chess game of politics, and the result is that the future is murky for thousands of Australian LGBTs who are waiting to wed.

Those are the headlines, visit us over at AFER.org for more on the federal challenge to Prop 8, and MarriageNewsWatch.com for more on all these stories and more. We'll see you next week.

Natasha N. Jackson and Janin Kleid claim that the state's refusal to issue them a marriage license violates their due process and equal protection rights guaranteed them by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, reported Hawaii News Now.

HawaiiNewsNow.com

Natasha Jackson (left) and Janin Kleid

The couple tried to obtain a marriage license on Nov. 18, but the state Health Department denied them one because they are both women.

Hawaii's civil unions law takes effect on Jan. 1 and allows same-sex and opposite-sex couples to enter into a civil union with the same state rights and responsibilities as a traditional marriage, but the couple claims that civil unions are an insufficient "substitute for marriage," and that they're being deprived a fundamental right.

Their attorney John D'Amato argues the state law reserving marriage to only heterosexual couples is discriminatory and violates the 14th amendment. He says it would not require another constitutional amendment to change the law.

"It would just require a judge to look at that law and say yeah plaintiffs you're right it does violate your rights to due process and equal protection under the federal constitution," said D'Amato. "The state's denying Janin and Natasha the right to marry deprives them of a fundamental right and is unjustly discriminatory."

Hawaii News Now

D'Amato said that heterosexual couples can choose between marriage and civil unions, but believe they are being denied their due process and equal protection rights because gay and lesbian couples only have the option of civil unions.

In 1998, Hawaii voters passed a constitutional amendment keeping marriage between a man and a woman, but the couple said the U.S. constitution is on their side.

In a poll, conducted earlier this month by the Raleigh, N.C.-based Public Policy Polling firm, also found that 40 percent of voters, however want same-sex marriage to remain illegal.

The results were 77 percent support gay couples having some sort of legal recognition, with 40% still supporting full marriage, and 37% favoring civil unions. That sentiment is shared by 90 percent of Democrats, 77 percent of independents, and even 59 percent of Republicans.

Hawaii currently does not have full marriage rights for gay couples, but civil unions will be legal next year in the state.

Governor Neil Abercrombie (D), signed same-sex civil unions into law last February, granting same-sex and heterosexual couples the same rights, benefits and responsibilities as marriage under state law.

According to the firm's published results, PPP surveyed 568 Hawaii voters from October 13 thru till Oct 16. The margin of error for the survey is +/-4.1%.

The firm cites on its site: "This poll was not paid for or authorized by any campaign or political organization. PPP surveys are conducted through automated telephone interviews."

PPP is a Democratic polling company, but polling expert Nate Silver of The New York Times found that its surveys in 2010 actually exhibited a slight bias toward Republican candidates.

Linda Lingle

Lingle, whose 2010 veto stopped a civil unions bill giving the Aloha state’s same-sex couples the same protections under the law as married heterosexual couples, is already drawing criticism.

Matt Canter, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser:

"Today marks Linda Lingle's biggest announcement since she nominated Sarah Palin for Vice President [at the 2008 Republican National Convention], an event that typifies Lingle's partisan Republican approach to governing," said Canter.

"Now Lingle wants to go to Washington to become a rubber-stamp for Mitch McConnell and the Republican party whose sole priority is to defeat President Obama at every turn."

Lingle disagreed, saying in an interview with a local radio show:

"I want to be real clear on this point: I don't work for (Senate Minority Leader) Mitch McConnell, and for that matter I don't work for President Obama. I work for the people of Hawaii. [...] "And if there is a law being proposed, whether it's from the president or from Mitch McConnell, if it's good for Hawaii I'm for it. If it's not good for us, I'm against it regardless of who introduces it."

Seven months following her veto, the new Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie signed the same-sex civil unions into law, just one week after the bill again passed the state Legislature.

The new law bars employers from discriminating on the basis of gender identity or expression, bringing Hawaii’s labor law in line with similar protections in the areas of housing and public accommodations.

Hawaii becomes the 13th state to ban employment discrimination based on gender identity or expression.

Earlier this year, Abercrombie signed a same-sex civil unions bill into law, granting same-sex and heterosexual couples the same rights, benefits and responsibilities as marriage under state law.

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser reports:

House Bill 546 would bar employers from discriminating on the basis of gender expression, bringing Hawaii’s labor law in line with similar protections in the areas of housing and public accommodations.

The House, in a 45-4 vote on Monday, agreed to accept the Senate’s amended draft of the bill, allowing the proposal to skip the conference committee process and move directly to the Gov. Neil Abercromie for his signature.

“Today is a great day for all residents of Hawaii,” said Alan Spector, co-chairman of Equality Hawaii. “Providing employment protections to transgender people in Hawaii is a victory for civil rights."

Earlier this year, Abercrombie signed a same-sex civil unions bill into law, granting same-sex and heterosexual couples the same rights, benefits and responsibilities as marriage under state law.

The bill, HB 546, was previously approved in the state House, and passed in the Senate by a vote of 22-2.

The law codifies prohibitions against discrimination in employment on the basis of gender identity.

“The march towards full equality in the Aloha State continues,” Alan Spector, Equality Hawaii co-chair, said in a press release. “Providing employment protections to transgender citizens in Hawaii is a victory for civil rights and equal treatment under the law for all residents of our great state.”

- via Honolulu Civil Beat

The legislation now heads to Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D) for his signature.

If approved, Hawaii will join 12 states and the District of Columbia to provide transgender employment, housing and public accommodation protections.

Earlier this year, Abercrombie signed a same-sex civil unions bill into law, granting same-sex and heterosexual couples the same rights, benefits and responsibilities as marriage under state law.

This is the first bill Abercrombie (D) has signed into law since being elected in November. The bill passed the state Legislature last week.

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser reports:

"E Komo Mai: It means all are welcome," Abercrombie said in remarks before signing the bill into law.

"This signing today of this measure says to all of the world that they are welcome. That everyone is a brother or sister here in paradise."

"The legalization of civil unions in Hawaii represents in my mind equal rights for all people," he said.

Just seven months ago, former Republican Gov. Linda Lingle vetoed a virtually identical bill passed in the state legislature last year.

Lingle characterized civil unions as same-sex marriage by another name.

"This bill has been a long time coming for committed couples in Hawaii who have been denied the basic right to take care of their families," said Laurie Temple, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii.

Approval of the bill also brings an end to a lawsuit filed by gay couples against the state last year after Lingle's veto, the ACLU said.

Hawaii has figured prominently in the national gay rights movement's efforts since the early 1990s, when the state Supreme Court nearly legalized gay marriage.

The bill now goes to Gov. Neil Abercrombie, who supports civil unions and has promised to sign the bill into law.

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser reports:

"I have always believed that civil unions respect our diversity, protect people's privacy, and reinforce our core values of equality and aloha," Abercrombie said in a statement after the vote.

"I appreciate all the time and effort invested by those who shared their thoughts and concerns regarding civil unions in Hawaii. This has been an emotional process for everyone involved, but that process is now ended. Everyone has been heard; all points of view respected.

"For me, this bill represents equal rights for all the people of Hawaii," Abercrombie said.

The Senate vote was 18-5. On Friday, the full House passed the bill by a vote of 31-19.

The bill would allow same-sex and heterosexual couples to enter into civil unions and receive the same rights, benefits and responsibilities as marriage under state law.

The governor has 10 legislative days to review it. His office said details of a bill signing ceremony are forthcoming.

The measure will go into effect January 1, 2012.

It is virtually identical to a bill passed by the Legislature last year but vetoed by then-Gov. Linda Lingle (R), who characterized civil unions as same-sex marriage by another name.

The full House passed the bill by a vote of 31-19.

The bill would allow same-sex and heterosexual couples to enter into civil unions and receive the same rights, benefits and responsibilities as marriage under state law.

Last month, the state Senate passed the civil unions bill by a vote of 19-6.

But because of amendments attached in the House at the recommendation of the state Attorney General’s Office, the bill will now go back to the Senate before making its way to the Governor for his signature.

Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie has promised to sign the civil unions legislation if approved, calling it a simple issue of civil rights.