(Lavverrue, Flickr)

Though the Maine Legislature passed legislation to allow same-sex marriage, residents voted against the bill in a ballot measure on election day by a margin of 53 to 47 percent. The Catholic church was a major funder of the forces opposed to same-sex marriage, and as MPR’s Tom Scheck notes, Minnesota Catholic were among those funding the opposition.

The Diocese of Crookston gave $5,000; the Dioceses of Winona and La Crosse, Wis., each donated $500; and New Ulm’s bishop personally gave $250.

Catholic dioceses around the country spent nearly $560,000 to repeal the same-sex marriage law (total fundraising by opponents of same-sex marriage was over $4 million), but not all Catholics opposed same-sex marriage.

Some 500 Catholics signed a letter stating in part, “We are Catholics who are concerned that the current political campaign to repeal Maine’s civil marriage equality law is at odds with fundamental principles of truth and charity, and with vital American traditions of separation of church and state.”

“As a pastor within a denomination that has been marrying same gender couples for forty years, I am saddened that my congregants must travel north to Canada or south to Iowa in order to be legally married,” said the Rev. Robyn Provis of All God’s Children Metropolitan Community Church in Minneapolis. “What that means is that their marriages are recognized four hours north and three hours south but here in Minnesota their marriages are legally invisible.”

Provis was one of a half dozen faith leaders speaking out in support of marriage equality efforts in the state. The press conference at the Capitol was organized by the LGBT advocacy group OutFront Minnesota.

“What this event reminds us is that many people of faith support full legal equality for GLBT individuals, and same-gender couples, not despite their religious beliefs, but because of them,” said OutFront Minnesota Executive Director Amy Johnson.

“The main reasons for denying marriage rights to same-sex couples are religious,” said Pastor Doug Donley of University Baptist Church, which is affiliated with the American Baptist Churches in the USA. “By codifying such a religious belief into law, we are violating our own state and federal constitution. The fair and the just thing to do would be to offer marriage rights to all people. Why not join the other states and stand up for freedom, justice, mercy and compassion?”

He added, “By the way, those are all things that Jesus actually addressed.”

The Reverend Victoria Safford of White Bear Unitarian Universalist Church said her church stopped signing any marriage documents until gays and lesbians have the right to marry in Minnesota. “That day is coming. The laws of Minnesota are not meant to exclude some citizens while granting privilege to others,” she said. “The law exists to protect and fiercely guard the rights, equality and freedom of all of us.

Rabbi Jared H. Saks of Temple Israel said that, for religious Jews who favor same-sex marriage, it’s an issue of justice.

“Deuteronomy teaches us Tzedek, tzedek tirdof, Justice, justice shall you pursue. In giving the world the concept of justice, Torah gave the world equality: fair treatment of the poor, the orphan, the widow and the stranger,” he said. “Torah commands us not to oppress the stranger, because we were strangers in the land of Egypt. We know the heart of the stranger. We are Israel and we know what it is to be labeled as different.”

Rev Sarah Campbell of the Mayflower Church, a member of the United Church of Christ said she has married both same-sex and opposite-sex couples for many years and sees no difference in the level of commitment between the two.

“It deeply saddens me that some of the couples I have married are forced to endure additional life pressures — as if there are not enough pressures on families already — because they are denied civil rights,” she said. “The strength of their marriages, despite such additional stresses like additional insurance expenses of all kinds, is humbling and awe inspiring to me.”

She added, “I will fight for equal marriage rights for these couples. Of course I will!”

Mandy Carter of the National Black Justice Coalition spoke at the press conference in support of the clergy.

“Are marriage rights for same-sex couples the next hurdle in our ongoing movement for civil rights? Black lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender activists of the National Black Justice Coalition think so, and we are actively seeking to achieve this next level of equality.”

Carter choked back tears as she read a powerful statement by Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., who was a Freedom Rider during the civil rights movement in the 1960s. “I have fought too hard, and too long, against discrimination based on race and color to not stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

Also speaking on Thursday were the Rev. Anita Hill of St. Paul Reformation Lutheran Church and the Rev. Dr. Lowell O. Erdahl, Bishop Emeritus of the Saint Paul Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA).

Monica Meyer, public policy director for OutFront said in a statement, “Recent polls suggest that support continues to grow for these couples and their families, as people learn more about the discrimination that same-gender couples face,” she said. “Today’s powerful statements by Minnesota clergy in favor of marriage equality will help move Minnesota toward an eventual end to discrimination in marriage and support for full civil marriage equality.”

(Lavverrue, Flickr)

In the five months since the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that gay and lesbian couples could legally marry in that state, 676 same-sex couples have married there as of July 27, according to a report by the Des Moines Register. Of those, 36 couples were from Minnesota.

On Sunday, that number jumped by nine as a busload of Minnesotans left St. Paul for ceremonies in the Hawkeye State. Among them were Judith Weir, 73, and Olly Staneslow, 75, who were married at the First Unitarian Church in Des Moines.

“To actually be legally married is a dream come true,” Weir told the Register. “It’s like maybe we can stop being treated as second-class citizens. You can’t choose who you fall in love with.”

Just under half of all same-sex marriages in Iowa have involved out-of-state residents: 57 from Illinois, 38 from Nebraska, 37 from Missouri and 36 from Minnesota.

But there are some outside groups bent on stopping gay marriage in Iowa. The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has begun a campaign in Iowa to bring a constitutional amendment before the voters and to help elect anti-same-sex marriage legislators. NOM is the same group that pushed for California’s Prop 8, which ended same-sex marriage in that state.

NOM came under fire last week when it was revealed that Iowa authorities were investigating the group for violations of campaign contribution disclosures. The group failed to file as a political action committee, prompting Iowa’s Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board to send a letter (pdf) to the group which stated, “The independent expenditure process in Iowa is not a vehicle to shield political contributions.”

Locke told American Jewish World that he and Hewitt will be having a traditional Jewish wedding with some small changes. “The differences are going to be small, and it’s really going to be in the language, the things that the rabbi says, but there’s still going to be the chupa and the glass stomping and the seven brachot,” he said.

Amy Johnson of OutFront Minnesota, the state’s largest LGBT advocacy organization, is Jewish and told AJW that the decision to bless same-sex unions is a positive one for the community.

“I’m very proud that they are offering the dignity and respect that our families deserve. I would expect nothing less of Temple of Aaron to embrace the fact that love and a commitment to have a Jewish household is worthy of celebration,” said Johnson. “I hope [other synagogues] embrace the same tikkun olam [as Temple of Aaron].”

Temple of Aaron’s mottos are “You are always welcome at the Temple of Aaron” and “Temple of Aaron is where all members can feel valued and connected to the community.”

“If we trust scripture in matters of Christ, why don’t we trust it in human sexuality?” asked Pastor Michael Johnson of the Western North Dakota Synod.

Fred Heintz of the Northwest Ohio Synod urged ELCA members to vote “no” until the group had come to a unified stance on the issue. “We do not have a consensus. There’s a time to listen and a time to wait. I am willing to continue to explore this issue.”

Larry Christiansen of the Southeast Iowa Synod argued that the ban doesn’t jibe with the teachings of Christ.

“Look to yourselves and your own sin. Jesus said to apply the law ruthlessly for ourselves, and graciously toward others,” he said. “Our current policy bears false witness to our Lord.”

Craig Johnson of the Eastern North Dakota Synod opposed repealing the ban. “I feel in my stomach that something is seriously wrong. Loving our neighbor I agree is essential… but it does not condone doing what is not right.”

John Seng, a member of the Northeastern Ohio Synod, expressed a widely held belief: that the vote will split the church:  “It saddens me that we are going this way.”

Others, like Brittani Lamb of the Southwestern Minnesota Synod, said that for the ELCA to survive, it needs to understand that young people want gays and lesbians to have equal standing in the church. “For the church to say that God loves everyone but not show that to homosexuals is hypocritical. If this resolution fails, not only will we lose great pastors but will lose younger people too.”

Pastor Paul Tidemann of the St. Paul Synod said that when his church left the ELCA in 2000 in order to roster the Rev. Anita Hill, a lesbian in a committed relationship, membership at their church blossomed. “The issue of welcoming LGBT people the congregation continues to strengthen in spirit and numbers. When we decided in 2000 to call Rev. Anita Hill, our decision was to ordain her. And in the end after a vote of 181 to nothing, our congregation grew by over one hundred.”

The vote to allow gay and lesbian pastors in committed relationships to lead congregations passed by a vote of 559 to 451.

After the vote, one ELCA member seemed nonplussed and asked the presiding bishop for support. “We have taken some historic votes today. Can you share with some of us who are deeply disturbed why they should continue in this church?”

Many people have been disappointed in the vote. Minnesota’s own religious right, the Minnesota Family Council, released a statement immediately following the vote Friday afternoon.

“With this vote to affirm homosexual behavior and clergy, the ELCA has fully embraced moral relativism and jettisoned its moral authority in the community. They’ve embraced postmodernism and rejected the clear teaching of Scripture and Christian practice for nearly 2,000 years,” said Prichard.

“Speaking as a Lutheran, with this vote the ELCA needs to change its name. It’s no longer ‘Lutheran’ or ‘Evangelical.’ They have turned their back on the authority of the Bible, the foundation on which Martin Luther started the Reformation,” said Prichard.

Rev. Paull Spring of State College, Pa., chair of Lutheran CORE, a group who lobbied against the measure, said, “I am saddened that a Lutheran Church that was founded on a firm commitment to the Bible has come to the point that the ELCA would vote to reject the Bible’s teaching on marriage and homosexual behavior. It breaks my heart.”

But for many, today’s vote was met with excitement. “This is a joyous day for the LGBT Lutherans who no longer have to choose between their spirituality and their sexuality,” Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese said.

“Thanks be to God for our colleagues at Lutherans Concerned and all of the Goodsoil coalition,” said Harry Knox, director for HRC’s Religion and Faith Program. “The ELCA has studied, prayed and listened to the witness of its LGBT sisters and brothers, and has come to consensus in community. This decision reflects the best of Lutheran tradition.”

Emily Eastwood, executive director of Lutherans Concerned/North America, said, “Today I am proud to be a Lutheran. Supporters and advocates of full inclusion have longed for this day since the inception of the ELCA, and for many of us what seemed like a lifetime.”

The ELCA also voted to ensure that churches that decline to allow gays and lesbians in committed relationships have that right and each congregation is free to make the decision that best fits them.

Photo: Collegewolf

Two close calls marked the third day of the General Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) on Wednesday. The nearly 2,000 Lutherans, media and activists assembled at the Minneapolis Convention Center took cover as a tornado nipped one side of the building and damaged the steeple of a Lutheran church across the street. A short time later, the 1,014 voting members would pass a social statement relaxing church doctrine on homosexuality with a dramatic vote that was exactly a two-thirds majority. One vote against would have killed the measure.

“We trust the weather is not a commentary on our work,” said the Rev. Steven Loy, who was chairing the committee on the social statement.

The social statement is a long document that essentially says that the church will agree to disagree on the issue of same-sex relationships, but will neither punish congregations that decide to bless such relationships nor force congregations that reject blessing same-sex couples.

”This church also acknowledges that consensus does not exist concerning how to regard same-gender committed relationships, even after many years of thoughtful, respectful, and faithful study and conversation,” the statement says in part. “We do not have agreement on whether this church should honor these relationships, uplift, shelter and protect them, or on precisely how it is appropriate to do so.”

But LGBT Lutherans are hailing the vote, which came in at 676 to 338, exactly the 66.67 percent margin needed.

“This is a day of progress and compromise,” said Emily Eastwood, executive director of Lutherans Concerned/North America, a group that works for inclusive LGBT policies in the church. “By a two-thirds majority the church has supported families of all kinds and has acknowledged without judgment the wide variety of views within the ELCA regarding LGBT inclusion.”

But with such a close vote, opponents were inevitably not happy. “We mourn the decision by the Churchwide Assembly to reject the clear teaching of the Bible that God’s intention for marriage is the relationship of one man and one woman,” said the Rev. Paull Spring of State College, Pa., chair of Lutheran CORE, a group that opposes the relaxing of church teaching on homosexuality. “It is tragic that such a large number of ELCA members were willing to overturn the clear teaching of the Bible as it has been believed and confessed by Christians for nearly 2,000 years.”

While the less controversial social statement passed by a two-thirds majority, an even more controversial vote is expected on Friday when the church will decide whether gay and lesbian pastors who are in committed relationships can lead ELCA congregations. That vote will need a simple majority to pass.

Asked Grassley, “Are you saying to me that Baker v. Nelson is not a precedent? Because I assume if it is precedent, based on everything you told us yesterday, you are going to follow it.”

“No sir, I just haven’t reviewed Baker in a while,” Sotomayor replied. “It’s not that I’m attempting to not answer your question, Sen. Grassley.”

“Why are you hedging on this?” Grassley pressed.

Sotomayor responded, “It’s been a while since I looked at that case.”

She told Grassley that she couldn’t make a determination about what precedent the Baker case would have on future cases coming before that Supreme Court without going back to review it. Same-sex marriage is likely to hit the court within the next year.

She promised to review the case and return on Thursday.

In 1970, two gay University of Minnesota students, Jack Baker and James McConnell applied for a marriage license in Hennepin County District Court and were denied. They sued, and the Minnesota Supreme court denied their case saying Minnesota’s marriage law “does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”

The couple took their case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case, but unlike some cases, the court’s denial was a binding precedent, which means the case is applicable to all lower courts.

Here is the full exchange between Grassley and Sotomayor.

(Lavverrue, Flickr)

President Obama’s Justice Department filed a brief on Thursday to uphold the federal Defense of Marriage Act in a lawsuit brought against the federal government by married same-sex couples from California. The Justice Department’s move has angered marriage equality advocates who say Obama is backing away from his campaign promise to repeal DOMA.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund called the brief “egregious.”

“Unfortunately, the malicious and outrageous arguments and language used in the Department of Justice’s marriage brief is only serving to inflame and malign the humanity of same-sex couples and our families,” said the Task Force. “This is unacceptable.”

The Human Rights Campaign quickly chastised the DoJ brief calling it the arguments contained within “most alarming” and “grounded neither in fact nor in law.”

“Mr. President, you have called DOMA ‘abhorrent’ and pledged to be a fierce advocate for our community,” said Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese. “As we approach the 40th anniversary of Stonewall, it is time for you to use your leadership to translate these principles into meaningful action.”

Religious right organizations noted last month that the Obama administration quietly removed all mentions of a repeal of DOMA from the White House website. That move coupled with Thursday’s brief has LGBT groups wondering if that commitment still stands.

“The Administration apparently determined that it had a duty to defend DOMA in the courts. The President has just as strong a duty to put his principles into action, and end discrimination against LGBT people and our families,” said Solmonese. “We call on the President to send legislation repealing DOMA to Congress.”

A Justice Department official told Politico that, like many cases, the department is compelled to uphold laws.

As it generally does with existing statutes, the Justice Department is defending the law on the books in court. The president has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system.

Despite that, AmericaBlog found several instances where previous administrations refused to defend laws they disagreed with.

Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer are suing to have their marriage recognized in other states under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution. The federal Defense of Marriage Act blocks legally performed same-sex marriage from being recognized in other states.

Source: Wikipedia

On Wednesday afternoon, the New Hampshire Legislature passed and Gov. John Lynch signed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in that state. New Hampshire is now the sixth state to legalize marriage for gays and lesbians and the fourth to do so via legislation. Iowa, Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts and Connecticut have all legalized same-sex marriage.

“Today we’re standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear they will receive the same rights, responsibilities and respect under New Hampshire law,” Lynch said. “It is my hope and my belief that New Hampshire will once again come together to embrace tolerance and respect and to stand against discrimination.”

“With Gov. Lynch signing legislation passed by the state Senate and House, New Hampshire has become the latest state to recognize that loving, committed couples, and their families, should receive equal dignity and respect under the law,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese in a press release. “No religious institution will have to recognize any marriage under this law, as the language proposed by Gov. Lynch and agreed to by the legislature made abundantly clear.”

Despite the ruling, marriage-equality advocates vowed to press on, possibly taking the issue to the voters again in the next few years.

“Today’s ruling is a huge blow to Americans everywhere who care about equality. The court has allowed a bare majority of voters to write same-sex couples out of basic constitutional protections,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “This ruling couldn’t be more out of step with what’s happening across the country. We have no choice but to return this basic question of fairness for the estimated 1 million LGBT Californians back to the voters.”

The Log Cabin Republicans also vowed to continue working with California’s Republican elected officials to ensure marriage equality in that state.

“While we were defeated in this ballot initiative, our cause is right and just,” said Leonard M. Lanzi, president of California Log Cabin Republicans “We will continue to work with our allies in the Republican Party and across the political spectrum in California to educate voters that marriage equality is truly a conservative value, along the lines of strengthening individual freedoms, limiting the role of government in our daily lives and preserving personal responsibility.”

The Mormon Church, which spent millions of out-of-state funds to pass Prop 8, released a statement today, as well:

“Today’s decision by the California Supreme Court is welcome. The issue the court decided was whether California citizens validly exercised their right to amend their own constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The court has overwhelmingly affirmed their action.

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes the deeply held feelings on both sides, but strongly affirms its belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The bedrock institution of marriage between a man and a woman has profound implications for our society.”