Let's do a little compare-and-contrast between New Jersey, whose loudmouthed "straight shooting" governor just wasn't man enough to sign a straightforward same-sex marriage bill, and Maryland, where Gov. Martin O'Malley (a politician no one has ever accused of lacking ambition) has not only said he will sign the bill, he called in favors and campaigned hard to get it passed.

In other words, he actually expended political capital to accomplish something he thought was right - as opposed to Mr. Chris "Let The Majority Decide The Rights of The Minority" Christie, who only had to sign a bill both houses passed. Remember that.

At some point, Martin O'Malley will either be on a presidential ticket, or run for the top office himself. But no matter what pounds of flesh he has to sell to get there, no matter what compromises he may make along the way, I will always remember that here's a guy who simply did this one right thing for the right reasons. That has a certain appeal, doesn't it? I'd like to see more Democrats like him.

A bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Maryland was approved by the state Senate, which advanced a measure that narrowly cleared the House of Delegates last week.

The final vote by the state Senate ended a yearlong drama in Annapolis over the legislation, and marked the first time an East Coast state south of the Mason-Dixon line has supported gay nuptials.

With the vote, the measure moves to Gov. Martin O’Malley (D), who has said he will sign it.

[...] Despite one of the largest Democratic majorities in any state legislature, backers of gay marriage in Maryland had to overcome fierce opposition from blocks of African American lawmakers and those with strong Catholic and evangelical views to cobble together coalitions big enough to pass both chambers.

As the Atlantic points out, in some ways, the Maryland compromise wasn't any prettier than Christie's political abdication. As part of the deal to get the bill through the House, opponents get the opportunity to put the issue on the ballot this November, which also makes it possible that the same-sex marriage issue Obama's been trying to sidestep will dog him there.

And as a final hurdle, the law doesn't go into effect until all legal challenges have been exhausted. That will take a long time.

But O'Malley did get out and fight for it. That's what leadership looks like.

DOWNLOADS: (137)

PLAYS: (387)

Embed

Congratulations, Washington State! On Monday, Governor Christine Gregoire signed legislation legalizing same sex marriage between couples in the state.

Via SeattlePI:

Gregoire's voice broke as she descrbed conversations with her two daughters, who told her that marriage equality was "the civil rights issue of their generation . . . Thank you to that younger generation and my two daughters."

The governor presided at a ceremony in Olympia, joined by legislative leaders and the longtime same-sex partners of such lawmakers as Sen. Ed Murray and Reps. Jamie Pedersen and Laurie Jinkins.

The law goes into effect on June 7, unless opponents succeed in gathering 120,577 valid voter signatures to force a referendum in November. If so, marriage equality would be held up pending a decision by Washington voters.

She's right. In a few more years, people will wonder what the big deal is. My 17-year old daughter does not understand why people want to bar committed same-sex couples from affirming their commitment legally and publicly. The difference? She understands because she has long-term friendships with gay friends. The ignorance factor just doesn't exist.

Of course, this will not stop the haters from trying as hard as they can to pull a Proposition 8 move in Washington State. They're already launching their campaign, and I'm sure they've got plenty of help from the Mormon and Catholic church members in that state.

Ex-Sen. Rick Santorum, a scathing critic of marriage equality, will meet this afternoon in Olympia with opponents of the bill Gregoire signed into law. The Republican presidential candidate holds a rally with supporters tonight at the Washington State History Museum in Tacoma.

The Family Policy Institute and the Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle had asked followers to call on Gregoire to veto the marriage equality bill. A statement by diocesan bishops, critical of the law, was included Sunday in Catholic parish bulletins.

The Family Policy Institute is one of NOM's front groups and regularly emits fits of hysteria over same sex marriage. They also really like using culture war issues like this to try and get out the vote for conservative candidates. It's a common tactic of theirs.

Stand firm, Washington State, and in the meantime, congratulations to all of the couples waiting to get married. I look forward to seeing wedding albums.

Judge Walker has opened the door for same-sex marriage, but with a bit of a twist. The stay will remain in effect until August 18th to give the proponents of Prop 8 an opportunity to appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

That's not surprising, but what does surprise me is the lengthy discussion of whether those same Prop 8 proponents even have standing to file such an appeal.

Because Prop 8 was an amendment to the state Constitution, the Attorney General and Governor are the parties with standing to appeal Judge Walker's ruling. However, Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger both declined to do so. At the trial, the original proponents were allowed to present their case instead of Brown and Schwarzenegger, but after the judge ruled, responsibility for appeal bounced back to the state.

Brown and Schwarzenegger argued that the stay should be lifted and marriages allowed immediately. What Judge Walker has done with this short extension of the stay is to allow the Prop 8 proponents to argue: a) that they have standing to appeal; and b) that the stay should be made permanent.

Judge Walker seems to think they don't have standing. Key conclusion:

Because proponents make no argument that they -- as opposed to the state defendants or plaintiffs -- will be irreparably injured absent a stay, proponents have not given the court any basis to exercise its discretion to grant a stay.

Bottom line: This is moving toward the Supreme Court. The real question is what will happen in the interim.

Chris Geidner has a quick analysis with key points. Maddow also reacts. The LA Times reports that Prop 8 proponents plan an immediate appeal.

Update #2: According to Right Wing Watch, the American Family Association is considering the possibility of dropping any challenge to Prop 8 in order to save bans on same-sex marriage in other states.

SAN FRANCISCO -- Lawyers for gay couples, California Gov. Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed legal motions Friday telling a federal judge that allowing same-sex marriages to resume immediately in the state was the right thing to do.

The motions came two days after U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker struck down California's voter-approved gay marriage ban as unconstitutional.

In his 136-page decision, Walker said gay marriages should begin immediately. But later Wednesday, he agreed to suspend weddings until he could consider the legal arguments he ordered to be filed by Friday.

Opponents of same-sex marriage said they want Proposition 8 to stay in effect until their appeal of Walker's ruling is decided by higher courts.

They argued in court papers filed earlier this week that resuming gay marriage now would cause legal chaos if the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or U.S. Supreme Court eventually reverse Walker's ruling.

The 9th Circuit received their appeal of Walker's decision on Wednesday, hours after the judge ruled that Proposition 8 violates the civil rights of gay Californians.

On Friday, Schwarzenegger and Brown were the first to urge an immediate resumption of gay marriage, which was legal in the state for more than four months before voters amended the California Constitution to outlaw it in November 2008.

The legal team of David Boies and Ted Olson, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of two gay couples that led to Walker's ruling, also submitted a motion in conjunction with the city of San Francisco, another plaintiff.

A federal judge in Massachusetts has ruled that DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) is unconstitutional. Chris Hayes anchored Rachel Maddow's show and led off with this segment and interview with Martha Coakley.

We begin tonight with breaking news out of Massachusetts. A federal judge ruled that the federal government's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro decided that the defense of marriage act violates the fundamental principles of this nation.

With that, the judge made advocates of marriage equality very happy. One of the rulings involved seven couples and three widowers, all of whom who had been ineligible for the federal benefits that come with being lawfully wed thanks to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. That law required the federal government to ignore for federal purposes any marriage not between a man and women.

Same-sex wedded couples have no access to family health insurance, no social security survivor benefits, no joint filing of federal taxes.

There are two salient things about the ruling. The judge granted the plaintiffs what's known as summary judgment. Both sides filed their arguments and the judge decided he didn't need to hear another word.

The remarkable part of the ruling is the reason for it. In addition to ruling that DOMA violated the equal protection clause, he also invoked the Tenth Amendment, which Chris Hayes points out as the "holy grail" of conservative thought:

Judge Tauro saying the rationale strains credulity. Judge Tauro ruled that a key part of the bill violated a couple's right to equal protection. Judge Tauro also ruled for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, saying the federal government wrongly forced it to discriminate, writing "the federal government, by enforcing DOMA encroaches on the province of the state and offends the Tenth Amendment.

The tenth amendment is the "don't tread on me" amendment. It's the one conservatives are using to repeal health reform. It's Texas governor Rick Perry's favorite battle cry. Now, today, the Tenth Amendment means gay couples are one step closer to being treated equally in this country. Don't tread on them either.

I believe the Obama administration concurred with the judge's ruling, which is why the President issued his executive order protecting the rights of gay couples with regard to health care and ordered benefits extended to same-sex partners.

It does, however, place the DOJ in a weird position. Since the DOJ is responsible for enforcing the laws on the books, they're going to have to appeal this judge's ruling, even if the opinion inside the administration is that the judge was right. This is their duty under the law, and it carries the risk that this case will go to the Supreme Court for a final resolution. When it's appealed, don't assume the administration is against the ruling simply because DOJ is doing its job.

If it reaches the Supreme Court and Elena Kagan is confirmed, it affirms the wisdom of her refusal to answer the question about DOMA's constitutionality. Had she answered that question, she would have had to recuse herself from any proceedings that related to it, which would have left an unbalanced court to decide the case.

In any event, this is a landmark decision which sets a much faster pace for the eventual repeal of DOMA.

There was big celebration this past weekend in Palm Beach, Florida. Mr. Oxycontin and Dominican Republic Viagra Rush Limbaugh, 59, got married for the fourth time to the former Kathryn Rogers, 33. Aside from the poor track record on the matrimonial front (there's your conservative family values for you), the 26-year age difference (Hmmm...why does this song keep coming to mind?) and his proclivity for sex vacations to Third World nations, what's really disgusting was his choice of wedding entertainment: Rushbo hired Elton John to serenade his new bride.

That's right, one of the most vocal opponents to same-sex marriage was successful in buying off one of the most highly visible openly gay MARRIED entertainers in the world. Apparently $1 million dollars is the price tag to sell your pride, soul and dignity to entertain those who think you're a lesser being.

This is who you sold out to, Elton.

And that's not the first time that Elton has shown a love for money to trump principles.

Two politicians who have consistently voted against gay rights, Reps. John Shimkus (R-IL) and Jean Schmidt (R-OH), will be holding fundraisers at the Elton John/Billy Joel Face2Face concert in Washington DC's Nationals Park July 11, reports PartyBlog.

And Prop 8 supporters were only too happy to quote John in his less than supportive words for gay marriage:

Despite campaigning for global gay rights, Elton John is very not supportive of civil marriage equality. Or maybe he just doesn't understand that civil unions do not allow couples in the U.S. over 1,300 rights granted to heterosexual married couples. In November 2008, Sir Elton told USA Today:

We're not married. Let's get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage...I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. The word "marriage," I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships.

Seriously, Elton. You're. Not. Helping.

Of course, after getting a glimpse of Rush's taste in interior design, I'm thinking ultimately that Rush and Elton have more in common than one would think at first and bride Kate may be the one humiliated in the end. I mean, how many straight men do you know with a taste for so much gilt?

Breaking News: President Obama makes the right call.

President Obama on Thursday signed a memorandum requiring hospitals to allow gays and lesbians to have non-family visitors and to grant their partners medical power of attorney.

The president ordered the Department of Health and Human Services to prohibit discrimination in hospital visitation. The memo is scheduled to be made public Friday morning, according to an administration official and another source familiar with the White House decision.

An official said the new rule will affect any hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid funding.

The decision injects the president squarely into the debate over gay marriage by attempting to end the common practice by many hospitals of insisting that only family members by blood or marriage be allowed to visit patients.

Gay activists have argued for years that recognizing gay marriages would ease the emotional pain associated with not being able to visit their partners during a health crisis.

By contrast, opponents of gay marriage have said the visitation issue is a red herring, and have argued that advocates want to provide special rights for gays and lesbians that others do not have.

He's taken a good step here. I'm sure the teabaggers will say he's trying to indoctrinate our hospitals to teh Gay lifestyle.

UPDATE: How long will it take Bill Donohue and the Catholic Bishops to cry about it and say they are being forced to do this against their morals? I'm sure Bill Donohue would love to say that their religious beliefs are being abused, but with all those child molestations on their hands---he'll rephrase.

Original Video - More videos at TinyPic

In a recent interview with a college student, Mike Huckabee compared homosexuality to drugs, incest, and polygamy:

Huckabee went on to draw parallels between homosexuality and other lifestyles that are considered by some to be morally aberrant. “You don’t go ahead and accommodate every behavioral pattern that is against the ideal,” he said of same-sex marriage.

“That would be like saying, well, there are a lot of people who like to use drugs, so let’s go ahead and accommodate those who want who use drugs. There are some people who believe in incest, so we should accommodate them. There are people who believe in polygamy, so we should accommodate them.”

He also affirmed support for a law in Arkansas that prohibits same-sex couples from becoming adoptive or foster parents. “I think this is not about trying to create statements for people who want to change the basic fundamental definitions of family,” Huckabee said. “And always we should act in the best interest of the children, not in the seeming interest of the adults.”

“Children are not puppies,” he continued. “This is not a time to see if we can experiment and find out, how does this work?”

But when his comments were picked up and repeated through the internet, he did what any "good old boy" Baptist preacher would do: He lied.

"The young college student hopefully will find a career other than journalism. I would ask that he release the unedited tape of our conversation. I believe that what people do as individuals in their private lives is their business, but I do not believe we should change the traditional definition of marriage. Not only didn't he attempt to sensationalize my well known and hardly unusual views of same-sex marriage, he also inaccurately reported my views on Michael Steele as GOP chairman - I offered my support and didn't "Rip into Steele" as his article asserted. I had a candid and frank conversation with the group about health care, education, the economy and national security while the young journalism student, instead, chose to focus on the issue of same-sex marriage and grossly distort my views."

I didn't think I could have any less respect for the institutional Catholic church, but they keep setting new lows. This is simply appalling.

The Catholic Church is known for its poor treatment of its workers (I know someone who's taught in Catholic schools for 30 years, and I make more on unemployment than she does in her weekly paycheck) and since the Church climbed into bed with the American right wing some decades back, they've dropped any pretense that they're applying the spirit of Jesus' teachings:

Employees at Catholic Charities were told Monday that the social services organization is changing its health coverage to avoid offering benefits to same-sex partners of its workers -- the latest fallout from a bitter debate between District officials trying to legalize same-sex marriage and the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington.

Starting Tuesday, Catholic Charities will not offer benefits to spouses of new employees or to spouses of current employees who are not already enrolled in the plan. A letter describing the change in health benefits was e-mailed to employees Monday, two days before same-sex marriage will become legal in the District.

"We looked at all the options and implications," said the charity's president, Edward J. Orzechowski. "This allows us to continue providing services, comply with the city's new requirements and remain faithful to the church's teaching."

Catholic Charities, which receives $22 million from the city for social service programs, protested in the run-up to the council's December vote to allow same-sex marriage, saying that it might not be able to continue its contracts with the city, including operating homeless shelters and facilitating city-sponsored adoptions. Being forced to recognize same-sex marriage, church officials said, could make it impossible for the church to be a city contractor because Catholic teaching opposes such unions.

After the council voted to legalize gay marriage, Catholic Charities last month transferred its foster-care program -- 43 children, 35 families and seven staff members -- to another provider, the National Center for Children and Families.

Orzechowski said Monday that the change in health benefits will be the last move necessary in response to the legislation.

"We do not anticipate any further changes whatsoever," he said. "Taking the action we have on foster care and spousal we feel has addressed everything the new law requires of us."

Maybe this wouldn't stick in my craw so much if they'd taken the same "principled" stand against the Church's numerous child abusers and pedophiles -- before the multi-million dollar payouts, I mean.

Well, maybe not:

The Supreme Court Monday blocked a broadcast of the trial on California's same-sex marriage ban, at least for the first few days.

The federal trial was scheduled to begin Monday in San Francisco. It will consider whether the Proposition 8 gay marriage ban approved by California voters in November 2008 is legal.

The high court on Monday said it will not allow video of the trial to be posted on YouTube.com, even with a delay, until the justices have more time to consider the issue.

It said that Monday's order will be in place at least until Wednesday.

Opponents of the broadcast said they fear witness testimony might be affected if cameras are present. Justice Stephen Breyer said he would have allowed cameras while the court considers the matter.

The San Francisco proceeding is the first federal trial to determine if the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from outlawing same-sex marriage.

The proceedings, which are expected to last two to three weeks, involve a challenge to Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban approved by California voters in November 2008.

Regardless of the outcome, the case is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it ultimately could become a landmark that determines if gay Americans have the right to marry.

The decision sided with proponents of Prop. 8, who claimed that their witnesses would feel a "chilling effect" on their testimony. With all due respect to the Supreme Court, if you feel the presence of cameras in the courtroom for a delayed broadcast on YouTube chills your testimony against gay marriage, maybe that should tell you something about the strength of your argument.

One other important point: California's Attorney General, Jerry Brown, would normally be the one defending the state of California, and therefore, in this case for the continuation of Prop. 8. However, Brown--who is considering another run for Governor--has consistently and repeatedly said that he felt Prop. 8 should be repealed, and refused to represent the State in trial.

** corrected to reflect the decision came from the federal Supreme Court, not the California Supreme Court.