Florida Circuit Court Invalidates Gay Adoption Ban

"Based on the evidence presented from experts from all over this country and abroad, it is clear that sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person’s ability to parent...The most important factor in ensuring a well adjusted child is the quality of parenting... More importantly, sexual orientation, solely, should not interfere with a child’s right to enjoy the accoutrements of a legal family... [T]his Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption. [T]he exclusion forbidding homosexuals to adopt children does not further the public morality interest it seeks to combat. Based on this scenario, there can be no rationally related public morality interest differentiating in the State’s support of a homosexual’s long-term foster care relationship with a child and a denial of their legal relationship through adoption... The contradiction between the adoption and foster care statutes defeats the public morality argument and is thus not rationally related to serving a governmental interest. This Court finds Fla. Stat. §63.042(3) violates the Petitioner and the Children’s equal protection rights guaranteed by... the Florida Constitution without satisfying a rational basis. Moreover, the statutory exclusion defeats a child’s right to permanency as provided by federal and state law... Judge Cindy Lederman, Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, Florida Juvenile Division, November 25, 2008

Governor of California Sees Same-Sex Marriage Happening Eventually

KING: You lost on another one, on Proposition 8. It was not your idea, but you support same-sex marriage. And the proposition banning same-sex marriage passed. Many would look at California, which is viewed as this progressive, open-minded state, and say, why? What happened?

SCHWARZENEGGER: You know, I think that the people of California just, again, have spoken on this issue, and they went against it, just like they did in the year 2000, when they voted against it in Proposition 22. And here they had a chance again. And you know, they had a very, very strong campaign, the pro-Proposition 8 people, and I think that the people that tried to defeat it did not have maybe as good a campaign or had as much money behind it, whatever. I think it is unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end, because I think this will go back into the courts, this will go back to the Supreme Court and all this, because the Supreme Court very clearly in California has declared this unconstitutional. It's the same as in the 1948 case when blacks and whites were not allowed to marry. This is -- this falls into the same category. So, I think that we will, again, you know, maybe undo that if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area.

KING: As a governor, from a policy perspective, are those couples who were married, same-sex couples who are already married in California, are they in jeopardy in any way?

SCHWARZENEGGER: No, not at all. No. It's just from now on. You know, it's -- there is no marriage between a man and a woman, until, like I said, the court determines (ph) it over or does anything about that.

KING: Is it a generational challenge, in your view, that maybe five or 10 or 20 years from now, it will be an easier issue?

SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, it's also -- it's not just easier or harder. It's just a cultural issue, also, because as you could see, because of the big turnout amongst African-Americans and Latinos, that had an effect, also, which they did not expect. So there's all kinds of other things. And I think the religious groups have done a really, you know, big campaign, a lot of them, you know, to support Proposition 8 and so on. And, you know -- so it's a very, very difficult thing.

CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, John King, guest host, interview with California Goverernor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Aired November 9, 2008

Constitution of the State of California

Article XI, Sec. 12. No contract of marriage, if otherwise duly made, shall be invalidated for want of conformity to the requirements of any religious sect. Constitution of the State of California, 1849

Article XX, Sec. 7. No contract of marriage, if otherwise duly made, shall be invalidated for want of conformity to the requirements of any religious sect. Constitution of the State of California, 1879

Connecticut Supreme Court Rules for Same-Sex Marriage

"...our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection. Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice. To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others. The guarantee of equal protection under the law, and our obligation to uphold that command, forbids us from doing so. In accordance with these state constitutional requirements, same sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry." Connecticut Supreme Court, October 2008

Presidential Candidate Barack Obama Opposes Discrimination

"I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination." Senator Barack Obama, August 28, 2008

Governor of Massachusetts Signs Repeal of Out-of Staters Marriage Ban

"...in Massachusetts, equal means equal! Today, by repealing a nearly century old law, we affirm the right of same sex couples from out-of-state to marry in Massachusetts, to enjoy all the protections of our good laws... today, by repealing this law, we have affirmed the democratic principal that all people come before their government as equals. We are also here to mark another milestone in our fight for equality, the passage of the MassHeath equality bill. This legislation will grant married same-sex couples in Massachusetts the same access to Medicaid benefits as heterosexual couples. The bill will protect the spouses of gay and lesbian seniors from the potentially catastrophic costs of long-term care... The MassHealth equality bill is the first piece of legislation in the Commonwealth to codify the Goodridge decision extending legal marriage and its protections, benefits, and obligations to same-sex married couples in our state. And it's the first piece of legislation in the nation to reject discrimination in the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. In five years now since the Goodridge decision the sky has not fallen, and the earth has not opened to swallow us up, and, more to the point, thousands and thousands of good people, contributing members of our society, are able to make free decisions about their personal choices. And we ought to seek to affirm that every chance we can." Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, July 31, 2008

San Franscisco Mayor on California Supreme Court Ruling for Same-Sex Marriage

"Today, the California Supreme Court took a bold and important step forward to end discrimination in California. The Court’s ruling to grant same-sex couples the right to marry affirms the very best of what California stands for – and proudly continues our state’s long-standing commitment to equality and justice. As San Franciscans, we have taken an irrevocable step toward resolving one of the most important civil rights issues of our generation, and the state's highest court has done the right thing with their ruling. San Francisco is the first government entity in American history to challenge the constitutionality of state marriage laws that discriminate against gay and lesbian couples. I believe that the path San Francisco pursued was not merely right – it was inevitable. It is America’s path – the road to true freedom and equality. The rights afforded by California's Constitution have triumphed, as they must, over laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples. In the late 1940s, California courts were among the nation’s first to strike down laws banning inter-racial marriage. The state’s Supreme Court has once again distinguished itself as a leading defender of our civil rights." San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, May 15, 2008

New York US Senator Hillary Clinton Supports LGBT Youth

PGN: How would you improve services for GLBT youth ?HC: I would be guided by advice by the LGBT community about the additional kind of services that would be needed on top of the general services that were available. For example, I’ve done a lot of work in supporting the LGBT community here in New York to deal with the special problems that adolescents face: the high suicide rates, the sense of alienation and the experiences with bullies. I think there’s a lot of very specific and difficult challenges that LGBT young people face. Obviously, I want to protect our young people and I want to give them access to the services that they need. I believe the idea of guidance at schools is important so that schools are well aware of how much more intense the mistreatment of LGBT kids happens to be. I think we need to do everything we can to try to protect our kids and give them a chance to have a productive and safe childhood and adolescence, and I would certainly zero in on that." Senator Hillary Clinton, interview in Philadelphia Gay News, April 4, 2008

San Jose State University Bans Blood Donation Discrimination

"I am suspending all blood drives at San José State University on the grounds that the U.S. Federal Drug Administration’s lifetime blood donor deferral affecting gay men violates our non-discrimination policy... which says "discrimination of any kind, including … sexual orientation is an affront to the entire university community and is strictly prohibited." I am troubled the FDA has not...made progress with additional research, nor disclosed if and/or when ]they] will vote again on the deferral for men who have sex with other men. Our purpose is to respect our policy of non-discrimination and the climate that the policy is intended to create on our campus... Lacking further action by the FDA, we are guided by the clear mandates of our non-discrimination policy. Our hope is that the FDA will revisit its deferral policy in a timely manner and we may soon be able to hold blood drives on this campus again." Don W. Kassing, President, San José State University, January 29, 2008

Al Gore Opposes Discrimination

"I think it’s wrong for the government to discriminate against people because of that person’s sexual orientation. I think that gay men and women ought to have the same rights as heterosexual men and women - to make contracts, to have hospital visiting rights, to join together in marriage, and I don’t understand why it is considered by some people to be a threat to heterosexual marriage to allow it by gays and lesbians. Shouldn’t we be promoting the kind of faithfulness and loyalty to one’s partner regardless of sexual orientation? ...And the loyalty and love that two people feel for one another when they fall in love ought to be celebrated and encouraged and shouldn’t be prevented by any form of discrimination in the law.” Al Gore, January 17, 2008