Early exit polls show Maine heading towards a repeal of a state law that would have allowed same-sex marriage.

The Legislature passed the law in May, but the election offered voters the chance to repeal the measure.

With more than 84 percent of precincts reporting early Tuesday, voters seeking to repeal the law claimed 53 percent of the vote.

In Washington state, early election results showed that voters were approving the state’s “everything but marriage” law, which gives registered domestic partners additional state-granted rights currently given only to married couples.

Early election returns showed Washington's referendum on same-sex marriage passing 51 percent to 49 percent. Last month, the Supreme Court upheld an order preventing Washington State from releasing the names of more than 120,000 people who signed petitions seeking the voter referendum. Protect Marriage Washington feared that releasing the names would result in harassment.

Social change may come for individual cities as well. In Houston, a lesbian candidate for mayor will head into a run-off with a plurality of the vote. A gay man was elected mayor of Chapel Hill, while Detroit elected a gay City Council president.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at November 4, 2009 | Comments (95)

The Maine Legislature legalized same-sex marriage in May, but voters will get a chance to repeal the new law on Tuesday.

This is the first time voters have had a chance to repeal a legislature-initiated law that extends marriage to same-sex couples. If voters repeal it, the law will not be implemented.

The campaign to approve the law, Protect Maine Equality, and the campaign for repealing the law, Stand For Marriage Maine are still fighting hard as Election Day approaches to get the voters out. Protect Maine Equality raised $4 million for advertising and other campaign material, compared to $2.6 million raised by Stand for Marriage Maine, according to The New York Times. In addition, Gov. John Baldacci (D) publicly supports the law.

The final public opinion polls taken before the election suggest that the vote is a dead heat, the Washington Post reports.

Maine’s Press Herald said that 51.8 percent plan to vote “no” (the law should stand) while 42.9 percent plan to vote “yes” (the law should be repealed).

The last time the issue was decided by voters rather than through the legislature or courts was California’s Proposition 8. In November 2008, a majority voted that only marriage “between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” as defined now by the California Constitution.

A spokesperson for Stand For Marriage Maine told the Post that after the backlash in California against the Mormon Church, its leadership decided not to become directly involved in Maine. Gov. Baldacci did identify Catholics as a group to watch closely.

"Lewiston, in western Maine, that's a pretty large segment of Franco-American Roman Catholic, working-class kind of a community," he told The Washington Post. "Reactions and support has been pretty good, but that'll be an area we'll want to watch."

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at November 2, 2009 | Comments (16)

Sexual orientation is on the brink of being added to the list of federally prosecuted hate crimes, after the House approved the Matthew Shepard Act last week. Fifteen Democrats and 131 Republicans opposed the act, which was attached to a $680 billion defense bill. The Senate is expected to approve the bill this week.

President Obama, who has promised his approval, also renewed his pledge to end the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy while speaking to the nation's largest gay advocacy group Saturday night.

The flurry of gay rights activity in Washington last week started with a decision by the D.C. City Council to consider allowing gay marriage in the district. If approved, Washington will become the first city below the Mason-Dixon line to allow gay marriage.

And on Sunday, tens of thousands chanted "hey Obama, let mama marry mama," in the National Equality March.

Support for civil unions is growing, while more people continue to oppose gay marriage than support it, according to a new Pew Forum report. Some study findings include:

-57 percent of Americans favor civil unions for gay and lesbian couples
-53 percent oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry
-49 percent say homosexual behavior is morally wrong

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at October 12, 2009 | Comments (35)

A judge dismissed a California gay couple's lawsuit claiming that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional, a week after U.S. Justice Department lawyers defended the law.

The couple had argued that the law, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage, discriminated against gay men and lesbians. U.S. District Judge David O. Carter ruled that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the broader constitutional questions.

During his campaign, Obama promised to work for DOMA's repeal. While defending the law, government attorneys wrote that it was discriminatory. "This administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal," they wrote.

Here's more from the Associated Press:

Brian Raum, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group that has joined the government in defending the federal marriage law, said Carter was right to dismiss the case on procedural grounds.

The federal government cannot be sued in state courts, Raum said.

Smelt and Hammer's lawsuit could be back in a federal court in a matter of months, when "ultimately it will come down to the merits," he said.

Earlier this year, a gay rights group in Massachusetts filed a lawsuit challenging the Defense of Marriage Act on constitutional grounds, and the state brought a separate case arguing that the law interferes with its right to establish its own marriage laws.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at August 25, 2009 | Comments (11)

The Department of Justice defended the Defense of Marriage Act again while claiming the law discriminates against gays, according to the Associated Press. "This administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal," government attorneys wrote. The DOJ asked the court to dismiss a lawsuit brought on by a gay couple who married in California last year.

"The administration believes the Defense of Marriage Act is discriminatory and should be repealed," said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler, because it prevents equal rights and benefits.

The Justice Department, she added, is obligated "to defend federal statutes when they are challenged in court. The Justice Department cannot pick and choose which federal laws it will defend based on any one administration's policy preferences."

The law prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage, permitting states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The White House issued the following statement by Obama.

"This brief makes clear, however, that my Administration believes that the Act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress. I have long held that DOMA prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. While we work with Congress to repeal DOMA, my Administration will continue to examine and implement measures that will help extend rights and benefits to LGBT couples under existing law."

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at August 17, 2009 | Comments (177)

The Department of Justice filed a brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act, a law President Obama has condemned in the past.

The 1996 law bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage and enables states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages in other states.

Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle breaks down the differences between the Bush administration and Obama administration for defending the law.

Its court filing steered clear of the justification of the law it had offered under President George W. Bush: that it promotes a traditional form of marriage best suited for procreating and raising children.

Instead, the Obama administration argued that the law preserves long-standing state authority to define marriage while saving taxpayer dollars.

With societal attitudes in flux, the department said, the law adopted "a cautious policy of federal neutrality towards a new form of marriage," allowing states to expand the traditional definition of wedlock but declining "to obligate federal taxpayers in other states to subsidize a form of marriage their own states do not recognize."

A spokesperson gave Ben Smith at Politico this statement:

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.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at June 15, 2009 | Comments (6)

President Obama issued a proclamation honoring "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Pride Month 2009," while former Vice President Dick Cheney issued his support for same-sex marriage on a state-by-state basis.

"Forty years ago, patrons and supporters of the Stonewall Inn in New York City resisted police harassment that had become all too common for members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community," Obama's proclamation states. "Out of this resistance, the LGBT rights movement in America was born. During LGBT Pride Month, we commemorate the events of June 1969 and commit to achieving equal justice under law for LGBT Americans."

Cheney said at the National Press Club yesterday that "people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish." Cheney's position appears to put him to the left of President Obama, who has said he supports civil unions, rather than same-sex marriage.

Cheney has become a leading critic of the Obama administration over foreign policy decisions, but Dan Eggen writes that yesterday, he parted ways with Obama on a social issue.

He added, however, that he does not support a federal role in the matter. "Historically, the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level," Cheney said. "It has always been a state issue, and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis."

Cheney has long departed from conservative orthodoxy on the issue of same-sex marriage. He said during the 2000 presidential campaign that the matter should be left to the states, and he caused a small uproar during the 2004 race by appearing to distance himself from a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, a measure that was strongly supported by his boss, President George W. Bush.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at June 2, 2009 | Comments (197)

Christianity Today readers interested in the California Supreme Court decision and related news coverage will also be interested in Books & Culture's new review of Andrew Marin's Love Is an Orientation: Elevating the Conversation with the Gay Community.

Posted by Ted Olsen at May 26, 2009 | Comments (12)

Lawmakers in Maine voted to pass a bill legalizing same-sex marriage this afternoon. Gov. John Baldacci, a Democrat, could veto the bill, The New York Times writes. The Catholic Diocese of Maine and the Maine Family Policy Council, an affiliate of the Family Research Council, will be among the groups lobbying Mr. Baldacci to veto the bill.

Mr. Baldacci opposed same-sex marriage before the bill was introduced this year, but he has since said he is keeping an open mind.

Mr. Baldacci’s spokesman, David Farmer, said he was still mulling his position on the bill and would not make a final decision until after it reached his desk. That could be as soon as tomorrow, when the State Senate is scheduled to formally enact it. Mr. Baldacci will have 10 days to act on the bill once it is delivered to him.

The D.C. Council also voted today to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The New Hampshire House is expected to take up the bill at tomorrow.

In case you've lost track, Maine would join Vermont, Iowa, Connecticut, and Massachusetts in legalizing same-sex marriage.

Update: Maine Governor John Baldacci signed the bill today legalizing same-sex marriage.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at May 5, 2009 | Comments (7)

Miss California Carrie Prejean responded to a Web site that posted racy photos of her by saying it was an attempt to mock her Christian faith.

"I am a Christian, and I am a model," Prejean said in a statement. "Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos. Recently, photos taken of me as a teenager have been released surreptitiously to a tabloid Web site that openly mocks me for my Christian faith. I am not perfect, and I will never claim to be."

A gossip blog posted photos of Prejean wearing only pink panties with her back turned to the camera.

Prejean was praised by several conservative Christian groups for her voicing her opposition to same-sex marriage during the Miss USA beauty pageant. She was then offered a scholarship by Liberty University and portrayed in a National Organization for Marriage advertisement. According to the website this morning, she was invited to the Values Voter Summit, a conference put on by Family Research Council Action.

Katelyn Beaty has posted previous commentary over at Her.meneutics, CT's new women's blog.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at May 5, 2009 | Comments (48)

The National Organization for Marriage is promoting Miss California as a spokeswoman to oppose same-sex marriage.

Carrie Prejean told NBC's "Today show today that marriage is "something that is very dear to my heart" and she's in Washington to help save it.

Liberty University Chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr. offered a scholarship to Prejean, who was visiting the conservative Christian school yesterday. Prejean told judge Perez Hilton that she opposed same-sex marriage during the April 19 pageant.

Yesterday, the New Hampshire Senate passed a bill allowing gay marriage. If the governor signs the bill, New Hampshire could become the fifth state to allow same-sex marriages.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 30, 2009 | Comments (15)

Carrie Prejean, 21, says her honest answer about whether she supports marriage by homosexuals cost her an opportunity to win Sunday's Miss USA pageant. The question came from gay judge Perez Hilton, who apparently set her up.

In an appearance Monday on MSNBC, Hilton said he was absolutely "shocked and incredibly frustrated and disappointed" with Prejean's stance.

"That's not the kind of woman I want to be Miss USA," he said. "Miss USA should represent all Americans and, with her answer, she instantly alienated millions of gays and lesbians and their friends."

Earlier, Hilton had said on his video blog he would have run onstage and ripped the tiara off Prejean's head had she won the title.

And the blogger would not have been the only member of the Miss USA family to go apoplectic had Prejean advanced in the competition. Keith Lewis, executive director of California's Miss USA operations, said in a statement released to Hilton that "religious beliefs have no place in politics in the Miss CA family."

Prejean Monday said she was raised in a way that you can never compromise your beliefs and your opinions for anything.

...

Prejean said she has received 2,000 friend requests on Facebook since the weekend controversy began unfolding.

Posted by Stan Guthrie at April 21, 2009 | Comments (51)

Vermont just became the first state in the country to legalize same-sex marriage through the legislature. The legislature overturned the governor's veto. Vermont was the first state to legalize same-sex civil unions and the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage, following Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa.

Here's a story from Religion News Service by Kevin Eckstrom.

Nine years after becoming the first state to allow same-sex civil unions, Vermont on Tuesday became the first state to approve same-sex marriage without a court order.

At the same time, the District of Columbia took the first step toward recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, a move that some predict may ultimately lead to legalized gay marriages in the nation's capital.

The Vermont House overrode an earlier veto by Gov. Jim Douglas in a 100-49 vote, following a lopsided veto override by the state Senate. Vermont becomes the fourth state -- and the second in a week -- to allow gay marriage, joining Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa.

Gay rights groups said the Vermont decision -- particularly its lack of a court mandate -- will no doubt have ramifications in other states. California lawmakers, for example, have twice passed gay marriage bills that were vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"The Vermont Legislature, just as the Iowa Supreme Court last week, understands the tremendous significance of marriage, and that domestic partnerships and civil unions simply do not provide the same dignity and protections that come with marriage," said Marc Solomon, whose group, Equality California, is challenging a voter-approved constitutional amendment that ended gay marriage last year.

Conservatives, meanwhile, criticized the Vermont vote.

"While government officials may change definitions, they cannot change nature," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America. "The first human relationship was between one man and one woman, and it became the foundation of all society."

In Washington, the D.C. City Council unanimously approved a bill that would recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries. The bill still needs a second approval vote from the 13-member council, approval by Mayor Adrian Fenty and congressional review before it can become law. The District already has a domestic partner registry.

"It's high time we send a clear, unequivocal message to those persons of the same sex and married in another jurisdiction that their marriage is valid in D.C.," said Councilman Jim Graham, an openly gay Democrat, according to The Washington Post.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 7, 2009 | Comments (10)

The Iowa Supreme Court unanimously decided today that a law declaring marriage to be between a man and a woman is unconstitutional, making its state the first in the Midwest to approve same-sex marriage.

The rest of this article was posted to CT's main site.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 3, 2009 | Comments (22)

New England states are weighing same-sex marriage legislation, especially where religious presence may be lacking, according to USA Today analysis.

"A USA TODAY analysis finds that states where the percentage of "nones" - people who say they have no religion - is at or above the national average of 15% are more likely to push expanding the scope of marriage, civil unions or same-sex partner rights," write Cathy Lynn Grossman and Jack Gillum.

Vermont's legislature is expected to vote on a same-sex marriage bill later this week, and the AP outlines other debates going on in the Northeast.

- New Hampshire, which enacted a civil unions law last year, moved a step closer to legalizing gay marriage Thursday when the state House of Representatives voted in favor. The state Senate still must vote, though, and the governor - who signed a civil unions bills last year - opposes it.

- The Vermont Senate has approved a similar measure, but the House has yet to vote. Gov. Jim Douglas vowed Wednesday to veto the bill if it reaches him, spurring a protest that drew about 300 people to the Statehouse on Friday. Protesters say they'll push to get enough votes in the Legislature for a veto override.

- In Maine, a bill to legalize gay marriage has nearly 60 co-sponsors in the Legislature. Gov. John Baldacci, who opposes gay marriage, says he hasn't taken a position on the measure.

Even though is a couple months old, Stateline has a helpful graph showing a state-by-state breakdown.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at March 30, 2009 | Comments (13)

Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas said he will veto a state bill to allow same-sex marriage if it makes it to his desk.

The Vermont state Senate overwhelmingly approved a bill earlier this week, and the House is expected to vote next week. Here's more from WCAX:

The governor told reporters he doesn't typically announce his intentions like this so far ahead of time, but said he thinks it's the only way to stop speculation about what his move may be, to refocus lawmakers' attention on the state budget.

"I'm announcing I will veto this legislation when it reaches my desk," Douglas said.

Explaining same-sex marriage is a deeply personal issue that crosses political lines, Vermont's Republican governor said he will not sign a bill into law allowing gays and lesbians to marry.

"I believe marriage has always been and ought to remain the union of a man and a woman," Douglas said. "I believe the civil unions law has offered equal rights and benefits under state law to same-sex couples and that should suffice."

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at March 25, 2009 | Comments (26)

The Vermont state Senate overwhelmingly approved a bill Monday to allow same-sex marriage, putting the state one step closer to becoming the first to approve same-sex marriage by legislative means.

The Democratic-dominated state Senate voted 26 to 4 in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage. House Speaker Shap Smith, a Democrat, predicted to USA Today that a majority of the House would also vote in favor.

Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican, has said he opposes the bill, but has not indicated whether he would veto the measure.

If the measure is approved, Vermont would become the third state (following neighboring Massachusetts and Connecticut) to allow same-sex marriage. Vermont was the first state to grant civil unions in 2000.

If approved, the law would replace Vermont's civil-unions law starting September 1. Civil unions performed in the past nine years, however, would still be recognized, according to The New York Times.

Opponents say changing state laws to allow same-sex marriage is both unnecessary and morally questionable.

"Same-sex marriage in Vermont can offer only one benefit to Vermont's gay population: Hopes of increased social acceptance," said the Vermont Marriage Advisory Council. "All legal experts agree that civil unions already provide every legal benefit and protection Vermont can give."

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at March 24, 2009 | Comments (11)

Surprising headline from the San Francisco Chronicle: "Justices seem to be leaning in favor of Prop. 8."

I don't find it surprising because I thought Proposition 8, the California ballot measure that amended the the state constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman. Legal challenges were inevitable, but Prop. 8's constitutional defeat was not. I'm just surprised the Chronicle's already started the 10 count.

Here's the story:

"There have been initiatives that have taken away rights from minorities by majority vote" and have been upheld by the courts, said Chief Justice Ronald George. "Isn't that the system we have to live with?"

George wrote the majority opinion in the court's 4-3 ruling in May striking down California's ban on same-sex marriages - which voters, in turn, reversed in November by approving Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being only between a man and a woman.

Another member of last year's majority, Justice Joyce Kennard, said the challenge to Prop. 8 brought by advocates of same-sex marriage involved "a completely different issue" from the court's ruling that the marriage laws violated gays' and lesbians' rights to be treated equally and wed the partner of their choice.

"Here we are dealing with the power of the people, the inalienable right, to amend the Constitution," Kennard said. Speaking to a lawyer for same-sex couples, she said those who want to overturn the voters' decision "have the right to go to the people and present an initiative."

There were some indications of divisions among the justices on the validity of Prop. 8 during the hearing, which lasted more than three hours at the court's San Francisco headquarters. But on a separate issue, all seven appeared to agree that the 18,000 same-sex couples who married before Prop. 8 passed would remain legally wed.

The Los Angeles Times says more of the same. Something that's different and worth reading is this article that Mollie Ziegler Hemingway wrote for Christianity Today before Thursday's California Supreme Court hearing. Here's the lede:

Obnoxious mobs that won't tolerate disagreement don't usually win supporters.

A manager at a Los Angeles Mexican restaurant was targeted for her $100 contribution in support of traditional marriage. Protesters hounded her out of her job, and did the same to a Sacramento theater director and the director of the Los Angeles Film Festival. Churches and Mormon temples were vandalized. The mainstream media ran an all-out public relations campaign in support of same-sex marriage. Hollywood quickly put together "Prop. 8: The Musical," an Internet video that mocked Jesus, the Bible, and Christians.

"Want to cause a nice long backlash to gay rights? That's the way to do it," said lesbian social critic Camille Paglia.

Obnoxious, bigoted mobs that won't tolerate any disagreement don't usually win supporters. Or, as the usually insufferable Objectivist Ayn Rand said, "Argument from intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence." Of course, if the media are to be believed, same-sex marriage is a done deal. "Same-sex marriage is inevitable. It just takes time," a Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist wrote.

The conventional wisdom is that traditional marriage is a demographically lost cause. Younger voters are more likely to support same-sex marriage than older voters, we're repeatedly reminded. Indeed, 61 percent of voters over 65 supported Prop. 8, while 61 percent of people under 30 voted against it.

But if history and demographics are on the side of same-sex marriage, one wonders why journalists, Hollywood executives, and gay activists didn't just sit tight and wait. Why voluntarily sabotage their cause with a coordinated campaign of bigoted, violent, and hateful reactions to recent public votes on the matter?

Despite the story pushed by the mainstream media, the only statistics that really matter are at the ballot box. And marriage supporters have been victorious in each of the 33 states that have put the issue up for vote. The only significant success the same-sex marriage crowd has had has been achieved by judicial fiat. In California, a never-before-assembled coalition of evangelicals, Catholics, and Mormons raised $40 million and generated hundreds of thousands of volunteers.

"In spite of repeated efforts by gay activists and mainstream media types to portray this as an issue nobody but the gay-rights people really care about, the Prop. 8 victory itself demonstrates the marriage issue is drawing new attention," said Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage.

And just because younger voters support same-sex marriage now doesn't mean their attitudes won't change. As people age, they tend to get married, have children, and worship more regularly - all of which weigh heavily in voting decisions.

The violent mobs and sneering media confirm one of the arguments made by traditional marriage proponents: Same-sex marriage and religious freedom are on a collision course.

That collision course came up when I voted no on Prop. 8. I still would prefer to not see government in the business of marriage, but I also don't think government should force religious folks in non-emergency professions to perform services they believe God abhors.

In her article, Mollie notes a few of these cases:

A lesbian couple in Albuquerque successfully sued a Christian photographer because she declined to shoot their commitment ceremony. When Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, Catholic organizations had no option but to shut down their adoption services.

The California Supreme Court ruled that doctors must provide reproductive services to lesbians despite religious objections. A Methodist camp in New Jersey lost its tax exemption after it told a lesbian couple they could have their commitment ceremony anywhere except in buildings that are used for religious services. The list goes on.

There is a difference between preaching tolerance and legally mandating acceptance.

(Originally published at The God Blog.)

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at March 6, 2009 | Comments (7)

A student in California is suing Los Angeles City College, saying his professor reacted inappropriately to his speech in class against same-sex marriage, Gale Holland writes for the Los Angeles Times.

Student Jonathan Lopez says his professor called him a "fascist bastard" and refused to let him finish his speech against same-sex marriage during a public speaking class last November, weeks after California voters approved the ban on such unions.

When Lopez tried to find out his mark for the speech, the professor, John Matteson, allegedly told him to "ask God what your grade is," the suit says.

Lopez is represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, sued unsuccessfully to stop the release of the names and addresses of Proposition 8 donors, who said they had been harassed during the weeks of demonstrations after it passed.

Holland writes that the case tests the balance between free speech and offensive speech, and it's all part of "the emotional aftermath of Proposition 8."

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at February 17, 2009 | Comments (9)

The opponents of California's Proposition 8, which place a ban on gay marriage, raised more money than the measure's sponsors, according to a new report.

The Associated Press reports that campaign filings released Monday show that more than $83 million was donated to support or oppose the ballot initiative.

Opponents: $43.3 million
Proponents: $39.9 million

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which took the heaviest beating from protesters after it passed, gave nearly $190,000 to promote the measure. Focus on the Family gave more than three times the amount as the LDS Church, reportedly giving $657,000 in cash and services to promote Proposition 8.

The new round of reports also list about 530 small and late donors whose contributions in support of the same-sex marriage ban had not been publicly available until Monday. Proposition 8's sponsors had sought permission to keep the identities of those contributors secret, arguing that the identifying information in previous campaign reports had led to donors being harassed.

The measure passed on Election Day with 52 percent of the vote.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at February 3, 2009 | Comments (7)

Documents revealed on the Windy City Times suggest that Barack Obama supported same-sex marriage in 1996, indicating that the president-elect made a more conservative shift before running for president.

"I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages," he said in a questionnaire the same year he was elected to the Illinois Senate.

Obama now favors civil unions and opposes a federal same-sex marriage ban, but he opposes same-sex marriage.

Fifty-five percent of Americans oppose gay marriage, with 36 percent favoring it, according to an August 2007 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

(h/t Ben Smith, Politico)

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at January 13, 2009 | Comments (3)

Most people remember Kenneth Starr from his days as the special investigator of Whitewater and President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. But for the last few years he has served as dean of the law school at Pepperdine University, which is affiliated with a conservative Christian denomination that I grew up in.

After rumors circulated last month, Starr was named today the lead counsel for the chief proponents of Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment, passed last month by 52 percent of Californians, that would limit marriage to unions between a man and a woman. Legal challenges have been filed, and proponents are preparing for a battle.

"We are confident that the will of the voters and Proposition 8 will ultimately be upheld," said Andrew Pugno, General Counsel for ProtectMarriage.com and the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund. "The addition of Dean Starr to this legal conversation will provide useful guidance for the Court in resolving these important issues."

Starr, like me, grew up in the Church of Christ (not to be confused with the United Church of Christ, which resides on the other end of the theological spectrum). I'm curious as to how his faith shapes his practice of law. I couldn't find much online. The best window I got into Starr's Christian worldview comes from a comment he made during his speech at Christian Business Men's Committee in Washington. It appeared in a 1998 Washington Times article, no longer online:

"When you think of the blessed life that Jesus led on earth, think of his time utilization," Mr. Starr said. "He didn't waste a lot of time. Three years, that's the length of time . . . that this individual, human yet God, ended up shaping not just history, but each person who will say, ?I want to come to know Christ.? "

(Originally published at The God Blog.)

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at December 22, 2008 | Comments (4)