In addition to protecting couples against discrimination, the new measure will bring parity with marriage on issues such as debt and property. The bill however does not force employers to offer health care and other benefits to domestic partners as is the case in California.

The new law goes into effect October 1.

From Towleroad:

Confidential sources close to San Francisco City Hall told Towleroad’s Corey Johnson that the California Supreme Court was prepared to release its opinion on Proposition 8 tomorrow, but decided to delay the ruling after a call from Mayor Gavin Newsom.

“Newsom reached out to the Supreme Court and asked them to hold off releasing their decision so it did not coincide with the White Night riots,” said our source.

I’m glad at least that the mayor was cognizant of the timing of the ruling, which would have fallen on the 30th anniversary of the White Night riots. But what of the California Supreme Court… Didn’t they know? Or did they know their decision would cause celebrations, not mayhem?

UPDATE: Gavin Newsom’s office has issued a statement denying he contacted the California Supreme Court with regards to the Prop 8 ruling.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Kudos to Shuster for getting after this bigot.

“A number of media sources have described Carrie Prejean as a spokesperson for the National Organization for Marriage.

As we made clear at our press conference yesterday: Carrie appeared with NOM as a private citizen; she does not work for the National Organization for Marriage. She is a spokesperson for her own views, as anyone watching her can tell.

We are grateful to Carrie Prejean for her willingness to stand up for marriage. We would love to work with Carrie in the future if she chooses, and we wish her well in all her future endeavors whatever she chooses. We’re proud of her. Americans are proud of her. She is a remarkable young woman. Thank you, Carrie. “

That was a short ride on the publicity train. It seemed like a perfect match. Was it the fake boobs? Or can they nolonger afford her?

Click here to view the embedded video.

Boy I love these guys… They get it.

Miss California is actually Carrie Prejean, a junior at San Diego Christian College. Her favorite bible verse is Philippians 4:13 “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” That strength must have forsaken her tonight. Honestly I’m not sure how much of the judging is done in advance, but could her homophobic answer have cost Prejean the crown?

Perez Hilton responds, as only Perez can…

UPDATE: Pageant audience reactions from AP…

Some in the audience cheered, others booed. The answer sparked a shouting match in the lobby after the show.

“It’s ugly,” said Scott Ihrig, a gay man, who attended the pageant with his partner. “I think it’s ridiculous that she got first runner-up. That is not the value of 95 percent of the people in this audience. Look around this audience and tell me how many gay men there are.”

Charmaine Koonce, the mother of Miss New Mexico USA Bianca Carla, argued back.

“In the Bible it says marriage is between Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve!”

It just keeps getting better and better…

Since “Gathering Storm” debuted online yesterday, HRC has exposed its participants as actors having discovered the audition tapes for the ad…

Frankly I’m not all that surprised that these were actors, and bad actors at that. But they were too pretty. Sorry to go all “judging a book by its cover” on everyone but a lot of these haters are as ugly on the outside as they are in the inside. Fred Phelps anyone?

Visit HRC for a thorough debunking of the Gathering Storm ad.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 7, 2009

GOVERNOR CULVER ISSUES STATEMENT
ON SUPREME COURT’S DECISION

DES MOINES – Governor Chet Culver today issued the following statement after reviewing the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision in Varnum v. Brien:

“I have carefully reviewed the Iowa Supreme Court’s unanimous decision on civil marriage and discussed it with the Attorney General.

“Let me begin by saying that I recognize that the issue of same-gender civil marriage is one that evokes strongly held beliefs and strong emotions both for and against. These beliefs and feelings need to be respected. I hope that the views of those on all sides will be treated respectfully and will not be subjected to name-calling or fear-mongering, but instead will lead to rational discussion.

“At the outset, I want to emphasize that the question before the Iowa Supreme Court was one of civil marriage only – a state-recognized legal status constituting a civil contract. Civil marriage always has been, and will continue to be, separate from religious marriage that takes place in churches and places of worship.

“As I have stated before, I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. This is a tenet of my personal faith. The Iowa Supreme Court’s decision has, in fact, reaffirmed that churches across Iowa will continue to have the right to recognize the sanctity of religious marriage in accordance with their own traditions and church doctrines. The Supreme Court’s decision does not require that churches recognize marriages between persons of the same gender or officiate over such unions. The Court does not have, nor should any court ever have, that kind of power over our religious lives. Our churches and places of worship are free to decide for themselves, as they were before, who may enter the sacred covenant of marriage. As the Supreme Court’s decision states, ‘The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past.’

“Yet, the Supreme Court of Iowa, in a unanimous decision, has clearly stated that the Constitution of our state, which guarantees equal protection of the law to all Iowans, requires the State of Iowa to recognize the civil marriage contract of two people of the same gender. The Court also concluded that the denial of this right constitutes discrimination. Therefore, after careful consideration and a thorough reading of the Court’s decision, I am reluctant to support amending the Iowa Constitution to add a provision that our Supreme Court has said is unlawful and discriminatory.

“As Governor, I must respect the authority of the Iowa Supreme Court, and have a duty to uphold the Constitution of the State of Iowa. I also fully respect the right of all Iowans to live under the full protection of Iowa’s Constitution.

“I urge Iowans who hold beliefs on all sides of this issue to exhibit respect and good will. Our state faces many serious challenges. We are in the midst of a serious economic recession. Tens of thousands of our fellow Iowans are without work. We have suffered the worst natural disasters and most difficult recovery our state has ever faced. We must join together and redouble our efforts to work toward solutions that will help Iowans in this time of uncertainty. That is where, I believe, my focus and energies should lie.

“Let us not lose sight of the fact that we are all Iowans, all neighbors, united in the promise and faith of a brighter future for our state. Let us all work together toward that common goal.”

While Governor Culver continues to oppose gay marriage, it is  heartening to see the governor ask fellow Iowan’s to respect the decision move forward together in a sense of unity, despite their differences.

Worthy advice in times such as these.

Minority leader Paul McKinley who offered the new legislation to ban gay marriage accused Gronstal of “pure obstruction,” while former state legislator Chuck Hurley, who is now president of the Iowa Family Policy Center had this to say:

“He is denying 2.1 million Iowans of voting age of the right to vote on an issue of great importance to 550,000 schoolchildren … Mike Gronstal needs to humble himself and listen to the people.”

Sorry, a little bit behind on the news today… A new job will do that to you.