Hi,

Don't toss this yet! You are going to learn some interesting facts about someone you really care about (Craig and Alberto) !

And we ask that you forward this email to everyone you know, Republican, Democrat or other, especially those that you feel may not support gay or gender-neutral marriage.

Alberto and I think it would be really swell to be able to finally get legally married in California, before our 20th anniversary, only 16 months away.

So, we just signed an open letter to Governor Schwarzenegger asking him to tell the California Supreme Court that current law is unconstitutional and that all loving couples, gay and straight, deserve the freedom to marry. Will you sign it too?

This is a controversial and complex issue. Some of this issue involves religious versus secular law, public opinion and "activist judges and courts". Please take a moment to read this, some of this will surprise you:

Marriage would give us more than 1,400 federal and state rights not provided for under current law (or current civil union law), rights like Social Security Benefits, Inheritance Tax, Privacy, Immigration, Legal Portability of Rights and Medical Decision and Emergency Rights. And none of the current 300 rights we do have are guaranteed for us outside of California.
Although a federal ruling may not occur right away, We support the ongoing struggle and the struggle continues here in California.

(Info below compiled by Craig)

In 2005, the California Legislature made history as the first legislative body in the nation to pass a bill that would give all couples the freedom to marry. That landmark legislation, AB 849, authored by Assembly member Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) and sponsored by Equality California, would protect religious freedom by not requiring any religious institution to solemnize marriages contrary to its fundamental beliefs. Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed AB 849.
In 2007 the California Legislature passed AB 43, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act-an almost identical bill to the measure passed by the legislature in 2005. The bill picked up 2 new votes in the Assembly and 3 new votes in the Senate compared to 2005. California remains the only state in the nation that has approved marriage for same-sex couples through the legislative process.
A September 2006 poll by the Public Policy Institute of California showed that 47 percent of likely voters in California support marriage for same-sex couples, while 46 percent oppose.

Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed AB 849 saying that.. "the voters should decide this issue and currently there is public (46%) opposition."
The biggest argument against AB 849 came from religious special-interest activist groups who lobbied that 'God forbids it and it is against God's will.'

Interracial Marriage
Forty U.S. states, including Massachusetts, once prohibited marrying someone of the "wrong" race, no matter how much you loved them. Social prejudice accomplished much the same result in other states. Marriages between whites and persons of color were decried as "immoral" and "unnatural."
Polls showed that overwhelming numbers of Americans agreed. 38 states had laws on the books explicitly forbidding interracial marriage.
Yet, despite the public opposition to interracial marriage, in 1948, the California Supreme Court became the first state high court to declare a ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional. In Perez v. Sharp the Court stated that:
"A member of any of these races may find himself barred from marrying the person of his choice and that person to him may be irreplaceable. Human beings are bereft of worth and dignity by a doctrine that would make them as interchangeable as trains."
The decision was controversial, courageous and correct.
At that time, 38 states still forbade interracial marriage, and 6 did so by state constitutional provision. Then, in 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the remaining interracial marriage laws nation-wide. A Virginia judge had upheld that state's ban on interracial marriages, invoking God's intention to separate the races. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned his decision, declaring that:
the "freedom to marry" belongs to all Americans;
marriage is one of our "vital personal rights" and
the right to marry is "essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by a free [people].
The biggest argument of the day against interracial marriage was that 'God forbids it and it is against God's will.'

Traditional Marriage between Men and Women
For hundreds of years, women had few to no legal rights once they married. Married women had no independent legal existence: they could not make contracts, maintain their own names, file lawsuits, have full ownership and control of property, and in some cases could not maintain custody of their children after their husband's death. The husband controlled all the family earnings and all of his wife's property in exchange for nothing firmer than the general social expectation that he would support his wife and children. Some of these inequalities continued well into the 20th century.
Over time, however, both the courts and the legislature (not through the public voting process) changed marriage laws to reflect the equality of spouses. The biggest argument of the day against equality in marriage between men and women was - 'It is against God's will.'

Interreligious Marriage
Many Christians, Jews and Muslims believe that anyone has the freedom to choose her or his partner for life, and that love has no boundaries. This attitude is found most often among those who may be identified as progressive or liberal. Yet today, many denominations within each faith still forbid interreligious marriage. Those who choose to marry anyway choose a civil, non-religious marriage for their legal protection.

For those who believe that this is conflict will their religious teachings
AB 43, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act currently making it's way through the California court system would protect religious freedom by not requiring any religious institution to solemnize marriages contrary to its fundamental beliefs. The biggest argument against interreligious marriage between men and women was - 'It is against God's will.'

Morality, Families and Equality
Some people say that equality in marriage is equal to the downfall of civilization. Some say marriage is for procreation and to protect children. Yet we allow single men and women to adopt children and some married couples choose not to have children or can't. Do we prevent them from adopting or marrying? And some people, although uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality, do not wish to deny them full and equal rights and protection under the law. By and large, Americans are opinionated yet tolerant and fiercely protect civil liberty for all citizens.
Ultimately marriage is this: two people who fall in love, decide to spend their lives together and desire full protection for themselves and each other under the law.

Many Thanks,
Alberto and Craig
 

The World View on Marriage is Changing

Gender-Neutral Marriage

Full marriage is presently available to same-sex couples in six jurisdictions. The Netherlands was the first country to allow same-sex marriage in 2001. Same-sex marriages are also recognized in Belgium, Canada, Norway, South Africa and Spain.

The term "marriage" is given in the U.S. state of Massachusetts, however, due to the passage of President Bill Clinton's federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which bars federal rights for same-sex couples, Massachusetts's marriages grant no more rights than do civil unions.

In California, AB 43, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, provides more comprehensive legal protection and may hopefully lead to a challenge in The Supreme Court of the United States regarding DOMA and the future of gender-neutral marriage.

Canada and Spain are the only countries where the legal status of same-sex marriage is exactly the same as that of opposite-sex marriage, though South Africa is due to fully harmonize its marriage laws.

In the United Kingdom, civil partnerships have identical legal status to a marriage, and partners gain all the same benefits and associated legal rights; ranging from tax exemptions and joint property rights, to next-of-kin status and shared parenting responsibilities. Partnership ceremonies are performed by a marriage registrar in exactly the same manner as a secular civil marriage.

Civil unions in New Zealand are identical to British civil partnerships
A registered partnership in Scandinavia is nearly equal to marriage, including legal adoption rights in Sweden and, since June, in Iceland as well. These partnership laws are short laws that state that wherever the word "marriage" appears in the country's law will now also be construed to mean "registered partnership" and wherever the word "spouse" appears will now also be construed to mean "registered partner" - thereby transferring the body of marriage laws onto same-sex couples in registered partnerships. In these countries, registered partnerships are generally called marriage in daily speech.

Civil Union

In some countries with legal recognition of Civil Union the actual benefits are minimal. Many people consider civil unions, even those which grant equal rights, inadequate, as they create a separate status without full legal national benefits accorded to "marriage".

The first same-sex civil union in modern history with government recognition was obtained in Denmark in 1989.

Civil unions, Civil partnership, domestic partnerships, Unregistered partnership or registered partnerships offer varying amounts of the benefits of marriage and are available in: Andorra, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

They are also available in some parts of Argentina, Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul), Mexico (City), and Uruguay.

 The U.S. states of California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon (delays), Vermont, Washington state, and the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.) also offer a patchwork of civil union law.

Status of same-sex partnerships in Europe

     Same sex marriage recognized

     Civil unions recognized

     Unregistered cohabitation recognized

     Issue under political consideration

     Unrecognized or unknown

     Same sex marriage banned

Proposition 8,

also known as the Limit on Marriage Amendment or the California Marriage Protection Act, is an initiative measure proposed for the 2008 California General Election ballot that, if passed, would amend the California State Constitution to affirm that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, thus prohibiting same-sex marriage.

More about Proposition 8 can be found here