Many states have old laws still on the books that would be wrong and outrageously offensive if proposed today. Progressive California is no exception, which is why Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal introduced legislation to right one such wrong:

AB 2199's targeted section, which was placed into law in 1967, requires the Department of Mental Health to "plan, conduct and cause to be conducted scientific research into the causes and cures of sexual deviation, including deviations conducive to sex crimes against children, and the causes and cures of homosexuality, and into methods of identifying potential sex offenders."

The genesis of Assemblywoman Lowenthal’s bill is also interesting, and it proves once again how important it is for citizens to contact their state legislators about issues that matter to them:

"The fact this language has survived this long is pretty amazing," she said in a news release. "We need to blot it out and make it clear we're moving forward as a society, not backward."

Lowenthal's chief of staff, Will Shuck, said the section was brought to Lowenthal's attention by Equality California, the state's largest gay-rights group.

"This section of the code is deplorable," said Geoff Kors, the group's executive director, because it implies both that homosexuality is an illness and that gays are a threat to children.

Indeed. And one can only hope that no state money is being wasted in search of a so-called “cure” for being gay.

Iowa isn’t the only place where Democrats are holding strong on equality. Over in New Hampshire, whose legislature established civil marriage equality beginning on New Year’s Day, 2010, the Democratically-controlled State House voted down two bills aimed at repealing the new law:

The House voted by a wide margin, 201-135, against a constitutional amendment that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. It later defeated a proposed repeal of the state's new marriage, 210-109.

New Hampshire's gay marriage laws passed last year and took effect Jan. 1, two years after civil unions became legal. The laws allow same-sex couples in civil unions to convert their relationship to marriage this year, or wait until the conversion becomes automatic on Jan. 1, 2011.

Sadly, the debate over these bills was marred by several Republican legislators who called the existing same-sex marriages in New Hampshire “a cruel joke,” a violation of “natural law,” or who argued that “homosexuals can change their sexual preference at any time.”

But since equality was the real victor today, we’ll let Democratic State Rep. Robert Thompson have the last word:

"We already have loving, committed same-sex marriage couples in New Hampshire. There has been no detrimental impact to anyone," he said.

Thompson, who married his gay partner on Jan. 2, asked the House, "How has my marriage impacted upon your marriage, or how has it diminished the value of your marriage?"

As DLCC Chairman Mike Gronstal says, it hasn’t – quite the opposite, in fact.

Congratulations are in order for Providence Democrat Gordon Fox, who has been overwhelmingly chosen by his fellow Representatives to be the next Speaker of the Rhode Island House of Representatives.

Interestingly, Speaker-Elect Fox will break more than one barrier when he takes the lead in the State House:

Besides being the first openly gay lawmaker to preside at the speaker’s rostrum, members of the House minority caucus say that Fox, the child of an Irish-American and a mother of Cape Verdean descent, is the first minority lawmaker to hold what is arguably the state’s most powerful political post.

He will preside over a veto-proof Democratic majority and have wide sway over which bills come to a vote and which bills die.

During a closed-door caucus, Democratic lawmakers also picked Nicholas Mattiello of Cranston as their majority leader and J. Patrick O’Neill of Pawtucket as the party whip.

Congratulations to all the newly-elected leaders in Rhode Island, and we wish them the best of luck solving the challenges Rhode Island faces in this tough economy.

After a court ruling established marriage equality in Iowa, Democrats (lead by State Senate Majority Leader and DLCC Chairman Mike Gronstal) promised to block any bill to ban same-sex marriage in Iowa. A few days ago, Iowa’s Democratic legislators delivered on that promise, effectively blocking a Republican-sponsored marriage ban for the rest of the legislative session:

What Republicans wanted was the right to pull House Joint Resolution 6 out of a committee so that it would be placed on the debate calendar and avoid a legislative deadline this week.

The effort failed in the Senate where a vote was not taken. However, all 18 Senate Republicans signed a petition circulated by Sen. David Johnson, R-Ocheyedan (…)

The House spent almost 30 minutes on a rarely used “call-of-the-House” in which each of the 100 members were ordered into the chambers to vote unless they were previously excused. The House measure ultimately failed in a 45 to 54 vote that was mostly along party lines.

What’s most striking is that each chamber had just a single Democrat willing to go on record supporting the ban. Every other rank-and-file legislator, including many Democrats facing tough re-election campaigns in conservative districts, stood with Majority Leader Gronstal and House Speaker Pat Murphy on the right side of history.

The good folks over at Bleeding Heartland took a moment to acknowledge the role Leadership played in both results:

Murphy and Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal strongly supported the Iowa Supreme Court's Varnum v Brien ruling, and they deserve a lot of credit for holding their caucuses together today. As Gronstal has promised, Republicans will not succeed in writing discrimination into our state's constitution.

Hear at the DLCC, we couldn’t be more proud of our Chairman and all the Iowa Democrats who stood up for equality this week.

Oklahoma Republicans have some funny opinions about marriage: they want to make it as difficult as possible to get in, but once you’re in, they’ll never let you leave. That’s the most reasonable take, anyway, on a Republican-sponsored divorce ban in the Oklahoma State House:

[Rep. Mark] McCullough, R-Sapulpa, wants all marriage license applicants to receive at least eight hours of counseling. He also proposes counseling for parents of minor children before divorcing.

[Rep. Sally] Kern, R-Oklahoma City, is proposing to bar divorces on grounds of incompatibility for couples married 10 years or more, that have minor children, or if one or the other party objects.

Kern’s bill is especially bizarre, but it follows a long line of homophobic statements by Rep. Kern, including her declaration that homosexuality is “the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism.” So this is probably just misguided pushback against successes by the marriage equality movement in other states this year.

Equality supporters have a basic argument that two people who love each other should have the right to be married. But there’s also a pretty compelling corollary that says two people who do not love each other should have the right to divorce.

Sally Kern and her Republican allies obviously don’t believe either of these arguments. So maybe a better, simpler principle is that government should not meddle in people’s personal lives.

That’s something people of all political stripes should be able to get behind.

The loss of a loved one is a crushing experience, but it’s all the more tragic for thousands of domestic partners in Rhode Island – gay and straight – who have no legal right to plan their spouse’s funeral. The Rhode Island legislature voted near-unanimously to guarantee that right. But yesterday, to just about everyone’s disgust, the state’s Republican Governor vetoed the bill:

State Rep. David Segal (D-Providence) said the bill "would have let domestic partners claim the bodies of their deceased partners, and arrange funerals for them."

Segal noted the funeral planning bill was supported by the overwhelming majority of members of the Assembly who oppose marriage for gays and lesbians[.] It passed by a vote of 63-1. And Segal expressed outrage over Carcieri’s veto.

"This bitter, cruel, pathetic man is grossly unworthy of the esteem the people of Rhode Island have bestowed upon him," Segal wrote in a blog post on Rhode Island’s Future.

Rep. Segal is particularly justified in his outrage. He sponsored the legislation after learning that a constituent had passed away, survived only by his partner of 15 years and no other next-of-kin. Without pre-written funeral instructions, the partner found he was unable to claim his loved one’s remains.

But Democrats aren’t giving up this fight. Segal and the bill’s State Senate sponsor have pledged to override the governor’s veto, and they have the votes to do it.

Just days after Proposition 1 overturned marriage equality in Maine, Republicans have filed legislation to repeal New Hampshire’s same-sex marriage law, which narrowly passed this year. But despite the disappointing vote in neighboring Maine, New Hampshire’s Democratic legislators are pledging to protect equal rights in their state:

Two proposals are being drafted in the N.H. House: One would repeal the law Gov. John Lynch signed in June and re-establish civil unions; the other is a constitutional amendment that would charge voters with deciding if "the state shall only recognize the union of one man and one woman as marriage."

Supporters of same-sex marriage are strategizing and gearing up for a fight, said Rep. Jim Splaine, D-Portsmouth, who sponsored the gay marriage law. He said momentum doesn't rest with gay-marriage foes.

"The momentum is on our side and those of us who support equality and love over hate," he said Wednesday.

Even so, "we have a fight cut out for us in January" when the Legislature reconvenes, he said. "But I think virtually everyone in the House and Senate who voted for marriage equality will stick with us and I'm hoping we'll pick up some others."

To be sure, the repeal effort faces long odds. State constitutional amendments in New Hampshire require a 2/3 vote in the legislature and a 2/3 vote in a state-wide referendum – neither of which are likely at this point. In addition, Governor Lynch has helpfully promised to veto any bill overturning marriage equality, so marriage opponents will need a 2/3 vote even if they decide to use normal legislative channels.

But that’s not stopping New Hampshire Republicans from pushing the issue to score political points, and if they succeed in making legislative gains in 2010, it could have a chilling affect on the equal rights agenda at all levels. That’s why Rep. Splaine, while sounding confident, explained that maintaining the Democratic advantage in the state legislature will be the key to protecting marriage equality:

I'm confident we will hold onto our supporters in the House and Senate, and that Governor John Lynch will remain steadfast in his strong support for equality. But it would be good to "max out" on our support in the Legislature in a few months.

Whatever the final result in Maine, and no matter how close, WE CAN DO THIS. We can have marriage equality, and hold it here. But it will take continued work. We have to remain optimistic, and continue looking forward.

In the first electoral test of voters’ reaction to the Iowa Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage (and Iowa Democrats’ courageous promise to defend that ruling), Democrat Curt Hanson won a fiercely-contested special election in Iowa, finishing ahead of Republican Stephen Burgmeier by 107 votes in House District 90:

While Hanson will replace Rep. John Whitaker -- another Democrat who left the legislature to take a position with the US Department of Agriculture -- Republicans poured resources and energy into an attempt to pick up the vacant seat.

All of the intangible factors seemed to favor the GOP. Burgmeier had more political experience, and he had a natural base in Jefferson County, the district’s population anchor. He also out-raised Hanson in fundraising by nearly a third. The district itself, though it leans slightly Democratic, is a mostly rural area on the Missouri border -– exactly the sort of district where Republicans expected a major backlash against marriage equality.

Right-wing groups had promised a fight over marriage equality, and they backed that up with hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Iowa Republican Party, the right-wing National Organization for Marriage, and other outside groups:

The National Organization for Marriage has spent more than $80,000 to promote Burgmeier’s opposition to same-sex marriage, for instance, not mentioning Hanson in their commercial at all. Iowans for Tax Relief released a television ad attacking Hanson for being in the same party as Culver and as George Soros, a billionaire businessman who has donated to liberal causes nationally, but who has not been tied to the Hanson campaign in particular.

Republicans were convinced that this race could be nationalized and that would give them an advantage.

It didn't.

For our part, Democrats focused on turning out voters. Hanson was able to build a significant advantage in absentee ballots and won Jefferson County, which both Hanson and Burgmeier call home, convincingly.

As the Iowa Independent reported, "It was a textbook Iowa Democratic campaign, designed to push Hanson across the goal line with little fanfare and a lot of direct contact with voters. And it worked."

As of today, same-sex marriage is legal in Vermont. The state was the first to enact full marriage equality entirely through the legislative process, without any prompting from the courts, but Maine and New Hampshire passed their own marriage equality legislation shortly thereafter.

The implementation of marriage equality in earlier states tended to be big news nation-wide -– most notably in Massachusetts in 2003. But for Vermont, in quiet testament to how far equality has come in the New England region, September 1st will be remembered not only for the extraordinary change that took place, but for the sheer normalcy of the occasion:

In 2000, gay and lesbian couples flooded into Vermont, out-of-state couples made up nearly 70 percent of the 7,000 civil unions performed in the first year.

But the New England gay marriage landscape has altered drastically since then. Five out of six New England states -– Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont and Connecticut –- have legalized gay nuptials. Even gay couples from New York, Vermont's largest neighbor to its west, where marriage is not available, are unlikely to take advantage of the new law because the option has been available for nearly a year in nearby Connecticut. Other New Yorkers remain hopeful that a widely-supported gay marriage bill held up in the state Senate will finally become law.

“We've got about a dozen gay marriages happening at the lodge between Sept. 1 and the end of the year,” Willie Docto, co-owner of the Moose Meadow Lodge in Waterbury, told the Rutland Herald. “I think a lot of people have already gotten married in Massachusetts or Connecticut over the last few years. … It was a special thing when civil unions came along in 2000.

“We're not expecting a huge rush,” Greg Trulson, Docto's civil union partner, said. “We're not the only place that gay and lesbian couples can have their union legally recognized anymore.”

With or without that sense of normalcy, this is a day all Vermonters can look back up on with pride for their state’s place on the right side of history.

This victory was made possible by Vermont’s Democratic legislators, who successfully overrode Republican Governor Jim Douglas’ veto of the marriage equality bill. The override passed by one vote in the State House, where Democrats had picked up two seats in the 2008 election.

Months after Proposition 8 eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry in California, Democratic lawmakers in that state have introduced SB 54, which would allow the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed outside California.

Conservative activists were quick to denounce the bill as a violation of Proposition 8, but Democratic supporters believe the State Supreme Court’s decision upholding Proposition 8 also provides space for the Legislature to consider out-of-state marriages:

The court's decision upheld the right of voters to bar gay couples from the label "marriage," acknowledged SB 54's author, Sen. Mark Leno, an openly gay Democrat from San Francisco.

But the court, Leno noted, also upheld an estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in California before the gay-marriage ban was approved. Those marriages took place after the justices ruled in May 2008, in a separate decision, that California's constitution at that time did not prevent same-sex marriage.

The high court did not address how to treat out-of-state marriages, explaining in a footnote that none of the parties involved in lawsuits represented such interests.

In that vacuum, Leno is arguing the Legislature's role should be to clarify the rights of same-sex couples who live in California but wed elsewhere, or couples who might move or travel here in the future.

Short of a full repeal of Proposition 8, SB 54 could be the equality movement’s best short-term hope for recapturing some of the ground lost when California voters approved Proposition 8 this past November. And, it would help extend the nationwide momentum gained during the 2009 legislative session as multiple states established domestic partnership laws, anti-discrimination measures, and full marriage equality.