Archive for the ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ Category

Community Forum Rescheduled

August 25, 2010

The upcoming community forum co-hosted by Human Rights Campaign and Equality Illinois has been rescheduled to Sept. 27. The event will feature updates on the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, as well as other issues affecting LGBT people. The event, to be held at the Center on Halsted, 3556 N. Halsted St., at 6:30 p.m., will feature Rep. Mike Quigley.

Ask Congress to Repeal DOMA… It’s Easy

August 13, 2010

Please tell your members of Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. Passed in 1996, this law prohibits the federal government from recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples. A federal judge in Massachusetts recently declared the law unconstitutional.

Standing on the Side of Love, a campaign of the Unitarian Universalist Association, has set up an easy online form to help you speak out. 

(You don’t have to be a Unitarian Universalist!)

Tell Obama Not to Appeal DOMA Ruling

July 10, 2010

Please add your name to a new campaign telling Obama not to appeal Thursday’s pro-marriage equality ruling.

The Courage Campaign, the California organization arguing for equality in that state’s high-profile case, has set up an easy online tool to add your name to a letter to the president. He needs to hear that you do not want him to appeal the decision of a Massachusetts federal judge ruling that the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” is unconstitutional. Just click the link above.

Ruling Strikes Blow to Federal Ban

July 8, 2010

A ruling handed down by a federal judge in Massachusetts today declared unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act. That act, passed in 1996, barred the federal government from recognizing marriage licenses issued by states to same-sex couples.

Meanwhile, we are still awaiting a ruling on the Proposition 8 case from California. One observer said that same-sex marriage defenders are arguing the merits of the two cases on nearly opposite grounds – one based on a state’s rights argument and the other based on federally guaranteed equality protections.