There’s more news breaking on the issue, so let’s get you up to date.

Today the Washington state legislature passed a bill allowing same-sex marriage. It is on the way to be signed by Governor Chris Gregiore, who has no intention of vetoing it, unlike New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who has promised to veto a pending bill to legalize gay marriage in New Jersey if passed.

Earlier in the week California’s federal appeal court ruled Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage, unconstitutional. Maryland legislatures are also considering a same-sex marriage bill, strongly supported by Governor O’Malley.

But support isn’t just stemming from the public sector. More and more businesses are speaking out in favor of gay marriage, including Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and Starbucks.

Perhaps the most notably uncommon support is the video released by the Human Rights Campaign, where Lloyd C. Blankfein, the CEO of corporate giant Goldman Sachs, vocalizes his official support for “marriage equality.” The Human Rights campaign has a growing list of corporate partners in supporting LGBT rights.

Now that you’re savvy on this weeks happenings in the gay marriage issue, what do you think?

Should Chris Christie veto a passed bill in New Jersey? What do you make of the growing corporate support for marriage equality?

Image from the Daily Kos!

This year could be a big one for supporters of marriage equality across the country. State legislatures in Washington, New Jersey, and Maryland are all engaging the issue this year.

In order for marriage equality to pass, supporters need both Democrats and Republicans to vote for it.

But Republicans who decide to support the measure have to break ranks with their party to do so – and for many that could mean angering conservative constituents and tempting primary challenges.

But the numbers are telling a different story for those Republicans who support marriage equality.

While some supporters are touting the economic benefits of marriage equality for states,  the newest round of campaign finance reports tells of a different kind of economic benefit that comes along with supporting same-sex marriage

The New York Times published an article this week reporting that the four Republican senators who split with their party to support gay marriage in New York have seen HUGE jumps in their fundraising.

One senator received 27 times as many donations in this most recent fundraising period compared to the same one in 2009, before his vote.  Much of the donations came from people who often identified as both gay and far left.  Many had never supported a Republican before, but money started flowing into the four senators for their support.

These four senators aren’t the only ones making some moo-la from marriage.  Governor Andrew Cuomo, whose fervent support was credited with the measure’s success, raised over 6 million dollars in the six months after his effort.  And three Wall Street Executives donated $350,000 to the NY Senate Republican Campaign Committee – who came out AGAINST the bill – as a thank you for allowing the vote to take place.

A strategist for the Human Rights Campaign, one of the national organizations working on LGBT equality issues, explained that

It was essential to send a clear signal around the country that we will support those who support equality, irrespective of party.  We were able to win marriage in New York with a bipartisan coalition of fair-minded elected officials. We need to replicate that if we are to keep winning.

So what do you think – are these political contributions better than a thank you note?  Will donors follow suit if Republicans in WA, MD, and NJ also break ranks?  And should Republicans making up their minds about marriage equality take these possible benefits into consideration?

Images thanks to Politico!

You can stand under Obama’s umbrella-ella-ella-ay-ay-ay.  Because apparently he won’t.

Mark your calendar!  Michele Bachmann stops by Late Night next week.

Senator Barbara Mikulski sponsors repeal on DOMA, and the WashPost writes about the new Democratic support for same-sex marriage.

Tension in Turkey.

And just in case you haven’t heard about Schweddy Balls yet…

Image Thanks to the Mirror!

A quiet weekend in Britain?  Increased police presence prevents weekend riots.

Mandate or can’t-date?  An appellate court strikes down individual healthcare mandate and a prediction of what comes next.

Losing a good one: trailblazing women’s health advocate Bernadine Healy passes away.

Super PAC strikes!  Stephen Colbert’s political action committee puts out its first campaign ad.

Ernie and Bert – should they or shouldn’t they?  Get married, that is!

Thanks to The Atlantic!

Empire of equality: New York becomes 6th state to legalize same-sex marriage!

Rivers keep rising. North Dakota battles record flooding.

What’s with Wisconsin? Judge tries to choke fellow judge.

Diabetes doubles worldwide!

And, you might have more friends than you know!

Recently in Maryland, a vote in the state legislature to legalize same-sex marriage was dropped at the last minute after two weeks of intense lobbying.

Democratic leader Mike Busch says

“The vote would have been very close, make no mistake about it,”

Advocates in favor of gay unions are vowing to make a strong push to get a vote in the 2012 legislative session.

USDemocrazy sat down with UMBC’s Jodi Kelber-Kaye to discuss the issue. She has been actively engaged in the issue paying close attention to the contentious legislative antics in Annapolis. You can check out our interview below.

Thanks to Wikicommons.

President Obama (perhaps copying Facebook’s attitude) has changed the US governments policy on homosexual marriage.

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act defined marriage as

only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ’spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Mr. Obama declared yesterday that this act was unconstitutional as it failed to provide equal protection under the law. Although this does not repeal the law (that is a job for the courts) it does mean that the Federal government will not fight legal challenges to the law.

This reversal is getting attention of people on both sides.

Republican Rick Santorum issued a strongly worded statement that

President Obama’s refusal to defend a law that was overwhelmingly supported on both sides of the aisle and signed into law by a president of his own party is an affront to the will of the people. This is yet another example of our president’s effort to erode the very traditions that have made our country the greatest nation on earth

The Human Right Campaign, America’s largest gay rights organization, hailed the Presidents decision with the organizations president, Joe Solomese, stating that

This is a monumental decision for the thousands of same-sex couples and their families who want nothing more than the same rights and dignity afforded to other married couples

Before anyone gets too excited (or up in arms) change is not coming immediately and may not at all.

For one thing, as a spokesman for the President noted, this only changes the legal defenses of the law as

the enforcement of the Defense of Marriage Act continues — the President is constitutionally bound to enforce the laws and enforcement of the DOMA will continue.

The law’s future is now out of Obama’s hands and into those of the nations courts.

It’s been difficult to read the news lately ( the world seems crazier than usual lately ), but here at US Democrazy, it’s our job – so we’ve stuck it out to bring you some gems from the kooky world of American media and politics.

From the “It Must Be still Halloween” department:

Death Panels are Back! Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle from Nevada is hurling the same lies about the so-called “death panels” in the health care reform bill that were settled months ago. What gives?

Check out the flier-clipping for yourself here. Pre-election tactic obviously, but should there be some sort of regulation on the spread of blatant misinformation? Or is this really what makes America the great place it is?

The Attack of The Governator

“WHAT WIMPS. NO GUTS,” is exactly what California Gov Arnold Schwarzenegger said of Washington politicians on Wednesday. This bold words speak of the frustration that many have with the lack of response to the BP oil spill. He went on to say:

I said, that’s disgusting. You promised the people you’d represent them. You didn’t promise the people you’d represent the oil companies and the special interests.

Man, oh man. We like the bold move on the Governor’s part. Now, only if politicians would take it seriously and ensure healthier environmental policy for the country and world alike. Read more and catch the video here.

It’s the Environment, Stupid!

Speaking of BP, reports are trickling in of people getting really sick from the dispersants used in the water to try and break up the oil on the surface after the spill. “Brown vomit, brown urine, copious diarrhea, skin rashes, sore throats and even internal hemorrhaging” are among the symptoms. This is really tragic, but can we say we’re surprised?

Obama still has Hope?

Now for some optimism – Obama seems ready to take a powerful stand on gay marriage. We just don’t know when. He made a comment to liberal bloggers last week in which he talked about his evolving opinions. Many are predicting an embrace of gay rights in his 2012 campaign, something that would be huge for the political capacity of the movement. Do you think he’ll actually do it? Or are the politically pressures too high otherwise?

Courtesy of WikiCommons

It is Wednesday, which is the day we let our Legal correspondent out of his cage to scrounge for morcels of meaty news ( as well as the occaisional pepperoni pizza)..

This week, our legal eagle spotted something with his camera… it’s a story about allowing video cameras in the courtroom. ( No… we are not talking about the  Judge Judy TV show…).

Cameras are on everybody’s mind after the Supreme Court said “cut” to a the You Tubing of a high profile Prop 8 trial going on in San Fransisco.  We’ve got the rundown…

First….Goin’ on in San Fransisco is the highly anticipated (if your legal nerds like us) federal challenge to California Proposition 8

You can follow up to the minute developments on the trial via the L.A. Now/ L.A. Times Blog Here!

More on the actual trial here, from the NYTimes.

But this shindig wasn’t exactly run of the mill. You see, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has been experimenting with video coverage in courtrooms. Check it out in this L.A. Times article from about a year ago.

Federal courts in California and eight other Western states will allow video camera coverage of civil proceedings in an experiment aimed at increasing public understanding of the work of the courts

And so, the high profile trial was to be streamed on a delay via youtube. But Marcia Coyle at the BLT tells us that drama ensued…

The Supreme Court today ordered the federal judge hearing the Proposition 8 trial to confine the real time streaming of the trial to rooms within the confines of the courthouse.

And the BLT wasn’t the only ones to pick up on the Veto to Videos. Emily Bazelon at Slate magazine raises an eyebrow…

But it can’t be a good development for a nice little West Coast experiment with cameras in federal courtrooms…And since we do know that the Supreme Court justices don’t want their own proceedings televised, it’s hard not to think this is personal.

SCOTUS Blog is also abuzz…

A polite but no less pointed controversy has broken out over control of televised broadcasts of proceedings in federal civil courts, as part of the dispute over public viewing of the San Francisco trial on California’s ban on same-sex marriage.

The order came from Justice Anthony Kennedy, says Dan Levine at Law.com:

Justice Anthony Kennedy stayed Walker’s order to post video of the trial online. Kennedy indicated that the full court may rule by Wednesday afternoon.

For the actual order, head on over to the Empty Wheel, here.

So what do YOU think? Cameras: Innocent or Guilty?

Pretty much all of our readers have spent some time of their youth in the classroom.  It is the one experience that pretty much unites us as a nation… we have all shared a school experience (some of us more awake than others).

Schools certainly can be a source of unity… but also a cause of division (and we don’t mean the math kind…).

School lesson plans that include controversial subjects can spark rebellion among teachers, parents and pupils.

For example, celebrating Christmas (a religious holiday for many) in public schools has been a hotly debated issue.

Religion also was a source of controversy recently when an Ohio teacher caught flack for trying to teach creationism in school using Lego building blocks.

In San Francisco, there is currently a simmering debate on another hot button subject…

The Alameda Board of Education was attempting to make its curriculum reflective of its community, with lesson plans discussing the diverse types of families, including single-parent homes and homes with gay parents.

One of these lessons was written specifically to address the bias against and the bullying of gay people.

Some chose to describe this as a “gay-friendly curriculum” thus sparking protests and outraged  (some say outrageous) TV commercials.

Law suits were filed (and thrown out) and the school board, in a controversial vote, has opted to amend the curriculum.

Typically, this has left no one happy. The gay community and the religious community still remain at odds over the decision.

Now we have a question for you… do you think talking about such controversial subjects should be avoided in the classroom?