(Update) Marriage Equality breaks out in New Mexico – State Supreme Court to decide

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

EqualThe New Mexico Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide once and for all
whether same-sex marriage should be legal statewide after several
counties recently began issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian
couples, prompting a legal challenge. NM high court to hear gay marriage case next month:

The five-member state Supreme Court issued an order setting an Oct. 23 hearing in a case that finally could decide whether marriage licenses can be issued to gay and lesbian couples.

The
court took the step a day after New Mexico's 33 counties and county
clerks statewide filed a petition asking justices to determine whether a
state district judge in Albuquerque was correct last week in declaring
it's unconstitutional to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

More
than 900 marriage licenses have been issued in New Mexico since Aug.
21
, when the Dona Ana County clerk decided independently that gay
marriage was allowed. Seven other counties have followed in granting
licenses to same-sex couples or planning to do so, several in response
to court orders.

"This is excellent news because county clerks will now know what the law is, and they'll know how to not just administer their offices but how to serve their constituents," said Daniel Ivey-Soto, a lawyer for clerks and a Democratic state senator from Albuquerque.

The quick hearing "indicates the Supreme Court is interested in clarifying the law," he said.

The
high court could issue a decision immediately after hearing arguments
from lawyers in the case or it could take longer to make a ruling.

The justices asked parties in the case to submit written arguments by Sept. 23.

(Update) Lawsuit to challenge the initiative to bankrupt the City of Tucson – appeal filed

Posted by azblueMeanie:

As the great baseball sage Yogi Berra once said, "It ain't over 'til it's over."

The Plaintiffs challenging the petitions of the Initiative to Bankrupt the City of Tucson (Prop. 201) filed an appeal from Pima County Superior Court Judge James Marner's order on September 3, 2013. (2 CA-CV 2013-0120).

Pursuant to Plaintiffs/Appellants’ Notice of Filing Appeal and Notice of
Expedited Election Matter Pursuant to ARCAP Rule 8.1(c ) and Request
for Scheduling Conference Pursuant to ARCAP 8.1(f),a scheduling conference was held on September 4, 2013. Order below the fold:

Same-sex couples to receive veterans benefits

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A ruling by a federal court judge in California last week has convinced the U.S. Department of Justice to no longer enforce the sections of U.S. Code Title 38 that prohibit same-sex couples from receiving veterans benefits. DOJ Won’t Enforce Law Banning Same-Sex Couples From Receiving Veterans Benefits:

EqualThe Department of Justice announced Wednesday
that it would no longer enforce the sections of U.S. Code Title 38 that
prohibit same-sex couples from receiving veterans benefits. The law
exists separately from the Defense of Marriage Act and was thus
continuing to block veterans from accessing benefits for their partners,
although a federal court overturned the law last week.

In a letter sent to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and first obtained by the Washington Blade,
Attorney General Eric Holder explained that even though “Decisions by
the Executive not to enforce federal laws are appropriately rare,” the
DOMA ruling and subsequent decision last week provide ample
justification for no longer enforcing this restriction. This is
especially true, he pointed out, since the House Republicans are no
longer defending Title 38 through the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group
(BLAG):

In light of these developments, continued enforcement of
the Title 38 provisions pending further judicial review is unwarranted.
The decision of the Supreme Court in Windsor reinforces the
Executive’s conclusion that the Title 38 provisions are
unconstitutional, and another Article III court now has so determined.
Moreover, as I explained in my earlier letter, one of the primary
interests underlying the earlier decision to continue enforcement of the
Title 38 provisions was to allow representatives of Congress to present
a defense of those provisions to the judicial branch. BLAG’s decision
to withdraw from the Title 38 litigation in light of Windsor,
and therefore to cease its defense of the provisions at issue, means
that continued enforcement would no longer serve that interest. In
the meantime, continued enforcement would likely have a tangible
adverse effect on the families of veterans and, in some circumstances,
active-duty service members and reservists, with respect to survival,
health care, home loan, and other benefits
.

The fall of DOMA: federal benefits now available to same-sex marriage partners

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

EqualAfter the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in June, ending the federal government's ability to discriminate against legally married same-sex marriage partners from states that recognize same-sex marriage, the Obama administration has had the agencies of the federal government conducting a review to amend rules and regulations to comply with the law.

Yesterday, the IRS and Medicare announced a policy which uses the “place of celebration” rule, rather than the place of residence of legally married same-sex marriage partners. This policy change will have a profound effect on undermining Section 2 of DOMA (states do not have to recognize the status of legally married same-sex marriage partners from states that recognize same-sex marriage — in violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution), because so many states use the federal adjusted gross income from Form 1040 as the basis for factoring state income taxes. The IRS and Medicare will now recognize same-sex marriages. All of them.:

According to a big new announcement
from the IRS and the Treasury Department, if you’re a legally married
gay couple, the federal government will recognize your marriage — even
if you live in a state where your marriage isn’t legal.

The statement, released by the Treasury Department Thursday, says that department and the IRS will use a “place of celebration” rule in recognizing same-sex unions (recognition that was illegal before the Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act last month). That means that the U.S. government recognizes a marriage if the union was legally recognized in the place where it occurred, where it was celebrated. That’s true even if the married couple then lives in a state where gay marriage is illegal.

Tucson City Council Election Preview

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Like a tree that falls in the woods, if election results are not published in the "paper of record," the Arizona Daily Star, did the election ever really occur?

I realize the Tucson City Council Primary Election was uncontested, but there are people who still want to see the election results — you know, that whole transparency in elections thing. For those of you who care about election results, you can see the results here:

Democratic primary

Ward 3
Karin Uhlich, incumbent, 3448

Ward 5
Richard Fimbres, incumbent, 2542

Ward 6
Steve Kozachik, incumbent, 4830

Republican Primary

Ward 3:
Ben Buehler-Garcia, 1572

Ward 5:
Mike Polak II, 710

For Republicans who still make noise about going to ward-only elections, this would be a harbinger of a rout in November. Lucky for them, lobbyist Jonathan "Payday" Paton's attempts to have our Tea-Publican overlords in the state of Maricopa legislature dictate to the citizens of Tucson how we must conduct our city council elections have all been struck down by the court.