Moments ago, Gov. Martin O’Malley signed legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in Maryland, making the state the eighth in the nation to offer marriage equality to gay and lesbian couples. Opponents of the measure have already filed the necessary paperwork to start collecting signatures for a referendum to overturn the law. They will have until June 30 to collect 56,000 valid signatures in order to successfully put the issue up to a referendum in November. The law is set to take effect in January of 2013, well after a referendum would take place.

As he prepared to sign the measure, flanked by supporters, O’Malley framed the issue as one of religious liberty and human dignity, saying, “for a free and diverse people, for people of many faiths, for people committed to the principal of religious freedom, the way forward is always found through grater respect for human rights of all, through human dignity for all.” “We are one Maryland and all of us at the end of the day want the same thing for our children. We want them to live in a loving, caring and committed home that is protected equally under the law.” Watch it:

Our guest blogger is Andrew Cray, an LGBT health research associate at the Center for American Progress.

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO)

Today, the battle over coverage for the full range of medically necessary health services reached another milestone. The Blunt Amendment, which the Senate narrowly voted to table earlier today, would have given unprecedented discretion to any employer or insurance plan, whether or not religious, to exclude coverage for critical health care services on the basis of undefined “moral convictions.” This far-reaching proposal was not limited to particular services, instead restricting access to care in a manner so extreme that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius described the measure as “dangerous and wrong.” The Amendment was the latest in the GOP’s continuing effort to limit access and autonomy in health care, a firestorm that House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has vowed to reignite.

The Blunt Amendment undermined the Affordable Care Act’s guarantee of coverage for essential health benefits, and could have placed access to preventive care services at risk for over 20 million women. Perhaps its greatest threat, though, was its potential to gut the crucial equity framework established by the Affordable Care Act, placing entire populations at risk of losing coverage for necessary, sometimes life-saving, care.

Among those with the greatest to lose from proposals like the Blunt Amendment is the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. Broad and unfettered language of the kind advanced by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) would grant insurers and employers the right to deny coverage for nearly any service provided to LGBT patients. For example, under the Blunt Amendment:

– An insurer could refuse to cover any health care service to a gay couple because of a religious or moral objection to such relationships.

– An employer could refuse to cover life-saving care for HIV or AIDS, due to an unfounded “moral objection.”

– An insurance plan could ban coverage for nearly any care provided to a transgender person, on the basis of moral or religious objection to their gender identity.

Denying coverage for these basic essential services – a central requirement of the Affordable Care Act – rolls back progress in public health, and places the lives of LGBT people at risk.
Read more

Students and administrators at Northeastern University agree that rejecting plans to bring Chick-fil-A as a vendor to campus was the right call. The fast food chain’s history of giving millions of dollars to anti-gay organizations simply does not align with the inclusive values the school prides itself on. But Chick-fil-A is bitter to have been dropped, and is now trying to misrepresent its well-documented reputation for opposing LGBT rights.

Calling Northeastern’s decision “hasty,” Chick-fil-A’s spokesperson claims the company is totally inclusive and has “no political agenda”:

The most important thing we need to confirm is that we are not anti-anybody and Chick-fil-A have [sic] no agenda, policy or position against anyone as some reports continue to represent. Here’s the clarification and correction. Chick-fil-A has been scrutinized of late about our charitable giving, specifically through our WinShape Foundation, and whether or not we have some hidden political agenda. We don’t. Our agenda is simple: to graciously serve great food and have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A. This is the reason why we were initially invited to the campus.

The statement goes on to claim that the company’s donations have been labeled as “anti-gay” merely for being affiliated with faith-based organizations, but this is a sad attempt to hide behind religion. The donations are called “anti-gay” because they quite certainly are anti-gay. As Equality Matters has reported, Chick-fil-A’s WinShape foundation has given millions of dollars to organizations that oppose marriage equality (Marriage and Family Legacy Fund, Family Research Council), bully gay students (Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Focus on the Family), and promote harmful ex-gay therapy (Exodus International). In addition, the company has a score of 0 on HRC’s corporate equality index, offering absolutely no protections to LGBT staff and even firing employees who engage in “sinful” behavior. Compare that to how many Fortune 100 companies offer non-discrimination protections based on sexual orientation (94 percent) and gender identity (69 percent).

Northeastern was perfectly justified to oppose bringing Chick-fil-A to campus. That the company would respond by whining and deceitfully misrepresenting itself proves the point.

Marriage equality advocates in Ohio will attempt to overturn that state’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage through a referendum, the Columbus Dispatch reports. The Freedom to Marry Coalition plans to “file more than 1,700 signatures of registered Ohio voters” with Attorney General Mike DeWine — a prominent Rick Santorum supporter — to change the Constitution’s description of marriage to “a union of two consenting adults, regardless of gender.” It also would stipulate that “no religious institution shall be required to perform or recognize a marriage.”

Supporters are optimistic, but backers of the existing anti-gay language predict that they will defeat the effort:

Tim Hagan, former Cuyahoga County commissioner, Democratic candidate for governor in 2002 and co-chairman of the campaign, called it “the most-significant civil-rights act since 1964. I don’t know how one human being can look at another human being and say, ‘You don’t have the same rights.’ “I have a sister who’s gay. I have close friends who are gay,” Hagan said. “But this is not just a gay issue. This is an issue for all of us who believe strongly in human rights.”

Phil Burress, of the Cincinnati-based group Citizens for Community Values, said that if same-sex marriage supporters put the issue on the ballot this fall “they can kiss (President Barack) Obama goodbye.… I guess they’re feeling their oats because seven states have same-sex marriage,” Burress said. “ They’re going to have their hands full. We’re prepared to meet them on the field of battle.”

Under Ohio law, the group will need 1,000 valid signatures to place the issue before Ohio voters this fall or possibly next year. “If DeWine approves the ballot language of the proposed amendment, it will be sent to the Ohio Ballot Board, which would determine whether the proposal can be placed on the ballot as one or multiple issues. At that point, the Freedom to Marry Coalition can begin the task of collecting the 385,253 valid signatures required to put the issue on the statewide ballot.”

Equality Ohio notes that some 32 percent of residents back marriage equality, but many support civil unions. It also estimates that the cost of getting on the ballot could run as high as $2.25 million.