Germany has recognized registered same-sex couples since 2001, and now the country’s highest court has ruled that those couples deserve equal tax benefits, including backpay for what they’ve overpaid in the past. In accordance with past rulings, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled Thursday that the country’s guarantee of equal rights demands that all couples be treated the same for tax purposes.

According to the Court, there are no “substantial grounds for unequal treatment” and failing to provide the same benefits because of sexual orientation “leads to discrimination against a minority.” Regardless of whether couples raise children, the Court argued, they all commit the same responsibility to their partners and deserve the same benefits from the government. Though Germany does not currently allow same-sex couples the right to jointly adopt a child, step-parent and “successive” adoptions are allowed in some circumstances.

Last Friday’s decision to postpone a vote on marriage equality in the Illinois House came as a huge disappointment to supporters of LGBT equality. But Prairie State voters can take heart from legislative battles in other states where marriage equality was similarly delayed or defeated — but where the same chambers went on to pass bills soon after.

Like Illinois, legislative efforts to pass marriage equality stumbled in Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and New York — either failing to obtain a majority or by through postponed consideration. Future attempts to enact legislation later succeeded in three of those states, while the New Jersey legislature’s passage of a bill was met with a Gov. Chris Christie’s (R) veto. As Illinois supporters work to win passage of the bill later this year, ThinkProgress reached out to key players in each of those states and asked them about their experiences.

Three common themes emerged in their responses. Several said Illinois supporters need to make sure they have an accurate target list and focus on the lawmakers who need persuading. Constituents, they suggested, must respectfully tell their personal stories to their legislators and make their representatives understand why this issue matters to their families. Finally, the openly LGBT caucus within the legislature must appeal personally and emotionally to their colleagues, especially those who may not be as attuned to the topic.

Maryland

Perhaps the most analogous case was Maryland’s unsuccessful 2011 attempt to pass a civil marriage bill through the state House of Delegates. Though advocates believed they had the needed votes to pass the bill, they were forced to postpone the vote after some pledged supporters wavered. Unlike Illinois, supporters went through with the debate — hoping their compelling personal stories might sway the handful of votes needed for a majority — before sending the bill back to committee after it became apparent the votes would not be there. Advocates, including Gov. Martin O’Malley (D), the state’s seven openly LGBT Delegates, and LGBT groups, organized a new campaign and successfully pushed the bill through less than a year later. When opponents forced the question onto the November ballot, a majority voted for marriage equality.

Openly lesbian Maryland Del. Heather Mizeur (D) noted that about 10 supporters were willing to be a part of a 71-vote majority but would have voted against the bill if it appeared likely to lose. “It would not have been okay to lose by 12 votes and try to come back the next year to win those back. We wanted to hold onto their willingness to be yes on a winning vote, instead of locking them into a no vote because they saw it was going down,” she recalled. To turn around the vote in Illinois, she suggested, “it could be helpful for them to try to wage an effort to get their supporters to sign some sort of pledge, start getting a vote count, and get a campaign around securing public commitments.” Maryland’s success came, she explained, from working with allies at national organizations, state groups, and really putting together a campaign. “Leave no stone unturned until we’re able to claim victory.”

Carrie Evans, executive director of Equality Maryland, said that it made little sense to demand a vote in 2011 because there was not going to be an election before the next (2012) session. She noted that while grassroots activists were vital to the successful effort to win the second attempt, so was having a robust LGBT caucus inside the legislature who could remind colleagues, “you know my husband, you know my kids.” Issues like marriage equality, she observed, must be personal. “They’re so close — you really just have to build on that and get those last few votes.”
Read more

The Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families is the world’s largest attempt to study how children raised by same-sex couples compare to children raised by heterosexual couples. According to a preliminary report on the study of 500 children across the country of Australia, these young people are not only thriving, but also have higher rates of family cohesion than other families:

An interim report found there was no statistical difference between children of same-sex couples and the rest of the population on indicators including self-esteem, emotional behaviour and the amount of time spent with parents.

However, children of same-sex couples scored higher than the national average for overall health and family cohesion, measuring how well a family gets along.

According to Dr. Simon Crouch, lead researcher on the study at Melbourne University, the way same-sex families have to cope with bullying and homophobia could impact how they relate to each other. A study recently found that 70 percent of gay and lesbian students in the Australian state of Queensland experience bullying from both students and teachers, so the children of same-sex couples likely experience similar taunts. If a student experiences stigma at school, the researchers hypothesize, the families are “generally more willing to communicate and approach the issues,” resulting in a closer family dynamic.

The Australian Senate defeated marriage equality last September and will not take the issue up again until after this September’s general election. Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd recently came out for marriage equality, explaining that concern about the children of same-sex couples was previously his primary obstacle. Hopefully this research will convince additional Australian lawmakers to support marriage equality when it next comes up for a vote.

Several conservative groups testified Tuesday before the House Ways and Means Committee about their mistreatment by the IRS. The National Organization for Marriage sent Chairman John Eastman to speak about their leaked tax forms from last year, even though that has nothing to do with the current “scandal” regarding extra scrutiny for Tea Party-affiliated groups. Despite the fact that over a year has passed since the leak, NOM is capitalizing on the current news by using the threat of an IRS lawsuit to fundraise, though no suit has been filed.

At the hearing, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) called out NOM for hiding its political donors, pointing out that nothing about what NOM advocates constitutes “social welfare.” Eastman responded that it was “preposterous” to suggest NOM’s position “doesn’t qualify for defense of the public good.” Blumenauer took to the Huffington Post just after the hearing to address the matter, reminding of NOM’s race-baiting strategies:

To Dr. Eastman, I say that it is the denial of my constituents, and all Americans, the right to marry the person that they love is preposterous. To exploit racial and religious differences so you can fund raise for and enforce your specific worldview is preposterous.

But your right to be preposterous should not extend to taking political positions under the guise of a social welfare organization, raising money and campaigning.

During the hearing, an agitated Eastman claimed that NOM’s donors had to be kept hidden because people fear harassment. In fact, some people have been afraid to donate to NOM in fear of being held accountable through business boycotts and other political actions. In other words, NOM’s donors simply don’t have the courage of their convictions and would prefer to campaign against LGBT equality in secret. Watch a clip of Eastman’s response to Blumenauer (via Towleroad):

Just now, the British House of Lords voted to advance the marriage equality bill on second reading by a voice vote. Moments before, the Lords defeated an amendment that would have killed the bill by a vote of 148-390. It now proceeds to the committee mark-up phase, following which it must pass once more in the House of Lords.

During the debate that took place on Monday, Baroness Liz Barker came out as a lesbian publicly for the first time, telling her colleagues, “Many years ago, I had the great good fortune to meet someone. She and I have loved each other ever since.”

The bill passed its final reading in the House of Commons, Britain’s representative body, by a vote of 366-161, having passed its second reading by a vote of 400-175.

Unlike the National Organization for Marriage, the Family Research Council has had no reservations about partnering with the Illinois Family Institute to fight marriage equality in Illinois. In FRC’s Washington Update Monday, Tony Perkins boasted that the marriage bill did not come up for a vote, cheering the tearful announcement by Rep. Greg Harris (D) as an accomplishment:

The LGBT lobby, who assumed their bullying would have the same effect on these legislators as it’s had in other states, were completely blindsided by the churches’ powerful resistance. On Friday, while the Left was preparing for a victory lap, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago), tearfully announced on the last day of the session that he didn’t have the votes to bring the bill to the floor.

For our side, which has had its share of setbacks, it was a reminder of what can be accomplished when we stand together. Illinois voters refused to buy the line that same-sex “marriage” is inevitable — and because of their courage, it wasn’t! Join us in congratulating the Illinois Family Institute and the hundreds of pastors who stood their ground on marriage! It was a victory well-deserved, and more than that, a success story every state can learn from.

Harris has defended his decision not to hold a vote amid criticism from advocates for not forcing lawmakers to voice their position on the record.

But FRC doesn’t seem concerned with why Harris, who is openly gay, might have been upset by his bill’s setback. Indeed, by claiming that the LGBT lobby was engaging in “bullying,” the group is trying to paint opponents of equality as victims of some kind, even though allowing same-sex couples to marry would have no impact on their lives. Promoting and cheering the continued second-class status of the gay community is one of the many reasons both FRC and IFI are classified as hate groups.

Earlier this year, the Republican National Committee issued a report suggesting the party should be more inclusive, but not of LGBT people. Party leaders like Reince Priebus and Jeb Bush have suggested that the GOP continue to oppose marriage equality, but find a sugarcoated way to talk about it. Now a new report from the College Republican National Committee (CRNC) similarly suggests that the party simply not emphasize its opposition to LGBT equality so as to appear more attractive to young voters.

The CRNC conducted a survey that found that 44 percent of young voters believe marriage equality should be legal. It’s unclear if the sample was all Republicans or a more random political sample, but national polling has showed support as high as 81 percent among the same age group. About half of that 44 percent (26 percent of the whole) told the CRNC that opposition to marriage equality was a deal-breaker, even if a candidate agreed with them on many other issues.

Of course, the report does not recommend changing positions on marriage equality within the party. Instead, it suggests that if Republican candidates just keep their opposition to LGBT rights quiet, they might be able to win over young people on other issues:

It is important for Republicans to bear in mind that young voters warmed to President Obama long before his position on gay marriage “evolved,” and that there is no consensus in either party on the issue. Additionally, there is a “middle ground” approach of letting states decide the issue, a position that has been espoused by some prominent Republicans like Marco Rubio. Nonetheless, there is hardly an appetite from this generation to see the GOP crusade against same-sex marriage.

In the short run, as we wait for the Supreme Court rulings on the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8, the best course of action for the party may be to promote the diversity of opinion on the issue within its ranks (after all, for quite some time, former vice president Dick Cheney was to the left of President Obama on same-sex marriage) and to focus on acceptance and support for gay people as separate from the definition of marriage.

Where the Republican Party will run into the most trouble over this issue is when it is not winning on any of the more prominent issues, either – the economy and spending. If a candidate is compelling enough on economic opportunity and spending, they may well be able to overcome a difference of opinion with young voters on same-sex marriage.

To be clear, Sen. Marcio Rubio (R-FL) very much opposes marriage equality — that’s the position he thinks states should take when they decide. It’s not a “middle ground” by any definition of the term. And it seems unlikely that a candidate who opposes marriage equality but simply points to other candidates or party leaders who support it is going to endear any voters. It’s certainly not a tactic any candidate is likely to try anyway.

It seems the Republican Party can only fathom one possible strategy for dealing with the issue of marriage equality (and subsequently any issue related to LGBT people): avoid it. They don’t want to recognize who LGBT people or what they’re experiencing as members of society or what policies would help protect their families. Instead, they just want to pretend that their opposition to equality is a non-issue and hope that young voters simply won’t notice how they continue to campaign and legislate against civil rights.

The National Organization for Marriage’s Ruth Institute held its “It Takes a Village” conference this weekend, coaching college students on how and why they should oppose marriage equality. In past years, this conference has been rife with anti-gay myths, including repeated promotion of ex-gay therapy. One of this year’s notable speakers was Mark Regnerus, whose fraudulent study on parenting has been manipulated by conservatives to claim that children do worse with same-sex parents. Documents that have been uncovered about how the study was conducted show that Regnerus was actually coached about how to talk about his results so that his research would help oppose same-sex marriage, so his cooperation with NOM is telling.

According to a report on the conference from The College Fix, a conservative outlet, Regnerus confirmed his religious biases in his remarks:

Underscoring that, sex has become “the opium of the masses,” that “we are lacking transcendence and sex is a transcendent act,” he said. Ultimately, casual sex is a disappointment, he added.

“Sex doesn’t explain the world, religion does,” he said. “Sex will come up short.”

The comment is revealing, given sex was exactly the tool Regnerus used to arrive at the fraudulent results in his study. He drew conclusions about any parent who ever had a “romantic” same-sex relationship to draw conclusions about all same-sex couples’ parenting, even though only two of the individuals in his study actually were raised by same-sex couples for their entire upbringing. Darren Sherkat, a researcher charged with auditing Regnerus’s study, recently explained that “it failed to take into account normal family effects on well-being, to control for known sources of positive or negative outcomes.”

Conservatives continue to cite the Regnerus study in arguments against marriage equality, but he continues to demonstrate that his research is just as politically motivated as the evidence suggests.

Friday evening was incredibly disappointing for the LGBT advocates who had been anticipating a vote on marriage equality in the Illinois House for months. At the core of the chamber’s failure to call a vote seemed to be miscommunications between the bill’s sponsor Rep. Greg Harris (D), Democratic leadership, and advocates for the bill. Windy City Times publisher Tracy Baim was unequivocal in her critique of the process:

Harris should step down now as chief sponsor of this legislation. He has proven he is tone deaf to the wishes of both the grassroots and leadership of this community. They almost all called for a vote “no matter what.” Instead, Harris chose to give cover to his political colleagues, rather than follow through on his own on-the-record promise to call for a vote by May 31.

Why did a vote matter now? Because for months, no hard count has been possible on who really was for or against this bill. This limbo caused confusion and depleted valuable resources lobbying dozens more representatives than necessary.

Harris said he has promises from certain reps they will vote for the bill this fall, but we have seen how political promises pan out.

Indeed, a week before the end of the session, Harris promised not only a vote, but a successful one.

It seems the chances for the bill are not yet entirely dead. Friday night, House Speaker Michael Madigan (D) — upon whom Baim also cast blame because he “did not flex his [political] muscles” — extended the marriage bill’s deadline for approval until August 31. This means that if Gov. Pat Quinn (D) calls a special session this summer, he could include the marriage equality bill, which he supports. It’s unclear if this will happen or what the bill’s chances would be under such circumstances.

The National Organization for Marriage, reeling from losses in Delaware, Rhode Island, and Minnesota, was quick to gloat about the bill’s demise. Despite not playing a very large role in the state, Brian Brown boasted, “We are gratified that our collective hard work has paid off in this stunning victory.” The Illinois Family Institute, whose hateful rhetoric has dominated the fight, expressed joy over the government’s “retention of sexual complementarity in the legal definition of marriage.” Both groups referenced the African-American community, continuing attempts to “drive a wedge” between LGBT groups and people of color. Despite suggestions to the contrary, both opposition and support for the bill came from diverse groups, so such generalizations are not applicable.

Marriage equality’s failure in Illinois could perhaps offer some timely implications as the Supreme Court weighs its decisions regarding the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8, expected later this month. Marriage equality opponents, led by House Republicans, argued to the Court that the gay community does not deserve protection as a group under the Constitution because they are too politically powerful. As Laurel Ramseyer points out at Pam’s House Blend, the defeat in Illinois serves as a prime example debunking that argument. Indeed, even an openly gay elected official with three openly gay colleagues could not rally the simple majority necessary to call for a vote ensuring that all families be equally protected under the law. The momentum of the past several years should not be construed as victory having already been accomplished, nor should a righteous sense of inevitability be confused with assured success at every step along the way. Hopefully the Supreme Court acknowledges that increasing public support and the need for constitutional protection are not mutually exclusive.

The Illinois House of Representatives adjourned Friday without voting on marriage equality. The Senate passed its version of the bill back on Valentine’s Day, and Gov. Pat Quinn (D) had promised to sign it into law.

As supporters jeered from the gallery, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Greg Harris (D), announced that several colleagues indicated they were not ready to vote for the bill. He suggested they may support the measure in November at a reconvened session.

In recent days, LGBT advocates and Harris had claimed to have the votes needed.

Recent polling showed 50 percent of Illinois voters support marriage equality, while just 29 percent oppose.