The first marriages of same-sex couples in Vermont last Tuesday were just the impetus I needed to finish up our new marriage laws and relationship recognition maps. Like a 5-year-old with a new pack of crayons, I happily filled in states with blue (the color for marriage), green (for New York and D.C., which recognize out-of-state marriages) and yellow (the color of “all-but-the-name” civil unions and domestic partnerships, which grant the same rights and responsibilities as marriage). Even the grey states — which have some sort of “less-than-marriage” relationship recognition for same-sex couples — were satisfying, since adding them meant that there’s almost no region of the country without a state that recognizes our relationships. (Sorry Southerners, but you’ll get there!)

Then, after the burst of satisfaction, there was anxiety. What kind of crazy person could get anxious coloring in a map, you might ask. Well, I’ll tell you who: Me. And I’ll tell you why: The asterisks.

I had to add asterisks to the map to note the two states — Maine and Washington — where recognition granted to same-sex relationships will be up for a popular vote in November. Similar to what happened in California last year, voters in these two states could take back the progress that their legislatures made in the march towards equality. The asterisks mean that two big steps forward could wind up being two big steps back.

So these asterisks on my new map are giving me agita (and will until I’m watching the election results come in on November 3), but they’re also a challenge to each of us. These two elections don’t have to be a repeat of Prop 8. The Maine Civil Liberties Union is part of a coalition of groups fighting to keep marriage in Maine. They’re encouraging supporters of equality everywhere to take a “volunteer vacation” this fall and go to Maine to work on the campaign. Washington Families Standing Together, the coalition of groups (including the ACLU of Washington State) working to retain comprehensive domestic partnerships, is also looking for volunteers support. If you can’t make it to either corner of the country, the campaigns could use your financial support. (While you’re at it, encourage your friends to give as well!)

Losing marriage in California was a huge disappointment for our community, but the progress in Maine and Washington (not to mention Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and Nevada) have helped us regain our footing and realize that we’re still moving forward. Let’s not let our new progress become the next setback. Contact one of the campaigns today and find out what you can do to get involved. I promise you this: On November 3, you’ll be glad you did.

There's been a lot of media coverage of the statement put out by a coalition of LGBT groups advising against a federal same-sex marriage lawsuit, especially in light of just such a lawsuit being filed in California.  We've seen a lot of discussion of the statement and the lawsuit, but not everyone has seen the statement itself.  Here's your chance:

Now that the California Supreme Court has refused to strike down Proposition 8, we need to go back to the voters. Since we lost Proposition 8 just six months ago, and since a ballot initiative to repeal is likely to require a huge investment in time and money, it is tempting to at least try a federal lawsuit first. But it’s a temptation we should resist. It is by no means clear that a federal challenge to Prop. 8 can win now. And an unsuccessful challenge may delay marriage even longer, not only in California but in other states, and seriously damage the rights of LGBT people on many other important issues.

Rather than filing premature lawsuits, we need to talk to our friends, family and neighbors, and help them understand why denial of the freedom to marry is wrong. We need to build a vigorous, aggressive campaign to overturn Prop 8 and restore the freedom to marry in California. This is the moment to convince California and America that we should have the freedom to marry.

History says the odds at the Supreme Court now are not so good.

The history is pretty clear: the U.S. Supreme Court typically does not get too far ahead of either public opinion or the law in the majority of states. For example, few states still had laws requiring racial segregation or outlawing interracial marriage by the time the Court struck those laws down. Most states had already struck down or repealed their own laws against same-sex intimacy when the Supreme Court finally invalidated Texas's law.

Right now, we need to make gains in both public opinion and state law. The current Supreme Court has been taking a pretty narrow view of civil rights and civil liberties. Even the strongest gay rights decision the Court has issued—the Lawrence v. Texas case striking down laws against intimacy for gay couples—explicitly commented that it was not saying anything about formal recognition of same-sex relationships. The arguments in the briefs are not the only thing that influences the Court’s decisions. The climate of receptivity and momentum in the country on these issues matter as well. There is much we can and should do together to strengthen our hand before we put a federal marriage case before the justices.

There is a lot to lose.

There are also serious risks if we go to the Supreme Court and lose, especially if we’ve asked it to set aside state limits on marriage. We could still ask state courts to strike down marriage bans under state constitutions, and we could still ask state legislatures to pass marriage laws. But most state courts and legislatures pay attention to what the U.S. Supreme Court says about constitutional principles of fairness and equality. It will be harder for us to get state courts to strike down laws excluding same-sex couples from marriage (and many from civil unions, too) if the U.S. Supreme Court has said they are okay under the federal constitution (take a look at how much the Connecticut and Iowa Supreme Courts relied on analysis from the U.S. Supreme Court in their marriage decisions).

There is a very significant chance that if we go to the Supreme Court and lose, the Court will say that discrimination against LGBT people is fairly easy to justify, and that same-sex couples can be denied the right to marry based on mistaken, antigay assertions that LGBT people make bad parents. Indeed, we have recently lost marriage cases on that very basis in the state high courts of New York, Maryland, and Washington, and in intermediate appellate courts in Arizona and Indiana. Such a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court could hurt us badly in cases about parenting, schools, and government jobs.

A loss now may make it harder to go to court later, and we may need to. It will take us a lot longer to get a good Supreme Court decision if the Court has to overrule itself. Let's not forget: it took 17 years to undo Bowers v. Hardwick, the 1986 Supreme Court decision that upheld Georgia’s sodomy law. That was fast for the Supreme Court. And during that time, many LGBT Americans lost jobs, lost custody of their children, and suffered other harms because the Bowers decision was taken as a license to discriminate against us.

The limited DOMA challenge filed by Massachusetts couples is less risky.

In 1996, Congress passed a law saying that the federal government would discriminate against the marriages of same-sex couples (the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” or DOMA) by denying them all the protections that the federal government gives to all other validly married couples. As a result, the federal government for five years has been discriminating against the married same-sex couples of Massachusetts. It will, as things now stand, continue to deny equal treatment to same-sex couples that marry in Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and Maine, and to those who married in California in 2008.

There are two ways to get rid of "DOMA": going to court to have the law declared unconstitutional or getting Congress to repeal it (something President Obama has said he supports). These approaches can work together, and we are doing both. We’re working with members of Congress on repeal legislation now. In addition, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) has filed a thoughtfully constructed lawsuit in federal court on behalf of a diverse group of plaintiffs married for years in Massachusetts. These plaintiffs are eligible for a range of federal benefits, applied for those benefits, and were denied following extensive administrative procedures. If that lawsuit succeeds, it should establish a principle that will be fatal to DOMA, and we can bring other lawsuits addressing other federal protections to build on it.

GLAD’s lawsuit challenging DOMA is more modest than a case claiming there is a federal constitutional right to marry. Until DOMA was passed, the federal government deferred to the states' determinations of marital status. DOMA creates a "gay exception" and says the federal government will not honor a state's marriage of same-sex couples. GLAD's legal challenge to DOMA simply asks that the courts tell the federal government to go back to doing what it did before—recognizing all marriages that a state has approved. In contrast, a federal case arguing that it is unconstitutional not to let same-sex couples marry would ask the courts in effect to order that couples be allowed to marry in every state, overthrowing most state marriage laws. That case asks for much bolder action from the courts, and it requires a much bigger development in constitutional law. We think the courts aren’t ready to do that yet.

The bottom line.

A marriage case based on the federal constitution may well not win the right to marry back in California. A loss would likely set back the fight for marriage nationwide, and hurt LGBT parents, employees, and students all over America.

We lost the right to marry in California at the ballot box. That's where we need to win it back. Reversing Prop 8 at the ballot in California will set a powerful political precedent and help change the national climate. We can persuade the hundreds of thousands of fair-minded but still-conflicted voters we need, if we do the work. So let’s get started now.

- Statement issued by the ACLU, Equality Federation, Freedom to Marry, GLAAD, GLAD, Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and NCLR.

Earlier today, the seven justices of the Iowa Supreme Court continued the state’s long history of pioneering civil rights by striking down a state law prohibiting same-sex marriages. In a unanimous decision, the Court declared that it was unconstitutional to bar gay and lesbian couples from marriage and ordered the state to grant same-sex couples the ability to marry.

Students of American history know that this decision is hardly surprising. As the Court noted in its decision, Iowa has long been WAY out in front on civil rights issues, often leading the rest of the country by years and even decades.

In its very first decision in 1839, the Supreme Court of the Territory of Iowa “refused to treat a human being as property to enforce a contract for slavery” and held that the state “must extend equal protection to persons of all races and conditions.” In 1869, the nation’s first female lawyer was admitted in Iowa, decades before U.S. Supreme Court decisions that actually upheld states’ rights to discriminate against women. And in 1873, 91 years before racial discrimination in public accommodations was struck down nationwide, Iowa justices ruled that a woman could not be prevented from entering an all-white dining room based on the color of her skin.

This victory is especially encouraging on the heels of recent legislative victories in Vermont and New Hampshire, where legislatures have passed bills that would legalize same-sex marriage, and developments in Illinois, Wisconsin and Washington, where pending legislation could provide rights for same-sex couples in the form of comprehensive civil unions.

Congratulations to the plaintiffs and justices for their work in bringing marriage equality to the Midwest. Once again, Iowa has set the example that the rest of the country will follow.

Yesterday, the Obama administration reversed years of anti-LGBT Bush administration policy by endorsing a U.N. statement calling for the decriminalization of homosexuality worldwide. Matt Coles, director of the ACLU's LGBT Project, issued the following statement in response.

It is terrific that the Obama administration is joining the United Nations’ resolution calling for an end to laws that make physical intimacy between same-sex couples a crime, and we are hopeful the U.S. will commit to taking a leadership role in ending discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgender people around the world. Many of these laws are no technicality. They are used to put people in prison and sometimes result in people being executed.

That the Bush administration refused to endorse the resolution is pretty unbelievable considering the U.S. Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional to criminalize physical intimacy between consenting adults back in 2003.

We welcome the decision to join this important declaration, and we urge the United States to match its action on human rights abroad with bold commitment to respect and promote human rights at home. We can begin putting an end to discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people by, as the president has proposed, banning job discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and by repealing the section of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that denies federal protections to those same-sex couples who have legally married.