Same-Sex Marriage Update

[MsTinkerbelly]

TODAY: Proposition 8 Day Of Decision Rallies Planned Nationwide

Veteran reporter Rex Wockner has compiled a growing list of rallies (and hopefully, celebrations) to take place around the nation today shortly after the release of the Prop 8 decision. A sampling:
LOS ANGELES: 6 p.m. | West Hollywood Park | 647 N. San Vicente
SAN DIEGO: March: 6 p.m. @ 6th & University | Rally: 7 p.m. @ LGBT Community Center | 3909 Centre St
SAN FRANCISCO: 5 p.m. | Castro & Market
LONG BEACH: 6 p.m. | Bixby Park | Junipero & Cherry @ Broadway
SACRAMENTO: 6 p.m. | Party | K & 21st | In the unlikely event Judge Walker rules against teh gay, there will be a march to the Capitol
SAN JOSE: 6 p.m. | Billy DeFrank Center | 983 the Alameda

[SuperFemme]

we even have a rally here in whoville.
i wish they'd get ON with it already.

[SuperFemme]

omfg

they overturned Prop 8

praise harvey

[AtLast]

we even have a rally here in whoville.
i wish they'd get ON with it already.

I know! Just get the decision out!

[Laerkin]

According to No-on-Prop-8 just minutes ago on Facebook:

Having considered the trial evidence and the arguments of counsel, the court pursuant to FRCP 52(a) finds that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and that its enforcement must be enjoined.!!!!


YES!!!!!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/FF-amp-CL-FINAL

[AtLast]

Its in..... Prop 8 ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The fight will go on, we know this, but this is a BIG victory in the on-going war!!

[SuperFemme]

do NOT turn on Faux News.

savor this moment. how sweet it is.

[Soft*Silver]

I am crying...I am so delighted its been termed unconstitutional to deny us the benefit of marriage!Congrats to your state...

[Cyclopea]

:)

http://msmagazine.com/blog/files/2010/06/Prop81.jpg

[theoddz]

...and all the Mormon money couldn't buy it otherwise!!!! :clap::thumbsup:

~Theo~ :bouquet:

[SuperFemme]

praise harvey.

thank you to the real Jesus.
for the love you meant it to be. http://www.butchfemmeplanet.com/forum/images/smilies/whatchutalkingabout_smile%20%281%29.gif

[Rook]

Sweet Sweet Music to my ears...!!
I think my headache's gone ...
http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii214/amor_en_silencio_77/Pride.jpg

[Manul]

Ultimately, the judge concluded that Proposition 8 "fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. … Because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”]

Praise the California Constitution.

[Cyclopea]

http://canofwhupass.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341ccc3253ef011570bf3c51970b-300wi

Hahahahahaha

[Nawen]

Oh, YES!!!

Gotta go and spread the news in other parts of the world... YES!!!

[Linus]

So now it will go to Appeals and then onwards to the Supreme Court, maybe? Yes? And if it reaches Supreme Court and they say it's unconstitutional... Then finally, DOMA will be killed and it will become federal law?

[Corkey]

He just accepted a stay on behalf of the bigots..

[Manul]

Ultimately, the judge concluded that Proposition 8 "fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. … Because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”]

Praise the California Constitution.

AND:

"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians."

[Mister Bent]

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a293/mrbent/bfd/3424923946_4b5b26b668.jpg

[Linus]

He just accepted a stay on behalf of the bigots..

That was to be expected. Both sides said that whatever the result they were going to appeal. I expect this will be taken right to the Supreme Court itself.

[MsTinkerbelly]

UPDATE (2:23): The American Foundation for Equal Rights presser with Olson/Boies/plaintiffs has started. I will provide notable updates for those of you who can’t watch/are out and about.

Chad Griffin is speaking. He’s discussing principles that inspired the marches in Selma, the Stonewall riots, and other civil rights activism.

UPDATE (2:29): Chief Judge Walker issued a temporary stay:

Defendant-intervenors (“proponents”) have moved to stay the court’s judgment pending appeal. Doc #705. They noticed the motion for October 21, 2010 and moved to shorten time. Doc #706.

The motion to shorten time is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs, plaintiff-intervenor and defendants are DIRECTED to submit their responses to the motion to stay on or before August 6, 2010, at which time the motion will stand submitted without a hearing unless otherwise ordered.

The clerk shall STAY entry of judgment herein until the motion to stay pending appeal, Doc #705, has been decided.

CNN’s legal analyst, Andrew Cohen, says this means things are on hold for the time being, and they will give both sides a moment to make their case on whether marriages should be allowed or not before the next decision.

[Corkey]

That was to be expected. Both sides said that whatever the result they were going to appeal. I expect this will be taken right to the Supreme Court itself.

If DOMA from the Mass ruling doesn't make it first, this still has to through the Appeals of the 9th Circuit Court, but it should then go to the Supreme Court.

[Manul]

Here's a statement from Governor Schwarzenegger:

Governor Schwarzenegger Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Ruling

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today issued the following statement after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker issued a ruling invalidating Proposition 8:

“Judge Walker had the great responsibility of deciding whether Proposition 8 violates the Constitution of the United States. He heard in-depth arguments from both sides on fundamental questions of due process, equal protection and freedom from discrimination. There are strong feelings on both sides of this issue, and I am glad that all viewpoints were respected throughout the proceedings. We should also recognize that there will continue to be different points of view in the wake of this decision.

“For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves. At the same time, it provides an opportunity for all Californians to consider our history of leading the way to the future, and our growing reputation of treating all people and their relationships with equal respect and dignity.

“Today's decision is by no means California's first milestone, nor our last, on America's road to equality and freedom for all people.”

http://www.gov.ca.gov/press-release/15738

[SuperFemme]

Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to
deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows
conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private
moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex
couples. FF 76, 79-80; Romer, 517 US at 634 (“[L]aws of the kind
now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage
imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons
affected.”). Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians
without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
CONCLUSION

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in
singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.
Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than
enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-
sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California
has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and
because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its
constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis,
the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Mormon church `regrets' Calif. gay marriage ruling

Associated Press Writer Brock Vergakis, Associated Press Writer – 16 mins ago
SALT LAKE CITY – The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says it regrets a federal judge's ruling overturning a ban on gay marriage in California.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker made his ruling Wednesday in a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed the voter-approved ban, known as Proposition 8, violated their civil rights.

In 2008, church leaders urged Mormons to give their time and money to support Proposition 8, which passed with 52 percent of the vote.

Church members were among the campaign's most vigorous volunteers and by some estimates contributed tens of millions of dollars to the effort. In a statement, the church said the decision reopens a vigorous debate about over the right of the people to define marriage.

[MsTinkerbelly]

UPDATE (2:40): Back to the presser: Olson is at the press conference praising Walker for presiding with “meticulous care, sensitivity, with concern for the rights of every party in that courtroom, listening to the evidence.” Questions coming.

UPDATE (2:50): WSJ asks why they can win at the SCOTUS given the conservative nature. Boies makes a joke about Bush v. Gore/split of justices. Goes onto note that the fundamental right to marry is established… this case does not ask the court to establish a new right (Adam: see the excerpt I pasted in from this decision above).

Boies: We challenged this case based on three issues. Fundamental right to marry? Already established. Does fundamental right to marry help children? No dispute. And does depriving gays and lesbians the right to marry establish any compelling government interest? We know that not to be true.

UPDATE (2:56): Notable on the stay issue:

Question: Reports that a couple is trying to be married right now at City Hall. What’s the likelihood that marriages can occur given the stay, and will the plaintiffs go get married?

Olson: Judge stayed effect of his decision until he can hear our side on the stay. The case is going to go up to the Court of Appeals. We will fight hard so the constitutional rights vindicated by the 138-page, careful, analytical opinion will be brought to fruition as soon as possible. We will say to the Court of Appeals that if there is going to be any delay at all, it should be exremely short. We need an appellate court decision right away, and a Supreme Court decision right away… we’re going to fight to vindicate these rights as quickly as we possibly can.

Question: Did Judge rule on suspect class?

Boies: Yes. Judge ruled that even if it was not a suspect class, and strict scrutiny was not required, no rational basis for depriving gay couples of the right to marry. Yes, judge held it was a suspect class, but did so under even the most deferential standard of review.

Question: Anything that will come out of this decision that will affect professional gay advocacy groups?

Griffin: We would not be here today without for the advocates over the past decades.

Question: On impact generally

Olson: This trial has helped to educate the people of this state and people of the US. People of the US who will read this opinion and teach it in law schools and civics classes will begin to appreciate the harm this has done to our citizenry. Not giving advice to advocacy groups, but we feel very good about the fact that people watching this trial have said “oh, that’s what it’s all about. Why would we withhold the opportunity for loving couples to be married?”

Question: On witnesses and trial generally

Olson: Judge pointed out that two of the witnesses our opponents put on ended up agreeing with most of the propositions advanced by the plaintiffs… judge carefully examined interests and evidence on each side of the case… placed very little value on the evidence brought by proponents of Proposition 8… even found that one witness was not qualified to testify as an expert witness. Very careful examination of not just the legal but factual issues as well.

UPDATE (3:08): Question: NOM says this ruling jeopardizes the marriage laws of 45 states. How would you respond?

Boies: This decision grants rights to be married. As the court held, there is no harm to anyone’s rights as a result of this decision. In fact, it increases the stability and value of marriage for our society. No legitimate interest of the state in discriminating against a group of our citizens. That’s what even the defendant’s witnesses admitted, and that’s what the judge found. Everyone oughta read this opinion. It’s long but clear and sets the facts forth that everyone in this country might think a bout. I’d challenge anyone putting out those kinds of press releases (speaking to NOM) to read this opinion and tell me what they disagree with and what they have left to say. Shouldn’t just ignore this opinion, but take a look at this opinion.

The press conference has now concluded. Olson and Boies will fly to LA to speak at a rally there.

[Soon]

UPDATE (2:02 PST): Reading through the decision, Walker is quoting the Loving v. Virginia and Griswold v. Connecticut decisions in ruling that the freedom to marry is protected under the Due Process clause, and generally goes on at length to discuss how restrictions with regard to race have been swept away, and and for a woman, “a woman’s legal and economic identity be subsumed by her husband’s upon marriage under the doctrine of coverture; this once-unquestioned aspect of marriage now is regarded as antithetical to the notion of marriage as a union of equals.”

He goes onto write:

The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. FF 21. Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.

The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household. FF 19-20, 34-35. Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage. FF 33. Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law. FF 48. Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.
[...]

Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex marriage” would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.

[AtLast]

do NOT turn on Faux News.

savor this moment. how sweet it is.

Oh, what a good point to make!! This is one time, I really want to be narrow minded and only hear/watch progressive program reports and analysis!

[SuperFemme]

we are headed to a rally in a few hours.

Help!

I need sign ideas.

[Toughy]

Well...........it's certainly an interesting read......damn.....

Judge Walker certainly made it absolutely clear Prop 8 is unconstitutional (due process and equal protection). He found no merit in anything about Prop 8.

CONCLUSION
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and
because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its
constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis,the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Shepard Smith on Fake News is going to do a segment now.

[Corkey]

we are headed to a rally in a few hours.

Help!

I need sign ideas.

Equal Rights = Equal Justice

[Toughy]

I am crying...I am so delighted its been termed unconstitutional to deny us the benefit of marriage!Congrats to your state...

It's not really about CA. This is the Federal Courts. Should the 9th Circuit up hold Judge Walker's ruling and then SCOTUS upholds it, same-sex marriage will be legal in all 50 states.

[Soon]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hvIsVltJIRY/Sl5DBTnIPmI/AAAAAAAAAag/Y5wAs2luIgA/s1600/shirt-prop-8-larimie.jpg

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTbV-zEHFa3_HCosVRMp6QJrfI5i65biyfsjdu560efE2hW0g8&t=1&usg=__8AzfsEAO6Yh_PkxA6UHkbhHipAE=


http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT8FZ5kJl74MUUuZfM77ReDiirZo-JJZJALoo2REj8TNznb0yY&t=1&usg=__oN4I5shuHBu54pzMdegF9FHDznc=


http://images3.cpcache.com/product/politics+-+government-politics-marriage+equality/390104213v2_225x225_Front.jpg


http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQiyWPdKATPsnC_eNdVxOlXf__fiD4pq tuuhPxqBAqNd6cHVoA&t=1&usg=__uyD74pPdhQf8_yvxUmF74yMVDhU=

http://speakequal.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/gay-marriage.jpg

[Gayla]

we are headed to a rally in a few hours.

Help!

I need sign ideas.

All I can come up with is -

"You Can't Ban Love" and/or
"You Can't Ban Family"

[Cyclopea]

"Love Triumphs Over H8te"

:LGBTQFlag:

[Cyclopea]

AN ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSITION 8 RULING

ARI EZRA WALDMAN

Judge Walker's decision runs 138 pages. It is well-reasoned, exhaustively cited and drafted with one eye on its Main Street ramifications and another eye on the judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In other words, this Order establishes a comprehensive factual record for review. And that, as any appellate lawyer knows, is going to be the source of our salvation or the harbinger of our defeat.

When the decision of a trial judge like Judge Walker goes up on appeal, his legal conclusions are reviewed by the appellate court de novo, or "from the beginning." That means that Judge Walker can conclude that Prop 8 violated the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process clause for this or that reason, but appellate judges are not bound by his conclusions. However, Judge Walker's factual findings -- such as the effect of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts or statistics on thriving children of same-sex couples -- must be accepted by the appellate court unless they are "clearly erroneous." A clearly erroneous finding of fact is looking up at the sky, seeing it is blue and having a weatherman tell you it's blue, but concluding that the sky is, indeed, red. We do this because it was Judge Walker who heard the evidence and evaluated the trustworthiness of the witnesses with his own two eyes.

Judge Walker's factual findings are breathtaking, if only for their sheer depth. From page 54 to 109, Judge Walker lays out his findings, eviscerates the testimony of anti-marriage equality experts and emphasizes the long list of statements where Prop 8 opponents conceded their factual case. In my years as an appellate litigator, I have never seen a factual record as detailed and well-documented as this. My compliments to Judge Walker and his clerks.

Let me highlight a few striking points here:

1. This case is about civil marriage. Religious belief has no place here.

Right off the bat, Judge Walker found that "[m]arriage in the United States has always been a civil matter" (p. 60, para. 19). The pen is indeed mightier than the sword. We watched with dismay, anger and frustration as Prop 8 supporters screamed that marriage equality laws would forces churches and synagogues to cosecrate relationships contrary to their liturgy. In one line, Judge Walker does away with this nonsense. What we are dealing with here, he states, is civil marriage. After all, it is the "[c]ivil authorities [who] may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter to leave a civil marriage." (p. 60, para 19). The supremacy of civil marriage takes this conversation out of the church and onto the town square.

2. Marriage is a state of commitment, not a construct in which to have children.

Just as important is Judge Walker's findings about the nature of marriage. "Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple's choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents" (p. 67, para. 34). Absent from this definition, based on extensive citations to evidence offered at trial, is marriage based on procreation or gender-specific roles. A marriage is a partnership based on deeply held emotional love and, as an institution, channels benefits to the married couple, their dependents and society at large. What's more, each of those benefits -- facilitating order, creating a realm of intimacy, creating stable households, providing children with support structures, assigning caregivers, facilitating property ownership and incentivizing healthy behaviors -- exists irrespective of the gender and sexual orientation of the married couple (pp 67-71).

3. Same-sex couples are just like opposite-sex couples.

The entree to these appetizers came later. Judge Walker found that "[s]ame-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love to do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex" (p. 77, para. 48).

And on the seventh day, he rested.

Seriously, though, this profound description of equality is at the heart of the marriage equality movement. Judge Walker cites Prop 8 supporters' admissions at trial that gay partnerships are loving and commitment and that the capacity to commit and love "does not depend on the individual's sexual orientation" (p. 77, para. 48(d)). We are all the same and we all deserve to be treated as such.

4. Domestic partnerships insufficiently recognize those relationships.

Since marriage is not merely an economic union, or a procreative one, for that matter, domestic partnerships that assign certain economic benefits of marriage to nonmarried cohabitants is a separate, unequal and insufficient substitute. "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States" (p. 80, para. 52).

Judge Walker recognizes that we do not want to marry the loves of our lives for the joint tax return or the propsect of doubling our wardrobes. That might be part of it, but it's not the whole story. Citing expert testimony about the cultural importance tied to marriage, Judge Walker finds that marriage is greater than the sum of the economic rights associated with it. And, since same-sex couples are no different in their love and commitment than opposite-sex couples, there seems to be no reason to exclude them from this institution.

In the end, it is hard to accept these facts and not conclude as Judge Walker did. Nothing here is clearly erroneous and any appellate court will be hard-pressed to upset any of these factual findings.

[UofMfan]

Despite the favorable ruling for same-sex couples, gay marriage will not be allowed to resume immediately. Judge Walker said he wants to decide whether his order should be suspended while the proponents of the ban pursue their appeal in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

I hope he chooses to let them resume immediately.

[Rook]

I kind of like a BumperSticker I saw on the way home today

"When Religion Rules the world, we'll call it the Dark Ages"

[MsTinkerbelly]

Analyzing the Prop 8 WIN: A Few Large Points
(I want to introduce my husband, Brian Devine. He’s an attorney that practices civil litigation attorney in San Francisco. We were married back in September 2008, when marriage was legal. We are both hopeful that we’ll get to attend many more weddings. – Brian Leubitz)

By Brian Devine

Judge Vaughn Walker issued a decision today overturning Proposition 8, finding that it violates both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection rights in the United States Constitution. Here’s a full copy of the 138-page decision.

Most of the decision (the first 109 pages) is the “factual findings.” This is crucial, and here’s why. On appeal, Judge Walker’s conclusions of law are basically irrelevant. Questions of law are decided fresh on appeal, and the trial court’s thoughts on the law are entitled to no deference. On the other hand, only a trial court can make factual findings. A Court of Appeal must give great deference to the factual findings of the trial court, especially when those findings are based on the credibility of witness testimony. Judge Walker knows this. He knows that his primary role in this case is to weigh the credibility of the evidence that was presented at trial and apply the facts that were proven to the law. But the law–unlike the facts–ultimately will be decided by nine Justices at a higher pay grade. Consequently, we should be grateful to Judge Walker for carefully and diligently going through the facts of the case, creating a detailed and compelling record for the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
In a big victory for marriage equality, Judge Walker found that the “strict scrutiny” test applies to the Due Process analysis. As its name implies, this is the most stringent of the tests that can be used to determine if a law satisfies the Due Process Clause. To satisfy “strict scrutiny,” the State must show that the law is “narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest.” On the other hand, the most relaxed standard–and the one that the anti-equality crowd argued should apply–is “rational basis review.” Under “rational basis review,” the Court will uphold a discriminatory law if the State has any rational reason for having the law. Judge Walker found that the “strict scrutiny” test applies instead of the “rational basis” test because marriage is a fundamental right. When the State takes away a fundamental right, it must have a compelling reason to do so. But going even further, Judge Walker found that even if the Prop 8 proponents were right and the “rational basis” test should apply, Prop 8 still does not pass muster. Finding that Prop 8 does not even pass the “rational basis” test, Judge Walker easily found that it could not pass the compelling interest requirement of strict scrutiny.

Turning to the Equal Protection claim, Judge Walker’s analysis is essentially the same as for Due Process. First, he found it unnecessary for the Court to determine which of the three tests (rational basis, intermediate review, or strict scrutiny) should be used to conduct the Equal Proection analysis because Prop 8 cannot satisfy rational basis review, the most relaxed of these standards. Although Judge Walker finds that the evidence shows that “strict scrutiny” probably applies, he found that he did not need to reach that decision. Second, Judge Walker goes on to show in detail why each of the arguments advanced by the Intervenors fails to provide a rational basis for Proposition 8:

•Intervenors argue that maintaining the traditional notions of marriage being between a man and a woman is a rational reason for Prop 8. Judge Walker responds by citing a 1970 U.S. Supreme Court case and says: “Tradition alone, however, cannot form a rational basis for a law.” He went on to say:
Instead, the evidence shows that the tradition of gender restrictions arose when spouses were legally required to adhere to specific gender roles. California has eliminated all legally mandated gender roles except the requirement that a marriage consist of one man and one woman. Proposition 8 thus enshrines in the California Constitution a gender restriction that the evidence shows to be nothing more than an artifact of a foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life.

•Intervenors also argued that because same-sex marriage is such a sweeping social change, California has a rational basis to implement this change incrementally. In other words, it should be allowed to first offer domestic partnerships before marriage. Judge Walker rejected this argument, finding that “The process of allowing same-sex couples to marry is straightforward, and no evidence suggests that the state needs any significant lead time to ntegrate same-sex couples into marriage.
•Losing touch with reality, Intervenors’ next absurd argument is that the state has a rational basis to reserve marriage for opposite-sex couples because they’re better parents and the state should promote procreation within an opposite-sex marriage. Judge Walker easily dismisses this drivel by finding that the evidence proves: “(1) same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents are of equal quality, and (2) Proposition 8 does not make it more likely that opposite-sex couples will marry and raise offspring biologically related to both parents.
•Going further afield into crazyland, Intervenors next argue that the state has a rational basis in protecting bigots rights to take away rights from people they don’t like. Holding in his laughter, Walker responds: “Proposition 8 is not rationally related to an interest in protecting the rights of those opposed to same-sex couples because, as a matter of law, Proposition 8 does not affect the rights of those opposed to homosexuality or to marriage for couples of the same sex.” Can we get a Hallelujah!
•Intervenors next argue that there’s a rational basis in calling different things by different names. They argue that it would be an administrative burden to have the same name for both opposite and same-sex unions. And imagine the chaos that would ensue if someone said that they were married and you later discovered they were a GAY! Judge Walker responds: “Proposition 8 actually creates an administrative burden on California because California must maintain a parallel institution for same-sex couples to provide the equivalent rights and benefits afforded to married couples.”
After rejecting each of the Intervenor’s arguments as to why a rational basis exists for Prop 8, Judge Walker went on to find that in the absence of a rational basis, it is safe to assume that Prop 8 exists because some people just don’t like gays and lesbians:

In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief hat a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is ot a proper basis on which to legislate.

One quote from the decision that really sums up the feelings of many who believe in equality is:

That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as “fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” (Quoting a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court case)

The long and well-reasoned decision concludes with this short and sweet determination that the couples who challenged Proposition 8 are correct:

REMEDIES

Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result,see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.

Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8.

The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and defendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.

IT IS SO ORDERED.”

The elephant in the room is now the question of a stay. Yesterday, in anticipation of losing, the anti-equality Intervenors filed a motion asking the Court to stay its decision pending appeal. In other words, they argue that since an appeal is inevitable, the Judge should not enforce his ruling until after the inevitable appeal is exhausted. Judge Walker has not yet ruled on that motion. Even if Judge Walker denies the stay, the Intervenors will ask the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal to issue an immediate stay of the decision. In a case like this, a stay is very likely. It remains to be seen whether Judge Walker will grant the stay or if that issue will be decided by the Ninth Circuit.

*UPDATE* CNN is reporting that Judge Walker issued a stay. But there is no Stay Order in the Court’s docket as of this writing, only the motion by the Intervenors. I suspect CNN may have gotten ahead of itself and is publishing unconfirmed rumors. That being said, I think a stay is likely at some point (probably by the Ninth Circuit.)

*UPDATE* The Court just entered an Order shortening time for Intervenors’ motion to stay to be heard. Plaintiffs’ must file their opposition to the Intervenor’s motion to stay Friday, August 6th. The Court will decide the motion on the papers without a hearing. I suspect an order will issue very shortly after the opposition is filed, probably by Monday or Tuesday. In the interim (i.e. in the next few days until the Court rules on the Motion to Stay), the entry of the Judgment is temporarily stayed


Bolded is the part I found mst interesting....

[Cyclopea]

I kind of like a BumperSticker I saw on the way home today

"When Religion Rules the world, we'll call it the Dark Ages"

I like the one that says something like:

"A recent California vote found that there is a 52% chance you're an idiot"

:giggle:

[iamkeri1]

I am so happy for all you lovely Californians!!!!!!!

I want to be happy for all of us in the USA. May this decision soon be supported at the supreme court (US) level so that we all are free.

I will be there with you in spirit waving my freak flag high.
Smooches,
Keri

:cheer::happyjump::dance2::ellyphanty::ellyphanty: :ellyphanty::flyingpig::rose::LGBTQFlag::fireworks :

[Corkey]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/04/decide-gay-marriage-judge-ruling-proposition-decision/

Go vote and show Faux nuts that we support the decision.

[Soon]

tjv_AMI8H0M&feature=player_embedded

[Corkey]

Just found out you can vote often.......clickety click........Againnnnnn!

[Soon]

How Will the Supreme Court Rule on Same-Sex Marriage?
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/how-will-the-supreme-cour_b_671096.html)
Adam Winkler
Professor at UCLA School of Law



Wednesday's landmark decision by a federal court that California's ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution begins to pave the way for an eventual Supreme Court decision on marriage equality. How will the Supreme Court rule?

When the California case was first filed by the all-star legal team of Ted Olson -- who argued Bush v. Gore for George W. Bush and then became his Solicitor General -- and David Boies -- who, ironically, represented Al Gore in the disputed presidential contest -- the leading gay rights organizations, joined by the ACLU, came out against the lawsuit. They shared Olson and Boies's goal of securing marriage equality, of course, but they feared what the conservative Roberts Court might do. A strong Supreme Court decision against gay marriage would create a precedent that would take decades to undo. With our society moving generally in the direction of more tolerance for gays and lesbians, activists wanted to wait a few more years before bringing a case to the high court.

But gay rights activists may have been too pessimistic about the current Supreme Court. It's true that the Roberts Court is conservative and that several Justices are unlikely to be open-minded about same-sex marriage, including the four most right-leaning Justices: Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. On the other side of the bench, there are four Justices likely to be favorable to Olson and Boies's argument that the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples violates the Constitution: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan (assuming she is confirmed).

As usual in the Supreme Court these days, the swing vote belongs to Anthony Kennedy. And there are several reasons to believe that Kennedy, though conservative on many issues, will vote with the liberals on this one. The Supreme Court has issued two major decisions dealing with gay rights over the past 15 years. Both decisions came out strongly in favor of gay rights -- and both were written by Justice Kennedy.

In one of those decisions, Lawrence v. Texas, which held that bans on consensual sexual activity among same-sex partners were unconstitutional, Kennedy wrote that "our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage" and other "family relationships." "These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by" the Constitution. "Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes," Kennedy wrote, "just as heterosexual persons do."

These words suggest Justice Kennedy believes that gays and lesbians should have the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals. Of course, no right that heterosexuals enjoy is denied more often to gays and lesbians than marriage.

Justice Kennedy is also known to be the Supreme Court Justice most likely to vote in favor of expansive interpretations of individual rights. He's a libertarian, which means he almost always sides with the individual against the government. This has led him to vote in ways that liberals love and conservatives hate -- such as his vote to affirm Roe v. Wade -- and vice-versa -- such as his vote against government regulation of corporate speech. But it bodes well for the liberals in the same-sex marriage case.

Of course, no one can really predict what the Supreme Court will do. The same-sex marriage case will take years to reach the high court and, in the meantime, there may be turnover among the Justices. But so long as the question of marriage equality turns on Justice Kennedy's vote, Olson and Boies -- and those in the gay and lesbian community who are depending on them to win this case -- are in good hands.

[atomiczombie]

Just found out you can vote often.......clickety click........Againnnnnn!

Voting...voting...voting..... :thumbsup:

[Gayla]

"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples," Walker wrote.

[betenoire]

Congratulations, California.

I know it feels shitty that you all are having to do this state by state, but we had to do it province by province and I promise it works. I hate that it's taking this long, believe me. But you'll all get there.

Edited to add: The funniest comment I've read on the subject so far is "Somewhere in Alaska Sarah Palin is angrily reading the wrong words off of her hand."

[SuperFemme]

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs270.snc4/39847_1340234231230_1392406251_30833119_3950903_n. jpg

san luis obispo, ca.

we'll be on KSBY news at ten or eleven tonight, because I yelled "interview a family for gods sake"....and they did. Us. It was mostly our 17 year old daughter saying how happy today is, and when asked what she has to say to the people who feel sorry for her for having two moms? She said she feels sorry that they don't have the kind of love our family does: unconditional.

sigh.

[blackboot]

I just can't stop smiling. This is such a happy day.

[Nat]

:) This Texan has a little more hope again finally. I was in Cali when Prop 8 happened. You know what sucks? Working with people who voted against your rights, your relationship, your existence. I just so wish this could go to the Supreme Court at some point and we could have equal rights all over the damn place.

A girl can dream anyway.

[SuperFemme]

:) This Texan has a little more hope again finally. I was in Cali when Prop 8 happened. You know what sucks? Working with people who voted against your rights, your relationship, your existence. I just so wish this could go to the Supreme Court at some point and we could have equal rights all over the damn place.

A girl can dream anyway.

You don't have to wish.

This was a Federal Ruling, and after they appeal in the 9th Circuit Court, they will head to the SCOTUS.

The language of Judge Walkers ruling is really a good foundation that paves the way there.

[Soft*Silver]

I wish we could watch you on TV...maybe someone can youtube it for all of us?

[Jess]

All I can come up with is -

"You Can't Ban Love" and/or
"You Can't Ban Family"

or mebbe something retro like..

if this ban's a-rockin.... :dance2::dance2::dance2:

heh :rofl:

[MysticOceansFL]

Prop 8 was just voted on in cali and it might go all the way up to the supreme courts for ruling!!!!

[Gayla]

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs270.snc4/39847_1340234231230_1392406251_30833119_3950903_n. jpg

san luis obispo, ca.

we'll be on KSBY news at ten or eleven tonight, because I yelled "interview a family for gods sake"....and they did. Us. It was mostly our 17 year old daughter saying how happy today is, and when asked what she has to say to the people who feel sorry for her for having two moms? She said she feels sorry that they don't have the kind of love our family does: unconditional.

sigh.

I tried to watch the stream but I kept getting distracted by our news and I must have missed it. :(

[Gayla]

Prop 8 was just voted on in cali and it might go all the way up to the supreme courts for ruling!!!!

Huh?


_________

[AtLast]

California Prop 8 opinion

Full text of decision link: http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/08/04/Perry%20Trial%20Decision.pdf--------------------

Article about opinion- from HOME / jurisprudence : The law, lawyers, and the court.

A Brilliant Ruling: Judge Walker's decision to overturn Prop 8 is factual, well-reasoned, and powerful.
By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Wednesday, Aug. 4, 2010, at 9:27 PM ET

Judge Walker ruled Prop 8 unconstitutionalJudge Vaughn R. Walker is not Anthony Kennedy. But when the chips are down, he certainly knows how to write like him. I count—in his opinion today—seven citations to Justice Kennedy's 1996 opinion in Romer v. Evans (striking down an anti-gay Colorado ballot initiative) and eight citations to his 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas (striking down Texas' gay-sodomy law). In a stunning decision this afternoon, finding California's Proposition 8 ballot initiative banning gay marriage unconstitutional, Walker trod heavily on the path Kennedy has blazed on gay rights: "[I]t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse," quotes Walker. "'[M]oral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest,' has never been a rational basis for legislation," cites Walker. "Animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate," Walker notes, with a jerk of the thumb at Kennedy.

Kennedy? Hot sauce to go with those words?

But for all the lofty language about freedom and morality, nobody can fairly accuse Judge Walker of putting together an insubstantial or unsubstantiated opinion today. Indeed, the whole point of this legal exercise—the lengthy trial, the spectacularly detailed finding of facts (80 of them! with subheadings!)—was to pit expert against expert, science against science, and fact against prejudice.

It's hard to read Judge Walker's opinion without sensing that what really won out today was science, methodology, and hard work. Had the proponents of Prop 8 made even a minimal effort to put on a case, to track down real experts, to do more than try to assert their way to legal victory, this would have been a closer case. But faced with one team that mounted a serious effort and another team that did little more than fire up their big, gay boogeyman screensaver for two straight weeks, it wasn't much of a fight. Judge Walker scolds them at the outset for promising in their trial brief to prove that same-sex marriage would "effect some twenty-three harmful consequences" and then putting on almost no case.

Walker notes that the plaintiffs presented eight lay witnesses and nine expert witnesses, including historians, economists, psychologists, and a political scientist. Walker lays out their testimony in detail. Then he turns to the proponents' tactical decision to withdraw several of their witnesses, claiming "extreme concern about their personal safety" and unwillingness to testify if there were to be "recording of any sort." Even when it was determined that there would be no recording, counsel declined to call them. They were left with two trial witnesses, one of whom, David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values, the judge found "lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony and, in any event, failed to provide cogent testimony in support of proponent's factual assertions." Blankenhorn's credentials, methodology, lack of peer-reviewed studies, and general shiftiness on cross examination didn't impress Walker. And once he was done with Blankenhorn, he turned to the only other witness—Kenneth P. Miller—who testified only to the limited question of the plaintiffs' political power. Walker wasn't much more impressed by Miller, giving his opinions "little weight."

Then come the elaborate "findings of fact"—and recall that appellate courts must defer far more to a judge's findings of fact than conclusions of law. Here is where Judge Walker knits together the trial evidence, to the data, to the nerves at the very base of Justice Kennedy's brain. Among his most notable determinations of fact, Walker finds: states have long discriminated in matters of who can marry; marital status affects immigration, citizenship, tax policy, property and inheritance rules, and benefits programs; that individuals do not choose their own sexual orientation; California law encourages gay couples to become parents; domestic partnership is a second-class legal status; permitting same-sex couples to marry does not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, or otherwise screw around. He found that it benefits the children of gay parents to have them be married and that the gender of a child's parent is not a factor in a child's adjustment. He found that Prop 8 puts the force of law behind a social stigma and that the entirety of the Prop 8 campaign relied on instilling fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay. (Brand-new data show that the needle only really moved in favor of the Prop 8 camp when parents of young children came out in force against gay marriage in the 11th hour of the campaign.) He found that stereotypes targeting gays and lesbians have resulted in terrible disadvantages for them and that the Prop 8 campaign traded on those stereotypes.

And then Walker turned to his conclusions of law, finding that under both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Is that the end of it? Oh, no. Judge Walker is already being flayed alive for the breadth and boldness of his decision. The appeals road will be long and nasty. Walker has temporarily stayed the ruling pending argument on a stay. (Rick Hasen argues it may be wise for him to stay the order pending appeal for tactical reasons.) Any way you look at it, today's decision was written for a court of one—Kennedy—the man who has written most eloquently about dignity and freedom and the right to determine one's own humanity. The real triumph of Perry v. Schwarzenegger may be that it talks in the very loftiest terms about matters rooted in logic, science, money, social psychology, and fact.
http://www.slate.com/id/2262766/
__________________

I posted this in the Breaking News thread.. thought I'd post it here, too. I'm feeling good about how Walker's opinion is getting good peer reviews. seems this is way important for all the appeals that will begin.

[AtLast]

Congratulations, California.

I know it feels shitty that you all are having to do this state by state, but we had to do it province by province and I promise it works. I hate that it's taking this long, believe me. But you'll all get there.

Edited to add: The funniest comment I've read on the subject so far is "Somewhere in Alaska Sarah Palin is angrily reading the wrong words off of her hand."

This is priceless!!

It sure is a great day here in CA!!! WOOT!!!

[Manul]

I have to love this headline from USAToday (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2010/08/prop-8-proposition-8-gay-marriage-judge-walker-/1).

Prop 8 judge to religious believers: It's not about you

Included in the article:

You could summarize it pretty quickly, Walker seems to be saying, "'Believers, it's not about you."

The ruling says:

Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.

Walker also writes,

Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples. Prior to Proposition 8, no religious group was required to recognize marriage for same-sex couples.

He cites the California constitution that...

[A]ffording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.

Walker examines about how several major religious groups -- Catholics, Mormons, conservative evangelicals such as the South Baptist Convention, Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod -- condemn either homosexual identity or behavior or both, citing documents from the Vatican to denominational resolutions.

But he spells out in all capital letters in the decision:

A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION...

California's obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to "mandate [its] own moral code."



I'm sure those with strong fundamentalist religious feelings won't see the logic of the Judge, but it's a matter of equality under the Constitution, not about religion.

[Soon]

AldAygUkHV8&feature=player_embedded#!

[Linus]

I have to love this headline from USAToday (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2010/08/prop-8-proposition-8-gay-marriage-judge-walker-/1).

Prop 8 judge to religious believers: It's not about you

Included in the article:



I'm sure those with strong fundamentalist religious feelings won't see the logic of the Judge, but it's a matter of equality under the Constitution, not about religion.


Geez. Now all you need is a clause that says that Churches won't be forced to perform the marriages if the congregation doesn't support it and y'all will sound like a bunch of Canadians! :blink: :canadian:

[Soon]

cu56T_AirsM&feature=player_embedded

[Soon]

In deciding the case, Walker offered a variety of findings that may be as important as the ruling itself. Among them were the following:




"Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person's identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents' assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence."


"Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation."

"Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex."

"Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."

"Same-sex couples receive the same tangible and intangible benefits from marriage that opposite-sex couples receive."

"The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."

"Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages."



Perhaps the most important political finding that Walker made was his conclusion that the fact that Prop 8 passed as a voter initiative was irrelevant as "fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/04/prop-8-overturned-gay-mar_n_671018.html

[Manul]

Geez. Now all you need is a clause that says that Churches won't be forced to perform the marriages if the congregation doesn't support it and y'all will sound like a bunch of Canadians! :blink: :canadian:


I have no doubt our government will protect those religious institutions that insist they are superior to all others.

Our current president supports a separate but equal (civil unions) for gay Americans, he does not support equal marriage. His basis for this is of course, his religious beliefs.

What does this say about those religious insitutions that do support and perform equal marriages? And more important, what does it say about a President who has sworn to uphold the US Consitution when he denies equal rights to Americans based on his religious beliefs?

[Soon]

I have no doubt our government will protect those religious institutions that insist they are superior to all others.

Our current president supports a separate but equal (civil unions) for gay Americans, he does not support equal marriage. His basis for this is of course, his religious beliefs.

What does this say about those religious insitutions that do support and perform equal marriages? And more important, what does it say about a President who has sworn to uphold the US Consitution when he denies equal rights to Americans based on his religious beliefs?

At one time, as Senator, Obama did explicitly support marriage equality but then flipped his position to only supporting civil unions.

I'll go see if I can find the quote.

ETA (correction): It was in his race for Senator that he voiced his support for same sex marriage.

[Soon]

According to the Windy City Times, during the 1996 race for the Illinois State Senate, President-Elect Barack Obama gave statements that expressed an "unequivocal support for gay marriage."


From the WCT's press release:

President-elect Obama's answer to a 1996 Outlines newspaper question on marriage was: "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." There was no use of the phrase "civil unions". [Outlines purchased Windy City Times in 2000 and merged companies.]

This answer is among those included in this week's Windy City Times feature on Obama's evolving position on gay marriage. Windy City Times also includes his answers to the candidate questionnaire of IMPACT, at one time a gay political action committee in Illinois. In that survey he also stated his support of same-sex marriage.

During the final weeks of the presidential campaign last fall, several media outlets contacted Windy City Times because of an old internet story from the 1996 Illinois state Senate race. In that campaign, Outlines newspaper reported that 13th District candidate Barack Obama supported gay marriage. Reporters wanted to know what exactly Obama had said.

Outlines summarized the results in that 1996 article by Trudy Ring, but did not list exact answers to questions. In that article Outlines did note that Obama was a supporter of same-sex marriage and that article was never challenged or corrected by Obama. Just recently, the original Outlines and IMPACT surveys were found in the newspaper's archives.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/13/obama-once-supported-same_n_157656.html

[Manul]

At one time, as Senator, Obama did explicitly support marriage equality but then flipped his position to only supporting civil unions.

I'll go see if I can find the quote.

ETA (correction): It was in his race for Senator that he voiced his support for same sex marriage.

According to the Windy City Times, during the 1996 race for the Illinois State Senate, President-Elect Barack Obama gave statements that expressed an "unequivocal support for gay marriage."




And this morning on MSNBC, David Axelrod reiterated the President's support for separate but equal civil unions and not equal marriage.

I'd like to ask the President to support the US Constitution which includes the 14th amendment. His religious beliefs do not trump my consitutional rights.

[Soon]

I found this poster's comment on HuffPo and wanted to know what you think:

DCmykl 4 hours ago (6:36 AM)

Here's something to consider. Remember laughing when you heard about the Republicans wanting to repeal the 14th Amendment? Immigration, Gay marriage, womens' reproductive rights, and more all intersect at the 14th Ammendment.

The attack on the 14th Ammendment has nothing to do with immigration. That's a smoke screen designed to keep attention off the real agenda.

Section 1. of the 14th Amendment contains among other things this language: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This includes what are commonly known as the "due process" and "equal protection" clauses of the Constitution. These are FUNDAMENTALS.

My suspicion is the Republicans are more interested in getting rid of the "due process" and "Equal Protection" clauses than "anchor babies," and hope to do so while the public is distracted by the illegal immigration issue.

By getting rid of these cornerstones of civil rights they eliminate Roe v. Wade, Gay Marriage and everything else they hate. In the past three days 90 of the 198 Republicans in the House – 45-percent – have signed on as co-sponsors of a bill to repeal the 14th Amendment. This is not something to be taken lightly. We need to prepare for a major fight.

[Soon]

And this morning on MSNBC, David Axelrod reiterated the President's support for separate but equal civil unions and not equal marriage.

I'd like to ask the President to support the US Consitution which includes the 14th amendment. His religious beliefs do not trump my consitutional rights.

Oh I know what his unfortunate opinion is now, but I think some don't know that he, at one point, supported full marriage equality.

I think it's important for us to know that as early as 1996 he publicly stated his support.

However, it is a sad change of publicly stated opinion. (but necessary for Presidential election win perhaps).

Also, wasn't too impressed with the President's rather tepid comments yesterday regarding the Prop 8 decision.

As for your last comment, yes, as former scholar of Constitutional Law, you think he would make publicly make the connection b/w our rights and that document.

[Manul]

RE: Opinions Requested--Could this Repeal Actually Happen?

Amending the Constitution is no easy feat, I remember ERA too well. :D

Republicans and conservatives will have to tread lightly on that issue as opposed to their emotional outcry about the "illegal immigration problem."

But I do think we need to keep an eye on them...as usual. :D

Oh I know what his unfortunate opinion is now, but I think some don't know that he, at one point, supported full marriage equality.

I think it's important for us to know that as early as 1996 he publicly stated his support.

However, it is a sad change of publicly stated opinion. (but necessary for Presidential election win perhaps).

Also, wasn't too impressed with the President's rather tepid comments yesterday regarding the Prop 8 decision.

As for your last comment, yes, as former scholar of Constitutional Law, you think he would make publicly make the connection b/w our rights and that document.

I'm waiting for the excuse that he has a full plate, too busy with other important matters to be burdened for his full support for equal rights for ALL Americans.

[naturlover_52]

Yes I believe that it is a shame that our president Obama has not supported our full support, BUT look at it this way....Clinton was the one that Started DOMA and Don't ask Don't Tell.
Sooo I feel that the flip by Obama is shame, BUT not IF but possibly When this goes to the US Supreme Court then it will HAVE to be supported by ALL parties, BOTH Republican and Democrat and Tea Party....YES I know they aren't there own party....BUT they are the conservative Fringe of the Republicans.

[betenoire]

AldAygUkHV8&feature=player_embedded#!

Fluff post: Did that one guy toward the end of the video compliment the cop on his boots? I think he did! It made me squee with delight.

I love getting delighted.

[Soon]

Yes I believe that it is a shame that our president Obama has not supported our full support, BUT look at it this way....Clinton was the one that Started DOMA and Don't ask Don't Tell.
Sooo I feel that the flip by Obama is shame, BUT not IF but possibly When this goes to the US Supreme Court then it will HAVE to be supported by ALL parties, BOTH Republican and Democrat and Tea Party....YES I know they aren't there own party....BUT they are the conservative Fringe of the Republicans.


A Republican (Bob Barr--Georgia) authored DOMA and it was passed in the Republican controlled Congress (majority of both sides did support it). Clinton was the one who signed it.

From what I understand, it was a (sad) compromise for Clinton--it was either DOMA or a Constitutional Amendment redefining marriage as b/w a man and a woman that would probably would have passed.

[SuperFemme]

Our family at the end of THIS (http://www.kcoy.com/global/category.asp?c=187903&autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=5002253&flvUri=&partnerclipid=) video, our kid Anita was absolutely eloquent. Me in the wheelchair? So sexy.

[Soon]

Our family at the end of THIS (http://www.kcoy.com/global/category.asp?c=187903&autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=5002253&flvUri=&partnerclipid=) video, our kid Anita was absolutely eloquent. Me in the wheelchair? So sexy.

I teared up a little. Your daughter was fantastic!

And you looked great!

And Cal was wonderful with hys little wave!

(((family))) <3

I'm all emotional. :watereyes:

[SuperFemme]

I teared up a little. She was great. And you looked great. And Cal was wonderful with hys little wave!

(((family))) <3

I'm all emotional. :watereyes:

Thank you!
I must confess that I was watching them interview random people,
and was getting super irritated. I wanted them to interview some of
the families that were there, because the supporters of Prop 8 were
adamant that we can't be parents and families.

So I told the guy, you should talk to some kids with gay parents today.
He said, how about yours?

She gave a great answer when he asked her what she wanted to say to the Prop 8 supporters who don't believe her Moms can love her and raise
her well.

She said: "I feel very sad for them because they'll never know the kind of unconditional love that makes OUR family the only one I'd ever want to be in".

I cried. again.

[SuperFemme]

HERE (http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL) is a link to the PDF of the ruling.
all 135 pages of delicious gooodness.

[SuperFemme]

Geez. Now all you need is a clause that says that Churches won't be forced to perform the marriages if the congregation doesn't support it and y'all will sound like a bunch of Canadians! :blink: :canadian:

actually, the finding of the CA Supreme Court (that prop 8 overturned) DOES spell out quite specifically that Churches do not have to marry us, and that Religious organizations cannot be sued or face action for NOT marrying us.

[betenoire]

actually, the finding of the CA Supreme Court (that prop 8 overturned) DOES spell out quite specifically that Churches do not have to marry us, and that Religious organizations cannot be sued or face action for NOT marrying us.

It'll probably be identical to our law, then.

[Soon]

yBa6WEUAtww&feature=player_embedded

[Cyclopea]

A Republican (Bob Barr--Georgia) authored DOMA and it was passed in the Republican controlled Congress (majority of both sides did support it). Clinton was the one who signed it.

From what I understand, it was a (sad) compromise for Clinton--it was either DOMA or a Constitutional Amendment redefining marriage as b/w a man and a woman that would probably would have passed.

That is a very good point to remember, especially for me who likes to remember Clinton as a traitor and a sell-out to the cause...

The haters sure do like changing the constitution, don't they?

I have two bumper stickers on my car- one of which has been on there for about 20 years and the other is from the original Mass Equity campaign and states "No Discrimination In The Constitution". A hard concept for some to grasp...
:readfineprint:

[Cyclopea]

yBa6WEUAtww&feature=player_embedded

She says (7:28)
"This is a big stretch to imagine that our founding fathers were banning gay marriage in passing our constitution".
Freudian slip baby, stick to arguing your own side.... :)

Maggot Gallagher does bring up a good issue though: The fact that the EU does not recognize Same-Sex Marriage Discrimination as a human rights issue. :readfineprint:
Gays in Austria appealed to the EU and the EU stated:

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=870475&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649

A few weeks ago a Russian Lesbian couple also filed an appeal to the EU, that response (as far as I know) is still pending...

Lots of work left to do worldwide.
:LGBTQFlag:

[AtLast]

That is a very good point to remember, especially for me who likes to remember Clinton as a traitor and a sell-out to the cause...

The haters sure do like changing the constitution, don't they?

I have two bumper stickers on my car- one of which has been on there for about 20 years and the other is from the original Mass Equity campaign and states "No Discrimination In The Constitution". A hard concept for some to grasp...
:readfineprint:

And it is really difficult for many US citizens to grasp the fact that civil & human rights cannot be voted upon. They do not grasp INALIENABLE as it stands in the US Constitution!

in·al·ien·a·ble   

–adjective
not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.


—Synonyms
inviolable, absolute, unassailable, inherent.

[Cyclopea]

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Mexico-City-gay-marriage.gif

Mexican court upholds capital's gay marriage law
(AP) – 2 hours ago

MEXICO CITY — The Mexican Supreme Court has voted to uphold the constitutionality of Mexico City's 6-month-old law allowing same-sex marriages.
The justices have voted 8-2 to uphold the law against challenges filed by federal prosecutors, who argued it violates the constitutional principle of protection of the family.
Hundreds of couples have been married so far under the law, the first of its kind to be enacted in Latin America.
The court ruled Thursday that the law did not violate the constitution. Justices on the majority side argued that nowhere does the constitution define what a family is.
:hangloose:

[MsTinkerbelly]

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Mexico-City-gay-marriage.gif

Mexican court upholds capital's gay marriage law
(AP) – 2 hours ago

MEXICO CITY — The Mexican Supreme Court has voted to uphold the constitutionality of Mexico City's 6-month-old law allowing same-sex marriages.
The justices have voted 8-2 to uphold the law against challenges filed by federal prosecutors, who argued it violates the constitutional principle of protection of the family.
Hundreds of couples have been married so far under the law, the first of its kind to be enacted in Latin America.
The court ruled Thursday that the law did not violate the constitution. Justices on the majority side argued that nowhere does the constitution define what a family is.
:hangloose:

Awesome news....Thank you for sharing it!!

[Manul]

And it is really difficult for many US citizens to grasp the fact that civil & human rights cannot be voted upon. They do not grasp INALIENABLE as it stands in the US Constitution!

in·al·ien·a·ble   

–adjective
not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.


—Synonyms
inviolable, absolute, unassailable, inherent.

I just wanted to repeat your post.

[suebee]

I was posting on a discussion on a fb group page about "gay" marriage, and noticed a woman who was on the "it's always about sex with you gays" rant. I sent her a private message explaining that it wasn't about sex, and not only did she write back, but went back on the thread and apologized! :| She then friended me and we've been having a conversation since.

One down..... :cigar2:

[AtLast]

I was posting on a discussion on a fb group page about "gay" marriage, and noticed a woman who was on the "it's always about sex with you gays" rant. I sent her a private message explaining that it wasn't about sex, and not only did she write back, but went back on the thread and apologized! :| She then friended me and we've been having a conversation since.

One down..... :cigar2:

KUDOS to you! Good work! Reminds me of a 3 hour conversation I once had in an RV park with a very Christian man that saw my bumper sticker for same-sex marriage and asked me if I would be willing to talk to him and his wife about this.

We have stayed in contact since 2004 and both of them began to speak-out in their church for same-sex marriage and civil rights for us! They voted against Prop 8. Yes, both were obviously trying to reconcile why not already, but, frankly, if I had been a defensive jerk to them, I doubt that our relationship would have happened and the turn around for them in confronting bigotry in their church. I also gained from this interaction and just plain like these people.

Honestly, I have found that demonstrating just how much I am not the stereotypes of lesbianism/being queer and being open to hets that can hear who I am, works wonders!

[suebee]

KUDOS to you! Good work! Reminds me of a 3 hour conversation I once had in an RV park with a very Christian man that saw my bumper sticker for same-sex marriage and asked me if I would be willing to talk to him and his wife about this.

We have stayed in contact since 2004 and both of them began to speak-out in their church for same-sex marriage and civil rights for us! They voted against Prop 8. Yes, both were obviously trying to reconcile why not already, but, frankly, if I had been a defensive jerk to them, I doubt that our relationship would have happened and the turn around for them in confronting bigotry in their church. I also gained from this interaction and just plain like these people.

Honestly, I have found that demonstrating just how much I am not the stereotypes of lesbianism/being queer and being open to hets that can hear who I am, works wonders!



I hear you! She was flamed by several people, but I thought I'd be radical and just reach out! It doesn't always work, but it was at least worth a try! And as you saw, you never know what the ripple effect might be! :)

[betenoire]

QUICK - I am about to pick a fight with Nick's uncle on facebook. I need to know the name of that rule (I think it might even be in your constitution) that makes it okay/required for judges to overturn votes by the popular majority if said vote holds the minority down.

[SuperFemme]

QUICK - I am about to pick a fight with Nick's uncle on facebook. I need to know the name of that rule (I think it might even be in your constitution) that makes it okay/required for judges to overturn votes by the popular majority if said vote holds the minority down.

the 14th amendmenat

[Cyclopea]

QUICK - I am about to pick a fight with Nick's uncle on facebook. I need to know the name of that rule (I think it might even be in your constitution) that makes it okay/required for judges to overturn votes by the popular majority if said vote holds the minority down.

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion

(Hope that's what you were looking for) ;)

[betenoire]

Thanks guys. I'm not gonna lie - I don't really understand how the US works. :)

Anyway.

He said: "I don't have a problem with the ruling, with one exception, and it troubles me; a judge overruled the will of the people of California. This seems to be an ever increasing trend that really bothers me. Measures are put on a ballot, voters approve them, special interests that are negatively affected by the laws file suit and the courts step in. This happened before recently in California that I can recall, with a judge overturning voter approved immigration legislation. Judicial meddling just bugs me."

So now I'm saying: "It's seems to me that this "judicial meddling" is written into your constitution.

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Yeah, I am sooo articulate with all of my copy and pasting!

[Cyclopea]

Thanks guys. I'm not gonna lie - I don't really understand how the US works. :)

Anyway.

He said: "I don't have a problem with the ruling, with one exception, and it troubles me; a judge overruled the will of the people of California. This seems to be an ever increasing trend that really bothers me. Measures are put on a ballot, voters approve them, special interests that are negatively affected by the laws file suit and the courts step in. This happened before recently in California that I can recall, with a judge overturning voter approved immigration legislation. Judicial meddling just bugs me."

So now I'm saying: "It's seems to me that this "judicial meddling" is written into your constitution.

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Yeah, I am sooo articulate with all of my copy and pasting!

Wellll.... you could tell him (if you are asking for input from posters here) that in 1968 it was the will of the American people that marriage between blacks and whites should not be recognized, and it was the judiciary that forced the populace to stop illegally prohibiting interracial marriages. The parents of our current president were denied marriage rights in 32 states.

In the USA we have three branches of government: Executive (president), Legislative, and Judicial, that all have EQUAL power. In theory any branch can "meddle" with the decisions of another- this is set up as a sort of fail-safe mechanism within our government. Another example of this would be the Presidential Veto, whereby the pres can completely disregard the wishes of our elected legislative officials and single handedly strike down their decisions.

(Not sure if this is too simplistic or too detailed or if you even wanted leverage for your position so I'll shut up now :0)
:goodluck:

[betenoire]

Wellll.... you could tell him (if you are asking for input from posters here) that in 1968 it was the will of the American people that marriage between blacks and whites should not be recognized, and it was the judiciary that forced the populace to stop illegally prohibiting interracial marriages. The parents of our current president were denied marriage rights in 32 states.

In the USA we have three branches of government: Executive (president), Legislative, and Judicial, that all have EQUAL power. In theory any branch can "meddle" with the decisions of another- this is set up as a sort of fail-safe mechanism within our government. Another example of this would be the Presidential Veto, whereby the pres can completely disregard the wishes of our elected legislative officials and single handedly strike down their decisions.

(Not sure if this is too simplistic or too detailed or if you even wanted leverage for your position so I'll shut up now :0)
:goodluck:

I'll take what I can get. :) Thanks

(Sometimes I just like to randomly bait him. Like yesterday Nick posted that he wanted to go on vacation and his uncle said he should get an RV so I posted that there was no way Nick was getting an RV because there's only so much I can do to reduce me and Nick's collective carbon footprint.

I am just an ass sometimes.

No, he does not believe in global warming.)

[Cyclopea]

I'll take what I can get. :) Thanks

(Sometimes I just like to randomly bait him. Like yesterday Nick posted that he wanted to go on vacation and his uncle said he should get an RV so I posted that there was no way Nick was getting an RV because there's only so much I can do to reduce me and Nick's collective carbon footprint.

I am just an ass sometimes.

No, he does not believe in global warming.)

Oh it's like that, huh? Hmmm, baiting.... tell him that all the gays are going to marry "illegal immigrants"... that should work.
:byebye:

[betenoire]

Oh it's like that, huh? Hmmm, baiting.... tell him that all the gays are going to marry "illegal immigrants"... that should work.
:byebye:

ooooooooooooh! That -would- get him riled up!

[Toughy]

So now I'm saying: "It's seems to me that this "judicial meddling" is written into your constitution.



:canadian: why is this thingy a canadian? Blame Canada!!!!! (and now that damn song is in my head)

It's your damn fault that 'judicial meddling' is in our Constitution.....

[Toughy]

oh yeah.......I heard on the radio driving home that Argentina has legalized same-sex marriage all over the country.........the first Latin American country to do that and it's like 80+% Catholic.......they also have a woman President

[AtLast]

I hear you! She was flamed by several people, but I thought I'd be radical and just reach out! It doesn't always work, but it was at least worth a try! And as you saw, you never know what the ripple effect might be! :)


Yup, always worth a try. Sure, there are the way crazy ones that make me cringe (and become angry sometimes, too) that I know nothing will reach, but, some out there will listen.. and change.

In thinking that a major component of allies being younger people (heading toward voting age) and these kind of people that are open to discussion and examining their values and willing to make changes. Numbers in alliances is critical, especially over the next couple of years as this case moves toward being heard by the SC. The opinion goes to the fact that, constitutionally, voting doesn't carry weight, but, positive public opinion about same-sex marriage can override the negative (and actually minority voice) around this issue.

Its too bad the woman you talked with got flamed for her ability to hear you. That very thing can prevent someone from taking a chance with new ways of thinking.

[betenoire]

:canadian: why is this thingy a canadian? Blame Canada!!!!! (and now that damn song is in my head)

It's your damn fault that 'judicial meddling' is in our Constitution.....

Really, Toughy? I can't tell if you're just fucking with me or not...but it's because of Canada that the whole "judicial meddling" thing is in your Constitution?

Break it down for a girl, wouldjaplease?

[iamkeri1]

I am overcome with joy and gratitude that I have lived to these changes take place. Looking back at what life was like for gay folks 40 years ago (and for centuries before that), I am almost incapable of believing that these changes would come IN MY LIFETIME!!!!
JOY
JOY
JOY
Smooches,
Keri

[Linus]

UQJvSzkVfRg

Highlights that kids view marriage as between "two people who love each other".

Maybe the kids should make the laws? ;)

[Toughy]

Really, Toughy? I can't tell if you're just fucking with me or not...but it's because of Canada that the whole "judicial meddling" thing is in your Constitution?

Break it down for a girl, wouldjaplease?

laughin............I'm just fucking with ya woman!!!....laughin..............I guess I didn't put enough of those smiley things in there cuz it was late when I posted.......


(Blame Canada!.....ya know the South Park movie about everything being the fault of Canada and we should invade and blow Canada open....)

[betenoire]

laughin............I'm just fucking with ya woman!!!....laughin..............I guess I didn't put enough of those smiley things in there cuz it was late when I posted.......


(Blame Canada!.....ya know the South Park movie about everything being the fault of Canada and we should invade and blow Canada open....)

Ah, there she is. Kept me up all night researching to find evidence of something that never existed! Why, I oughta....

I did get the South Park reference, I'm a fan of the show.

That'll teach me to take things at face value!

(You people are just jealous because Canada is so nifty.)

[JustJo]

(You people are just jealous because Canada is so nifty.)

Yes...cuz not only can you get married, but you also have Violet Crumble bars, which somehow YOU have and we don't, even though they're made in Australia. It's unfair. (sob)

I used to ask a Canadian friend to bring me some every time she visited, but with my memory I always callled them Lavender Smashies. Good thing she knew me well enough to understand. :canadian:

[key]

I find it disappointing how very few politicians (especially our liberal "equal rights for all" politicians, and more especially our first minority President) have made public statements about this historic federal ruling.

Not that I think it will make a difference, but it might be a good time to call the Whitehouse and ask them to speak up. In case you care to, call the comment line at 202-456-1111.

All that negative stuff being said. Hoooooraaaaaaaay. I may actually be able to get married soon....................now to find someone to marry!:frog:

[MsTinkerbelly]

First Maggie Gallagher, now Debra Saunders: Another shocking display of ignorance in the San Francisco Chronicle
(The San Francisco Chronicle is on a roll, following Judge Walker’s historic ruling striking down Prop 8. On Thursday, they went full FOX News, publishing Maggie Gallagher’s Red Dawn op-ed warning of a “Soviet-style” government takeover of marriage. Not to be outdone, Debra Saunders also published a column in the Chron on Thursday revealing her failure to understand basic civics, as Brian Devine demonstrates below. Of course, that’s not very surprising coming from Gallagher and Saunders. What is surprising is why the Chronicle wastes so much ink on such ignorance. Just another “fair and balanced” #FAIL. — Eden James)

By Brian Devine

The San Francisco Chronicle’s conservative commentator, Debra J. Saunders, published a column about Judge Walker’s decision overturning Prop 8. Her article is a shocking display of a lack of understanding of the United States Constitution and the role of the independent Judicial branch in our system of government:

So one judge overturned a measure approved by 52 percent of California voters in 2008 and upheld by the California Supreme Court in a 6-1 ruling.

Some Californians will see this decision as the work of an elitist gay judge imposing his preordained political views on voters.

And then she goes on to describe why she’s one of those “Some Californians.”

Debra Saunders must have been absent on the day her Civics class taught the most important case ever decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, so let’s take a walk back in time. In 1803, the Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison. This case articulated the Judiciary’s power of “judicial review,” the power to decide the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government (a law passed by the Legislative branch or an action by the Executive branch.) Ever since then, every citizen’s rights have been protected by the Court’s power of judicial review. The reason judicial review exists is to protect the rights of unpopular minorities against what Alexis de Tocqueville described as the “tyranny of the majority.” In our system of government, the majority does not get to take away rights that are protected by the Constitution from a minority group, no matter how unpopular that group is.
Using the power of judicial review, our Courts have decided several controversial issues and have forced the majority to accept ideas with which it vehemently disagrees. Ideas like school integration. In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that laws that created segregated schools violated the Equal Protection rights of racial minorities. Like Proposition 8, those laws were passed with a majority of people supporting them. And like Proposition 8, those laws were unconstitutional because they violated the rights of the minority.

Another idea popular among the majority was prohibiting inter-racial marriage. In the 1950′s and 1960s, most people believed that non-white people should be prohibited from marrying white people. Several states (including California) passed laws making interracial marriages illegal. These laws were very popular and passed with a majority of the people’s representatives. They were based on many of the same arguments on which Proposition 8 is based (fear of the slippery slope: absurd arguments like “if black people can marry white people, how long before people can marry dogs?”) But the laws were unconstitutional because they violated the rights of the minority. And in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional all laws that prohibited inter-racial marriage.

Our history is rich with cases where the Courts have overturned the will of the majority and protected the rights of the minority. In Debra Saunders’ ideal world, however, these cases would not exist. In Debra Saunders’ world, Brown v. Board of Education would have been decided the other way, leaving the dreadful Plessy v. Ferguson decision to be the law of the land and permitting racial segregation. In Debra Saunders’ world, Loving v. Virginia would have been decided the other way, and states would be free to prohibit inter-racial marriages.

Is this really the world in which Debra Saunders wants to live? As a straight, white, and relatively affluent person, it’s easy for Debra Saunders to say that she doesn’t need the Courts to protect her rights. But that’s exactly the point, isn’t it? The Courts are there to protect the rights of those who are least liked by society, not to blindly enforce the will of the majority.

[MsTinkerbelly]

I find it disappointing how very few politicians (especially our liberal "equal rights for all" politicians, and more especially our first minority President) have made public statements about this historic federal ruling.

Not that I think it will make a difference, but it might be a good time to call the Whitehouse and ask them to speak up. In case you care to, call the comment line at 202-456-1111.

All that negative stuff being said. Hoooooraaaaaaaay. I may actually be able to get married soon....................now to find someone to marry!:frog:


Good luck with that!! (f)

[Leader]

as only Jon Stewart / the Daly Show can...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-5-2010/californigaytion

[AtLast]

Good luck with that!! (f)

Really! But the mid-terms are coming up. Dems arn't going to touch giving praise. The GOP is hot on the tax-cut trail and wanting to scare everyone about the deficit. Neither wants to deal with this now.

Obama has always stated he opposes same-sex marriage (he's a man and a woman only, rather Christian kinda guy) and has only spoken support for civil/domestic partnerships for gays and lesbians.

I kind of like the quiet. Feels more like this is starting to be viewed as a non-issue in many ways, as in sort of normal.

[JustJo]

Obama has always stated he opposes same-sex marriage (he's a man and a woman only, rather Christian kinda guy) and has only spoken support for civil/domestic partnerships for gays and lesbians.

I kind of like the quiet. Feels more like this is starting to be viewed as a non-issue in many ways, as in sort of normal.

While Obama has not supported same sex marriage specifically, he is for some very fundamental protections with regard to property rights, federal benefits, etc. for same sex civil unions. It's not perfect, but it's a far cry better than we've seen before now. Maybe I'm settling, but I'd take it....

Here's a link (http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm) to a good summary.

[theoddz]

I don't know if this has been posted or not yet:

On June 12, 2007, Mildred Loving issued a rare public statement, which commented on same-sex marriage, prepared for delivery on the fortieth anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia decision of the US Supreme Court.[12] The concluding paragraphs of her statement read as follows:

“Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."

It was kind of nice to read what this lovely Lady had to say about this issue, and to know that she is proud to have her own case quoted and associated with our cause.

~Theo~ :bouquet:

[SuperFemme]

I don't know if this has been posted or not yet:

On June 12, 2007, Mildred Loving issued a rare public statement, which commented on same-sex marriage, prepared for delivery on the fortieth anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia decision of the US Supreme Court.[12] The concluding paragraphs of her statement read as follows:

“Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."

It was kind of nice to read what this lovely Lady had to say about this issue, and to know that she is proud to have her own case quoted and associated with our cause.

~Theo~ :bouquet:

I think I shall print this out and make a t-shirt to wear when I am facing bigots who say that *our* quest for equal civil rights being compared to the civil rights movement is shameful.

[Cyclopea]

as only Jon Stewart / the Daly Show can...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-5-2010/californigaytion

That was fantastic- LMAO

Colbert was hilarious too:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/06/colbert-unveils-master-pl_n_673097.html
:rainbowAfro:

[Soon]

Really! But the mid-terms are coming up. Dems arn't going to touch giving praise. The GOP is hot on the tax-cut trail and wanting to scare everyone about the deficit. Neither wants to deal with this now.

Obama has always stated he opposes same-sex marriage (he's a man and a woman only, rather Christian kinda guy) and has only spoken support for civil/domestic partnerships for gays and lesbians.

I kind of like the quiet. Feels more like this is starting to be viewed as a non-issue in many ways, as in sort of normal.

That is just not true and I posted earlier (Post 317) about his unequivocal PUBLIC support for same sex marriage when he was running for Senator.

He, unfortunately, changed his position b/w his time as Senator and his Presidential run.

He also belonged, when living in Chicago, to the United Church of Christ which, in 2005, "became the first mainline Christian denomination to support same-sex marriage officially when its general synod passed a resolution on Monday affirming "equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender."


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/national/05church.html

[UofMfan]

That is just not true and I posted earlier (Post 317) about his unequivocal PUBILC support for same sex marriage when he was running for Senator.

He, unfortunately, changed his position b/w his time as Senator and his Presidential run.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/06/obamas-opposition-to-gay_n_672836.html


Marcus@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting

Obama's Opposition To Gay Marriage: Genuine Or Political Calculation?

First Posted: 08- 6-10 04:45 PM


Yesterday's ruling overturning California's ban on gay marriage and the White House's mixed response revived a question that has long frustrated gay Americans -- why doesn't President Obama support gay marriage?

Soon after the decision by District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, the White House issued a statement condemning Proposition 8 as "divisive and discriminatory" without elaborating further. On Thursday morning, presidential advisor David Axelrod told MSNBC that "the president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control."

And certainly, the president has pushed through some major reforms benefitting gay couples such as extending hospital visitation rights for same-sex partners and he has asserted his intention to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. He has long expressed his opposition to the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage act, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman and states that no states needs to treat as a marriage any same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state. But his Department of Justice has defended DOMA in federal courts, arguing that it is appropriate and justified.

When Obama ran for the Illinois State Senate in 1996, he gave statements to a Chicago paper that expressed "unequivocal support for gay marriage."

But since then, and during his later emergence on the national political stage, four words have been missing from his often-stirring rhetoric: "I support gay marriage."

Obama even hinted at that possibility in a 2004 interview with Tracy Baim, the publisher of Chicago's largest chain of gay and lesbian publications. He told her that he opposed gay marriage, explaining:

I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that's true in the African-American community, for example...


What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. I think we can get SB 101 passed. I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name. And I think that is my No. 1 priority, is an environment in which the Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game.

Some gay marriage proponents are skeptical that Obama personally opposes gay marriage.

"Every thing we know and admire about President Obama makes the claim that he doesn't support the freedom to marry very unconvincing," says Evan Wolfson, the director of the nonpartisan group, Freedom to Marry, adding that the president's public statements are more important than what's in his heart.

Wolfson says Obama is falling short of his promise because of his unwillingness to embrace what his professed support for equality requires, which he says is the equal right of gay couples to marry. Noting the president's opposition to DOMA, he asks: "If he's willing to be against 'against marriage', why can't he just be for marriage?"

Obama's deputy campaign manager during the 2008 race, Steve Hildebrand, who is openly gay, decried the tendency of prominent Democrats to support civil unions rather than gay marriage, calling it a "cop-out. Most politicians aren't going to have the courage to be that strong."

He especially decried the use of religion by Obama and others as a basis to explain their decision not to support gay marriage, blaming the media for not pursuing that line of questioning. "Where have you seen a reporter call him on that? He uses his religion to explain his views but he was a member of the United Church of Christ, which fully supports marriage for same-sex couples."

But in the end, the president's personal views (Hildebrand says Obama has "come close" to supporting gay marriage) don't matter as much as his public policy positions. And he takes issue with the administration's actions, pointing out that the president's public opposition to Prop 8 and DOMA clashes with his Justice Department's defense of DOMA in the courts. "I would love to see the president campaign vigorously against those discrimination attempts but I haven't seen it with any president yet."

Obama and other Democrats' position on the issue stands in contrast to other political figures who made the transition from gay marriage opponents to supporters.

Most prominently, Bill Clinton, who opposed DOMA when it was passed during his administration but opposed gay marriage, poignantly described in 2009 how he changed his position:

"I realized that I was over 60 years old. I grew up in a different time ... and I was hung up about it," Clinton said. "I decided I was wrong."

Of course, Clinton was long out of office at that point. Similarly, Laura Bush expressed her support for same-sex marriage this past March, over a year after her husband left office. And Cindy McCain joined the campaign to oppose Prop 8 a year after her husband lost the presidential election to Obama.

Certainly, it is possible that these conversions involve real changes of heart and not political calculation. Roberta Achtenberg, trustee of California State University who served on Obama's transition team, says that she is not of the opinion that all leaders expressing some equivocation about gay marriage are doing that out of political expedience."

She says that when President Obama says he opposes gay marriage, she takes him at his word. And she notes the real regional and generational differences on the issue, noting that while Congress is largely against gay marriage, most Democrats in California's legislature support it.

Those politicians who have taken a view on the issue out of political expedience may wind up regretting their decision, says Freedom to Marry's Wolfson: "If they are making a political calculation, it's a very costly one for them and the country because it's not appeasing any of their opponents and it's disappointing and impeding the strength of their base." He adds, "People may respect people they disagree with but not inauthenticity and pure political calculation -- that doesn't ring true... I don't think there's a single voter that Obama would lose because he openly embraced freedom to marry instead of everything but marriage."

The White House did not return a request for comment by the time of publication.

With his opposition to gay marriage and support for civil unions and just about every other aspect of civil rights for gay couples, Obama joins a long line of politicians including almost all of his 2008 Democratic primary competitors such Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Edwards and Bill Richardson.

Their unwillingness to support gay marriage strikes some observers as an act of political calculation that may clash with their personal tolerance for such unions. The sense is that they fear their open support will rebound politically and inspire a backlash from conservative voters.

[Cyclopea]

Schwarzenegger urges resumption of same-sex marriages
(AFP) – 26 minutes ago

LOS ANGELES — California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger weighed into the same-sex marriage legal battle Friday, filing a motion demanding gays and lesbians be allowed to resume tying the knot immediately.

Schwarzenegger's legal bid came as a federal judge who overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage mulled a request by supporters of the ban to bar further homosexual weddings until the appeals process had been exhausted.

"The Administration believes the public interest is best served by permitting the Court's judgement to go into effect, thereby restoring the right of same-sex couples to marry in California," Schwarzenegger's motion said.
"Doing so is consistent with California's long history of treating all people and their relationships with equal dignity and respect.

"As the Court has pointed out, California has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples without suffering any resulting harm."

It was not immediately clear when Judge Vaughn Walker would rule on when same-sex weddings would resume, having initially indicated that a decision could be made on Friday.

[Cyclopea]

thought this was cute :)

http://gothamist.com/attachments/arts_jen/0806gaypride.jpg

photo credit: Ira Monko

[Gayla]

Huff Post article on the Fox News poll. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/fox-news-online-poll-show_b_674217.html) :)

[atomiczombie]

Huff Post article on the Fox News poll. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/fox-news-online-poll-show_b_674217.html) :)

Heh. I voted a few (50) times. :P

[Gayla]

Heh. I voted a few (50) times. :P

I may have told a few people in my office about it. They may have told their friends about it. Some of those friends may be in other countries that think we're way behind the times. One of said friends is personally taking responsibility for like 5 of those percentage points. :)

[AtLast]

That is just not true and I posted earlier (Post 317) about his unequivocal PUBLIC support for same sex marriage when he was running for Senator.
He, unfortunately, changed his position b/w his time as Senator and his Presidential run.He also belonged, when living in Chicago, to the United Church of Christ which, in 2005, "became the first mainline Christian denomination to support same-sex marriage officially when its general synod passed a resolution on Monday affirming "equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender."


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/national/05church.html

I did not follow Obama all that much before his becoming a serious presidential candidate other than his Democratic convention sppeech that put him on the national map. And you are right, he changed his position. This makes me angry- as is pointed out time and time, again, politicians, including Obama will throw support for same-sex marriage down the tubes if it will hurt them politically. I am tired of this from politicians. I supported him for president and there are many things I appreciate about him. This is not one of them, nor, is his supporting having the military do studies to find out how to handle situations after DADT is finally done away with. As if gays/lesbians haven't been in the military for eons and just had to be quiet about it- what, just because thay can't get kicked out, they are going to have to have to sleep in dorms for gays when they no longer fear being outed? Use different bathrooms? All of a sudden, they are going to want to mess with all the straight military?

I have had a problem with Obama's feelings about the role of religion in state matters since getting to know more about him (again, began to take nmore notice of him as he became viable for the presidential election). But, in all fairness, I personally have a hard time with church being involved in state overall. It isn't just Obama. ht now, I wish that people that supported him would get out there and back mid-term candidates in the Democratic Party so that Obama could get a lot more done in his first term. I have a lot of respect for him. But, I don't agree with everything he does. I plan on supporting for him and working on the campaign for his re-election just as i did for his first term.

But, it makes me angry that he kicks same-sex marriage around based upon poll numbers. I'll certainly stand corrected for his prior support and going to a church that does not discriminate against the LGBTIQ community, but I hope our community and this issue is back on track for his re-election. can't see me voting GOP.... but... UGH!!!

[Gayla]

My same friend that helped with the Faux News poll, just sent me this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/06/ann-coulter-to-headline-a_n_673313.html

Not really same sex marriage focused but I never know where to post stuff. Do we have an "Interesting But Not Breaking News" thread that I haven't found yet?

[Toughy]

Republican California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has now filed a brief with the courts calling for gay marriages to immediately resume.

dang...........

gotta love those lame ducks...............

(the above quote came from the previous Huff Post article)

[Toughy]

I think of two things............Harvey Milk says 'ya gotta give 'em hope'............and my sonny boy says 'do the right thing no matter the consequences'

Supreme 'Double Rainbow': Two Marriage Equality Rulings Head Toward High Court
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/06/supreme-double-rainbow-tw_n_673653.html

[SuperFemme]

http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/9277/slide_9277_123070_large.jpg?1281296389155

[Soon]

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6754377n&tag=mncol;lst;2

[Soon]

EJwSprkiInE&feature=player_embedded

[Corkey]

Got to love those two Olsen and Boies!

[Jess]

While Obama has not supported same sex marriage specifically, he is for some very fundamental protections with regard to property rights, federal benefits, etc. for same sex civil unions. It's not perfect, but it's a far cry better than we've seen before now. Maybe I'm settling, but I'd take it....

Here's a link (http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm) to a good summary.


Guess we'll have to agree to disagree because as I see it ( and as law will reflect), unless it is marriage, it will NOT be equal. It will always be some sort of "lesser than" law and will never cover the over 1000 rights we are denied because we can't get married.

It seems Obama tends to do a hella lot of backtracking and performing of half measures when it comes to the basic human rights that he was so very much in support of while campaigning. It's unfortunate that campaigns become more important than doing the right thing and taking care of business. Read : immigration reform which he promised to address within his first 90 days in office and now says basically he won't touch til after midterms. I don't single him out, as all politicians do this. They are merely mouthpieces for their party.

[Soon]

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree because as I see it ( and as law will reflect), unless it is marriage, it will NOT be equal. It will always be some sort of "lesser than" law and will never cover the over 1000 rights we are denied because we can't get married.

It seems Obama tends to do a hella lot of backtracking and performing of half measures when it comes to the basic human rights that he was so very much in support of while campaigning. It's unfortunate that campaigns become more important than doing the right thing and taking care of business. Read : immigration reform which he promised to address within his first 90 days in office and now says basically he won't touch til after midterms. I don't single him out, as all politicians do this. They are merely mouthpieces for their party.

I just want ONE reporter to ask President Obama what made him change his 1996 pubic opinion of being an "unequivocal" supporter of marriage equality to only being a supporter of civil unions. Usually one's position on this matter evolves from civil unions to marriage as opposed to the other way around.

President-elect Obama's answer (http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=20229)to a 1996 Outlines newspaper question on marriage was: "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." There was no use of the phrase "civil unions".

I also think by framing the argument as same sex (or gay) marriage makes it look like we are fighting for a separate or different (read: lesser than) kind of marriage than *straight* marriage (which no one uses/marriage is the default term for marriages involving heterosexuals). Lately, all the anti-marriage equality spokespeople have used the phrase *traditional marriage* implying that any other marriage is some kind of different version of marriage or freak knock off of *real* marriage.

Equal marriage rights or marriage equality is the phrase (imo) our side should be using when discussing the matter. Putting *gay* or *same sex* in front of it really makes it look like we are asking for a different kind of marriage as opposed to having access to marriage rights that already exist and whom all should have access.

[Jess]

Got to love those two Olsen and Boies!

Yeah! Kinda restores faith that not EVERY white male conservative is equated to biggot supremist asshole as is too often painted.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Does anyone know when the ruling on whether or not the stay remains in place is going to be published?

I am watching this closely, even though we were already married!

[MsTinkerbelly]

On the Prop 8 Stay and Standing
by Brian Devine

I predict we’ll have Judge Walker’s ruling on the Motion to Stay either today or tomorrow. And I predict he’ll deny the stay, allowing same-sex couples full marriage equality for the first time since that bittersweet night in November 2008.

While we wait, let’s take a look the issue of “standing” and what it means to the stay and the appeal of Judge Walker’s opinion.

What’s “Standing”

Article III of the US Constitution gives Federal Courts the limited jurisdiction to decide actual cases or controversies. This is referred to as “Article III standing.” To have standing to bring a lawsuit or to pursue an appeal, a party must show that he or she has suffered an: “injury in fact —— an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.”

To appeal a decision, the Prop 8 supporters must show that allowing same-sex couples the right to get married somehow invades their rights and causes them harm. Remember, though, that Judge Walker already ruled that “Proposition 8 does not affect the rights of those opposed to homosexuality or to marriage for couples of the same sex.” In other words, if Prop 8 did not exist, the rights of those people who support Prop 8 would not be affected. Consistent with this holding, Judge Walker should find that the Prop 8 supporters do not have standing because they will not suffer any “concrete and particularized” harm if Prop 8 is not enforced.

The best argument that Prop 8 supporters can make is that they would be injured by the simple fact that California is not enforcing a law passed by the People. But the Supreme Court has held that “[an] asserted right to have the Government act in accordance with law is not sufficient, standing alone, to confer jurisdiction on a federal court.” (Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 754 (1984))

I think there’s a good chance Judge Walker will find that the Prop 8 supporters lack standing. The only parties in the case who do have standing (the Plaintiffs and the State) have not appealed and have affirmatively said that they do not want a stay. This means that if Judge Walker finds that the Prop 8 supporters do not have standing, he also will deny the motion to stay.

There is more, but I didn't have enough time.....sorry!

[MsTinkerbelly]

Brian Devine....

There is more…

Didn’t Judge Walker Already Rule That The Prop 8 Supporters Have Standing?

No. Judge Walker decided that the Prop 8 Backers could intervene, not that they have Article III standing. To intervene in a case, a party does not need to show that they have standing. That’s because a “case or controversy” already exists. (The Plaintiffs had standing to bring the case because they were being denied their constitutional right to get married.) Since both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants already had standing, the Court had jurisdication over the “case.” From there, deciding that the Prop 8 supporters could intervene in the case was an easy call. The law of the Ninth Circuit holds that a “public interest group may have a protectable interest in defending the legality of a measure it had supported.”

But this does not mean that it has standing. To the contrary, on several occasions the Supreme Court has recognized that a party who was allowed to intervene in litigation does not necessarily have standing. For example, the Supreme Court said:

[I]f the original party on whose side a party intervened drops out of the litigation, the intervenor will then have to establish its own standing to continue pursuing litigation. (Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 64, (1986))

Could This End Here And Now?

Maybe at the Ninth Circuit. While the popular spin is that this case “is certain to be resolved at the Supreme Court,” that’s not entirely clear. If Judge Walker rules that the Prop 8 supporters do not have standing, that does not necessarily mean they can’t appeal. The Ninth Circuit will independently decide the issue of standing. But if the Ninth Circuit decides that the supporters of Prop 8 do not have standing, it will reach only the issue of standing, not the much harder question of deciding whether Prop 8 is constitutional.

If A Stay Is Granted, Can The State Still Issue Marriage Licenses?

Yes. All a stay does is prevent the Court Clerk from entering judgment. It does not erase Judge Walker’s decision, and it does not prohibit the defendant (the State) from voluntarily complying with the decision by issuing marriage licenses to all couples, regardless of gender. A Federal District Judge has declared that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Even if judgment in the case is stayed pending appeal, it would be perfectly reasonable for the State to decide that it will stop enforcing Prop 8 until and unless Judge Walker’s decision is reversed by another Court.

If the State began enforcing Judge Walker’s opinion on its own, I would expect the Prop 8 supporters to file a new lawsuit (in State Court) seeking an injunction requiring the State to enforce Prop 8. This might bring back memories of 2004 when the Supreme Court held that the City and County of San Francisco did not have the authority to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. However, that case (Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco) was based on California Constitution Article III, section 3.5 which prohibits administrative agencies from deciding on their own to not enforce laws based on their belief that the law is unconstitutional. However, if the Governor or the Attorney General made that decision, section 3.5 does not apply. I haven’t researched it, but I don’t know that anything would prohibit the Governor or the Attorney General from deciding to enforce a District Court’s order declaring Prop 8 invalid, even if that judgment were stayed pending appeal.

So with that, we now wait for Judge Walker order on the Motion to Stay. . . Stay tuned . . .

[iamkeri1]

Ms Tinkerbelly,
Since this decision has been made in a federal court, does it generalize to other (all?) states. Will this be used (or could it be used) to strike down all laws banning gay marriage?... and other restriction of gay folks civil rights? How about it's impact on tg/ts folk?

When I first heard about the ruling I was very excited. When I heard news commentators discuss the widespread impact of this ruling, I got even more excited. What is your opinion regarding the universality of this judgement?

I thank you for the time you have put in to making this understandable for all of us.
Smooches,
Keri

[MsTinkerbelly]

Ms Tinkerbelly,
Since this decision has been made in a federal court, does it generalize to other (all?) states. Will this be used (or could it be used) to strike down all laws banning gay marriage?... and other restriction of gay folks civil rights? How about it's impact on tg/ts folk?

When I first heard about the ruling I was very excited. When I heard news commentators discuss the widespread impact of this ruling, I got even more excited. What is your opinion regarding the universality of this judgement?

I thank you for the time you have put in to making this understandable for all of us.
Smooches,
Keri

I have had a great deal of time to think about this since the beginning of the Federal trial, and I will share my non-legal minded thoughts.

The smartest thing that the Prop 8 supporters could do is to let it all drop with Judge Walkers ruling. Now, being the hateful bigots that they are, they will find that impossible....but just suppose they did? The matter would end in California until another State went to Federal court and had the issue decided for THEM. They might win they might lose, BUT the matter would still be at the State level and would take years/decades/forever to be country wide going to court State by State.

If our case goes to the 9th circut court of appeals, then it will most likely go to the Supreme Court. Now that doesn't mean they will take up the matter, but if they do then Equal Marriage in the United States might happen within my lifetime. That is something I never thought possible...it makes me get all teary eyed just thinking about it.

As far as Transgender rights, I suppose that equal would mean for everybody....but I've been wrong before!

I hope I've been clear!

Blessings (f)

[Soon]

Here's an excerpt from Towleroad (http://www.towleroad.com/2010/08/its-in.html)that may help clarify, iamkeri:

(the whole article is great if you wish to read more)

--------

Logistics

You might be wondering how Judge Walker's well-reasoned and thorough opinion might impact our world tomorrow. In a word, it won't. While the Order allowed California to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the relief has been stayed pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

The parties will prepare their briefs in the coming months and deliver oral argument before a 3-judge panel on the Circuit. Due to the high profile nature of the case, any decision by the panel will likely result in "en banc consdieration" by the entire Ninth Circuit. That means that after one round of appellate hearings before three judges, another round in front of every Ninth Circuit judge will likely take place. Then the case may be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court.

That is, unless the issue becomes moot. How? Marriage equality supporters are already gearing up for a push to overturn Prop 8 on the 2012 ballot. If current polling is accurate in suggesting that a majority of Californians now support marriage equality, a pro-equality victory at the ballot box before the Supreme Court takes the case may obviate the need for a Supreme Court hearing.

Some Substantive Questions

This decision is momentous. Do not forget that. Never before as a federal court declared that the gay community warrants special protection and never before has a federal court declared so clearly that marriage discrimination is so irrational.

But there is a legal mine field awaiting marriage equality lawyers going forward. For one thing, the Supreme Court, as currently constituted, is a conservative institution and among the most conservative Supreme Courts in our history. It is more than a little unnerving to realize that our rights might ultimately rest in the hands of Bush appointees.

More specifically, strict scrutiny is a tough sell. Supreme Courts since the 1970s have moved away from strict scrutiny jurisprudence with some zeal even to the point of contorting themselves into pretzels to create a new type of standard of review -- so-called "intermediate scrutiny" -- for gender classifications simply because the Court could not muster a majority for expanding the list of Warren Court era "suspect classifications." Whether the Court will be willing to do today what it would not do decades ago is an open question.

Therein lies the genius of Judge Walker's opinion. He touches on strict scrutiny but doesn't need it. His strategy may prove to be our saving grace in the end.

[christie]

Margaret Hoover, great-granddaughter of President Herbert Hoover, penned an op-ed urging conservatives to rethink their opposition to the freedom to marry.

Opinion
My Fellow Conservatives, Think Carefully About Your Opposition to Gay Marriage
By Margaret Hoover

Published August 10, 2010
| FoxNews.com

As a conservative Republican representing the next generation of attitudes towards gays and lesbians, I encouraged the readers of FoxNews.com last January to take a careful look at the arguments and evidence in the Prop 8 trial, Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

The case was presented by a constitutional conservative, Ted Olson, who helped found the Federalist Society, successfully argued Bush v. Gore to the Supreme Court (among fifty-five other cases), and was George W. Bush’s Solicitor General. Working with his Democratic legal partner David Boies, Olson sought to prove that marriage equality is a constitutional question, not a partisan issue.

The trial assembled a thorough record of evidence that Prop 8 unreasonably discriminates against gays and lesbians, relegating them to second-class citizenship. Their plaintiffs, Kristen Perry and Sandy Steir, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrullo, are the face of the marriage equality movement. They wish to share in the myriad societal, economic and psychological benefits of marriage, which the Supreme Court has ruled is a fundamental right owed to all Americans. By denying them the right to marry because of their sexual orientation and gender, Olson and Boies argued that Prop 8 violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, and is unconstitutional.

Among the seventeen witnesses Olson and Boies called to the stand were experts in areas of psychology, political science, economics, socio medical sciences and history.

Economists testified to the economic harm caused to same-sex couples and their children; political scientists to their political vulnerability; sociologists and psychologists to the societal stigma associated with homosexuality; historians to the history of marriage shedding its discriminatory restrictions over time.

Other testimony included Ryan Kendal, a young gay man who failed a “conversion therapy” attempt to alter his sexuality from gay to straight and the Republican Mayor of San Diego, a former police chief, who testified that “if government tolerates discrimination against anyone for any reason, it becomes an excuse for the public to do exactly the same thing.”

Surprisingly, the defense’s two lone witnesses also offered compelling reasons to favor of marriage equality. They testified that allowing homosexuals to marry would increase family stability and improve the lives of their children; that sexual orientation is unchangeable; that gays and lesbians have faced a long history of discrimination, including Prop 8.

Another defense witness’ testimony had to be withdrawn as it proved the discriminatory nature of the Prop 8 campaign, which the Plaintiff’s lawyers then submitted as evidence to embolden their case.

The trial testimony is available for the world to review at American Foundation for Equal Rights and demonstrates that the defense could muster no sound line of reasoning for the laws to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

Now, with a decision handed down that social conservatives despise, a judge whose sterling reputation as a conservative for twenty years on the federal bench is under attack.

On this page the day of the verdict, an article by a law professor from Notre Dame posited through conjecture that Judge Vaughn Walker’s rumored homosexuality caused him to decide the trial before hearing it.

Other conservatives howl that one judge is unjustly invalidating the will of seven million Californians and that gay rights should come to the populace through the ballot box, not the courts.

We conservatives have a well-founded narrative about judges and the courts. It is true that the federal bench is populated with liberals who view their role not as interpreting the law as it is written, but as policy makers empowered to sculpt social outcomes with which they agree.

The irony of this case is that Judge Walker is not a liberal activist judge but one whose career has proven him to be a tempered judge, true to the Reagan-Bush conservative jurisprudence that he was nominated to represent on the bench.

Conservatives cannot deny that our Founders intended the judiciary as an equal and independent branch of government purposed to ensure the protection of every citizen’s rights.

The Supreme Court has previously ruled that the right to marry is a fundamental constitutional right.

When an unpopular minority is denied the right to marry, it is indeed the role of the courts to protect the rights of that minority, especially when a majority would deny them. This is why Judge Walker’s opinion reads, “That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

Not to mention that conservatives have a flawed history with civil rights, a trend that began when Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act as unconstitutional. While Goldwater was no racist there is clearly a conservative precedent for a breakdown at the intersection of ideology and reality.

The aforementioned arguments against Judge Walker’s Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision risk undermining legitimate conservative gripes about the judiciary and putting conservatism once again, on the wrong side of the latest chapter in American civil rights.

The potential consequence that conservatives land on the wrong side of civil rights history again is the alienation of an entire generation of voters. With polling definitively indicating that Americans under age 30 overwhelmingly favor gay rights, with a majority supporting gay marriage according to the Pew Millennial Attitudes report published in February this year, there are multiple reasons for conservatives to think carefully before digging in their heels against gay marriage.

Margaret Hoover is a writer, conservative commentator and Fox News contributor.

[Soon]

That was a fantastic op-ed.

Thanks, Christie.

[Greyson]

In Defense of the New Judicial Activists
In California and Arizona, Judge Walker and Judge Bolton are just doing their jobs.
By Emily Bazelon
Posted Monday, Aug. 9, 2010, at 6:46 PM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The boogeyman of judicial activism is back. Federal judges last month struck down California's gay marriage ban and Arizona's aggressive immigration law. Now these divisive social issues will leap like Mexican jumping beans from the courts to the November election. The rulings are already being digested in the political arena in the usual way. Republicans say the judges overstepped. Democrats, annoyed by the inconvenient pre-election timing, mouth a tepid defense and leave the harder work to the gay marriage and immigrant advocates.

In both the California and Arizona cases, Judge Vaughn Walker and Judge Susan Bolton did indeed make activist rulings, according to the most useful definition of that much battered term. That is, they struck down two state laws. Arizona's immigration law came from the legislature, and California's Proposition 8 came directly from the voters—in response to a California Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage, which makes Walker's decision to strike down the voter referendum reversing that ruling even more activist. But at the district court level—the first floor of the federal system—sometimes activist is what judges are called on to be. The framers laid the foundation for this by creating the judiciary as separate but equal. And after the Civil War, Congress practically demanded that judges assert themselves on behalf of unpopular minorities at least some of the time, by passing the equal rights protections in the 14th Amendment.

The outcome does not always favor Democrats. You can see this in a somewhat different form in the Supreme Court's recent decisions about the scope of the Second Amendment. For hundreds of years, the court declined to say that the right to bear arms in the Constitution was an individual right. Then, in 2008 and this year, the justices said just that in striking down hand-gun bans in the District of Columbia and the city of Chicago. Those decisions had more popular support than Walker's or Bolton's. But they were just as activist—actually, more so, because it's the Supreme Court, at the top of the federal court system, that makes law for the whole country and that has the power to choose its cases.

Did Walker's ruling veer into the risky activist territory of shaky judicial reasoning? Andrew Sullivan and Orin Kerr are duking it out over whether the appeals courts that are likely to hear the Proposition 8 case next—the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and then the Supreme Court—will defer to Judge Walker's factual findings. Kerr says no, because some of Walker's fact-finding is really a series of judgment calls about difficult social predictions—will same-sex marriage in fact weaken traditional marriage? He also points out that an appeals court could find any old rational basis for upholding the law. Sullivan says, Wait a sec: The thrill of Walker's opinion is how thoroughly he shredded the old assumption that "preserving the traditional institution of marriage" is a legitimate state interest, as Justice Sandra Day O'Connor put it in Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 decision striking down state sodomy laws.* "Tradition alone, however, cannot form a rational basis for a law," Walker wrote, citing a 1993 Supreme Court decision which said that the " 'ancient lineage' of a classification does not make it rational."

If you can't base a gay-marriage ban in tradition or in a religious objection—because laws have to have a secular purpose—and you also can't ground it in the claim that children raised by same-sex couples are worse off, because the research shows just the opposite, than what rational-basis argument can you make? The Proposition 8 proponents are taking heat for their crappy trial record. But what evidence could they have put on instead?

Judge Walker's analysis is authoritative because he had months to write his opinion and a full-blown trial to drawn on. Judge Susan Bolton's decision to temporarily block the Arizona immigration law is necessarily sketchier: She acted at a preliminary stage in this suit. The Obama Justice Department asked Bolton to block Arizona from asking anyone whom the police arrest on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant to prove otherwise before the law went into effect. And the DoJ rooted its argument in the lawyerly problem of pre-emption rather than a clarion call to respect individual rights. So Bolton talks a lot about the "comprehensive and detailed framework" of federal immigration law, which she found Arizona to be meddling with. But she also noted the problem of "increasing the intrusion of police presence into the lives of legally present aliens (and even United States citizens), who will necessarily be swept up by this requirement"—meaning the requirement to prove their status. Arizona will get another chance to defend its law. And since the polls are running at 60 percent or higher in favor of the state's tough form of border control, Bolton's decision may be the one that proves out-of-sync with public opinion for longer, though the supporters of Arizona's tactics have the growing Latino population to contend with.

Support for same-sex marriage, meanwhile, could move past the halfway mark faster. Some polls show that it's already hit 50 percent in California, a marked shift since Proposition 8 passed just two years ago with 52 percent of the vote. The persuasive reality that's the underpinning for Walker's opinion may sink in deep enough to alter the political picture fundamentally. "The pattern we're seeing in the polls of growing support for same-sex marriage follows other equality issues rather than liberty issues," says Columbia law professor Nathaniel Persily, who studies the dynamic of popular opinion and court rulings. "It's closer to the pattern for interracial marriage than it is for, say, abortion," about which people's views have remained entrenched. "Within five years, there will be a majority in the U.S. supporting same-sex marriage. I have no doubt about that," Persily argues that rulings like Walker won't change the inevitable trajectory—and, in fact, haven't done so, never mind all the claims about how the 2004 Massachusetts court decision legalizing gay marriage helped elect George W. Bush.

But there's a caveat here, Persily says: Opponents of same-sex marriage feel much more intensely than supporters do. They're more likely to act on their beliefs. "That's likely to be true for a long time. So we'll have a slow but largely apathetic growing majority in favor of same-sex marriage but intense opposition."

It's not the job of the courts solely to mirror public opinion. But increasingly over time, since the beginning of the 20th century, they have come into line with it, as Barry Friedman showed in his book Will of the People. Once same-sex marriage has majority support, it will harder to see court decisions supporting it as judicial activism. And it will be easier for the judges in the middle to move to the left. Ultimately, of course, that means Justice Anthony Kennedy. In the endless speculation about how Kennedy will treat the Proposition 8 case if it reaches him, timing may matter most. Gay rights groups held off challenging Proposition 8 because they didn't think Kennedy was ready to strike down a same-sex marriage ban. Ted Olson and David Boies charged ahead, anyway. What if they'd waited five years? In that time, more states will probably join the handful that have already made same-sex marriage legal. More older opponents of gay marriage will die and the polls will count more younger supporters. That's not the only way to influence Kennedy or any other justice. But it helps.


http://www.slate.com/id/2263347/

[Soon]

If you can't base a gay-marriage ban in tradition or in a religious objection—because laws have to have a secular purpose—and you also can't ground it in the claim that children raised by same-sex couples are worse off, because the research shows just the opposite, than what rational-basis argument can you make? The Proposition 8 proponents are taking heat for their crappy trial record. But what evidence could they have put on instead?

[/url]


Love this rhetorical question.

[Soon]

Making a Supreme Court Case for Gay Marriage


(http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2009335,00.html?xid=rss-politics-huffpo)

/snip/
Much has been made of that factual record, and indeed U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker spent scores of pages laying out a long list of findings that, he wrote, had been established as fact during the contentious, weeks-long trial. Among the findings was proof that rules of marriage had been fluid across history, that gender roles once held as absolute are no longer as important in understanding or defining marriage, and that gays and lesbians had been historically discriminated against to the point that laws aimed specifically at them merit additional judicial scrutiny.

Olson says he and Boies will use those findings of fact to anchor their legal arguments as they defend the case in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and, if the Justices take it, before the Supreme Court perhaps as soon as the 2011 term. "We have exhaustive and comprehensive highly favorable findings of fact and conclusions of law by an experienced and respected jurist who carefully examined the evidence presented by our nine experts and eight lay witnesses, and the best arguments and evidence that skilled lawyers on the other side could present," he says. "We feel that we have a powerful and compelling record to lay before the appellate courts. We can't do more than that.


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2009335,00.html?xid=rss-politics-huffpo#ixzz0wEHkgzSl

[MsTinkerbelly]

Ms Tinkerbelly,
Since this decision has been made in a federal court, does it generalize to other (all?) states. Will this be used (or could it be used) to strike down all laws banning gay marriage?... and other restriction of gay folks civil rights? How about it's impact on tg/ts folk?

When I first heard about the ruling I was very excited. When I heard news commentators discuss the widespread impact of this ruling, I got even more excited. What is your opinion regarding the universality of this judgement?

I thank you for the time you have put in to making this understandable for all of us.
Smooches,
Keri

I just read my first thing in the morning not much coffee answer and realized I wanted to be clear on one of the questions you asked.

snip{Since this decision has been made in a federal court, does it generalize to other (all?) states. }

Since the case in California is based on the 14th amedment to the Constitution of the United States, the answer is Yes it will affect all 50 States. It would be the same as the rulings ending the ban on interracial marriage....consistant across the country, whether the bigots liked it or not.

[SuperFemme]

T5d28rLUBos

[MsTinkerbelly]

American Bar Association Announces Support For Marriage Equality

The 410,000 member 132-year old American Bar Association, arguably the most influential legal group in the world, has announced its firm support for same-sex marriage. The Advocate reports:
In a resolution adopted less than one week after a federal judge in San Francisco struck down California's Proposition 8 as unconstitutional, the group acknowledges that same-sex couples "are only seeking to participate in an equal basis in a foundational institution of our civil life," former ABA president Tommy Wells told the organization's house of delegates. "They simply want to share in the legal blessings that we give to married couples. It can only strengthen marriage.”
The ABA's statement: "RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges state, territorial, and tribal governments to eliminate all of their legal barriers to civil marriage between two persons of the same sex who are otherwise eligible to marry."

[christie]

American Bar Association Announces Support For Marriage Equality

The 410,000 member 132-year old American Bar Association, arguably the most influential legal group in the world, has announced its firm support for same-sex marriage. The Advocate reports:
In a resolution adopted less than one week after a federal judge in San Francisco struck down California's Proposition 8 as unconstitutional, the group acknowledges that same-sex couples "are only seeking to participate in an equal basis in a foundational institution of our civil life," former ABA president Tommy Wells told the organization's house of delegates. "They simply want to share in the legal blessings that we give to married couples. It can only strengthen marriage.”
The ABA's statement: "RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges state, territorial, and tribal governments to eliminate all of their legal barriers to civil marriage between two persons of the same sex who are otherwise eligible to marry."

To piggyback off you:

Share | View All News
ABA Passes Resolution Backing Marriage EqualityAugust 10, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 10, 2010

Contact: Yusef Robb

yusef@equalrightsfoundation.org

ABA PASSES RESOLUTION BACKING MARRIAGE EQUALITY

Nation’s Leading Legal Organization Acts Against Inequality

The American Bar Association, the nation’s leading legal organization, today passed the following resolution:

“RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges state, territorial, and tribal governments to eliminate all of their legal barriers to civil marriage between two persons of the same sex who are otherwise eligible to marry.”

“With this action, the American Bar Association has affirmed the principles upon which this nation was founded—that every American is vested with certain inalienable rights and that all Americans are created equal,” said Chad Griffin, Board President of the American Foundation for Equal Rights. “The ABA’s action is significant in that it represents a broad consensus among scholars and practitioners of the law. The ABA is the nation’s leading legal organization and is the one charged with recommending judges and setting national standards for attorneys. This case is not about ideology or politics, and the ABA’s resolution underscores that. Rather, Perry v. Schwarzenegger is a case grounded in fundamental constitutional law and precedent, including equal protection under the law and due process.”

“By approving a resolution in support of marriage equality, the ABA has confirmed what the federal courts, the state’s chief executive and the state’s chief law enforcement officer have determined in Perry v. Schwarzenegger—that excluding gay men and lesbians from marriage violates their constitutional right to due process and equal protection and causes significant harm to them and their families,”

Griffin added, referring to the Governor and Attorney General.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights is the organization that launched the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case and brought together attorneys Theodore Olson and David Boies (who opposed each other in arguing Bush v. Gore) to lead its litigation. Last week, the Chief Judge of the Federal District Court, Northern District of California issued a 136-page ruling that found that California’s Proposition 8, which stripped gays and lesbians of their right to marry, was unconstitutional, citing its denial of the constitutional protections of equal protection under the law and due process, among other findings.

The City and County of San Francisco, led by City Attorney Dennis Herrera and Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart, are supporting the plaintiffs’ team as co-counsel, with a specific focus on the negative impact Proposition 8 has on government services and budgets.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Imperial County Desperately Wants to Appeal
by Brian Devine

Imperial County just filed a Notice of Appeal of Judge Walker’s ruling striking down Prop 8. Here’s a copy of its Notice of Appeal.

Imperial County decided to wait until the eve of trial before it filed a request to intervene in the case. Judge Walker denied the County’s request to intervene, finding that the request was not timely and that the County does not have standing. Here’s a detailed discussion of the concept of “standing.” Judge Walker held:

Imperial County does not have a significant protectible interest in the outcome of plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge to Proposition 8. Moreover, even if Imperial County did have an interest in the subject matter of this litigation, state law provides adequate procedures for Imperial County to protect that interest, and, in addition, the current state defendants adequately represent Imperial County’s interest as a matter of law. Accordingly, Imperial County is not entitled to intervene. . .

* * *

Imperial County’s status as a local government does not provide it with an interest in the constitutionality of Proposition 8 or standing to defend Proposition 8 on appeal. Accordingly, Imperial County’s motion to intervene as a defendant in this action . . . is DENIED.

It’s not all that surprising that Imperial County filed a Notice of Appeal. It is asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal to decide for itself whether or not the County has standing to appeal. As I discussed earlier, there’s a decent chance that Judge Walker and the Ninth Circuit will find that the official proponents of Prop 8 do not have standing to appeal Judge Walker’s decision. While the arguments are different, I also think it’s unlikely that Imperial County has standing. But from the anti-equality perspective, it gives them one more argument to make before the Ninth Circuit, so it’s important to them.

This is a minor development. Stay tuned for the more significant ruling on the pending motion to stay, which hopefully will come out today.

[MsTinkerbelly]

From the comments I'm reading on the Prop 8 trial tracker blog, the backers of the Imperial County appeal request are:

Advocates for Faith and Freedom

http://www.faith-freedom.com/

On their In the Courts page, they list Perry V. Schwarzenegger at the top. Interesting.

A faith based organization prompting the County to file an Appeal? Seperation of Church and State anybody??

As the time creeps towards 5pm here on the West Coast, it looks like the decision won't come today. SIGH.

[christie]

To the Big Commit, August 15, 2010, in Washington, DC, Freedom Plaza

Join forces with Equality Across America, Full Equality Now! DC, and Washington, DC Metropolitan Area Activists and Allies in a collaborative effort to send a message of inclusion, tolerance, and community support.

As you may know, the National Organization for Marriage {NOM} is headed our way with their “One Woman, One Man” Summer for Marriage Tour. NOM has been everywhere from Centreville, Virginia to Columbus, Ohio. Luckily, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, and intersex (LGBTQI) organizations and organizers have been there as well, demonstrating to NOM, and the world, our commitment to the fight for marriage equality.

So what about DC?

A coalition of LGBTQI organizations, activists and allies, in solidarity with our open and affirming faith communities, are organizing a rally, The Big Commit, an action that aims to “strengthen our commitment” to working towards full federal equality, including the repeal of DOMA - as NOM is our witness!

Our goal is: To build momentum within our movement via our community-strengthening action. This will be accomplished through alliance-building organizing and through the participation of our diverse intersecting communities. Ultimately, those participating in the Big Commit will appeal to the hearts and minds of our prospective allies nationwide, “cordially inviting” them to “respect our rights as we respect their right to their beliefs”- literally. We envision doing so as one united community joined together as we exchange vows with equality, therefore symbolizing our commitment to marriage equality and wedding ourselves to the cause!

Join the Fight!

Organizing has already begun for The Big Commit! Please join our efforts so we may present a united front against our shared opponents. The Big Commit is looking for organization endorsements, media sponsors, faith-based communities, LGBTQI supporters and allies, speakers, and general assistance in making this an uplifting and powerful action.

Please contact any of our organizers for more information:

Aiyi’nah Ford, Equality Across America
202-615-6122
lifestylepowerplayers@gmail.com

Julia Mandes, Full Equality Now! DC
703-250-3512
outreach.bigcommitdc@gmail.com

Sean Carlson, Talk About Equality
202-550-2315
logistic.bigcommitdc@gmail.com


************************************************** *******
We'll be there Sunday! Any others in the area going?

[MsTinkerbelly]

The Catholic Church was pushing a Country Wide vote because the Legislature was debating Civil Unions.........Go Costa Rica!!!

COSTA RICA: Supreme Court Rules Marriage Referendum Unconstitutional

Andres Duque translates the good news.
The Supreme Court in Costa Rica ruled (today) that a referendum scheduled for December 1st which would have banned marriage rights for same-sex couples was unconstitutional. The article does not give the vote total but says that the majority determined that the issue of marriage rights was a judicial issue and not an electoral issue and that the rights of minorities should never be subjected to a referendum process where they might be subjected to the wishes of a majority

[SuperFemme]

Judge: Lesbian Couple's Marriage License Valid

A lesbian couple's marriage license issued in 2004 is subject to a divorce petition, a New Mexico state district judge ruled Monday.

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/08/10/Judge_NM_Gay_Marriages_Are_Valid/

[MsTinkerbelly]

Why is it taking the Judge so long to decide whether or not to enter the judgement and lift the stay?

Lord have mercy!!!:jester:

[Jess]

http://a323.yahoofs.com/ymg/ept_sports_nba_experts__59/ept_sports_nba_experts-939427513-1281453697.jpg?ymBKwlDDaUvTihEU

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/Isiah-Thomas-appears-in-ad-campaign-opposing-gay?urn=nba-261453

[Jess]

NOM's stop in NC met with great turnout of equal marriage supporters!

http://charlotte.news14.com/content/local_news/triangle/629098/gay-marriage-supporters-and-opponents-protest

I'm sure their little bus is gonna feel pretty dank driving away from DC also! :cracked::dance2:

[Ebon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/world/americas/11mexico.html?_r=2

[AtLast]

Why is it taking the Judge so long to decide whether or not to enter the judgement and lift the stay?

Lord have mercy!!!:jester:

I know!

Personally, I think to continue the stay (even doing it in the first place) was counterintuitive to the opinion .. made it seem like its possible Prop 8 is constitutional. After Walker wrote such a brilliant opinion leaving no stone unturned, the stay was strange.

[Nat]

Last night I got a notice from equality action now (http://www.equalityactionnow.org/about-us.php) (a northern Ca group) saying the announcement on the Prop 8 stay will happen today betwen 9 am and noon PST.

They also mention - for those in Sacramento, anybody wanting a marriage license should head to the Marriage License Office at 8th and F Streets Sacramento to get a license. They have requested Sen. Darrell Steinberg , Mark Leno and Assm Member Tom Ammiano to perform marriages at the state capitol in the afternoon from 3 to 6 pm (should anybody want to attend).

Makes me wish I were still in that area :) - I'd love to attend.

[Jess]

" Thank you for your call"... Social Security's answer to gay man whose partner of 32 years had passed...



http://vimeo.com/13491562

[Cyclopea]

Glen Beck more "left" than Obama on marriage equality :blink:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/12/glenn-beck-gay-marriage-n_n_679691.html

[Soon]

Glen Beck more "left" than Obama on marriage equality :blink:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/12/glenn-beck-gay-marriage-n_n_679691.html

Xq2kLf1NXt8

Hih9Vo75oSE&feature=related

(second clip says he has same position as President)

[MsTinkerbelly]

BREAKING: JUDGE WALKER TO RULE THURSDAY ON STAY IN PROP 8 CASE

By Eden James

Get ready, everyone. Within the next 24 hours, same-sex couples may be able to get married in California.

Judge Walker has announced that he will render a decision on the stay between 9 a.m. and 12 p.m. PST on Thursday. From the Sacramento Bee:

SAN FRANCISCO — The federal judge who overturned California’s same-sex marriage ban says he is ready to rule on whether gay marriages should resume immediately in the state or await an appeals court’s input.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker said he would issue his decision Thursday by noon on requests to impose a stay that would keep Proposition 8 in effect while its sponsors appeal his decision.

What does it all mean? Our friends at Marriage Equality USA sent the following to their members a little while ago:

If Judge Walker lifts the stay, it is likely it will be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. At the 9th Circuit, it would be reviewed by a 3-person panel and their decision could be appealed to the full 9th Circuit and eventually the US Supreme Court. But because the US Supreme Court is not in session until October, the decision about lifting the stay would be appealed to the Justice in charge, which for the 9th Circuit is Justice Kennedy. We are witnessing history and it is crucial that as we continue to move through the courts, we must build support with the court of public opinion and provide a human face to this issue.

[Manul]

Glen Beck more "left" than Obama on marriage equality :blink:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/12/glenn-beck-gay-marriage-n_n_679691.html

I didn't understand it that way. My understanding is Glenn Beck doesn't think civil rights is an important issue:

"Honestly, I think we have bigger fish to fry," Beck said. "You can argue about abortion or gay marriage or whatever all you want. The country is burning down...I don't think marriage, that the government actually has anything to do with...that is a religious right."



In other words, he demeans equal marriage.

[MsTinkerbelly]

" Thank you for your call"... Social Security's answer to gay man whose partner of 32 years had passed...



http://vimeo.com/13491562

So very sad....but until we get marriage rights at the Federal level this will continue to happen.

My daughter's Father lost his job, and as it is cheaper to put her on my spouse's insurance we are going with that opinion. Yay that it is available, but we have to pay Federal taxes on it because it is not an Equal marriage in the eyes of the law.

[Manul]

So very sad....but until we get marriage rights at the Federal level this will continue to happen.

My daughter's Father lost his job, and as it is cheaper to put her on my spouse's insurance we are going with that opinion. Yay that it is available, but we have to pay Federal taxes on it because it is not an Equal marriage in the eyes of the law.

Which just proves marriage is a government issue and not a religious issue.

[Jess]

Which just proves marriage is a government issue and not a religious issue.


I agree. As long as heterosexual couples receive rights or benefits for getting married, then is is a legislative process and not strictly religious. I don't see any churches offering group policies or tax breaks for married couples. That is all about government. I don't see how any religious group can seriously look at the institution of marriage as strictly a religious act.

[Jess]

I didn't understand it that way. My understanding is Glenn Beck doesn't think civil rights is an important issue:



In other words, he demeans equal marriage.

I actually saw the interview and statements regarding "bigger fish" to be a slam at O'Rielly. I think the whole " I'm big.. you're small" thing is probably very telling of some personal rivalry.

The most unfortunate piece of information with the entire incident is that HuffPo ( or at least a staffer) thinks perhaps Beck maybe more "left" than our seated Democratic President. Perhaps, it is just a dig to hopefully make this administration live up to its promises. Who knows? It's all more politics.

[Ebon]

Xq2kLf1NXt8

Hih9Vo75oSE&feature=related

(second clip says he has same position as President)

I don't understand how he has a TV show, I really don't. He makes my skin crawl.

[Manul]

I actually saw the interview and statements regarding "bigger fish" to be a slam at O'Rielly. I think the whole " I'm big.. you're small" thing is probably very telling of some personal rivalry.

The most unfortunate piece of information with the entire incident is that HuffPo ( or at least a staffer) thinks perhaps Beck maybe more "left" than our seated Democratic President. Perhaps, it is just a dig to hopefully make this administration live up to its promises. Who knows? It's all more politics.

I'm very interested to see if this President issues any further statements should Judge Walker remove the stay on his ruling.

But I won't hold my breath for any support from him. He supports a separate but equal citizenry for LGBTQ Americans due to his religious beliefs that marriage is a state of sanctity reserved for one man and one woman.

[suebee]

Live streaming outside of courtroom (http://edition.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=stream2&hpt=T2)in San Fransisco where Prop h8 decision will be announced.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Live streaming outside of courtroom (http://edition.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=stream2&hpt=T2)in San Fransisco where Prop h8 decision will be announced.

I've been watching during lunch...WTF is taking so long!!!

[suebee]

I've been watching during lunch...WTF is taking so long!!!



Did you catch the sign that says "A moral wrong can't be a civil right"? Yeah. We'll just see about that sweetheart!

[Manul]

Stay lifted.

And extended temporarily til Aug 18.

[Gayla]

Huff Post, via, AP is saying the stay is in place until at list 8-18.

[SuperFemme]

i am trying to find out the significance of extending the stay until 8/18 - does that mean there is still room for proponents of Prop 8 to take the Stay issue to the 9th Circuit Court?

[Gayla]

That's kind of of how the Huff Post article made it sound but I don't have time to dig into it and I'm not near a TV.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Judge Walker Denies Stay; Temporary Stay in Effect Until August 18
by Brian Devine

Judge Walker just issued his order denying the motion to stay his decision overturning Prop 8. But at the same time he also issued a temporary stay until August 18th to allow the Ninth Circuit time to decide whether or not it wants to stay the case pending the appeal. This is not surprising, and it is done out of respect for the Ninth Circuit. Judge Walker is simply making the call that is his (that a stay should be denied) but giving the Ninth Circuit some breathing room to make the call on its own. If the Ninth Circuit does not issue a stay by August 18th, Judge Walker’s decision will take effect and marriages may resume in California. Until then, however, we remain in a holding pattern.

(Several news outlets are reporting only the first half of this story–the denial of the stay–and are saying that marriages may resume immediately. Sadly, that’s not that case.)

[SuperFemme]

I just read the Stay, and it is very well written. I doubt the 9th Circuit will issue a stay...

Read Walkers Decision on Stay HERE (http://www.scribd.com/doc/35799834/Final-Stay-Order)

[MsTinkerbelly]

BREAKING: Judge Walker to lift stay on Prop 8 ruling on August 18th



By Adam Bink

Just now, Judge Walker issued his ruling on the Motion to Stay. The ruling will be stayed until Wednesday, August 18th at 5 PM PST, after which time, same-sex couples can be married again in the state of California (unless another stay is issued by a higher court).

Docket Text:

ORDER by Judge Walker denying [705] Motion to Stay. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment forthwith. That judgment shall be STAYED until August 18, 2010 at 5 PM PDT at which time defendants and all persons under their control or supervision shall cease to apply or enforce Proposition 8. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2010)

Another huge win following his decision that Prop 8 violates Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Constitution.

In response, Courage Campaign issued the following release:

FEDERAL JUDGE RULES SAME-SEX MARRIAGES MAY RESUME IN CALIFORNIA ON AUGUST 18
Jacobs: “Today, equality under the law has been restored for millions of loving families across California.“
Moments ago, Federal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the temporary stay of his ruling that California’s Proposition 8 is unconstitutional will be lifted, effective August 18th. Today’s order means that in less than one week, gay and lesbian couples can once again get married in California.

More than 18,000 California gay and lesbian couples were married prior to the passage of Proposition 8 in November of 2008.

In response to today’s ruling, Courage Campaign Founder and Chairman Rick Jacobs issued the following statement:

“Today’s ruling means that in less than one week, equality under the law will be restored for millions of loving families across California. Lifting the stay is ultimately consistent with both legal precedent and the findings in this case.

Specifically, that every American has a civil right to marriage, and that by depriving millions of families this right, Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Judge Walker’s ruling affirms that the purpose of our judicial system is to protect our constitutional rights, not to take away those rights.

All Americans agree that weddings matter and marriage is the foundation of strong families. Families and the institution of marriage itself can only be strengthened by the inclusion of more committed couples bound by unconditional love and enduring partnership.”

Developing…
UPDATE (12:57 PST): The ruling can be found here. I’ll be posting excerpts. Notable:
Because proponents fail to satisfy any of the factors necessary to warrant a stay, the court denies a stay except for a limited time solely in order to permit the court of appeals to consider the issue in an orderly manner.
UPDATE (12:59 PST): Some of you may have seen a post from Brian just up- we’re going to save that analysis for a bit later. You can continue using this thread to comment.
UPDATE (1:08 PST): A number of questions have come in on whether couples will be able to marry. The answer is likely, but not definite. Meaning, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has some breathing room to issue a stay- and that ruling may also be appealed to the Supreme Court. At the 9th Circuit, a 3-judge panel would decide on the Motion to Stay- usually without a hearing, but a hearing is possible. If a Motion to Stay isn’t granted at a higher level, then yes, couples may marry come 5 PM on August 18th. As for a timeline, it could be as short as days to have a 9th Circuit decision

[MsTinkerbelly]

Analysis of Judge Walker’s decision on the stay, and what’s next


by Brian Devine

Judge Walker decided to deny the motion to stay his decision overturning Prop 8. But at the same time he also issued a temporary stay until August 18th to allow the Ninth Circuit time to decide whether or not it wants to stay the case pending the appeal. This is not surprising, and it is done out of respect for the Ninth Circuit. Judge Walker is simply making the call that is his (that a stay should be denied) but giving the Ninth Circuit some breathing room to make the call on its own. If the Ninth Circuit does not issue a stay by August 18th, Judge Walker’s decision will take effect and marriages may resume in California. Until then, however, we remain in a holding pattern.

(Several news outlets are reporting only the first half of this story–the denial of the stay–and are saying that marriages may resume immediately. As Adam reported earlier this afternoon, that’s not that case.)


A quick recap for anyone tuning in to this show already in progress. Last Wednesday, August 4th, District Court Judge Vaughn Walker issued a decision declaring that Proposition 8 violates the Due Process Clause and the equal protection rights in the U.S. Constitution. Even before Judge Walker issued his decision, the proponents of Prop 8 filed a motion asking the Court to put a hold on–or to “stay”–its decision while the Prop 8 proponents try to appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Walker decided that he would issue a temporary stay for just a few days until he ruled on the Motion to Stay. All of the actual parties to the case–the Plaintiffs who want to get married, the Attorney General, and the Governor–filed papers telling the Court they they did not want a stay; that they wanted marriages to resume immediately. The only one asking for the stay is the proponent of Prop 8, and it is not a party and it may not even have standing to pursue an appeal.

The Prop 8 supporters will be asking the Ninth Circuit to issue a stay. Now that Judge Walker has denied the stay, they may (and will) file the Motion to Stay with the Ninth Circuit immediately. Although the arguments and the applicable law are the same as Judge Walker addressed, the Ninth Circuit will make its own determination and it is not bound by Judge Walker’s decision.

A few words about the procedures we’ll see at the Ninth Circuit:

Once the Prop 8 Proponents file their Motion to Stay with the Ninth Circuit, opposition papers are due ten days later and a response to the opposition is due seven days after that. That being said, the Court has the power to shorten time for the opposition and the reply papers to be filed.
After the motion is fully briefed, the Court usually makes it decision based on the papers alone, without having a hearing. But the Court may schedule a hearing if it so desires. The Motion to Stay must be decided by a three-judge “Motions Panel,” but as I will discuss below, a single judge on the Motions Panel may decide to issue a temporary stay while the full panel makes its decision on the Motion.
For August, the Ninth Circuit Motions Panel is composed of Judge Edward Leavey (a Reagan Appointee from Oregon), Judge Michael Hawkins (a Clinton Appointee from Arizona), and Judge Sidney Thomas (a Clinton Appointee from Montana). For what it’s worth, Judge Thomas interviewed with President Obama and VP Biden to replace Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court and he was rumored to be on the “short list” for the appointment; he may still be on the list for future vacancies.
The Motions Panel decides only the Motion to Stay, not the merits of the appeal. The merits of the appeal will be decided by a panel of three judges who will be assigned shortly before the hearing (months away).
In addition to filing an ordinary Motion to Stay with the Ninth Circuit, the Prop 8 Proponents also will file an Emergency Motion requesting a temporary stay. To do this, they must show that “to avoid irreparable harm relief is needed in less than 21-days.”
When an Emergency Motion is filed, it is immediately referred to the lead judge of the Motions Panel. If the lead judge is unavailable, the Emergency Motion is referred to the second judge and then the third judge of the Motions Panel. The judge to whom it is referred may either grant temporary relief or convene the Motions Panel (usually by telephone) to decide the motion. My guess is that in a case as newsworthy as this, the lead judge would prefer to convene the entire panel rather than make the decision himself. In any event, there could be a decision on the Emergency Motion within hours after the motion is filed, but it’s more likely that it will take a day or two for the Judge(s) to rule.

[betenoire]

http://bluntcard.com/images/1268389084bathtime.gif

[Soon]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_t6rV3U9ZEHM/TGTI699PDlI/AAAAAAAA49I/jCHKBfXzKOw/s1600/NewtRush.jpg

[Greyson]

August 12, 2010, 8:15 pm

Hiding in Plain Sight
By LINDA GREENHOUSE

Linda Greenhouse on the Supreme Court and the law.




The intense public and media attention to Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s decision in the California same-sex marriage case led me to wonder how the media responded 40 years ago to another Federal District Court ruling — the decision that declared the Texas criminal abortion law unconstitutional, in a case called Roe v. Wade.

My database search yielded a surprise. The New York Times reported the decision, issued by a three-judge Federal District Court in Dallas on June 17, 1970, in a 251-word article by The Associated Press, “3 U.S. Judges Rule Laws on Abortion Invalid in Texas.” The story ran on page 37.

What a difference a generation makes.

There are obvious reasons that the district court decision in Roe v. Wade failed to turn the country’s head as did last week’s ruling Judge Walker’s decision in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger. The case against the Texas law, which dated to 1857 and prohibited all abortions not necessary to save a pregnant woman’s life, was only one of nearly three dozen cases challenging similar laws across the country.

The notion of legally sanctioned same-sex marriage seemed too far-fetched to ponder, until it didn’t.
There was no particular reason to think that this would be the case that would decide the issue, and quite a few reasons to expect otherwise. (For one thing, “Jane Roe,” barred from getting an abortion, had given birth, and the Supreme Court might well have regarded her case as moot.) And rather than having been litigated by two famous lawyers, Roe v. Wade was the product of two recent law school graduates, Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee. They weren’t famous, and neither was their case.
Even so, you would think that some editor’s eye might have been caught by this rather breathless overstatement in the A.P. story: “The ruling was that the fundamental right of a single woman or a married couple to choose whether to have children was protected by the Ninth through 14th Amendments.” (Had a federal court actually ruled that enforced motherhood amounts to the kind of slavery that the 13th Amendment prohibits, presumably a few more people, even journalists, might have noticed.)

So there must be a reason that the district court abortion decision was not considered more important. It can’t be because Times editors or readers were ignorant of the rapidly evolving abortion issue. Just two month earlier, in April 1970, the New York Legislature had repealed the state’s 19th century abortion law, a highly visible drama complete with an emotional debate and a one-vote-margin cliff-hanger of a final act.

Maybe the compelling legislative drama in Albany used up all the air in the first half of 1970. People who simply didn’t anticipate that the courts would become major actors on the abortion question couldn’t see the parallel judicial drama as it began to play out before their eyes. How often do we fail to recognize something, or someone, we don’t expect to see?

The same is true of the trajectory of the same-sex marriage issue. Gay couples began going to court to claim a right to marry at almost exactly the same time that women began turning to the courts to claim a right to abortion. The student body president of the University of Minnesota Law School brought a marriage case in the Minnesota state courts in 1970, after he and his partner were denied a marriage license by the local county clerk. In a dismissive two-page opinion, the Minnesota Supreme Court observed that the 14th Amendment’s due process clause was “not a charter for restructuring” the “historic institution” of marriage “by judicial legislation.” The United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Numerous other cases followed, in California and other states, throughout the 1970s. The lawsuits were not successful, but that’s not my point. The point is that these cases, and the claims on the Constitution that they presented, were hiding in plain sight. Few people outside the gay community — or more precisely, outside a well-informed subset of that community — were even aware of their existence. I know I wasn’t. The notion of legally sanctioned same-sex marriage seemed too far-fetched to ponder, until it didn’t.Of the many smart moves Judge Walker made in his 136-page opinion last week, the smartest was his unveiling of a central hiding-in-plain-sight fact: the change in society’s expectations about what partnership in a marriage entails. “Marriage between a man and a woman was traditionally organized based on presumptions of a division of labor along gender lines” until recently, he said. “Men were seen as suited for certain types of work and women for others. Women were seen as suited to raise children and men were seen as suited to provide for the family.”

Judge Walker cited the advent of no-fault divorce (which New York is about to become the 50th state to adopt) as a marker of how the legal system no long prescribes roles for marriage partners based on their sex. Evidence at the trial, he said, showed “the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles.” As a result, the judge continued, “gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents,” and “gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.”
Judge Walker’s conclusion was that Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment confining marriage to opposite-sex couples, “thus enshrines in the California Constitution a gender restriction that the evidence shows to be nothing more than an artifact of a foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civil life.” Proposition 8 “mandates that men and women be treated differently based only on antiquated and discredited notions of gender.”
There is much more to Judge Walker’s analysis, but it seems to me that this revelation is the heart of it: that while we have been fussing about same-sex marriage, marriage itself has undergone profound change as the result of forces completely independent of federal judges. Judge Walker is saying basically that he is not “redefining marriage” — the charge instantly leveled by critics of the opinion. We, collectively, in California and elsewhere in today’s United States, have done the job ourselves.The real contribution of Judge Walker’s fact-filled opinion may be to enable a better informed public conversation.
If Judge Walker’s opinion survives on appeal in its full sweep, I think it will be on this basis. Will it survive? I’m not ready to predict. Clearly, the societal changes that Judge Walker identified, the inexorable erosion of the gendered boundaries that prescribed separate roles for men and women in the home and in the world, are the very changes that have animated the religious right for decades. Deep disquiet over those changes fueled the successful opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s and is a major part of what continues to make same-sex marriage a polarizing issue here even as other countries are managing to put the debate behind them in growing numbers. (Argentina’s Congress legalized same-sex marriage last month; it is legal as well in Canada, South Africa, Spain and six other European countries. The Mexican Supreme Court ruled this week that same-sex marriages performed in Mexico City, where they are legal, must be recognized as valid throughout the country.

In his passionate dissent seven years ago in the Supreme Court’s landmark gay rights case, Lawrence v. Texas, which decriminalized consensual sodomy, Justice Antonin Scalia complained that the majority had “largely signed onto the so-called homosexual agenda” and warned that the decision placed “on pretty shaky grounds” state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. That he prophesized such a result, indeed asserting that it was all but logically compelled by the majority’s analysis, of course does not mean that he will feel obliged to support it with his vote.

A Supreme Court showdown on same-sex marriage, if one comes, is probably at least 18 months away, further complicating prediction. The justices, or at least some of them, are likely to pay close attention to how the public responds, both to Judge Walker’s opinion and to the Court of Appeals decision that will come next. One early straw in the wind was a CNN poll last weekend, after the ruling, in which 52 percent of the respondents answered yes to the question, “Do you think gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law as valid?” According to Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, this was the first time a national poll showed majority support for same-sex marriage.

Given that last week’s decision is most unlikely to be the last word, the real contribution of Judge Walker’s fact-filled opinion, and of the trial that preceded it, may be to enable a better informed public conversation. Knowledge can change perceptions, which in turn can change reality.

With Elena Kagan confirmed to the Supreme Court, and thoughts turning toward the opening of the court’s new term, the first with three women on the bench, I’m reminded of a play that opened at the Kennedy Center in Washington in late 1977 on its way to Broadway. It was “First Monday in October,” with a plot that turned on the appointment of a woman to the Supreme Court. The notion was regarded as inherently comic, and it was played for laughs. But the successful play propelled a once far-fetched idea into the popular culture. Meanwhile, a woman named Sandra Day O’Connor was sitting on an appellate court in Phoenix, hiding in plain sight.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/hiding-in-plain-sight/?ref=opinion&nl=opinion&emc=tya1

[MsTinkerbelly]

Thank you Greyson...that was a great article. (f)

[AtLast]

It is amazing to me how many people in this country yell and scream about constitutional rights (thinking about gun rights, etc.), yet, have no understanding about the fact that the constitution within it's Bill of Rights is clear that voting has no effect upon our civil rights. It does not matter that a majority voted to make Prop 8 law in CA. We cannot vote to take away this right to any US citizen. Cornerstone of a democracy, here!!!

It looks like recent polls are picking-up on public opinion about same-sex marriage being OK with people across the US. There is a slight increase in these figures. That will serve us well in state to state legislation along the way, but even if most people in the US still were against it, it doesn't matter as a matter of inalienable rights under the US Constitution.

ARGH.. it makes me crazy that our own politicians don't get this! Our elected officials!!!

[MsTinkerbelly]

Prop 8: Scheduling order issued
(An important update from one of our resident legal analysts on the next steps regarding the Motion to Stay -Adam)

Cross-posted at Calitics

by Brian Devine

This is an update on the Emergency Motion to Stay that the Prop 8 supporters filed with the Ninth Circuit last night.

The Ninth Circuit just issued an Order stating that the Plaintiffs’ response to the Motion to Stay is due by 11:00 p.m. tonight. The Prop 8 supporters’ reply, not to exceed 15 pages, is due by 9:00 a.m. on Monday, August 16, 2010. This suggests that the Ninth Circuit is preparing to rule on the Motion to Stay before Judge Walker’s temporary stay expires on August 18th at 5:00 p.m.

It’s surprising that the Court only gave the Plaintiffs about 9 hours to file their brief, and gave the Appellants until Monday to Reply. But I wouldn’t read too much into this. They know that everyone anticipated the Motion and that everyone’s briefs are essentially written already

[AtLast]

Does anyone know that if the appeal is struck down by the 9th Circut and the opposition (Prop 8 proponents) then try to go to the SC and it just does not take (cert)..... will Judge Walker's (and a 9th Circut strike-down) ruling then stand?

I know that one of the motivations behind the case brought was to just get the constitutionality issue to the federal SC, but, the SC can refuse to hear cases. Obviously, this one might just be one it wants to take on, but if not (or until it does) and the 9th Circut upholds Walker's decision, then same-sex marriages could simple happen and continue in CA, correct? And the opinion be used as precident setting for other states, yes?

Trying to put together some analysis I heard parts of today and not certain if my line of thinking is correct. Thinking about how critical it is for these marriages to get going again in terms of strenghth of numbers, etc. and the case for there being some same-sex couples married in CA and others not being allowed to under an unconstitutional amendment (which Prop 8 is in CA).

[MsTinkerbelly]

Does anyone know that if the appeal is struck down by the 9th Circut and the opposition (Prop 8 proponents) then try to go to the SC and it just does not take (cert)..... will Judge Walker's (and a 9th Circut strike-down) ruling then stand?

I know that one of the motivations behind the case brought was to just get the constitutionality issue to the federal SC, but, the SC can refuse to hear cases. Obviously, this one might just be one it wants to take on, but if not (or until it does) and the 9th Circut upholds Walker's decision, then same-sex marriages could simple happen and continue in CA, correct? And the opinion be used as precident setting for other states, yes?

Trying to put together some analysis I heard parts of today and not certain if my line of thinking is correct. Thinking about how critical it is for these marriages to get going again in terms of strenghth of numbers, etc. and the case for there being some same-sex couples married in CA and others not being allowed to under an unconstitutional amendment (which Prop 8 is in CA).

I believe you are right. If the 9th Circut Court agrees with Judge Walker and the SCOTUS will not hear the case, then equal marriage in California stands and the opinion will be used as a precident in other states. If it is heard by SCOTUS and they agree with Walker, then it will be the law of the land. If they strike down Judge Walkers ruling, we will have to overturn Prop 8 by a ballot inititive.

[MsTinkerbelly]

If you go to the website joemygod, you can read Jerry Brown's answer to the request for a stay. It is only 4 pages and just reiterates his previous stance that he doesn't want the decision to be stayed, and he doesn't think the yes on hate people have any standing.

[UofMfan]

Prop 8: Gay-Marriage Opponents May Be Unable to Appeal
Time.com

By MICHAEL A. LINDENBERGER Michael A. Lindenberger – Fri Aug 13, 7:40 pm ET

If same-sex weddings resume in California next Thursday, the happy couples may have more names to add to their thank-you lists than that of U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, the San Francisco jurist who last week struck down the 2008 voter-approved constitutional amendment that made gay marriage illegal. They may have to address new cards to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and California attorney general Jerry Brown.

That's because Brown and Schwarzenegger's choosing not to appeal Walker's Aug. 4 ruling - and their contention that the state is ready to begin issuing same-sex wedding licenses immediately - may turn out to be almost as decisive a factor as the historic court ruling last week. That possibility emerged Thursday in an 11-page ruling Walker issued to deny a request by Proposition 8's proponents for him to delay implementing his own ruling allowing gay marriage until they can appeal the case to the Ninth Circuit and perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court. (See why Prop 8 was upended.)

But in a twist that caught some experts off guard, Walker not only denied the motion but did so in a way that raises serious questions whether Prop 8 proponents have any right to appeal the case at all. He ruled that they not only failed to show that the resumption of gay marriage would do them personal, irreparable harm, but that they likely lacked the legal standing to request to appeal. Instead, he suggested, their only remedy may be a political one - as unlikely as that may be. "In light of those concerns, proponents may have little choice but to attempt to convince either the Governor or the Attorney General to file an appeal to ensure appellate jurisdiction," he wrote. (See how an unlikely pair of allies are making a Supreme Court case for gay marriage.)

Walker's reasoning is this: the actual defendants in the lawsuit brought by two same-sex couples last year weren't the folks who brought Prop 8 to the ballot two years ago. Instead, the suit named Schwarzenegger and Brown. When those two officials declined to mount a defense - an unusual and controversial decision by Brown, whose job normally includes the defense of all state law - Walker allowed the group behind ProtectMarriage.com to step in and defend the case at trial. But, he said in Thursday's order, just because they were allowed to intervene to defend Prop 8 at trial doesn't mean that they would have independent standing to bring an appeal in the event that the named parties in the case chose not to do so. "When proponents moved to intervene in this action, the court did not address their standing independent of the existing parties," he wrote. "This court has jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims against the state defendants pursuant to 28 USC S 1331. If, however, no state defendant appeals, proponents will need to show standing in the court of appeals." (Comment on this story.)

That could mean trouble for the proponents. Walker gave the proponents until 5 p.m. on Aug. 18 to take their motion for a stay to the Ninth Circuit, where three judges who serve on a monthly motions panel will likely hear it. If they uphold Walker's ruling denying the stay, the only recourse for the proponents will be to ask the Supreme Court to intervene. To do so means asking the justice assigned to the Ninth Circuit to hear the motion. Ironically, in this case, that would be Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's frequent majority maker who Supreme Court oddsmakers have long said holds the decisive vote if the question of gay marriage is ever decided there.

But if the appellate judges agree with Walker that the proponents lack standing to appeal, the case may never reach the appellate courts at all, at least not on its merits. That would mean a win for gay marriage in California, as it rejoins the five other states (and D.C.) where gay marriage is legal. But it would also mean that the case would have much less national importance. The first federal decision - Walker's - ruling in favor of gay marriage would remain the only one, and would have no direct impact on marriage laws in any other state.

And to add another twist, at least one constitutional-law scholar in California is suggesting that by trumpeting the issue of standing, Walker has opened a hornet's nest he may have been better off leaving undisturbed. "If the proponents don't have standing to appeal, then it's entirely plausible that the courts will rule that they did not properly have standing to go to trial," Vikram Amar, a law professor at the University of California at Davis, told TIME Thursday evening. "This is an issue he glossed over when he allowed them to intervene in the trial."

Amar says that if the Ninth Circuit agrees with Walker that the proponents don't have standing to appeal, the judges may well decide they shouldn't have been allowed to intervene in the case at all. If they do, he says, they could decide to vacate the trial entirely, sending it back to Walker to start over. The governor and attorney general would be unlikely to intervene - but on the other hand, come November, voters will choose new candidates for both of those offices.

In that event, what happens next is anybody's guess. "We're in uncharted waters here," Amar told TIME.

[Jess]

We had the privilege of hearing this brilliant young man speak yesterday at the Big Commit Rally. He is the boy from Arkansas who refused to say the pledge of allegiance until ALL people can get married.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HcAS-i42qH4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HcAS-i42qH4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[Soon]

Will The Right Sacrifice California to Save Marriage Amendments Elsewhere? (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/will-right-sacrifice-california-save-marriage-amendments-elsewhere)


Submitted by Kyle on August 12, 2010 - 2:07pm

Earlier today I posted audio of David Barton talking with Tim Wildmon and Marvin Sanders of the American Family Association about his relationship with Glenn Beck, but now I want to highlight a more important piece of that discussion that occurred later in the interview when they were discussing the Prop 8 ruling.

All three were convinced that the case was eventually going to end up before the Supreme Court and that when it does, Justice Anthony Kennedy was going to be the deciding vote in favor of allowing gay marriage. As such, Barton revealed that there is some talk on the Right of not appealing or fighting the Prop 8 ruling and letting California have gay marriage in order to keep the case away from the Supreme Court and thereby saving the marriage amendments in all the other states:

Barton: Right now the damage is limited to California only, but if California appeals this to the US Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court with Kennedy will go for California, which means all 31 states will go down in flames, although right now this decision is limited only to California.

So there's an effort underway to say "California, please don't appeal this. I mean, if you appeal this, its bad for you guys but live with it, but don't cause the rest of us to have to go down your path."

Wildom: So you think the better situation here would be California not to appeal ...

Barton: Well, I'm telling you that that's what is being argued by a lot of folks now because the other Supreme Court attorney who watched this from afar said "on no, you left too many arguments on the table, you stayed technical." And now, knowing what Kennedy has already done in two similar cases to this and knowing that he's the deciding vote, the odds are 999 out of 1000 that they'll uphold the California decision.

If they do, there's not a marriage amendment in the country that can stand. And so the problem is that instead of California losing its amendment, now 31 states lose their amendment. And that won't happen if California doesn't appeal this decision. It's just California that loses its amendment.

[UofMfan]

Prop 8 Backers: Gay Marriages Would 'Harm The State's Interest In Promoting Responsible Procreation'

LISA LEFF | 08/16/10 03:02 PM | AP

SAN FRANCISCO — California voters had sound reasons and were not motivated by anti-gay bias when they outlawed same-sex unions in 2008, sponsors of the ban said Monday while urging a federal appeals court to stop gay weddings from resuming.

In addition, the state's interest in promoting responsible procreation through heterosexual marriages would be harmed if gay marriages were permitted while the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reviews a previous ruling that overturned Proposition 8, lawyers contended in legal filings.

"The record leaves no doubt, none at all, that California, 44 other states, and the vast majority of countries throughout the world continue to draw the line at marriage because it continues to serve a vital societal interest that is equally ubiquitous – to channel potentially procreative sexual relationships into enduring, stable unions for the sake of responsibly producing and raising the next generation," the lawyers wrote.

The arguments represented a final attempt by gay marriage opponents to persuade the 9th Circuit to step in and prevent the Aug. 4 ruling by Chief U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker from taking effect at 5 p.m. Wednesday.

Walker has said county clerks must stop enforcing the ban at that time, a move that would clear the way for gay couples to obtain marriage licenses unless the appeals court decides otherwise.

Attorneys for the two same-sex couples who successfully sued to strike down Proposition 8 have been joined by state Attorney General Jerry Brown in urging the 9th Circuit to allow gay marriages to resume without delay.

They argued that same-sex couples should not be denied their constitutional rights while the appeal is pursued, and that government agencies would suffer no harm by being required to sanction same-sex marriages.

The Proposition 8 legal team said Walker had erred in concluding there was no evidence that allowing same-sex unions would undermine heterosexual marriages by causing more children to be born into households not headed by a married mother and father.

"Reluctance to fundamentally redefine marriage stems not from blind allegiance to tradition but rather from an eminently reasonable concern that decisively severing marriage from its procreative purposes would harm the institution's ability to serve these still important societal interests," they wrote. They also disputed the notion that Proposition 8 was based on religiously rooted moral disapproval of gay Californians. If that were true, laws against prostitution, assisted suicide and other prohibitions founded on strong moral components would also be invalid, they said.

They also questioned whether the two couples who filed the lawsuit can claim that having to wait for the appeal to be considered would hurt them when neither has concrete plans to get married this week.

The two couples have both said they want to be able to schedule their weddings so their families and friends can join them.

[AtLast]

Prop 8 Backers: Gay Marriages Would 'Harm The State's Interest In Promoting Responsible Procreation'

LISA LEFF | 08/16/10 03:02 PM | AP

SAN FRANCISCO — California voters had sound reasons and were not motivated by anti-gay bias when they outlawed same-sex unions in 2008, sponsors of the ban said Monday while urging a federal appeals court to stop gay weddings from resuming.

In addition, the state's interest in promoting responsible procreation through heterosexual marriages would be harmed if gay marriages were permitted while the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reviews a previous ruling that overturned Proposition 8, lawyers contended in legal filings.

"The record leaves no doubt, none at all, that California, 44 other states, and the vast majority of countries throughout the world continue to draw the line at marriage because it continues to serve a vital societal interest that is equally ubiquitous – to channel potentially procreative sexual relationships into enduring, stable unions for the sake of responsibly producing and raising the next generation," the lawyers wrote.

The arguments represented a final attempt by gay marriage opponents to persuade the 9th Circuit to step in and prevent the Aug. 4 ruling by Chief U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker from taking effect at 5 p.m. Wednesday.

Walker has said county clerks must stop enforcing the ban at that time, a move that would clear the way for gay couples to obtain marriage licenses unless the appeals court decides otherwise.

Attorneys for the two same-sex couples who successfully sued to strike down Proposition 8 have been joined by state Attorney General Jerry Brown in urging the 9th Circuit to allow gay marriages to resume without delay.

They argued that same-sex couples should not be denied their constitutional rights while the appeal is pursued, and that government agencies would suffer no harm by being required to sanction same-sex marriages.

The Proposition 8 legal team said Walker had erred in concluding there was no evidence that allowing same-sex unions would undermine heterosexual marriages by causing more children to be born into households not headed by a married mother and father.

"Reluctance to fundamentally redefine marriage stems not from blind allegiance to tradition but rather from an eminently reasonable concern that decisively severing marriage from its procreative purposes would harm the institution's ability to serve these still important societal interests," they wrote. They also disputed the notion that Proposition 8 was based on religiously rooted moral disapproval of gay Californians. If that were true, laws against prostitution, assisted suicide and other prohibitions founded on strong moral components would also be invalid, they said.

They also questioned whether the two couples who filed the lawsuit can claim that having to wait for the appeal to be considered would hurt them when neither has concrete plans to get married this week.

The two couples have both said they want to be able to schedule their weddings so their families and friends can join them.

I believe this argument can be knocked-down via research data available.... certainly was during the trial.

UGH.... why would any same-sex couple in CA right now make any concrete plans for a wedding with this up in the air? DUH!!

[Corkey]

Share |
View All News
9th Circuit Ruling on Motion for Stay Pending Appeal
AUGUST 16, 2010
“Appellants’ motion for a stay of the district court’s order of August 4, 2010 pending appeal is GRANTED. The court sua sponte orders that this appeal be expedited pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2. The provisions of Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(a) (pertaining to grants of time extensions) shall not apply to this appeal. This appeal shall be calendared during the week of December 6, 2010, at The James R. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco, California.
The previously established briefing schedule is vacated. The opening brief is now due September 17, 2010. The answering brief is due October 18, 2010. The reply brief is due November 1, 2010. In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. See Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997).

IT IS SO ORDERED.”

We are on our way to the 9th District Court of Appeals! This is good news for the rest of the nation. I'm sorry for Californians, but in the end I think we shall prevail.

[Toughy]

Share |
View All News
9th Circuit Ruling on Motion for Stay Pending Appeal
AUGUST 16, 2010
“Appellants’ motion for a stay of the district court’s order of August 4, 2010 pending appeal is GRANTED. The court sua sponte orders that this appeal be expedited pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2. The provisions of Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(a) (pertaining to grants of time extensions) shall not apply to this appeal. This appeal shall be calendared during the week of December 6, 2010, at The James R. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco, California.
The previously established briefing schedule is vacated. The opening brief is now due September 17, 2010. The answering brief is due October 18, 2010. The reply brief is due November 1, 2010. In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. See Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997).

IT IS SO ORDERED.”

We are on our way to the 9th District Court of Appeals! This is good news for the rest of the nation. I'm sorry for Californians, but in the end I think we shall prevail.

So the 9th Circuit is going to move quickly.....first week of Dec. I figured the stay would be upheld.

msdemeanor (or anyone else)..........is this the full Court or the 3 Judge panel on why there is standing for an appeal?

[Cyclopea]

So the 9th Circuit is going to move quickly.....first week of Dec. I figured the stay would be upheld.

msdemeanor (or anyone else)..........is this the full Court or the 3 Judge panel on why there is standing for an appeal?

3 judge motion panel extended the stay. Different 3 judge merit panel will decide if there is standing. (See post #451)
:)

[MsTinkerbelly]

.

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer Lisa Leff, Associated Press Writer – 14 mins ago
SAN FRANCISCO – A federal appeals court put same-sex weddings in California on hold indefinitely Monday while it considers the constitutionality of the state's gay marriage ban.

The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, trumps a lower court judge's order that would have allowed county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Wednesday.

Lawyers for the two gay couples that challenged the ban said Monday they would not appeal the panel's decision on the stay to the Supreme Court.

In its two-page order granting the stay, the 9th Circuit agreed to expedite its consideration of the Proposition 8 case. The court plans to hear the case during the week of Dec. 6 after moving up deadlines for both sides to file their written arguments by Nov. 1.

"We are very gratified that the 9th Circuit has recognized the importance and the pressing nature of this case by issuing this extremely expedited briefing schedule," said Ted Boutrous, a member of the plaintiffs' legal team.

A different three-judge panel than the one that issued Monday's decision will be assigned to decide the constitutional question.

Chief U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker decided last week to allow gay marriages to go forward after ruling the ban violated equal protection and due process rights of gays and lesbians guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

The Proposition 8 legal team quickly appealed Walker's ruling in the case many believe will end up before the Supreme Court.

Lawyers for two same-sex couples had joined with California Attorney General Jerry Brown in urging the appeals court to allow the weddings, arguing that keeping the ban in place any longer would harm the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

Walker presided over a 13-day trial earlier this year that was the first in federal court to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married without violating the constitutional guarantee of equality.

Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.

Opponents said that tradition or fears of harm to heterosexual unions were legally insufficient grounds to discriminate against gay couples.

Currently, same-sex couples can legally wed only in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C

[Cyclopea]

"First, and drastically most importantly, the Court granted the stay. Consequently the thousands of couples who were waiting for the day of equality will have to wait at least a few more months until December. It's interesting that the panel does not at all discuss the reasons for their decision on the motion to stay. That's because if they went through the factors, there's no way they could rationalize the stay. They themselves raise the issue of standing and express an inclination that the case should be dismissed on that basis. How, then, could they possibly determine that the Appellants have a "high likelihood of success on the merits"? And how can they show that the Appellants will suffer any harm if loving couples in California are allowed to marry each other?

Second, the Court wants this case to be resolved quickly. Appellants' opening brief is due in just a month and the hearing will happen on December 6th. This is lightning quick for a Federal Court of Appeals, and it's a very good sign. The Court understands that this case is important, and it doesn't want it to linger.

Third, the Court specifically orders the Prop 8 proponents to show why this case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. This is very good news for us. It shows that the Court has serious doubts about whether the Appellants have standing.

Even better, the Court is expressing an opinion that its inclination is that the case should be dismissed. That being said, the panel that issued this Order (the motions panel) is not the same panel that will hear that case on the merits. The merits panel will be selected shortly before December 6th and we don't know the three judges who will be on the merits panel. But this is a very good sign that the appeal could be dismissed on the ground of standing alone."

[MsTinkerbelly]

BREAKING: 9th Circuit STAYS Judge Walker’s ruling; Appeal scheduled December 6
By Eden James

Just in from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:

Docket Text:
Filed order (EDWARD LEAVY, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and SIDNEY R. THOMAS) Appellants’ motion for a stay of the district court’s order of August 4, 2010 pending appeal is GRANTED. The court sua sponte orders that this appeal be expedited pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2. The provisions of Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(a) (pertaining to grants of time extensions) shall not apply to this appeal.

This appeal shall be calendared during the week of December 6, 2010, at The James R. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco, California. The previously established briefing schedule is vacated. The opening brief is now due September 17, 2010. The answering brief is due October 18, 2010. The reply brief is due November 1, 2010. In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. See Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997). IT IS SO ORDERED. [7441574] (JS)

More to come as news develops…

UPDATE BY BRIAN DEVINE (cross-posted at Calitics):

Three things:

First, and drastically most importantly, the Court granted the stay. Consequently the thousands of couples who were waiting for the day of equality will have to wait at least a few more months until December.

Second, the Court wants this case to be resolved quickly. Appellants’ opening brief is due in just a month and the hearing will happen on December 6th. This is lightning quick for a Federal Court of Appeals, and it’s a very good sign. The Court understands that this case is important, and it doesn’t want it to linger.

Third, the Court specifically orders the Prop 8 proponents to show why this case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. Here’s a discussion of the standing issue. This is very good news for us. It shows that the Court has serious doubts about whether the Appellants have standing. Even better, the Court is expressing an opinion that its inclination is that the case should be dismissed. That being said, the panel that issued this Order (the motions panel) is not the same panel that will hear that case on the merits. The merits panel will be selected shortly before December 6th and we don’t know the three judges who will be on the merits panel. But this is a very good sign that the appeal could be dismissed on the ground of standing alone.

UPDATE BY EDEN: Here’s the actual document, per Kathleen in the comments. Same as the text above:

CA9Doc 14


UPDATE BY EDEN: The AP says more about possible next steps:

The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, trumps a lower court judge’s order that would have allowed county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Wednesday.
[...]
The plaintiffs could now appeal the 9th Circuit decision to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who handles emergency motions for the high court.

UPDATE BY EDEN: The American Foundation for Equal Rights just released their statement in response:

Official Prop. 8 Plaintiffs Statement on Today’s Ninth Circuit Ruling

Today the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit set a highly expedited schedule for briefing and argument of proponents’ appeal from the district court’s August 4, 2010 decision striking down California’s Proposition 8 as an unconstitutional violation of the rights of gay and lesbian citizens to due process and equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment, and it granted proponents’ request to stay the judgment of the district court’s order while the appeal is decided. This means that although Californians who were denied equality by Proposition 8 cannot marry immediately, the Ninth Circuit, like the district court, will move swiftly to address and decide the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims on their merits. Today’s order can be found here: http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/legal-filings/9th-circuit-ruling-on-motion-for-stay-pending-appeal/

“We are very gratified that the Ninth Circuit has recognized the importance and pressing nature of this case and the need to resolve it as quickly as possible by issuing this extremely expedited briefing schedule. As Chief Judge Walker found, Proposition 8 harms gay and lesbian citizens each day it remains on the books. We look forward to moving to the next stage of this case,” said Attorney Theodore B. Olson.

“Today’s order from the Ninth Circuit for an expedited hearing schedule ensures that we will triumph over Prop. 8 as quickly as possible. This case is about fundamental constitutional rights and we at the American Foundation for Equal Rights, our Plaintiffs and our attorneys are ready to take this case all the way through the appeals court and to the United States Supreme Court,” said Chad Griffin, Board President, American Foundation for Equal Rights.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights and plaintiffs Kris Perry, Sandy Stier, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo challenged Proposition 8 in federal court for violating the U.S. Constitution. After a three-week trial (including the testimony of 17 plaintiffs’ witnesses, among them the foremost experts on the relevant issues, and thousands of pages of documents and a wealth of other evidence) the Court ruled last Wednesday, August 4, that Proposition 8 violated the rights to equal protection under the law and due process that the U.S. Constitution guarantees to every American

[PearlsNLace]

Thank you, each and everyone of you who keep this thread going, who keep making posts that explain the legaleez of whats going on, for quoting the folks who have something important (and even understandable) to say.

[MsTinkerbelly]

"First, and drastically most importantly, the Court granted the stay. Consequently the thousands of couples who were waiting for the day of equality will have to wait at least a few more months until December. It's interesting that the panel does not at all discuss the reasons for their decision on the motion to stay. That's because if they went through the factors, there's no way they could rationalize the stay. They themselves raise the issue of standing and express an inclination that the case should be dismissed on that basis. How, then, could they possibly determine that the Appellants have a "high likelihood of success on the merits"? And how can they show that the Appellants will suffer any harm if loving couples in California are allowed to marry each other?

Second, the Court wants this case to be resolved quickly. Appellants' opening brief is due in just a month and the hearing will happen on December 6th. This is lightning quick for a Federal Court of Appeals, and it's a very good sign. The Court understands that this case is important, and it doesn't want it to linger.

Third, the Court specifically orders the Prop 8 proponents to show why this case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. This is very good news for us. It shows that the Court has serious doubts about whether the Appellants have standing.

Even better, the Court is expressing an opinion that its inclination is that the case should be dismissed. That being said, the panel that issued this Order (the motions panel) is not the same panel that will hear that case on the merits. The merits panel will be selected shortly before December 6th and we don't know the three judges who will be on the merits panel. But this is a very good sign that the appeal could be dismissed on the ground of standing alone."

LOL---sorry! I was posting at the same time as you were and posted just about the same thing!:rrose:

[MsTinkerbelly]

Meanwhile, Prof. Tobias Wolff, who helped the equality side with Prop 8 litigation during the California Supreme Court phase, just emailed me the following opinion on the 9th Circuit’s stay ruling and its significance to the case:

AFER’s optimistic assessment is not just spin. The Ninth Circuit’s expedited briefing schedule is significant. Also highly significant (though AFER does not mention it in their release) is the Ninth Circuit’s instruction to the parties to focus particular attention on the question of whether the appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to the proponents’ lack of independent standing.

A victory in this appeal on the jurisdiction / standing issue would be phenomenal. Although the principles established in Judge Walker’s ruling would only result in the striking down of Proposition 8, rather than the establishment of marriage equality nationwide, dismissal of the appeal would eliminate the risk associated with bringing these claims before the Supreme Court of the United States — the most conservative Court that we have had in the last fifty years, in many respects — and Judge Walker’s devastating analysis of the factual record and the utter lack of evidence supporting any reason for excluding same-sex couples from marriage would remain on the books and be available for us to cite in all our future efforts at litigation and legislative reform.

It is frustrating that California couples will need to wait yet longer to have their rights vindicated, but this order holds much promise for the successful elimination of Proposition 8 once and for all.

UPDATE BY EDEN: California Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles), the state’s first openly gay legislative leader, has issued the following statement:

“Today’s ruling by the Ninth Circuit panel is consistent with the fact that groundbreaking decisions are often stayed pending appeal. The fact that the Court is expediting the hearing schedule only underscores the point Judge Walker made in his ruling: LGBT Californians have suffered, and are suffering, from having our constitutional right to equal protection and due process violated every moment Prop 8 remains in effect. This ruling is a reflection on established legal convention, and in no way diminishes the powerful and eloquent statement in defense of our constitutional rights Judge Walker made in his ruling.”

[AtLast]

3 judge motion panel extended the stay. Different 3 judge merit panel will decide if there is standing. (See post #451)
:)

ARGH! I really thought the 9th Circut would lift the stay!! I see power in the numbers of same-sex couples getting married for the long-term battle in this for California!

Wishful thinking! Damn! This puts these marriages on hold until December!!

[suebee]

Will The Right Sacrifice California to Save Marriage Amendments Elsewhere? (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/will-right-sacrifice-california-save-marriage-amendments-elsewhere)


Submitted by Kyle on August 12, 2010 - 2:07pm

Earlier today I posted audio of David Barton talking with Tim Wildmon and Marvin Sanders of the American Family Association about his relationship with Glenn Beck, but now I want to highlight a more important piece of that discussion that occurred later in the interview when they were discussing the Prop 8 ruling.

All three were convinced that the case was eventually going to end up before the Supreme Court and that when it does, Justice Anthony Kennedy was going to be the deciding vote in favor of allowing gay marriage. As such, Barton revealed that there is some talk on the Right of not appealing or fighting the Prop 8 ruling and letting California have gay marriage in order to keep the case away from the Supreme Court and thereby saving the marriage amendments in all the other states:

Barton: Right now the damage is limited to California only, but if California appeals this to the US Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court with Kennedy will go for California, which means all 31 states will go down in flames, although right now this decision is limited only to California.

So there's an effort underway to say "California, please don't appeal this. I mean, if you appeal this, its bad for you guys but live with it, but don't cause the rest of us to have to go down your path."

Wildom: So you think the better situation here would be California not to appeal ...

Barton: Well, I'm telling you that that's what is being argued by a lot of folks now because the other Supreme Court attorney who watched this from afar said "on no, you left too many arguments on the table, you stayed technical." And now, knowing what Kennedy has already done in two similar cases to this and knowing that he's the deciding vote, the odds are 999 out of 1000 that they'll uphold the California decision.

If they do, there's not a marriage amendment in the country that can stand. And so the problem is that instead of California losing its amendment, now 31 states lose their amendment. And that won't happen if California doesn't appeal this decision. It's just California that loses its amendment.

Thanks for posting this. I think it underlines what WE all already know: the anti-marriage equality forces know that they don't have any valid legal arguments - the only way they will succeed in blocking our rights is if they appeal to the prejudices of the general public. Hopefully our allies will see this too.

[MsTinkerbelly]

The similarities and differences between the Prop 8 and DOMA cases
by Adam Bink

In last night’s thread, Eden posted some thoughts from UPenn law professor Tobias Wolff:

A victory in this appeal on the jurisdiction / standing issue would be phenomenal. Although the principles established in Judge Walker’s ruling would only result in the striking down of Proposition 8, rather than the establishment of marriage equality nationwide, dismissal of the appeal would eliminate the risk associated with bringing these claims before the Supreme Court of the United States — the most conservative Court that we have had in the last fifty years, in many respects — and Judge Walker’s devastating analysis of the factual record and the utter lack of evidence supporting any reason for excluding same-sex couples from marriage would remain on the books and be available for us to cite in all our future efforts at litigation and legislative reform.

Over the last few weeks an interesting debate has emerged over whether equality advocates should hope that the case is not struck down over the standing issue, so as for the case to make it to the Supreme Court where it has a chance of playing a role in enacting equality for the entire nation, rather than just California.

What I’ve noticed is that the debate is very similar to the discussion around the lawsuit challenging DOMA in Massachusetts. I examined these arguments in depth in a piece at my home blog, OpenLeft.com, titled “The question of whether to hope for a DOJ appeal“. For those unfamiliar with the case, some background from the lede:

The strategy and legal question that has been buzzing around LGBT circles, and articulated here at OpenLeft by Mark Matson, is whether or not advocates for equality between same-sex and opposite-sex couples should actually be hoping for the Department of Justice to appeal the case to the First Circuit and then the Supreme Court. The reason is because these cases are limited in their effects to the married, same-sex couples residing within Massachusetts borders only, while if the case is appealed and won at the First Circuit, same-sex couples in other states (most notably New Hampshire, which has legalized same-sex marriage, but also a few other states and Puerto Rico) would benefit. And of course, if won at the Supreme Court, it would affect the country.

Very interesting similarities to our debate around a Prop 8 appeal. In the end for the DOMA lawsuit, it appears likely that one way or another, the case will end up before the Supreme Court. I wrote:

Aside from it being unlikely for one of the three situations to come true, it appears unlikely that the SCOTUS will not hear this case, sooner or later.

I say that for three reasons Gary and I worked through. One, it’s not likely that one by one, a lawsuit or lawsuits will work its way through each of this country’s twelve circuits (not including the Federal Circuit, which only does patent law) over the next few decades, and every single time the federal government declines to appeal. Nor is it likely that if the government does, that every single time the SCOTUS declines to hear them. If we lose at one, it’s also not likely to happen for a second reason, which Gary pointed out to me- where there is a conflict in circuit court rulings- e.g., we win at the 1st Circuit but the 9th Circuit decides differently- that is often where the SCOTUS decides to step in. A third reason it’s also not likely is because if our side prevails, I’m told it’s more likely the SCOTUS will hear the case than if we lose.

So, when it comes to advocates for equality, there are definitely downsides to the government not appealing. On the other hand, this seems to be a road that has an end at the SCOTUS anyway, sooner or later. With that point of view, what would matter in determining whether or not to hope for appeal is your view of how friendly the SCOTUS is, now versus in the future. Which may be the better question to ask.

In the Prop 8 case, this question- the likelihood of the SCOTUS coming down on the side of equality- is, too, burning on all of our minds, and has been since the Olson/Boies lawsuit was announced. “Do you really think there are 5 votes on the Supreme Court for this?” is the most common question I hear asked of the two attorneys in interviews.

[B]But the difference in the case here, as I see it, is that there is far more good news if the Prop 8 case is struck down on standing. I am always a little surprised when friends and colleagues lament that the ruling would be limited to California, the 8th largest economy in the world- large enough to be a country on its own, large enough to be bigger than some entire countries that already have legalized the freedom to marry for same-sex couples. Having thousands of more same-sex couples marry if the case is struck down on standing alone should not be a disappointment. It will help create a favorable environment to a future court ruling. It will help move public opinion and create visibility. It could (potentially) mean saving tens of millions of dollars and countless other resources from a future Prop 8 repeal effort that could be channeled towards advancing equality in other states, like Oregon. I also believe it will help us in efforts to repeal the anti-equality constitutional amendment in Oregon in 2012. And of course, it will make many more same-sex couples a great deal more equal. It is no small deal.

So while I agree with Tobias that a victory on the standing issue would be phenomenal, it is less out of fear or caution regarding the composition of the Supreme Court. I believe, as Olson and Boies do, that we can win there, and that too would be incredible. It is out of a hope for fairness to come sooner rather than later to same-sex couples, and for the sake and usefulness of advancing our movement down the road via other avenues that could even further build our chances of winning at the Supreme Court one day

[Soon]

But the difference in the case here, as I see it, is that there is far more good news if the Prop 8 case is struck down on standing. I am always a little surprised when friends and colleagues lament that the ruling would be limited to California, the 8th largest economy in the world- large enough to be a country on its own, large enough to be bigger than some entire countries that already have legalized the freedom to marry for same-sex couples. Having thousands of more same-sex couples marry if the case is struck down on standing alone should not be a disappointment. It will help create a favorable environment to a future court ruling. It will help move public opinion and create visibility. It could (potentially) mean saving tens of millions of dollars and countless other resources from a future Prop 8 repeal effort that could be channeled towards advancing equality in other states, like Oregon. I also believe it will help us in efforts to repeal the anti-equality constitutional amendment in Oregon in 2012. And of course, it will make many more same-sex couples a great deal more equal. It is no small deal.

So while I agree with Tobias that a victory on the standing issue would be phenomenal, it is less out of fear or caution regarding the composition of the Supreme Court. I believe, as Olson and Boies do, that we can win there, and that too would be incredible. It is out of a hope for fairness to come sooner rather than later to same-sex couples, and for the sake and usefulness of advancing our movement down the road via other avenues that could even further build our chances of winning at the Supreme Court one day


I'm one of the ones who want it to go to the SCJ. Probably no surprise there.

I think they have a great case and, of course, a California win--although I'd be happy for all out there--does nothing for other States (some that have rock solid state amendments banning equal marriage) and DOMA still being applied to same sex couples who lack over 1000 benefits.

I also don't think a win in California would do much to change the public opinion of the States around here (that will take generations) where we are located (FL).

Canada has had marriage equality since 2005 and now same sex marriages in Mexico City must be acknowledged by the other 31 states in that country (with a 91 percent Roman Catholic population no less!).

Both of those locations didn't wait until public opinion favoured marriage equality. Both Mexican and Canadian governments, court cases and and/or Supreme Courts took care of it in the name of justice and fairness for all...without a nod to public opinion.

What do you think? Would you consider it a success if the win stays in California and it isn't taken to the SCJ?

Do people still advise patience to those in other States and the issue of Federal rights?

curious.

[UofMfan]

I'm one of the ones who want it to go to the SCJ. Probably no surprise there.

I think they have a great case and, of course, a California win--although I'd be happy for all out there--does nothing for other States (some that have rock solid state amendments banning equal marriage) and DOMA still being applied to same sex couples who lack over 1000 benefits.

I also don't think a win in California would do much to change the public opinion of the States around here (that will take generations) where we are located (FL).

Canada has had marriage equality since 2005 and now same sex marriages in Mexico City must be acknowledged by the other 31 states in that country (with a 91 percent Roman Catholic population no less!).

Both of those locations didn't wait until public opinion favoured marriage equality. Both Mexican and Canadian governments, court cases and and/or Supreme Courts took care of it in the name of justice and fairness for all...without a nod to public opinion.

What do you think? Would you consider it a success if the win stays in California and it isn't taken to the SCJ?

Do people still advise patience to those in other States and the issue of Federal rights?

curious.



It is no surprise that I agree with you.

Trickle down Equal Rights?

[JustJo]

As several have pointed out here...the government is highly involved in marriage, and at the national level. Marriage conveys a host of legal rights (and obligations) as well as tax status, etc. Some of that's good, some of it isn't...but marriage is not solely a religious issue, it's a legal status.

Until the federal government protects that right nationally, it's going to be an ongoing mish-mash of give and take away again, depending on the public's mood of the day and the whims of the states. That's no way to live.

I'm with you HSIN...I'd like to see this go to the Supreme Court.

[MsTinkerbelly]

I'm one of the ones who want it to go to the SCJ. Probably no surprise there.

I think they have a great case and, of course, a California win--although I'd be happy for all out there--does nothing for other States (some that have rock solid state amendments banning equal marriage) and DOMA still being applied to same sex couples who lack over 1000 benefits.

I also don't think a win in California would do much to change the public opinion of the States around here (that will take generations) where we are located (FL).

Canada has had marriage equality since 2005 and now same sex marriages in Mexico City must be acknowledged by the other 31 states in that country (with a 91 percent Roman Catholic population no less!).

Both of those locations didn't wait until public opinion favoured marriage equality. Both Mexican and Canadian governments, court cases and and/or Supreme Courts took care of it in the name of justice and fairness for all...without a nod to public opinion.

What do you think? Would you consider it a success if the win stays in California and it isn't taken to the SCJ?

Do people still advise patience to those in other States and the issue of Federal rights?

curious.

Sometimes I bold things just to point them out, not because I agree with them. That being said, I am legally married in the State of California. I am not legally married in Florida (for example), nor do I have the other 1000 rights that are supposed to come with a marriage. Rights, responsibilities, obligations, privileges....my God damn rights!!!!

I will not be happy until we are all equal, and anybody that "settles" for one State at a time is not representing me. We have to get out of that mentality of not wanting to push too hard...because we will only get what we by rights should have always had if we push, and fight, and scream for what is ours.

I have a lot more to say, but I have to get back to work.

Blessings,

Cindy(f)

[christie]

Meanwhile, Prof. Tobias Wolff, who helped the equality side with Prop 8 litigation during the California Supreme Court phase, just emailed me the following opinion on the 9th Circuit’s stay ruling and its significance to the case:

AFER’s optimistic assessment is not just spin. The Ninth Circuit’s expedited briefing schedule is significant. Also highly significant (though AFER does not mention it in their release) is the Ninth Circuit’s instruction to the parties to focus particular attention on the question of whether the appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to the proponents’ lack of independent standing.

A victory in this appeal on the jurisdiction / standing issue would be phenomenal. Although the principles established in Judge Walker’s ruling would only result in the striking down of Proposition 8, rather than the establishment of marriage equality nationwide, dismissal of the appeal would eliminate the risk associated with bringing these claims before the Supreme Court of the United States — the most conservative Court that we have had in the last fifty years, in many respects — and Judge Walker’s devastating analysis of the factual record and the utter lack of evidence supporting any reason for excluding same-sex couples from marriage would remain on the books and be available for us to cite in all our future efforts at litigation and legislative reform.

It is frustrating that California couples will need to wait yet longer to have their rights vindicated, but this order holds much promise for the successful elimination of Proposition 8 once and for all.

UPDATE BY EDEN: California Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles), the state’s first openly gay legislative leader, has issued the following statement:

“Today’s ruling by the Ninth Circuit panel is consistent with the fact that groundbreaking decisions are often stayed pending appeal. The fact that the Court is expediting the hearing schedule only underscores the point Judge Walker made in his ruling: LGBT Californians have suffered, and are suffering, from having our constitutional right to equal protection and due process violated every moment Prop 8 remains in effect. This ruling is a reflection on established legal convention, and in no way diminishes the powerful and eloquent statement in defense of our constitutional rights Judge Walker made in his ruling.”

Just an FYI about the prop 8 trial tracker - we got to meet Phyllis (one of the NOM trackers) on Sunday - she was just great. There is a pic posted of yours truly and Jess about halfway down the page. I'm the one with the pink (ugh) backpack! Our son is the tall kid in the plaid hat behind us. Its not the greatest picture in the world - after a morning of touristy hell in the rain, we were just glad to be standing still!

Also - lil fella, Will Phillips - well, I won't be surprised if he is a world leader. Its amazing what our kids can teach us if we listen.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Sometimes I bold things just to point them out, not because I agree with them. That being said, I am legally married in the State of California. I am not legally married in Florida (for example), nor do I have the other 1000 rights that are supposed to come with a marriage. Rights, responsibilities, obligations, privileges....my God damn rights!!!!

I will not be happy until we are all equal, and anybody that "settles" for one State at a time is not representing me. We have to get out of that mentality of not wanting to push too hard...because we will only get what we by rights should have always had if we push, and fight, and scream for what is ours.

I have a lot more to say, but I have to get back to work.

Blessings,

Cindy(f)

I came off kind of....well, kind of like me on my soap box! Sorry, I get very passionate about things I really believe in.

I grieved for weeks after Prop 8 passed because I firmly believe that everyone should have the same joy I have found.(f)

[Cyclopea]

I'm one of the ones who want it to go to the SCJ. Probably no surprise there.

I think they have a great case and, of course, a California win--although I'd be happy for all out there--does nothing for other States (some that have rock solid state amendments banning equal marriage) and DOMA still being applied to same sex couples who lack over 1000 benefits.

I also don't think a win in California would do much to change the public opinion of the States around here (that will take generations) where we are located (FL).

Canada has had marriage equality since 2005 and now same sex marriages in Mexico City must be acknowledged by the other 31 states in that country (with a 91 percent Roman Catholic population no less!).

Both of those locations didn't wait until public opinion favoured marriage equality. Both Mexican and Canadian governments, court cases and and/or Supreme Courts took care of it in the name of justice and fairness for all...without a nod to public opinion.

What do you think? Would you consider it a success if the win stays in California and it isn't taken to the SCJ?

Do people still advise patience to those in other States and the issue of Federal rights?

curious.


I think it's a win either way. It doesn't seem like a very good attempt at an appeal- I don't think they are really trying.

I wouldn't mind seeing the massachusetts DOMA case reach the SCOTUS first.
But either way it's a precedent setting win as long as Walker stands. I'm more interested in the recent national poll that shows increasing public support- now an even split: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/11/americans-split-evenly-on-
gay-marriage/

I am very attached to the idea of boise and olsen arguing before SCOTUS, (because they are so experienced and have such a good track record) and hope that they will continue to litigate on our behalf.

As long as the issue is decided before 2012 (when a public vote by californians for marriage equality could completely void the whole case) I'll be happy. Although that's not exactly a loss either. ;)

I can't say I advocate for "patience", because if it wasn't for boise and olsen ignoring the gay establishment's cries for "patience" this trial would not have even occurred. I guess I advocate for steadfastness and celebrating the inevitability of marriage equality in the USA.
:hangloose:

[Cyclopea]

On a different topic....

Can anyone find any proof that Maggie Gallagher is actually married?

I can't seem to locate that info and would really appreciate it if someone could post that info for me. I know she claims to be married but can't actually find any info supporting that. Thanks for your time.

:)

[Soon]

On a different topic....

Can anyone find any proof that Maggie Gallagher is actually married?

I can't seem to locate that info and would really appreciate it if someone could post that info for me. I know she claims to be married but can't actually find any info supporting that. Thanks for your time.

:)

It was hard to find. I thought she was divorced b/c I know she goes by her original name but I was wrong; it was another *sin* I was confusing it with...unwed motherhood!




A former unwed mother, she married Raman Srivastav in 1993 [4] and has two children. [5] [6]


http://wapedia.mobi/en/Maggie_Gallagher <--not sure if this is proof enough! You sure don't see her husband and children around much (at all?).

[Cyclopea]

It was hard to find. I thought she was divorced b/c I know she goes by her original name but I was wrong; it was another *sin* I was confusing it with...unwed motherhood!




A former unwed mother, she married Raman Srivastav in 1993 [4] and has two children. [5] [6]


http://wapedia.mobi/en/Maggie_Gallagher <--not sure if this is proof enough! You sure don't see her husband and children around much (at all?).

Thank you for trying! I saw the wiki entry but it is unsubstantiated. No one has ever seen her "husband" and she does not even wear a ring. I'm looking for any proof whatsoever that she is actually married. Hopefully someone can find that. Thanks!

[Soon]

Thank you for trying! I saw the wiki entry but it is unsubstantiated. No one has ever seen her "husband" and she does not even wear a ring. I'm looking for any proof whatsoever that she is actually married. Hopefully someone can find that. Thanks!

Ok. Daniel just walked in and was like, "She's divorced!"

I had typed that out first but had no proof!

He's convinced she is divorced.

I'm getting him on the case.

[Jess]

Neither Gallagher nor Alveda King showed up Sunday for the last stop on the NOM tour.

I am just amazed at King's position in lieu of her very specific family history and even more so, considering her aunt, Coretta Scott King made very public statements in support of gay rights.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Just an FYI about the prop 8 trial tracker - we got to meet Phyllis (one of the NOM trackers) on Sunday - she was just great. There is a pic posted of yours truly and Jess about halfway down the page. I'm the one with the pink (ugh) backpack! Our son is the tall kid in the plaid hat behind us. Its not the greatest picture in the world - after a morning of touristy hell in the rain, we were just glad to be standing(f) still!

Also - lil fella, Will Phillips - well, I won't be surprised if he is a world leader. Its amazing what our kids can teach us if we listen.

Awesome picture!

I had seen the picture when looking through the site...I love seeing pictures of Butch-Femme couples!

[Cyclopea]

Just an FYI about the prop 8 trial tracker - we got to meet Phyllis (one of the NOM trackers) on Sunday - she was just great. There is a pic posted of yours truly and Jess about halfway down the page. I'm the one with the pink (ugh) backpack! Our son is the tall kid in the plaid hat behind us. Its not the greatest picture in the world - after a morning of touristy hell in the rain, we were just glad to be standing still!

Also - lil fella, Will Phillips - well, I won't be surprised if he is a world leader. Its amazing what our kids can teach us if we listen.

Great Pic!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/couragecampaign/4895011402/
:)

[Soon]

Great Pic!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/couragecampaign/4895011402/
:)



Ya cuties!!!

Fabulous!

[christie]

Great Pic!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/couragecampaign/4895011402/
:)

Ya cuties!!!

Fabulous!


Oh wow. That's us! LOL I had no clue it was posted elsewhere!

There was one of us really smoochin - the fella made us hold it for his shot. I have NO clue as to where that one wound up!

It was great to be there. I was disappointed that the counter rally was a MILE away from the NOM nutjobs. It was also an unexpected surprise that our hotel was on the corner opposite the HRC Natl HQ.

I do think that I was really nice to some of the NOM folks at the Natural History Museum - they were standing in front taking pictures of one another and I offered to take one of them as a group. A couple of the ladies were really gracious while the older man and woman looked as if they wished the earth would open and swallow me. Oh well. Kill 'em with kindness!!

[Soon]

Latin America ahead of U.S. on same-sex marriage (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-mexico-20100813,0,6836497.story)

Countries such as Mexico and Argentina have shown recognition that religion and civil law have different roles to perform in marriage, something absent in the debate in the U.S.

As California and the United States struggle with the issue of same-sex marriage at the polls and in courtrooms, Latin America is moving more broadly toward acceptance of this basic human right. Last month, Argentina became the first nation in the region to legalize such marriages, granting wedded gay and lesbian couples the same legal rights, responsibilities and protections as heterosexuals. Following suit, senators from the opposition Socialist Party in Chile introduced a bill proposing to remove the "man and woman" clause from the marriage law there. And Mexico's Supreme Court, which had upheld a law enacted in March permitting same-sex marriages in Mexico City, issued a 9-2 decision this week that gay marriages performed in the capital — a federal district like Washington, D.C. — must be recognized by all 31 states in the republic.

This is a wrenching issue for traditionally conservative and deeply religious countries, influenced by Roman Catholic and Protestant evangelical churches opposed to gay unions. Church leaders have taken strong public stands against gay marriage in Argentina and Mexico. But throughout Latin America, marriage is a civil institution performed by the state. The recognition that religion and civil law have different roles to perform in marriage is often painfully absent in the debate in this country; Latin American nations have hewed to that distinction and are better off for it. The Mexican Supreme Court is not liberal so much as committed to the primacy of civil law.

Still, there is political opposition too. Conservative Chilean President Sebastian Pinera has pledged to expand the rights of same-sex couples seeking civil unions, but says he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. Mexican President Felipe Calderon's conservative National Action Party has close ties to the Catholic Church, and his government had challenged Mexico City's gay marriage law on the grounds that it violated constitutional protections of the institution of the family and procreation.

The Mexican Supreme Court overruled the president. It determined that the Constitution does not define "family," procreation is "not an essential element of marriage," and same-sex marriage does not interfere with the rights of those who want to conceive. The court is to rule on another challenge to Mexico City's law allowing same-sex couples to adopt children.

Get the best in Southern California opinion journalism delivered to your inbox with our Opinion L.A. newsletter. Sign up »

The legal battles are far from over in Mexico, however. Although the court said states must recognize the marriages performed in the capital, it did not require the states to reform their laws to allow same-sex marriages. It also left the door open for states to legislate on divorce, pensions, inheritances and other issues involving same-sex couples. Some undoubtedly will enact restrictive laws that will end up back in the courts. But that is part of the long march of progress. In the meantime, Latin America has made great strides toward ending discrimination and granting equal rights to gays and lesbians

[Jess]

Thank you for trying! I saw the wiki entry but it is unsubstantiated. No one has ever seen her "husband" and she does not even wear a ring. I'm looking for any proof whatsoever that she is actually married. Hopefully someone can find that. Thanks!


If she isn't married... according to NOM supporters, hers is only "half a family". I guess she must get her comfort from her loving God since her friends only consider her a fraction.

[Jess]

We had the privilege of hearing this brilliant young man speak yesterday at the Big Commit Rally. He is the boy from Arkansas who refused to say the pledge of allegiance until ALL people can get married.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HcAS-i42qH4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HcAS-i42qH4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>



I got our boy in school today. While waiting for the guidance counselor to go through class selection, etc. we listened to the morning announcements. It began with the Pledge of Allegiance. We were sitting in the main office and everyone present stood up, hand over heart, eyes on flag and repeated it along with speaker. The boy glanced at me with a startled look and kinda shook his head muttering "uh-huh". I remained seated beside him.

I'm not sure how he will feel tomorrow am when he is in his first period class but I do know that hearing this young man ( Will) really seemed to have impacted him.

We didn't get a chance to discuss it and I will be discussing it with his other mom tonight, so we are both on the same page "if" Alex decides to follows Will's lead. Part of me hopes he does. Part of me totally understands if he doesn't. Being a new kid in a new school with special needs after being in a non-mainstream school for several years and dyke parents.. he is already in front of the eight ball.

Glad to see so much great participation in this thread! thank you to everyone who has been participating ( either vocally or not! :) )

[suebee]

"A Hindu priest performed the first wedding ceremony in Nepal for a foreign gay couple, a rights group said Wednesday, as activists and tourist agencies increasingly promote the Himalayan nation as a gay-friendly destination."

Story here (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/08/18/nepal-gay018.html).

[MsTinkerbelly]

Thursday, August 19, 2010
SAN DIEGO: 12 Activists Arrested In Marriage Protest At County Clerk's Office

A dozen activists were arrested today at a San Diego county clerk's office when they refused to leave without being issue marriage licenses.
On the day hundreds of gay and lesbian couples statewide planned to obtain their long-awaited marriage licenses, a crowd of about 50 people gathered at the county clerk's office Thursday to protest a federal judge's stay of a federal ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Three people were taken away in plastic handcuffs by sheriff's deputies early in the demonstration and an additional nine people were removed later. A deputy said they were detained for blocking access to a county office. Tony and Tyler Dylan-Hyde and at least one other couple came to the county clerk's office this morning at 8 a.m. asking to receive their marriage license. "We believe that county officials and the Attorney General have the authority and the obligation to allow marriage licenses to proceed based on both federal court findings and that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional and the governor's filings in Prop. 8 cases," Tyler Dylan-Hyde said. "We are asking you to do what's right."

According to the linked news story, those arrested had blocked the entrance of heterosexual couples with appointments to get licenses.

[betenoire]

n9gbQKwOh68

[Greyson]

Thursday, August 19, 2010
SAN DIEGO: 12 Activists Arrested In Marriage Protest At County Clerk's Office

A dozen activists were arrested today at a San Diego county clerk's office when they refused to leave without being issue marriage licenses.
On the day hundreds of gay and lesbian couples statewide planned to obtain their long-awaited marriage licenses, a crowd of about 50 people gathered at the county clerk's office Thursday to protest a federal judge's stay of a federal ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Three people were taken away in plastic handcuffs by sheriff's deputies early in the demonstration and an additional nine people were removed later. A deputy said they were detained for blocking access to a county office. Tony and Tyler Dylan-Hyde and at least one other couple came to the county clerk's office this morning at 8 a.m. asking to receive their marriage license. "We believe that county officials and the Attorney General have the authority and the obligation to allow marriage licenses to proceed based on both federal court findings and that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional and the governor's filings in Prop. 8 cases," Tyler Dylan-Hyde said. "We are asking you to do what's right."

According to the linked news story, those arrested had blocked the entrance of heterosexual couples with appointments to get licenses.

I'm curious. Did the media get a statement from any of the heterosexual couples as to their thoughts on equality and same sex marriage? I wonder if they truly understand their heterosexual privilege and if so, do they care?

[MsTinkerbelly]

I'm curious. Did the media get a statement from any of the heterosexual couples as to their thoughts on equality and same sex marriage? I wonder if they truly understand their heterosexual privilege and if so, do they care?

There was a video along with the story that I didn't have time to watch, so there may or may not have been some interaction between "us and them".

In answer to your question, which may have just been rhetorical.....I believe personally that most hetrosexual people have no clue. If they knew what we feel every time they easily do something we are forbidden; (marry, adopt, housing, employment) I would like to think they would think twice about throwing the privilege in our faces.

But then again not even I really believe that, and I think the best of everyone.:seeingstars:

[Soon]

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Proposition 8 Lawsuit (http://www.thenation.com/print/article/154060/how-i-learned-stop-worrying-and-love-proposition-8-lawsuit)

[leatherfaery]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/08/19/state/n165637D04.DTL&type=science

[Soon]

What Does Obama Really Think About Gay Marriage? A Telling Timeline.
(http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/77120/what-does-obama-really-think-about-gay-marriage-telling-timeline)
James Downie

In the gay marriage debate, President Obama says that he supports civil unions for same-sex couples. But has this always been his view? A look back at his statements on gay marriage, from his days as a state senate candidate until his time in the White House, suggests that Obama's public stance has shifted notably:

1996: In response to a questionnaire from Outlines newspaper (now part of Windy City Times), Obama, a candidate for the Illinois state senate seat representing the wealthy Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago, writes, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." Eight years later, in a letter to Windy City Times, Obama would say that he opposed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996, calling it “an effort to demonize people for political advantage” that should be repealed.

1998: Responding to an Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test: “Q: Do you believe that the Illinois government should recognize same-sex marriages? A: Undecided.”

2004: In an interview with Windy City Times, Obama mentions the religious dimension of the gay marriage debate, says he supports civil unions, and indicates that his stance is dictated in large part by political strategy:

Obama: I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that's true in the African-American community, for example. And if you asked people, 'should gay and lesbian people have the same rights to transfer property, and visit hospitals, and et cetera,' they would say, 'absolutely.' And then if you talk about, 'should they get married?', then suddenly…

WCT: There are more than 1,000 federal benefits that come with marriage. Looking back in the 1960s and inter-racial marriage, the polls showed people against that as well.

Obama: Since I'm a product of an interracial marriage, I'm very keenly aware of ...

WCT: But you think, strategically, gay marriage isn't going to happen so you won't support it at this time?

Obama: What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. I think we can get SB 101 [which would add “sexual orientation” to Illinois’s non-discrimination laws] passed. I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name.”

2006: In his bestseller, The Audacity of Hope, Obama, now a U.S. senator, explains his support for civil unions, again mentioning religion and noting the strategic problems that the push for gay marriage poses:

For many practicing Christians, the inability to compromise may apply to gay marriage. I find such a position troublesome, particularly in a society in which Christian men and women have been known to engage in adultery or other violations of their faith without civil penalty. I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture. I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights no such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simply because the people they love are of the same sex—nor am I willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount. …The heightened focus on marriage is a distraction from other, attainable measures to prevent discrimination and gays and lesbians. (pp. 222-3)

July 2007: At the CNN/YouTube Democratic primary debate in Charleston, South Carolina, Obama discusses interracial versus gay marriage and says that it should be up to individual religions whether they recognize civil unions as marriages:

Anderson Cooper: Senator Obama, the laws banning interracial marriage in the United States were ruled unconstitutional in 1967. What is the difference between a ban on interracial marriage and a ban on gay marriage?

Obama: Well, I think that it is important to pick up on something that was said earlier by both Dennis [Kucinich] and by Bill [Richardson], and that is that we've got to make sure that everybody is equal under the law. And the civil unions that I proposed would be equivalent in terms of making sure that all the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for same-sex couples as well as for heterosexual couples.

Now, with respect to marriage, it's my belief that it's up to the individual denominations to make a decision as to whether they want to recognize marriage or not. But in terms of, you know, the rights of people to transfer property, to have hospital visitation, all those critical civil rights that are conferred by our government, those should be equal.

August 2007: At the Human Rights Campaign/Logo gay issues debate, also during the Democratic primaries, Obama emphasizes the religious importance of the term “marriage” and explains why civil unions aren’t discriminatory:

Q: If you were back in the Illinois legislature where you served and the issue of civil marriage came before you, how would you have voted on that?

A: My view is that we should try to disentangle what has historically been the issue of the word “marriage,” which has religious connotations to some people, from the civil rights that are given to couples, in terms of hospital visitation, in terms of whether or not they can transfer property or Social Security benefits and so forth. So it depends on how the bill would’ve come up. I would’ve supported and would continue to support a civil union that provides all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage. And it is then, as I said, up to religious denominations to make a determination as to whether they want to recognize that as marriage or not.

Q: On the grounds of civil marriage, can you see to our community where [your stance of separating gay rights from the word “marriage”] comes across as sounding like “separate but equal”?

A: Look, when my parents got married in 1961, it would have been illegal for them to be married in a number of states in the South. So obviously, this is something that I understand intimately, it’s something that I care about. But if I were advising the civil rights movement back in 1961 about its approach to civil rights, I would have probably said it’s less important that we focus on an anti-miscegenation law than we focus on a voting rights law and a non-discrimination and employment law and all the legal rights that are conferred by the state. Now, it’s not for me to suggest that you shouldn’t be troubled by these issues. But my job as president is going to be to make sure that the legal rights that have consequences on a day to day basis for loving same sex couples all across the country.

2008: In an interview with MTV, Obama says he opposes Prop 8, but also gay marriage. Civil unions, the candidate says, are sufficient:

I have stated my opposition to [Prop 8]. I think it is unnecessary. I believe that marriage is between a man and woman and I am not in favor of gay marriage, but when you're playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that that is not what America is about. Usually constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them. What I believe is that if we have strong civil unions out there that provide legal rights to same-sex couples that they can visit each other in the hospital if they get sick, that they can transfer property to each other. If they've got benefits, they can make sure those benefits apply to their partners. I think that is the direction we need to go.

2010: After the Perry decision, which struck down Prop 8, the White House releases this statement: “The president has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans." Meanwhile, White House senior adviser David Axelrod tells MSNBC that Obama "does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples. … He supports civil unions. That’s been his position throughout. So nothing has changed."

[Jess]

http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/barack_obama_and_meg_whitman_two_religious_peas_in _a_pod

[Jess]

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/blog/entry/marriage-equality-students-can-lead-the-way

[MsTinkerbelly]

WYOMING: Gay Couple Challenges Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

A young gay couple has filed a federal court challenge to the constitutionality of Wyoming's ban on same-sex marriage. So far, they are representing themselves.
The lawsuit, filed Aug. 13 by David Shupe-Roderick, 25, and Ryan W. Dupree, 21, is the first legal challenge in recent memory to Wyoming’s law defining marriage as being a contract solely “between a male and a female person.” The couple, who are representing themselves, filed the lawsuit after the Laramie County Clerk's Office refused three times to issue them a marriage license. That's unequal treatment, they said, and they're asking U.S. District Judge Alan B. Johnson to stop the state from enforcing any laws that block gays and lesbians from access to civil marriage. “We determined that a lawsuit was the only possible way for them to get to recognize us as people,” Shupe-Roderick said. “I think it’s time that Wyoming lives up to its title. You know they call themselves the Equality State? Well, they’re not so equal.”
The plaintiffs say they cannot afford an attorney and can't find one to take their case for free. They add that so far they are relying on knowledge one of them acquired while interning for the ACLU

[christie]

WYOMING: Gay Couple Challenges Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

A young gay couple has filed a federal court challenge to the constitutionality of Wyoming's ban on same-sex marriage. So far, they are representing themselves.
The lawsuit, filed Aug. 13 by David Shupe-Roderick, 25, and Ryan W. Dupree, 21, is the first legal challenge in recent memory to Wyoming’s law defining marriage as being a contract solely “between a male and a female person.” The couple, who are representing themselves, filed the lawsuit after the Laramie County Clerk's Office refused three times to issue them a marriage license. That's unequal treatment, they said, and they're asking U.S. District Judge Alan B. Johnson to stop the state from enforcing any laws that block gays and lesbians from access to civil marriage. “We determined that a lawsuit was the only possible way for them to get to recognize us as people,” Shupe-Roderick said. “I think it’s time that Wyoming lives up to its title. You know they call themselves the Equality State? Well, they’re not so equal.”
The plaintiffs say they cannot afford an attorney and can't find one to take their case for free. They add that so far they are relying on knowledge one of them acquired while interning for the ACLU

Interesting wording: "man and a female person"

Wonder why it isnt male person and female person?

[Jess]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/08/bush-campaign-chief-and-former-rnc-chair-ken-mehlman-im-gay/62065/

[Toughy]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/08/bush-campaign-chief-and-former-rnc-chair-ken-mehlman-im-gay/62065/

we are supposed to be happy because a rat bastard decided to come out and probably wants to get legally married?????

[Jess]

we are supposed to be happy because a rat bastard decided to come out and probably wants to get legally married?????


If you want to be happy, then do so. It is just a news tidbit that was out there and I thought it worth sharing.

[christie]

we are supposed to be happy because a rat bastard decided to come out and probably wants to get legally married?????

Ya know, for me (and this is obviously different for you), I try not to rush to judgement about folks. I don't see it on my to-do list to judge how/when someone comes out. Its not my story nor my life and I think we all know that some folks "get to the party later than others".

For me, it certainly doesn't hurt to have someone with his political connections on the side of equality. I get a kick out of thinking about how his good ole' boys in the RNC will have to think about their views of gays since Mehlman is reported to be the most powerful Republican to have come out. I'd also like to see his energies utilized in repealing DOMA, DADT moreso than I would for him to continue to have to explain ad nauseam why it took him so long to come out.

Perhaps it seems trite to some, but I'd rather have our numbers increasing. The more the merrier - and it would seem that someone such as Mehlman would have a better chance of their voice being heard - of having the capacity to effect change - moreso than average jo schmoe me.

I'm sure that Toughy has a different opinion on this and I don't want this to become a debate about our different views. I think that Mehlman's coming out and open support of marriage equality is a good thing.

[MsTinkerbelly]

FLASHBACK: Mehlman Supports 2005 Federal Marriage Amendment

In January 2005, GOP Sen. Wayne Allard (CO) introduced the Marriage Protection Amendment (a verbatim restating of the earlier failed Federal Management Amendment) with 21 Senate GOP co-sponsors. Later that year the bill was approved for review by the full Senate Judiciary Committee. Newly appointed RNC chair Ken Mehlman gave the bill his full support to reporters at an Ohio GOP fundraiser that March.
During his Akron remarks, Mehlman put forth political and policy statements often viewed as anti-gay. “Republicans are for government that stands on the side of marriage,” he said, “and on the side of strong families.” After the dinner, he was asked by a reporter about the GOP’s support for the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment, introduced in the House last week by Rep. Dan Lundgren of California. Mehlman made it clear that he supports the amendment. “I don’t think it’s anti-gay,” said Mehlman. “I don’t think the intent is to be anti-anything.”
Members of the Cleveland Log Cabin Republicans attending the dinner expressed disappointment that Mehlman evaded questions about his sexuality. "He almost said it," one pouted. The above-linked story notes no such LCR regret about Mehlman's support for permanently enshrining anti-gay legislation in the motherfucking federal Constitution.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Repulsive Anti-Gay Quisling Homophobic Scumbag Asshat Closeted Former RNC Chair Ken Mehlman Has Come Out

Maybe the $4M loft he bought in gay gay gay Chelsea this summer did (or more likely, brought) the trick, as Mike Rogers reports today that repulsive 2004 Dubya campaign manager and former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman is about to come out. [UPDATE: It's official. See update at the bottom of this post.]

In 2004 Steve Schmidt (then the Republican National Convention spokesman and later the McCain campaign's senior strategist) lied to me when I asked him point blank about Mehlman. "Ken Mehlman is not gay," he proclaimed. In 2006, Mehlman told the New York Daily News, "I am not gay, but those stories did a number on my dating life for six months." It's so nice to be proven right, me that is, not Ken. If this move doesn't call for a Roy Cohn Award, I don't know what does. Ken Mehlman is horridly homophobic and no matter how orchestrated his coming out is, our community should hold him accountable for his past.

As we saw with Jim McGreevy, many gay leaders will attempt to elbow themselves to the front of the line to say on cable TV how wonderful it is that Ken is now being honest with the American people. Someone will be quoted in the New York Times saying something like, "After so many years of working for the Republicans, it's wonderful to see Ken be true to himself." Or perhaps you'll read a quote in the Washington Post about how "every gay person is on their own personal journey and we are happy Ken has decided to be so open about his personal struggle." Next up will come the book, then the TV shows, and of course the speaking tour. I'll only buy it if he is really sorry.

Mehlman's crimes against his own people are motherfucking LEGION. Mike Rogers continues:
So, how can Ken Mehlman redeem himself? I want to hear from Ken that he is sorry for being the architect of the 2004 Bush reelection campaign. I want to hear from Ken that he is sorry for his role in developing strategy that resulted in George W. Bush threatening to veto ENDA or any bill containing hate crimes laws. I want to hear from Ken that he is sorry for the pressing of two Federal Marriage Amendments as political tools. I want to hear from Ken that he is sorry for developing the 72-hour strategy, using homophobic churches to become political arms of the GOP before Election Day.
We can be sure that GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans are positively drooling over the prospect of welcoming Mehlman onto their boards of directors. VOMIT.

UPDATE: It's official. Here's Mehlman's statement.

"It's taken me 43 years to get comfortable with this part of my life. Everybody has their own path to travel, their own journey, and for me, over the past few months, I've told my family, friends, former colleagues, and current colleagues, and they've been wonderful and supportive. The process has been something that's made me a happier and better person. It's something I wish I had done years ago. I wish I was where I am today 20 years ago. The process of not being able to say who I am in public life was very difficult. No one else knew this except me. My family didn't know. My friends didn't know. Anyone who watched me knew I was a guy who was clearly uncomfortable with the topic."
Read the entire story on the Atlantic. Andy Towle is reporting that Mehlman has already agreed to chair a "major anti-Prop 8 fundraiser" for Americans For Equal Rights, Ted Olson and David Boies' outfit. Gee thanks, shitbag. That's like offering to help rebuild a house when YOU were the fucker that helped BURN IT DOWN.

[MsTinkerbelly]

From joemygod

Wednesday, August 25, 2010
FLASHBACK: 21 States Banned Same-Sex Marriage During Mehlman's Reign

During Ken Mehlman's reign as Dubya's campaign manager and afterwards during his tenure as chairman of the Republican National Committee, 21 states passed laws that banned same-sex marriage. Some of these laws made same-sex marriage unconstitutional, some made both civil unions and same-sex marriages unconstitutional. All of these anti-gay referenda took place from 2004-2006 and all of them were pushed by the GOP under Ken Mehlman (and with Karl Rove's strategic advice) as a ploy to ensure conservative turnout at the polls. If you live in any of the 21 states listed below, you can credit your second class citizenship, in part, to fellow homosexual Ken Mehlman.


Arkansas
Colorado
Georgia
Idaho
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Orgeon
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Wisconsin


Are you feeling very forgiving right now? ARE YOU?

[MsTinkerbelly]

Ya know, for me (and this is obviously different for you), I try not to rush to judgement about folks. I don't see it on my to-do list to judge how/when someone comes out. Its not my story nor my life and I think we all know that some folks "get to the party later than others".

For me, it certainly doesn't hurt to have someone with his political connections on the side of equality. I get a kick out of thinking about how his good ole' boys in the RNC will have to think about their views of gays since Mehlman is reported to be the most powerful Republican to have come out. I'd also like to see his energies utilized in repealing DOMA, DADT moreso than I would for him to continue to have to explain ad nauseam why it took him so long to come out.

Perhaps it seems trite to some, but I'd rather have our numbers increasing. The more the merrier - and it would seem that someone such as Mehlman would have a better chance of their voice being heard - of having the capacity to effect change - moreso than average jo schmoe me.

I'm sure that Toughy has a different opinion on this and I don't want this to become a debate about our different views. I think that Mehlman's coming out and open support of marriage equality is a good thing.

Mehlman should be shunned. This is of course only my opinion, but I have to tell you most queer people are not going to welcome him as a peer.

I personally felt like vomiting when I saw his "coming out".

[MsTinkerbelly]

Interesting wording: "man and a female person"

Wonder why it isnt male person and female person?

It says "male and female person" (as I read it), did I miss something? (f)

[christie]

It says "male and female person" (as I read it), did I miss something? (f)

I mis-read. And I read it twice! That's what late night/end of the day will getcha! LOL - Thanks for clarifying.

BTW - I get your opinion on Mehlman and respect how you feel. My knee-jerk reaction is similar; however, I am choosing to take the position of how I wouldn't want others judging me.

I think we all have things in out pasts that we are not proud of - of doing harm/injustice to others. I would hope that we can believe that people are capable of change and that every day is an opportunity to live a worthy life.

I can't imagine how he can sleep at night, but, for me and me only, I sleep better not in wrapping up in the "he shoulda, coulda, woulda" and hope that he shall, can and will.

[Jess]

I have been pretty impressed that this thread has maintained a positive note even when sometimes we have faced set backs in this struggle.

I don't think taking help from a" late comer" is a bad thing. I recall a time when queer folk "shunned" late comers ( like women who had lived as a married heterosexual with kids and the picket fence). I think a part of our practicing a greater understanding an acceptance of one another needs to extend to this guy. MANY MANY queers led lives quite similar to this guy. Where do we end the hate and blaming? When do we stop being suspect of anyone who makes such a change in their lives?

Yep. I totally get the frustration, but I would much rather spend my energy fighting the Evangelical Churches ( of every religion) than fighting someone who has come out and now supports us. It isn't just old tired white Christians.
All of the Evangelical zealots would have us banned.

YouTube- Gay Marriage Must Be Stopped!!..Rabbi Levin & Hispanic Evangelicals.