Same-Sex Marriage Update [Archive] - Page 3

christie

08-31-2010, 01:37 PM

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/08/31/tasmanian-lgbt-activists-welcome-recognition-of-interstate-and-overseas-same-sex-unions/

Tasmanian LGBT activists welcome recognition of Interstate and overseas same-sex unions
By Christopher Brocklebank • August 31, 2010 - 15:52

Same-sex civil unions made overseas will now be automatically recognised in Tasmania

No Comments Yet on Tasmanian LGBT activists welcome recognition of Interstate and overseas same-sex unions

236
Share Legislation has been passed by the State Lower House in Tasmania which will allow same-sex couples in interstate or overseas unions to be automatically recognised under Tasmanian law without the need to re-register their status.

Tasmanian LGBT activists have welcomed the move. Couples in Tasmanian Deeds of Relationship (a form of civil partnership) are already recognised in other states of the Australian Commonwealth and in some overseas countries, and reciprocal recognition of couples will bring significant benefits to those travelling in, or relocating to, Tasmania.

Rodney Croome, spokesperson for the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group said: "Couples in Tasmanian Deeds of Relationship have benefited in a range of areas from being recognised in places like the UK and New Zealand, and couples coming to Tasmania will benefit in similar ways when their unions are recognised here.

"For example, if a same-sex couple in an interstate or overseas union is travelling in Tasmania and one partner is taken ill, the other can rest assure they will automatically be considered next-of-kin.

"A couple in an existing union relocating to Tasmania can also rest assured their relationship will be respected without the need for a long and costly re-registration process."

An amendment banning the recognition of overseas same-sex marriages as Tasmanian Deeds of Relationship, as proposed by State Liberal Michael Ferguson, has been voted down. Had it been passed, only civil partnerships made overseas would have been recognised in Tasmania. Mr Croome labelled the now-defeated proposition "inconsistent".

He added: "Overseas same-sex marriages are already recognised in Australia by Federal Government agencies like the Bureau of Statistics and the Department of Immigration, and by numerous large corporations from Telstra, through QANTAS to the Commonwealth Bank, so it extreme and inconsistent to say they should not be recognised as Deeds of Relationship in Tasmania.

"It would also be inconsistent and overly-harsh to recognise couples who made civil unions vows in Auckland or London, but then to tell same-sex couples married in, say, Vancouver or Madrid, that their solemn vows mean nothing in Tasmanian law."

Cyclopea

08-31-2010, 04:38 PM

Steve Schmidt, Former McCain Campaign Chief, On Mehlman Fundraiser: Same-Sex Marriage Becoming Conservative Cause

A major same-sex marriage fundraiser hosted by former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman and other Republicans provides one of the sharpest illustrations of how gay rights is becoming a cause among more elite, establishment members of the GOP.

In addition to Mehlman, who recently announced that he was gay, the list of attendees includes several surprises, such as Ben Ginsburg, one of the Republican Party's top lawyers, and Henry Kravis and Paul Singer, two of the biggest donors to the GOP. According to one gay-rights activist involved in similar efforts, the fundraising pool goes even deeper.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/197367/INVITATION.jpg

"There is a strong conservative case to be made in favor of gay marriage," former McCain campaign manager and fellow same-sex marriage fundraiser Steve Schmidt told the Huffington Post on Tuesday. "Marriage is an institution that strengthens and stabilizes society. It is an institution that has the capacity to bring profound joy and happiness to people and it is a matter of equality and keeping faith of one of the charters of the nation, the right to live your life.

"More and more conservatives are saying that opposition to gay marriage would not be a litmus test for membership in the GOP," Schmidt added. "And more conservatives are making the case that no more do you want big government conservatives in the bedroom than big government liberals telling you how to live your life."

To be sure, the Mehlman fundraiser is not entirely a Republican-driven affair. Some of the big names on the ticket are Democrats, including former House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt and former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta.

But reading through the list of attendees, it's remarkable to see how many prominent conservatives are not just comfortable associating with the gay-rights cause but are eager to fundraise for it. Pair that with rumblings from elsewhere in the party (most notably from Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels) that conservatives should have a "truce" on social issues for the time being and the frictions within the GOP tent become even more apparent.

If anything, the hostility between the social conservative element of the party and those less adherent to that doctrine is already palpable. As one prominent Republican who supports gay rights put it:

"I think there is a growing mass of people in Republican politics who are fundamentally sick and tired about being lectured to about morality and how to live your life by a bunch of people who have been married three or four times and are more likely to be seen outside a brothel on a Thursday night than being at home with their kids... There is a fundamental indecency to the vitriol and the hatred directed against decent people because of their sexuality. People have reached a critical mass with this."

SuperFemme

09-01-2010, 08:55 AM

Legal group seeks to compel state to defend Proposition 8

By Lisa Leff
Associated Press
Posted: 08/31/2010 05:27:31 PM PDT

SAN FRANCISCO -- A conservative legal group is trying to force Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown to defend California's gay marriage ban in court.

The Pacific Justice Institute petitioned the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento on Monday for an emergency order that would require the two officials to appeal a ruling that overturned Proposition 8.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker struck down the voter-approved measure as unconstitutional last month.

Its sponsors have appealed. But doubts have been raised about whether they have authority to do so because as ordinary citizens they are not responsible for enforcing marriage laws.

The state has until Sept. 11 to challenge Walker's ruling in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Both Brown and Schwarzenegger, who also refused to support Proposition 8 in Walker's court, have said they do not plan to.

The institute is arguing that as the state's chief law enforcement officer, Brown does not have discretion to defend only laws with which he personally agrees.

And because the California Constitution gives the governor final say when he and the attorney general disagree on legal matters, Schwarzenegger must be compelled to file an appeal to preserve Proposition 8 as well, the group's lawsuit states.

"To allow an elected official to trump the will of the people by mere inaction and the lack of fulfillment of their duty to do their job would be an egregious violation of public trust," Brad Dacus of the Pacific Legal Institute said Tuesday.

The institute brought its motion on behalf of Joshua Beckley, pastor of Ecclesia Christian Fellowship church in San Bernardino.

Brown has said both in legal filings and public statements that he has sworn to uphold the state and federal constitutions and therefore can not defend Proposition 8 because he thinks it is an unconstitutional violation of gay Californians' civil rights.

"The attorney general does not believe that he can be forced to prosecute an appeal of a decision with which he agrees," Brown spokeswoman Christine Gasparac said Tuesday.

SuperFemme

09-01-2010, 09:03 AM

Court says gay couples can’t divorce in Texas

By The Associated Press
09.01.2010 9:00am EDT

(Dallas) A Texas appeals court says gay couples legally married in other states cannot divorce in Texas, where same-sex marriages are banned.

The 5th Texas Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that a Dallas judge didn’t have jurisdiction to grant a divorce to two Dallas men who wed in Massachusetts. The court also says Texas’ same-sex marriage ban is constitutional.

The state attorney general had appealed the district judge’s October ruling that granted the men a divorce and found the ban violates equal rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

The Dallas men married in 2006 in Massachusetts and separated two years later. They’re referred to only as J.B. and H.B. in court filings.
An attorney for J.B. says they haven’t decided whether to appeal to the Texas Supreme Court.

SuperFemme

09-01-2010, 09:08 AM

Uh oh: Wyoming gay marriage case a con?

By Jennifer Vanasco, editor in chief, 365gay.com
08.30.2010 6:00pm EDT

The Billings Gazette is reporting that the two men who are suing for gay marriage in Wyoming have troubling backgrounds.

The couple, who are representing themselves, may not have actually applied for a marriage license; LezGetReal says they may not, in fact be gay, though it’s not clear what benefit they’d get from pretending to be, or from filing this suit.

From the Gazette:

For one thing, there’s a dispute over the basic facts of the case.
In the suit, Shupe-Roderick and Dupree allege that they went to the Laramie County Clerk’s office on Aug. 9 to apply for a marriage license, only to be turned down because they were a same-sex couple. In a subsequent media interview, Shupe-Roderick said they went to the clerk’s office two additional times and spoke with Laramie County Clerk Debbie Lathrop.

However, Lathrop, a defendant in the lawsuit, said neither she nor any of her staff has any recollection of the couple applying for a marriage license from her office.

Then there is the shady background of David Shupe-Roderick:

Gay-rights proponents are also concerned that the plaintiffs aren’t exactly a poster couple for their cause – especially David Shupe-Roderick, a convicted felon with a history of mental illness.
Shupe-Roderick, 25, served 4 years in the Wyoming State Penitentiary after he, his brother, and their two girlfriends left Cheyenne in a rental car in January 2004. When they didn’t return the rental car on time, the rental company contacted police. Two days later, Shupe-Roderick – then known as Gerald Shupe — was arrested in Arkansas after being pulled over for an illegal lane change.

After being sentenced, Shupe-Roderick unsuccessfully requested a reduction in his prison sentence on the grounds that he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and wasn’t taking his prescribed medication when he took the rental car.

Shupe-Roderick is currently being prosecuted for falsifying state documents. Last October, he applied to become a notary public, and he allegedly certified on his application form that he wasn’t a convicted felon. The lawsuit also alleges Shupe-Roderick used a fake same-sex union certificate from Massachusetts to obtain a Wyoming driver’s license.

Shupe-Roderick has also been a plaintiff in court as frequently as he has been a defendant. Besides the gay marriage case, he’s filed five other lawsuits in the past three years. In one, he accused prison guards of sexual misconduct, and in another, he accused a would-be business client of assault and breach of contract. He has also sought $16,398 in loans and debts from his former employers/roommates and asserted that Bank of America unlawfully refused to release $5,107 from his bank account. All of those cases were eventually dropped or dismissed.

The Gazette says that Shupe-Roderick expected this to be a quiet lawsuit and has been surprised at the attention it has received.

Do you live in Wyoming? Do you have more information on the couple? Let us know in the comments…

SuperFemme

09-01-2010, 09:23 AM

NOM's ugly ad:

o7O3mExIZHI

A point by point takedown of NOM's ad:

Q8QdroQgWn8

Jess

09-02-2010, 12:28 PM

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/blog/entry/voice-for-equality-steve-jobs

Corkey

09-02-2010, 02:04 PM

BREAKING: Pacific Justice Institute DENIED by court; Schwarzenegger, Brown will not be forced to defend Prop 8
September 2, 2010

By Eden James
A few days ago, the right-wing extremists at the Pacific Justice Institute went to court to try to force Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown to defend Prop 8 before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
No dice, PJI. This breaking news just came in from the California Appellate Court (h/t Kathleen):
Beckley v. Schwarzenegger et al.
Case: C065920, 3rd District
Disposition date (YYYY-MM-DD): 2010-09-01
Disposition description: Petition summarily denied by order
Disposition status as of 2010-09-02: Final
Notes: Scotland, P.J. (BRo)
For more information on this case, go to:
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/disposition.cfm?dist=3&doc_id=1953899
More will be added to this post, as news develops.

iamkeri1

09-02-2010, 11:14 PM

(f)SuperFemme, I'm not criticizing you for posting this - it is interesting info to have, this is just my take on the situation. (f)

The only thing that would disturb me about the background of either of these men would be if their case was dismissed because of their being frequent law suit filers. One way or another, filing the case brings attention to the inequity of the situation in Wyoming.

Jane Roe, the un-named plaintiff in Roe vs Wade (the case that made abortion legal in the United States,), later became a right-to-lifer and worked to get Roe vs Wade rescinded. I'm sorry if she later came to regret her choice, but in my very pragmatic viewpoint, she served her purpose in that case. What she decided to do later did not matter.

Whether these guys are gay or not, I don't care. I also don't care whether they lied about applying for and being turned down for a license (is the clerk alleging that she WOULD have issued them a license had they applied? - I don't think so.) I also don't care about their mental health status, as long as neither of them have been declared incompent. The point is, same sex marriage is illegal in Wyoming, and they are working to get that changed. They may not be the perfect couple to take on this challenge. I'm sure the state of Wyoming would try to besmirch the reputation of Jesus Christ himself if he was a litigant in this suit. By the way, did he and John the beloved apostle ever file for domestic partnership? - can't seem to remember, LOL)

If we can welcome support from Ken Mehlman, then we should be able to welcome it from a guy with a history of manic depression. Are other folks with manic depression denied marriage licenses? If not, then they should give one to this guy no matter how shady he is, as long as he is single.

As Christian like to say..."we're not perfect, we're just forgiven", I want to be able to say "We're not perfect either, but we do have the right to get married"

That's my take on it any way.
Smooches,
Keri

Uh oh: Wyoming gay marriage case a con?

By Jennifer Vanasco, editor in chief, 365gay.com
08.30.2010 6:00pm EDT

The Billings Gazette is reporting that the two men who are suing for gay marriage in Wyoming have troubling backgrounds.

The couple, who are representing themselves, may not have actually applied for a marriage license; LezGetReal says they may not, in fact be gay, though it’s not clear what benefit they’d get from pretending to be, or from filing this suit.

From the Gazette:

For one thing, there’s a dispute over the basic facts of the case.
In the suit, Shupe-Roderick and Dupree allege that they went to the Laramie County Clerk’s office on Aug. 9 to apply for a marriage license, only to be turned down because they were a same-sex couple. In a subsequent media interview, Shupe-Roderick said they went to the clerk’s office two additional times and spoke with Laramie County Clerk Debbie Lathrop.

However, Lathrop, a defendant in the lawsuit, said neither she nor any of her staff has any recollection of the couple applying for a marriage license from her office.

Then there is the shady background of David Shupe-Roderick:

Gay-rights proponents are also concerned that the plaintiffs aren’t exactly a poster couple for their cause – especially David Shupe-Roderick, a convicted felon with a history of mental illness.
Shupe-Roderick, 25, served 4 years in the Wyoming State Penitentiary after he, his brother, and their two girlfriends left Cheyenne in a rental car in January 2004. When they didn’t return the rental car on time, the rental company contacted police. Two days later, Shupe-Roderick – then known as Gerald Shupe — was arrested in Arkansas after being pulled over for an illegal lane change.

After being sentenced, Shupe-Roderick unsuccessfully requested a reduction in his prison sentence on the grounds that he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and wasn’t taking his prescribed medication when he took the rental car.

Shupe-Roderick is currently being prosecuted for falsifying state documents. Last October, he applied to become a notary public, and he allegedly certified on his application form that he wasn’t a convicted felon. The lawsuit also alleges Shupe-Roderick used a fake same-sex union certificate from Massachusetts to obtain a Wyoming driver’s license.

Shupe-Roderick has also been a plaintiff in court as frequently as he has been a defendant. Besides the gay marriage case, he’s filed five other lawsuits in the past three years. In one, he accused prison guards of sexual misconduct, and in another, he accused a would-be business client of assault and breach of contract. He has also sought $16,398 in loans and debts from his former employers/roommates and asserted that Bank of America unlawfully refused to release $5,107 from his bank account. All of those cases were eventually dropped or dismissed.

The Gazette says that Shupe-Roderick expected this to be a quiet lawsuit and has been surprised at the attention it has received.

Do you live in Wyoming? Do you have more information on the couple? Let us know in the comments…

Toughy

09-03-2010, 06:30 AM

If we can welcome support from Ken Mehlman,

I dang sure don't want a big fat hypocrite like Ken Mehlman supporting any LGBTQI cause. He is a traitor. I don't welcome anything from him. I know I am not the only one in this community who feels this way.

I could care less about manic depression and marriage licenses. I do care that folks who are not gay are applying for marriage licenses. It just provides fodder for the right wing nuts. It sends a message that this is not about equal rights. In my mind it borders on mockery of equal rights.

MsTinkerbelly

09-03-2010, 10:11 AM

One of the reasons equal marriage is so necessary....me

Kafka and the National Organization for Marriage
(Over my first few weeks here on the Prop 8 Trial Tracker, I’m going to reprint a few — just a few — prior entries from my blog at Waking Up Now. The story of Ron Hanby and Mark Goldberg is one that everybody ought to know. First, because it’s a wrenching story that should open all but the coldest of hearts. Second, because it shows we need full marriage equality on a national scale. And finally, because it demonstrates the nightmare world that NOM wants us to inhabit. — Rob)

by Rob Tisinai

Ron Hanby, struggling with depression, took his own life on October 2, 2008. Mark Goldberg, his partner of 17 years, battled Rhode Island bureaucracy for weeks before the state would release Ron’s body to him. Ron had no living relatives. The couple, however, did have:

wills
living wills
power of attorney documents
and a Connecticut marriage certificate (Rhode Island doesn’t permit same-sex marriage or even civil unions)
None of that mattered in Rhode Island. Mark spent every day of his immediate grief on the phone with state officials, trying to get his husband’s body out of the morgue. Finally, after four weeks, a state bureaucrat took a special interest and helped him get Ron’s body released.

One good thing came out of this: Rhode Island’s state legislators wrote a bill creating funeral rights for domestic partners. They passed it in a bipartisan show of humanity: 63-1 in the House, unanimously in the Senate. And the Republican governor vetoed it.

Now the National Organization for Marriage is urging legislators not to override that veto. Chris Plante (executive director of NOM-RI), has written to them:

[T]he proposed legislation simply is not necessary… The right of any person, without regard to sexual preference or relationship to the decedent, to serve as a designated funeral-planning agent is already expressly guaranteed by Rhode Island Law 5-33.1-4. That statute only requires a simple notarized form naming an agent.

Ah, yes, Rhode Island Law 5-33.1-4. Of course. And what can we say in return except:

Thank you Mr. Plante!

We keep hearing that same-sex marriage isn’t necessary, that we can secure civil equality by visiting lawyers and drawing up contracts. That’s false, but people don’t always understand that. Luckily for us, Mr. Plante has taken this argument into the realm of satire: Mark and Ron had wills, power of attorney, and an actual marriage license? Simpletons! They should have known to go to a notary and designate each other as funeral planning agents, pursuant to R.I. Law 5-33.1-4!

Franz Kafka wrote this kind of satire. The term “Kafkaesque” describes a world in which “characters lack a clear course of action, the ability to see beyond immediate events, and the possibility of escape. The term’s meaning has transcended the literary realm to apply to real-life occurrences and situations that are incomprehensibly complex, bizarre, or illogical.”

Compare that to Mark’s own description of what his life turned into:

I called the Police to our home where the death occurred and in two hours they performed their investigation, offered their condolences, removed Ron’s body and left our house. No one offered any information on what I was to do next. No phone number to contact the detective in charge, no information on where they were taking Ron’s body, no information on what I as his partner for so many years should do next.

Ron had no next of kin other than me. I shared our Wills, Living Wills, Power of Attorney and Marriage Certificate to the Police Department, Medical Examiner’s Office and the Department of Health, but no one was willing to see these documents. The State Law stated that a two week search for next of kin must be done. The Medical Examiner’s office waited a full week before placing an ad in the Providence Journal. After no one responded they waited another week to send paperwork to the Health and Human Services Department listing Ron as an unclaimed body. During this four week process, I was on the phone every day trying to convince someone, anyone, that I was the person claiming Ron’s body. The same response came back to me every time; “It’s State law, our hands are tied, there’s nothing we can do”.

I attempted to place an obituary in the Providence Journal and again, I was denied because we were not blood relatives, and the Journal had to comply with state rules. GLAD, the Gay and Lesbian Advocacy and Defenders could not help me because our bond was not recognized in the State of RI. After four weeks an employee in the Department of General Public Assistance of Human Services took pity upon me and my plight. She reviewed our documentation and was able to get all parties concerned to release Ron’s body to me.

Mr. Plante and NOM look at this nightmare and say, No problem. Because, after all, Mark and Ron could have avoided it simply by following the instructions in Rhode Island Law 5-13.1-4.

I’ll make a deal with NOM: If they specify every law, every form, and every contract – in every state – that gay couples need to pursue in order to secure their rights as a couple, than I’ll do the same for straights. In fact, I’ll provide a complete and exhaustive list for straight Californians right now:

California Marriage License, Registration and Ceremony Information
Okay, NOM, your turn.

But I doubt NOM will return the favor. They don’t want us to have any rights and benefits of marriage. Mr. Plante is clear about his reasons for opposing the funeral rights law.

[T]he legislation in question is actually an exploitation of Mr. Goldberg’s tragedy by the homosexual-marriage activists in Rhode Island. Despite their claims to the contrary, these bills serve simply as “Trojan Horses” for homosexual-marriage. In California and Connecticut…courts found that when rights of domestic partners, under either that nomenclature or as “civil-unions,” were expanded…that the State must by extension fully recognize homosexual marriage…

As such, NOM – Rhode Island respectfully requests that you vote to sustain the Governor’s veto both to avoid creating unnecessary law and to not move Rhode Island closer to recognizing homosexual-marriage.

NOM doesn’t just oppose marriage equality. They don’t just oppose robust civil unions or watered-down domestic partnerships. They oppose anything that might constitute even the slightest formal recognition of our relationships. They want instead to send us running down a thousand different legal avenues in a labyrinth that they’re lobbying to turn against us.

Franz Kafka won a place in literature by creating a vivid and chilling world of bureaucratic brutality. That’s the world in which NOM wants us to live.

Soon

09-03-2010, 10:25 AM

[B][SIZE="3"]
One good thing came out of this: Rhode Island’s state legislators wrote a bill creating funeral rights for domestic partners. They passed it in a bipartisan show of humanity: 63-1 in the House, unanimously in the Senate. And the Republican governor vetoed it.

Infuriating.

SuperFemme

09-03-2010, 12:39 PM

I dang sure don't want a big fat hypocrite like Ken Mehlman supporting any LGBTQI cause. He is a traitor. I don't welcome anything from him. I know I am not the only one in this community who feels this way.

I could care less about manic depression and marriage licenses. I do care that folks who are not gay are applying for marriage licenses. It just provides fodder for the right wing nuts. It sends a message that this is not about equal rights. In my mind it borders on mockery of equal rights.

Ditto on Ken DOMA Mehlman.

Your last paragraph is exactly why I chose to post the article. It makes a mockery out of the thousands of us in honest, real long term relationships/marriages that want only one thing: equal rights under the law.

In this crazy mad world, my mind goes places it normally wouldn't. Like two straight men filing this case in hopes of taking it to court and perhaps settling it in a way that is disparaging to same sex couples? Which puts precedent on the law books.

Wolves in sheeps clothing are not imaginary beings.

Cyclopea

09-03-2010, 05:07 PM

aQYt_KJTlxE

Toughy

09-03-2010, 06:37 PM

mmmmmmmmmm was that ad a production of Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorny (spelling) vs their respective opponents in the last closed primary of either party in CA?

Just wait..........2 years from now we will see two Republicans against each other for the same seat in general elections in CA. No Democrats allowed because 2 Republicans had the two top votes in the primary elections........

I say CA should ban Constitutional Amendment votes by the people until it passes both the State House and Senate and the current Governor signs it. Then it can go to the people for a vote. It works well in MA and many other states.

Cyclopea

09-03-2010, 06:43 PM

AtLast

09-03-2010, 06:47 PM

SuperFemme

09-06-2010, 11:02 AM

Engle Rallies Against Gay Marriage in Calif.

Pastor Lou Engle's controversial ministry drew thousands of attendees on Saturday to protest gay marriage, abortion, and pornography on the steps of the California state capitol in Sacramento.

Engle's "TheCall to Conscience" included a 12-hour fast, the Associated Press reports. The rally was in part a protest of the recent court ruling striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional (the case is currently on appeal).

"If marriage is going to be upheld between a man and a woman, which we believe is the best for families and children and society, then right now, it seems we need divine intervention," Engle said in an interview with the AP. "That's part of the reason we're coming here, to pray, but also to take a stand and be a prophetic voice to stand for truth."

A recent Uganda rally starring Engle was featured in the September cover story for The Advocate.

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/09/04/Thousands_Rally_Against_Marriage_Equality_in_Calif/

suebee

09-08-2010, 12:15 PM

An interesting time line of the evolution of same-sex rights in Canada (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/samesexrights/timeline_canada.html).

MsTinkerbelly

09-08-2010, 12:59 PM

CA Supreme Court Asks Schwarzenegger & Brown About Prop 8 Defense Refusal

Karen Ocamb reports that the California Supreme Court has ordered Gov. Schwarzenegger and AG Jerry Brown to explain why they have refused to defend Proposition 8. The pair had until 9am today to respond. The Pacific Justice Institute was expected to rebut their response by noon today. Ocamb notes that "theoretically" the Court could order Schwarzenegger and Brown to defend Prop 8. More on this as it develops...

Me: Does anyone know if their response has been published?

MsTinkerbelly

09-08-2010, 02:22 PM

DEVELOPING: Schwarzenegger and Brown file papers with California Supreme Court responding to PJI’s appeal
(Cross-posted at LGBTPOV)

By Karen Ocamb

Last week the 3rd District Court of Appeal rejected a lawsuit filed by the Pacific Justice Institute trying to force Attorney General Jerry Brown (who is running for governor in the 2010 elections) and the Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to file an appeal in the federal challenge to Proposition 8. According to an email from the right wing Capitol Resources Institute, the California Supreme Court wants to know why the state isn’t appealing, too. Here’s the emai:

“Late yesterday the California Supreme Court responded to a request by the Pacific Justice Institute to compel the Attorney General and the Governor to file the appeal in the federal challenge to Proposition 8.

In August, a federal court in San Francisco overturned the voter approved measure that stated that marriage is between one man and one woman. While the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to hear the appeal of the lower court’s decision, they have made clear that there is a question whether the parties before them have standing to pursue the appeal. The Attorney General as well as the Governor have failed to file the appeal in this matter based on their personal opposition to Proposition 8. The proponents of the ballot measure took on the State’s job of defending the measure in court.

The California Supreme Court has ordered the Attorney General and the Governor to respond by 9 am this morning explaining why they have not filed this appeal. Then the Pacific Justice Institute has just three hours to respond by noon today.

“We are pleased that the judicial branch is at least considering forcing the executive branch to do its job,” said Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute. “Millions of Californians voted for Proposition 8. The issue should be heard all the way up to the US Supreme Court. No elected official ought to be able to substitute his judgment for the decision of our courts.”

Several sources are checking this out and I will update this as the information comes in. Theoretically, the California Supreme Court can order Attorney General Jerry Brown and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to appeal Judge Walker’s ruling.

UPDATE from AP’s Lisa Leff:

The letters Schwarzenegger and Brown filed this morning are brief and reiterate their positions that they have discretion to choose which rulings to appeal. They also say that PJI miscalculated the deadline for filing an appeal with 9th Circuit–that it was Sept. 3, not Sept. 11.

UPDATE (12:45 Pacific):

Chris Geidner at MetroWeekly writes that Deputy Attorney General Tamar Pachter, responding for AG Brown, said in her letter that the Pacific Justice Institute’s effort on behalf of Pastor Joshua Beckley “is too little, too late.”

Pachter concluded:

It is within the Attorney General’s discretion to determine that it is or that it is not appropriate to pursue an appeal. In Perry, given the Attorney General’s position at trial, there are no grounds for an appeal, and the filing of an appeal under such circumstance would be frivolous. The petitioner’s contention to the contrary is manifestly without merit.”

Geidner also notes that Wednesday’s filing was already set by a court order detailing a briefing schedule of the expedited appeal. He says the Capitol Resources Institute’s email is “misleading.”

Brown’s response can be found here: Letter Brief.pdf

Veteran LGBT journalist Lisa Keen posts at her Keen News Service that Schwarzenegger won’t appeal either. Keen notes:

“The definitive statement means the ability of Proposition 8 proponents to appeal will depend entirely on the legal standing of the Yes on 8 coalition……In a five-page letter September 8, Counsel for the Governor Andrew Stroud told the court, “Although Beckley may disagree with the Governor’s decision not to file a notice of appeal [in the Proposition 8 case in federal court], it was the Governor’s decision to make.”

Jess

09-08-2010, 06:59 PM

http://www.marriagequality.ie/news/2010/09/08/irish-government-urged-to-establish-legal-recognition-of-children-in-lgbt-families/

iamkeri1

09-08-2010, 07:42 PM

This is a great article. Thank you for the informtion. My ancestors are from Ireland.
Smooches,
Keri

Oh and I edited it to say... That hat really is pimpin'!!!!! And he fits right in to the red hat society too, LOL.
http://www.marriagequality.ie/news/2010/09/08/irish-government-urged-to-establish-legal-recognition-of-children-in-lgbt-families/

MsTinkerbelly

09-09-2010, 07:58 AM

Prop 8 Trial Tracker

BREAKING: California Supreme Court rejects PJI appeal; Schwarzenegger and Brown will not be forced to defend Prop 8
By Eden James

Breaking from the San Francisco Chronicle:

—–
“The state Supreme Court refused to come to the aid of California’s embattled ban on same-sex marriage Wednesday, denying a conservative group’s request to order Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown to appeal a federal judge’s ruling striking down the voter-approved measure.

The state officials’ decision not to argue in support of Proposition 8 has raised questions about whether anyone is legally qualified to defend it in court. The Pacific Justice Institute filed suit last week, arguing that the California Constitution requires Brown to defend the state’s laws.

A state appeals court dismissed the suit without a hearing, and the state’s high court denied review Wednesday without comment.

[snip]

“Attorneys general are not potted plants in the litigation process,” lawyers for Brown told the court. Although the attorney general is required to represent the state, they said, Brown also took an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and is not obliged to defend a law he considers unconstitutional.

—–
Read more:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/08/BAE81FATL8.DTL

MsTinkerbelly

09-09-2010, 10:12 AM

I know a lot of information has been posted regarding protecting each other with legal documentation, but I will be darned if I can find any of it! LOL

We are heading to Europe in early October, which has led us on a last minute scramble to update our wills, and to do something for our daughter that will protect her should something happen to us while away; we are starting a Family Trust. My Mom and Step-Dad had one, and let me tell you that the ease of taking care of their Estates makes any cost worth it.

Kasey and I have a considerable Estate, and the government taking inheritance taxes or putting our wills into probate are not options in our efforts to protect each other and our child. Cars, bank accounts, 401K's...all protected by a family trust. We are also updating our POA, and our advance health care directives.

My question...can anyone think of anything I missed?

SuperFemme

09-09-2010, 01:02 PM

http://www.hrc.org/issues/legal-documents-for-families.htm

http://same-sex-gay-marriage.suite101.com/article.cfm/documents_samesex_couples_need

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/01/business/yourmoney/01couples.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1284058843-KXLptjMjm7iXeI/TWAv2Cw

MsTinkerbelly

09-09-2010, 02:22 PM

MsTinkerbelly

09-09-2010, 02:26 PM

Someone asked me the question of Guardianship for my daughter should something happen to us both.

Amy's Father would be the one to step in and assume the day to day parenting stuff. He is also the reason why I have appointed my sister to be our Estate's (financial) trustee until she is 25yrs old....:giggle:

MsTinkerbelly

09-14-2010, 02:25 PM

Karen England Is EVER So Pissed

Professional anti-gay activist Karen England is EVER so pissed at California Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado, who blew off her group's demand that he rush out an appeal to Prop 8 while the Governator is out of the country. England rides the waambulance in this Christian Newswire press release she just fired out:
When the Governor left the State late last week, the right and responsibility to file the appeal before Monday's deadline went to the acting governor, Mr. Maldonado. As a supporter of Proposition 8, conservative leaders requested that he file the paperwork. Former dean of Chapman Law School, John Eastman even drafted the necessary paperwork and volunteered to make the filing on Maldonado's behalf. But Maldonado did not even bother to respond. When a representative of Capitol Resource Institute contacted Maldonado's campaign manager a half hour before the deadline to file, the aide complained that phone calls had tied up the phones all day at the capitol and their campaign office, but he did not know what the Lt. Governor was going to do. He promised to call back, but the call never came. "Maldonado did not file the appeal" said Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute. "And the acting governor added to this negligence an arrogance and aloofness that suggested he was more concerned that we busied his phones than anything else."

MsTinkerbelly

09-14-2010, 02:27 PM

Jess

09-14-2010, 04:39 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/nyregion/14gayads.html?_r=1

Jess

09-15-2010, 07:10 AM

Kagan’s recusals — potential barrier to pro-gay rulings

http://www.keennewsservice.com/2010/09/14/kagans-recusals-potential-barrier-to-pro-gay-rulings/

SuperFemme

09-17-2010, 11:57 AM

Wyoming couple drops gay marriage lawsuit (http://www.365gay.com/news/wyoming-couple-drops-gay-marriage-lawsuit/)

By The Associated Press (http://www.365gay.com/archive/?id=12&logo=t)
09.16.2010 10:30am EDT

(Cheyenne, Wyo.) A gay couple in Cheyenne has dropped a federal lawsuit that challenged the Wyoming law defining marriage as existing only between a man and a woman.
(http://www.365gay.com/news/wyoming-couple-drops-gay-marriage-lawsuit/#comments)
The Casper Star-Tribune reports that David Shupe-Roderick and Ryan W. Dupree filed a notice Friday voluntarily dismissing their lawsuit against the state.
They say they are dismissing the suit because unspecified circumstances had changed.

The couple sued last month, alleging that Wyoming’s law defining marriage as being a contract solely “between a male and a female person” was unconstitutional.

Some gay-rights activists expressed concern about the lawsuit; others thought it might be a con (http://www.365gay.com/news/uh-oh-wyoming-gay-marriage-case-a-con/). The two men were representing themselves, even though they’re not lawyers.

http://www.365gay.com/news/wyoming-couple-drops-gay-marriage-lawsuit/

MsTinkerbelly

09-18-2010, 12:18 PM

BREAKING: Prop 8 legal team files argument to 9th Circuit attacking Judge Walker
September 17, 2010
By Eden James

The defendant-intervenors filed their written arguments to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals shortly after 9 p.m. PST — just 3 hours before the court’s deadline. We will be posting it here ASAP.

According to Lisa Leff at the Associated Press, it targets Judge Vaughn Walker for being “egregiously selective and one-sided.” More to come.

UPDATE: Here it is (h/t to both Kathleen, in this thread, and Ann S. in the previous thread, where the news broke almost immediately in the comments):

View this document on ScribdMore from the Associated Press:

In written arguments to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, lawyers for the ban’s sponsors alleged that Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker “quite willfully” disregarded a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court precedent and other relevant information when he decided the voter-approved measure was an unconstitutional violation of gay Californians’ civil rights.

“The district court based its findings almost exclusively on an uncritical acceptance of the evidence submitted by Plaintiffs’ experts, and simply ignored virtually everything — judicial authority, the works of eminent scholars past and present in all relevant academic fields, extensive historical and documentary evidence — that ran counter to its conclusions,” they wrote in their 134-page opening brief.

UPDATE: Trial Trackers are quickly digesting the document and posting their thoughts in the comments. Below are some of the best comments posted so far.

James UK:

I’ve just read the Proponents brief. The problem I think that they have is the cursory treatment given to Lawrence v Texas, and to a lesser extent, Romer v Evans, which cases have so changed the landscape regaring the classification of lesbian and gay people, to the extent that Baker v Nelson is unlikely any longer to be good law. Whilst Lawrence specifically did not mandate recognition of gay marriage, which it could not and was not required to do, since the subject matter under discussion was a Texas criminal statute, it did not foreclose such a finding in future cases. It merely left that argument to be made in future cases. Lawrence did not apply standard rational review. It applied some higher level of scrutiny, whether rational review with bite or intermediate scrutiny. Thus the Propents complaints on rational basis review are probably nothing to the point.

The brief is noticeably silent on Justice Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence too, where he asserted, rightly, that if moral approbation was not an acceptable basis upon which to legislate against lesbians and gays as a class, then same sex marriage could not be prevented either, because procreation was not and never has been a requirement for marriage.

Justice Ginsberg’s recent note in Christian Legal Soc v Martinez that the USSC”s recent jurisprudence does not distinguish between behaviour and status as regards lesbians and gays also goes unmentioned.

“Lightning Baltimore” posted this gem of a quote from page 33 of the brief:

The State, it follows, “has no obligation to produce evidence to sustain the rationality of” its laws. Heller, 509 U.S. at 320 (emphasis added). To the contrary, the State’s “legislative choice is not subject to courtroom factfinding and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data.”

Here is Kathleen Perrin’s response to the above quote:

It’s true that it can be based on rational speculation…. but the key word here is “rational.”

IF the standard of review is only “rational basis”, then the court can actually come up with its own rationale for the law, even if the parties have not presented one. However, neither the Proponents nor Walker could come up with any justification for the law that was “rationally related” to a “legitimate” government interest.

Anonygrl:

They wrote: “The trial proceedings were skewed from the outset, given that four of Proponents’ expert witnesses refused to testify…”

Basically they are claiming that the fact that the judge videotaped the proceedings EVEN THOUGH NOT FOR BROADCAST scared away the experts. And THAT is why they had no evidence! The fact that they were unable to explain properly to their own witnesses that this was for court records, not broadcast is why this should be overturned.

This leaves me somewhat speechless. I think that Olson and Boies must be laughing their asses off somewhere right now, as they read this.

UPDATE (h/t to Kathleen): Imperial County just filed their brief on the standing issue:

View this document on ScribdFinally, AFER released the following statement shortly after the Prop 8 legal team filed their brief earlier tonight:

OFFICIAL PROP. 8 PLAINTIFFS’ STATEMENT ON TODAY’S 9th CIRCUIT FILING
Statement from Chad Griffin, Board President, American Foundation for Equal Rights

“Regardless of the defendant-intervenors’ protests, the fact remains that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, as was proven conclusively and unequivocally through a full federal trial. There is no getting around the fact that the court’s decision was based on our nation’s most fundamental principles, and that the Constitution does not permit unequal treatment under the law,” said Chad Griffin, Board President of the American Foundation for Equal Rights. “We are eager to proceed with affirming the unconstitutionality of Prop. 8, and the equality of all Americans, in the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court.”

The American Foundation for Equal Rights is the sole sponsor of the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case. After bringing together Theodore Olson and David Boies to lead its legal team, the Foundation successfully advanced the Perry case through Federal District Court and is now leading it through the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals before the case is brought to the United States Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs in the case are two couples — Kris Perry & Sandy Stier and Paul Katami & Jeff Zarrillo — who wish to marry but cannot because of Proposition 8.

Kris and Sandy have been together for more than ten years and their family includes four boys. Both are in public service — Kris leads a childhood health and education agency and Sandy works for a county health department. Their home life centers around their kids, with PTA meetings, soccer and music lessons taking up much of their free time.

Paul and Jeff have been together for nine years. Jeff is a general manager for a movie theater company and Paul is a business owner. They own a home together and are proud uncles.

Leading civil rights organizations, legal scholars, doctors, scientists, and religious organizations filed amicus briefs in support of the the Foundation’s case, including: the California NAACP, Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund (MALDEF), Asian Law Caucus, National Black Justice Coalition, South Asian Bar Association of Northern California, ACLU, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, National Center for Lesbian Rights, retired California Court of Appeal Justice Donald King, family law professors from across the state, American Anthropological Association, American Psychoanalytic Association, National Association of Social Workers, and the American Academy of Pediatrics California Chapter.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights Advisory Board is co-chaired by John Podesta, head of the progressive Center for American Progress, and Robert Levy, head of the libertarian Cato Institute. The Board also includes former NAACP Chairman Julian Bond, UFW founder Dolores Huerta and FOX News Commentator Margaret Hoover.

For complete information about the case, including court documents, photographs, video and more, visit www.equalrightsfoundation.org .

Specifically, the District Court’s comprehensive, 136-page decision may be found here: www.equalrightsfoundation.org/legal-filings/district-court-decision/

A summary of the trial is available here: www.equalrightsfoundation.org/press-releases/perry-v-schwarzenegger-trial-summary/

Video evidence and other court filings are available here: www.equalrightsfoundation.org/our-work/legal-filings/

“More than 30 years ago, the United States Supreme Court recognized that marriage is one of the basic rights of man,” the original suit against Prop. 8 stated, referring to the Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down bans on interracial marriage

MsTinkerbelly

09-18-2010, 12:20 PM

Prop 8 proponents still arguing procreation in 9th Circuit brief
(Here is Karen Ocamb’s take, cross-posted from LGBTPOV, on the written arguments filed by the Prop 8 legal team late last night. Check out Friday night’s breaking news post for more on the brief).

By Karen Ocamb

The defendant-interveners in the federal Prop 8 trial filed a 134-page argument with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, three hours before it was due. Prop8TrialTracker has the brief scribed. Interestingly, Austin Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, (pictured in this photo by Mark Hefflinger at the Yes on 8 podium with attorney Andy Pugno) is not a named author in the brief, despite being ubiquitous during the trial. Wonder what happened there.

The Proponents argument that they have standing in the case starts on page 19, after a list of citations – but it reads like they are submitting their case in full, once again arguing the incredible importance of procreation as the distinguishing characteristic of heterosexual relations. And once again, we’re jumping through the Looking Glass:

“Nowhere in its 136-page opinion does the district court even cite any of the evidence overwhelmingly acknowledging responsible procreation and child-rearing as the animating purpose of marriage. All of the evidence – the judicial authority from California and almost every other State, the works of eminent scholars from all relevant academic fields, the extensive historical evidence – is simply ignored. And the district court ignored it quite willfully; in the court’s view, apparently only oral testimony presented at trial constituted “evidence” on the issue (and its treatment of even this evidence was egregiously selective and one-sided….).”

In another interesting twist, the Prop 8 proponents claim the plaintiffs erroneously argued that there was animus on the part of the people of California, when in fact the legal team of Ted Olson and David Boies argued convincingly that it was the proponents and pushers of Prop 8 who were motivated by animus toward gay people:

“This charge is false and unfair on its face, and leveling it against the people of California is especially unfounded, for they have enacted into law some of the Nation’s most sweeping and progressive protections of gays and lesbians, including a domestic partnership law that gives same sex couples all the same substantive benefits and protections as marriage. And it defames as anti-gay bigots not only seven million California voters, but everyone else in this Country, and elsewhere, who believes that the traditional opposite-sex definition of marriage continues to meaningfully serve society’s interests – from the current President of the United States, to a large majority of legislators throughout the Nation, both in statehouses and in the United States Congress, and even to most of he scores of state and federal judges who have addressed the issue.”

On the issue of Standing, they write:

“As official proponents of Proposition 8, Appellants are authorized by California law to defend that Proposition on behalf of the people of that State. Accordingly, they have standing to defend this appeal. The Imperial Interveners, who directly administer California’s marriage laws, likewise have standing, and should have been permitted to intervene in this case…..”

Specifically, Proponents have “authority under state law” (Karcher v May 1987) to defend the constitutionality of an initiative they have successfully sponsored, for they are acting “as agents of he people” of California “in lieu of public officials” who refuse to do so,” ie Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown.

They cite Arizonans for Official English v Arizona (1997) as backup – but as Lambda Legal’s Jon Davidson wrote earlier, other attorneys believe the Arizona decision went against the initiative proponents.

The defender-interveners also say they have standing because the California Supreme Court “has already permitted these very Proponents to defend this very Proposition when the Attorney General would not do so.”

MsTinkerbelly

09-20-2010, 06:17 PM

Knights Of Columbus Donate More To Fight Gay Marriage Than Fight Hunger

God's Gentle People™ at the Catholic charity Knights of Columbus have donated more to fight marriage equality than it has allocated for its own food bank program.
The Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal society founded in New Haven in 1881, does a lot of good work. In a report detailing its charitable giving during 2009, the organization noted that while the “Knights and their families are hardly immune to the economic downturn,” they had once again furthered their proud 128-year tradition of service — a tradition including “helping the widows and orphans of the late 19th century” and “providing coats to poor, cold children.” Add to that list a donation of a whopping $1.4 million in 2009 to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a nonprofit group dedicated to fighting same-sex marriage through the ballot initiative system in California, Maine and other states. While NOM hasn’t yet made public its 2009 fundraising numbers, the amount of charitable contributions it received in 2008 totaled approximately $2.9 million. The NOM donation eclipses what the Knights’ Supreme Council spent on some of its own charitable programs — such as its new effort supporting food banks or its total spending on education initiatives — in the same year, much to the outrage of some observers, including Catholic groups.

NOM has sued in state courts to prevent the disclosure of their donors, but the Knights of Columbus proudly announced their donation in a public report.

PearlsNLace

09-20-2010, 06:33 PM

TinkerBelly, I have purchased a Yule/christmas tree from the KofC in the past.

Thank you for this post. I found a link, and shared it on my facebook!

MsTinkerbelly

09-22-2010, 06:11 PM

Not a marriage rights victory, but still one for equality!

Another court victory: Florida gay adoption ban ruled unconstitutional
By Eden James

As our friends at the ACLU and Equality Florida (as well as Alan E. in the comments) alerted us this morning, we have some more excellent news coming out of the courts on LGBT rights — this time from a state court in Florida:

MIAMI — Florida’s strict ban on adoption by gay people is unconstitutional because no other group, even people with criminal backgrounds, are singled out for a flat prohibition by state law, an appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The ruling by the 3rd District Court of Appeal upholds a 2008 decision by a Miami-Dade County judge who found “no rational basis” for the ban when she approved the adoption of two young brothers by Martin Gill and his male partner. The prohibition was first enacted in 1977 and is the only law of its kind in the nation, according to court records.

In a 28-page opinion, a three-judge panel of the court noted that gay people are permitted to become foster parents or legal guardians in Florida, yet are the only group not allowed to adopt.

“It is difficult to see any rational basis in utilizing homosexual persons as foster parents or guardians on a temporary or permanent basis, while imposing a blanket prohibition on those same persons,” wrote Judge Gerald Cope for the panel. “All other persons are eligible to be considered case-by-case to be adoptive parents.”

The decision is likely to be appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, which could then determine the ultimate fate of the law. “We note that our ruling is unlikely to be the last word,” the appeals panel said

Jess

09-23-2010, 12:07 PM

http://fundraising.meny.us/fundprogram.aspx?programid=5

http://demo.cpscreative.com/meny/email2/wedding-march_banner.jpg

Jess

09-24-2010, 05:11 PM

http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/09/22/NOM_Seeks_Undisclosed_Spending_in_NY/

MsTinkerbelly

09-27-2010, 04:32 PM

The cost of marriage discrimination? A $3,500 pay cut!
The comments lately are abuzz with people talking about the tax penalty on their same-sex partner’s health insurance. A few months back I calculated the exact impact for my partner and me — and I work at a company with full domestic partner benefits. This is what I wrote about it. You’ll also find links to help you calculate your own penalty, too.

by Rob Tisinai

I investigated how much it would cost to add a domestic partner to my heath plan. If I were a straight man adding a wife, I could find the answer right in my employee handbook: $729.04 a year. And of course I wouldn’t have to pay taxes on that money, which eases the pain.

But a domestic partnership is more complex, because the law says I do have to pay federal income tax on it — and by “it” I don’t just mean my own contribution. The feds tax me on my employer’s contribution, too: $5876.52 a year. This appears on my W-2 as “imputed income.”

Add it up, and being gay means my taxable income would be $6605.56 greater than if I were straight. So, at my marginal tax rate, my federal taxes would be higher by $1849.56.

But there’s more. That’s $1849.56 in take-home pay. What kind of salary cut does that represent? Don’t forget, take-home pay is only a fraction of your actual salary. My employers sent me to this site for calculating that sort of thing. It turns out a take-home hit like that is equivalent to a $3500 salary cut.

That’s right. Adding a spouse to my health plan is like getting $3500 pay cut, compared to what would happen if I were straight.

And this is at a company with full domestic partner benefits.

Cyclopea

09-30-2010, 02:45 PM

http://www.getreligion.org/wp-content/photos/2010/07/LapsedCatholicGear.jpg

Unnamed donor paid for Catholic DVD against same-sex marriage
by Elizabeth Dunbar, Minnesota Public Radio,
Madeleine Baran, Minnesota Public Radio
September 22, 2010

St. Paul, Minn. — An anonymous donor paid for the Catholic Church in Minnesota to produce and distribute a DVD opposing same-sex marriage, Archbishop John Nienstedt said Wednesday.

In a video message being mailed this week to more than 400,000 Catholics throughout the state, church leaders called for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to be put before Minnesota voters.

Nienstedt, who serves as the Archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis, expressed this view in remarks included in the version of the DVD being mailed to metro-area church members.

Nienstedt told Minnesota Public Radio News that it's the first time the diocese has used a mass DVD mailing to inform church members of specific church teachings or beliefs.

He said the video, distributed about six weeks before the gubernatorial election, was not a "political statement" or an endorsement of any candidate. He said he does not know how much it cost to produce or distribute the DVD, and said that private donor who funded the effort "asked to remain anonymous."

In the video, Nienstedt says that allowing same-sex couples to marry would change the meaning of marriage for all Minnesotans.

"At best, so called same-sex marriage is an untested social experiment," he said in the video. "And at worst, it poses a dangerous risk with potentially far-reaching consequences. An exercise of caution should be in order."

Nienstedt told MPR's Tom Crann his remarks are consistent with church teachings on marriage, and are not meant to discriminate against gays and lesbians. He said God intended that marriage be reserved for opposite-sex couples.

"There's no discrimination when there isn't a basic right to something," he said.

Nienstedt begins the video by telling viewers that some legislators want to change state law to allow same-sex couples to marry. Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville, introduced legislation to legalize same-sex marriage in 2009, and last spring a hearing was held on a similar bill in the House. No votes have been taken on either bill.

Thirty-one states have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, but Minnesota currently only has a state law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. A lawsuit challenging that law was filed earlier this year, though it will likely take years before it makes it through the courts.

While arguing that same-sex marriage goes against the teachings of the Catholic Church, Nienstedt said Minnesotans should be able to vote on the issue.

Nienstedt said the video, distributed about six weeks before the gubernatorial election, was not a "political statement" or an endorsement of any candidate.
"I hope we can all agree on this: If we are to change our societal understanding of marriage, it should be the people themselves, and not politicians or judges, who should make this decision," he said in the video.

Gay rights groups have opposed putting the same-sex marriage issue before voters, opting instead to step up efforts to educate Minnesotans and persuade people to see the issue as a question of equal rights.

Michael Bayly, executive coordinator of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities in Minneapolis, said part of the government's role is to protect the rights of minorities, and holding a vote on people's rights would be wrong.

"If we just allowed people to vote on all sorts of things in the past, we may not be the society we are today in terms of our tolerance, our acceptance and our laws for all types of people," he said.

OutFront Minnesota, a key organization in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage, has focused its efforts at the Capitol, where gay rights advocates think it could be possible to change Minnesota's law.

Putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot requires approval of the state House and Senate, but not the governor. But for state law to be changed to allow same-sex marriage, the Legislature and governor would both have to approve a bill.

The gubernatorial candidates are split on the issue. Democrat Mark Dayton and Independence Party candidate Tom Horner support same-sex marriage, while Republican Tom Emmer opposes it.

On Wednesday, the National Organization for Marriage launched a new TV ad in Minnesota criticizing Dayton and Horner, while praising Emmer's stance on the issue of allowing people to vote on whether marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman.

Bayly said the campaign by Minnesota's Catholic bishops appears to be a "last-ditch effort" to influence the election.

"They're trying to force their particular understanding of marriage in the civil arena," Bayly said, adding that his group has sent out e-mails to members encouraging those who receive the DVD to send it back to the archdiocese.

Video includes message from national group

The video being distributed to Minnesota Catholics includes a statement from one of the state's six local bishops, followed by a video produced by the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization active in the U.S. and many other countries.

That video includes images of a Catholic wedding, contrasting it with images of same-sex couples marrying in states where it's legal.

"What will happen to marriage, to children, and to Catholics and our institutions if judges and politicians are allowed to redefine marriage?" the video's narrator asks.

The video includes a Princeton University professor, an expert on jurisprudence, expressing his view that children raised by a mother and a father fare better than children raised by two mothers or two fathers.

The director of a Catholic marriage organization also is seen arguing that any laws legalizing same-sex marriage go against moral values and should be resisted -- just as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. called on citizens to resist unjust laws during the civil rights movement.

Christopher Leifeld, executive director of the Minnesota Catholic Conference, said all six Roman Catholic bishops of Minnesota have endorsed the outreach effort, which includes distributing the DVDs to parishioners.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://ReturnTheDVD.org/

We are a group of Catholics who are concerned about the priorities of the leaders in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis. Their action, distributing 400,000 DVDs on the single subject of same-sex marriage shortly before the upcoming election, reflects misguided priorities and strays from the essential teachings of Christ.

Our call to action is to create some good out of this unfortunate situation.

Our Plan

We are collecting as many DVDs as possible and will return them to Archbishop John Nienstedt with a letter asking him to make the needs of the poor and love of neighbor his highest priority.

We will personally make a financial donation for every DVD we collect to St. Stephens Human Services and Episcopal Community Services-non-profits working to help fight poverty and end homelessness in Minnesota.

We are not affiliated with either organization but have chosen them because:
They provide much needed services to the poor and homeless in Minnesota.
Services are provided to all regardless of race, creed, or sexual orientation.
For more information about the organizations we are supporting, visit their websites:

St. Stephens Human Services

Episcopal Community Services
Questions We Are Asking

How could the over $1 million spent to distribute these DVDs have benefited the poor?

Why did the Minnesota Bishops choose same-sex marriage as the central issue to educate Catholics about now? Shouldn't we spend at least as much (or more) time and energy educating Catholics about the plight of the poor in our area?
-------------------------------------------------------
DVD to Art
ReturnTheDVD.org is joining forces with the DVD to Art project. Local artist Lucinda Naylor is collecting the DVDs to create a work of art. Lucinda says "The Catholic Church is full of wonderful, loving people. The DVD to ART project is about highlighting those folks who say, “Yes, let’s come together and welcome everyone.”

We will still be returning DVDs to the Archbishop, but we also plan to share DVDs with the DVD to Art project. When you send us your DVD please let us know if you would prefer us to send it to the DVD to Art project.
http://www.dvdtoart.blogspot.com/

Cyclopea

09-30-2010, 02:57 PM

http://www.bilerico.com/2010/04/maggie_gallagher.jpg

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) pretends to be tolerant – but this new site proves it's a hateful group led by anti-gay extremists.

http://nomexposed.org/

Cyclopea

09-30-2010, 03:02 PM

NElMcnrO4hk

betenoire

09-30-2010, 03:38 PM

NElMcnrO4hk

omg I had the biggest crush on her when I was in highschool (Untamed Heart was my favourite movie back then). I knew I had taste.

Cyclopea

09-30-2010, 03:56 PM

omg I had the biggest crush on her when I was in highschool (Untamed Heart was my favourite movie back then). I knew I had taste.

She's Mine! Mine I tell ya!
:jester:

betenoire

09-30-2010, 04:08 PM

She's Mine! Mine I tell ya!
:jester:

Don't you just want to stick your tongue in her dimple?

I'll wrassle you for her and I'll win.

You know, I actually haven't seen much of her since the 90s. She's way cuter now that she's all grown up.

Cyclopea

09-30-2010, 04:14 PM

She certainly is...
http://www.myclassiclyrics.com/artist_biographies/images/Rosie-Perez-3.jpg
Ok give it your best shot- it's not like we're married or anything! ;)

MsTinkerbelly

10-04-2010, 10:05 AM

Cynthia Nixon from a panal she was on:

“I want to say to the gentleman to my left, gay people who want to marry have no desire to redefine marriage in any way. When women got the vote they did not redefine voting. When African-Americans got the right to sit at a lunch counter alongside white people, they did not redefine eating out. They were simply invited to the table…We have no desire to change marriage. We want to be entitled to not only the same privileges, but the same responsibilities as straight people.”

AtLast

10-04-2010, 10:18 AM

Cyclopea

10-06-2010, 12:44 AM

Activists In Paraguay Optimistic About Upcoming Gay Marriage Debate
From On Top Magazine:

BY CARLOS SANTOSCOY
PUBLISHED: OCTOBER 05, 2010
Supporters of gay marriage in Paraguay say they have a good chance of having the legislation approved.

The debate on whether to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry in the Roman Catholic stronghold kicked off Saturday with two large demonstrations.

Opponents of marriage equality protested at town squares throughout the nation, while advocates gathered in front of the Pantheon of Heroes, Asuncion's memorial to the country's fallen soldiers, to urge Paraguayans to support gay marriage.

The gay rights group SOMOSGAY (we are gay) will present the gay marriage bill to legislators this month. Opposition, however, began mobilizing just days after neighboring Argentina approved a similar law in July.

“We are going to put out an intense educational campaign on Christian values, to avoid the law of marriage between people of the same sex that was approved in Argentina from coming to Paraguay,” Bishop Adalberto Martinez of San Pedo told La Nation.

The church is backing the campaign Queremos Papa y Mama (We want a mother and a father), which sponsored Saturday's anti-gay marriage Festival Por La Vida Y La Familia (Festival For Life & Family).

SOMOSGAY President Simon Cazal said that while his group will present the gay marriage bill this month, lawmakers aren't expected to take up the bill until early next year. “There is a possibility that it'll be approved,” Cazal told On Top Magazine in an email.
----------------------------------------------------------
http://ilga.org/ilga/static/uploads/images/2010/7/28/uruguay_gay.jpg

Glenn

10-06-2010, 05:56 PM

Mayor Daley is on the list of same sex marriage rights supporters in Illinois. 365gay.com/news/illinois-takes-up-gay-marriage-bill.:vigil: Wyoming is up on board also.

Cyclopea

10-12-2010, 03:31 PM

From GLAD:

Department of Justice will Appeal GLAD’s Victory in DOMA Lawsuit

October 12, 2010
For immediate release
Contact: Carisa Cunningham

Today, the Department of Justice filed a notice of appeal in the case of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, the challenge brought by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Representing seven married same-sex couples and three widowers, GLAD filed Gill in March 2009. The case was heard in May 2010 by U.S. District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro, who issued a decision finding DOMA Section 3 unconstitutional on July 8, 2010.

“We fully expected an appeal and are more than ready to meet it head on,” said Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD’s Civil Rights Project Director. “DOMA brings harm to families like our plaintiffs every day, denying married couples and their children basic protections like health insurance, pensions, and Social Security benefits. We are confident in the strength of our case.”

The case is now before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The next step will be for the government to file its brief to that court arguing that Judge Tauro’s ruling was wrong. GLAD will then file its brief in opposition to the government, and finally the government will file a reply brief. At that point, the appeal will be scheduled for oral argument. Briefing could be concluded by the spring of 2011 with oral argument to follow by the fall of 2011.

The government also today filed its notice of appeal in the related case Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Department of Health and Human Services.

Co-counsel in the Gill case are attorneys from the firms Foley Hoag LLP, Sullivan & Worcester LLP, Jenner & Block LLP, and Kator, Parks & Weiser, PLLC.

Jess

10-13-2010, 02:57 PM

Essence Magazine is featuring its first ever wedding of a lesbian couple. Aisha Mills and Danielle Moody were married last year in DC. Check out their story and the beautiful photos from their wedding day!

http://www.essence.com/relationships/bridal_bliss/aisha_mills_danielle_moodie.php

http://www.essence.com/images/mt/aisha-mills-danielle-moodie-bb-475.jpg

Jess

10-14-2010, 10:10 AM

http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/10/13/busted-hrccourage-campaign-call-on-irs-to-investigate-nom%E2%80%99s-sister-organization/

Nat

10-26-2010, 05:45 AM

iamkeri1

10-26-2010, 09:23 AM

Here's an update on Florida adoption law. Not exactly about marriage, but closely alligned, and good news nonetheless.
Smooches,
K

Florida Anti-Gay Adoption Ban Comes to an End
Opinion by GLAAD
(1 Day Ago) in Society / Gay Issues
Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum Friday announced that he will not appeal last month’s ruling by a state appellate court striking down a state law barring gay people from adopting. Governor Charlie Crist and the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) had already announced that they would not appeal the decision. Attorney General Bill McCollum’s announcement puts a final end to the law after 33 years on the books.
In late September, a Miami appeals court ruled that Florida’s 33-year-old adoption ban, which bars gay and lesbian parents from providing loving and permanent homes to children, is unconstitutional.
“Given a total ban on adoption…one might expect that this reflected a legislative judgment that [gay] persons are, as a group, unfit to be parents,” the opinion states, according to The Miami Herald.
“No one in this case has made, or even hinted at, any such argument. To the contrary, the parties agree ‘that gay people make equally good parents,’” the opinion continues.
The decision came down nearly two years after Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman ruled that “sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person’s ability to parent…The most important factor in ensuring a well-adjusted child is the quality of parenting,” in the case of Martin Gill, who was challenging the state’s Department of Children and Families over the adoption of two young brothers whom he had been caring for under the foster care system.
“Having raised our boys for nearly five years and seeing them overcome their difficult beginnings to become happy, healthy, outgoing kids, it was especially difficult to listen to the state try to justify a law that not only jeopardizes our children but makes it harder for other foster kids to find permanent families,” said Gill. “I am thrilled that the court has recognized what a disservice this law does to the children most in need.”
Florida had been the only state in the country that categorically denied gay people from adopting, which has adversely affected the state’s youth. Currently, there are 3,500 eligible kids in the foster system waiting to be adopted.
“Finally, a piece of 30-year-old prejudice has been struck from the law books in Florida,” Howard Simon, who heads the America Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida and represented Gill in his court battle, told the Herald. “This is good news for the advancement of human rights and the children in Florida’s troubled foster-care system.”
GLAAD, in a three-year public education campaign with the ACLU of Florida’s LGBT Advocacy Project, has been working to build public support among Floridians to end the adoption ban. The campaign that GLAAD is assisting on is designed to help people understand how the adoption ban hurts children and families and to shift public opinion about the issue.
GLAAD has conducted media trainings in Miami, Tampa, Ft. Lauderdale, Naples, Orlando, and Gainesville.

MsTinkerbelly

11-03-2010, 08:02 AM

BREAKING: Iowa Supreme Court Justices ousted in retention vote driven by marriage equality decision

By Eden James

It’s over in Iowa.

96% precincts reporting:

Supreme Court – Retain Baker
No: 54.1%
Yes: 45.9%

Supreme Court – Retain Streit
No: 54.1%
Yes: 45.9%

Supreme Court – Retain Ternus
No: 54.7%
Yes: 45.3%

The Iowa Supreme Court justices issued the following statement moments ago:

It was our great privilege to serve the people of Iowa for many years. Throughout our judicial service we endeavored to serve the people of Iowa by always adhering to the rule of law, making decisions fairly and impartially according to the law, and faithfully upholding the constitution.

We wish to thank all of the Iowans who voted to retain us for another term. Your support shows that many Iowans value fair and impartial courts. We also want to acknowledge and thank all the Iowans, from across the political spectrum and from different walks of life, who worked tirelessly over the past few months to defend Iowa’s high-caliber court system against an unprecedented attack by out-of-state special interest groups.

Finally, we hope Iowans will continue to support Iowa’s merit selection system for appointing judges. This system helps ensure that judges base their decisions on the law and the Constitution and nothing else. Ultimately, however, the preservation of our state’s fair and impartial courts will require more than the integrity and fortitude of individual judges, it will require the steadfast support of the people.

Chief Justice Marsha Ternus
Associate Justice Michael Streit
Associate Justice David Baker

The Courage Campaign and the Human Rights Campaign just sent the following press release:

Iowa Courts Hijacked By National Organization for Marriage Intimidation Campaign

Marriage equality remains law in Iowa

WASHINGTON — After tonight’s defeat of the three Iowa state Supreme Court justices who ruled in favor of marriage equality last year, the Human Rights Campaign and Courage Campaign condemned the National Organization for Marriage’s efforts to intimidate judges across the country.

NOM’s president Brian Brown has admitted (here) that his group’s effort in Iowa’s judicial election was actually about intimidating judges around the country into ruling against equality for millions of loving American families. In Iowa, NOM spent an unprecedented $600,000 on TV ads and a 45-county bus tour. Despite NOM’s mean-spirited and fear-driven campaign, same-sex marriage remains legal in Iowa.

“By their own admission, NOM’s Iowa strategy was about sending a warning shot to judges nationwide,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “NOM and its secret donors will target judges around the country if they rule in favor of marriage equality and will foster an anti-gay, hostile environment in the process.”

“Having seen its extremist agenda increasingly rejected by the courts and the American people, it is telling that NOM has now settled on a strategy of evading tax and election laws and trying to intimidate judges,” said Courage Campaign Founder and Chairman Rick Jacobs. “These are the tactics one might expect from Al Capone, not a credible political organization.”

Prior to its involvement in this election, NOM received a strong warning from Iowa’s ethics agency for evading campaign laws. During a 2009 special election in the state, NOM told supporters they could contribute to its Iowa campaign efforts secretly–without disclosing their names. Iowa law requires disclosure of contributors to political campaigns.

NOM is also fighting campaign finance laws in New York, Washington, Rhode Island, California and Maine, where it remains under investigation by the Maine Ethics Commission for failing to register with the state as a ballot question committee and refusing to disclose the donors to its campaign to overturn Maine’s marriage equality law in 2009.

The Washington Independent has reported that NOM is funneling charitable donations into political campaigns. NOM’s charitable arm, The Ruth Institute, was also the subject of a recent IRS complaint filed by HRC and the Courage Campaign for repeated violations of federal law prohibiting charitable organizations from advocating on behalf of political campaigns.

UPDATE: Statement from One Iowa’s Carolyn Jenison on Iowa’s election results:

On April 3, 2009, Iowans celebrated a historic Iowa Supreme Court decision that granted the freedom to marry to gay and lesbian couples. This ruling continued a long tradition of recognizing equal rights for all Iowans. It was a hard fought victory and we knew we would have to work very hard to protect it in the years ahead. Over the past year and a half Iowans have fought off and beaten back every attempt to diminish this ruling.

In this election, three of the courageous justices who recognized the freedom to marry in Iowa fell victim to a perfect storm of electoral discontent and out-of-state special interest money. In addition, many of our pro-equality allies from Governor Culver to statehouse candidates lost their seats due to an anti-incumbent mood that swept the nation. We thank them for their distinguished service and we look forward to working with our newly elected legislature and Governor in the weeks and months ahead.

While the full implications of these election results remain to be seen, one thing remains the same:

The freedom to marry in Iowa remains intact.

In the months and weeks ahead we can expect renewed attempts to overturn the freedom to marry and write discrimination into the Iowa Constitution. It will take a concerted and collective effort on the part of pro-equality Iowans to respond to these attacks and defend on our liberties. We hope you’ll join us.

This is no time to be discouraged. While our fight may be tireless, our mission is clear. Together, we will protect marriage equality and preserve Iowa’s long tradition of equal rights for all.

With Gratitude,

Carolyn Jenison,
Executive Director

DomnNC

11-03-2010, 09:56 AM

For those of you planning a wedding here are a few helpful resources:

http://equallywed.com/

http://www.rainbowweddingnetworkmagazine.com/

MsTinkerbelly

11-09-2010, 08:56 AM

BREAKING: Double dose of DOMA challenges in court
By Eden James

Mr. Scoop, otherwise known as Chris Geidner, just posted some big news over at Metro Weekly:

The Defense of Marriage Act is due for a two-pronged attack on Tuesday, as two separate organizations and sets of lawyers, representing different plaintiffs, plan to file lawsuits in federal court challenging the federal definition of marriage.

The Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) plans to file a lawsuit in Connecticut challenging DOMA’s Section 3, which defines “marriage” and “spouse” in federal law as being limited only to opposite-sex couples. The plaintiffs are to include couples from several New England states with marriage equality, including Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont.

Meanwhile, in New York City, the American Civil Liberties Union and the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP plan to file a lawsuit on behalf of Edith Windsor, the widow of Thea Spyer. Windsor was forced to pay a $350,000 estate bill because of the federal government’s refusal to recognize Windsor’s marriage to Spyer.

You really need to real the full story from Chris to understand the context for these cases. Head on over to Metro Weekly.

Soon

11-12-2010, 04:59 PM

Colombia Court blocks gay marriage (http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/12879-court-blocks-gay-marriage.html)

MsTinkerbelly

11-16-2010, 01:41 PM

Ninth Circuit Sets Prop 8 Timetable

Here's how it's going to go down at 10am on December 6th.

The Court orders that oral argument in these appeals be conducted in the following manner: The argument shall be divided into two hour-long sessions, with a brief recess in between. In the first hour, the parties shall address each appellant's standing and any other procedural matters that may properly be raised. In the second hour, the parties shall address the constitutionality of Proposition 8. During the first hour, the Hollingsworth defendants-intervenors-appellants (Proponents) shall first have 15 minutes, and the Imperial County movants-appellants shall next have 15 minutes in which to present their opening arguments regarding standing and other procedural issues. The Perry plaintiffs-appellees shall then have 30 minutes in which to respond. Any time reserved by either appellant may be used for rebuttal, but only one rebuttal argument may be made and that by either appellant. During the second hour, the Proponents shall first have 30 minutes to present their opening argument on the merits of the constitutional question.

The Perry plaintiffs-appellees shall then have 15 minutes, and the plaintiff-intervenor-appellee City and County of San Francisco shall have the next 15 minutes, in which to respond. Any time reserved by the Proponents may be used for rebuttal. No later than November 24, 2010, the parties shall advise the Court of any objection they have to the allocation of time within each hour or of any reallocation of time within each hour that they wish to propose, by electronically filing letters with the Clerk of the Court. If any party wishes to give its full allotted time within either hour to an amicus curiae, it may request that the Court reallocate that time accordingly. Otherwise, no motions for leave to participate in oral argument by amici curiae will be entertained

AtLast

11-16-2010, 01:49 PM

National anti-gay groups unite to target Iowa judges (http://iowaindependent.com/45701/national-anti-gay-groups-unite-to-target-iowa-judges)

The campaign to oust three Iowa Supreme Court justices over a 2009 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage has attracted the attention of some of the most influential conservative organizations in America, each working together and sharing materials, funding and staff with Iowa groups and churches.

Get ready for more of this as our Congress begins the new sessions with recently elected Tea Baggers! And as elections go forward under the Supreme Court decision on election contributions.

We really are in a time (in the US) when our civil rights are being pushed further back.

MsTinkerbelly

11-17-2010, 06:58 PM

BREAKING: 9th Circuit Prop 8 hearing will be televised LIVE on C-SPAN
By Eden James

By way of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Notice of Docket Activity
The following transaction was entered on 11/17/2010 at 3:54:16 PM PST and
filed on 11/17/2010
Case Name: Kristin Perry, et al v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al
Case Number: 10-16696

…

C-SPAN applied to televise live the case captioned above, scheduled to be heard in San Francisco, on December 6, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. C-SPAN’s request to televise live is GRANTED. A maximum of two (2) video cameras will be permitted in the courtroom. C-SPAN will serve as the pool-feed for all media organizations that submit an application.

According to another court notice, there will be two hearings, back-to-back. The first about the standing issue and the second covering the constitutionality of Prop 8:

Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk:KKW): The Court orders that oral argument in these appeals be conducted in the following manner: The argument shall be divided into two hour-long sessions, with a brief recess in between. In the first hour, the parties shall address each appellant’s standing and any other procedural matters that may properly be raised. In the second hour, the parties shall address the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

During the first hour, the Hollingsworth defendants-intervenors-appellants (“Proponents”) shall first have 15 minutes, and the Imperial County movants-appellants shall next have 15 minutes in which to present their opening arguments regarding standing and other procedural issues. The Perry plaintiffs-appellees shall then have 30 minutes in which to respond. Any time reserved by either appellant may be used for rebuttal, but only one rebuttal argument may be made and that by either appellant.

During the second hour, the Proponents shall first have 30 minutes to present their opening argument on the merits of the constitutional question. The Perry plaintiffs-appellees shall then have 15 minutes, and the plaintiff-intervenor-appellee City and County of San Francisco shall have the next 15 minutes, in which to respond. Any time reserved by the Proponents may be used for rebuttal.

No later than November 24, 2010, the parties shall advise the Court of any objection they have to the allocation of time within each hour or of any reallocation of time within each hour that they wish to propose, by electronically filing letters with the Clerk of the Court. If any party wishes to give its full allotted time within either hour to an amicus curiae, it may request that the Court reallocate that time accordingly. Otherwise, no motions for leave to participate in oral argument by amici curiae will be entertained.. [7545517]

More to come, as news develops.

UPDATE: KGO-TV, a San Francisco ABC affiliate, also applied to televise the hearing. The good news from the court:

Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk:PA):KGO-TV applied to televise live and videotape for later broadcast the case captioned above, scheduled to be heard in San Francisco, on December 6, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. KGO- TV’s request to televise live and videotape for later broadcast is GRANTED.[7549438] (PA)

MsTinkerbelly

11-23-2010, 01:41 PM

NOM Battles Illinois Civil Unions

As the Illinois legislature prepares to "fast track" a bill to legalize civil unions, NOM has launched a campaign urging their followers to deluge state reps with complaints. Here's an excerpt from their sample letter.
Same-sex marriage advocates have made clear time and again that civil unions are not a compromise, but rather a stepping stone to full same-sex marriage recognition. Today they argue for civil unions in the name of equality -- but tomorrow they will argue that only bigotry and prejudice can support this "separate but equal" arrangement. It's already happened in California and Connecticut, where the civil unions bill was used to persuade courts that the state no longer had any interest in protecting marriage. The American people have spoken clearly time and again. Every time they've had the chance to vote on marriage -- 31 times in a row -- they've rejected the same-sex marriage agenda in favor of marriage as the union of a husband and wife. It's time the people of Illinois had the same opportunity to be heard. Senate Bill 1716 is a trojan horse -- presented as a compromise, but it is intentionally unsustainable and part of a larger attempt to force same-sex marriage on the state. I urge you to vote no.
The Human Rights Campaign responds via press release.
“NOM’s opposition to civil unions for gay and lesbian couples shows how far out of the mainstream it truly is,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “This new battleground plainly reveals NOM's deep-seated enmity toward the LGBT community, with no regard to public support." Two thirds of Illinois voters, according to an October 2010 poll by the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute, support either civil unions or marriage equality. A Chicago Tribune poll registered 57 percent of Illinoisans approve of civil unions, compared to 32 percent who disapprove.

MsTinkerbelly

11-29-2010, 01:35 PM

BREAKING: 9th Circuit names three judges who will hear Prop 8 case
By Eden James

Samuel Chu of California Faith for Equality broke the news this morning that the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals named the three judges who will hear the Prop 8 appeals case, starting at 10 a.m. on Monday, December 6.

The three-judge panel was randomly selected from the pool of 23 judges who serve on the 9th Circuit. Two of the judges were appointed by Democratic presidents and one by a Republican president.

More details, as picked up from California Faith for Equality by SDGLN:

– Judge Stephen Roy Reinhardt. He was confirmed in 1980 after being nominated by President Jimmy Carter. He served in the Air Force. On Nov. 18, 2009, the judge ruled in favor of a gay couple who were having their spousal health care benefits denied – Brad Levenson and Tony Sears were married during the period gay marriage was legal in California during 2008, and was seeking benefits for his partner while working as a public defender for the federal government. Judge Reinhardt also wrote an opinion relating to “standing” in a 1997 case relating to Arizona voters amending the state Constitution to make English the state’s official language. In that opinion written by Judge Reinhardt, the court held that the sponsors of the ballot initiative could intervene. But later that year, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously thought the Ninth Circuit had “lost sight” of the limitations of federal courts to decide definitively on the meaning of state legislation.

– Judge Michael Daly Hawkins. He joined the court in 1994 after being nominated by President Bill Clinton. He was U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona from 1977 to 1980 and then as Special Prosecutor for the Najavo Nation from 1985 to 1989.

– Judge Norman Randy Smith. He was confirmed in 2007 after being nominated by President George W. Bush. Born in Logan, Utah, Smith graduated from Brigham Young University with a bachelor’s degree in 1974, and received his J.D. from Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark School of Law in 1977.

“I am hopeful that the 9th circuit court panel will affirm equality and fairness,” said Samuel Chu, executive director of California Faith for Equality, which filed an amicus brief to the court supported by 700 clergy and congregations urging the panel to affirm Judge Walker’s ruling.

“Marriage is a right that every Californian deserve and this is another critical moment for the justice system to add momentum to winning full equality. Our state and our government should never be in the business of discrimination.”

More to come, as news develops.

UPDATE: Apparently, Judge Reinhardt is the husband of ACLU advocate Ramona Ripston. According to Wikipedia, Ripston is the Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California, until her February 2011 retirement

MsTinkerbelly

11-30-2010, 01:55 PM

MINNESOTA: "Family Values" Group Denied Standing In Marriage Suit

Via a press release from Marry Me Minnesota, we learn of a positive development that took place last week.
On November 24th, Minnesota Fourth District Court Judge Mary S. DuFrense denied a motion by the Minnesota Family Council to intervene as defendants against a lawsuit brought by three same same-sex couples and one minor child to strike down Minnesota laws that deny marriage equality. In her rebuff to the Minnesota Family Council and its multi-million dollar backers in the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, Judge DuFrense held that the Council's "strong feelings" and "purely ideological" interest in the lawsuit do not give it standing in court. "We appreciate the Judge's decision to deny the Minnesota Family Council's motion and believe it ensures that our case will be decided on its merits, without the interference of anti-gay ideologues," said, Douglas Benson, Executive Director of Marry Me Minnesota, a non-profit organization formed by the litigating gay couples. The couples' lead attorney, Peter J. Nickitas of Minneapolis, declared, "This decision is a great victory for the plaintiffs and their families, marriage equality, and the integrity of the court system."

MsTinkerbelly

12-01-2010, 11:02 AM

NOM attacks civil unions in Illinois; Bill may be voted on today
by Andy Kelley
New Media Organizer, Courage Campaign

In developing news, Illinois could vote to pass the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act (SB 1716), creating civil unions for same-sex couples, as soon as today.

Illinois Governor Patrick Quinn has pledged to sign the bill if passed telling the Chicago Tribune on Monday “I do think this is the time for Illinois to do this. This is a good way to show employers — big businesses all across the country — that Illinois treats everyone with tolerance.”

Despite their previous claims to not oppose civil unions, the National Organization for Marriage is hard at work urging their supporters to contact their legislators and urge them to oppose passage of the bill, calling it “same-sex marriage by a different name.”

Advocates of the bill are not allowing this challenge by out of state, Washington DC based interests to go unanswered. As Chicago Pride reports:

Gay rights activists continue to encourage the LGBT community to contact their legislators on Tuesday morning by calling the Illinois Capitol switchboard at 217-782-2000. EQIL has also established a hotline to help people identify their legislators, that number is 773-477-7173.

We will continue to bring you updates as this story develops.

UPDATE:

Good news. The Daily Herald is reporting that the bill has passed the state house and will move to the state senate for consideration:

By a 61-52 vote, lawmakers voted to allow civil unions, which would give nonmarried partners both gay and straight additional rights and benefits under state law

MsTinkerbelly

12-01-2010, 11:09 AM

Just a note from my thoughts:

I want equal....Civil Unions are not equal unless EVERYONE has civil unions, and then they have the option of a religious or non-religious "Marriage" of their choice. There are several countries that have this procedure in place. Italy comes to mind as one.....

However Civil Unions are a start, and at least offer the same protections and responcibilities in the home state. Equal Federal "Marriage" is what we have to fight for, until there is something better for EVERYONE!!!

:byebye:

MsTinkerbelly

12-01-2010, 01:58 PM

BREAKING: Civil Unions PASS In Illinois Senate, Gov. Quinn To Sign Bill

The bill just passed 32-24! Updates will be added to this post shortly.

Yay for Illinois!!!!!

MsTinkerbelly

12-03-2010, 01:54 PM

European Parliament Says Gay Unions Must Be Recognized By All EU Members

The European Parliament has declared that official documents such as marriage, civil union, birth, and death certificates must be recognized by all members of the European Union. Rex Wockner reports at Pink Paper:

"This is a great development for the many couples and families who see their fundamental rights diminished every day when crossing a border inside the EU," said Ulrike Lunacek, co-president of the European Parliament Intergroup on LGBT Rights. Co-President Michael Cashman said the statement adopted by the Parliament "follows the Commission's assertion in September that freedom of movement must be guaranteed for all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation." "Claims that mutual recognition will undermine national sovereignty are plain wrong; it won't affect national marriage or partnership laws, but simply recognize civil unions that already exist," Cashman said.
Same-sex marriage is legal in the EU member nations of Belgium, Iceland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. Civil unions or partnerships are recognized in Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom.

MsTinkerbelly

12-06-2010, 11:02 AM

Official Prop 8 Trial Tracker preview of the 9th Circuit hearing tomorrow(12/6)
By Adam Bink

Tomorrow is the 9th Circuit hearing of the appeal on Perry v. Schwarzenegger. As usual, it’ll be trial central here at P8TT. Here’s a run-down for all your 9th Circuit hearing needs:

What coverage you’ll find here at P8TT. The hearing starts at 10 AM PST tomorrow. As in Judge Walker’s courtroom, Courage Campaign’s Rick Jacobs and Arisha Michelle Hatch will be in the courtroom, sending back dispatches as they become available. I will be watching the proceedings and live-blogging, format similar to the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell hearings on Thursday and Friday. I will also be live-tweeting occasionally, and my handle is @adamjbink. Brian Leubitz, publisher of the Calitics blog and occasional legal contributor to P8TT, will be joining us tomorrow to post his occasional thoughts in the trial thread, and answer legal questions/comments from you in the comments. He’ll also have an analysis piece later tomorrow.

How the hearing will be divided. Oral arguments will be divided into two hour-long sessions with a brief recess in between. The issue of standing will be addressed in the first hour, and the constitutionality of Prop 8 in the second. David Boies will be arguing the standing issue, and Ted Olson, along with Therese Stewart from the City/County of San Francisco, will be arguing the constitutionality for our side. Charles Cooper will be addressing the constitutionality for the Pro-Prop 8 side, and it’s as-yet undetermined who will argue standing for their side, although Lisa Keen reports Imperial County will be represented by an attorney from Advocates for Faith and Freedom.

Possible rulings. Brian and the rest of the legal team will have more on this in the week ahead, but brief, potential rulings include upholding Judge Walker’s ruling denying standing to the defender/intervenors, not to mention the issue of constitutionality itself. And naturally, that could go the other way. The case may be appealed to the Supreme Court, but if the court does not take the case and the ruling goes our way, Prop 8 will be overturned. P8TT friend Karen Ocamb reports that if the Supremes do not take the case, AFER announced it will then file a new lawsuit to try and achieve marriage equality at the federal level. The losing party could also appeal for a ruling by the full 9th Circuit, which can decide to hear or not to hear such an appeal. And last, if proponents of Imperial County lose on standing, there may not be a ruling on the merits (constitutionality) at all. But then, the Supremes could rule that defendant/intervenors do have standing and send the case back to the 9th Circuit for a ruling on merits. We’ll have more legal scenarios and analysis tomorrow and later this week at P8TT, as well.

Where to watch. You can watch in-person, on C-SPAN, at a local law school near you, at a local courthouse near you, at the LA Gay and Lesbian Center (doors open at 9:30), and other places. Karen has the skinny on some other viewing possibilities. But of course, the best place to follow along, comment and read your fellow community members’ analysis, especially if you’re busy for the two hours, will be P8TT!

Where to go to be with supporters. If you’re in the area, tomorrow from 7:30-9:30 AM, various LGBT community leaders and allies will be holding a community rally before the hearing starts. The location is the courthouse at 7th and Mission Streets in San Francisco. In attendance will be NCLR’s Kate Kendall, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart, Lambda Legal’s Jenny Pizer, and other community leaders. You can also stick around to watch the hearing in overflow courtrooms, or head out to follow along here. A Facebook invite is here.
If you have any other tidbits to add, or questions/comments/expectations, please leave them in the comments.

Big day tomorrow. See you all then

MsTinkerbelly

12-06-2010, 11:05 AM

All of the information above is for the start of the hearings TODAY 12/6, I just didn't have time to be on-line and post this last night.

I can hardly sit still!!

MasterWolf

12-06-2010, 11:33 AM

BREAKING: Civil Unions PASS In Illinois Senate, Gov. Quinn To Sign Bill

The bill just passed 32-24! Updates will be added to this post shortly.

Yay for Illinois!!!!!

This one thrills me more than any of the others. 35 yrs ago my ex and I sat in, got arrested and did jail time, trying to get a marriage license in Chicago. 35 years ago the word 'gay' never appeared in the local media... Its been a long time coming, and while civil union is not acceptable because separate is never equal. It coming to Illinois, which was the last northern state to ratify the Civil rights Act of 1954, (what an awful bit of noteriety), says a lot. Outside of chicago area, Illinois is really a bible belt state.

Perhaps it isn't ridiculous to hope that we truly will be equal under all laws in my life time.

peace

Wolf

Sparkle

12-06-2010, 12:32 PM

Live broadcast: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN.aspx

MsTinkerbelly

12-20-2010, 11:10 AM

Monday, December 20, 2010
LAUNCHED: Equality Matters

Media Matters has launched Equality Matters, a new LGBT activism site meant to serve as a "communications war room for gay equality."
It will be run by Richard Socarides, a former domestic policy adviser to President Bill Clinton who has been deeply critical of President Obama’s record on gay rights. A well-known gay journalist, Kerry Eleveld, the Washington correspondent for The Advocate, will leave that magazine in January to edit the new group’s Web site, equalitymatters.org, which is to go online Monday morning. “Yesterday was a very important breakthrough,” Mr. Socarides said in an interview on Sunday, “and President Obama’s comments, especially following the vote, were very significant, where he for the first time connected race and gender to sexual orientation under the banner of civil rights. “But we will celebrate this important victory for five minutes, and then we have to move on, because we are the last group of Americans who are discriminated against in federal law and there is a lot of work to do.”
Among the major backers of Media Matters is billionaire philanthropist George Soros.

Soon

12-24-2010, 04:50 PM

Joe Biden Just Scared a Lot of People (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/12/joe_biden_just_scared_a_lot_of.html)

President Obama’s Fake Evolution on Gay Marriage Is Still Ongoing (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/12/president_obamas_fake_gay-marr.html)

iamkeri1

12-27-2010, 10:10 PM

Corkey

01-03-2011, 02:30 PM

http://nomexposed.org/2011/01/03/breaking-video-national-organization-for-marriage-has-to-produce-tax-returns-by-midnight-tonight/

Keeping an eye out for this tonight.

Soon

01-03-2011, 05:32 PM

Debate Watch: 100% Of RNC Chair Candidates Denounce Same-Sex Marriage

RNC Chairman Michael Steele is fighting for his job at today's debate, where every single candidate responded to NOM's question on marriage equality by invoking Jeebus, traditional values, and the sanctity of one man-one woman.

zmuJ-wtnPEI&feature=player_embedded#!

MsTinkerbelly

01-04-2011, 11:10 AM

Ms Tinkerbelly,

Do you know how long "they" plan to keep same sex marriage on hold in CA while waiting for further appeals? Also, am I mistaken, or wasn't the purpose of the last hearing to decide if any one/group had standing to file such an appeal? And wasn't it decided that no group existed with standing to file an appeal?

Thanks so much for being such a great ongoing source of information.

Hugs and smooches,
Keri

I believe we will have a decision from The 9th Circut this week, but for the life of me I can't find where I posted that before, or where I found it in the first place!

If the decision comes down that Prop 8 is out and we can marry in California again, I am not sure if the Federal Appeals Court or the SCOTUS will grant a stay until the case can be heard or passed on by the SCOTUS.

Sorry, clear as mud!

MsTinkerbelly

01-04-2011, 01:35 PM

BREAKING: 9th Circuit rules on the Prop 8 case
By Adam Bink

Update 5: Folks are asking about the timeline. There’s nothing on the timeline of a CA Supreme Court decision. There is this:

The case is withdrawn from submission, and further proceedings in this
court are stayed pending final action by the Supreme Court of California. The
parties shall notify the Clerk of this Court within three days after the Court accepts
or rejects certification, and again within three days if the Court renders an opinion.
The panel retains jurisdiction over further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Update 4: Here’s the meat of the ruling. I bolded the key parts:

“Filed Order for PUBLICATION (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and N. RANDY SMITH) for certification to California State Supreme Court. Before this panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is an appeal concerning the constitutionality under the United States Constitution of Article I, § 7.5 of the California Constitution (“Proposition 8”). Because we cannot consider this important constitutional question unless the appellants before us have standing to raise it, and in light of Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) (“Arizonans”), it is critical that we be advised of the rights under California law of the official proponents of an initiative measure to defend the constitutionality of that measure upon its adoption by the People when the state officers charged with the laws’ enforcement, including the Attorney General, refuse to provide such a defense or appeal a judgment declaring the measure unconstitutional. As we are aware of no controlling state precedent on this precise question, we respectfully ask the Supreme Court of California to exercise its discretion to accept and decide the certified question below. (See order for full text) The Clerk is hereby directed to transmit forthwith to the Court the original and ten copies of this order and accompanying memorandum, as well as a certificate of service on the parties. Cal. R. Ct. 8.548(d). The clerk shall also transmit the following along with this request: ten copies of the district court Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law / Order (704 F. Supp. 2d. 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010)); ten copies of the Permanent Injunction issued by the district court (docket entry 728 in No. C 09-2292-VRW (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2010)); a copy of the video recording of the oral argument heard in these appeals on December 6, 2010; the briefs of the parties and intervenors in this appeal; and the briefs amicus curiae filed by (1) the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and (2) Equality California in No. 10-16696. The Clerk shall provide additional record materials if so requested by the Supreme Court of California. Cal. R. Ct. 8.548(c). The case is withdrawn from submission, and further proceedings in this court are stayed pending final action by the Supreme Court of California. The parties shall notify the Clerk of this Court within three days after the Court accepts or rejects certification, and again within three days if the Court renders an opinion. The panel retains jurisdiction over further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. [7598921] (RP)”

On the issue of standing for Imperial Valley (h/t Karen Ocamb):

FILED PER CURIAM OPINION (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and N. RANDY SMITH) AFFIRMED; DISMISSED. The district court order denying the motion to intervene is AFFIRMED. Movants’ appeal of the district court order concerning the constitutionality of Proposition 8 is DISMISSED for lack of standing. The deadline for filing a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc is hereby EXTENDED until the deadline for such petitions in No. 10-16696, which will be 14 days after an opinion is filed in that appeal. The Clerk is DIRECTED to stay the issuance of the mandate in this case until the mandate issues in No. 10- 16696. AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part. FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [7598965] (RP)

Update 3: The filing can be found here.

Update 2: Reading through the documents, the 9th Circuit has issued a question to the CA Supreme Court asking if proponents have standing. No decision on the merits yet. More soon.

Update: According to the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the 9th Circuit ruled that Imperial County is denied standing in the process.

The breaking news is that the 9th Circuit will rule any minute on the Prop 8 case. The filings are being uploaded and I’m sorting through. I will update this post from the top.

MsTinkerbelly

01-04-2011, 01:40 PM

BREAKING: 9th Circuit Court Punts Prop 8 To State Supreme Court On "Standing"

Analysis and reactions shortly.

MsTinkerbelly

01-04-2011, 01:55 PM

My Opinion....

This is the moment...If the appllants (US) do not have standing, then the case will probably be thrown out and we will have to live with Prop 8 until the next election in 2012.

It is up to the California Supreme Court (which once ruled in our favor and allowed equal marriage) to decide the standing issue.

I am a "the glass is half full" kind of person, but I have a really bad feeling about all of this.....

weatherboi

01-04-2011, 02:20 PM

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/01/04/ChickfilA_Backs_Antigay_Group/

MsTinkerbelly

01-04-2011, 03:19 PM

Analysis: 9th Circuit Appears Ready to Grant Proponents Standing to Appeal
by Robert Cruickshank

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today issued a “ruling” of sorts on the appeal of Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling that found Prop 8 to be unconstitutional*. The “ruling” was actually a certification of a question to the California Supreme Court about the all-important matter of whether Prop 8 proponents have standing to appeal Judge Walker’s decision. Here’s the question they want answered:

Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative’s validity or the authority to assert the State’s interest in the initiative’s validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.

We understand that the Court may reformulate our question, and we agree to accept and follow the Court’s decision.

A further reading of the document suggests that the 9th Circuit is ready to rule that Prop 8 proponents DO have standing to appeal. In turn, that would enable the 9th Circuit to decide whether Prop 8 is a violation of the 14th Amendment (and obviously it is), a decision that would have major ramifications across California and the country. Here’s what the 9th Circuit said:

If California does grant the official proponents of an initiative the authority to represent the State’s interest in defending a voter-approved initiative when public officials have declined to do so or to appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, then Proponents would also have standing to appeal on behalf of the State….

We are aware that in California, “All political power is inherent in the people,” Cal. Const. art. II, § 1, and that to that end, Article II, section 8(a) of the California Constitution provides, “The initiative is the power of the electors to propose statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject them.” We are also aware that the Supreme Court of California has described the initiative power as “one of the most precious rights of our democratic process,” and indeed, that “the sovereign people’s initiative power” is considered to be a “fundamental right.”…

The power of the citizen initiative has, since its inception, enjoyed a highly protected status in California. For example, the Legislature may not amend or repeal an initiative statute unless the People have approved of its doing so….

Similarly, under California law, the proponents of an initiative may possess a particularized interest in defending the constitutionality of their initiative upon its enactment; the Constitution’s purpose in reserving the initiative power to the People would appear to be ill-served by allowing elected officials to nullify either proponents’ efforts to “propose statutes and amendments to the Constitution” or the People’s right “to adopt or reject” such propositions. Cal. Const. art. II, § 8(a). Rather than rely on our own understanding of this balance of power under the California Constitution, however, we certify the question so that the Court may provide an authoritative answer as to the rights, interests, and authority under California law of the official proponents of an initiative measure to defend its validity upon its enactment in the case of a challenge to its constitutionality, where the state officials charged with that duty refuse to execute it.

So what does that all mean? Let me boil it down. Basically, California’s constitution and various CA Supreme Court decisions in the last few decades have indicated that the initiative power is a right inherent to the people of the state, and does not stem from the Legislature. It sets up the people as a kind of fourth branch of government, with its own sovereign power. And therefore, if the Governor and the Attorney General refuse to defend a proposition in court, that could essentially nullify the fundamental rights of the voters. Since ballot initiatives stem from the people, presumably the people – in the form of the initiative proponents – DO have standing to defend Prop 8 in court and to appeal it to the 9th Circuit in order to preserve the people’s initiative power.

But because such a ruling would have a significant impact on future legal battles over California ballot initiatives, the 9th Circuit is deferring to the CA Supremes. The CA Supremes could say “yes, the proponents do have standing” or “no, the proponents do not have standing,” or they could simply not respond at all. The first and third options are more likely, and based on the CA Supremes’ longstanding (and I believe flawed) unwillingness to interfere with ballot initiatives, the CA Supremes will probably conclude that the Prop 8 proponents do indeed have standing to appeal.

In which case, the 9th Circuit would then rule on the issue of Prop 8′s constitutionality. I am guessing that their ruling will be to uphold Judge Walker, otherwise they would just say Prop 8 is constitutional and moot the question of standing. Still, that’s just my view, and we should prepare for any outcome.

The 9th Circuit also concurrently ruled that Imperial County does not have standing to appeal Judge Walker’s decision, a ruling that was widely expected in the wake of the farcical appearance before the 9th Circuit court by Imperial County officials.

The CA Supremes can take as long as they want in answering the 9th Circuit. It could be days, weeks, or months. Whatever the outcome, it shows again the need to reform our initiative process. One reason our state government fails is that we’ve essentially set up a fourth branch of government – the people – that can negate anything done by the other three branches, but without any real checks or balances on the powers of that fourth branch.

In American constitutions, at least until the present day, the power of the people has been limited and bounded to ensure that all rights are protected. The right clearly wants to undo that convention, and give the people the power to trump the Constitution by mob rule. Whatever the outcome of the Prop 8 case, it’s time to bring some sense and sanity to ballot initiatives here in California.

*Somehow I doubt that the 14th Amendment will be read out on the House floor this week by Republicans, who hate the 14th Amendment and want to pretend it doesn’t exist.

Robert Cruickshank worked at the Courage Campaign from November 2007 to November 2010, when he stepped down as Public Policy Director. His analysis represents his views alone.

iamkeri1

01-04-2011, 08:53 PM

Tink,
Thanks for all the info - as unbalanced and schizophrenic as it makes me feel.
You do so much to keep us up to date on what is going on, and I really appreciate it.

Smooches,
Keri

MsTinkerbelly

01-05-2011, 01:50 PM

Governor Lincoln Chafee (RI) Uses Inauguration To Call For Marriage Equality

On Top Magazine has the transcript: “When marriage equality is the law in Rhode Island, we honor our forefathers who risked their lives and fortune in the pursuit of human equality. Rhode Island today must be as welcoming to all as [founder] Roger Williams intended it to be. Mark my words, these two actions will do more for economic growth in our state than any economic development loan."

MsTinkerbelly

01-05-2011, 01:50 PM

NEW MEXICO: AG Claims State Can Recognize Out Of State Gay Marriages

New Mexico Attorney General Gary King has issued an opinion declaring that his state can legally recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.
“While we cannot predict how a New Mexico court would rule on this issue, after review of the law in this area, it is our opinion that a same-sex marriage that is valid under the laws of the country or state where it was consummated would likewise be found valid in New Mexico,” King said. While 40 states explicitly bar gay marriage, King says that New Mexico’s law does “not explicitly address the recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions,” according to the release announcing the opinion.

Currently only New York, Rhode Island and Maryland do not perform same-sex marriages, but do recognize them from elsewhere.

Corkey

01-05-2011, 07:17 PM

YouTube - AFER Attorneys Explain 9th Circuit Prop. 8 Ruling on Standing

Youtube of Mr. Olson explaining the latest ruling.

Soon

01-10-2011, 01:30 PM

CANADA: Appeals Court Rules Against "Religious Objection" On Gay Weddings

Saskatchewan's provincial Court of Appeals has ruled that it is unconstitutional (http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110110/sask-court-of-appeal-same-sex-marriage-ruling-110110/) to allow marriage commissioners to opt-out of performing same-sex weddings due to religious objections. In its decision, the Court noted that marriage commissioners are "the only option" for Canadians who wish to marry in a non-religious ceremony.

The Appeal Court said that accommodating commissioners' religious convictions does not justify discriminating against same-sex couples who want to tie the knot. Five judges on the bench at Saskatchewan's Court of Appeal have been considering the case since it heard arguments on the proposed law last May. That's when the provincial government sought advice on two versions of its proposed law -- one that would allow all of the province's approximately 370 commissioners to refuse to wed couples on religious grounds, and another that would only allow the exemption for those who held the job before gay marriage was legalized in 2004.

In the ruling issued Monday, the court said the effect of both options runs counter to Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. "Either of them, if enacted, would violate the equality rights of gay and lesbian individuals. This violation would not be reasonable and justifiable within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter. As a result, if put in place, either option would be unconstitutional and of no force or effect."

Stand by for the World Net Daily headline: "Canada FORCES Christians To Marry Homosexuals! And It Can Happen HERE!"

AnaLee

01-10-2011, 11:51 PM

God
Bless
Canada!!!

Leigh

01-11-2011, 12:54 AM

I'm proud to be canadian :)

MsTinkerbelly

01-11-2011, 01:33 PM

Parenting getting a little more equal
By Adam Bink

This got buried a few days ago with all the news around the Tucson shooting, but there was an important court decision in Connecticut. The state Supreme Court ruled in Raftopol v. Ramey that the names of two men can be entered on the birth certificate of their child who was conceived with the help of a surrogate. According to ProudParenting.org, this is the first time in the history of the country that a state high court has acknowledged the legality of the parentage of two men. More:

Anthony Raftopol and Shawn Hargon, an American couple residing in Hungary, had a daughter through surrogacy, and were both recognized as her child’s legal father on the birth certificate. They then had twins in April 2008 through the same gestational surrogate and egg donor. When the couple petitioned the court to be named as the children’s legal parents, the court granted their petition. However, this time the Attorney General, acting on behalf of the Connecticut Department of Health, attempted to block the creation of the birth certificate, stating that parentage could only be established through conception, adoption or artificial insemination.

The Supreme Court rejected this claim, noting that according to the Department of Health’s argument, a child born to an infertile couple who had entered into a gestational agreement with egg and sperm donors and a gestational carrier would be born parentless.

It’s often said that the states are the test tubes, incubators, etc. of good public policy, and even more importantly, that having many states all come around on the same topic (adoption, marriage, etc) moves national opinion and national courts. Hopefully this ruling can set a precedent.

Concurrently, over the weekend, the State Department announced that passport forms for registering children in the future will contain gender-neutral questions about parents “Mother or Parent 1″ and “Father or Parent 2″

MsTinkerbelly

01-11-2011, 01:34 PM

Coming out swinging in Rhode Island
By Adam Bink

According to the Providence Journal, NOM is launching a $100,000 ad campaign aimed at preventing the legislature and newly-inaugurated Gov. Chafee from legalizing the freedom to marry for same-sex couples.

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — The local chapter of the National Organization for Marriage is launching a $100,000 TV advertising campaign aimed at defeating the legalization of same-sex marriage in Rhode Island.

The first TV ad scheduled for airing on Tuesday will challenge “Governor Lincoln Chaffee’s claim to have a mandate to redefine marriage,” according to a news release issued by the group that misspelled new Governor Lincoln D. Chafee’s name.

“Lincoln Chaffee got just 36% of the vote in the recent election, and fewer popular votes than the Cool Moose Party’s candidate for Lieutenant Governor,” Christopher Plante, executive director of NOM-RI, said in the release. “Our message is that getting 36% of the vote is no mandate to redefine the institution of marriage for all of Rhode Island society.”

A colleague told me the ad was up on their YouTube Rhode Island page, but then was “removed by the user”. I’ll keep an eye on it and will post when it comes out. If anyone sees it, please drop in the comments.

As in New Hampshire, rest assured we’re keeping a close eye on things and finding constructive ways we can help. Of course, NOM will have to compete with one part of the calvary:

The NOM-RI ad began airing on the same day that Marriage Equality-RI plans an event at the State House, to deliver “thousands of postcards” supporting same-sex marriage to lawmakers as they arrive for 4 p.m. House and Senate sessions.

suebee

01-12-2011, 05:03 PM

Refusing same-sex marriage is unconstitutional rules Saskatchewan high court | Sympatico.ca News LINK (http://news.sympatico.ca/oped/coffee-talk/refusing_same-sex_marriage_is_unconstitutional_rules_saskatchewa n_high_court/fe53b2e5)

MsTinkerbelly

01-14-2011, 07:10 PM

Canada Celebrates 10 Years Of Marriage
Same-sex marriage became legal across Canada in July 2005. But that road to national equality began in ten years ago today in Toronto, when Joe Varnell and Kevin Bourassa were married in the Metropolitan Community Church, a ceremony that was later ruled legal when it was performed. Starting in 2003, with Ontario leading the way, province after province legalized same-sex marriage, ultimately resulting in the landmark Civil Marriage Act in 2005. Congratulations, Canada

MsTinkerbelly

01-14-2011, 07:12 PM

The wheels here turn a little slower....

DOJ Files DOMA Defense

The Department of Justice yesterday filed its defense of the overturn of Section Three of the Defense of Marriage Act, which was ruled unconstitutional last July in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States.
A quote from the government's brief comes via Chris Geidner at Metro Weekly:
DOMA is supported by rationales that constitute a sufficient rational basis for the law. For example, as explained below, it is supported by an interest in maintaining the status quo and uniformity on the federal level, and preserving room for the development of policy in the states. When DOMA was enacted, the institution of marriage had long been understood as a formal relationship between a man and a woman, and state and federal law had been built on that understanding. But our society is evolving, and as is well-established, the “science of government . . . is the science of experiment.” Over the years, the prevailing concept of marriage has been challenged as unfair to a significant element of the population. Recently there has been a growing recognition that the prevailing regime is harmful to gay and lesbian members of our society.
Rather tepid, eh? Richard Socarides of the newly-formed Equality Matters responds.
"There are some improvements in tone in the brief, but the bottom line is the government continues to oppose full equality for its gay citizens. And that is unacceptable. The administration claims that it has a duty to defend the laws that are on the books. We simply do not agree. At the very least, the Justice Department can and should acknowledge that the law is unconstitutional."
And from GLAD, who won the case, we get this response via press release.
The government’s appeal follows a decision issued on July 8, 2010 by federal District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro in favor of GLAD’s plaintiffs, seven married couples and three widowers, who have been denied access to federal programs because of DOMA. In that decision, Judge Tauro concluded that DOMA is unconstitutional. “We see nothing really new in this brief, which reiterates many of the same arguments the government made in the District Court,” said Mary L. Bonauto, who is leading the DOMA team for GLAD. “We’re prepared to meet these arguments head-on, and bring to an end the discrimination that is suffered by married same-sex couples like our plaintiffs and that DOJ has admitted is caused by DOMA.”

MsTinkerbelly

01-18-2011, 11:09 AM

Yahoo...minutes ago

Court rejects appeal over DC gay marriage law

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from opponents of same-sex marriage who want to overturn the District of Columbia's gay marriage law.

The court did not comment Tuesday in turning away a challenge from a Maryland pastor and others who are trying to get a measure on the ballot to allow Washingtonians to vote on a measure that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Bishop Harry Jackson led a lawsuit against the district's Board of Elections and Ethics after it refused to put that initiative on the ballot. The board ruled that the ballot question would in effect authorize discrimination.

Last year, Washington began issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples and in 2009, it began recognizing gay marriages performed elsewhere

iamkeri1

01-18-2011, 01:07 PM

I reinterate what AnaLee said earlier:

GOD
BLESS
CANADA

Smooches,
Keri

God
Bless
Canada!!!

MsTinkerbelly

01-18-2011, 01:53 PM

NEW YORK: Sen. Thomas Duane To Introduce Marriage Equality Bill

Openly gay New York state Sen. Thomas Duane says that he will introduce a marriage equality bill with the aim of forcing a vote by this June.
"I think everyone is aware that we have to make the lives of New Yorkers better in every way - economically, as well as to provide equality to New York families," Duane said Monday. Although a similar bill was soundly defeated in the Senate in 2009, Duane and other supporters believe Gov. Cuomo's support can finally tilt the political landscape. Cuomo, whose favorable rating reached a soaring 70% in this week's Siena poll, called for the legalization of gay marriage in his State of the State address earlier this month. "I think the governor is starting in a strong political place with the people on his side and the wind at his back," said Ross Levi, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda. "That is helpful."

Duane faces a tough, tough battle. The GOP remains in control of the New York Senate and anti-gay Democrats such as Sen. Ruben Diaz continue to vow to thwart same-sex marriage. Led by openly gay Assemblyman Daniel O'Donnell, the state Assembly has approved marriage equality several times and would easily do so again.

RELATED: In what some consider a signal of his intent to force through same-sex marriage, this week Gov. Andrew Cuomo appointed Erik Bottcher to the newly created cabinet post of Special Assistant for Community Affairs.

MsTinkerbelly

01-20-2011, 11:03 AM

California federal judge rules DOMA lawsuit can proceed
By Adam Bink

Out late last night, another opportunity for victory in favor of equality in a California courtroom:

In a victory for gay rights advocates, a federal judge has ruled that state employees in California can sue for discrimination over the federal government’s exclusion of their same-sex spouses from a long-term health care program.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of Oakland denied an Obama administration request to dismiss the suit Tuesday and signaled that she is likely to overturn provisions of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits to same-sex couples.

There have been lots of opportunities presented in many different areas to chip away at this law. Health insurance is certainly one of the most profound. More:

President Obama has criticized the law, but his Justice Department is defending it in court. The administration says Congress was entitled to preserve the status quo in federal law while states debated the marriage issue.

But Wilken said the 1996 law actually changed the status quo by “robbing states of the power to allow same-sex civil marriages that will be recognized under federal law.”

She also rejected arguments that the law’s sponsors put forth in 1996, that the legislation was necessary to promote procreation and preserve heterosexual marriage.

“Marriage has never been contingent on having children,” Wilken said, and denying federal benefits to same-sex couples “does not encourage heterosexual marriage.”

She said sponsors’ “moral rejection of homosexuality” had been obvious in congressional debate. The U.S. Supreme Court has found that bias against gays is an unconstitutional justification for passing a law, Wilken noted.

Her statements paralleled the reasoning of the Massachusetts decision and a ruling in August by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco that struck down California’s ban on same-sex marriage.

Although Wilken considered only whether the suit over health insurance could proceed, her ruling “gives a pretty clear direction as to where she’s going,” said Claudia Center, lawyer for three UCSF employees and their spouses who sued to overturn the law.

Center said she would ask Wilken to certify the suit as a class action on behalf of all state employees with same-sex spouses or domestic partners. The judge did not decide whether domestic partners could challenge the law.

The couples sued in April over the California Public Employees’ Retirement System‘s refusal to enroll the spouses in a federally approved long-term care plan. State employees can buy coverage at below-market rates, use pretax dollars to pay premiums, and deduct future benefits from their taxes.

The California agency has refused to sign up same-sex spouses because the Defense of Marriage Act denies federal tax benefits to any state that covers them.

We will see how this proceeds alongside the Massachusetts case.

MsTinkerbelly

01-20-2011, 01:36 PM

FRANCE: Constitutional Council To Hear Same-Sex Marriage Case

A lesbian couple's challenge to France's marriage laws will be heard this week by the Constitutional Council, the nation's highest court. Pink News reports:
Corinne Cestino and Sophie Haßlau launched the bid in May 2010 at the Tribunal de Grande instance of Reims to question the constitutionality of France’s position on gay marriage. The couple, a paediatrician and an English teacher, have four children and live together in a village outside Reims. They entered into a PACS, a civil union, ten years ago. On 16 November, the Court of Cassation referred the case to the highest constitutional authority in France, citing an “issue of constitutionality”, on Articles 75 and 144 of the Civil Code, which exclude the civil marriage of same sex.

A decision is expected by the end of the month. France currently offers civil unions and recognizes the same-sex marriages of foreigners, but not those of French citizens gay-married in other countries.

MsTinkerbelly

01-25-2011, 01:55 PM

Hawaii Lawmakers Debate Civil Unions

JMG reader Todd writes to tip us that the Hawaii Senate has just begun debating a civil unions bill. Newly-elected Gov. Neil Abercrombie has promised to sign the bill, should it reach his desk. Last year both chambers of the Hawaiian legislature approved a civil unions bill, only to have it vetoed by then-Gov. Linda Lingle. Story developing...

blackboot

01-25-2011, 05:53 PM

Equality Hawaii: Dedicating To Securing Equality For Hawaii's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community
action.equalityhawaii.org
The Judiciary & Labor Committee of Hawaii's Senate passed SB232, a bill granting equal rights, benefits and responsibilities to same-sex and opposite-sex couples, today with a 3-2 vote!
:hangloose:

iamkeri1

01-25-2011, 06:20 PM

I hope this passes soon. Seems like all the states that have passed gay civil rights are in ."cold country" LOL. At last here will be a place for those of us who hate cold weather. Yah!!!
Smooches,
Keri

MsTinkerbelly

01-26-2011, 11:08 AM

HAWAII: Civil Unions Bill Advances

Hawaii's civil unions bill yesterday squeaked out of committee and advanced for a vote by the full state Senate.
Senate Bill 232 passed the Senate Judiciary and Labor Committee by a 3-2 vote, after a hearing that lasted just over two hours. The bill now goes to the Senate floor for the second of three required votes by the full chamber. Sen. Clayton Hee, committee chairman, sought to keep the hearing moving by limiting testifiers to 1 1/2 minutes each, saying he did not believe anything material could be added to the discussion.

The bill may be introduced in the Hawaii House as early as today.

MsTinkerbelly

01-26-2011, 03:17 PM

Moving forward in Maryland
By Adam Bink

Yesterday, legislation was formally introduced at a press conference in Annapolis to legalize the freedom to marry for same-sex couples. I didn’t have time to write about it the last two days, but some background via press release:

On January 25, 2011, Equality Maryland, along with Senate Majority Leader Rob Garagiola, House Majority Leader Kumar Barve, Senator Rich Madaleno, Senator Jamie Raskin, Delegate Ben Barnes, Delegate Keiffer Mitchell and community partners who support the freedom to marry for gay and lesbian couples in Maryland, will hold a press conference at the state capital to announce the introduction of the Religious Freedom & Civil Marriage Protection Act. This bill ends the exclusion of committed same sex couples from civil marriage and protects the religious freedom of churches and synagogues.

[...]

Speakers:

Majority Leader Rob Garagiola (District 15)

· Sen. Rich Madaleno (District 18)

· Sen. Jamie Raskin (District 20)

· Majority Leader Kumar Barve (District 17)

· Del. Benjamin Barnes (District 21)

· Del. Keiffer Mitchell, Jr. (District 44)

· Morgan Meneses-Sheets, Executive Director, Equality Maryland

· Sean Eldridge, Political Director, Freedom to Marry

· Melissa Goemann, Legislative Director, ACLU Maryland

· Maryland Representative from Catholics for Equality

· Representative from Maryland Black Family Alliance

· Representative from the Maryland NAACP

· Sister Jeannine Gramick, Maryland Coordination for National Coalition of American Nuns

· Frank DeBernardo, Executive Director, New Ways Ministry

· Rion Dennis, President, Progressive Maryland

An impressive and worthwhile lineup.

Concurrently, a new poll showed that 51% of Maryland residents support allowing same-sex couples to marry, with 44% opposed.

As we’re doing in New Hampshire with our Granite State Camp Courage trainings, teaching local supporters to organize in their communities, we’re looking to help as much as we can in Maryland, and more on that in the coming weeks.

MsTinkerbelly

01-27-2011, 11:09 AM

Iowa GOP Narrowly Loses Senate Bid To Vote On Same-Sex Marriage Ban

This morning Iowa GOP state Sen. Kent Sorensen called for a suspension of chamber rules in order to force a vote on a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. His motion was narrowly defeated along party lines.
Sorenson asked all 50 senators to call up Senate Joint Resolution 8, a bill that would amend the Iowa Constitution to specify that marriage between one man and one woman is the only legal union valid or recognized in the state. Senate President Jack Kibbie (D-Emmetsburg) said “no,” but agreed to allow a vote on whether to suspend the rules and override his objection. Twenty-six Democrats voted “no” and 24 Republicans voted “yes.” The motion was defeated. Danny Carroll, chairman of the controversial Christian organization The Family Leader, told supporters in an e-mail Wednesday night that Sorenson was planning to “file numerous amendments and use any other tactic at his disposal” in order to force a vote on same-sex marriage. Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal has vowed to never allow such an amendment to come up for debate.

Gronstal: “It’s clearer than ever that Republicans will stop at nothing to take away the constitutional rights of Iowans. I hope that Republicans will join our efforts and focus their energy on helping Iowans recover from the worst national recession since World War II.”

MsTinkerbelly

01-28-2011, 11:10 AM

FRANCE: Constitutional Court Rules Ban On Same-Sex Marriage Is Legal

This morning France's highest court let stand a ban on same-sex marriage. The case had been brought by a lesbian couple raising four children.
In its decision, the Council noted that lawmakers had agreed that the "difference in situations of same-sex couples and couples made up of a man and a woman can justify a difference in treatment concerning family rights." "It is not up to the Constitutional Council to substitute its appreciation for that of lawmakers," the body said. It noted that its job is to simply rule on whether a measure abides by the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the French Constitution. In this case, it ruled that the articles in question are, indeed, "in conformity with the constitution." Cestino and Hasslauer have sought the right to wed. "It is not so much about getting married, but about having the right to get married," Cestino, a pediatrician, said in an interview this week. "So, that is what we are asking for: Just to be able, like anyone else, to choose to get married or not."

The court's ruling noted that France's parliament is free to make new laws on the issue

blackboot

01-28-2011, 06:09 PM

CIVIL UNIONS BILL PASSES HAWAII SENATE!

Today was a great day for equality as Hawaii's Senate passed SB 232, a civil unions bill, by a 19-6 vote.

The bill, which is identical to last session's HB 444 that was vetoed by Gov. Linda Lingle, provides that the equal rights and responsibilities of married couples in Hawaii be available to thousands of same-sex couples in the state.

The legislation now moves to Hawaii's House of Representatives, where action is expected to proceed next week.

ALOHA!

iamkeri1

01-29-2011, 12:28 AM

Thank you so much to those of you that take the time to post this information so we can all keep up with the progress in this area.

While I am happy for the progress that is being made, and while I freely admit that I never thought I would live long enough to see any of this happen, still I am frustrated that:

1) We have to move forward inch by inch, fought at every step by people who are already comfortably "endowed" with the rights they want to keep from us.
2) We are still seen as "different" than people of a heterosexual persuasion, less than human, and worthy of poor treatment, and
3) People still think that they get to vote on our !@#$%! rights instead of just "having" them like everyone else.

... and finally I am SOOOO f-ing sick of having our rights assailed (at least in the USA) by the Christian right. Why don't they use the money they use against us to support the children of the girls and women they talk out of having abortions, ('cause I know they could really use that help), or to do some actual good work that Jesus might actually approve of.

Smooches,
Keri

MsTinkerbelly

01-31-2011, 11:02 AM

Illinois’ Gov. Quinn to sign civil unions legislation
By Adam Bink

In another episode of “elections matter”, Gov. Pat Quinn, re-elected in a not as tough as others but still tough fight this past November, will sign legislation enacting civil unions for same-sex couples today. And he’s doing it with some gusto. Via the Sun-Times (h/t AMERICABlog):

Gov. Quinn will enact legislation that will allow same-sex couples to enter into civil unions during a bill-signing ceremony Monday that could go down as one of the largest in state history.

The governor’s office has been publicizing the bill-signing for a week and expects as many as 1,000 people to show up at the ceremony, which will be held at the Chicago Cultural Center, 78 E. Washington St.

“We knew there was going to be a lot of interest in participating in what is a pretty historic moment. There’s only a limited number of states that allow civil unions, and a smaller amount that allow gay marriage,” Quinn spokeswoman Brie Callahan said.

“What we wanted to do was just make it as public as we could, and the response has been overwhelming,” she said.

[...]

“The turnout is going to be beyond anyone’s expectations,” said Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago), the bill’s chief House sponsor. “What people are saying to me is this is going to be a historic moment. I had a couple of women tell me they had waited 28 years for this and wanted to be there when it finally happens.

We should know our champions not just by pen to paper, but by the visibility they grant to our issues. Good for Gov. Quinn. And now the push for full equality at the state level will begin, too.

MsTinkerbelly

01-31-2011, 01:55 PM

BRITAIN: Gay & Straight Couples Launch Challenge To Marriage Laws

Led by activist Peter Tatchell, on Wednesday eight British couples, four gay and four straight, will file a challenge to Britain's marriage and civil partnership laws with the European Court of Human Rights.
Peter Tatchell is coordinator of the Equal Love campaign, which seeks to end sexual orientation discrimination in both civil marriage and civil partnership law."Since November, four same-sex couples were refused marriage licenses at register offices in Greenwich, Northampton and Petersfield. Four heterosexual couples were also turned away when they applied for civil partnerships in Islington, Camden, Bristol and Aldershot," added Tatchell.

"All eight couples received letters of refusal from their register offices, which we are now using as the evidential basis to challenge in the European Court of Human Rights the UK's exclusion of gay couples from civil marriage and the prohibition of straight civil partnerships. Since there is no substantive difference in the rights and responsibilities involved in gay marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships, there is no justification for having two mutually exclusive and discriminatory systems.
The petitioners contend that Britain's "separate but equal" system violates the European Convention On Human Rights, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.

MsTinkerbelly

02-01-2011, 11:03 AM

New Hampshire marriage repeal bill introduced
By Adam Bink

Just today, as reported in the Concord Monitor, repeal language was introduced, which can be found here (and copied below). It’s every bit as nasty as you expected it to be.

The legislation does recognize marriages performed in the state since the freedom to marry became a reality, but any out of state marriage performed after the time at which this law would be enacted is not recognized. E.g., New Hampshire gay and lesbian couples cannot travel to Massachusetts and wed.

Per the article, a response from NH Freedom to Marry:

The New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition criticized Bates for focusing on gay marriage instead of the economy. “Rep. Bates has planted himself firmly, and proudly, on the fringes of American life,” Mo Baxley, executive director of New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition, said in a statement. “His need to divorce committed couples and to prevent other couples from getting married is strange. So much for family values.”

Bill text:

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eleven

AN ACT relative to the definition of marriage.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Marriage; Marriages Prohibited; Recognition of Out-of-State Marriages. RSA 457:1 – RSA 457:3 are repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

457:1 Purpose. The legislature finds and declares that:

I. Marriage is not a creature of statute but rather a social institution which predates organized government. As the United States Supreme Court has noted, marriage has roots that are “older than the Bill of Rights – older than our political parties, older than our school system.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965).

II. As many scholars and experts have noted, marriage, understood as the legal union of a man and a woman, serves and supports important social goods in which the government of New Hampshire has a compelling interest.

III. The vast majority of children are conceived by acts of passion between men and women – sometimes unintentionally. Because of this biological reality, New Hampshire has a unique, distinct, and compelling interest in promoting stable and committed marital unions between opposite-sex couples so as to increase the likelihood that children will be born to and raised by both of their natural parents. No other domestic relationship presents the same level of state interest.

IV. A child has a natural human right to the love, care and support of his or her own mother and father, whenever possible. Marriage is the primary social institution that promotes that ideal and encourages its achievement.

457:2 Marriages Prohibited; Men; Women.

I. No man shall marry his mother, father’s sister, mother’s sister, daughter, sister, son’s daughter, daughter’s daughter, brother’s daughter, sister’s daughter, father’s brother’s daughter, mother’s brother’s daughter, father’s sister’s daughter, mother’s sister’s daughter, or any other man.

II. No woman shall marry her father, father’s brother, mother’s brother, son, brother, son’s son, daughter’s son, brother’s son, sister’s son, father’s brother’s son, mother’s brother’s son, father’s sister’s son, mother’s sister’s son, or any other woman.

457:3 Recognition of Out-of-State Marriages. Every marriage legally contracted outside the state of New Hampshire, which would not be prohibited under RSA 457:2 if contracted in New Hampshire, shall be recognized as valid in this state for all purposes if or once the contracting parties are or become permanent residents of this state subsequent to such marriage, and the issue of any such marriage shall be legitimate. Marriages legally contracted outside the state of New Hampshire which would be prohibited under RSA 457:2 if contracted in New Hampshire shall not be legally recognized in this state. Any marriage of New Hampshire residents recognized as valid in the state prior to the effective date of this section shall continue to be recognized as valid on or after the effective date of this section.

2 Marriageable. Amend RSA 457:4 to read as follows:

457:4 Marriageable. No male below the age of 14 years and no female below the age of 13 years shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage [that is entered into by one male and one female], and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void. [No male below the age of 18 and no female below the age of 18 shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage between persons of the same gender, and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void.]

3 Marriage; Solemnization of Marriage. RSA 457:31 is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

457:31 Who May Solemnize. Marriage may be solemnized by a justice of the peace as commissioned in the state; by any minister of the gospel in the state who has been ordained according to the usage of his or her denomination, resides in the state, and is in regular standing with the denomination; by any member of the clergy who is not ordained but is engaged in the service of the religious body to which he or she belongs, resides in the state, after being licensed therefor by the secretary of state; within his or her parish, by any minister residing out of the state, but having a pastoral charge wholly or partly in this state; by judges of the United States appointed pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution; by bankruptcy judges appointed pursuant to Article I of the United States Constitution; or by United States magistrate judges appointed pursuant to federal law.

4 Solemnization of Marriage; Exceptions. RSA 457:37 is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

457:37 Exceptions. Nothing contained in this chapter shall affect the right of Jewish Rabbis residing in this state, or of the people called Friends or Quakers, to solemnize marriages in the way usually practiced among them, and all marriages so solemnized shall be valid. Jewish Rabbis residing out of the state may obtain a special license as provided by RSA 457:32.

5 Repeal. The following are repealed:

I. RSA 100-A:2-b, relative to marriage.

II. RSA 457:31-b, relative to solemnization of marriage; applicability.

III. RSA 457:45, relative to civil union recognition.

IV. RSA 457:46, relative to obtaining legal status of marriage.

6 Effective Date. This act shall take effect upon its passage.

iamkeri1

02-01-2011, 03:26 PM

Dub's daughter Barbara speaks out for marriage equity.

Here's the link - everything I found on youtube referred to another link. this one is from yahoo.

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/8725203/24038708

Soon

02-02-2011, 09:49 AM

ZzzDOzKagHA&feature=player_embedded

MsTinkerbelly

02-02-2011, 11:10 AM

Bad news, and hope, in Iowa
“Is this heaven?

No, it’s Iowa.”

-Field of Dreams

By Adam Bink

It was another drinking from the firehose kind of day at Courage Inc., so I didn’t have a chance to write about this, but the Iowa House passed legislation to place a constitutional amendment stripping same-sex couples of the freedom to marry. The measure still is a long way from going anywhere, as it must be approved by the Senate and then approved in another legislative session after elections, but it is a defeat. The vote was 62-37 with one abstention.

A NOTE FROM ME (TINK)
The Video posted above from Soon was also posted with this story....didn't think we needed it twice!

MsTinkerbelly

02-02-2011, 01:33 PM

Top Maryland Republican announces support for the freedom to marry
By Adam Bink

Remarkable news today from Maryland. Earlier this year, Republican Senate Senate Minority Leader Allan Kittleman resigned from his post under pressure because of his pledge to introduce a civil unions bill.

Well, today Kittleman announced his is abandoning that plan and will support legislation to extend the freedom to marry to same-sex couples. Big, big news. This is the (former) leader of the opposition crossing party lines to support equality. His full statement, via the Washington Blade, is below.

STATEMENT BY SENATOR ALLAN H. KITTLEMAN ON SENATE BILL 116

I want to express my thoughts on SB 116, Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act. As most of you know, I have long supported equal rights for same sex couples. A few years ago, I voted in favor of allowing same sex couples the right to make medical decisions for each other.

This year, I decided to work on legislation that allowed civil unions for all couples – opposite sex and same sex couples. My goal was three-fold:

1. I wanted to ensure that same sex couples had the same rights and
responsibilities as married couples in Maryland;

2. I wanted to remove the government’s intervention in what most Marylanders
consider a religious institution (marriage); and

3. I wanted to develop a consensus on an issue that has been very divisive for many years.

In early January, I announced my proposal for civil unions for all couples. Somewhat surprisingly, I received much more criticism from people who wanted same sex marriage than those who oppose such marriages. I actually received quite a lot of messages and emails from Republicans supporting my decision.

A recent poll performed by Gonzales Research confirmed strong support for civil unions. The poll found that 62% of Maryland voters support civil unions. Of that amount, 73% of Democrats, 60% of Independents and 41.5% of Republicans support civil unions. This figure was higher than the support for same-sex marriage in Maryland.

According to the poll, 51% of Maryland voters support same-sex marriage. Of that amount, 65% of Democrats, 52.4% of Independents and 24% of Republicans support same-sex marriage.

Unfortunately, despite the support by a strong majority of Maryland voters, I did not receive any support from my Republican and Democrat senate colleagues. In fact, the Republican senate caucus yesterday voted to take a “caucus position” against same-sex marriage. My Republican colleagues have also made it very clear to me that they would not be supportive of my civil union legislation. I also did not receive any support from Republicans or Democrats in the House of Delegates.

Based upon the lack of support I have received for my civil union bill, it was evident that my legislation would not receive a favorable report from the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. With the deadline for submitting legislation approaching quickly and with the Committee hearing scheduled to be held on Tuesday, February 8th, I made the decision to forego my efforts to have civil unions for all couples in Maryland.

As I noted above, my primary goal has always been to ensure that same sex couples have the same rights and responsibilities as married couples currently have in Maryland. I see this issue as a civil rights issue. I was raised by a gentleman who joined with others in fighting racial discrimination in the 1950s and 1960s. Watching him fight for civil rights instilled in me the belief that everyone, regardless of race, sex, national origin or sexual orientation, is entitled to equal rights.

Consequently, with the civil union legislation no longer being a viable option, I was put in the position of deciding whether to support same-sex marriage or voting to continue the prohibition against same-sex marriage. As a strong proponent of personal and economic liberty/freedom, I simply could not, in good conscience, vote against SB 116.

I know that some may contend that since the Bible teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman, Maryland should continue to prohibit same sex marriage. First, let me state that I am a strong follower of Jesus Christ. I worked in youth ministries for many years. However, while my faith may teach that marriage is between a man and a woman, our government is not a theocracy. As the state senator from District 9, I represent everyone in my district, regardless of their faith. Therefore, while my spiritual
life is extremely important to me, it cannot be the sole basis for my decisions as a state senator.

I know that some will be upset with my decision to support SB 116 and I respect the fact that people have differing opinions on this issue. I carefully considered my decision.

I sought counsel from many people, including my family, clergy, advocates for both sides, fellow legislators and many others. These discussions were very helpful to me and I appreciate the time that those individuals took to talk with me. Ultimately, it was my strong feelings about civil rights that led me to decide to support SB 116.

iamkeri1

02-02-2011, 10:26 PM

WOW!!!

You go, Kittleman!!!

A very brave stance, considering the attitude of his party.

Smooches,
Keri

MsTinkerbelly

02-03-2011, 01:34 PM

CA Supreme Court may decide as early as next week on Prop 8 question
By Adam Bink

As originally reported in the LA Times, today the California Supreme Court Chief Justice told reporters that the Court could decide soon, as early as next week, on the questions submitted regarding standing. As many of you know, before it will decide on the merits and issue of standing, the 9th Circuit submitted a request for clarification to the CASC on whether proponents of ballot initiatives have standing to represent the state.

Stay tuned for some news as early as next week. Of course, here at P8TT, we keep true to our name as #1 Google result for “Prop 8 trial”, so we’ll be bringing you the best coverage possible.

MsTinkerbelly

02-03-2011, 01:57 PM

CALIFORNIA: State Supreme Court May Weigh In On Prop 8 Standing Next Week

Today the San Francisco Chronicle reports:
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakayue says the California Supreme Court will decide soon, maybe next week, on whether to enter the Proposition 8 gay marriage fray. The 9th U.S. Court of Appeals said last month that it cannot decide if the gay marriage ban is constitutional until the state high court weighs in on whether proposition sponsors have authority to defend the measure. A three-judge panel asked the California Supreme Court to decide if ballot proposition backers can step in to defend voter-approved initiatives in court when state officials refuse to do so. The panel suggested it would have to dismiss the case if there's no state high court input.
If I'm reading this right, the Court is going to decide if it wants to decide.

iamkeri1

02-03-2011, 08:53 PM

betenoire

02-08-2011, 12:43 PM

And now for some comic relief.

I know this is old, but I just saw (again) the commercial that spoofs that awful "Gathering Storm" commercial.

It's great.

dCLClFEtO0E

MsTinkerbelly

02-08-2011, 01:47 PM

Hi Ms Tinkerbelly,
As always thank you for keeping us updated on this important case.

So am I right in my deduction that if the case is dismissed, that the 9th district circuit decision that Pro 8 is unconstitutional will stand? Meaning therefore that same sex marriage will be restored to legality in CA?

Thanks and smooches,
Keri

The Governor and the Attorney General refused to defend Prop 8 in Court, and if the California Supreme Court decides lack of standing in the groups that ARE defending it, then the case would be thrown out. If that happens, Prop 8 would stand until we could once again VOTE on it. I believe that is the way it would happen...anyone?

I am a pretty positive person, but I think the case will be thrown out and we will be stuck with Prop 8 until the 2012 elections.

iamkeri1

02-09-2011, 05:09 AM

CRAP!!!
Thanks Tink, but
CRAP!!!
Smooches,
Keri

MsTinkerbelly

02-09-2011, 03:19 PM

HAWAII: Civil Unions Advances In House

Last month Hawaii's civil unions bill passed in the state Senate. And last night an 11-2 vote moved the bill out of committee and to the full House for a vote expected to be made in the next week or so.
The state House Judiciary Committee voted last night to approve a civil-unions bill with amendments to ensure that the relationships are recognized in the tax code and are under the jurisdiction of family court. "It's still fast-tracked. I think the Senate now has the opportunity just to agree to these amendments that probably should have been considered when it was first passed," Rep. Gil Keith-Agaran (D, Kahului-Paia), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said after the 11-2 vote

betenoire

02-10-2011, 01:07 AM

Unmarry To Support Same-Sex Marriage (http://www.bust.com/blog/2011/02/09/unmarry-to-support-same-sex-marriage.html)

In support of same sex marriage and the freedom to love, Central Park’s Bethesda Fountain will be the site for a massive “unwedding” this Sunday, February 13th.

Video from last year's Unmarrying:

2ir3UfILiVo

Reverend Billy officiated a ceremony to unmarry heterosexual couples until all people have the right to be married. This took place on February 14, 2010 (Valentine's Day) in Central Park at the Bethesda Fountain.
UnMarriage Until GayMarriage

MsTinkerbelly

02-10-2011, 01:36 PM

Positive signs on marriage in New York, Maryland
By Adam Bink

Two good reports out this morning. One is from Julie at The Advocate, covering their NY beat as well as she always does. Gov. Cuomo’s remarks on the marriage bill, which is languishing in the Senate over uncertainty on the number of votes in hand, following his budget presentation at Hofstra University:

“I want to see it become the law of the state of New York and we’re going to take it up this session,” he said.

The comments marked the most specific to date from the Democrat about a timetable. In his state of the state address in January, he called for the bill to be passed “this year.”

The marriage equality bill has passed the assembly multiple times, but the measure failed in the senate in 2009 by a wide margin of 38–24, with no Republicans voting in favor. Senate majority leader Dean Skelos has promised not to block the bill from going to a vote.

According to The Journal News, when Cuomo was asked Wednesday what he was doing to get the bill passed in the Republican-controlled senate, he said, “We’re working very hard to pass it.”

A positive sign. For all of Gov. Paterson’s inabilities, I always gave him credit for being the most outspokenly pro-freedom to marry governor in every possible respect- actions, pressure, rhetoric. He relentlessly beat the drum harder than anyone. I’d love to see Gov. Cuomo follow in his footsteps.

In Maryland, Sen. Brochin, a previous opponent of the freedom to marry, announced his was switching to a yea vote. Statement from Equality Maryland and him following the hearings:

ANNAPOLIS, M.D., FEBRUARY 9, 2011–Senator Jim Brochin (D-42) held a press conference today where he announced that his support for marriage equality.

Statement from Equality Maryland, Morgan Meneses-Sheets, Executive Director

“Equality Maryland is proud of Senator Brochin’s declaration of support of civil marriage for gay and lesbian couples. His recent change of heart proves that when people have the facts, and hear the real life stories from loving and committed couples, hearts and minds can and do change. We welcome Senator Brochin to the growing coalition of elected officials from both sides of the aisle who have come to understand that ensuring equal treatment under the law is good public policy. There is no substitute for equality — and only civil marriage can confer the respect, protection and responsibility to same-sex couples in the same manner that it is conferred to opposite-sex couples.”

SENATOR BROCHIN’S STATEMENT RELEASED TO THE PRESS

After an almost 8-hour hearing on Tuesday, Senator Brochin found some of the opponents’ testimony on same-sex marriage (SB 116 – Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act) to be “troubling.” The Baltimore County Democrat had previously said he was against same-sex marriage, but is now reconsidering his stance.

“What I witnessed from the opponents of the bill was appalling.” Brochin said. “Witness after witness demonized homosexuals, vilified the gay community, and described gays and lesbians as pedophiles. I believe that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather people are born one way or another The proponents of the bill were straightforward in wanting to be simply treated as everyone else, and wanted to stop being treated as second-class citizens.

Brochin added, “For me, the transition to supporting marriage has not been an easy one, but the uncertainty, fear, and second-class status that gays and lesbians have to put up with is far worse and clearly must come to an end.”

This follows the former minority leader, Sen. Kittleman, announcing his switch to support the bill. The big mo’!

Update: One other note. I guess Maggie, who testified, only has herself and her cohorts to blame for Brochin’s switch, when you note how “witness after witness demonized homosexuals” etc. Good job, Maggie.

MsTinkerbelly

02-11-2011, 03:25 PM

New chief justice says California Supreme Court will decide soon on entering Proposition 8 fray
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye discusses the possibility of weighing in on the federal appeal of Proposition 8 and her hope that a vacancy on the California Supreme Court be filled by a Southern California Latino.

Chief Justice of California Tani Cantil-Sakayue, pictured after swearing… (John G. Mabanglo / European Pressphoto Agency)February 03, 2011|By Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times
Reporting from San Francisco — Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said Wednesday that the California Supreme Court may decide "as soon as next week" whether to weigh in on the federal Proposition 8 appeal and expressed hope that a Southern California Latino would be chosen to succeed departing Justice Carlos R. Moreno.

In her first meeting with reporters since taking over for retired Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Cantil-Sakauye said she would meet with Gov. Jerry Brown on Friday and discuss the judicial branch budget and Moreno's successor.

Moreno, the only Democrat on the court, is leaving at the end of this month to make more money in the private sector. He was the sole justice on the court to vote to overturn Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that reinstated a ban on same-sex marriage.

Cantil-Sakauye said Moreno had been an important "ambassador" for the court and as a resident of Los Angeles, had ensured the court has a strong presence there. She said geographic and ethnic diversity are important to the court, and "it really would be helpful" if Moreno's successor shares his heritage and residency.

Brown has yet to reveal his leanings on the subject, but his advisors have been examining several Latino candidates, including law professors. The court also has no African-American justice.

Gay rights activists have bemoaned Moreno's departure at a time when the court is being asked to play another critical role in Proposition 8. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has asked the California high court to determine whether state law gives sponsors of initiatives the authority to defend them legally when state officials refuse to do so.

The state court has been highly deferential to initiatives in the past. If the court rules that initiative backers have special status under state law, the 9th Circuit would be more likely to rule on the constitutionally of Proposition 8.

Lawyers and law professors who have followed the case suspect that the 9th Circuit was prepared to dismiss the appeal by backers of Proposition 8 on the grounds that only state officials can challenge the trial court's ruling against the measure. Gay rights lawyers say such a ruling would mean Proposition 8's demise, but it would have no direct effect on same-sex marriage outside California

blackboot

02-11-2011, 10:29 PM

Hawaii State House Approves Landmark Bill To Protect Same-Sex Couples

Today was a great day for Hawaii as the Hawaii House of Representatives passed SB 232 SD1 HD1 by a 31 - 19 vote!

The bill provides that the equal rights and responsibilities of married couples in Hawaii be available to thousands of unmarried couples in the state ... including same-sex couples.

After minor changes were made by House members, the bill now heads back to the Senate for agreement on the amendments before heading to Gov. Neil Abercrombie for his signature. SB 232 SD1 passed the Hawaii Senate on Jan. 28 by a 19-6 vote.

Except for some technical corrections and implementation amendments, the bill is identical to HB 444, the civil unions bill passed in 2010. That bill passed the House and Senate with near supermajorities before Gov. Linda Lingle vetoed it. No override vote was held.

MsTinkerbelly

02-14-2011, 01:40 PM

COLORADO: Civil Unions Bill Introduced

Openly gay Colorado state Sen. Pat Steadman introduced his civil unions bill today. One Colorado reports via press release:

The Colorado Civil Unions Act provides committed gay and lesbian couples with critical legal protections and responsibilities, such as the ability to insure a partner, to inherit property, to take family leave to care for a partner, to visit a partner in the hospital, and to make medical and end-of-life decisions for a partner. “Civil unions will allow committed couples to share in the responsibilities and protections in Colorado law that most families take for granted. Our society is stronger when we promote personal responsibility and taking care of one another, and civil unions do just that,” said Senator Pat Steadman, sponsor of the bill. A key provision of the civil unions bill includes a religious exclusion. The bill explicitly protects freedom of religion by not requiring priests, ministers, rabbis, or other religious officials to certify a civil union. Religious leaders who want to certify a civil union may do so.
According to a just-released poll, 72% of Colorado voters support legal recognitions for gay couples. Steadman's bill is expected to pass easily in the Democratic majority state Senate, but the GOP-led state House will be another story.

MsTinkerbelly

02-14-2011, 03:19 PM

The NYTimes on the indefendable DOMA
By Adam Bink

Amazing NYTimes editorial yesterday (bolding mine):

In Defense of Marriage, for All
The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act is indefensible — officially sanctioned discrimination against one group of Americans imposed during an election year. President Obama seems to know that, or at least he has called on Congress to repeal it. So why do his government’s lawyers continue to defend the act in court?

The law, signed by President Bill Clinton, denies married same-sex couples the federal benefits granted to other married couples, including Social Security survivor payments and the right to file joint tax returns. When December’s repeal of the noxious “don’t ask, don’t tell” law goes into effect, gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans will be able to serve openly in the military but may not be entitled to on-base housing or a spouse’s burial in a national cemetery.

Attorney General Eric Holder and Justice Department lawyers have sought to distance the administration from Congress’s justifications for the marriage act, one of which was to “encourage responsible procreation.”

But just last month, the department appealed two rulings by Joseph Tauro, a federal trial judge in Massachusetts, who found that the law’s denial of benefits to married same-sex couples could not pass constitutional muster. We did not agree with some of the judge’s reasoning. He said the marriage act exceeded Congress’s powers and infringed on the state’s right to regulate marriage — an approach that could undermine many of the biggest federal social programs, including the new health care law.

But the department’s appellate brief also recycled the flimsy argument that the law had a plausible purpose in trying to maintain the federal status quo while states debated the issue of same-sex marriage. This argument was peculiar since the law overturned the federal status quo, which was to recognize all legal marriages.

Two new lawsuits, filed in Connecticut and New York, challenging the Defense of Marriage Act now offer the president a chance to put the government on the side of justice. We urge him to seize it when the administration files its response, which is due by March 11. The executive branch’s duty to defend federal laws is not inviolate. This one’s affront to equal protection is egregious.

Now a comment from Adam Bink..(Prop 8 Blogger)
[...]

On the merits, this should be an easy call. A law focusing on a group that has been subjected to unfair discrimination, as gay people have been, is supposed to get a hard test. It is presumed invalid unless the government proves that the officials’ purpose in adopting the law advances a real and compelling interest. That sort of heightened scrutiny would challenge the administration’s weak argument for upholding the act. It would also make it more difficult to sustain other forms of anti-gay discrimination, including state laws that deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

By now, such blatant discrimination should be presumed to be unconstitutional, and the Justice Department should finally say so. If conservatives in Congress want to enter the case to argue otherwise, so be it.

A hard test is right. This law advances no compelling interest

Soon

02-14-2011, 03:54 PM

ybpnS6jYhc8

MsTinkerbelly

02-15-2011, 01:40 PM

Washington State Gets Marriage Bill

Yesterday lawmakers in Washington state used the occasion of Valentine's Day to introduce a marriage equality bill, fulfilling the dire warnings of anti-gay activists who had predicted that the 2009 failure of Referendum 71 was a mere stepping-stone to full equality for gays.
This Valentine’s Day, Rep. Jim Moeller, D-Vancouver, and Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, said the night is darkest just before the dawn. "Over the past several years, the Legislature and the public together have been steadily building a bridge to equality for gay and lesbian families," said Moeller. He noted the passage of civil rights legislation in 2006 protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination in employment, housing, and financial transactions, and then three successive years of securing broader and broader domestic partnership rights -- which included successfully withstanding a hostile referendum challenge at the ballot in 2009.

"We've made tremendous progress since 1998," Murray said. "Gay and lesbian families in Washington now enjoy the same state spousal rights that their married straight friends enjoy – except for the name ‘marriage’. The recognition that their loving, lifelong commitment is no different from the loving, lifelong commitment of straight couples is the final step to achieving full equality. I believe the Legislature and the public are both ready to take that final step."

adorable

02-15-2011, 11:09 PM

I might be a little more outraged because I am a United Methodist!
Here is the article...

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/02/15/Lesbian_Minister_Faces_Trial/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+AdvocatecomDailyNews+(Advocate. com+Daily+News)&utm_content=FaceBook

When you're done and if you too are pissed....here is the email to the church where the "trial" is being held. I emailed the minister himself.

http://www.appfumc.org/staff_e-mail.htm

Corkey

02-15-2011, 11:36 PM

http://www.afer.org/news/la-times-california-supreme-court-to-consider-key-issue-in-battle-over-same-sex-marriage/

California Supreme Court to decide tomorrow if they will hear arguments in Prop 8.

MsTinkerbelly

02-16-2011, 11:01 AM

BREAKING: California Supreme Court expected to deliver ruling today
By Adam Bink

According to the Los Angeles Times, today the California Supreme Court is expected to deliver a ruling today in the Prop 8 case. I’m told this could merely be a ruling on whether to accept the question submitted by the 9th Circuit or not… or could be a ruling on the standing issue, e.g. whether proponents of Prop 8 have standing, under state law, to represent the entire state of California when state officials decline to do so. Ultimately, though, the issue will be kicked back to the 9th Circuit.

We’ll have coverage and reaction as the ruling comes down.

Update: P8TT friend Karen Ocamb has the six letters submitted arguing the issue of standing over at LGBTPOV, for a good refresher.

Update2: Aside, while we’re waiting for this to come down, reminder to all we’re having our panel on new ways of organizing around LGBTQ equality using new media starting in 15 minutes or so, at 9 PST/12 EST. I’m co-moderating with Chris Geidner of Metro Weekly.

You can dial in at (712) 432-1001 using Access Code: 438365410#

And submit questions via questions@equalitythinking.org. If you’re a P8TTer, give a shout-out

MsTinkerbelly

02-16-2011, 11:08 AM

***Note from Ms Tinkerbelly...this is why the Supreme Court needs to step in and protect us all***

INDIANA: House Approves Marriage Ban

The Indiana House today approved a proposed ballot measure which would enshrine a ban on same-sex marriage in the state constitution.

It now moves to the Senate, where such a ban has passed with little trouble in recent years. If it clears the Senate, then a separately-elected House and Senate must once again approve the ban in either 2013 or 2014. Then, voters would have the final say in a November 2014 referendum. “The basic unit of society is the family, and the cornerstone of the family is marriage. Marriage is, and should be, the union of one man and one woman,” said Rep. Eric Turner, R-Marion. Rep. Ralph Foley, R-Martinsville, said the ban would have no effect on Hoosiers’ ability to live with and love whomever they choose. “That loving friendship is a different relationship than a husband and wife, and we should recognize that in the law,” he said.

MsTinkerbelly

02-16-2011, 05:33 PM

CA Supreme Court decides it will answer question from 9th Circuit regarding Prop 8 standing
By Adam Bink

Just now, the California Supreme Court granted a request from the 9th Circuit to answer the question of whether proponents have standing under California law. As expected, they only said they decided whether to decide at all- and they decided they’d answer the question. Text:

The request, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that this court decide a question of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, is granted. For the purposes of briefing and oral argument, defendant-intervenors Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Mark A. Jansson, and ProtectMarriage.com (collectively “Proponents”) are deemed the petitioners in this court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(a)(6).) In order to facilitate expedited consideration and resolution of the issues presented, and to accommodate oral argument in this matter as early as September, 2011, the normal briefing schedule is shortened, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.68, as follows: The opening brief on the merits is to be served and filed on or before Monday, March 14, 2011. The answer brief on the merits is to be served and filed on or before Monday, April 4. A reply brief may be served and filed on or before Monday, April 18. Any person or entity wishing to file an amicus curiae brief must file an application for permission to file such brief, accompanied by the proposed brief, on or before Monday, May 2, 2011. Any party may serve and file an omnibus reply to any or all amicus curiae briefs on or before Monday, May 9, 2011. The court does not contemplate any extension of the above deadlines. Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Moreno, and Corrigan, JJ.

In response, Courage Campaign sent out the following e-mail from one of our members in San Francisco- Shane Mayer- who I think well expresses the frustration from lots of same-sex couples who want to get married in their home state from whom we’ve heard. Another day, another court decision (or lack thereof), and more waiting. It’s turned into, in essence, a waiting period to get married for same-sex couples across the state. In Shane’s case, his father was diagnosed with cancer last year. He’s okay, but what if he had to miss Shane and John’s wedding day while the courts dragged their feet?

If you’re part of a same-sex couple wanting to get married in California, or know someone who is, click here to tell your story. We at Courage Campaign are going to then work to get these stories out, so the public, and the courts, know who is waiting.

Update: A lot of folks have asked, will it really be until September or later until couples could marry? The answer is yes, according to Chris over at Metro Weekly. He points out if oral arguments are held “as early as” September, and then the 9th Circuit doesn’t get to rule on the case until October, that’s what we’re looking at. Which is why we’re collecting these stories of couples forced to wait.

Shane is a Courage Campaign member living in San Francisco. He and his fiance were disappointed and frustrated by today’s news and wanted to share their message below with you.
-Rick Jacobs

Dear Adam,

Today, the California Supreme Court didn’t even render a decision on the issue of standing in the Prop 8 case. They decided whether they were going to decide or not. The real decision could take months.

So I’m going public. I want the California Supreme Court to know just how many same-sex couples are waiting like me, so they step on the gas.

Are you part of a couple like me, or do you know a same-sex couple waiting to marry? If so, click here to tell your story. Our friends at Courage Campaign will get them out to the California Supreme Court and the media.

I’ve been engaged to my fiance John for some time now, and we keep waiting for the courts to stop kicking us around. Every time we get our hopes up over another court decision, they get shot down.

Look, my father got cancer this past year. We dodged a bullet and he’s fine, but what if he couldn’t see my wedding day because the 9th Circuit and the California Supreme Court are playing hot potato? Not to mention the couples who are going to get married in another state because it’s not legal in California.

It’s not fair to me, it’s not fair to John, and it’s not fair to the thousands of other couples like me. Click here to tell your story or that of someone you know.

Remember when Judge Walker’s decision came down and couples lined up to wed, only to see him put a stay on the decision? Remember when the 9th Circuit announced they would rule, only to kick the ball to the CA Supreme Court?

They don’t see us out here. And I’m tired of waiting.

So let’s help them understand. Click here to tell your story, or the story of someone you know.

My mom and dad met, fell in love and got married on their schedule, not on a court’s. Share your story, so we can build a case for the California Supreme Court to step on it. We need California to see more weddings in the future, instead of more heartbreak.

Thanks for all you do,

Shane

Jess

02-16-2011, 06:34 PM

Some news to smile about:

British government reportedly set to introduce full gay marriage equality

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/13/british-government-reportedly-set-to-introduce-full-gay-marriage/

MsTinkerbelly

02-17-2011, 03:20 PM

Wednesday, February 16, 2011
HAWAII: Civil Unions Bill Passes Final Hurdle, Goes To Desk Of Governor

Just in from Equality Hawaii!
Equality Hawaii, the state's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, and the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest LGBT civil rights organization, today applauded the Hawaii legislature for approving civil unions for the second time in ten months. The bill, which was passed in its amended form today by the Hawaii Senate on an 18-5 vote, now heads to Gov. Neil Abercrombie for his signature. "We honor and thank the legislature today for their commitment to equality for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community in Hawaii, said Alan Spector, co-chair of Equality Hawaii. “For the second time in less than a year, legislators have dedicated themselves to providing dignity and respect to all families in the Aloha State."

iamkeri1

02-17-2011, 08:15 PM

HURRAY!!!!!!!!!

Smooches for equality,
Keri

MsTinkerbelly

02-18-2011, 11:02 AM

The 24th vote in Maryland
By Adam Bink

Big news out- the Baltimore Sun reports Sen. Rosapepe just committed, via e-mail to his constituents, to voting for the bill extending the freedom to marry to same-sex couples. That means we have our 24 publicly committed votes to pass the State Senate. Fantastic.

Here’s his e-mail:

Thanks for contacting me to let me know of your support for SB 116, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act. I am writing to let you know that it was passed today by the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee and will be voted on the Senate floor next week.

I intend to vote for the bill as it was reported out of Committee with a strengthened conscience clause to respect the views of religious denominations which do not recognize same sex marriage. I don’t know what other amendments may be proposed on the Senate floor but will keep your concerns in mind as we consider them.

I appreciate so much the time you and many other constituents have taken to share with me your reasons for supporting the bill.

Please feel free to be in touch with me on issues of concern to you and whenever I can be of help.

For those who missed it, the bill passed out of the Judicial Proceedings Committee yesterday, 7-4. It will go to the Assembly. Thanks to all of you who made calls and organized here.

AnaLee

02-18-2011, 02:54 PM

One by one the states grow up and realize no boogie man will be jumping out of the closet once same sex couples are allowed to marry.

Hell no! We're already OUT!

Sweet thoughts,
Ana

iamkeri1

02-23-2011, 12:01 PM

White House press secretary announces that the Obama administration has decided that it WILL NOT DEFEND DOMA IN ANY LEGAL ACTION!!!!

With lots of disclaimers they also state that they will continue to be a party in any action taken by any other party that wishes to defend DOMA so that a decision on its constitutionality can be made by the courts. Also they will continue to enforce DOMA until a court decides differently.

A small victory, but a significant one nonetheless.

Smooches,
Keri

MsTinkerbelly

02-23-2011, 01:33 PM

Gov't drops defense of anti-gay marriage law

Associated Press Pete Yost, Associated Press – 33 mins ago
WASHINGTON – In a major policy reversal, the Obama administration said Wednesday it will no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriage.

Attorney General Eric Holder said President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. He noted that the congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act "contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships — precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution's)Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against."

The Justice Department had defended the act in court until now.

The move quickly drew praise from some Democrats in Congress but a sharp response from the spokesman for Republican John Boehner, the House Speaker.

"While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation," said Boehner's spokesman Michael Steel.

Holder's statement said, "Much of the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed" the Defense of Marriage Act. He noted that the Supreme Court has ruled that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct are unconstitutional and that Congress has repealed the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

At the White House, spokesman Jay Carney said Obama himself is still "grappling" with his personal view of gay marriage but has always personally opposed the Defense of Marriage Act as "unnecessary and unfair."

Holder wrote to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, that Obama has concluded the Defense of Marriage Act fails to meet a rigorous standard under which courts view with suspicion any laws targeting minority groups who have suffered a history of discrimination.

The attorney general said the Justice Department had defended the law in court until now because the government was able to advance reasonable arguments for the law based on a less strict standard.

At a December news conference, in response to a reporters' question, Obama revealed that his position on gay marriage is "constantly evolving." He has opposed such marriages and supported instead civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. The president said such civil unions are his baseline — at this point, as he put it.

"This is something that we're going to continue to debate, and I personally am going to continue to wrestle with going forward," he said.

On Wednesday, Holder said the president has concluded that, given a documented history of discrimination against gays, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny than the department had been applying in legal challenges to the act up to now.

The attorney general said the department will immediately bring the policy change to the attention of two federal courts now hearing separate lawsuits targeting the Defense of Marriage Act.

One case, in Connecticut, challenges the federal government's denial of marriage-related protections for federal Family Medical Leave Act benefits, federal laws for private pension plans and federal laws concerning state pension plans. In the other case in New york City, the federal government refused to recognize the marriage of two women and taxed the inheritance that one of the women left to the other as though the two were strangers. Under federal tax law, a spouse who dies can leave her assets, including the family home, to the other spouse without incurring estate taxes.

MsTinkerbelly

02-23-2011, 01:33 PM

MsTinkerbelly

02-23-2011, 01:54 PM

Breaking: Olson and Boies file requests for the California Supreme Court to expedite Prop 8 case, and 9th Circuit to lift stay
By Adam Bink

This morning, Ted Olson and David Boies on behalf of the American Foundation for Equal Rights announced they are filing a request with the California Supreme Court to expedite the Perry v. Schwarzenegger (Prop 8) case and hear oral arguments by the end of May, before summer recess. They are also filing a “Motion to Vacate Stay Pending Appeal” with the 9th Circuit to lift the stay while the California Supreme Court takes its time. As you may recall, one week ago the California Supreme Court announced it would consider the question from the 9th Circuit regarding proponents’ standing, and would hear oral arguments in September.

As I posted here at the time, a six-month delay (with, I’m told, likely another few months until an actual decision) is an unacceptable delay.

In response to the news, Courage Campaign asked our members and you to submit your story or that of someone you know who is forced into hardship by waiting for the court to take its time. We collected a total of over 430 stories, are hosting a call for media later today to fulfill the purpose Shane described in the e-mail: get these stories out to the media and the courts.

Stories like Riverside’s Derence Kernek and his partner Ed, who have known each other for 40 years but Ed was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease this past year. They want to wed before Ed loses the ability to remember the occasion.

Stories like San Francisco’s Shane Mayer and John Quintana– engaged late last year, but Shane’s father was recently diagnosed with cancer and wants to be at his son’s wedding.

Stories like Riverside’s Sylvia, who is 72 and her partner and she were planning to marry until Prop 8 came along. They had been waiting as domestic partners for many years. Sylvia’s partner passed away last year while the case was winding its way through the courts.

Stories like Santa Rosa’s Erica Mikesh and her partner, Melissa, who thought about marrying prior to the passage of Prop 8, but decided they should decide on their own time when it’s right to marry, and never believed it would pass. Now they are being punished for their patience and for waiting.

These are the stories of what is happening out there while the California Supreme Court takes its time. Courage Campaign encourages the courts to grant the Olson/Boies requests to hold oral arguments by the end of May and lift the stay, and we will start to show the court, media, and public the human faces of what happens while they take over 6 months to move on the case.

MsDemeanor

02-23-2011, 07:11 PM

Here's Boehner's response:
"While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the President will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation"

:explode:

Are you kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me!!!!!!????? All this asshole has done so far is slash jobs and try to abolish abortion. The current Republican party is lead by and financed by thoroughly disgusting people.

Corkey

02-23-2011, 07:42 PM

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2011/02/hawaii-governor-signs-same-sex-civil-unions-bill-into-law/

Aloha No ka Oi!

Strappie

02-23-2011, 11:21 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/opinion/24thu1.html?_r=1&hp

Blade

02-24-2011, 09:59 AM

WASHINGTON In a historic shift on gay rights, the Obama administration announced that it believes the Constitution forbids unequal treatment of gays and lesbians in almost all cases, and specifically when it comes to federal benefits for legally married same-sex couples.

Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter to Congress on Wednesday that the Justice Department would no longer oppose legal challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act. The act, which was passed by Congress in 1996, bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages or extending them the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

Holder said President Barack Obama had decided that discrimination against gays can no longer be accepted as reasonable. Laws that allow such discrimination "warrant heightened scrutiny" by officials and judges, he said, similar to the scrutiny that courts give to laws "targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination."

This new stance by the administration was hailed as a "monumental turning point in the quest for equality" by Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal, a gay-rights group in Los Angeles.

On Capitol Hill, Republicans were sharply critical. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, called the decision "deeply disturbing. President Obama's personal policies are trumping his presidential duty."

It comes just two months after Congress and Obama agreed to repeal the military's ban on openly gay service members.

Limited practical effect

The immediate practical effect of the announcement may be limited. Holder said the administration would continue to enforce the law until a final ruling is made, most likely by the Supreme Court.

In the longer term, even if the administration's view prevails it would not force states across the nation to grant equal marriage rights to gays and lesbians.

But Obama's position, if accepted by the courts, would prevent federal agencies, including the IRS, from discriminating against gays and lesbians who were legally married. Its legal rationale could also be used to challenge state bans on gay marriage as an unconstitutional violation of equal rights.

A Republican-led Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act to prevent one state's adoption of gay marriage from spreading nationwide. Usually, states are required to honor legal agreements made in another state, including marriage, under the "full faith and credit" clause in the Constitution. In enacting the law, Congress said neither the states nor the federal government were obliged to recognize a marriage other than "a legal union between one man and one woman."

But in recent years, the law has been challenged as a denial of equal rights by gays and lesbians who were legally married.

Until now, the Obama administration had taken the view that it had a duty to defend all laws, including discriminatory measures, if they could be justified as constitutional.

But Holder said the case of Windsor v. the United States forced the administration to confront, for the first time, the question of whether discrimination against gays and lesbians is presumed to be unconstitutional.

Unnecessary controversy?

In his letter to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, Holder said the Justice Department will not defend against Windsor's suit in New York or a similar suit in Connecticut. He said Congress may wish to appoint its own lawyers to defend the law.

A spokesman for Boehner criticized the White House. "While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that divides the nation," said Boehner aide Michael Steel.

MsTinkerbelly

02-25-2011, 11:04 AM

Maryland Senate passes bill legalizing freedom to marry for same-sex couples
By Adam Bink

Fantastic news in Maryland just now:

After about an hour of discussions from opposing views, Maryland’s State Senate voted 25-21 in favor of Senate Bill 116, The Civil Marriage Protection Act on Thursday, Feb. 24.

A House version of the bill is expected to be introduced in House committee tomorrow.

If signed into law, the bill would grant same-sex couples legal marriage rights in the state of Maryland, while also protecting the rights of religious institutions to handle issues of marriage however they see fit.

The marriage bill was written by Sen. Rich Madaleno (D-Montgomery), the only out gay member of Maryland’s Senate, and Sen. Jamie Raskin (D-Montgomery).

Maryland State Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr. allowed Senators to talk before declaring a vote at 6 p.m., with debates from each side limited to 30 minutes after the vote.

Onward to the Assembly

MsTinkerbelly

03-01-2011, 05:34 PM

Two new Prop 8 developments, and Courage Campaign’s amicus curiae letter to the California Supreme Court
By Adam Bink

This afternoon, as noted in the comments on the previous thread, two moves in the Perry case.

The first is that Attorney General Kamala Harris on behalf of the state of California filed a motion with the 9th Circuit encouraging the Court, as the AFER team did, to lift the stay:

“For 846 days, Proposition 8 has denied equality under the law to gay and lesbian couples,” Attorney General Harris said. “Each and every one of those days, same-sex couples have been denied their right to convene loved ones and friends to celebrate marriages sanctioned and protected by California law. Each one of those days, loved ones have been lost, moments have been missed, and justice has been denied.”

A copy of her filing can be found here. There is no word from the 9th Circuit yet.

The second is that the California Supreme Court denied the motion to shorten time as submitted by the Olson/Boies/AFER legal time:

“The application of respondents Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo to shorten the briefing schedule and application to set oral argument for May 23, 2011 is denied.”

Disappointing and frankly outrageous, to say the least. The Court will drag its feet on this for at least 6 months while couples wait and some, especially those who are older and becoming ill (not to mention their families) will literally suffer waiting for the Court to take its time.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that the Court really doesn’t see us out here. They have their schedules and their timing. It makes me feel like other eras in our nation’s history- civil rights and AIDS and earning the right of women to vote- when we have to roll up our sleeves and PUSH to get them to notice people suffering. In this case, it’s the same-sex couples and their families- straight and LGBT- out here, literally dying while waiting for the Court to take 6 freaking months just to hear oral arguments.

Jess

03-01-2011, 05:39 PM

Thanks for the update Ms. Tinkerbelly.

I share your sentiments entirely. It has been long enough already!

MsTinkerbelly

03-04-2011, 03:20 PM

Boehner launches effort to defend gay marriage ban

Associated Press – 2 mins ago
WASHINGTON – House Speaker John Boehner says he's launching a legal defense of the federal law against gay marriage. The Ohio Republican announced Friday that he was convening a bipartisan legal advisory group to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. President Barack Obama has refused to defend the law signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996.

The leaders can instruct the House's non-partisan general counsel to take legal action on behalf of the chamber.

Attorney General Eric Holder has said that the Justice Department would continue to enforce the law but no longer would defend its constitutionality.

The Supreme Court has not ruled on the matter, but last year a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled the law unconstitutional.

**Note from me-Asshat!!!!!!

MsTinkerbelly

03-08-2011, 11:02 AM

Tomorrow’s NYTimes editorializes for lifting the stay on Judge Walker’s Prop 8 ruling
By Adam Bink

Brilliant editorial. It dovetails exactly with what we’ve been arguing here:

Seven months have passed since Proposition 8, California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages, was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in San Francisco following a much-publicized trial that turned up no evidence to justify the measure’s denial of equal protection and due process.

Yet the 2008 initiative continues to inflict serious harm on same-sex couples and their families thanks to a court order that prevents gay men and lesbians from marrying in California while the case is being appealed. That stay should be lifted now.

The appeal was argued in December before a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. It could be many more months before the panel rules. In February, it asked the California Supreme Court to resolve a procedural question regarding the standing of the initiative’s sponsor to bring the appeal. The state’s top court has said it will not even hold a hearing on the issue until September, at the earliest.

In legal papers filed last week, lawyers challenging Proposition 8 took note of the “serious, lasting, and irreparable damage to gay men and lesbians who wish to marry” caused by this extended timetable and called on the federal court to lift its injunction.

The stay should never have been granted in the first place. Applying traditional legal criteria, the extraordinary relief of a stay is only warranted when the applicant makes a strong showing of likely success on the merits and of irreparable injury in the absence of a stay — two arguments that cannot be satisfied here.

As the trial judge’s ruling affirmed, the denial of marriage equality furthers no legitimate governmental aim. And defenders of Proposition 8 can point to no real injury they would suffer if gay men and lesbians are permitted to wed.

Every day same-sex couples are denied their right to marry is another day of injustice for them and their families. Couples who wish to wed knowing that the appellate court could decide to uphold Proposition 8’s ban should be allowed to take that chance.

Personally, I am just shaking my head. I’m not sure I could have written a better editorial myself. Our arguments are resonating. Our stories of discrimination- like Courage Campaign members Shane and John‘s on ABC News, and Ed and Derence‘s in The Washington Post, The Advocate, and many other places- are resonating in the media. And tomorrow, a huge section of this nation will read it.

If you haven’t given to our fundraiser to keep P8TT going and keep building our work to result in outcomes like these, we’re about $4,000 short. That’s 80 people giving $50. We’re making progress. Please contribute. And ask a few friends to. Even better, become a monthly donor. We’re making a difference

Jess

03-08-2011, 12:24 PM

http://i833.photobucket.com/albums/zz260/raezell2/impatient.gif

we're still waiting...

MsTinkerbelly

03-09-2011, 01:37 PM

Happy anniversary from DC
By Adam Bink

I picked up today’s copy of The Washington Post, to find a very fun article on the front of the local section:

Same-sex couples lead to marriage licenses doubling

An unusual thing happened on the way to the altar in the District over the past 12 months.

At least as many same-sex couples as heterosexual couples – and possibly more – appear to have applied for marriage licenses since gay marriage was legalized in the city last March.

The total number of applications more than doubled since the first same-sex couples lined up to get their licenses, from about 3,100 in the previous year to 6,600 during the past 12 months, said Leah H. Gurowitz, spokeswoman for D.C. Superior Court, which issues the licenses.

Although the court does not differentiate between same-sex and heterosexual couples in its record-keeping, in previous years the number of applications varied by only 100 or less. So virtually all the increase is due to same-sex couples, Gurowitz said.

Not everyone who got a marriage license lived in the District. Many couples came from Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Delaware and other states farther afield.

The court doesn’t keep track of how many couples actually wed. The licenses have no expiration date, and the only requirement is that the marriage be performed within District boundaries.

Wednesday is the first anniversary of the city’s first same-sex weddings.

And the fire and brimstone is raining down from the sky!

The article goes on to include some stories of couples and how their lives have (and haven’t) changed. The last paragraphs I found really telling. Here’s Rocky Galloway, who married his partner:

He said they have faced no discrimination or criticism for getting married. “It’s been interesting meeting people, like when we’re with the kids, and they assume that you are in a heterosexual relationship and you correct them and say ‘My partner is male.’ They get right through it,” he said. “That is to the credit of the advocacy groups and the people of D.C. and the fact that we are very transient and many, many cultures come to live in this area. We’re more open and embracing than some.”

He acknowledged that there are still detractors, those who believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman and gay unions should have another name.

“I understand what they are saying, but by giving it a different name, they would be making it different and there should be no difference,” he said. “When you call it something different, that makes it different. States and municipalities that have domestic partnership laws define those relationships as something different. With marriage, people understand the level of commitment involved. That’s what I love about the term ‘marriage equality’ – it is giving others the same rights.”

Soon

03-09-2011, 05:59 PM

Brendon Ayanbadejo, Ravens Linebacker, Speaks In Favor Of Gay Marriage (VIDEO)

a5IpTdbE5ts&feature=player_embedded

iamkeri1

03-13-2011, 01:13 PM

Brendan is an incredibly well spoken young man. Thank you to all who work to change attitudes against us.

Fortunately, as displayed in this clip, sometimes the opposition works against itself.
Smooches,
Couldn't get this to embed, so here's the link. American Family Assoc lawyers calls DOMA unconstitutional!
http://bit.ly/dDZJSq (http://bit.ly/dDZJSq)

Starbuck

03-16-2011, 10:42 PM

Hi everyone, follow this link to Take The Pledge: http://www.freedomtomarry.org/page/s/pledge
The Pledge:

I add my voice to those supporting the freedom to marry.

I pledge to work to enable same-sex couples and their families to share equally in the responsibilities, protections, and commitment of marriage.

MsTinkerbelly

03-23-2011, 12:37 PM

BREAKING: 9th Circuit denies motion to lift stay on Judge Walker’s Prop 8 ruling
By Adam Bink

Just came in: the 9th Circuit refused to accept the Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the stay pending appeal.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 03/23/2011 at 10:58:31 AM PDT and filed on 03/23/2011

Case Name: Kristin Perry, et al v. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al
Case Number: 10-16696
Document(s): Document(s)

Docket Text:
Filed order (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and N. RANDY SMITH) Having considered all of the factors set forth in Nken v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 1749, 1756 (2009), and all of the facts and circumstances surrounding Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the stay pending appeal, as well as the standard for vacatur set forth in Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 472 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2006), we deny Plaintiffs’ motion at this time.

The 9th Circuit decided that six months, likely more, to force couples to wait while the California Supreme Court drags its feet over summer recess, is acceptable. Including couples like Ed and Derence:

Even though there has been no harm caused to the state since 18,000+ couples married in 2008. Despite the benefit to businesses small and large. Despite the need for same-sex couples to be as equal as anyone else. Appalling

Toughy

03-23-2011, 05:33 PM

This is my guess about how this is gonna work.

As soon as the military gets the repeal of DADT implemented and gays and lesbians can serve openly, the CA Court will hand down it's ruling supporting same sex civil marriage.

Congress will then try to end DOMA.

ain't a dang thing gonna happen until the military actually changes.........

Jess

03-23-2011, 05:49 PM

My thinking has been along the lines of Toughy's statement. We have to be valued as equal "persons" ( which repeal of DADT will do), before we as persons can be "allowed" to marry. Damned shame someone can be a first class officer and still be a second class citizen. ( That goes for any type of discrimination.)

MsTinkerbelly

03-24-2011, 12:35 PM

Colorado Senate passes legislation legalizing civil unions
By Adam Bink

Great news out of the Rocky Mountain State today:

The legislation moves to the House, where I’m told by sources in the state that it will be a tougher fight. Next week, Courage Campaign will be asking its members to contact their legislators.

If you’re in a committed, same-sex relationship in Colorado, or know a couple who is, please drop me a line at adam@couragecampaign.org. We’d like to work with you!

MsTinkerbelly

03-25-2011, 12:37 PM

The mantle of family values belongs to those seeking to end DOMA
By Adam Bink

The New York Times ed board does this issue justice:

President Obama came to the right conclusion last month when he decided that the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal spousal benefits to married same-sex couples, is unconstitutional, and ended the government’s defense of the law in pending court cases. But that did not relieve Congress of its duty to renounce the bigotry behind the 1996 law and wipe it off the books.

More than 100 House Democrats, led by Jerrold Nadler of New York, John Conyers of Michigan and Barney Frank of Massachusetts, have introduced a bill calling for a repeal of the act. An identical repeal bill was offered in the Senate by Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Dianne Feinstein of California and Patrick Leahy of Vermont, all Democrats.

Getting the repeal bills through both chambers will not be easy. Republican leaders are continuing to pander and promote intolerance, declaring that they will step in for the administration to defend the act’s denial of equal protection in court either by formally intervening or filing an amicus brief using outside lawyers paid for by taxpayers. Mr. Leahy, who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, should schedule a hearing to call in couples to talk about the harm caused by the act to make clear that their marriages are deserving of full respect.

Republicans like to cast themselves as the protectors of “family values.” But that mantle properly belongs to President Obama and the Congressional Democrats committed to ending this atrocious law

MsTinkerbelly

03-29-2011, 12:36 PM

BREAKING: U.S. Immigration Puts Hold On All Binational Partner Deportations

Last week a New York immigration judge temporarily suspended the deportation of an Argentine lesbian while she and her wife contest her green card denial due to DOMA. Today U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services revealed that ALL such deportations are now on hold. Chris Geidner gets the big scoop at Metro Weekly:
Following up on reports from this weekend, Metro Weekly just received confirmation from Christopher Bentley, the spokesman for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, that cases of foreign partners who are married to a same-sex partner and would otherwise be eligible for a green card are on hold in light of questions about the continued validity of the Defense of Marriage Act. Bentley writes, "USCIS has issued guidance to the field asking that related cases be held in abeyance while awaiting final guidance related to distinct legal issues." He notes, however, "USCIS has not implemented any change in policy and intends to follow the President's directive to continue enforcing the law." The legal distinction means that although DOMA is still being enforced, the USCIS is using its discretion to hold off on denying green card applications where applicable.
An amazing development, largely thanks to the work of Immigration Equality and attorney Lavi Soloway, who was interviewed in today's episode of This Week In Prop 8.

Jess

04-05-2011, 03:19 PM

Another reason it has to be marriage and it has to be at a Federal level...

Married Gay Couples ‘Refuse to Lie’ on Tax Forms
By TARA SIEGEL BERNARD

April 04, 2011

Courtesy of Equality Florida
The “Refuse to Lie” campaign was created gay activists who believe that the federal government should acknowledge same-sex marriage.

Some same-sex married couples are refusing to file their federal tax returns separately this tax season, as part of a movement demonstrating that they’re no longer content to quietly comply with the federal law that does not recognize same-sex marriage. And in some cases, these taxpayers will pay Uncle Sam more when they do so.

Same-sex couples who have married, or who have a legal status equivalent to marriage in certain states, must still file separate federal returns because the government — and therefore the Internal Revenue Service — defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman.

Using that definition, federal tax returns ask taxpayers to check one of five options under their filing status: single, married filing jointly, married filing separately, head of household or qualifying widow(er) with dependent child. Married same-sex partners typically file their own federal returns either as single or, if they qualify, as head of household, which has more favorable rates than the single filing status.

But many same-sex couples contend that filing as single amounts to lying about their marriage status, and that’s the message behind the “Refuse to Lie” campaign created by gay activists, which is timed to coincide with tax season.

“More people are refusing to lie on those forms, even though the government is telling them to,” said Nadine Smith, executive director of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender advocacy group Equality Florida, who plans on filing a joint return with her wife, Andrea. “It would be both dishonest and deeply humiliating to now disavow each other or our marriage and declare ourselves single on our tax form.”

Nina E. Olson, the national taxpayer advocate who acts as an ombudsman for the I.R.S., acknowledged the uncertainty surrounding federal taxation of same-gender spouses in an annual report to Congress. In the report, she said that taxpayers may take a filing position without penalty if there is “substantial authority” to do so, such as a court case that hasn’t been overruled by the United States Court of Appeals. And there happen to be two such cases, which are currently on appeal.

In July 2010, the Federal District Court in Massachusetts declared the Defense of Marriage Act — the federal law known as DOMA that defines marriage as between a man and a woman — as unconstitutional in two cases. They are now being appealed in the First Circuit. “Thus, there may be substantial authority for same-gender spouses to take certain tax positions as married as long as the Massachusetts district court’s opinions stands,” Ms. Olson said in the report.

The “Refuse to Lie” Web site warns same-sex couples of the risks of filing jointly, and explains different options to both adhere to the law while expressing that they disagree with it. One way to do that would be to put an asterisk by the “single” box, and then indicate at the bottom of the tax form that you are “only single under DOMA.” Another option, the site says, is to attach a note with a similar message.

The campaign also explains on its Web site how to file a joint return while avoiding penalties. In the first method, each partner would file their own single return and include an attachment stating that they’re married, and then file an amended return jointly. “Once the I.R.S. rejects the amended return, or if six months passes and they do nothing, the taxpayers who file an amended return have the right to file suit in Federal District Court claiming the refund,” the activists’ site said, adding that this option would avoid penalties because your original return would be filed according to the law.

Another method suggests filing two returns: one filed jointly (and showing the tax due on the joint return) and one filed as a single taxpayer (showing the tax due on that return). Pay whatever is due on the single return — which means you will not have underpaid — and then ask the I.R.S. which return to accept. But if the I.R.S. accepts the joint return and issues you a refund, “there is no way to know what will happen if you are later audited,” the site said.

“People who follow this example need to do so with a clear head about the decision they are making and that what could happen is unclear,” Ms. Smith, of Equality Florida, said. “It’s not without risk.”

But there’s another way to preserve your right to collect any refunds due to you if the law is eventually struck down. Patricia Cain, a professor at Santa Clara Law and an expert on sexuality and federal tax law, said that couples who would benefit from a joint filing — that is, couples who would pay less in taxes or receive refunds — can file a protective claim using I.R.S. Form 843. (File separate returns in accordance with the law, then attach the form to an amended joint return).

“If you state on Form 843 that your claim is based on the unconstitutionality of DOMA, which is an issue pending in current litigation, it is more likely that the I.R.S. will do nothing until the issue is finally determined,” she added. “And if DOMA is struck down as unconstitutional, you should be entitled to the refund on the amended return.”

Although she generally recommends that same-sex married couples file their own returns in accordance with the law, she said that couples living in Massachusetts might be able to better justify filing their returns jointly because of the two court cases there.

“The question is whether that is sufficient as substantial authority to avoid being assessed penalties if you were audited by the I.R.S. and found to have filed incorrectly,” Professor Cain said.

She also said that she knew some same-sex couples in several different states who had filed joint returns and received refunds. “It’s because the returns are handled by machines,” she said, adding that the 1040 forms don’t have any gender markers on them. “That doesn’t mean they won’t be audited sometime. But honestly, I think the I.R.S. has bigger fish to fry than figuring out where same-sex couples filed jointly.”

Taxpayers who don’t pay the proper amount of tax will be levied a 20 percent penalty on top of the amount of tax owed. An I.R.S. spokeswoman said the agency followed the federal Marriage Act and declined further comment.

But for Kate Kendell it’s about more than the money. Ms. Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said she and her wife, Sandy, who have been together for 18 years and have two children, are going to file as married this year (they married in California during the brief window in 2008 when same-sex marriage was permitted there).

“As a lawyer and a legal advocate for the L.G.B.T. community, I am often in a position to advise people to exercise great caution and to comply in most cases with the letter of the law, even when that means denying who we are,” she said. “This is my small way of saying, where we can, we are not going to play the game anymore.”

In their case, the move is going to cost the couple more than $5,000.

If you’re part of a same-sex couple and would like to file jointly, how far would you go to show that you disagree with the current law? And what does everyone else think about this effort?

Taken from: http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/married-gay-couples-refuse-to-lie-on-tax-forms/

MsTinkerbelly

04-06-2011, 04:32 PM

Judge Walker publicly comes out; never considered recusing himself
By Adam Bink

Very interesting and courageous comments from Judge Walker, who, for the first time, acknowledged that he is gay:

The U.S. judge who struck down California’s gay marriage ban never considered his own homosexuality as a reason to recuse himself from the case, he said on Wednesday.

Former U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who retired from the bench at the end of February, said it would not be appropriate for any judge’s sexual orientation, ethnicity, national origin or gender to stop them from presiding over a case.

“That’s a very slippery slope,” Walker said.

The talk to a handful of reporters was Walker’s first public comments to reporters about presiding over the lawsuit challenging to Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California. Walker struck down the ban as unconstitutional, and the case is currently on appeal.

It was also the first time Walker publicly acknowledged his own sexual orientation. Walker said he has been in a relationship with the man for 10 years. “He is a physician,” Walker said.

I agree on recusal. We can’t be assigning case after case to others because of different characteristics, but more to the point, judges must be nominated who can set their own personal characteristics aside and judge independently.

Jess

04-06-2011, 06:51 PM

Not sure if this is political, unless of course you consider that everything having to do with same sex couples and marriage is political...

Country Star Chely Wright Announces Engagement to LGBT Advocate Lauren Blitzer

Out country singer Chely Wright has announced her engagement to LGBT advocate Lauren Blitzer, and the happy couple are set to be married this August in Connecticut. GLAAD congratulates the couple and wishes them the best!

http://glaadblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/chelywrightglaad-220x300.jpg

Chely Wright at the 2nd Annual GLAAD Media Awards in Advertising
Wright, who is nominated this year for a GLAAD Media Award for her album Lifted Off The Ground, met Blitzer through their youth advocacy work and told People that “the freedom of being out and open about who I am allowed me to find and fall in love with Lauren, the most amazing woman I’ve ever known.”
Wright came out last May, the first major country music artist to do so, after feeling compelled to hide her orientation to avoid losing her fanbase. Wright told People last year that “nothing in my life has been more magical than the moment I decided to come out.”
Wright performed at the 21st Annual GLAAD Media Awards in San Francisco in 2010, take a look at this video of her amazing performance at last year’s awards show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8OIRviFJ7Pw#at=67

MsTinkerbelly

04-07-2011, 12:48 PM

Soon

04-13-2011, 02:37 PM

IRS Is Entangled In Gay Marriage Debate
(http://www.npr.org/2011/04/12/135338638/irs-entangled-in-gay-marriage-debate)
April 12, 2011

Tax Day brings a dilemma for same-sex married couples whose marriages are not recognized by the federal government. They are required to file their federal taxes as single even though they are legally married in their home state. But this year, many couples are protesting by checking the married box on their federal return.

Copyright © 2011 National Public Radio®. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.

RENEE MONTAGNE, host:

Some same-sex married couples are planning a protest this tax day. They object to the federal law requiring them to check the single box on their federal tax returns. Same-sex married couples file jointly on their state tax returns, but they're still regarded as single by the federal government, based on the federal Defense of Marriage Act. In defiance of that law - known as DOMA - some couples are checking the married box on their federal returns. NPR's Tovia Smith reports.

TOVIA SMITH: You don't have to read the small print about the pains and penalties of perjury to know it's not a good idea to lie to the IRS. And yet, tens of thousands of same-sex couples who are legally married - in Massachusetts, Iowa or New Hampshire, for example - sign their federal tax returns saying they're single because legally, they have to.

Ms. NADINE SMITH: We are caught between the truth and the law, and it's an impossible situation.

SMITH: Nadine Smith got married three years ago in California and has played along, as she says, ever since - checking single on her federal tax return. But this year, she says, she just couldn't.

Ms. SMITH: We are tired of quietly being complicit in a law that tells us we must disavow our spouses, we must erase our families - or face penalties.

SMITH: Earlier this month, Smith started a website for what she's calling the Refuse To Lie (http://refusetolie.org/) campaign. In many cases, same-sex couples filing jointly would owe less. But some who are choosing to file as married are willingly paying more.

Ms. KATE KENDELL (Executive Director, National Center for Lesbian Rights): My tax accountant thought I was crazy. And there's no doubt, it was sticker shock. And it is going to be a burden.

SMITH: Kate Kendell, head of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, says she and her wife are giving up their summer vacation to cover the extra $5,000 they'll pay to file jointly.

Ms. KENDELL: You know, I think there's a moment where - you know - you just have to say enough is enough, and I am going to stand up for my family and my relationship and say, this is who we are.

Ms. KAREN STOGDILL (Tax consultant): I think it's a great statement to make. I'm just not sure that the proper way to make it is to file a married-filing-joint federal income tax return.

SMITH: Tax consultant Karen Stogdill says couples who do that risk serious penalties, and still won't get any benefits of marriage from the federal government like sharing a spouse's Social Security or retirement. To avoid penalties, she advises couples to file as singles, and then file an amended return as married. Or, they can file two returns.

Either way, Stogdill says, it all amounts to an unfair burden on same-sex couples trying to figure out what to do.

Ms. STOGDILL: They call the IRS, and they talk to people at the IRS phone lines, and they can't even tell you. And so it's very sad that people can't even get proper help - even from the governmental agencies - to figure it out.

SMITH: The IRS declined to comment for this report. But even the agency's own ombudsman has called the situation quote, ridiculously complex.

The IRS has responded by saying DOMA leaves the agency no choice but to require same-sex couples to file as singles. But officials also say the IRS isn't going to spend a lot of time working on new guidelines that might help clarify things since one federal court has already ruled DOMA unconstitutional, and the future of the law is anything but certain.

Tovia Smith, NPR News.

Soon

04-13-2011, 02:39 PM

http://refusetolie.org/

DapperButch

04-15-2011, 05:44 AM

Civil Union bill passed in the House last night. Governor Jack Markell says he will sign "as soon as there is a suitable place and time". So, we are golden!

It seems as though this was pretty grass roots, too. DE only received $2,500from HRC in support for this to happen, even though DE was a state they were supposedly focused on. But, I guess we didn't need any more than that!

MsTinkerbelly

04-15-2011, 07:56 AM

iamkeri1

04-15-2011, 02:11 PM

HURRAY FOR DELAWARIANS
Smooches,
Keri

AtLast

04-15-2011, 02:29 PM

Delaware- you Rawk! Great news!!

Soon

04-20-2011, 04:46 PM

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MySOvU-oKs4/Ta84YKjkSDI/AAAAAAABERc/KhSzuMVXoT8/s1600/fvethirtyeight-0420-ssm2011-blog480.png

Toughy

04-20-2011, 09:05 PM

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MySOvU-oKs4/Ta84YKjkSDI/AAAAAAABERc/KhSzuMVXoT8/s1600/fvethirtyeight-0420-ssm2011-blog480.png

what's the source?

Soon

04-21-2011, 07:08 AM

what's the source?

Apologies! Here is the article about the poll and the poll source:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/gay-marriage-opponents-now-in-minority/#

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/04/19/rel6h.pdf

NYT refers to it as the fourth credible poll to have come out recently that shows this equality trend. Here are the other ones:

http://pollingreport.com/civil.htm

iamkeri1

04-27-2011, 02:29 AM

New Push to Reverse Prop 8 Decision Because Judge Is Gay.

Adam Martin Adam Martin – Tue Apr 26, 5:25 pm ET
The National Organization for Marriage wants Judge Vaughn Walker's decision on Prop 8 last summer thrown up, and they filed a motion to that effect yesterday. Supporters of the anti-gay marriage law think the judge should have recused himself because he is gay and in a long-term relationship. But proponents of gay marriage, who have challenged the constitutionality of the law, say the judge's sexual orientation is irrelevant to his decision in the case, and besides, it was well known even before the judge struck down law on August 4 and nobody complained.
Here's the background: In 2008, California voters passed the California Marriage Protection Act (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/atlantic/ts_atlantic/storytext/gaymarriageopponentssaygaycaliforniajudgeshouldnth averuled37067/41227906/SIG=12bm5e41m/*http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29) (state proposition 8), which changed the state constitution to define marriage as "only marriage between a man and a woman." Just days after the vote, several groups filed suits in federal district court, calling for the law to be overturned on the grounds that it infringed on civil rights.
Walker, the chief judge of the San Francisco-based ninth federal court district, ruled on August 4, 2010, that the law "discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation and gender," according to (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/atlantic/ts_atlantic/storytext/gaymarriageopponentssaygaycaliforniajudgeshouldnth averuled37067/41227906/SIG=12ceiglus/*http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/04/26/BAIK1J7694.DTL) longtime San Francisco Chronicle federal court reporter Bob Egelko. Walker retired this year. The Chronicle reported on Walker's sexuality during the trial, and the Los Angeles Times notes that (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/atlantic/ts_atlantic/storytext/gaymarriageopponentssaygaycaliforniajudgeshouldnth averuled37067/41227906/SIG=12cojfa08/*http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-judge-20110426,0,6036056.story) he "was widely known within San Francisco's legal community to be gay. He brought his partner to bar events and introduced him to others as his partner." So why didn't NOM and its lawyers make a big deal out of his sexuality until yesterday?
It seems the thing that really got under NOM's skin was that Walker started showing a three-minute video (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/atlantic/ts_atlantic/storytext/gaymarriageopponentssaygaycaliforniajudgeshouldnth averuled37067/41227906/SIG=12gnpvjo4/*http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/20/local/la-me-0420-judge-walker-20110420) of the Prop. 8 trial in lectures he has been giving post-retirement. On April 13, they filed a motion (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/atlantic/ts_atlantic/storytext/gaymarriageopponentssaygaycaliforniajudgeshouldnth averuled37067/41227906/SIG=1338h2kmq/*http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=omL2KeN0LzH&b=5075189&ct=9352891) to stop him showing the video, and they pressed the attack Monday with the request to void the trial. "Judge Walker's ten-year-long same-sex relationship creates the unavoidable impression that he was not the impartial judge the law requires," Andy Pugno, a lawyer for ProtectMarriage, told the L.A. Times. "He was obligated to either recuse himself or provide full disclosure of this relationship at the outset of the case."
But opponents of the law have laughed off the challenge: "What's next? Are they going to say all female judges should recuse themselves from gender discrimination cases," San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera asked the Chronicle. San Francisco is a plaintiff in the case.

Toughy

04-27-2011, 07:50 PM

How come it's not a conflict of interest for straight (married) folks to rule on Prop 8? Why is it only a conflict if you are gay?

MsTinkerbelly

05-04-2011, 12:45 PM

NEW YORK: Leading Spanish-Language Paper Endorses Marriage Equality

The most widely-read Spanish-language newspaper in New York has published an editorial endorsing same-sex marriage. Capitol Confidential sees a jab at Sen. Ruben Diaz in the second (translated) paragraph below from El Diario.
New York needs and is ready for this change. Our gay population is bigger than the seven nearby jurisdictions (six states plus the District of Columbia) that have legalized same-sex marriage. And close to 60 percent of New Yorkers support gay marriage.

Governor Cuomo’s campaign merits all the the support of the Latino community, including those who are opposed for religious reasons. Officials in this position should remember that they were elected to serve the public (independent of its sexual orientation) under American laws, which were established with a clear distinction between church and state. Latinos should also remember our collective fight is against discrimination and marginalization.

Homosexuality is a human reality. The majority of New Yorkers have a friend, colleague or relative who’s gay. It’s time to give these people the opportunity to develop families and build communities. Our government shouldn’t be in the business of telling the people who to love or who to marry.

suebee

05-06-2011, 07:55 AM

"An order to vacate from U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder halting the deportation of a foreign national in a civil union may be sign of hope for bi-national same-sex couples in the United States who are facing separation.

In the decision, dated April 26, Holder remands back to the Board of Immigration Appeals the case of Paul Wilson Dorman — a New Jersey man who’s apparently seeking residency in the United States through his partner — to reassess a previous petition that was denied based on the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage. The order was made public Thursday.

“In the exercise of my review authority under that regulation, and upon consideration of the record in this case, I direct that the order of the Board be vacated and that this matter be remanded to the Board to make such findings as may be necessary to determine whether and how the constitutionality of DOMA is presented in this case,” Holder writes."

Full story here (http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/05/06/holder-halts-deportation-for-foreign-national-in-civil-union/).

Soon

05-22-2011, 03:28 PM

BDmA03_RnqA#at=35

UofMfan

06-01-2011, 09:23 AM

JL-G8A34U14

MsTinkerbelly

06-01-2011, 12:48 PM

The 11-year evolution of civil unions
By Adam Bink

As Illinois takes a step forward today when the state begins issuing civil union licenses, I am reminded of the hullabaloo surrounding the same moment in Vermont on July 1, 2000: the creation of a new institution that for many was eerily close to marriage. I did some reading this morning of the news coverage, and below is an excerpt of an article from the Los Angeles Times 11 years ago:

A Historic Day in Vermont as Civil Unions Become Legal
by Elizabeth Mehren

BRATTLEBORO, Vt.–Mindful of a law banning booze on municipal property, Annette Cappy will stop short of serving champagne. But to the town clerk in this southern Vermont village, opening her office just after midnight this morning–the minute that civil unions between same-sex couples become legal here–seems like the right thing to do.

“This office has been known to stay open for 24 hours on the first day of hunting season,” Cappy said. “I figure if we did it for people who want to shoot animals, I can do it for two people in love.”

Sure enough, as the nation’s most sweeping gay rights legislation takes effect today, scores of couples from around Vermont, and some from outside the state, will descend on town halls to plunk down $20 for a license giving them everything heterosexual couples have–except the word “marriage.” Much of the state is celebrating, but some opponents of what amounts to gay marriage are less than overjoyed. Though no one could predict just how many civil union licenses would be issued today, some who sought them laughed about Vermont’s new argot.

“David and I are saying we’re being unionized,” said John Castaldo, who can now legally refer to his companion of eight years, David Myette, as his spouse. The couple lives in Waterbury, where Castaldo, 51, works for a granite consortium and Myette, 52, handles financial aid for a small college.

With a 9 a.m. appointment to get their civil union license from the town clerk in tiny Williston, 57-year-old Lynn Goyette said she and Eileen Blackwood, 41, would continue to call each other what for 13 years they always have. “Hon.”

Perhaps predictably, a clever strain of commercialism is finding its way into the weekend’s celebrations. Jewelers from around the state pushed “civil union rings.” Bakers made sure to have lots of same-sex wedding figures on hand to stick on top of cakes. A boutique brewery (owned by lesbians) issued a new golden amber, Gay Pride Ale. Brewery partners Liz Trott and Janice Moran marketed their elixir with the slogan, “The beer to come out for.”

300 Benefits Extended to Same-Sex Couples

Vermont’s groundbreaking law extends more than 300 benefits normally associated with marriage to gay and lesbian couples. To couples who form a civil union, inheritance rights are now automatic, as are the authority to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner, the right to take control of a partner’s body upon death, the right to transfer property from one partner to another without tax consequences and the right to be treated as an economic unit for tax purposes. Conversely, a civil union must be dissolved in a court proceeding similar to divorce.

“It’s a huge step,” said Blackwood, a lawyer. Three years ago, after 10 years together, she and Goyette, a mental health counselor, held a giant, weeklong celebration to affirm their commitment among family and friends. They wear rings because, Goyette said, “we’re ring people.” But both see marriage as a patriarchal institution–so much so that when the law passed, Blackwood called Goyette to crow, “Guess what, we don’t have to get married!”

Still, the pair saw civil union status as such a significant civil rights victory that they wanted to be among the first to sign up. “In this case,” said Blackwood, “the personal is definitely political.”

Though the benefits of the bill passed in April after sometimes agonizing debate do not apply outside Vermont, some couples nonetheless trekked here from other states and places. Cappy had appointments for couples from New York, New Jersey, North Carolina and Washington, D.C.

“It’s by far the greatest thing that’s happened to gay people in the United States,” said John Campbell, who is driving to Vermont from Edison, N.J., for a civil union ceremony with Richard Harrison, his partner of 13 years.

Campbell, a retired VA Hospital administrator, is 70 (“you would ask”) and HBO executive Harrison is 45. “But he was the aggressor,” Campbell insisted. “He went after a dirty old man like me and he got me.” Long ago they drew up living wills, put all their possessions in both names and began wearing matching rings. So to some extent, they conceded, their vows in Vermont before a justice of the peace will be symbolic only.

“We’re just celebrating the fact that a state is recognizing a relationship like ours,” Campbell said. “If it was marriage, we’d be coming home and throwing a big reception. But it’s not, so we won’t be doing that. We’re just so excited that this is happening.”

Not everyone shares this enthusiasm. The town clerks in half a dozen or so Vermont hamlets resigned rather than distribute civil union licenses. “It’s a moral issue with me,” explained Helen O’Donnell, as she resigned the clerkship of Tunbridge. “I don’t want my name on a document supporting that.”

A group of 15 state legislators promised to renew their efforts after they lost a court battle to overturn the law. Groups with names like Vermont Speaks, Vermonters Taking a Stand and Vermonters for Traditional Marriage have sprouted in direct opposition of the law. Gov. Howard Dean, a Democrat who changed his mind after initial opposition, last week wrote the state’s Catholic bishop, urging him to make sure that “hatred and intolerance will have no place” in the debate.

Milestone Comes Amid Court Defeat

Vermont’s breakthrough in civil rights for gays and lesbians takes effect, moreover, in the same week when they suffered a bitter defeat as the U.S. Supreme Court approved banning gays from leadership positions in the Boy Scouts.

But Bill Lippert, the state’s only openly gay legislator, said the progress in Vermont is irrevocable. “Despite all the threats by all the opponents we will never go back,” said Lippert, who helped draft the legislation.

“The significance goes well beyond the couples who are adult right now,” he said. “For the young gay and lesbian people, they now get to grow up with the image of the choice and the possibility of forming loving, deeply committed relationships that can be affirmed with all the legal protections and rights that any other couple can have, at least in the state of Vermont.”

Castaldo said one reason they were delaying their ceremony until August is that Myette’s 26-year-old son from a long-ago marriage would be home from Japan to stand up for his father. An Episcopal priest will administer their vows at their home, with splendid mountain views all around. After eight years together, Castaldo said he and Myette will trade rings and probably wear suits for the ceremony, then change into shorts for a grand old barbecue.

“Why do it?” asked Castaldo. “I think we want to take our relationship up one level. We both realize we want to be able to do this commitment for ourselves spiritually, but I think a lot has to do with legal protection. Our biggest fear is that if one of us is sick, we would be denied access.”

The real telling paragraph is the final one (bolding mine)

Was the Green Mountain state setting the stage for the rest of the country? Advocates are optimistic that several other states, including Hawaii and New Hampshire, may consider similar measures. “I hope so,” said Farnham. “I hope so.”

It certainly has. We’ve advanced to a place where civil unions, as Jeremy writes this morning, are “step one” on the path to full recognition. We’ve also advanced to where civil unions, nearly 11 years later, aren’t nearly as much news. Contrast the piece above with today’s NYTimes:

CHICAGO — Illinois has begun giving out licenses to couples who want to form a civil union.

Hundreds of couples lined up early Wednesday to get licenses as the state’s new law went into effect. It allows gay and lesbian or straight couples to form civil unions, a rough equivalent to marriage.

Civil unions give couples many of the rights that accompany traditional marriage. That includes the power to decide medical treatment for an ailing partner and the right to inherit a partner’s property.

The first civil union ceremonies can’t take place until Thursday.

Cook County Clerk David Orr says it will be “a joyous day for all couples, gay and straight, who want to make history.”

I think a lot of people will read and not even give it the second thought they might have 11 years ago. Progress.

MsTinkerbelly

06-14-2011, 02:21 PM

The ruling made by Judge Walker declaring that Prop 8 was unconstitutional was just upheld.

I am not sure if you all knew that the forces behind Prop 8 were trying to get Judge Walkers decision thrown out based on the fact that he is Gay and has something (Same-sex marriage) to gain from his ruling.

This only means the decision will not be vacated, the original case is still before the Ninth Circut Court of Appeals.

I'm working and can't post again until later, so if anyone gets ahold of an actual published news item please post it so I can read it later. Please????

Jess

06-14-2011, 03:28 PM

MsTinkerbelly

06-14-2011, 04:31 PM

By Dan Levine and Peter Henderson Dan Levine And Peter Henderson – 22 mins ago
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – A U.S. judge's same-sex relationship is no reason to toss out his ruling backing same-sex matrimony, another federal judge ruled Tuesday.

Doing otherwise would send a message that minority judges could not rule in civil rights cases, ruled Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware, who upheld the decision to overturn California's gay marriage ban.
In pointed language Ware slapped down the attempt to throw out his gay former colleague's decision as an attack on standards of judicial impartiality, saying it ignored the idea that protecting the rights of minorities benefits all.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco last year struck down California's same-sex marriage ban, known as Proposition 8, and supporters of the ban now say his ruling was compromised and should be vacated.

The case was immediately appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

It could set national policy if it reaches the U.S. Supreme Court and is being watched throughout the nation, where same-sex marriage is legal in only a handful of states.

In a written ruling, Judge Ware said Walker's same-sex relationship was no reason to throw out his decision. Ware took over the case after Walker retired earlier this year.

"Standards such as those advocated by the pro-ban attorneys would come dangerously close to forcing minority judges to excuse themselves from civil rights cases, wrote Ware, an African-American appointed by former President George H.W. Bush.

Shortly after Walker retired, he discussed his homosexuality in the press for the first time, saying he is in a 10-year relationship with a physician.

That led opponents of same-sex marriage to ask that Walker's ruling be vacated. Walker's relationship put him in the same shoes as the plaintiffs, and should have been disclosed when he was assigned to the case, their attorneys argued.

"This is a powerful ruling that makes clear that gay and lesbian judges are entitled to the same presumptions of fairness and impartiality as all other federal judges," said Theodore Boutrous, an attorney representing two same-sex couples seeking to overturn the California ban.

In his ruling, Ware he shot down the argument that Walker's silence about his relationship could be taken as an implicit indication of his interest, saying that judges were presumed to be impartial.

"The presumption that Judge Walker, by virtue of being in a same-sex relationship, had a desire to be married that rendered him incapable of making an impartial decision," Ware wrote, "is as warrantless as the presumption that a female judge is incapable of being impartial in a case in which women seek legal relief."

The 9th Circuit court is still considering the constitutional issues surrounding gay marriage and has asked the California Supreme Court to weigh in on one point of state law.

The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California is Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 09-2292.

(Reporting by Dan Levine and Peter Henderson; editing by Christopher Wilson

MsTinkerbelly

06-14-2011, 04:32 PM

Haven't found anything on Prop 8 today thus far, but I did run across this bit of good news:

NY Gov. Introduces Marriage Bill as Support Swells

http://glaadblog.org/2011/06/14/ny-gov-introduces-marriage-bill-as-support-swells/

Great news Jess!

suebee

06-15-2011, 05:58 AM

This is an interview with the co-author of the French marriage equality bill, which was defeated yesterday in the French National Assembly:

INTERVIEW. Au lendemain du rejet du mariage pour les homos à l'Assemblée nationale, TÊTU interroge le député auteur de la loi. Il s'exprime sur son regret, son espoir pour l'avenir de son texte, l'UMP et... Christian Vanneste.
C'est lui qui, il y a plus de dix ans, avait écrit avec Jean-Pierre Michel la loi portant création du pacs. C'est à nouveau lui, qui, en 2006, a écrit la proposition de loi sur l'ouverture du mariage aux couples de même sexe, débattu la semaine dernière et finalement rejeté hier à l'Assemblée nationale. A cette occasion, TÊTU fait le point avec Patrick Bloche, député socialiste et maire du 11e arrondissement du Paris, sur la façon dont il a vécu ces derniers jours dans l'hémicycle, sur les derniers outrages de Christian Vanneste et sur l'état du débat sur le mariage pour tous.
TÊTU: Quelle est votre réaction à l'issue du vote négatif d'hier soir?
Patrick Bloche: Vu que la majorité requise était à 258 voix, je remarque qu'il n'y a plus que 36 députés à convaincre! (Rires) Plus sérieusement, le résultat était plus que prévisible. Les lignes politiques se sont appliquées, comme souvent. J'espérais qu'elles auraient pu bouger un peu plus.
Tout de même, neuf députés UMP, et un au Nouveau centre, ont voté pour… Peut-on dire que ces lignes commencent à bouger?
Lorsque j'ai soumis la loi sur le pacs, en 1999, il n'y avait qu'une députée de ce camp à voter pour en première lecture, c'était Roselyne Bachelot. Cette fois, il y a neuf députés qui ont vraiment voté en fonction de leurs convictions personnelles, c'est tout de même peu quand le mariage a déjà été voté dans un certain nombre de pays européens, en Afrique du Sud, en Argentine ou au Canada… Neuf, c'est déjà cela. Mais je constate que pour faire avancer les droits, il faut une majorité politique claire. Comme sous François Mitterrand en 1982 pour dépénaliser l'homosexualité, sous Lionel Jospin en 1999 pour voter le pacs, je souhaite qu'il y ait une majorité de gauche à l'Assemblée nationale en 2012 pour voter cette proposition de loi.
Comment avez-vous vécu, jeudi dernier, le débat à l'Assemblée?
Je l'ai bien vécu, car le débat s'est déroulé de façon beaucoup plus acceptable que ce qui s'est passé en Commission des lois (Brigitte Barèges avait comparé homosexualité et zoophilie, lire notre article). On n'a pas assisté à des propos scandaleux. C'était finalement un beau débat, chargé d'émotion, car pour la première fois dans l'hémicycle de l'Assemblée nationale, on a pu débattre de cette question. Il y a eu des arguments opposés, ce qui est normal, mais les interventions de Franck Riester et d'Henriette Martinez ont été des éléments de fraîcheur.
Quand Christian Vanneste évoque une «aberration anthropologique», est-ce un nouveau dérapage grave ou une saillie de plus de la part d'un député UMP que l'on est habitué à entendre sur ce terrain?
Il avait déjà fait la même déclaration en Commission des lois (donc à huis clos, NDLR). C'est évidemment scandaleux, et je condamne totalement ces propos. C'est du Vanneste tout craché, qui s'arroge, parce qu'il est prof de philo, des compétences qu'il n'a pas. Mais en matière d'anthropologie, je lui préfère Maurice Godelier, un spécialiste de grand talent, qui a lui-même mis en avant, dans les sociétés qu'il a étudiées à-travers le monde, que l'union entre personnes de même sexe et l'homoparentalité sont parfaitement acceptées dans des sociétés très différentes de la nôtre.
Il n'a pas répété ces mots en séance, cette fois, mais dans les couloirs de l'Assemblée. Selon vous, y a-t-il matière à un nouveau procès Vanneste?
On a des associations performantes pour sanctionner des propos à caractère homophobes, je leur fais confiance pour utiliser la loi de 1881 sur la liberté de la presse, que j'ai moi-même contribué à réformer pour que ce soit possible en pareil cas.
Lors du débat à l'Assemblée, jeudi, vous avez insisté sur le fait que votre texte «ne traite que de l'homoconjugalité, pas de l'homoparentalité». Or, les dispositions du Code civil sur le mariage reviennent à de multiples reprises sur les enfants du couple. Peut-on donc si facilement dissocier ces deux questions?
Je pense qu'on peut dissocier les deux, et je crois même qu'on doit le faire. Le lien, qui était étroit hier, entre mariage et procréation, s'est distendu. Ainsi, on peut désormais se marier sans avoir un projet familial. Inversement, une majorité de premiers enfants naissent hors mariage. La logique de cette union n'est donc plus celle d'autrefois. Et ma proposition de loi a donc été construite pour ne traiter que de la conjugalité, en laissant de côté ce qui concerne l'homoparentalité. Pas par gêne ou frilosité de notre part – le Parti socialiste a clairement pris position pour l'adoption et la PMA – mais parce qu'on ne voulait pas que la majorité actuelle prenne prétexte de son opposition à l'homoparentalité pour refuser l'ouverture du mariage. Visiblement, ça n'a pas suffi.
Tous les partisans depuis hier se donnent «rendez-vous en 2012», vous aussi sans doute – d'ici-là, pensez-vous que le débat sur le mariage homosexuel aura lieu à nouveau?
J'espère qu'il aura lieu, parmi d'autres thèmes, dans le cadre de la prochaine élection présidentielle. Mais le scrutin d'hier a eu valeur de test. Je vois mal, demain, Nicolas Sarkozy se prononcer subitement pour le mariage ou l'homoparentalité.
Pourtant, l'UMP a annoncé hier ouvrir un groupe de travail sur les droits des homos. Faut-il croire que les choses peuvent avancer par la droite d'ici à 2012?
J'espère que nos concitoyens vont s'estimer vaccinés! Tout d'un coup, le jour où on rejette le mariage, faire cette annonce… Cela fait neuf ans que la droite est au pouvoir et il n'y a eu aucune réelle avancée des droits. Nicolas Sarkozy n'a pas tenu ses promesses. La droite, qui s'était opposée au pacs en 1999, s'en félicite aujourd'hui et considère que cela suffit pour les homosexuels. C'est le maintien des discriminations, pas l'égalité des droits! Après, les couples homosexuels feront ce qu'ils voudront. Est-ce qu'ils se marieront en nombre? Là n'est pas la question. Le problème n'est pas de nature statistique, c'est une question de liberté de choix.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION

INTERVIEW. In the aftermath of the rejection of marriage for gays in the National Assembly, the member asked TÊTU author of the law. He expressed his regret about his hope for the future of his text, the UMP and ... Christian Vanneste.
It was he who, more than ten years, had written with Jean-Pierre Michel law establishing the PACS. It is again he who in 2006 wrote the bill on the opening of marriage to same-sex couples, debated last week and finally dismissed yesterday at the National Assembly. On this occasion, TÊTU an update with Patrick Bloche, the Socialist deputy and mayor of the 11th arrondissement of Paris, about how he lived these days in the Chamber on the latest outrage from Christian Vanneste and the state of debate on marriage for all.
TÊTU: What is your reaction to the negative outcome of the vote last night?
Patrick Bloche: Given that the required majority was 258 votes, I notice that there is more than 36 deputies to convince! (Laughs) More seriously, the result was more than predictable. The political lines were applied as often. I hoped they could move a little more.
Still, nine UMP deputies, and one in New Center, voted for ... Can we say that these lines begin to move?
When I submitted the law on civil partnerships in 1999, there was only one member of this camp to vote for first reading was Roselyne Bachelot. This time, there are nine members who actually voted according to their personal beliefs, it is still little when the marriage has already been voted in a number of European countries, South Africa, Argentina or Canada ... Nine is already doing this. But I find that to advance the rights, we need a clear political majority. As a by Francois Mitterrand in 1982 to decriminalize homosexuality, under Lionel Jospin in 1999 to vote on civil unions, I wish there was a left-wing majority in the National Assembly in 2012 voted for this bill.
How did you live last Thursday, the debate in the Assembly?
I lived well, because the debate was much more acceptable than what happened in the Law Commission (Brigitte Barèges had compared homosexuality and bestiality, read our article). We have not witnessed outrageous. It was ultimately a good debate, emotional, because for the first time in the Chamber of the National Assembly, one could debate this issue. There have been arguments against, which is normal, but interventions Franck Riester and Henriette Martinez were key freshness.
When Christian Vanneste evokes an "anthropological aberration," Is this a new grave or skidding project more by a UMP that one is accustomed to hearing on this ground?
He had already made the same declaration Law Commission (and therefore closed, Ed). This is obviously outrageous, and I totally condemn these remarks. It's written all over Vanneste, which assumes, because he is professor of philosophy, skills he does not. But in anthropology, I prefer Maurice Godelier, a specialist of great talent, who has himself put forward in the companies he has studied to the world, that the union between persons of the same sex and same-sex parents are perfectly acceptable in societies very different from ours.
He has not repeated those words during the meeting, this time, but in the corridors of the Assembly. In your opinion, is there material for a new trial Vanneste?
It has powerful associations to punish homophobic remarks to character, I trust them to use the 1881 law on freedom of the press, I myself helped to reform to make it possible in such cases.
During the debate in the Assembly on Thursday, you insisted that your text "deals only with the homoconjugalité, no same-sex parents." However, the Civil Code provisions on marriage back repeatedly on the couple's children. Can one so easily separate these two questions?
I think we can separate the two, and I believe we must do. The link, which was close yesterday, between marriage and procreation was distended. Thus, we can now marry without a family project. Conversely, a majority of first children born out of wedlock. The logic of this union is no longer what it used to. And my bill has been built to treat only of marriage, leaving aside regarding homosexual parenting. No embarrassment or reluctance on our part - the Socialist Party took a clear position for the adoption and LDCs - but because we do not want the current majority pretext of his opposition to same-sex parents to refuse to open marriage. Obviously, it was not enough.
All supporters yesterday to give "appointment in 2012, you probably also - by then, do you think the gay marriage debate will take place again?
I hope it will be, among other topics, in the context of the upcoming presidential election. But yesterday's vote was a test. I can not see tomorrow, Nicolas Sarkozy suddenly decide to marriage or same-sex parenting.
However, the UMP announced yesterday opened a working group on the rights of homosexuals. Are we to believe that things can move forward from the right by 2012?
I hope our citizens will consider themselves vaccinated! Suddenly, the day they rejected marriage, make this announcement ... It has been nine years since the right is in power and there has been no real advance fees. Nicolas Sarkozy has not kept its promises. Right, who objected to the PACS in 1999, welcomes today and considers that this is sufficient for homosexuals. This is the continuation of discrimination, not equal rights! After, homosexual couples will do what they want. Will they marry in number? That is not the issue. The problem is not statistical in nature, is a question of freedom of choice.

http://www.tetu.com/actualites/france/patrick-bloche-refuser-le-mariage-cest-le-maintien-des-discriminations-19623#.TfiXDOzK8_k;facebook

suebee

06-15-2011, 06:13 AM

http://www.365gay.com/news/appeal-planned-after-gay-marriage-ban-upheld-in-ca/

(San Francisco) The sponsors of California’s same-sex marriage ban are planning to appeal a federal judge’s decision that his predecessor had no obligation to divulge that he was in a long-term relationship with another man when he struck down the ban.

Lawyer Charles Cooper, who represents the conservative religious coalition that put the ban on a 2008 ballot, said he disagrees with the ruling Tuesday in San Francisco by U.S. Chief District Judge James Ware.
Ware upheld former Chief Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling from last year that struck down Prop. 8. Ware found Walker could not be presumed to have a personal stake in the case just because he has a same-sex partner.

Cooper says the appeal is intended to defend the will of Californians to preserve marriage as the union of a man and woman.

suebee

06-15-2011, 06:23 AM

http://www.365gay.com/news/bankruptcy-court-rules-against-gay-marriage-ban/

Bankruptcy Court Rules Against Gay-Marriage Ban

(San Francisco) Gene Balas and Carlos Morales were facing health problems and crushing financial pressures plaguing many U.S. households when they decided to file bankruptcy as a married couple.

The Obama administration said they couldn’t, citing the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
On Monday, 20 of 24 judges sitting on the country’s largest consumer bankruptcy court sided with the gay couple. In doing so, the court took the extraordinary step of declaring the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.

The ruling is the first such attack of the Defense of Marriage Act in bankruptcy court, and it adds to the building pressure on the Obama administration to make good on a February pledge to stop defending the law in court.

Balas and Morales were among the 18,000 Californian same-sex couples who wed Aug. 30, 2008, during the brief period when gay marriages were legal in the state.

“It is hurtful to hear my own government say that my marriage is not valid for purposes of federal law,” Balas said in a court filing.

Balas said he was laid off from his $200,000-a-year job in the financial industry in March 2009. The couple said they share all income and expenses.

“All the property that either of us owns is community property, and all of our debts are community debts,” said Morales, who has spent most of the relationship unemployed. “We have no prenuptial agreement, postnuptial agreement or transmutation agreement.”

The ruling written by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Thomas Donovan wasn’t the first blow to the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court. That came last year when a federal judge in Boston declared the law an unconstitutional violation of equal protection guarantees. Two other bankruptcy courts have also rejected administration attempts to dismiss joint filings made by same-sex couples, but neither of those rulings addressed the constitutionality of the act.

Monday’s strongly worded ruling contributes to the legal assault on the Defense of Marriage Act and puts added pressure on the Obama administration to stop defending the law.

Attorney General Eric Holder said in February that the U.S. Department of Justice would “remain parties to the cases and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation” despite the administration’s view that the law was unconstitutional.

After the administration’s announcement, a House of Representatives committee hired former Solicitor General Paul Clement to defend the Defense of Marriage Act against federal court challenges.

In May, U.S. Trustee Peter Anderson, who represents the federal government’s bankruptcy interests in Southern California, told the judge the Obama administration opposed the gay couple’s petition to give the Congressional committee a chance to join the case in support of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler declined to comment.

The judge noted Monday that the committee didn’t respond to requests to join the case.

Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, said the committee can’t afford to respond to every legal challenge to DOMA.

“Bankruptcy cases are unlikely to provide the path to the Supreme Court, where we imagine the question of constitutionality will ultimately be decided,” Buck said. “Obviously we believe the statute is constitutional in all its applications, including bankruptcy, but effectively defending it does not require the House to intervene in every case, especially when doing so would be prohibitively expensive.”

Clement and the committee have responded to at least seven separate legal challenges across the country, lawyers said.

Without hearing a detailed defense of the 15-year-old law, Judge Donovan ruled Monday the Defense of Marriage Act violates the couple’s equal protection guarantees. He added there is “no valid governmental basis for DOMA.”

Nineteen of Donovan’s 23 colleagues on the Los Angeles bankruptcy court signed the opinion. The couple’s lawyer, Robert Pfister, said that’s significant because it shows an overwhelming majority of that court is prepared to rule similarly.

“Litigating constitutional issues takes a lot of time and money,” Pfister said. “To have 20 judges sign on sends a strong message that almost the entire bench has decided this important constitutional issue.”

UofMfan

06-15-2011, 07:45 AM

Just one (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/second-ny-republican-says-hell-back-gay-marriage-bill.php?ref=fpb) vote shy, come on NY!

Soon

06-21-2011, 12:26 AM

B237YJBK_Tw&feature=player_embedded

Heart

06-21-2011, 07:47 AM

NYers for marriage equality head to Albany today.

http://www.towleroad.com/2011/06/rally-for-marriage-equality-tomorrow-in-albany-at-noon.html

MsTinkerbelly

06-21-2011, 07:49 AM

NYers for marriage equality head to Albany today.

http://www.towleroad.com/2011/06/rally-for-marriage-equality-tomorrow-in-albany-at-noon.html

Come on NY, you can do it!

dreadgeek

06-21-2011, 03:55 PM

The pending vote in NY on marriage equality is definitely a good sign for us queers. It is a good sign for America. It may be--at least, if I'm right it may be--a very *bad* sign for the Republican party.

Though no deal has been reached yet in the fight over the New York marriage equality bill, there's one Republican state Senator who's dropped his poker face.

James Alesi told a crowd in Albany Tuesday that he's supporting the bill, adding: "I'm a Republican -- I was born that way."

Alesi announced his support for the bill last week, the first Republican to do so. He had previously voted against marriage equality in 2009 when it failed to pass the state Senate.

"Passing marriage equality is the most important thing that I think I can do in my 20-year history as a legislator," Alesi said.

Referring to the order votes would be cast (which is alphabetical), Alesi added: "I am proud to be a Republican. I will also be proud to be the first Republican voter to vote for marriage equality in this state."

The Democratic party is 'supposed' to be the party that is on our side. If, over the next decade or two, the Republican party begins moving away from the theocratic direction they've drifted (and then rushed) toward in the last three decades and decides that, all electoral considerations notwithstanding, being in the same room with people who can barely contain their racism is just not appealing, the Democrats could be in trouble.

There are three groups in America that vote Democratic in overwhelming numbers--Blacks, queers and Latinos. The reason is pretty straightforward, looking at the GOP one would have to question whether a black, queer or Latina Republican was operating from the same 'rational self-interest' script that political scientists say that people use in their voting behavior. No matter *how* much money one makes, if you're black and queer it's very difficult to think that the GOP has your best interests at heart. But what if that no longer became the case? What if the GOP was no longer a place where theocrats and racists set the agenda? That would change the calculus quite a bit, I think.

Now, this might not come to pass and even if it does, I think that the next couple of GOP electoral majorities will drag us as close to a theocracy as the Constitution will allow. However, in doing so they will destroy that coalition and what is rebuilt will be a different, less religious, more diverse GOP. If that day ever comes, the Democratic party may be in big trouble.

Cheers
Aj

Toughy

06-21-2011, 07:53 PM

by Aj
However, in doing so they will destroy that coalition and what is rebuilt will be a different, less religious, more diverse GOP. If that day ever comes, the Democratic party may be in big trouble.

Does this mean I might become a Republican again???????? :pirate-steer:

CherylNYC

06-21-2011, 09:14 PM

Does this mean I might become a Republican again???????? :pirate-steer:

I hope not.

After all these years of hatefulness and scorn, it does feel very strange to have so many Republicans coming out in favour of marriage equality. The Republican Mayor of NYC, Michael Bloomberg, is an incredibly wealthy man. He's the single largest private donor to NYS Republican politicians, and he has said that he would cut off his private funds to any Republican NY State Senator who votes against this marriage equality bill. Time will tell if he keeps that promise, but the fact that he made the threat is significant.

dreadgeek

06-22-2011, 10:01 AM

Does this mean I might become a Republican again???????? :pirate-steer:

Toughy:

That may come to pass. I posted what I did because a very conservative friend of mine asked me if there were any circumstances under which I might vote Republican again and, to be honest, if the GOP were ever to get its mind back and decide that it *can* have a liberal wing (just like the Democrats have a conservative wing) then I might actually consider it.

I remember a GOP that was not so hostile to the idea of a social democracy and that was actually out in front on issues of civil rights (because Jim Crow laws offended the libertarian sensibilities of the more liberal Republicans). Should that party ever revive itself (and it pretty much has NO choice but to do so) then I might go back to the GOP.

Cheers
Aj

Novelafemme

06-22-2011, 10:38 AM

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2011/06/19/kosik.richard.and.john.cnn?iref=videosearch

I watched this in bed this morning. love it!!

iamkeri1

06-22-2011, 11:02 AM

dreadgeek

06-22-2011, 11:26 AM

Toughy and dreadgeek,
I can not imagine a female, a poc or a queer folk of any kind BEING a republican. There are of course, at times, good republican candidates for office who deserve our votes. For me, I will "dance with the one what brung me." I have been a democrat since I was 8 years old. and I will remain one till death.

See, my problem with the Democratic party is that they KNOW we have no place to go so they never have to go on record or actually keep any campaign promises. It's not so much policy (although I have problems with both the far conservative and far liberal wings of the Democratic party) that I differ with. Rather, I want the Democratic party to have to work for my vote. Last night on The Last Word, O'Donnell asked Howard Dean a very penetrating question "to what degree do Democrats just *say* that they not in favor of marriage equality when they are actually only saying that for electability reasons". Dean was manifestly uncomfortable with that question because, I believe, it hits very close to where the Democratic party lives. I am willing to bet that most Democratic politicians, and EVERY one that isn't in the South, is in favor of marriage equality but will not say that for one reason: cowardice.

It's a very simple calculus for the Democratic politician: Yes, hemming and hawing will piss off the queer base of the party but where else are they going to go? The GOP? Not hardly. The Greens? Probably not. So at the end of the day, they'll still get our vote no matter how much they evade. I want that to pass. I want the Democratic party to have to worry that if sell us out time and time again, we'll take our votes elsewhere.

As far as being a Republican, if certain conditions were met I could see myself voting Republican. Those conditions would have to be met before that could happen. The GOP would have to decide that they want MY vote more than want the vote of some racist. They would have to decide that they want MY vote more than they want the vote of some homophobe. If that day ever comes, I might consider it.

I remember a very different GOP than the current party. Thirty or forty years ago, the GOP was not the haven of crazies and bigots it has become now.

It is said that elected Democrats hate their base and elected Republicans fear theirs. I would like to give the Democratic party a moment of pause.

However, it seems our president has preceeded you in joining the republican party.

Naw, he's just a typical Democrat (i.e. spineless).

My hope is that next year, with the Tea Party pulling the GOP to the extreme fiscal right and the religious right pulling it to the extreme social right, the coalition will tear itself apart in the aftermath of a humiliating loss.

Cheers
Aj

iamkeri1

06-22-2011, 11:55 AM

My hope is that next year, with the Tea Party pulling the GOP to the extreme fiscal right and the religious right pulling it to the extreme social right, the coalition will tear itself apart in the aftermath of a humiliating loss.

Cheers
Aj

From your lips to the goddess ears!
Smooches,
Keri

MsTinkerbelly

06-22-2011, 12:43 PM

Has anyone heard what is happening with the vote in New York?

iamkeri1

06-23-2011, 05:11 PM

Watching MSNBC - still no vote.
Biting my finger nails!
Smooches,
Keri

Jess

06-23-2011, 05:41 PM

Obama speaks at NY Gay fundraiser tonight.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=137359508

MsTinkerbelly

06-24-2011, 10:09 AM

Obama speaks at NY Gay fundraiser tonight.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=137359508

I understand that President Obama has done what he can do with the Gay rights issues...he cannot "make laws", and change things alone.

That being said, he has been a HUGE disappointment to me on the issue of Same-sex marriage. I can get how you would be on the fence about it, and then "see the light" and want to fight for equality, but to one day be for it and then crawl back into the "I think marriage should be one man and one woman" hole because it is a more "popular" view point and you want to get re-elected....he won't get my vote this time.

But that is just my viewpoint.(f)

Toughy

06-24-2011, 10:34 AM

Anytime someone says that Obama will not get their vote again a thought runs through my head: Who in the hell are you gonna vote for then??????

If the response is I'm not gonna vote for anyone, I think about the duty and obligation of a citizen to vote.

And I flat out do not understand why anyone votes for Republicans. They seem to be a party of hate and greed.

Obama did say last night: "Ever since I have a memory about what my mother taught me, and my grandparents taught me, I believed that discriminating against people was wrong. I believed that discrimination because of somebody's sexual orientation or gender identity ran counter to who we are as a people, and it's a violation of the basic tenets on which this nation was founded. I believe that gay couples deserve the same legal rights as every other couple in this country."

I will see in my lifetime gays serving openly in the military and having the right to a civil marriage. It will happen under Obama and probably in his 2nd term. If a Republican is elected President and/or gains control of both Houses in 2012, I would bet my life neither will happen.

iamkeri1

06-24-2011, 02:47 PM

In 1967, when I was a sophomore in college, the State of Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute was overturned by the US Supreme Court in Virginia v Loving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia)

This case overturned centuries US law and custom forbidding white people from marrying people of another race or mix of races. Though many states had already overturned this practice, this Federal decision brought an end to this practise throughout the entire USA.

In February 1961, when President Obama's white mother married his Kenyan father, there were many states in which this union would not only have been illegal, but criminal. (remember when homosexuality was illegal?)

State by State solutions did not work for inter-racial couples There will always be some states who will hold to a ----ist law because it supports local prejudice or perhaps strong business interests.

This is where I get angry with the president. He has lived through this shit. He has faced discrimination. He has seen the laws change in his favor and has accomplished much as a result of these legal changes. It has been well established over decades that civil rights are just that, rights. They are not subject to legislation or a vote of the people.
Why is be falling back on that old !@#$% of State by State solution? It didn't work for poc. It didn't work for women. It isn't going to work for queer folk. Also it is angry-fying that he has backtracked on his position since he ran for office.

A logical outgrowth of the opinion he currently holds would be to promote a policy that has been under discussion for some time.

1) ALL joinings of couples/groups; homo, hetero, inter-species, whatever, should take place in a legal setting like a courthouse or justice of the peace. We should pick a name for them ... union, committment ceremony, hand-fasting, etc. A contract should be drawn up stating the terms of the joining which will form the legal basis for the couples relationship. All legal rights should accrue from THIS contract.
2) "Marriage" should be the province of religious groups. They can marry or not marry whom they wish. If people wish to continue to fight with their churches to be able to marry, that would be fine. Meanwhile they will have legal rights.

And yah, it sucks that there is no other choice for voting purposes. What we have now is a choice between lukewarm, packpeddaling, support, and the utter outrage of the current republican party.
Smooches,
Keri