Same-Sex Marriage Update [Archive]

Cyclopea

12-04-2009, 11:57 AM

(12-03) 14:52 PST Trenton, N.J. (AP) --

"Gay rights activists in New Jersey pressing lawmakers to approve a same-sex marriage law while there is still a governor in office who would sign it won assurances Thursday that the legislation would be posted for a vote.

Sen. Paul Sarlo, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he would keep a promise to gay marriage proponents by posting the marriage equality act on Monday. But, he said he'd vote against the bill, underscoring the proposal's uncertain outcome.

Senate President Richard Codey said he'd bring the bill to the full Senate next Thursday — if it clears Judiciary.

A similar proposal was defeated in New York on Wednesday in an unexpectedly wide 24-38 Senate decision, eight votes shy of the 32 needed for passage. It had passed earlier in the Assembly, and Gov. David Paterson had pledged to support it.

The result in New York, where some Democrats saw the defeat as a betrayal, prompted Sen. Ray Lesniak, a Democratic co-sponsor of the New Jersey bill, to declare, "This is not the New York Legislature. The New York Legislature is dysfunctional. We're better than that."

Supporters of the New Jersey bill have ramped up pressure in recent weeks on officials who control the legislative agenda, as the term of Gov. Jon Corzine winds down. Corzine, who leaves office Jan. 19, has said he would sign a bill legalizing same-sex marriages; his successor, Gov.-elect Chris Christie, has said he would veto it.

"There are many ways to win marriage equality; certainly to win marriage equality legislatively — which is our goal and, indeed, our obsession, we have to win while Jon Corzine is governor," said Steven Goldstein, head of Garden State Equality, the state's largest and most visible gay rights group.

Legislative leaders in New Jersey have been reluctant to put the bill to a vote — thus forcing lawmakers to take a public stance on a complex moral issue — unless they are fairly certain it would pass.

The bill needs 21 votes in the Senate, and its prospects in the chamber remained uncertain Thursday.

"God be willing, we'll have 21 votes," Lesniak told scores of gay rights advocates who had assembled outside the Statehouse.

Len Deo, president of the conservative New Jersey Family Policy Council, said he'll continue to try to defeat the bill.

"Changing the definition of marriage is not like approving a budget," said Deo, who believes the issue is too weighty for lawmakers and ought to be put directly to voters.

Gay marriage opponents, including Orthodox Jews, also rallied outside the Statehouse on Thursday.

Both houses of the Legislature must pass the bill before it goes to the governor. The legislative session wraps up a week earlier.

New Jersey currently has a civil unions law, which gives gay couples the benefits of marriage but not the title. About 4,200 couples have entered into civil unions.

Gay rights advocates say the separate-but-equal status isn't enough. Opponents argue that marriage should remain between one man and one woman.

On Thursday, Assembly Speaker Joe Roberts, who has been waiting for the Senate to act first, said he strongly supports the marriage equality bill, "especially considering how our civil union law isn't even living up to the most modest of hopes and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children."

Roberts said he would continue to discuss the issue with members of the Democratic majority caucus to gauge whether there are sufficient votes for it to pass.

Recent polls show New Jerseyans divided on the issue."

:mob::mob::mob::mob::mob: :LGBTQFlag::LGBTQFlag: :mob::mob::mob:

iamkeri1

12-04-2009, 11:11 PM

Cyclopea

12-05-2009, 03:02 PM

I continue to fail to understand why we have to pursue these remedies by law and by law suit. Call me stupid, but I do not understand and do not believe that I will ever understand, why our right to associate, marry, adopt, foster and any other free act of will protected under law for any citizen are not protected under law for us.

Below is the text of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution,
passed in 1868. That's 18 68. IT clearly states all persons. To borrow from Soujourner Truth "Ain't I a person?"

Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection

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

You're preachin' to the choir, Sistah!
:choir:

YouTube- Boston Gay Men's Chorus (BGMC): Every Sperm Is Sacred

Since the Supreme Court has refused/avoided to rule on the subject, getting equal marriage rights (not civil unions or domestic partnerships) may be the only way we can force the Supreme Court to rule on federal discrimination and overturn DOMA.
Now that same-sex citizens of Massachusetts have marriage rights, we have strong grounds to sue the federal government and try to force the Supreme Court to rule.
--------------------------------
From: Emma Ruby-Sachs
Posted: July 9, 2009 09:32 AM (Huffpo)

New DOMA Lawsuit is the Most Exciting Yet

We've been in a kind of legal blitz on the Defense of Marriage Act recently. But, in the three lawsuits filed, yesterday's challenge might have the highest chance of success.

The first of these challenges, Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management et al., filed in March by the Massachusetts-based group GLAD, argues that same-sex spouses are denied specific monetary benefits from public programs like social security under DOMA.

Not long after, Smelt v. United States of America was a filed: a lawsuit that attacks DOMA on every front possible including its violation of due process and equal protection, the right to free speech, right to privacy, right to travel and its discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.

But yesterday, the Attorney General of Massachusetts filed a complaint that chiefly argues DOMA's violation of state's sovereignty over the definition and regulation of marriage.

The genius of this complaint is that it takes a conservative argument -- that liberal states should not be permitted to impose their tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality on the rest of the country -- and turns it around to benefit a state that really pioneered gay rights in the U.S.

Even a conservative justice would support the notion that federal encroachment over those few areas where states have sovereign jurisdiction is unconstitutional. In this case, that principle supports, at the very least, limiting the application of DOMA when it affects state programs with federal funding.

If a conservative justice chooses to oppose the argument put forward by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, then their logic could be used in the future to justify federal enforcement of equal rights on those states that oppose same-sex marriage. If state's no longer have absolute jurisdiction over marriage, a liberal government can interfere with a conservative state's policies.

Coakley's lawsuit will likely be joined with Gill et al. and the two will proceed as the most viable challenge to DOMA (many think that Smelt threw too many punches and doesn't have the same institutional support as the Massachusetts suits since the lawyers involved were not working closely with Lambda Legal and other LGBT litigation groups with long histories in the gay rights movement).

It also has the support of Senator John Kerry. Kerry, a lawyer by training, argued way back in 1996 in the Senate, that DOMA was unconstitutional.

His reasoning then, that the full faith and credit clause would be threatened by a law that refused to recognize marriage rights potentially given by some states and not all, has not been popular in modern law suits. Perhaps this is because the trend on hot button social issues has been towards state sovereignty and full faith and credit undermines that sovereignty.

Hence the genius of Coakley's argument.

We can all look forward to the slow, grueling process that is the march to the Supreme Court. And hopefully, by that time, a number of new states will join the same-sex marriage party.

But Coakley's suit is significant. It is a smart, novel attack on a law that is clearly unconstitutional, but also has the support of a waning, yet still significant portion of the American population."
----------------------------------------

Here's our lovely president defending gay apartheid:

"Obama rep: MA law can't force us to pay married benefits

November 01, 2009
WASHINGTON (AP)— States that allow gay marriage can't force the federal government to provide benefits to those couples, the Obama administration argued Friday in court papers in a lawsuit by Massachusetts.

The Justice Department is at odds with Massachusetts — the first state to allow gay marriage — over a 1996 federal law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Massachusetts sued in July, saying that law is discriminatory and deprives gay couples in the state of some federal spousal benefits.

The Obama administration agrees the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is discriminatory and wants it repealed, but says it has an obligation to defend laws enacted by Congress while they are on the books and can be reasonably defended.

The law "does not prohibit gay and lesbian couples from marrying, nor does it prohibit the states from acknowledging same-sex marriages," according to the court filing by Assistant Attorney General Tony West.

Massachusetts, the filing continues, is trying to claim individuals have a right to federal benefits based on marital status.

"There is, however, no fundamental right to marriage-based federal benefits," according to the 36-page filing.

Joe Solmonese, head of the nation's largest gay rights group, Human Rights Campaign, said the law is discriminatory and the Obama administration should not defend it.

"While we hope Massachusetts prevails in this lawsuit, we are also looking to the administration to put its full weight behind efforts to repeal DOMA in Congress," Solmonese said.

The 1996 law denies federal recognition of gay marriage and gives states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Massachusetts is the first state to sue the government over the DOMA law. Some gay couples have filed their own lawsuits challenging the law, but this case is unique in pitting a state against the federal government over the issue.

Justice Dept. spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said any state "can allow gay and lesbian citizens to marry and can make its own decisions about how to treat married couples when it comes to state benefits."

"Massachusetts is not being denied the right to provide benefits to same-sex couples and, in fact, has enacted a law to provide equal health benefits to same-sex spouses," she said.

In earlier filings, the government has sought to dismiss the DOMA lawsuits brought by individuals.

The Massachusetts case could also have implications for Democratic Party politics. The Massachusetts Attorney General, Martha Coakley, is trying to win the Senate seat of the late Edward Kennedy, at the same time her office is leading the lawsuit against the Democratic administration on the issue of gay rights.

Coakley's spokeswoman, Emily LaGrassa, said Coakley would not comment on the government's filing.

"We received it, and we will file our response in court," LaGrassa said.

The lawsuit brought by Massachusetts says the approximately 16,000 same-sex couples who have married since the state allowed it in 2004 are being unfairly denied federal benefits given to heterosexual couples.

Those benefits include federal income tax credits, employment benefits, retirement benefits, health insurance coverage and Social Security payments, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit also argues that the federal law requires the state to violate the constitutional rights of its citizens by treating married heterosexual couples and married same-sex couples differently when determining eligibility for Medicaid benefits and when determining whether the spouse of a veteran can be buried in a Massachusetts veterans' cemetery."
________________________

Here's where federal judges start telling the Obama administration to go to hell:

US Judges Rebel Over DOMA
Two California rulings reiterate support for federal employee spousal benefits
Published: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 10:52 AM CST
BY ARTHUR S. LEONARD

In two separate cases, judges of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, on November 18 and 19, responded to the interference by the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) with the relief they had ordered earlier this year on behalf of gay court employees who sought to enroll their spouses in the federal employee benefits plan program.

In both cases, the employees had married their same-sex partners in California during the “window period” prior to the passage of Proposition 8. Because of a California Supreme Court ruling after Prop 8 was enacted, those marriages remain valid in the state.

On November 18, Judge Stephen Reinhardt ordered that Brad Levenson, a deputy federal public defender for the Central District of California, be compensated for the expense of obtaining equivalent insurance for his husband, retroactively and until he is allowed to enroll him.

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, on November 19, took things a step further and ordered that OPM drop its opposition to enrolling Karen Golinski’s wife in the program and that the insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield, do so. Kozinski joined Reinhardt in ordering retroactive compensation for the cost of comparable insurance.

What was most interesting about the orders, however, was how they took on the federal Executive Branch on behalf of the circuit’s gay employees. Reinhardt not only reiterated his early argument about why the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional in blocking the extension of benefits, but also demolished the Justice Department’s argument in the pending DOMA challenge brought by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders in Boston’s US District Court.

DOJ’s strained “neutrality” defense asserts that because of the uncertainty about whether the Hawaii Supreme Court would allow same-sex marriage in 1996, Congress was justified in enacting DOMA to keep the federal government from getting embroiled in controversy over same-sex marriage by maintaining the status quo that to date had tied federal recognition of marriages to the broad national consensus among states about their parameters.

Reinhart, viewing DOMA as an instance of sex discrimination, believes the courts should hold government claims in defending the law to a high standard, and wrote that this “post hoc justification would not survive the heightened scrutiny that… likely applies to Levenson’s claim. Even under the more deferential rational basis review, however, this argument fails. DOMA did not preserve the status quo vis-a-vis the relationship between federal and state definitions of marriage; to the contrary, it disrupted the long-standing practice of the federal government deferring to each state’s decisions as to the requirements for a valid marriage.”

Congress was not preserving its neutrality, Reinhart found, it was joining in the fray.

He ordered that the costs and methods of compensating Levenson, retroactively and going forward, should be worked out.

Unlike Reinhardt, who ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional for purposes of the benefits program, Kozinski had resolved Karen Golinski’s complaint by creatively interpreting the federal employee benefits statute to give her eligibility. The only feasible solution going forward, he found, was to reissue his order that she be enrolled in the federal employee plan. He ordered OPM to stop interfering with his order, and noted, in rejecting other proposed remedies, that enrolling her wife would cost nothing, since her children were already part of a family plan she had under the program.

Kozinski found that OPM’s intervention to block his previous order implicates “the autonomy and independence of the Judiciary as a co-equal branch of government,” since the circuit has sole authority to resolve court employee grievances. “In effect,” the judge continued, “OPM has claimed that its interpretations of the rights and benefits of judicial employees are entitled to supremacy over those of the Judiciary.” He noted that nobody would seriously argue that the Treasury Department could refuse to issue paychecks because it disagreed with the pay policies established by the courts for their personnel, so why should OPM be entitled to interfere with this decision about court employees’ benefits?

So, Kozinski has thrown down the gauntlet to the Executive Branch, and Reinhardt has declared that the Justice Department’s main defense of DOMA, advanced in the pending case in Boston, is wrong. The 9th Circuit is in rebellion against the Justice Department’s continued obstinate defense of DOMA, a statute that President Barack Obama has condemned as discriminatory and whose repeal he has advocated — if only faintly so far.

It is worth noting that Kozinski was appointed to the 9th Circuit by President Ronald Reagan and is generally seen as a conservative, but on matters of fairness to the employees of his court, he insists on equality and vindication of rights.
-----------------------------------
:cheer:

Cyclopea

12-05-2009, 03:16 PM

Now let's look at hotty Heather again, here with her fiance Carolyn:

http://12.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kr8hlrwkeP1qa75lro1_400.jpg

:drool: (What, no "stalker" smilie?! :shocking:)

Cyclopea

12-19-2009, 02:05 PM

D.C. mayor signs same-sex marriage bill
December 18, 2009 3:45 p.m. EST

Washington (CNN) -- "The nation's capital city took a major step Friday toward legalizing same-sex marriage.

District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty signed a measure recognizing such marriages as legal. The district council overwhelming passed the bill Tuesday, following a similar vote December 1.

Fenty signed the measure at All Souls Church, a Unitarian Universalist house of worship in the northwest part of the district that is known for its diversity and for the welcoming of same-sex couples.

The measure now goes to Congress for a 30-day review period, but it's considered unlikely that the Democratic majority on Capitol Hill would block the bill. By law, Congress has the right to review and overturn laws created by the District of Columbia's council.

If the measure becomes law, the district will join Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and Iowa in legalizing same-sex marriages. A law legalizing such marriages in New Hampshire takes effect January 1.
Earlier this year, lawmakers in Maine approved a measure legalizing same-sex marriages, but voters in the state last month passed a referendum to overturn the new law. Last week, New York's state Senate defeated a bill that would legalize such marriages. A similar bill stalled last week in New Jersey's state Senate.

Friday's signing ceremony prompted approval from gay rights groups. The Human Rights Campaign called it "an important and historic step towards equal dignity, equal respect and equal rights for same-sex couples."
The measure "reinforces the legal equality and religious freedoms to which all D.C. residents are entitled," the organization's president, Joe Solmonese, said in a written statement.

The National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, promised earlier in the week that "the fight is not over."

"Politicians on the city council are acting as if they have the right through legislation to deprive citizens of D.C. of their core civil right to vote, but we will not let them get away with it," said Brian Brown, the organization's executive director.

"We will go to Congress, we will go to the courts, we will fight for the people's right to vote," he said.

Opposition to the legislation also came from the Catholic Church's Archdiocese of Washington, which has said that the measure could restrict the church's ability to provide charity services, apparently because the church might cut back on services rather than comply with the measure's requirements."

NotAnAverageGuy

12-21-2009, 10:01 PM

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6781652.html
Mexico City assembly legalize same sex marriage

Cyclopea

12-28-2009, 08:33 PM

http://towleroad.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c730253ef0128768a0445970c-pi

"Gay marriage in Argentina is 1st in Latin America

By ALMUDENA CALATRAVA, Associated Press Writer
59 mins ago

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina – Two Argentine men were joined Monday in Latin America's first same-sex marriage, traveling to the southernmost tip of the Americas to find a welcoming spot to wed.

Gay rights activists Jose Maria Di Bello and Alex Freyre were married in Ushuaia, the capital of Argentina's Tierra del Fuego state, exchanging rings at an informal ceremony witnessed by state and federal officials.

"My knees didn't stop shaking," said the 41-year-old Di Bello. "We are the first gay couple in Latin America to marry."

The slim, dark-haired couple previously tried to marry in the Argentine capital of Buenos Aires but were thwarted by city officials citing conflicting judicial rulings. Argentina's Constitution is silent on whether marriage must be between a man and a woman, effectively leaving the matter to state and city officials.
This time around, they traveled to a remote seaside fishing village at the end of South America that is closer to Antarctica than Buenos Aires. The ceremony took place during the region's brief summer thaw.

Tierra del Fuego Gov. Fabiana Rios said in a statement that gay marriage "is an important advance in human rights and social inclusion and we are very happy that this has happened in our state."
An official representing the federal government's antidiscrimination agency, Claudio Morgado, attended the wedding in the city of Ushuaia and called the occasion "historic."

Many in Argentina and throughout Latin America remain opposed to gay marriage, particularly the Roman Catholic Church.
"The decision took me by surprise and I'm concerned," Bishop Juan Carlos, of the southern city Rio Gallegos, told the Argentine news agency DyN. He called the marriage "an attack against the survival of the human species."

But same-sex civil unions have been legalized in Uruguay, Buenos Aires, Mexico City and some states in Mexico and Brazil. Marriage generally carries more exclusive rights such as adopting children, inheriting wealth and enabling a partner to gain citizenship.

Di Bello, an executive at the Argentine Red Cross, met Freyre, 39, executive director of the Buenos Aires AIDS Foundation, at an HIV awareness conference. Both are HIV-positive.
At Monday's indoor civil ceremony, the grooms wore sport coats without ties, and had large red ribbons draped around their necks in solidarity with other people living with HIV.
Di Bello said the city of Ushuaia initially declined to authorize the marriage but went ahead after the couple received backing from the state of Tierra del Fuego.
"We filed an administrative appeal to the government of Tierra del Fuego, which finally authorized the wedding."

Legal analyst Andres Gil Dominguez said the Tierra del Fuego government appeared to base its authorization of a broad interpretation of the Argentine Constitution and obligations under international treaties.
Gov. Rios said the state's approval was based on a ruling by a Buenos Aires judge who declared two provisions of the constitution discriminatory and gave the go-ahead for the Dec. 1 marriage, which was then blocked by another judge's ruling based on civil law.
Individual state's may not have final say over same-sex marriages for long.
A bill that would legalize gay marriage was introduced in Argentina's Congress in October but it has stalled without a vote.

Argentina's Supreme Court currently is analyzing appeals by same-sex couples whose marriages were rejected. A Supreme Court justice said on Monday that the high court would likely rule on issues of same-sex marriage sometime in 2010, but could defer to Congress if legislation moves forward.
Only seven countries in the world allow gay marriages: Canada, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands and Belgium. U.S. states that permit same-sex marriage are Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut and New Hampshire.

Earlier this month, lawmakers in Mexico City made it the city the first in Latin America to legalize same-sex marriage. Leftist Mayor Marcelo Ebrard was widely expected to sign the measure into law."

iamkeri1

01-04-2010, 06:43 PM

Fantastic!
May they be happy together for many years.
Smiling,
Keri

QueenofQueens

01-04-2010, 06:55 PM

GinaSofia

01-04-2010, 07:22 PM

Meanwhile, a CA law went into effect on Jan. 1st ensuring that those who were legally married here before prop 8 passed retain all legal protections and status as married couples. It also protects those legally married in other states/countries after prop 8 by affording them the same rights/protections sans being able to claim the designation of "marriage".

Hey QoQ,

Do you know where I can get more info on this new law?
I tried to google but found nada.
I'd love to have something to refer to when dealing with the
folks who keep insisting that my marriage is no longer valid.
TIA!

QueenofQueens

01-04-2010, 07:31 PM

Hey QoQ,

Do you know where I can get more info on this new law?
I tried to google but found nada.
I'd love to have something to refer to when dealing with the
folks who keep insisting that my marriage is no longer valid.
TIA!

Hey Gina,

No problem. Here's a link to Equality CA's website with an article that lists the particulars.
>>Linky<< (http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=5609563&content_id={913FF32C-BE83-428B-9DBE-82D429183E7E}&notoc=1)
I see you're already experiencing the issues that arise when minorities are not afforded equal protection under federal law. It's such fucking bullshit that you have to endure this sort of fallout due to people's ignorance. Beyond bullshit, it could be potentially dangerous for ANY legally married couple. Sorry for ranting, this shit just makes my blood boil.

Happy New Year, G
xox
QoQ

Cyclopea

01-05-2010, 11:56 PM

The legalization of gay marriage went into effect in New Hampshire on January 1st, however legislation has been filed to repeal the law and anti-marriage opponents are organizing a petition drive to create an amendment that would define marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Determining the rights of minorities should NEVER be subject to popular vote, New Hampshire gives us an opportunity to make that clear, should we seize it before it's too late.

Meanwhile, a CA law went into effect on Jan. 1st ensuring that those who were legally married here before prop 8 passed retain all legal protections and status as married couples. It also protects those legally married in other states/countries after prop 8 by affording them the same rights/protections sans being able to claim the designation of "marriage".

Thank you for these updates. The assholes in NH circulating petitions to get an anti-marriage amendment on this year's town meeting agenda are particularly disheartening. I find it hard to believe it will pass but after Maine who the hell knows. It's so easy to mobilize the stupid. :annoyed:

In other news the NJ Senate will vote this Thursday on a same sex marriage bill that is almost certain to fail. From Pam's House Blend:

" There will be a vote on gay marriage in the lame duck session of the New Jersey state legislature, NBCNewYork.com has learned.

"We're gonna post the bill and see what happens," Senate President Dick Codey told us.

Codey, and even sponsors of same sex marriage legislation are skeptical if there are enough votes to pass in the State Senate.

For days now, Codey has been weighing whether or not to allow a vote in the waning days of this session, which ends next Monday.

"The members for the most part said go ahead and post it," Codey explained in coming to his decision, while acknowledging there was a minority of his fellow democrats who urged him not to bring it to a vote.

The rush to get a vote in is because outgoing Governor Jon Corzine, who will sign the bill if passed, will leave office on January 19. His successor, Chris Christie, has said he would veto it."

This from Garden State Equality:

"MEMBERS: BREAKING NEWS FOR YOU TO FORWARD IMMEDIATELY TO YOUR FRIENDS, RELATIVES, ORGANIZATIONAL AND CONGREGATIONAL COLLEAGUES -- AND TO YOUR LIST SERVS AND BLOGS:

The New Jersey State Senate has just announced it is voting this Thursday, January 7, 2010 on the marriage equality bill. We need each of you to join us for this most momentus day in our lives.

We ask you to meet us in front of the State House in Trenton Thursday at 10:30 am, when we will march from the State House to the State House Annex, and then talk to legislators before the vote.

You may meet us in front of the State House earlier than 10:30 am Thursday to help us organize. We will be there earlier whenever you arrive. The address of the State House, for GPS and MapQuest purposes, is 125 West State Street. Park at the Trenton Marriott garage, 1 West Lafayette Street.

Thursday afternoon, immediately after the Senate vote, Garden State Equality will hold a news conference and a free member reception at the Trenton Marriott Ballroom, 1 West Lafayette Street. We ask all of you, members and journalists, to be there.

For further information

Journalists: Contact Chair Steven Goldstein, cell (917) 449-8918.

Members: Contact Co-Field Director Dani Bernstein, cell (909) 561-3738.

-----------------------------------------------------------
On a personal note, if I see one more big mainstream article stating that civil unions/domestic partnerships provide all the same rights of marriage I will freakin' scream. I just read that as the last line in an AP story yesterday and it is sooo misleading and makes gays and lesbians appear to be seeking some sort of social approval from the 'phobes, rather than critically important legal and financial equality.
GRRRRRRRRRRR.....
:annoyed::annoyed:
:boink:

Cyclopea

01-06-2010, 12:08 AM

From PinkNews.co.uk:

Malawi gay marriage trial expected next week

By Jessica Geen • January 5, 2010 - 15:28

The trial of two gay men arrested for holding a wedding party in Malawi is expected to begin on January 15th.

Tiwonge Chimbalanga and Steven Monjeza are being held in custody in Chichiri Prison and were denied bail by a judge yesterday in the city of Blantyre.

Judge Nyakwawa Usiwa-Usiwa said the couple were at risk from mob violence if they were released, although this claim was rejected by their lawyers.

He said they would be bailed by January 10th if prosecutors had finished investigating them.

The pair had a traditional engagement ceremony in the south African country on Saturday December 26th and were arrested two days later.

Malawi punishes homosexuality with up to 14 years in prison.

According to gay rights activist Peter Tatchell, who is in contact with campaigners in the country, the men will deny the three charges of unnatural practices between males and gross indecency.

He said they would challenge the prosecution on the grounds that it is illegal under the equal rights and non-discrimination clauses of the Malawian constitution.

In a news release, Tatchell said the couple had been jeered in court and disowned by their families.

He said they were suffering "appalling" conditions in prison and are being threatened with forced physical examinations to determine whether they have had sex.

But he added that they had been given food and money by supporters and a legal term had been assembled.

Their case is being helped by the Malawian human rights group, the Centre for the Development of People (CEDEP).

The centre's executive director, Gift Trapence, told PinkNews.co.uk the men's lawyers are fighting for the trial to be held in a higher court where more judges are sitting.

He said: "Because of the penal code in Malawi, gays are seen as unnatural. They are not visible.

"This is the first case. There is a lot of attention in Malawi and lots of newspaper coverage. Gays are afraid of the law, they are not open, they are not visible.

"The problem is the violence is there but it is not reported. There are lots of blackmail issues. They think they will be prosecuted.

Trapence added that arrests such as this would hamper HIV prevention work.

An administrator for CEDEP was arrested yesterday on charges that the centre's safer sex HIV education materials are pornographic.

Tatchell described the charges as "trumped up" and said the arrest was "almost certainly in retaliation" for CEDEP's public support of Chimbalanga and Monjeza.

The group called today for a nationwide referendum on homosexuality, saying that consensus was needed.

UK-based gay rights group OutRage! is collecting donations to be sent to the couple's legal team in Malawi.

To send a donation, post a cheque payable to OutRage! to OutRage!, PO Box 17816, London SW14 8WT. Enclose a note giving your name and address and stating that your donation is for the Malawi Defence Campaign. OutRage! will pass all money donated to the couple's defence team in Malawi.

Semantics

01-07-2010, 05:59 PM

January 7, 2010
NJ Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 5:01 p.m. ET

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) -- New Jersey's state Senate has defeated a bill to legalize gay marriage, leaving it unlikely the state will have a gay marriage law in the very near future.

The bill needed 21 votes to pass; only 14 senators approved the measure Thursday.

Gay rights advocates had pushed hard to get the bill passed before Jan. 19, when Republican Chris Christie becomes governor. Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine promised to sign the bill if approved by the Legislature but Christie has said he would veto it.

New Jersey offers civil unions that grant the legal rights of marriage to gay couples. Five states -- Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont -- allow gay marriage.

The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/07/nyregion/AP-US-Gay-Marriage-NJ.html)

:(

Sorry friends.

Cyclopea

01-07-2010, 06:11 PM

The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/07/nyregion/AP-US-Gay-Marriage-NJ.html)

:(

Sorry friends.

Thanks for the update Semantics! :)
Lambda Legal announced after the loss that they will be pursuing litigation on that matter.
We all kinda knew it was a long shot, but still :bigcry:.

Cyclopea

01-07-2010, 06:15 PM

Catholic Portugal set to legalise gay marriage

by Anne Le Coz
Wed Jan 6, 12:12 pm ET

LISBON (AFP) – Catholic Portugal, traditionally one of Europe's most socially conservative countries, is expected to approve the legalisation of gay marriage on Friday with a minimum of fuss.

With the governing Socialists and other left-wing parties enjoying a strong majority, the new law is likely to sail through the first reading debate and gain final approval before a visit by Pope Benedict XVI, due in Portugal in May.

In contrast to Spain, where the lead-up to the legalisation of gay marriage in 2005 brought hundreds of thousands of demonstrators onto the streets, the bill in Portugal has provoked only muted opposition even from the right.
While normally vocal on the role of marriage and the family in society, the Catholic Church has refused to mobilise on a subject which, according to Lisbon's Cardinal Patriarch Jose Policarpo, is "parliament's responsibility".
"I think the Portuguese people have learnt one of the fundamental tenets of democracy: respect for the rights of the individual," Miguel Vale de Almeida, Portugal's first openly-gay lawmaker who was elected in September, told AFP.

Vale de Almeida, who is the Socialists' pointman on the legislation, said there is now a political majority in favour of gay marriage and that it is "too simplistic to link Catholicism and conservatism."

According to poll conducted late last year by the Eurosondagem institute, while a strong majority (68.4 percent) of Portuguese are opposed to adoptions by same-sex couples, they are more evenly divided when it comes to gay marriage with 49.5 percent against, with 45.5 percent in favour.

On Tuesday, campaigners handed a petition with more than 90,000 signatures to demand a referendum on the subject into parliament.
But having had its fingers burnt by two referendums which preceded the legalisation of abortion in 2007, the government has ruled out consulting with the public as the measure was part of its manifesto in last year's election.

Prime Minister Jose Socrates' Socialists may have lost their majority in the September 27 election, but still command the support of other left-wing parties in parliament who should guarantee that the gay marriage bill is passed.

While opposed to the concept of same-sex "marriages", the centre-right opposition Social Democrat party says it is favour of a civil partnership that would give gays and lesbians the same rights as heterosexual couples minus adoptions.

Deputies are also expected on Friday to vote two other bills submitted by the Green party, the Left Bloc and others which would grant gay and lesbian couples the right to adopt children.

If the gay marriage proposals do pass through parliament, they will the have to go through a parliamentary commission before coming back for the final approval.

According to media reports, both the government and the Catholic Church wants the gay marriage issue to be resolved before the visit of the pope, scheduled for May 11-14.

iamkeri1

01-07-2010, 11:43 PM

Hmmmm, so what's the weather like in Portugal?
Smooches,
Keri

Cyclopea

01-08-2010, 02:08 PM

More good news from Pam's House Blend:

Portugal's Parliament has voted for marriage equality
by: Lurleen
Fri Jan 08, 2010 at 10:55:58 AM EST

Congratulations Portugal! As predicted, Portugal's Parliament easily passed a marriage equality law earlier today. The vote was 125 to 99.
"This law rights a wrong,'' Prime Minister Jose Socrates said in a speech to lawmakers, adding that it ''simply ends pointless suffering."

Conservative President Anibal Cavaco Silva is thought unlikely to veto the Socialist government's bill, which won the support of all left-of-center parties. His ratification would allow the first gay marriage ceremonies to take place in April -- a month before Pope Benedict XVI is due on an official visit to Portugal.

Portugal has offered civil unions to same-sex couples since 2001, but they did not provide some key benefits that come with marriage involving pensions, inheritance and the sharing of names. Married same-sex couples still will not be allowed to adopt, so the work continues.

Cyclopea

01-08-2010, 02:19 PM

High-stakes gay marriage trial to begin in Calif.

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer – Thu Jan 7, 9:41 pm ET

SAN FRANCISCO – The national debate over same-sex marriage will take center stage in a California courtroom next week at a closely watched federal trial that could ultimately become the landmark case that determines whether gay Americans have a right to marry.

The case will decide a challenge to California's gay marriage ban that was approved by voters in 2008, and the ruling will likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. How the high court rules in the case could set the precedent for whether gay marriage becomes legal nationwide.

"This could be our Brown vs. Board of Education," said former Clinton White House adviser Richard Socarides, referring to the 1954 Supreme Court decision that outlawed racial segregation in schools and other public facilities. "Certainly the plaintiffs will tell you they are hoping for a broad ruling that says that any law that treats someone differently because of sexual orientation violates the U.S. Constitution."

The case marks the first federal trial to examine if the U.S. Constitution permits bans on gay marriages, and the challenge is being bankrolled by a group of liberal Hollywood activists led by director Rob Reiner.

They retained two of the nation's most influential lawyers to argue the case — former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson and trial lawyer David Boies. The lawyers are best known as the rivals who represented George W. Bush and Al Gore in the "hanging chad" dispute over the 2000 presidential election in Florida, and have tapped the talent of their respective law firms in preparation for the trial and plan to take turns questioning witnesses.

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic Attorney General Jerry Brown are defendants in the lawsuit by virtue of their prominent positions in California government, but both men opposed the ban and have refused to defend the suit in court. Schwarzenegger has taken no position on the case, while Brown filed a brief saying he agreed with the Olson-Boies team that gays have the same federal constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals.

The sponsors of the gay marriage ban, a coalition of religious and conservative groups, joined the case as defendants. Their legal team is being led by Charles Cooper, a veteran trial lawyer who worked for the Reagan-era Justice Department. Cooper is being assisted by a team of lawyers from his own firm, along with a Christian legal group based in Arizona.

Presiding over the case is U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, a Republican named to the bench in 1989 by the first President Bush. Walker, who has a reputation as an independent thinker, was randomly assigned the lawsuit, put it on a fast-track to trial and has said he thinks it raises serious civil rights claims. During a pretrial hearing in August, the judge pointedly scolded Schwarzenegger for remaining neutral "on an issue of this magnitude and importance."

Walker says the case is so important that the court has taken the rare step of allowing videotaping of the proceedings so the public can watch. The trial, scheduled to start Monday, will air on YouTube every day.

To prevail, Olson and Boies will try to prove that denying gays the right to wed serves no legitimate public purpose and that Proposition 8 was motivated by legally irrelevant religious or moral beliefs or even anti-gay bias. The ballot initiative, which passed with 52 percent of the vote, supplanted a California Supreme Court ruling that had legalized same-sex marriages.

Boies and Olson say the ban is a blatant violation of Constitutional rights to equal protection and due process.

Testimony in the trial will explore many of the most contentious political arguments surrounding the issue. Leaders of the campaign to outlaw gay marriages have been called as witnesses, along with competing academic experts who will be cross-examined on topics ranging from how having same-sex parents affects children and if gay unions undermine male-female marriages.

Cooper's team plans to argue that same-sex marriage still is a social experiment and that it is therefore prudent for states like California to take a wait-and-see approach. Their witnesses will testify that governments historically have sanctioned traditional marriage as a way to promote responsible child-rearing and that this remains a valid justification for limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

"What sets this case apart is the strategy up until now, in the last 10 or 15 years, has been by the national organizations that support same-sex marriage to attack this on a state-by-state basis," said Brian Raum, who is helping to defend Proposition 8. "The impact of those cases, obviously, was limited to their respective states. But the potential impact in this case goes beyond the state of California."

Kristin Perry, 45, is the title plaintiff in the case registered on legal dockets as Perry v. Schwarzenegger. She and her lesbian partner of 10 years, Sandra Stier, 47, got married in San Francisco in 2004 when Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered city officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Six months later, they were among the 4,000 couples who had their unions invalidated by the state Supreme Court.

Perry and Steier, who have four sons, agreed to become involved in the challenge because they believe that a judicial approach grounded in constitutional law provides the best chance of success. Still, many gay rights groups objected to the timing of the lawsuit, fearing it was too soon to mount a federal case.

"All the other experiences around this have felt so politicized and in some ways outside of my control," Perry said. "But being in a courtroom where the rules of discussion are so different from a political discussion, I am feeling like as an American I have a right to ask someone if this is fair, someone whose job it is to do this every day and can make as educated a judgment about this as maybe anyone has made."

The plaintiffs will have plenty of star power with Olson and Boies. Olson helped Bush win the presidency in 2000 after the recount battle in Florida, and later served as the president's solicitor general — the lawyer who argues the government's cases before the Supreme Court. Boies represented Gore in 2000.

"The hope of the people behind this, in recruiting Olson and Boies, was to put a bipartisan face on this issue," said Jane Schacter, a constitutional law expert at Stanford. "I do think it's striking that one of the nation's senior conservative litigators is leading the charge, and it does cause some people maybe to take a second look, to see the issue through a different prism."

Jess

01-11-2010, 08:07 AM

I'm not exactly sure how to catch it live on youtube, but I will certainly be trying!

http://www.kqed.org/news/specialcoverage/samesexmarriage/

Good luck Cali! Good luck all of us!

SuperFemme

01-11-2010, 10:31 AM

The Supreme court has barred cameras in the courtroom. No youtube. The haters get to hide.

The reason? Because some of the witnesses would change their testimony if televised.

Seriously?

They are afraid of being judged. The irony does NOT escape me.

SuperFemme

01-11-2010, 10:34 AM

http://www.mercurynews.com/samesexmarriage/ci_14165406

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is blocking a broadcast of the trial on California's same-sex marriage ban, at least for the first few days.
The federal trial is scheduled to begin this morning in San Francisco. It will consider whether the Proposition 8 gay marriage ban approved by California voters in November 2008 is legal.
The high court today said it will not allow video of the trial to be posted on YouTube.com (http://youtube.com/), even with a delay, until the justices have more time to consider the issue. It said that Monday's order will be in place at least until Wednesday. Opponents of the broadcast say they fear witness testimony might be affected if cameras are present. Justice Stephen Breyer said he would have allowed cameras while the court considers the matter.

Jess

01-11-2010, 11:01 AM

Soon

01-11-2010, 04:24 PM

Sharp Words Open California Same-Sex Marriage Case (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/us/12prop8.html?hp)

Soon

01-11-2010, 06:25 PM

Cyclopea

01-11-2010, 07:00 PM

Prop 8 Trial Tracker (http://prop8trialtracker.com/)

Here's a description of this site from www.joemygod.blogspot.com:
Follow the Courage Campaign's Rick Jacobs live blogging from the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial. He's typing as people speak and it can be a bit confusing, but Jacobs is doing a great job getting the gist of what everybody is saying. You'll need to refresh to see the updates. Bookmark the site for the remainder of the trial.

WOW that is fascinating! EXCELLENT resource since the 'phobes have insisted they can only testify against our equality in secret.
Unfuckingbelievable that we can't view the proceedings.
If anyone finds an actual complete transcript, please post it. (The link that is)
Thanks again HowSoonIsNow. :)

Toughy

01-11-2010, 07:05 PM

well that should make the Marriage Equality folks and the rest of 'our' leaders who opposed this case happy........

a whole bunch o chicken shits

Just_G

01-11-2010, 07:23 PM

OJ Simpson's murder trial was aired and it didn't affect people the way this does. What a crock-o-shit that it isn't televised!

SuperFemme

01-11-2010, 07:46 PM

Its not totally impossible the televised thing.
A decision will be reached by the SCOTUS by Wed.

Which will be a good indicator on how this issue will fare in the next level.

Cyclopea

01-11-2010, 08:05 PM

here's another good "live-blog":
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/

Soon

01-12-2010, 03:55 PM

Soon

01-12-2010, 04:08 PM

YouTube- Rachel Maddow-Gay marriage opponents win right to hide

Jess

01-12-2010, 04:15 PM

Prop 8 Trial Tracker, Day Two (http://prop8trialtracker.com/)

I realize that it'll be tough to keep everybody's interest up over two or three weeks, but you should really drop in on Rick Jacobs' live-blogging of Perry vs. Schwarzenegger today. Just now the anti-gay side is presenting witnesses who are arguing that marriage is "from the Bible."

Thanks for the Day 2 link. I looked earlier but I guess it wasn't up yet! I can hardly wait to see how they endorse supporting marriage if it IS "from the Bible".. What happened to separation of church and state?

Cyclopea

01-12-2010, 08:57 PM

I don't understand how Hak-Shing William Tam, one of the five original sponsors of Prop 8, can be allowed to simply withdraw from a case challenging the constitutionality of Prop 8.
I can understand why the 'phobes want him off the case since his writings clearly prove anti-gay bias. But that is all the more reason for "our side" to want him deposed.
He still can and will be deposed, right???
Inquiring minds want to know...

All in all a pretty interesting day.

Anxiously awaiting Supreme Court's YouTube decision tomorrow.
:LGBTQFlag:

ETA: did anyone waste 2 minutes of their life reading douchebag Ed Meese's NYT op/ed? What an idiot.

Jess

01-12-2010, 09:44 PM

Part of the Day2 summary from Rick Jacobs ( who has been blogging the proceedings)

" This time, in this trial of homosexuality and of America, we have the best conservative legal advocate in the nation on our side along with arguably the best advocacy team in Olson, Boutros, Boies and Stewart, among others. And they are backed up by decades of hard work from Jenny Pizer and so many other brilliant advocates in the LGBT community. This time, though, it’s not the gays stirring it up; it’s the establishment demanding equality for all of America."

Do you think the trial will discuss the economic discrimination as well as the social aspects? It seems thus far to be mostly based on social issues. Marriage would afford same sex couples equal insurance coverage instead of the scant and unequal plans available today. Not to mention our spouses could receive social security benefits whereas now, the go right back into the pot since we aren't married.

I am very grateful to Rick Jacobs for being there and sharing this process with us!

I am also honestly a little surprised that more attention and support hasn't been obvious here. I wonder why.

Cyclopea

01-12-2010, 11:20 PM

Do you think the trial will discuss the economic discrimination as well as the social aspects? It seems thus far to be mostly based on social issues. Marriage would afford same sex couples equal insurance coverage instead of the scant and unequal plans available today. Not to mention our spouses could receive social security benefits whereas now, the go right back into the pot since we aren't married.

I am also honestly a little surprised that more attention and support hasn't been obvious here. I wonder why.

This is where this case gets really tricky. They can not, and will not present anything related to FEDERAL marriage benefits, only state benefits. DOMA will not be addressed in any way. It's the "elephant in the room". Equal insurance benefits, social security, immigration, estate taxes, etc. are all based on FEDERAL recognition of same-sex marriage, not state.

This is why "gay activists" wanted to wait until DOMA is overturned before bringing such a case. And that process has already begun, pre-dating the massive egos of the legal "establishment" that have now taken over "our" movement in pushing this case forward.

From the NewYorker article I recommended above:

"Perry v. Schwarzenegger is not the only federal lawsuit for gay marriage. Another one, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, is thought by some scholars to stand a better chance of success, though it has been overshadowed by Olson and Boies’s effort. Gill was filed last March, by a public-interest law firm, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), in Boston. One of the GLAD lawyers on the case is Mary Bonauto—the attorney who successfully argued the case that legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. "

"Gill is not the damn-the-torpedoes case that Perry is. It challenges a section of the Defense Against Marriage Act which prevents same-sex couples from receiving the many benefits accorded to married couples at the federal level—from joint tax filing to health insurance for federal employees’ families—even though in the state of Massachusetts those couples are lawfully married. Gill insists not on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage but on the unconstitutionality of denying federal benefits to a class of citizens whose marriages are recognized by the state.

“This is not going to be a case that results in more people getting married if we win,” Bonauto told me when I met with her at her offices, across from the Boston Common. A conservative dresser, she has the low, soothingly intelligent voice of a National Public Radio announcer. “But it very clearly presses on the federal government’s double standard,” she added. “Americans don’t like double standards. The federal government recognizes all kinds of marriages once they’re licensed by the state except the ones for gay people. We’re in the legal mainstream here, when you look at cases like Romer and Lawrence, where the federal courts have condemned gay exceptionalism. And that’s what this is.” GLAD could have brought the suit that Olson and Boies did but feared “pushing the ball too far and potentially having a setback.” She added, “We are wishing the Perry folks the absolute best. That said, we can’t help but have concerns about the timing.”

As in the Perry case, the plaintiffs in Gill make for an all-American picture." "... the lead plaintiff is Nancy Gill, who has been a postal clerk in Massachusetts for twenty-two years. Among the other plaintiffs are Mary Ritchie, a state police sergeant, whose wife, Kathy Bush, left her job at The New England Journal of Medicine to stay at home with their eight- and ten-year-old boys..."
"If Ritchie were to be killed in the line of duty, they explained to me, Bush would not be entitled to the federal benefits for spouses of public-safety officers. Bush said, “It’s just so odd that one marriage can be treated one way, and another another way.”

Two other plaintiffs are Al Koski, a retired Social Security claims representative, and his husband, Jim Fitzgerald, who works at a rehab clinic. They’ve been together for thirty-four years, but the federal government does not allow Fitzgerald to be the beneficiary of Koski’s pension or to be covered by his health-insurance plan."

"As seemingly modest as the Gill case is, it could help create a favorable climate for more ambitious challenges, including the Perry case. Thomas Keck, a political-science professor at Syracuse University who is an expert on the Supreme Court, told me, “I don’t think any of us can predict how it’s all going to turn out. But Gill is a very well-designed case, a well-targeted challenge that has a good chance of winning, and that broader challenges could be built on. If it wins, in a practical sense we would have federally recognized same-sex marriage. At that point, it would be much harder to defend the federal government’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriage in other parts of the country.” Gill could also go to the Supreme Court, and if it makes it there first, and succeeds, it could help Olson and Boies. As Gary Buseck told me, “I haven’t said this out loud even to myself before, but, to the extent that either of these cases is going to get to the Supreme Court, I think it would be better if our case got there first.” (Predicting the trajectory of court cases is, of course, a futile endeavor.) He added, “You have to approach the Supreme Court in an incremental way.” For Buseck, this, and not the “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” was the relevant lesson from the civil-rights movement. He recalled that the N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense and Educational Fund had recognized it would be a stretch to try to desegregate the public schools first—it would be too sweeping and provocative an effort. “So they first won cases about a law school and a university, to make it inevitable that when they brought the case that became Brown the chances of winning would be so much better.”
------------------------

That is why the Prop 8 trial is so focused on social benefits, etc. I agree, Jess, that it is in a sense disingenuous, insulting and misleading even to have a trial on Same-Sex Marriage that cannot and will not bring up, even for purposes of educating the public, the financial, economic and fundamentally civil rights being denied same-sex partners because of FEDERAL discrimination and lack of recognition of same-sex marriages, even those which are LEGALLY SANCTIONED by a state.

Cyclopea

01-12-2010, 11:27 PM

I am also honestly a little surprised that more attention and support hasn't been obvious here. I wonder why.

A mystery to me as well.
(((Jess)))

Cyclopea

01-13-2010, 12:04 AM

Great segment on Maddow with Olsen and Boies tonight:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#34833785

-----------------------------

And this: (Towle:"Meathead will save us all!"lol)
YouTube- Rob Reiner Challenges Prop 8

Cyclopea

01-13-2010, 12:39 AM

YouTube- Rachel Maddow-Gay marriage opponents win right to hide (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH8B7s1MKPE&feature=player_embedded)

Love when she asked "Whatever happened to Anti-Gay Pride?"
lol.

Jess

01-13-2010, 08:22 AM

Thanks for the links!

I'm still not sure exactly how I feel about Olsen and Boies stepping in and "taking over our fight". Part of me is very happy to see two conservative white men behind a human rights issue. Part of me sees it as yet another "saved by the white men" moment.

The bottom line is that if we win our rights in a federal court, in at least one state, it may open up and set up victories on a broader level. Perhaps we don't need to "choose" our champions, just be thankful that we have them. Who better, afterall, to fight the "white male system" than a couple of their own?

Will keep tracking the trial and hoping more folks do as well.

MsTinkerbelly

01-13-2010, 04:06 PM

US Supreme court just ruled no cameras

1:57 PM: The US Supreme Court just ruled — no cameras. It was a 5-4 decision. www.scotusblog.com

SuperFemme

01-13-2010, 04:55 PM

With a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to keep the Prop 8 trial dark on the Web, rejecting Judge Vaughn Walker's attempt to broadcast the proceedings on the federal court's Web site by using YouTube., as well as allowing it to be circulating for viewing at various federal courthouses around the West. The majority opinion said that Walker and officials with the 9th Circuit Judicial Conference, including Chief 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, did not follow proper procedures in changing federal court rules that would allow the broadast. The majority stressed that it was not "expressing any view on whether such trials should be broadcast." Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the four dissenters, decried the decision, saying there was no reason to interfere with the broadcast and that there would not be any harm in allowing the webcast.

Meanwhile, UCLA prof Letitia Peplau, a plaintiffs expert, is testifying on research she says shows that same-sex couples enjoy the same benefits from marriage as heterosexual couples. She also said he will offer an opinion that allowing gay marriage will have no impact on heterosexual marriage

http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_14179875

Corkey

01-13-2010, 06:11 PM

G-D these federal cowards are starting to piss me the hella off!

SuperFemme

01-13-2010, 06:41 PM

A closer look at the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling indefinitely barring any broadcast of the Prop 8 trial shows the difference between the majority and dissenters boiled down to two things. The majority (Justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy and Scalia) concluded that Chief Judge Vaughn Walker did not follow federal law in changing rules to allow cameras in his courtroom for the trial, in large part because they believe he didn't allow enough time for public comment on changes to local federal court rules. And the justices also determined that Prop 8 supporters demonstrated there could be harm to their fair trial rights because certain witnesses could be intimidated by broadcast exposure, reason to keep the stay in place.

The dissenters (Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Stevens) couldn't have disagreed more. They said Walker easily followed the rules, and rejected the idea Prop 8's defense would suffer any harm. They called the decision an unprecedented attempt to "micromanage" a district court's administration.

Same-sex marriage advocates can only hope the justices don't break down along the same party lines if the main issue reaches the high court.

SuperFemme

01-13-2010, 09:17 PM

follow the link to read the entire SCOTUS decision on the stay. I personally am with the dissenters.

http://www.mercurynews.com/samesexmarriage/ci_14181557?source=autofeed#

Cyclopea

01-18-2010, 03:52 PM

"Fed Prop 8 trial to receive re-enactment treatment by L.A. filmmaker - debuts this week

by: Pam Spaulding
Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 07:27:23 AM EST

When I saw this story, I recalled that the 1996 O.J. Simpson civil trial was not televised -- unlike the infamous murder trial when he was acquitted. The E! channel produced a next-day re-enactment of the prior day's verbatim transcripts using actors in a courtroom. Simpson was found liable for the deaths of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman in the civil trial.

I don't know if filmmaker John Ireland was inspired by the above, but it's a great idea to bring the Prop 8 federal trial trial to life since SCOTUS has blocked the broadcast of the landmark event.

Freelance journalist and filmmaker John Ireland, who's based in Los Angeles and regularly examines gay rights issues, will produce a daily re-enactment of the Proposition 8 federal trial and post it on YouTube, starting this week.

Ireland has been casting the parts of pro-gay marriage lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, and anti-gay marriage attorney Charles Cooper, among others, over this weekend.

Filming started over the weekend according to On Top Magazine, and the first "episode" will debut on YouTube on Tuesday.

"People want to see this drama unfold and there is a tremendous narrative that was propelled by that first day of testimony. This is the first time that gay and lesbian people have talked about their lives in federal court. It's historic from that point of view."
-----------------------------------------------------

Not sure if this will be a reenactment of the actual transcript, or some interpretation thereof. I would like to see (or hear- radio would be fine) a word by word minimally dramatized version.

I hope that the video of the proceedings is not destroyed and that we will some day have access to it.
:rainbowAfro:

iamkeri1

01-18-2010, 04:49 PM

I know that this is a loss for our side, but there is a certain ironic humor to it. The ones who have put so much energy into keeping us in hiding, now want to have their privacy protected.

Doesn't this tell you that somewhere in the back of their minds or in their heart of hearts (whatever cliche you want to use), they know that what they are doing is wrong? Or maybe they are afraid? OMG we are making headway. The far right is afraid of us dykes and sissies!!! Get in the closet and hide yourselves you hate mongers! There's lots of room in there because the queers have left the building. Oh yah... we bad!
Smooches,
Keri
:fastdraq:

US Supreme court just ruled no cameras

1:57 PM: The US Supreme Court just ruled — no cameras. It was a 5-4 decision. www.scotusblog.com

SuperFemme

01-18-2010, 06:21 PM

I know that this is a loss for our side, but there is a certain ironic humor to it. The ones who have put so much energy into keeping us in hiding, now want to have their privacy protected.

Doesn't this tell you that somewhere in the back of their minds or in their heart of hearts (whatever cliche you want to use), they know that what they are doing is wrong? Or maybe they are afraid? OMG we are making headway. The far right is afraid of us dykes and sissies!!! Get in the closet and hide yourselves you hate mongers! There's lots of room in there because the queers have left the building. Oh yah... we bad!
Smooches,
Keri
:fastdraq:

all it tells me is that they don't want to live a life in the day of a gay person being discriminated against. god forbid.

Cyclopea

01-20-2010, 05:41 PM

Prop 8 backers have now withdrawn all but two witnesses.

Watch below excerpts from the cross testimony of two of the Prop 8 witnesses. Keep in mind these are the primary (now withdrawn) witnesses AGAINST gay marriage.

YouTube- Katherine Young Deposition
YouTube- Paul Nathanson Deposition Video

Strangely, when I searched YouTube for "Paul Nathanson Deposition Video" nothing came up. I tried various search configurations=nothing, even though the video is TITLED "Paul Nathanson Deposition Video". I had to go back to google to get the direct link. Weird. They may be in the process of being removed? So, enjoy them while you can! They were posted by the American Foundation For Equal Rights, the group which launched and is funding the Perry vs. Schwarzenegger case.

ETA: questioning is by Boies.

Cyclopea

01-21-2010, 12:01 PM

"McCain's wife, daughter back gay marriage movement

By JOAN LOWY
The Associated Press
Wednesday, January 20, 2010; 9:57 PM

WASHINGTON -- Cindy McCain, the wife of 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain, and their daughter Meghan have posed for photos endorsing pro-gay marriage forces in California.

Mrs. McCain appears with silver duct tape across her mouth and "NOH8" written on one cheek in a photo posted Wednesday to the Web site of NOH8, a gay rights group opposed to Proposition 8. The ballot measure passed by California voters in 2008 bans same-sex marriage.

The McCains' daughter Meghan, who has been outspoken in her support for gay rights, has also endorsed NOH8. She appears with silver duct tape across her mouth and "NOH8" on a cheek in a photo on her Twitter site.

Cindy McCain contacted NOH8 and offered to pose for the photo endorsement, the Web site said.

John McCain's office said in a statement that the Arizona senator respects the views of members of his family but remains opposed to gay marriage.

"Sen. McCain believes the sanctity of marriage is only defined as between one man and one woman," the statement said.

John McCain backed an Arizona ballot measure passed by voters in 2008 that defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

The NOH8 Web site praised Cindy McCain's willingness to publicly endorse a cause that is unpopular within the Republican Party.

"The McCains are one of the most well-known Republican families in recent history, and for Mrs. McCain to have reached out to us to offer her support truly means a lot," the site says.

"Although we had worked with Meghan McCain before and were aware of her own position, we'd never really thought the cause might be something her mother would get behind. We have a huge amount of respect for both of these women for being brave enough to make it known they support equal marriage rights for all Americans."

Meghan McCain said Wednesday in a Twitter message linked to her blog: "I couldn't be more proud of my mother for posing for the NOH8 campaign. I think more Republicans need to start taking a stand for equality."

Meghan McCain was asked to be the keynote speaker at next month's National Equality Week at George Washington University in Washington for her advocacy, but her appearance has drawn criticism from Republicans on campus, the NOH8 site said.

McCain's Senate re-election campaign said Wednesday that his presidential running mate, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, will come to Arizona to campaign for him in March. Palin has been a vocal opponent of gay marriage.

---
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/1/21/1264077834077/Cindy-McCain-001.jpg
http://secondclasscitizens.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/06511.jpg

SuperFemme

01-22-2010, 12:27 PM

SAN FRANCISCO — A leading proponent of Proposition 8 found himself on trial Thursday inside the boundaries of the historic federal court trial here to decide the legality of California's ban on same-sex marriage.

During an afternoon of scathing inquiry from prominent plaintiffs' attorney David Boies, William Tam, a controversial figure in the Proposition 8 movement, was confronted repeatedly on views depicted as hostile to the rights of gays and lesbians. Tam testified he likened same-sex marriage to pedophilia, polygamy and legalizing sex with children, and that California would fall into the "hands of Satan" if same-sex couples could wed.

The San Francisco-based Proposition 8 proponent, called as part of the case to overturn the state's same-sex marriage ban, said that he primarily opposed same-sex marriage because it would encourage children to "marry John or Jane" of the same-sex when they "grow up."

"I believe if the term marriage can be used beyond one man, one woman, then any two persons of any age, of any relationship, can use that same argument to ask for the term marriage," Tam testified. "That would lead to incest. That would lead to polygamy. If this is a civil right, what would prevent other groups from asking for the same right?"

With the plaintiffs nearing the end of their witnesses, Tam was called to the witness stand as part of the legal challenge to California's voter-approved 2008 ban on same-sex marriage unfolding before Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker. Plaintiffs' lawyers consider Tam's harsh outlook toward same-sex marriage important to proving that Proposition 8 was fueled by hostility and animus toward gays and lesbians, providing reason to give them greater protection under the U.S. Constitution.

Proposition 8 supporters insist they oppose same-sex marriage to preserve the traditional definition of heterosexual marriage, not to discriminate against the rights of gays and lesbians.

Proposition 8 lawyer Nicole Moss, through her questions, tried to distance the campaign from Tam's statements, depicting him as going rogue with his statements about gays and lesbians without the consent of Proposition 8 campaign officials.

"I was acting independently," Tam said of statements he made that were not approved by ProtectMarriage.com (http://protectmarriage.com/) and Proposition 8's leadership.

Boies, however, portrayed Tam as inextricably linked to the campaign, showing e-mails in which he regularly communicated with ProtectMarriage.com (http://protectmarriage.com/) officials and evidence Tam mobilized the Asian community and organized rallies against same-sex marriage.

The plaintiffs are expected to finish their case today with the testimony of another expert, University of California-Davis psychology professor Greg Herek, who will discuss the nature of homosexuality and its characteristics.
Earlier Thursday, Stanford University political-science professor Gary Segura finished his testimony, which amounted to the equivalent of a full day on the stand.

He was grilled by Proposition 8 lawyers on his position that gays and lesbians are "powerless" in the political arena.

Soon

01-22-2010, 08:02 PM

Hawaii Senate passes civil-unions bill with veto-proof majority, 18-7 (http://www.butchfemmeplanet.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=37711)

Cyclopea

01-25-2010, 12:38 PM

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/btb/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/6a00d8341c730253ef0120a5c3b7ad970b-800wi.jpg
Court rejects Russian lesbians' Canada marriage
Thu Jan 21, 2010 7:58am EST
By Amie Ferris-Rotman

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Two Russian lesbians on Thursday lost their bid to have their marriage in Canada recognized by a Moscow court, after a judge dismissed their argument that Russian law recognizes foreign marriages.

Public relations worker Irina Fyet, 30, and beauty parlor owner Irina Shepitko, 32, married in Toronto in October after an application for a marriage license in Moscow was rejected on the grounds that such a union must be between a man and a woman.

The couple are the first gay pair to attempt to get a marriage license in Russia.

"I will have to uphold the decision made by the registry office in May. Foreign marriages accepted in Russia must involve a couple of opposite sex," judge Boris Gerbekov ruled.

Fyet said the couple would take their case to the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights, though a judgment could take up to five years.

"We were born here, this is our country, we want to be married in our homeland, Russia," said Fyet.

"We are putting a lot of hope into the European Court. Russia simply has to accept their decision," she said.

Homophobia is deeply rooted in Russia, where gay pride marches are widely condemned and the homosexual scene is largely underground.

Since their Russian marriage attempt, the pair have been flooded with letters of support from the country's hidden gay community but also received hate mail.

The Soviet Union banned homosexuality and any type of nudity on television and Russia did not decriminalize gay sex until 1993, two years after the collapse of communism.

Four years ago, police, militant Orthodox Christians and neo-fascists attacked and violently broke up the first gay rights march in Moscow.

(Editing by Jon Boyle)

Cyclopea

01-25-2010, 12:43 PM

Gay Couple Face 14 Years In Malawi Prison
9:55am UK, Monday January 25, 2010
Emma Hurd, Africa correspondent

A new crackdown on homosexuality in parts of Africa has forced gay communities into hiding, fearing for their lives.

Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga appear in court on charges of indecency.

In Malawi, two men who dared to go public with their relationship by holding a traditional "marriage" ceremony are on trial for indecency, and face 14 years in jail.

"It's so scary," one gay man, who didn't want to be identified, told Sky News in the city of Blantyre, where the trial is taking place.
"We are not feeling free and are worried about being arrested.
It is the first case to be brought under Malawi's longstanding legislation banning homosexuality in years.

The rise of US style evangelist preachers has contributed to a hardening of attitudes in the tiny southern African state.

"Biblically it is demonic," pastor Stanley Ndovi said, flipping through the pages of his bible to show me the passages that condemn homosexuality.
"It is wrong and these people should be counselled and helped."

Inside his church on the outskirts of Blantyre, his congregation laughed when he told them that Sky News had come to talk to him about "gay rights".
At best, homosexuality is viewed as a mental illness in Malawi, at worst a form of Satanism with the power to infect the entire population.
"In the West you have allowed homosexuality and it has spread," pastor Ndovi said.

The gay couple on trial are considered such a risk to the public that they have been denied bail and are handcuffed every time they appear in court, jeered by the crowds as they're led to the dock.
"Sometimes I think it would be better to kill myself," another gay man said. "We are not even treated as human."
Malawi is not alone in its new hardline approach to gays and lesbians. Uganda is considering introducing legislation that would result in the death penalty for some "homosexual offences".
The Ugandan government has tried to distance itself from the plan after criticism from its biggest donor, the United States.

Rwanda is also seeking to tighten the laws banning homosexuality.
The crackdown has alarmed human rights campaigners and health workers who are trying to combat the spread of HIV and Aids.
In Malawi, 10% of the general population is HIV positive, with the figure rising to 25% among homosexual men.
There are fears that the gay community will be too scared to come forward to be tested, fearing reprisals from the state.
Just one African nation, South Africa, specifically safeguards the rights of lesbians and gays.
But even there, there have been attacks on gay men, and lesbians have been subjected to so-called "corrective rape".

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2010/1/5/1262688406249/Malawi-gay-trial-004.jpg

Cyclopea

01-25-2010, 12:47 PM

BEIJING (AFP) – State press splashed a front-page photo of China's first publicly "married" gay couple on Wednesday -- the latest sign of new openness about homosexuality in a country where it has long been taboo.
The page-one story in the English-language China Daily featured a photograph of the "newlyweds" arm-in-arm during a January 3 ceremony.
Zeng Anquan, 45, and Pan Wenjie, 27, tied the knot at a gay bar in the southwestern city of Chengdu, the paper said, calling it "the first such public event in the country".

Homosexuality remains a sensitive issue in China. It was officially considered a form of mental illness as recently as 2001. Same-sex marriages or civil unions have no legal basis.
"We are no longer hiding any more. The wedding is our happiest and most precious moment," Zeng, a divorced architect, told the paper.
"Thousands of gays and lesbians get married in France, Finland, the UK. Why couldn't we?"
Although the vast majority of gays in China are believed to remain in the closet, a number of signs have emerged recently that official attitudes may be softening.
Last month, China's first government-backed gay bar opened in the tourist town of Dali in southwestern Yunnan province, after a three-week delay sparked by intense media attention, in a bid to boost HIV/AIDS prevention efforts.
On Friday, the country's first gay pageant is scheduled to be held in Beijing to choose the Asian nation's candidate for the Mr Gay World contest in Norway next month. [*Shut down at last minute by Chinese government- see http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/16/world/asia/16beijing.html ]

China's top state-run radio network plans to launch a new programme this weekend about AIDS that features an HIV-positive host, according to a recent report by Xinhua news agency, which did not mention whether the host was gay.

However, the deep-seated sensitivity of the issue in Chinese society has reared its head in the Zeng-Pan wedding, with the families of the two men reportedly condemning their nuptials.
"My sister warned me she would never call me her brother unless I break up with Pan, and I have answered hundreds of phone calls from friends and relatives who say they feel ashamed of me," said Zeng.
"But we are deeply in love and will never desert each other," he said of his relationship with Pan, a recently demobilised soldier.
More than 200 of the couple's gay friends attended the ceremony, which one of the newlyweds attended in a white wedding dress, the China Daily said, without specifying who was the "bride".

Zeng said the couple feared discrimination and had thus moved to a small town near Chengdu where they were unknown to avoid unwanted attention.
According to Chinese experts cited in press reports, there are an estimated 30 million homosexuals in China, and 20 million of them are men.

Cyclopea

01-25-2010, 12:53 PM

Gay couple live streams hunger strike

Francesco Zanardi and Manuel Incorvaia are starving themselves in a demand for gay marriage.

By Angelica Marin — Special to GlobalPost
Published: January 23, 2010 09:10 ET

ROME, Italy — One night last September, Francesco Zanardi walked toward the back of a gay nightclub on the Greek island of Mykonos. Before he reached his moped, four men came from behind, pulled him to the ground and beat him unconscious.

The next day Zanardi awoke in the ER wing of a Mykonos clinic with severe internal bleeding and an unshakeable anxiety. Had he died, his young partner would have been left without the home they share in Italy and all legal rights spouses are granted under Italian law.

It was then that Zanardi decided to stage a hunger strike to advocate gay marriage, and publicize it online. Now he and his 22-year-old partner, Manuel Incorvaia, are webcasting their own campaign, streaming it live, 24-hours a day, on www.glbt-tv.it.

“We came to a point where we wanted to protect each other,” said Zanardi, 39, who began fasting on Jan. 4 and is now living off just three cappuccinos a day. “This is not my first relationship, but for the first time I feel the need to protect my partner,” he said.

More than 1,500 fans have shown their support on Facebook and according to GLBT TV, thousands more are following the webcasts every day.
In Rome, the couple's supporters recently organized a vigil of about 200 people. Activists of all ages silently gathered outside the Parliament building. Within the crowd was Europe’s first transgender legislator, Vladimir Luxuria, who served in the Italian Parliament for one term in 2006.

“If you’re gay and have the fortune of falling in love like Francesco and Manuel have,” she said, “then the Italian government says you aren’t legally tied even as distant relatives. And you don’t benefit from any rights."
Without civil unions, same-sex couples have no right to care for a partner during illness, or claim property in case of death. The fear that Zanardi’s home could go to a distant cousin over his own partner is what first prompted them to begin the fast.

Citing Catholic moral values and national civil codes, Italian legislators have continually pushed gay civil rights aside. The law forbids same-sex partners from engaging in legal domestic partnership or adopting children as a couple.

Zanardi himself wrote letters to all the 630 parliament deputies demanding a new civil rights law. Only two replied.
“I think their initiative is courageous, very important and I admire them so much for what they are doing,” said Francesco Bilotta, an attorney at Rete Lenford, a national agency for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights in Italy.

Last November, Zanardi and Incorvaia and 23 other same-sex couples walked into their local city halls and requested that they be married. Once mayors denied their request, the couples took their cases to court, claiming that the Italian constitution doesn’t forbid gay couples from marrying.
“Because the constitution is so broadly written one could interpret it in light of social change,” said Bilotta who is the attorney for all 24 couples. “So extensively, to include same-sex couples,” he said.

By demanding gay marriage, same-sex couples organized under the so-called “Civil Affirmation” campaign are asking courts to re-examine current interpretation of Italian law.
Four tribunal courts in Florence, Venice, Ferrara and Trento — where the couples first made their claims — now must reject the cases or send them to a higher constitutional court.

“The outcome is a given,” said Claudio Mori, an upbeat gay rights activist in Rome. The 68-year-old veteran, who has pushed for LGBT rights since the 1970s, said it’s time for a progressive turn. Like many others, Mori is betting on Zanardi’s and Incorvaia’s case reaching constitutional courts.
“If they don’t respond to the call, they will be remembered as those constitutional judges who didn’t love the people,” said Mori, “who discriminated against people based on their sexual orientation.”

On Wednesday, Zanardi and Incorvaia will appear in court for their first hearing — that is, if they still have enough energy to leave their house. The tall and slender Zanardi has already lost 18 pounds. He has collapsed several times and is now unable to retain any liquids. “My body is giving up,” he said.
But that doesn’t deter him.
“I am not going to stop striking,” said Zanardi. “If necessary, I’ll die at home.”

Jess

01-25-2010, 03:36 PM

Thanks for all the news clips, Cy. Sad and enlightening and in some way encouraging to see so many folks willing to put themselves on the line for their rights. For our rights.

Sending prayers for their well being and our "arrival".

I haven't kept up with Prop 8 in the past week, so i am behind. Have some reading to do.

Thanks again!

Sachita

01-25-2010, 04:15 PM

I would marry to protect my partner. I want to be treated fairly BUT it doesn't mean I want to support a system I think is FUCKED UP. lol

I will marry under the stars and declare my love and devotion. That means something to me.

paper holds no value, in my heart.

But I agree that we should be offered the same rights. It's the point and not the reason.

MsTinkerbelly

01-25-2010, 05:16 PM

Explosive evidence exposes Prop 8 campaign
by Robert Cruickshank

During the fall of 2008 – and again in 2009 in Maine – the forces behind Proposition 8 ran a very slick and clever campaign that emphasized “protecting marriage” and “protecting children.” They deliberately left it unclear just what was being protected against, assuming that voters would know to fill in the blanks. Prop 8 backers did a good job of keeping a tight lid on their own true beliefs, making their own position seem less discriminatory and less radical than it actually is.

That all changed this morning in the trial courtroom, as explosive Yes on 8 campaign videos and documents were introduced into evidence. One of the videos was of a campaign rally from 2008 paid for and simulcast by ProtectMarriage.com that shows what they really believe. As reported to us by Yusef Robb of the American Foundation for Equal Rights and shown at the trial today, the video included the following stunning quotes:

“Then pedophiles would have to be allowed to marry 6-7-8 year olds. The man from Massachusetts who petitioned to marry his horse after marriage was instituted in Massachusetts. He’d have to be allowed to do so. Mothers and sons, sisters and brothers, any, any combination would have to be allowed.”

Of course, no such marriages were allowed in Massachusetts, or any other state where same-sex marriage is legal.

“Second of all, the polygamists are waiting in the wings because if a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman based on the fact that you have the right to marry whoever you want to marry, then the polygamists are going to use that exact same argument and they’re probably going to win.”

Opponents of marriage equality love to raise this example, even though it is not what is at issue here. It’s an example of what is often called “moving the goalposts” – shifting the ground from a discussion they might lose (“should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?”) to one they feel they might win, even though it isn’t actually what is at issue. No serious and credible organization supporting same-sex marriage has expressed support for polygamy. This is farcical at best.

“We are seeing the people of Massachusetts being desensitized day by day concerning homosexuality and becoming more and more adjusted to the idea of homosexual marriage being the law of the land and the homosexual agenda becoming more and more of a powerful element in the life of our society.”

Here we see very clearly that to Prop 8 backers, this isn’t about marriage at all. It’s about whether homosexuality is accepted by the public and by the law. They believe that legal recognition of same-sex marriage would make it harder to discriminate against LGBT Americans. This quote is indicative of what Prop 8 was really all about.

“I think a helpful way to think about this is to compare it to 9/11 because a lot of us are asking: How does this directly affect us? Well I wasn’t directly affected by 9/11 and my guess is most of you weren’t either in the sense I didn’t know somebody who crashed the plane in the building. I didn’t know somebody who was in the building. But after 9/11 the world was a fundamentally different place and that has affected me. The change in the redefinition of marriage is the same type of thing.”

Can you imagine the public reaction if Californians had known in the fall of 2008 that Prop 8 backers compared marriage equality to the murder of over 3,000 innocent people on that September morning in 2001? Such an outrageous and offensive statement would have caused major damage to the Yes on 8 forces and showed how callous and radical they truly are. When Democrats mistakenly used footage that included the old World Trade Center towers in an ad for Martha Coakley just days before the Massachusetts Senate election, it was seen as a major gaffe that helped ensure Coakley lost the race. Who knows what would have happened had the public known this was being said at a rally paid for and simulcast by the Prop 8 backers?

Rick Jacobs took a moment from his trial liveblogging to offer these comments on the video and quotes:

“This morning’s evidence made the Prop 8 side’s strategy crystal clear — use fear and lies to promote hate. It is horrifying that Prop 8 proponents would compare marriage equality to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and imply that marriage equality will open the door to pedophilia, incest and bestiality.”

“Ron Prentice, Andrew Pugno and their Prop 8 team — with the highly capable and apparently deeply cynical leadership of Frank Schubert — created a permanent campaign to scare voters into believing that same-sex marriage would threaten children, undermine America and lead to every form of illicit behavior imaginable.”

“This evidence is not just a smoking gun. It was an arsenal of incendiary devices directed at the LGBT community and voters. This is how the Prop 8 side won — through fear and lies.”

“Finally, this morning we saw indisputable, documented evidence in the form of emails and videos that Ron Prentice and Protect Marriage coordinated closely and relied upon the Catholic Church, the LDS Church, the Family Research Council, Maggie Gallagher, Brian Brown and the National Organization for Marriage to get Prop. 8 on the ballot and to win through a campaign of lies.”

“Last week, the Supreme Court erased decades of precedent by ruling that corporations have the same rights as people when it comes to speech. Let’s hope that the court will as readily see that LGBT people have at least the same rights as corporations and surely the same rights as other people.”

Looking at these quotes, it’s no wonder why Protect Marriage fought so hard to keep this trial as hidden away from the public as possible. The truth is revealing. The truth is explosive. The truth shows that far from “protecting” families and children, the primary goal of Prop 8 backers was to impose their radical views of society on us, and discriminate against LGBT people in California and across the nation

http://prop8trialtracker.com/

Cyclopea

01-25-2010, 06:32 PM

http://homomento.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/painting_of_manvendra_singh_gohil.jpg

Nepal gay wedding in bid for tourism

Sunday, January 24, 2010 » 02:59pm

Nepal will host the wedding of a gay Indian prince and his partner in a bid to attract gay tourists.

Nepal will play host to a royal wedding with a difference when an openly gay Indian prince marries his partner at a Hindu temple in Kathmandu.

The ceremony is the start of what Nepalese lawmaker Sunil Babu Pant hopes will become a lucrative business for his country, whose once thriving tourist industry is still reeling from a decade-long civil war that ended in 2006.

Pant, the only openly gay member of Nepal's parliament, has set up a travel agency catering specifically for homosexual tourists, who he says face severe discrimination in many Asian countries.

He believes Nepal, which has made large strides forward on gay rights issues in recent years thanks largely to his own efforts, is well placed to cash in on an industry worth an estimated US$670 million (AUS$743.12 million) worldwide.

'If we brought even one per cent of that market to Nepal it would be big. But I'm hoping we can attract 10 per cent,' said Pant, who was selected in May 2008 to represent a small communist party in Nepal's parliament.

'The choices (for gay tourists) in this region are very limited, and there is really no competition from China or India. Nepal is one of the few places where adventure tourism is available to people,' he said.

Pant said he has been overwhelmed with enquiries since setting up his travel agency, Pink Mountain. The company will offer gay-themed tours of Nepal's major tourist sites - including Hindu temples that feature carvings of the god Shiva depicted as half man, half woman - as well as organise wedding ceremonies. Pant's plans have won the support of the tourism ministry in Nepal, a deeply conservative, mainly Hindu country that nonetheless has some of the most progressive policies on homosexuality in Asia.

Two years ago, the country's Supreme Court ordered the government to enact laws to guarantee the rights of gays and lesbians after the Blue Diamond Society, a pressure group run by Pant, filed a petition.

The country's new constitution, currently being drafted by MPs, is expected to define marriage as a union between two adult individuals, regardless of gender, and to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation. Laxman Bhattarai, joint secretary in Nepal's Tourism Ministry, said the government had no specific policies on gay tourism, but would support Pant's enterprise.

'The government has declared its ambition of attracting a million tourists to Nepal in 2011 which is a big increase,' he said.

Around 500,000 foreign tourists travelled to Nepal in 2009.

'Nepal is a safe place to come now. We want to develop new tourist destinations and get people coming back after the civil war. If he can help us in any way, we are happy.'

The wedding of Indian prince Manvendra Singh Gohil, scion of the family that once ruled Rajpipla in the western state of Gujarat, looks likely to create the kind of publicity Nepal's tourism business so desperately needs.

Pant believes it will be followed by many more such ceremonies, and is already organising a wedding for a lesbian couple from Massachusetts who want to hold their nuptials in Mustang, high in the Himalayas.

iamkeri1

01-27-2010, 09:26 PM

SAN FRANCISCO – The first federal case to decide if the U.S. Constitution prevents states from stopping same-sex weddings came to an anti-climatic break Wednesday after a judge heard nearly 12 days of wide-ranging testimony on the meaning of marriage, the nature of sexual orientation, and the role of religion in shaping attitudes about both.

Attorneys for sponsors of California's Proposition 8 tentatively rested their case after introducing materials from the 2008 election campaign.

They called just two expert witnesses, including David Blankenhorn, president of the New York-based Institute for American Values, who capped the historic proceedings by saying the rights of same-sex couples should come second to preserving the cherished social institution of marriage.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker heard the case without a jury and said he will take time to review the evidence before allowing closing arguments, probably in March or April. He has no deadline for reaching a decision.

After testimony ended, Walker came down from the bench and shook hands with both legal teams.

"I just want to take a moment to congratulate you (on) what a good job you've both done," he said, calling it a fascinating case.

His eventual verdict is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Throughout the trial, lawyers for the two gay couples who filed the lawsuit seeking to overturn the ballot measure tried to show the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized marriage as a fundamental right and that there is no lawful reason to deny it to gays.

They also argued that Proposition 8, which passed with 52 percent of the vote, was a product of anti-gay prejudice rooted in religion and psychological theories about homosexuality that have long since been discredited.

Plaintiffs' lawyer David Boies said Walker had been provided with more than enough evidence to strike down the ban.

"We said on the first day of trial we would prove three things," he said during a news conference outside court. "Marriage is a fundamental right; that depriving gays and lesbians the right to marry hurts them and hurts their children; and there was no reason, no societal benefit in not allowing them to get married."

The defense countered that limiting marriage to a man and a woman serves a paramount social function by promoting stable biological families — a purpose that outweighs civil rights concerns.

Defense lawyers methodically cross-examined the parade of academic experts who testified for the plaintiffs then kept their part of the case brief.

Andy Pugno, a lawyer who served on the executive committee of the Proposition 8 campaign, said the burden of proof was on the plaintiffs.

"They have to prove the people voted irrationally when they voted to preserve the traditional definition of marriage," said Pugno, who often complained during the trial that voters and religion should not be put on trial.

"The question is whether the people have a right to decide what is best," he told reporters.

Lawyers on both sides delved into the premises that surround the polarized public discourse on gay marriage, touching on the fitness of gay parents, religious views on homosexuality, gender roles in marriage and the history of the gay rights movement.

They also aired topics that are less likely to be part of the polite debate, such as stereotypes that depict gays as pedophiles and link same-sex relationships to the specter of polygamy.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs called more than a dozen witnesses, including Nancy Cott, a Harvard University historian who testified that monogamous, state-sanctioned marriage between one man and one woman is a relatively recent concept in human civilization.

Ryan Kendall, a gay Colorado man, recalled how being subjected to therapy designed to make him straight drove him to the brink of suicide.

The plaintiffs — Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, a lesbian couple from Berkeley, and Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo, a gay couple from Burbank — also took the witness stand to describe why they regard the domestic partnerships that California allows gay couples to enter are a poor substitute for matrimony.

Lawyers for the couples also called William Tam, a proponent of Proposition 8, as a hostile witness to discuss his view that allowing gays to get married would lead to incest, polygamy and child abuse.

Defense lawyers called just two witnesses. Kenneth Miller, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College, testified that gays enjoy considerable political clout and were not a disadvantaged minority, as depicted by plaintiffs.

Under cross-examination, Blankenhorn conceded there were many valid reasons for allowing gays to wed, but the considerations are outweighed by the likely damage it would cause the already weakened state of heterosexual unions.

He acknowledged, however, that allowing gays to wed would have positive consequences for same-sex couples and society, such as scoring "a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion," reducing anti-gay prejudice and hate crimes, and creating a higher standard of living for same-sex couples.

Soon

01-28-2010, 09:34 PM

Minter's Take on the Prop 8 Trial (http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/01/25/Shannon_Minter_on_the_Prop_8_Trial/)

(it's worth the read!)

iamkeri1

01-29-2010, 01:29 AM

I was excited to see this, though I don't think it willl pass.

Florida Legislators Hear Testimony on Domestic Partnership Bill
January 27, 2010 by Gay Agenda News Team

From Palm Beach Human Rights Council:

Florida legislators were urged this afternoon to enact pro-family legislation creating a statewide domestic partnership registry. Once enacted, the legislation would provide unmarried couples many of the benefits provided by the state to married couples.

Palm Beach County Human Rights Council President Rand Hoch addressed local legislators at their final public hearing prior to the opening of the Florida legislature on March 2.

“Many couples choose not to marry so that they may preserve their social security, pension, and veterans benefits,” said Rand Hoch, President of the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council. “However marriage is not an option for gay and lesbian Floridians in committed relationships.”

Nine states and the District of Columbia have enacted comprehensive laws recognizing gay and lesbians relationships. Four states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire and Vermont) and the District of Columbia provide full marriage equality. New Jersey recognized civil unions. Four additional states (California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington) have domestic partnership legislation.

While marriage equality for gay men and lesbians is denied by Florida’s laws and state constitution, gay couples may register their domestic partnerships in some parts of Florida.

“Thanks to the efforts of local organizations such as Save-Dade, the Human Rights Council of North Central Florida, and the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council, gay couples may register as domestic partners throughout Broward, Miami-Dade, Monroe and Palm Beach counties, as well as in the city of Gainesville,” said Hoch.

“Regardless of where our families make our homes, we should be accorded the same rights and benefits that other families take for granted,” Hoch told legislators.

“Once the law is enacted statewide, domestic partners will be allowed to visit their partners in a hospital with the same authority as spouses with regard to health care decisions,” said Hoch. “Domestic partners will be notified as family members in the event of an accident, and in the event of a partner’s death, they will be empowered to make funeral decisions.”

With legislators wary of the Florida’s multi-billion dollar deficit, Hoch informed legislators that the legislation requires no expenditure of state funds for office space or personnel, since the paperwork will be done by the Clerks of the Circuit Courts who are charged with processing marriage licenses.

“Since fees are assessed to register and terminate domestic partnerships, the legislation will actually generate income for the state,” said Hoch.

The domestic partnership legislation was co-introduced by state senator Eleanor Sobel (D-Hallandale) and state representative Richard Steinberg (D-Miami Beach).

Soon

02-03-2010, 04:32 PM

Prop 8 Plaintiffs Speak (http://www.advocate.com/Politics/Prop__8/Prop_8_Plaintiffs_Speak/)

:LGBTQFlag:

Soon

02-03-2010, 04:36 PM

Saints Linebacker Fujita Tackles Gay Marriage (http://www.advocate.com/Sports/New_Orleans_Saints_Linebacker_Scott_Fujita_Talks_G ay_Rights/)

As New Orleans Saints linebacker Scott Fujita gears up for Super Bowl XLIV, Fujita talks to The Advocate about standing up for gay rights and against inequality, and about Tim Tebow's draft prospects thanks to Focus on the Family.

SuperFemme

02-04-2010, 01:31 PM

Re-enactment of Prop 8 Federal Trial:

http://marriagetrial.com/

Soon

02-07-2010, 01:30 PM

BREAKING: Prop 8 Judge Outed (http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/)

Today the San Francisco Chronicle outed Perry vs Schwarzenegger Judge Vaughn Walker. While Walker's gayness has long been known by insiders, this is the first acknowledgment by the press.

The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay. Many gay politicians in San Francisco and lawyers who have had dealings with Walker say the 65-year-old jurist, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1989, has never taken pains to disguise - or advertise - his orientation.

They also don't believe it will influence how he rules on the case he's now hearing - whether Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure approved by state voters to ban same-sex marriage, unconstitutionally discriminates against gays and lesbians. "There is nothing about Walker as a judge to indicate that his sexual orientation, other than being an interesting factor, will in any way bias his view," said Kate Kendell, head of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is supporting the lawsuit to overturn Prop. 8. As evidence, she cites the judge's conservative - albeit libertarian - reputation, and says, "There wasn't anyone who thought (overturning Prop. 8) was a cakewalk given his sexual orientation."

The lead counsel for Protect Marriage says that his side does not intend to make an issue of Walker's sexuality should he rule against them. Riiiight. Walker hasn't necessarily been considered a friend of the gays. In 1987 he defended the U.S. Olympic Committee in its copyright lawsuit against Tom Waddell, the creator of the Gay Olympics who was dying of AIDS. Even after winning the case, Walker had a lien placed against Waddell's home in order to recoup the USOC's legal costs. Only after Waddell died was the lien lifted. The Gay Olympics case delayed Ronald Reagan's nomination of Walker to the federal bench.

UPDATE: The far-right National Review is already calling for Walker to step down. The linked editorial cites Walker's attempt to have the trial televised, then closes with this:

Take Walker’s failure to decide the case, one way or the other (as other courts have done in similar cases), as a matter of law and his concocting of supposed factual issues to be decided at trial. Take the incredibly intrusive discovery, grossly underprotective of First Amendment associational rights, that Walker authorized into the internal communications of the Prop 8 sponsors—a ruling overturned, in part, by an extraordinary writ of mandamus issued by a Ninth Circuit panel consisting entirely of Clinton appointees. Take Walker’s insane and unworkable inquiry into the subjective motivations of the more than seven million Californians who voted in support of Prop 8. Take Walker’s permitting a parade of anti-Prop 8 witnesses at trial who gave lengthy testimony that had no conceivable bearing on any factual or legal issues in dispute but who provided useful theater for the anti-Prop 8 cause. And so on. Walker’s entire course of conduct has only one sensible explanation: that Walker is hellbent to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage. Given his manifest inability to be impartial, Walker should have recused himself from the beginning, and he remains obligated to do so now.

Soon

02-13-2010, 10:44 PM

YouTube- Kitty Lambert's Wedding

MsTinkerbelly

02-15-2010, 01:42 PM

Mooting Perry?
by Brian Leubitz

A while back, one of our trial trackers here at the site asked an important question. My apologies to the original commenter, I wasn’t able to find the link back to the question, but here’s the gist:

“IF the attempt to get the “Restore Marriage 2010″ proposal onto this years ballot succeeds, & IF it gets passed, what effect would that have on Prop 8’s journey through the Federal Courts?

For example, if Judge Walker invalidates Prop 8 & if the 9th Circuit hasn’t yet ruled on the likely appeal, would the passage of the proposal repealing Prop 8 eliminate the possibility that Prop 8 would at some point be declared unconstitutional, &/or LGBTs to be declared a Suspect Class? (Hope this question makes sense.)

If that is a real possibility, it seems like it would be better to wait until after the final ruling on Prop 8, even though that might be risking a loss somewhere along the line. Otherwise, if the “Restore Marriage 2010″ passes, it seems like we only get marriage rights at the CA state level, vs a very real possibility of getting a whole lot more at the Federal level.

This is, generally, question about the legal doctrine of “mootness.” In a general sense, a case is moot if the decision wouldn’t have any legal consequense. Courts have declined to hear such cases because the parties wouldn’t have the vested interested, and wouldn’t be be the best advocates for the arguments. Despite the fact that frequently litigants would like to have a legal decision stemming from a case that has been mooted, courts generally dismiss such cases. This could happen with Prop 8, but let’s pick this apart and try to answer all of the various possibilities of what could happen.

1) The “Restore Equality 2010″ folks are able to get the measure on the ballot, and they succeed in overturning Prop 8.

The federal court would likely dismiss the case. Just being brutally honest here, but the last news I’ve heard from the campaign indicates that they are far behind where they need to be in order to get on the ballot. While a last month miracle could happen, it seems a long shot. That being said, in November 2010, the court will probably have made its decision and the case will be in the hands of the 9th Circuit, probably with a stay pending appeal if Prop 8 is overturned. The electoral defeat of Prop 8 would mean that a legal decision would have no impact on the litigants, in this case Perry and the other plaintiffs.

We need to remember here that the court case is only about Prop 8, and marriage in California, not federal law. While this case does present good facts, and I’ll go into that angle in a later post, there is no facial challenge of DOMA or any other federal law. This case could provide important precedent for a challenge to DOMA, but it is not itself such a challenge.

2) Prop 8 is repealed in 2012.

This seems to be the more likely scenario, with the majority of the funders of a prop 8 repeal pushing for a November 2012 campaign. The question here is speed of the case. It wouldn’t be unheard of either way for the case to have gone all the way to the Supreme Court in the three years since filing, but nor would it be unheard of for the case to be delayed past that date. In this case, the Court would seem to have a vested interest in waiting for a resolution via the ballot box. They have ways of delaying such things, and if they see that at ballot fight is likely, they are likely to use every delay tactic they have to avoid this case until it’s settled at the ballot box.

My take on this is that despite the tremendous value of a legal win, a win at the ballot box would be far more valuable. You would end up giving some good facts to make some good law, however, once California strikes the domino, we would likely set the nation on a path towards equality. We will need a legal victory. As the Court showed in Loving v. Virginia, on the big social issues of the day, the Court likes to have somebody else blaze the trail. In that instance, it was the California Supreme Court in Perez v. Sharp and other state supreme courts that struck down anti-miscegenation laws.

In this case, Perry v Schwarzenegger just might be the case that sets the legal process really moving federally. Even with that as a possible outcome, I think I’d take the electoral win and a mooted case every day. (And twice on Sundays.)

Soon

02-18-2010, 09:20 PM

Is There a Place for Gay People in Conservatism and Conservative Politics? (http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=6987)

Featuring Nick Herbert, MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Conservative Party, United Kingdom; Andrew Sullivan, The Daily Dish Blog, The Atlantic; and Maggie Gallagher, President, National Organization for Marriage.

Under the leadership of David Cameron, Britain's Conservative Party has jettisoned much of its former opposition to gay rights. Cameron supported civil unions for gays and appointed a number of openly gay men to his shadow cabinet. Nick Herbert will explain the reasons for those changes and elaborate on the new Conservative social agenda. Will the United States follow the British example? Our distinguished panel will consider the future of gay people's participation in mainstream society and conservative politics on both sides of the Atlantic.

The Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001

Cyclopea

02-24-2010, 06:00 PM

YouTube- What Kind of Planet Are We On?

Soon

02-25-2010, 02:41 PM

Olbermann on Miss Beverly Hills (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677//vp/35572508#35572508)

Cyclopea

02-26-2010, 03:23 PM

Prop. 8 suit closing arguments may be televised
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, February 26, 2010

(02-25) 14:35 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- Despite a rebuff from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Bay Area's federal judges are again proposing to allow cameras in their courtrooms, a plan that could lead to telecasting of closing arguments in a suit challenging California's ban on same-sex marriage.

The U.S. District Court in San Francisco has posted a rule change on its Web site that would allow its judges to take part in a pilot program of airing selected nonjury civil trials. The public comment period began Feb. 4 and ends Thursday.

The proposal is the same one Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker adopted in January after a week of overwhelmingly favorable public comment. But the Supreme Court intervened when Walker approved camera coverage of the trial over Proposition 8, the November 2008 initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court - which has refused to telecast its own proceedings - rebuked Walker for shortening the usual comment period.

The court said it was not deciding whether federal judges could televise trials. But the conservative majority did not cite any public benefit in trial broadcasts and said any such project should start with a more routine case.

The justices cited statements by Prop. 8's sponsors that telecasting outside the courthouse would intimidate their witnesses. Sponsors withdrew four of their six scheduled witnesses, all academic experts, when the trial started Jan. 11 and did not reinstate them after the court barred cameras.

No federal trial in California has ever been shown on television or the Internet. Walker had proposed live, closed-circuit telecasts of the Prop. 8 trial to a few other federal courthouses and a delayed posting on YouTube.

Testimony in the lawsuit by two same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco ended Jan. 27, but Walker postponed scheduling lawyers' closing arguments until after a final round of briefs, due today.

If his court approves the new rule next week, Walker could allow camera coverage of the arguments along the lines of his previous order, subject to approval by Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Telecasting lawyers' arguments, without witness testimony, might pass muster with the Supreme Court, which hasn't objected to televised hearings of arguments before the Ninth Circuit.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/25/BA1D1C76BK.DTL

Cyclopea

02-26-2010, 03:25 PM

Australian Senate Rejects Marriage

In a lopsided vote, yesterday the Australian Senate rejected a marriage equality bill. But the result was closer than it seems.

The bill was introduced by the Greens but was defeated 45-5, just days before the world’s biggest gay celebration, Sydney Mardi Gras. Twenty-six senators were absent from the vote, with some of these choosing to abstain because they disagreed with their parties’ official stances against same-sex marriage. Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, who introduced the bill, said: ”There may have been a group of senators voting to keep discrimination against same-sex couples being able to marry the one they love, but well over one-third of all senators were absent for the final vote, presumably the only form of protest open to them.” Marriage equality campaigners claim that 60 per cent of Australian citizens support the right of gay couples to marry.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has been vehement in his opposition to same-sex marriage.

Cyclopea

03-01-2010, 03:54 PM

2 sides file pile of paperwork in Prop. 8 case

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, February 28, 2010

Opposing sides in the legal battle over same-sex marriage in California have laid out their cases in writing to a federal judge, disputing the status of gays and lesbians in society, the nature of marriage, and the motives behind the ballot measure that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

"Californians voted for Proposition 8 because they thought it would strengthen the institution of marriage (and) ... because they thought it would benefit children," sponsors of Prop. 8 said Friday night in papers filed in federal court in San Francisco.

Their opponents, representing two same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco, said those purported goals of Prop. 8 were contradicted by overwhelming evidence at a 12-day trial in January that allowing same-sex couples to wed would benefit their children and the institution of marriage. Regardless of the intentions of individual voters, they argued, the Prop. 8 campaign was designed to appeal to fear and deep-seated prejudice.

"The evidence demonstrates that Proposition 8's actual motivation was moral disapproval of gay and lesbian individuals," said the measure's opponents, plaintiffs in the federal court case. They said the ballot measure "sends a message to gay and lesbian individuals that they are not welcome in California."

The two sides filed hundreds of pages shortly before a midnight deadline, containing sharply contrasting summaries of the evidence presented at last month's trial, the first ever held in federal court on same-sex marriage.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, presiding over the nonjury trial, plans to review the material before hearing lawyers' final arguments, which have not yet been scheduled. Walker has indicated that his ruling will include detailed findings on the purposes and effects of Prop. 8, assessments that could hold the key to the measure's fate in appeals likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Prop. 8, approved by 52 percent of the voters in November 2008, amended the California Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, overturning a May 2008 state Supreme Court ruling that extended marital rights to gays and lesbians. The state court upheld the initiative last May while also upholding 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in the state before Prop. 8 passed.

Because Prop. 8 eliminated rights that the California court had granted, plaintiffs in the federal suit want Walker to put it in the same category as a 1992 Colorado initiative that overturned local gay-rights laws and prohibited future anti-discrimination measures. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Colorado initiative in 1996 and said its sole purpose was to harm a disfavored minority.

Prop. 8's "express and stated purpose ... was to strip gay and lesbian individuals of constitutional rights" they had won in the state court, plaintiffs' lawyers said. They said Yes on 8 campaign messages "echoed fears that children must be 'protected' from gay and lesbian people."

Imbalance of evidence

The measure's sponsors, a conservative religious coalition called Protect Marriage, argued that subjective purposes were irrelevant and that Prop. 8 should be judged by its text: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." They also invoked President Obama - who said he opposes same-sex marriage for religious reasons, while also opposing Prop. 8 - as evidence that support for traditional marriage is not based in bigotry.

Friday's filings reflected, to some degree, the imbalance of evidence at the trial. Opponents of Prop. 8 presented 16 witnesses, including the individual plaintiffs - two gay men from Burbank and two lesbians from Berkeley - and a procession of university researchers to make the case that marriage is a historically evolving institution, that anti-gay discrimination is persistent and same-sex marriage would not affect heterosexuals.

Extending marital rights to gays and lesbians "strengthens the institution of marriage for both same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples," plaintiffs' lawyers declared, citing their witnesses' testimony. Despite some recent progress, they said, gays and lesbians "lack political power to defend their basic rights," are not protected from discrimination by federal laws or the laws of most states, and are the disproportionate targets of hate crimes and of ballot initiatives like Prop. 8.

Witnesses withdrawn

Protect Marriage withdrew four of its six scheduled witnesses at the start of the trial - saying they feared television coverage, which the Supreme Court had blocked - and presented two witnesses, political science Professor Kenneth Miller and the president of the Institute for American Values, David Blankenhorn.

The Prop. 8 sponsors cited research works, but no witness testimony, for one of their central assertions Friday: that "extending marriage to same-sex couples would result in a profound change to the definition, structure, and public meaning of marriage." Their opponents urged Walker to disregard such assertions, saying they contradict most academic studies and were never tested in court.

Citing Miller's testimony, Prop. 8's backers said gays and lesbians have strong political allies, particularly in California, and "have achieved the power they need to effectively pursue their goals through democratic institutions" without judicial intervention.

They cited Blankenhorn and the writings of conservative scholars for the conclusion that marriage is universally defined by "maleness and femaleness" and that one of its central purposes is "the encouragement of procreation under specific conditions" - a purpose best served, they argued, by limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

Cyclopea

03-01-2010, 03:57 PM

TURIN, ITALY MAYOR 'MARRIES' LESBIAN COUPLE IN SYMBOLIC CEREMONY

Sergio Chiamparino, the mayor of Turin, Italy, 'married' a lesbian couple who have been together for nine years in a symbolic ceremony at the Rotonda de Valentino on Saturday.

Italian paper La Stampa reported that the couple had turned to him in an effort to institutionalize their love, and he agreed to serve at the ceremony. Same-sex marriage is not legal in Italy.

Said Chiamparino: "I cannot marry you because Italian law does not allow it. But I wanted to attend this beautiful ceremony in the hope that my presence would serve to tell everyone that you are first-class citizens, like all of us...I'm here to put a symbolic seal on this union. It's a moment that sends a powerful message of happiness and suffering. Happiness because it is obvious that you love one another so much — suffering, because you cannot fully recognize that love."
http://towleroad.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c730253ef0120a8e5f88d970b-pi

Toughy

03-01-2010, 05:51 PM

In case y'all didn't know....

Chief US District Judge Vaughn Walker is a gay man. It's fairly common knowledge in the Bay Area, although he really never talks about it....he will not deny it if asked.

If he does find in favor of gay marriage all hell is gonna break loose The dirt and mud will fly.

Soon

03-01-2010, 06:37 PM

White on same-sex marriage: Rosa Parks didn’t ‘move to the front of the bus to support sodomy’ (http://minnesotaindependent.com/55645/barb-davis-white-gay-marriage-rosa-parks)

By ANDY BIRKEY 2/23/10 9:05 AM

For the first time in Minnesota history, a legislative committee contemplated the legalization of same-sex marriage in the state on Monday. And while gay and lesbian families shared moving testimony about the hardships their families face because they cannot marry, a duo of congressional candidates stole the show with controversial commentary on gays and lesbians.

Barb Davis White, a Tea Party activist and Republican candidate for Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District, prompted shocked gasps from the packed hearing room when she said, “Rosa Parks did not move to the front of the bus to support sodomy.” Her testimony involved accusations that the movement for marriage equality is hijacking the civil rights movement.

“There is no difference between a black person and a white person other than their skin color when there’s a tremendous difference between a man and a woman,” said White, who was the GOP’s endorsed candidate against Rep. Keith Ellison in 2008. “Allowing a black woman and a white man to marry does not change the definition of marriage. However, allowing two men or two women to marry would fundamentally change that definition.”

GOP candidate Teresa Collett at Monday's hearing
White also garnered some laughs from the audience when she said, “Studies also show that the average homosexual has hundreds of sexual partners in his lifetime… and I repeat hundreds.”

“I’m here today to tell you that homosexuality and lesbian behavior is unhealthy,” claiming that gays and lesbians have higher rates of STDs than anyone else in the world, including “gay bowel disease,” an ailment that does not exist and is often used by religious right figures to paint gay men as diseased.

Another congressional candidate, St. Thomas University law professor Teresa Stanton Collett, who is running as a Republican for the 4th Congressional District, warned that Minnesota’s Christians are under attack.

“Make no mistake: Marriage, as a civil institution, as a legal institution, is grounded not merely in religion but also in the biological reality that sex makes children and children need a mom and a dad,” she said. “And should we choose to redefine that legally we will put the religious and moral beliefs of all Minnesotans at issue.”

“Churches and religiously affiliated institutions will lose their tax-exempt status,” she said. She claimed that Christian colleges would be forced to house same-sex couples in dorms, social work students would be kicked out of school if they refused to counsel gays and lesbians, politicians would revoke funds from religious organizations, and parents would be arrested for speaking out against homosexuality.

The hourlong testimony from both sides contemplated three bills: one to create civil unions, one to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages and one to allow full legal marriage for same-sex couples. The hearing was for informational purposes only, and no vote was taken.

Cyclopea

03-01-2010, 08:02 PM

Cyclopea

03-03-2010, 07:12 PM

This is soooooo freakin hilarious! Hahahahahaha.
Can't figure out why YouTube rated this inappropriate for all ages. Weird.
You'll have to click the link:

http://vodpod.com/watch/3076012-the-onion-tackles-loveless-marriage-fresnobeehive-com
:clap:

Jess

03-03-2010, 07:32 PM

SuperFemme

03-04-2010, 02:17 PM

YouTube- Anti-gay Republican lawmaker at gay club before DUI arrest

weatherboi

03-04-2010, 02:23 PM

oy vey....i got nothing else to say

Diva

03-04-2010, 02:33 PM

Good Lord.....where are my tissues when I need them? :|

Soon

03-04-2010, 05:06 PM

The 7 Worst Things About Sen. Roy Ashburn's DUI Arrest (http://www.queerty.com/the-7-worst-things-about-sen-roy-ashburns-dui-arrest-20100304/)

Toughy

03-04-2010, 09:40 PM

I heard on some show the trick he had picked up was of the 'pay me to suck your dick' variety.......

I dunno if this is still true about Sacto and the police......

when I lived there, the cops would cruise K Street (now Faces I believe) around closing so they could bust the queers......it was well know amongst all of us who hung out there.....don't leave the bar staggering and laughin and carryin on in the street......you will get pulled over within 10 blocks.....the cops never cruised the straight bars at closing time ..........

and the stories I could tell you about Sacto politicians and cocaine in the bathroom and drunk driving. ..... laughin .........but hey........it was the early to mid 80's.........different time............I believe Moonbeam Jerry Brown was the Governor (and that's a whole nuther set o rumors about sexuality and drugs)..........hey isn't he running again.......crap he must be in his 70's by now....Meg Whitman will be the next governor of CA.

-----------
I really wish they would quit calling these politicians, who pick up tricks at gay bars or do the toe tap in the airport potty, gay men..........they are not..........they are men who have sex with men........and that is a whole different thang..

Soon

03-05-2010, 01:23 PM

YouTube- Craig Ferguson 3/4/10B Late Late Show MONOLOGUE

:cracked:

Soon

03-06-2010, 07:18 PM

Ashburn's Rally to Support Traditional Marriage (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_t6rV3U9ZEHM/S5KJUBtkspI/AAAAAAAAsRw/za4UfXC8WlE/s1600-h/docpage-ashburnrally1.jpg)

Soon

03-06-2010, 10:03 PM

With same-sex marriage law, Mexico City becomes battleground in culture wars (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/02/AR2010030203671.html)

UofMfan

03-06-2010, 10:13 PM

With same-sex marriage law, Mexico City becomes battleground in culture wars (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/02/AR2010030203671.html)

In addition to passing same-sex marriage, the legislation also includes the right to adopt! Yay for Mexico!

It amazes me that countries which the US considers 3rd worldly, are more advanced when it comes to same-sex marriage. In Colombia, civil unions are legalized. Not that is the same as marriage, but it is a lot better than what the States has.

Lady Pamela

03-07-2010, 12:08 AM

I wanted to share a link with you of a very wonderfil wedding chappel that does legal same sex marriages. True that it isn't legal and standing in other states when you return..But...It does give the couple the chance to have a real wedding and if one partner wants a name change...to have that done as well.
The packages they have are very affordable as well,

CLICK HERE TO SEE:

http://ctlgbtlaw.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/same-sex-marriage.jpg

http://ctlgbtlaw.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/same-sex-marriage.jpg

Lady Pamela

03-07-2010, 12:45 AM

Cyclopea

03-08-2010, 04:44 PM

Ashburn's Rally to Support Traditional Marriage (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_t6rV3U9ZEHM/S5KJUBtkspI/AAAAAAAAsRw/za4UfXC8WlE/s1600-h/docpage-ashburnrally1.jpg)

Haha check this out:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=380052532672&ref=search&sid=1269483231.304500720..1&v=info

The 1,000,000 Gay Men and Allies Against Roy Ashburn Having Sex Ever Again
:superfunny::huhlaugh: :p :thumbsup: :giggle: :spit:

Cyclopea

03-08-2010, 04:48 PM

GLAD- Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders are collecting DOMA Stories, if anyone is interested in reading them or contributing their story:

http://www.glad.org/doma/stories

SuperFemme

03-09-2010, 09:14 PM

YouTube- First Same-Sex Marriage in DC

Jess

03-10-2010, 10:18 AM

Remarkably brave women:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1969667,00.html?xid=yahoo-feat

Soon

03-10-2010, 02:59 PM

YouTube- HUSBANDS AND HUSBANDS

Soon

03-14-2010, 04:45 PM

Exclusive video: Olson and Boies Q&A on Prop 8 (http://www.365gay.com/news/exclusive-video-olson-and-boies-qa-on-prop-8/)

Soon

03-16-2010, 01:06 PM

ACLU OF PA PRAISES SENATE COMMITTEE FOR VOTING DOWN MARRIAGE AMENDMENT (http://www.aclupa.org/pressroom/acluofpapraisessenatecommi.htm)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 16, 2010

HARRISBURG- The Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee today voted against legislation to amend the state constitution to ban same sex marriage. The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania hailed the vote as a victory for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community in the commonwealth.

"The efforts to embed discrimination against LGBT people into our constitution have failed for a third time," said Andy Hoover, legislative director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, citing failed attempts to pass similar legislation in 2006 and 2008. "This committee today recognized that LGBT people are our neighbors, our co-workers, our friends, and our family members and that they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect."

Senate Bill 707, introduced by Senator John Eichelberger of Blair County, was tabled by an 8-6, bipartisan vote of the committee. Although Senate rules allow the bill to be considered again at any time, Hoover noted that it is unlikely that the bill will be brought up before the end of the 2010 legislative session.

"This vote today spoke loud and clear," Hoover said. "Members want to move on and address truly pressing issues for the people of Pennsylvania."

Committee members who voted for the motion to table SB 707 included Republicans Pat Browne, Jane Earll, and Mary Jo White and Democrats Daylin Leach, Lisa Boscola, Wayne Fontana, Michael Stack, and Jay Costa.

Cyclopea

03-19-2010, 11:56 PM

From Joe.My.God.-

Marriage Repeal Fails In New Hampshire

The attempt to place a marriage equality repeal resolution before every town council in New Hampshire has been judged a failure after an overwhelming majority of the state's municipalities refused to take part or voted the resolution down. Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) exults via press release:

New Hampshire citizens this month said no to an anti-equality campaign to create pressure for a statewide vote on marriage equality through non-binding resolutions at town meetings. Of the 139 communities that have considered these resolutions, a clear majority of 80 towns (57.6%) have rejected it. Another 86 communities did not discuss the anti-marriage petition at their town meetings. Nine more towns will take up the issue in the coming months. “We are thrilled that legislators and New Hampshire’s citizens have not wavered in their support for the equality of all families,” said GLAD staff attorney Janson Wu. “Finally, New Hampshire can move on to more pressing issues, like jobs and the economy.”
:LGBTQFlag:

Lady Pamela

03-20-2010, 02:21 AM

This link is a group who are striving to get over 1,000,000 signitures for the petions ongoing who same sex marriage.

Please take a look. And pass it along to whoever you think might want the same.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/equalmarriage

http://rlv.zcache.com/equal_rights_for_same_sex_marriages_poster-p228487515027418537t5ta_400.jpg

Cyclopea

04-09-2010, 01:06 PM

GLAD’s DOMA Challenge Heads to Court May 6

April 08, 2010
On Thursday, May 6, 2010, the Federal District Court in Boston will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), in the case of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, brought by GLAD in March 2009.

The hearing will address the central issue of the case – is DOMA constitutional? –six years after the first same-sex couples in the country started marrying in Massachusetts, the result of GLAD’s groundbreaking marriage case, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.

Arguing before U.S. District Judge Joseph L. Tauro on behalf of seven married same-sex couples and three widowers will be Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD’s Civil Rights Project Director. Bonauto was the lead attorney in Goodridge.

As a result of DOMA, passed by Congress in 1996, plaintiffs in GLAD’s lawsuit have been harmed in various ways, including denial of survivor benefits on a deceased spouse’s pension; denial of health insurance coverage for a spouse on a federal family plan; denial of Social Security death and widower benefits; and the payment of extra federal income taxes due to the inability to file jointly as married.

In opposing the government’s Motion to Dismiss and arguing in favor of the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, GLAD will assert that DOMA Section 3 violates the federal constitutional guarantee of equal protection as applied to federal income taxation, Social Security benefits, and federal employee and retiree benefits.

The Washington Post has called Gill “at once restrained and daring… potentially revolutionary.” The National Law Journal says Gill “could be the gay marriage test with the greatest national impact.”

Information about the case, the plaintiffs, and the attorneys representing them can be found at www.glad.org/doma.

Hearing Details

Gill et a.l v. Office of Personnel Management et al.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
10:30 a.m. EST
John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse

For more information, or for interviews with plaintiffs or attorneys, contact Carisa Cunningham at (617) 426-1350 or ccunningham@glad.org.
BI3VFK23Ya4
From GLAD
http://www.glad.org/doma

Jess

04-12-2010, 11:56 AM

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/blog/entry/portugals-constitutional-court-oks-the-freedom-to-marry

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/blog/entry/iceland-preparing-to-legalize-freedom-to-marry

Cyclopea

04-12-2010, 12:39 PM

http://www.lgbtpov.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Rock-for-Equality-logo.jpg

From the LosAngelesTimes:

By Ruben Vives
April 12, 2010

State and local officials joined hundreds of people outside the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center in Hollywood on Sunday morning to kick off a national grass-roots campaign demanding equal Social Security benefits for same-sex couples.

The rally and march -- dubbed Rock for Equality -- was put together by the center and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in conjunction with the Aids Community Action Foundation, said Jim Key, a spokesman for the center.

At the rally, Rep. Linda T. Sanchez (D-Lakewood), who is a member of the House Subcommittee on Social Security, announced that she would sponsor legislation to provide equal Social Security benefits for same-sex couples.

"I don't think it's right that Americans should be treated differently by the country they love because of who they love," she said, triggering thunderous applause and cheers from the crowd.

"Right now, same-sex marriage couples pay equally into a system that they don't receive equal benefits from in return," Sanchez told the crowd. "Shame on this country for allowing that to happen."

As of now, people in same-sex relationships are denied Social Security survivor benefits from their deceased partners because the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages or domestic partnerships as valid relationships.

Sanchez's bill calls for the Social Security Administration to recognize those civil unions or domestic partnerships as valid relationships for the purpose of disbursing survivor benefits that heterosexual couples with a marriage certificate now receive.

"I'm saying to the Social Security Administration, this must stop," Sanchez said.

Rep. Judy Chu (D-El Monte), who also attended the event, offered to coauthor the bill.

"In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act as a law to protect the elderly from poverty. It was a great moment, but the act wasn't perfect," Chu told the crowd.

"In 1966, members of the armed services were added. In 1983, federal employees were added. And, in the year 2010, that will be the year people from the LGBT community will be added," she said.

About 700 people -- young, middle age and old -- attended the rally, including Maria Garcia, 44, of North Hollywood, who had arrived an hour early with her 23-year-old son, Philip Garrelts, who is gay.

"Every mother should do this for her children," she said. "There should be equal rights for everyone."

Holding a cup of coffee in one hand and a dog leash in the other, Diem Tran, 29, of West Hollywood brought her dog, Mochi, to the rally.

"Same-sex couples should get Social Security benefits," Tran said. "It's different from the marriage argument -- this is more about a need for economic equality."

Shortly after the rally, supporters holding up signs and rainbow and American flags marched down Hollywood Boulevard, past tattoo and souvenir shops, and then down Vine Street to the Social Security Administration office chanting, "Equal rights, now."

ruben.vives@latimes.com

Times staff writer Corina Knoll contributed to this report.

Heart

04-17-2010, 06:12 AM

Everyone is excited about Obama's directive granting lgbtq couples hospital/medical rights, and of course it's a very good thing, but I'm not so sure it signals any real support for legitimizing queer couples or same-sex marriage in the long run.

NYT article link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/us/politics/17hospitals.htm

Lady Pamela

04-17-2010, 09:09 AM

Yesterdays update on SAME SEX MEDICAL DESISIONS FOR YOUR PARTNER!

A MUST READ:

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/obama-orders-greater-medical-rights-same-sex-partners

Jess

04-19-2010, 02:55 AM

Cross posting this on same " Obama sets regs for gays to "visit" in hospitals".... I think it is very important for us to realize that until we really are treated "equally", this sort of thing can and will continue to happen.

http://www.bilerico.com/2010/04/sonoma_county_ca_separates_elderly_gay_couple_and. php

Jess

04-21-2010, 07:17 AM

Maybe people will eventually realize that "equal" means equal. Nothing less. Nothing more.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5255991,00.html

Cyclopea

04-21-2010, 01:48 PM

Maybe people will eventually realize that "equal" means equal. Nothing less. Nothing more.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5255991,00.html

Very interesting. I remember years ago when Vermont was the first U.S. state to grant civil unions, some straight couples tried to apply and were turned away. Civil Marriages were then adopted before the issue could play out and civil unions were discontinued. Should be interesting to see how this works out ultimately in places where heterosexuals sue for civil union equality. Thank you for posting!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8376937.stm

SuperFemme

04-21-2010, 02:16 PM

Presbyterian Church charges Northern California minister over gay weddings

Associated Press

Posted: 03/29/2010 01:43:55 PM PDT
Updated: 03/29/2010 01:43:56 PM PDT

SANTA ROSA — A retired Presbyterian minister in Northern California is again facing charges she violated church law when she officiated at the weddings of gay couples.

The Rev. Jane Spahr, 67, was acquitted two years ago of similar charges when the church's top court found that she did not violate denominational law because the ceremonies she performed were not real marriages.
But this time, the same-sex marriages at issue were legal in California. The 16 weddings were performed in 2008 before voters banned the unions with the passage of Proposition 8.

Spahr's lawyer, Scott Clark, said it's unprecedented that the church is trying to sanction a minister for performing legal marriages.

The prosecution counters, however, that while the marriages may have been legal under state law, they were "expressly prohibited" by the church.
The case hinges on "a narrow issue of church law," said prosecutor JoAn Blackstone, who added that the local presbytery committee that investigated the Spahr case found it didn't have "any wiggle room" in deciding to press charges.

"This isn't about her character," she said. "It's only about church law."
The constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) defines marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman. The church's Supreme Judicial Council has ruled that ministers can bless same-sex unions as long as the ceremonies are not called a marriage and don't mimic traditional
weddings.

The charges, formalized earlier this month, say Spahr "publicly, intentionally and repeatedly" violated church laws and "failed to further the peace, unity and purity of the church."

Spahr acknowledges the allegations and said she performed the weddings as a "matter of conscience."

"It's a real faith issue for me," she said. "I think I would be in jeopardy if I didn't do it."

Spahr, a lesbian who lives in San Francisco, used to lead a ministry for gay Presbyterians until she retired in 2007.

She faces sanctions ranging from public censure to a prohibition against performining ministerial duties, including marriages, Clark said. A trial on the new charges will likely take place in August or September.

blackboot

04-26-2010, 03:56 AM

86cpnlHYV3o

blackboot

04-29-2010, 10:14 PM

Hawaii lawmakers pass civil unions
By MARK NIESSE (AP) –

"HONOLULU — The Hawaii House of Representatives has approved same-sex civil unions, sending the measure to the governor.

The House voted 31-20 to give final legislative approval to civil unions Thursday. The bill passed the Senate in January.

Republican Gov. Linda Lingle hasn't said whether she'll sign it.

The measure grants gay and lesbian couples the same rights and benefits the state provides to married couples.

The issue was revived on the last day of this year's legislative session when House Majority Leader Blake Oshiro made a motion to reconsider it.

The House declined to act earlier this year because of fears that the Democratic-controlled House wouldn't have enough votes to override Lingle if she vetoes it.

The bill is HB444."

:hangloose::theisland::awww::LGBTQFlag:

Jess

04-30-2010, 05:53 AM

Soooo.. when's the wedding blackboot??? We expect at least a youtube video of it!!! Marry that woman and stop living in sin!!!

Glad to hear some good news coming from anywhere in this country! thanks!

MsTinkerbelly

04-30-2010, 10:06 AM

Great news! Congratulations to the people of Hawaii!!

Jess

05-03-2010, 07:10 PM

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1251831&srvc=rss

Jess

05-11-2010, 08:46 PM

Poll finds gains for same-sex marriage in Maryland

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/10/AR2010051004668.html?hpid=newswell

Cyclopea

05-19-2010, 12:36 AM

http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00293/uganda-gay-marriage_293491s.jpg

Malawi Gay Couple Found Guilty of “Indecency” for Gay Marriage Ceremony
May 18th, 2010 at 9:00 am by Ryan Prado ·

After nearly six months of being behind bars, Steven Monjeza, 26, and Tiwonge Chimbalanga, 20, were found guilty of unnatural acts and gross indecency today, despite international condemnation over Malawi’s (and some 37 sub-Saharan African countries in general) laws against homosexuality. The couple, as reported yesterday, could face up to 14 years in prison.

From ABC News:
“This is an outrageous verdict. There was no evidence to justify it. Steven and Tiwonge freely confirmed their love for each other, but the prosecution has entered no credible evidence that they had committed any sexual acts,” Peter Tatchell, spokesperson for the London-based gay human rights group OutRage!, told ABC News.

BBC News adds:
Judge Nyakwawa Usiwa-Usiwa convicted both men of engaging in gay sex, which he said was “against the order of nature”. They are to be sentenced on 20 May.

In calling for a lighter sentence, the couple’s lawyer argued that the pair’s actions had not victimised anyone.
“Unlike in a rape case, there was no complainant or victim in this case,” he said. “Here are two consenting adults doing their thing in private. Nobody will be threatened or offended if they are released into society.”
But the chief prosecutor welcomed the judge’s decision.

“In Malawi, we don’t allow men to marry men or women to marry women,” said Dickens Mwambazi. “I think 90% of the crowd here agree with the ruling.”
http://blogout.justout.com/?p=17769

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/18/malawi-gay-couple-jailed

Jess

05-19-2010, 04:48 PM

Help support Minnesota!

Nation for marriage is running a huge campaign to "protect" marriage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb_oXczrDQo

Pledge your support here to help fight these guys:

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/page/s/pledge

Soon

05-20-2010, 11:55 AM

Soon

06-11-2010, 07:32 PM

Iceland passes gay marriage law in unanimous vote (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65A3V020100611)

The Althingi parliament voted 49 to zero to change the wording of marriage legislation to include matrimony between "man and man, woman and woman," in addition to unions between men and women.

Iceland, a socially tolerant island nation of about 320,000 people, became the first country to elect an openly gay head of state in 2009 when Social Democrat Johanna Sigurdardottir became prime minister after being nominated by her party.

"The attitude in Iceland is fairly pragmatic," said Gunnar Helgi Kristinsson, a political scientist at the University of Iceland. "It (gay marriage) has not been a big issue in national politics -- it's not been controversial."

The prime minister's sexual orientation garnered far more interest among foreign media than in Iceland, where the attitude toward homosexuality has grown increasingly relaxed in the past two or three decades, Kristinsson added.

Iceland's protestant church has yet to decide whether to allow same-sex marriages in church, although the law says "ministers will always be free to perform (gay) marriage ceremonies, but never obliged to."

The largely protestant countries of northern Europe, including Sweden, Norway and Denmark, have all endorsed some form of civil union between same-sex couples, but the issue creates more controversy in Mediterranean Catholic nations.

In the United States, gay marriage remains a frought political issue, with laws varying widely from state to state. Vermont was the first state to allow same-sex civil unions in 1999, followed by Massachusetts and Connecticut and others.

(Reporting Birna Bjornsdottir and Nicholas Vinocur; editing by Noah Barkin)

:cheerleader::LGBTQFlag:

Soon

06-12-2010, 08:02 AM

A Basic Civil Right

waxnrope

06-12-2010, 08:05 AM

A Basic Civil Right
can't open the link!

Soon

06-12-2010, 08:08 AM

can't open the link!

Sorry! Here it is again:

A Basic Civil Right (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/opinion/11fri1.html)

:)

waxnrope

06-12-2010, 08:12 AM

Thanks! well written op ed ... and some good news, too

Isadora

06-13-2010, 09:17 AM

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/?q=node%2F7845

Although I am not a proponent of marriage (for anyone), I thought this is unprecedented news.

The Mormon Church is found guilty by the State of CA.

blackboot

06-14-2010, 07:18 AM

qdCrSXZC5Fc

blackboot

06-14-2010, 07:48 AM

http://vthumb.ak.fbcdn.net/vthumb-ak-sf2p/v33375/9/86/100000864820685/t100000864820685_124636600908500_2019.jpg

Soon

06-16-2010, 07:24 PM

Prop 8 on Twitter (http://twitter.com/search?q=%23Prop8)

Soon

06-17-2010, 09:30 AM

Perry Trial Closing Arguments Transcript (http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/legal-filings/hearing-transcripts/perry-trial-closing-arguments-transcript/)

Soon

06-17-2010, 09:35 AM

G25KMlkjSAU&feature=player_embedded

Ebon

06-17-2010, 10:04 AM

G25KMlkjSAU&feature=player_embedded

Thank you for the update. Is there anywhere to watch the two lawyers statements online?

Soon

06-17-2010, 04:10 PM

Thank you for the update. Is there anywhere to watch the two lawyers statements online?

No. The proceedings are closed; however, there are sites posted where actors read the transcripts. I also saw a reading of Marisa Tomei reading in a park with another actor some of the proceedings (youtube).

The Supreme Court ruled no cameras for this trial.

http://prop8trialtracker.com/ <--you can read transcripts here

Ebon

06-17-2010, 04:17 PM

No. The proceedings are closed; however, there are sites posted where actors read the transcripts. I also saw a reading of Marisa Tomei reading in a park with another actor some of the proceedings (youtube).

The Supreme Court ruled no cameras for this trial.

http://prop8trialtracker.com/ <--you can read transcripts here

Sweet thanks! I'll check out the transcripts!

Toughy

06-17-2010, 09:34 PM

It was not the Supreme Court who ruled no cameras. It was Judge Vaughn Walker...the Presiding Judge. Incidentally he is a gay man.

Soon

06-17-2010, 09:51 PM

It was not the Supreme Court who ruled no cameras. It was Judge Vaughn Walker...the Presiding Judge. Incidentally he is a gay man.

Thanks for that--I thought they brought it up that the SCJ for the televised or not! My mistake!

I did know the presiding judge is a gay man and, of course, the rightxtian wing is making a huge deal of that!

(i dont know where i got that it went to a higher court about the televised or not--maybe not SCJ but something else?)

Soon

06-19-2010, 07:15 AM

It was not the Supreme Court who ruled no cameras. It was Judge Vaughn Walker...the Presiding Judge. Incidentally he is a gay man.

Here's one article who said it was a SCJ ruling to disallow its broadcast. I also seem to remember that people were concerned that this ruling could be a predictor of perhaps the Supreme Court not judging in favour of marriage equality when the case is presented before them.

No cameras in Prop 8 trial

By a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court has barred broadcast of the federal court challenge to Proposition 8, the California referendum that nullified same-sex marriage in the state. I'm deeply saddened to say that I think the court made the right decision.

I would have loved to have had a direct glimpse of the proceedings. But I live and work in Washington, and I am unable to spend two to three weeks in the California courtroom that is hosting the trial. A broadcast -- traditional or over the Internet -- would have been my only chance to witness the potentially groundbreaking proceedings. I'm sure there are lots of folks who feel the same way.

But the conservative justices in the majority -- Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito -- were right in concluding that Judge Vaughn R. Walker, the trial judge in this case, improperly cut corners to jam through novel court rules to allow the first-ever transmission of a federal trial. In the process, he gave short shrift to the concerns of Proposition 8 supporters, who worried that such a broadcast would increase the likelihood that they'd be threatened or harassed.

It is time -- long past time, actually -- that the federal courts entered the 21st century and allowed cameras in the courtroom. This is especially true for cases such as the Prop 8 matter, which trigger heightened public interest. But in moving forward, judges must make sure they respect the procedures already in place. They -- no less than the people who appear before them -- must follow the rules.

By Eva Rodriguez | January 13, 2010; 6:55 PM ET

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/01/no_cameras_in_prop_8_trial.html

Here's another one:

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that cameras will not be allowed in the court room for the duration of the federal case challenging California's same-sex marriage ban. This overrules Judge Vaughn Walker's move to permit real-time video streaming of the trial.

The ruling comes after a half day of proceedings Wednesday morning that found attorneys for Proposition 8 arguing that voters could support a ballot measure against marriage equality without being motivated by antigay sentiment.

http://www.shewired.com/Article.cfm?ID=24252

Toughy

06-19-2010, 08:03 AM

and my bad to you........swiss cheese for brains sometimes....

thanks for correcting me.............

Soon

06-21-2010, 05:54 PM

AP sources: Gay workers to get family leave
(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100621/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_gay_rights/print;_ylt=AgNtQx0ifPHa0rcVPCbR28xv24cA;_ylu=X3oDM TBvajZzaTFyBHBvcwMxNQRzZWMDdG9wBHNsawNwcmludA--)
By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer
23 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The Labor Department intends to issue regulations this week ordering businesses to give gay employees equal treatment under a law permitting workers unpaid time off to care for newborns or loved ones.

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis planned to announce Wednesday that the government would require employers to extend the option that has been available to heterosexual workers for almost two decades, two officials briefed on the plan said Monday. Neither was authorized to speak publicly ahead of the announcement.

The move, coming less than five months before November's congressional elections, seemed likely to incite conservatives and Republicans who stood in lockstep against the Obama administration's earlier efforts to repeal a ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military. It also appeared likely to be popular with loyal Democrats and organized labor.

The Family and Medical Leave Act allows workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave each year to take care of loved ones or themselves. The 1993 law, which also allows employees to take time off for adoptions, has previously only been applied to heterosexual couples.

The Labor Department planned to extend those rights based on a new interpretation of the law, the officials said. There was no plan to ask Congress to change the law, which means future presidents could reverse the decision.

President Barack Obama and his administration have slowly rolled out policies to help gays and lesbians, who supported his candidacy but have soured on what they consider his slow pace in making incremental instead of wholesale changes. He planned to meet with gay activists Tuesday at the White House, the second time such a reception has been held at the executive mansion.

Gay activists have been frustrated with Obama's approach to gay policies. The White House reluctantly backed a compromise on the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy on gays in the military that would move ahead on repeal but still allow the Pentagon time to implement new policies.

Earlier this month, Obama issued orders for government agencies to extend child care services and expanded family leave to their workers. Obama's order for federal employees, though, covers only benefits that can be extended under existing law, without congressional action. Legislative action would be required for a full range of health care and other benefits.

Last year, Obama gave federal workers' same-sex partners a first round of benefits including visitation and dependent-care rights. He also authorized child-care services and subsidies; more flexibility to use family leave to attend to the needs of domestic partners and their children; relocation benefits; giving domestic partners the same status as family members when federal appointments are made; and access to credit union and other memberships when those are provided to federal workers.

Mitmo01

06-21-2010, 05:59 PM

Wow thats fantastic news and its about damn time

blackboot

06-22-2010, 05:36 AM

It is Official - "Time to Kick up into HIGH Gear!"

"Aloha all,

Well Gov. Lingle placed HB 444 on the POTENTIAL veto list today.

Yes we did expect this, so it was not a total shock all this does is it gives us another 14 days to reach Gov. Lingle and ask her to sign HB 444 into law. So to that end.... things YOU can do to help Civil Unions become law in Hawaii:

Write a Letter to the Editor of a Hawaiian daily or weekly paper(s) why you want HB 444 to be signed into law. Remember the shorter the better - here are where to send in your letters---

Star-Advertiser - letters@staradvertiser.com
Garden Isle News - http://thegardenisland.com/shared-content/perform/?domain_name=thegardenisland.com&form_template=letters
Maui News - letters@mauinews.com
Hawaii Tribune Herald - letters@hawaiitribune-herald.com
West Hawaii Today - http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/contact_us/letters/
Honolulu Weekly - editorial@honoluluweekly.com "

Get people to call Gov Lingle at (808) 586-0034, 586-0222 or 0221 and ask her to sign HB 444 into law.

Sign the petition on Facebook--- http://apps.facebook.com/causes/petitions/376?m=0e2b1bf4#sign

SuperFemme

06-22-2010, 10:04 PM

Proposition 8 supporters argue 18,000 same-sex marriages should not be recognized: report

The fate of California (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/California)'s Proposition 8 (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Proposition+8), as well as 18,000 same-sex marriages, will soon be determined.

Closing arguments in the long-running trial aimed at defeating the controversial gay marriage ban will be heard today, and reports suggest supporters of Prop 8 not only want to keep the ban, but virtually erase thousands of gay marriages.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/16/BA3N1DVIFO.DTL), attorney Andrew Pugno (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Andrew+Pugno) isn't looking to "nullify" the 18,000 marriages. His clients, however, just don't want them recognized by government agencies, courts and businesses.
The trial, which challenges the constitutionality of Proposition 8, began in January. The lawsuit was filed by two couples -- two lesbians and two gay men.

The closing arguments are expected to go all day, and cameras are not being allowed in the courtroom.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/06/16/2010-06-16_proposition_8_supporters_argue_18000_samesex_ma rriages_should_not_be_recognized_.html#ixzz0re4oZW VJ

Soon

06-24-2010, 05:58 PM

Hawaiian activists are asking for your help in a snail mail campaign to convince

Gov. Linda Lingle not to veto the state's pending civil unions bill. Lingle has deluged with letters from our enemies, so let's send her some positive messages of our own.

Two suggested lines for your letter: "We are from _____ and we would sure love to have our civil union in Hawaii," and "We recently got a civil union in _____ but would much rather have had it in Hawaii."

Letters should be mailed to:
The Honorable Linda Lingle
Governor, State of Hawaii
Executive Chambers
State Capitol
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

You'll need to send your message this week for it to arrive on time.

Soon

06-26-2010, 07:49 AM

FeS9WYsYmK8&feature=player_embedded#!

MsTinkerbelly

06-30-2010, 12:41 PM

Boutrous sends letter about yesterday’s SCOTUS ruling
By Julia Rosen

Ted Boutrous sent a letter today to Judge Walker about the relevance of the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. It turns out that I was hasty yesterday to say that there was little of relevance between Perry v. Schwarzenegger and the recent decision. Karen Ocam has the letter on LGBT POV.

June 29, 2010

The Honorable Vaughn R. Walker

Chief Judge of the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, California 94102

Re: Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Case No. C-09-2292 VRW

Dear Chief Judge Walker:

I write on behalf of Plaintiffs to bring to the Court’s attention yesterday’s decision in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, No. 08-1371 (U.S. June 28, 2010) (attached hereto as Exhibit A).

In Christian Legal Society, the Supreme Court definitively held that sexual orientation is not merely behavioral, but rather, that gay and lesbian individuals are an identifiable class. Writing for the Court, Justice Ginsburg explained: “Our decisions have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in this context.” Slip op. at 23 (citing Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 575 (2003); id. at 583 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment); Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263, 270 (1993)). This confirms that a majority of the Court now adheres to Justice O’Connor’s view in Lawrence, where she concluded that “the conduct targeted by [the Texas anti-sodomy] law is conduct that is closely correlated with being homosexual” and that, “[u]nder such circumstances, [the] law is targeted at more than conduct” and “is instead directed toward gay persons as a class,” id. at 583 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment) (emphasis added). See also Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (treating gay and lesbian individuals as a class for equal protection purposes). The Court’s holding arose in response to Christian Legal Society’s argument that it was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, but rather because gay and lesbian individuals refused to acknowledge that their conduct was morally wrong. The Court rejected that argument, holding that there is no distinction between gay and lesbian individuals and their conduct.

In his closing argument, counsel for Proponents claimed that High Tech Gays v. Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office, 895 F.2d 563 (9th Cir. 1990), and its dubious statement that “homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic; it is behavioral,” id. at 573, forecloses heightened scrutiny in this case. But as this Court explicitly recognized at the hearing on Proponents’ motion for summary judgment, High Tech Gays, which relied on the now-overruled Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), rested on a moth-eaten foundation.

To the extent that anything is left of High Tech Gays after Lawrence, Christian Legal Society has abrogated it entirely.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr.

Theodore J. Boutrous Jr.

Counsel for Plaintiffs

TJB/eam Attachment

Boutrous is arguing that this case further buttressed several fundamental arguments they are making, that sexual orientation is immutable and that the LGBTs are a class that can be protected.

It will be interesting to see what if anything the defendants send to Judge Walker about Christian Legal Society v. Martinez

chefhmboyrd

06-30-2010, 12:46 PM

my brother and his lover are getting married in Iowa today:nixon:

SuperFemme

06-30-2010, 12:59 PM

http://www.mercurynews.com/mngi/tracking/track?s=568&c=15366752&t=VIEWED&n=1

Supreme Court refuses to keep petitioner IDs private

By Jesse J. Holland

Associated Press

Posted: 06/24/2010 07:50:56 AM PDT
Updated: 06/24/2010 07:50:58 AM PDT

WASHINGTON— The Supreme Court says people who signed a petition to repeal Washington state's gay rights law do not have the right to keep their names secret from the public.

The high court on Thursday ruled against Protect Marriage Washington, which organized a petition drive for a public vote to repeal the state's "everything-but-marriage" gay rights law.

Petition signers wanted to hide their names because of worries of intimidation. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco refused to keep their names secret. The Supreme Court stepped in and temporarily blocked release of the names until the high court could make a decision.

The court now says disclosing names on a petition for a public referendum does not violate the First Amendment

Soon

06-30-2010, 11:02 PM

Iceland's gay prime minister weds partner
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37980907/ns/world_news-europe/)
Wedding comes on day new same-sex marriage law took effect

REYKJAVIK, Iceland — Icelandic Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir has married her long-term partner, her office said on Monday, making her the world's first national leader with a same-sex spouse.

Sigurdardottir, 67, married writer Jonina Leosdottir on Sunday, the day a new law took effect defining marriage as a union between two consenting adults regardless of sex.

The two had had a civil union for years and changed this into a marriage under the new law, which was approved by parliament earlier this month.

The new law was celebrated at a church service on Sunday, which was also the international day for homosexual rights.

The prime minister's office said Sigurdardottir had sent a message to the gathering saying the new law was a cause for celebration for all Icelanders and adding: "I have today taken advantage of this new legislation."

The Lutheran State Church has long been split on the issue of same-sex marriage and the church congress in April did not unanimously support the new legislation. The bishop of Iceland has urged parish ministers to comply with the law.

Sigurdardottir, who has children from a previous heterosexual marriage, is the world's only openly gay prime minister but her sexuality has never been an issue in Iceland, which, like the other Nordic states, has a history of tolerance.

Copyright 2010 Reuters.
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk34/feministing/250px-Johanna_sigurdardottir.jpg

iamkeri1

07-05-2010, 09:27 PM

Far-Fuckin-Out!!!!!!!!!!!!![

QUOTE=HowSoonIsNow;142392]Iceland's gay prime minister weds partner
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37980907/ns/world_news-europe/)
Wedding comes on day new same-sex marriage law took effect

REYKJAVIK, Iceland — Icelandic Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir has married her long-term partner, her office said on Monday, making her the world's first national leader with a same-sex spouse.

Sigurdardottir, 67, married writer Jonina Leosdottir on Sunday, the day a new law took effect defining marriage as a union between two consenting adults regardless of sex.

The two had had a civil union for years and changed this into a marriage under the new law, which was approved by parliament earlier this month.

The new law was celebrated at a church service on Sunday, which was also the international day for homosexual rights.

The prime minister's office said Sigurdardottir had sent a message to the gathering saying the new law was a cause for celebration for all Icelanders and adding: "I have today taken advantage of this new legislation."

The Lutheran State Church has long been split on the issue of same-sex marriage and the church congress in April did not unanimously support the new legislation. The bishop of Iceland has urged parish ministers to comply with the law.

Sigurdardottir, who has children from a previous heterosexual marriage, is the world's only openly gay prime minister but her sexuality has never been an issue in Iceland, which, like the other Nordic states, has a history of tolerance.

Copyright 2010 Reuters.
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk34/feministing/250px-Johanna_sigurdardottir.jpg[/QUOTE]

Soon

07-06-2010, 02:40 PM

CALL TO ACTION

Gay and Lesbian People Need Not Apply: Call on NBC to Stop Today Show’s “Modern Day Wedding Contest” from Denying Gay and Lesbian Couples the Right to Participate
(http://www.glaad.org/2010/calltoaction/todayshow)
Network Uses Faulty Reasoning to Exclude Participants

Jess

07-06-2010, 04:16 PM

http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/

Article gives a state by state breakdown of folks and groups who gave financial support to both pro and opposition to the Prop 8 trial.

Jess

07-06-2010, 04:22 PM

Jess

07-06-2010, 06:57 PM

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/03/v-fullstory/1714794/gay-us-citizens-seek-to-claim.html

AtLast

07-06-2010, 07:04 PM

(My apologies if this news has been posted)

Mormons Found Guilty on 13 Counts of Prop 8 Malfeasance, Fined by FPPC

By Dan Aiello
California Progress Report

On Wednesday, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints became the first religious organization to be fined for political malfeasance in California, according to Californians Against Hate (CAH), the non-profit organization that filed the complaint after voters narrowly approved the anti-marriage equality initiative, proposition 8, November, 2008.

Leaders of the Mormon Church "failed to timely report making late non-monetary contributions" to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign, an amount totaling $36,928, according to the June 10, 2010 finding by California's Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), announced at the commission's meeting Wednesday in Sacramento. The commission's enforcement included levying a 15% punitive fine against the LDS organization, totaling $5,539 dollars.

The late reporting charges were just one part of the complaint CAH filed November 13, 2008, shortly after the anti-marriage equality initiative passed, and followed-up with a supplemental complaint filed March 18, 2009, as more information became public.

"[The fine] seems a little light since [the FPPC] only looked at $36,000 of their contributions, but it's also historic because no church has ever been fined for illegal political activity in California before," said Fred Karger, CAH founder. "In fact, it's unprecedented."

LDS spokesperson, Kim Farah, declined comment, referring instead to a public statement at the religious organization's website which said Mormons "Mistakenly overlooked the daily reporting process" during the last two weeks of the campaign.

"When we accused them of contributing more money [than was reported], they stated publicly that our claims were false, but that turned out to be a lie - one of many," said Karger, who was in Sacramento attending the FPPC meeting to make sure the fine was assessed. "It's unbelievable, their arrogance, blatantly violating California election laws and lying repeatedly about their involvement in prop 8.

According to CAH, a spokesman for the Mormon Church, Don Eaton, said in an interview with KGO-TV (ABC San Francisco) prior to the election, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints put zero money in this.”

It was eventually learned that the Mormon Church coordinated contributions amounting to more than half of the $45 million dollar Yes on Prop 8 campaign, as well as contributing non-monetarily to the campaign by sending Mormon campaign volunteers through the Church's "mission" program and offering use of church ward (parish) properties throughout the state.

Karger noted that Mormon leadership has significant influence in Utah. Political scientists have referred to Utah's form of government as a "Theo-Democracy," because of the church's influence over state politics and legislation. "No legislation passes without the approval of the Church leadership," said Will Carlson of Equality Utah, a group that has been unsuccessful in passing statewide protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation. Mormons active in the faith constitute approximately 75% of the Utah legislature and, because the Mormon church requires members to adhere to the wishes of LDS leadership or face excommunication, church leadership is able to exert significant influence over Utah politics.

The LDS exerts influence on social issues in Utah's neighboring states, as well, creating what is known politically as "The Mormon Corridor," from Eastern California to Colorado, Idaho to Arizona.

The complaint by Karger and CAH resulted in the FPPC's 19-month investigation, leading to today's decision. "They got off easy," said Karger, "but this is only one state. They were involved in all 30 state [marriage] battles. This is just the beginning."

Along with the complaint filed in California, Karger and CAH also filed a complaint "against the Mormon's front organization, NOM [National Organization for Marriage]," Karger said. Maine's Fair Political Practices Commission "voted 3-2 to investigate them and to turn over their donor names which they're required to by law," said Karger. "They contributed another $2 million dollars in that campaign."

NOM is under investigation in the state of Maine for possible money laundering and failing to file the required campaign reports for that state’s Question 1 campaign. Question 1 took away gay marriage in Maine just last November.

The Maine investigation is ongoing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~

Dan Aiello reports for the California Progress Report.

Soon

07-06-2010, 08:32 PM

Calling it "marriage by another name," Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle has just announced that she will VETO her state's civil unions bill. Adding insult to her bigotry, invited to the announcement was the now-retired Hawaii Supreme Court Justice who first got the state's marriage equality ball rolling in 1993.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_t6rV3U9ZEHM/TDPW0kPYVII/AAAAAAAA2IM/QuVnTb2-BM0/s1600/LingleBigot.jpg

TAKE ACTION
Hawaii Chamber of Commerce - 808-545-4300
Hawaii Visitors & Conventions Bureau - 800-464-2924

UPDATE: The ACLU and Lambda Legal have announced plans to sue Hawaii.
Lambda Legal and the ACLU had readied a lawsuit after the House tabled HB 444 in January. The Hawai'i Senate had previously approved the bill by a veto-proof 18 to 7 majority and sent it back to the House for a conforming vote. "We're obviously disappointed that Governor Lingle has, once again, used her power to deny the people of Hawai'i their civil rights" said Laurie Temple, Staff Attorney for the ACLU. "Luckily for the people of Hawai'i, however, our constitution prevents discrimination based on sexual orientation. If the Governor won't honor her oath to uphold the constitution, the courts will."

MORE REACTIONS

Equality Hawaii:

“Today is a sad day for the thousands of Hawaii families who remain second class citizens,” said Alan Spector, legislative affairs co-chair for Equality Hawaii. “We fail to see how the Governor’s actions are in the best interest of Hawaii’s future and are nothing more than political maneuvering at the expense of people’s lives. We’re disappointed and outraged that same-sex families will not be treated equally under Hawaii law, but vow to come back and fight this fight another day.”

Human Rights Campaign:

“Americans nationwide share in the disappointment and outrage of thousands of Hawaii’s families who will not receive equal treatment under law,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign. “Thankfully, there are local advocates as well as leaders in the Hawaii legislature who will continue to further the cause of equality. For decades, we have been a loyal partner in this fight for fairness in the Aloha State and we pledge to stand with them for years to come.”

blackboot

07-06-2010, 09:24 PM

Needless to say, we are heartbroken at Gov. Linda Lingle's veto of HB444 that would have allowed us a Civil Union.

blackboot & CherryFemme

Jess

07-07-2010, 08:27 AM

Jess

07-07-2010, 08:34 AM

Soon

07-07-2010, 08:58 AM

szQacW3N4Lo&feature=player_embedded#!

blackboot

07-08-2010, 07:10 AM

When these "christians" weren't waiving their hands in the air or singing and praying, some took the time to shout that they "hoped we all died of aids."
It is a sad time in the land of aloha.

Corkey

07-08-2010, 02:56 PM

BREAKING: Federal judge strikes down key DOMA section
July 8, 2010 / Denis / Uncategorized
In a landmark decision this afternoon, a Federal District Court judge in Boston has ruled a key provision of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

The case was brought by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders on behalf of eight couples and three other persons who had been legally married in Massachusetts. The plaintiffs said DOMA’s section 3, which prohibited federal recognition of legal marriages of same-sex couples, violated the principle of equal protection under the U.S. constitution, and the court agreed.

“This is not a marriage case. If we win, it wouldn’t result in any new marriages. It’s a case where people are already married and they’re being treated differently by the federal government. It’s about equal protection,” Mary Bonauto, lead counsel in the case, told The AmLaw Daily before the decision came down.

If the judge’s decision is upheld by higher courts, the U.S. federal government would have to recognize same-sex couples in legal marriages with regard to multiple federal programs. The case is Gill, et al vs. Office of Personnel Management, et al.

Arwen

07-08-2010, 03:13 PM

Here's a link. (http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=107807)

Stearns

07-08-2010, 03:30 PM

Needless to say, we are heartbroken at Gov. Linda Lingle's veto of HB444 that would have allowed us a Civil Union.

blackboot & CherryFemme

I emailed the Hawaii Chamber of Commerce and the Hawaii Visitor's & Convention Bureau today and expressed that Hawaii would never get my and my wife's money because of Gov. Lingle's lack of belief in human rights for all people. I decided on these two organizations, because I think emailing Lingle is a waste of time. I had already emailed her prior to the veto.

SuperFemme

07-08-2010, 04:22 PM

When these "christians" weren't waiving their hands in the air or singing and praying, some took the time to shout that they "hoped we all died of aids."
It is a sad time in the land of aloha.

ouch.

at rallies after Prop 8 we encountered that kind of sheer hatred too.

all i could do was cry, yanno?

i was the kind of angry/sad/hopeless that the only thing that came out of me was tears. not words, not yelling, just tears.

my heart breaks for you both and i don't want to pat you on the head and tell you it's going to be ok. because we don't know that.

but don't lose the ability to hope again, please?

in my eyes you are married, as i'm sure is true for this whole community. *we* believe in your love. it's as important as everyone elses.

((((hugs))))

blackboot

07-08-2010, 04:33 PM

Eduardo Hernandez July 8 at 12:18pm "Dear Friends of Equality & Justice,
One easy way for you to let the visitor industry hear the pain Governor Lingle has caused with her veto of HB 444 is to call the official visitor information call center at 1-800-GOHAWAII (1-800-464-2924). While a boycott of Hawaii would be counter-productive because so many of our supporters earn their living in the tourism economy, you can certainly help to communicate that discrimination and bigotry are incompatible with the spirit of aloha tourism in general.

This toll-free line is operated by the Hawaii Visitors & Convention Bureau, the official U.S. marketing agent of the Hawaii Tourism Authority. It is monitored closely to identify trends and concerns among travelers. Daily, weekly and monthly reporting from these calls helps inform tourism marketing initiatives and public spending. Please let your voice be heard in a constructive way.

When you call: 1) Hold for a live operator. 2) Decline their offer of a vacation planner to be mailed to your home. 3) Tell the operator: “I’m very concerned about the situation in Hawaii, following Governor Lingle’s veto of civil rights legislation. When I visit (one or more of) the Islands of Hawaii, I expect to be treated with equality and aloha. Please pass my concerns on to your supervisors.”

Stearns

07-08-2010, 04:43 PM

blackboot

07-08-2010, 05:18 PM

SuperFemme,
Thank you for your kind words. I am reminded of how I miss California LGBTQ.
We only had one loud Queen(and we immediately gravitated to each other) in the less than 100 that showed up at the Capital to hear Linda Lingle veto away our civil rights. I miss putting on my black boots *wink* and taking it to the streets. Maybe that time has past. I don't know. Maybe I'm just an old and tired warrior.

I'll take that head pat.

SuperFemme

07-08-2010, 06:42 PM

HOLY SHIT!

Judge Walker will be ruling on the Federal Prop 8 trial at 6 p.m. today.

I'm soooooooooooooo nervous I could vomit.

Please? God? Higher Power? Anyone? Please oh please do not let this be the death of gay marriage in America. Please.

Stay tuned

SuperFemme

07-08-2010, 06:59 PM

prop 8 stays.
boo.

my heart broke.

betenoire

07-08-2010, 07:01 PM

prop 8 stays.
boo.

my heart broke.

WHAT? But the Judge kinda sounded like our friend! How is this possible?

Oh, I see. I misunderstood how it works. I thought there was just the one judge (the one nice one I kept hearing about) I didn't realise there were, what, 6?

Queerasfck

07-08-2010, 07:01 PM

prop 8 stays.
boo.

my heart broke.

Sux............

Medusa

07-08-2010, 07:04 PM

JUST saw this:

Federal Ban on Gay Marriage Ruled Unconstitutional:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jZVhxGXCMRA-mJB4JYXiICP3a6jQD9GR5S380

Stearns

07-08-2010, 07:25 PM

prop 8 stays.
boo.

my heart broke.

SF, where did you hear this? I'm seeing sites saying it's a hoax, that there hasn't been a ruling yet.

SuperFemme

07-08-2010, 07:34 PM

SF, where did you hear this? I'm seeing sites saying it's a hoax, that there hasn't been a ruling yet.

I watched them read the verdict live on the steps of the civic center in San Francisco via abc news.

go here to see the civil disobedience.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/video?id=6832888

betenoire

07-08-2010, 07:41 PM

I watched them read the verdict live on the steps of the civic center in San Francisco via abc news.

go here to see the civil disobedience.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/video?id=6832888

Wait...I don't think that's live. Wasn't there a previous trial about this? I think that -may- be the coverage from the last trial.

If you'll notice, the newscaster blonde at the start says "good morning". Plus, if you refresh it starts the video over. I think this is archive footage and that we don't know the verdict yet.

Hopefully I'm not wrong?

Soon

07-08-2010, 07:44 PM

Wait...I don't think that's live. Wasn't there a previous trial about this? I think that -may- be the coverage from the last trial.

If you'll notice, the newscaster blonde at the start says "good morning". Plus, if you refresh it starts the video over. I think this is archive footage and that we don't know the verdict yet.

Hopefully I'm not wrong?

As i watched the video, I had the same reaction. This reminds me of the last trial (with multiple judges on the Calif Supreme Court) who ruled that Prop 8 stands.

This doesn't seem like the Olsen / Boies case (Perry v Schwarzenegger) trial with Judge Vaughn Walker.

The Prop 8 trial tracker has nothing about a ruling.

SuperFemme

07-08-2010, 07:46 PM

really? there's still hope?

i really AM just a brain injured freak who cannot tell the right video?

oh. my. gay. i hope so.

Soon

07-08-2010, 07:48 PM

really? there's still hope?

i really AM just a brain injured freak who cannot tell the right video?

oh. my. gay. i hope so.

i'm thinking there's still hope!

:praying:

betenoire

07-08-2010, 07:49 PM

We like hope!

SuperFemme

07-08-2010, 07:54 PM

God I AM an idiot.

I am so emotional about this, and was sent a link for live coverage....
which was live. In 2009.

I apologize from the bottom of my heart for giving bad information.

I am so so sorry.

I will sit here and hold my breath, which won't be easy now that I've cried for 45 minutes and upset the whole family.

so embarassed.

betenoire

07-08-2010, 07:57 PM

so embarassed.

OMG you are the first person on the planet to make a mistake!

I love you. Your family loves you. I bet my cats love you (and they hate everybody).

You are not an idiot. Don't make me come down there!

(by the way, where is Snow? I get bored when she's not around to flirt with.)

SuperFemme

07-08-2010, 07:59 PM

Snow is in FL running to the ocean to throw her phone in it after she had to listen to me sob and blow my nose and sob some more on the phone.

Oh. I've been bad. With Snowy that is ALWAYS a plus.

Galahad

07-08-2010, 08:02 PM

It's okay. We are all so worked up about the veto in Hawaii and the decision in Mass. I have been on pins and needles waiting for the decision too. Please don't feel bad SF.

Stearns

07-08-2010, 08:03 PM

You have nothing to be embarrassed about, SF. It's an example of our community being let down so often, that we've come to expect disappointment.

SuperFemme

07-08-2010, 08:05 PM

thank you all for being so kind.

i am just sorry to have caused undue stress and sadness, that is awful, because i know that i have been beside myself.

Medusa

07-08-2010, 08:06 PM

thank you all for being so kind.

i am just sorry to have caused undue stress and sadness, that is awful, because i know that i have been beside myself.

Look at this as a positive - We have hope! It's not over! This was just a reminder to keep thinking positive thoughts and making the phone calls!

I love my little Swiss Miss!:tea:

betenoire

07-08-2010, 08:07 PM

Snow is in FL running to the ocean to throw her phone in it after she had to listen to me sob and blow my nose and sob some more on the phone.

Oh. I've been bad. With Snowy that is ALWAYS a plus.

Next time you talk to her tell her I have been sarcastic and difficult to get along with, okay?

SuperFemme

07-08-2010, 08:12 PM

Next time you talk to her tell her I have been sarcastic and difficult to get along with, okay?

too late. i did that yesterday. she wants to let you dig your hole deeper.

Selenay

07-08-2010, 08:15 PM

.:praying:.

betenoire

07-08-2010, 08:18 PM

too late. i did that yesterday. she wants to let you dig your hole deeper.

See, I could tell she likes it when I'm obnoxious! I am very smart about these things.

blackboot

07-08-2010, 08:50 PM

Have I told you all how much I love you, lately?

Corkey

07-08-2010, 08:53 PM

Wait that wasn't the decision? Color me confuzzled.

Stearns

07-08-2010, 08:58 PM

Decision still to come. Should be soon.

Cyclopea

07-08-2010, 11:00 PM

Wait that wasn't the decision? Color me confuzzled.

In the U.S. marriage rights are decided by each state. It is each state’s “right” to decide upon and enact it’s own laws pertaining to marriage and divorce. That is why each state has different marriage and divorce requirements.

In 1996 a judge in the state of Hawaii ruled that gays and lesbians had the right to the same treatment under state marriage laws as everyone else. This groundbreaking ruling sent bigots and their elected representatives nationwide into a frenzy.

One of the few ways the federal government controls marriage rights is by deciding the ways in which the federal government interacts with married people as decided by the states. Federal law states that the agencies of the federal government (IRS, Social Security, Veterans Admin, etc etc) must treat marriages from each state equally, regardless of the ways states have decided to implement those laws.
And that each state must also recognize marriages from other states, even if those marriages were formed under different requirements (for example some states have a waiting period or residency requirement to get married, some- like Nevada with its booming Las Vegas wedding business- do not.) According to federal law a drunken marriage in las vegas or a marriage to an incarcerated death row serial killer is treated equally to a marriage in a state where those marriages would not be legally allowed due to state law. The federal government must treat marriages from each state equally, and each state must recognize marriages from other states, even if those marriages would not be permitted in that state. Most of the federal laws relating to this equality are the result of lawsuits based on states laws which forbid marriages based on race, even into the 1970s.

Hawaii’s groundbreaking same sex marriage legal ruling was ultimately undermined and delayed by various legal and political wranglings. But the national terror among bigots that states would be required, under federal law, to recognize legal marriages from other states EVEN IF THEY WERE GAY ONES resulted in Bill “free willy” Clinton enacting an amendment to the US Constitution (!!!) stating that the federal government would NOT recognize any state marriages between gays, even if a state legalized such a marriage (the feds could not outlaw states legalizing gay marriage because specific marriage laws are decided by each state). And that the federal government would NOT require all states to recognize marriages from other states if those marriages did not involve the new federal marriage standard of one man one woman. This constitutional amendment was called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Over 30 states also adopted state constitutional amendments stating that those states also will not recognize same sex marriages from other states or allow same sex marriages. Since these state amendments are purely discriminatory, they are (very slowly) being challenged and struck down one by one.

In some states gay marriage has been won, not through the courts, but through the legislature. This was the case in Hawaii, where the lawmakers passed a law legalizing civil unions through the political process rather than wait for the courts to inevitably order it. Yesterday the kooky-ass Hawaiian governor unilaterally VETOED the law that their legislature agreed upon. The same thing happened in Vermont after the legislature passed gay marriage through the political process, rather than in the courts. The kooky VT Governor vetoed it, then the legislature overrode the veto in special session. The legislature in Hawaii has declined to reconvene to override the kooky governor’s veto, because they are on the golf course, and they know that Lingle is a sitting duck wacko who will soon be gone and they will simply pass the damn thing again next session. This weirdo bigot Lingle actually invited the judge who wrote the original decision 17 years ago (which said that Hawaii marriage laws were discriminatory against gays and lesbians) to her press conference announcing her veto. Serious issues, lady, serious issues…

So wacko Lingle’s veto decision came yesterday.

And then HA HA HA today- The DOMA law which enshrined anti-gay bigotry in the US Constitution was OVERTURNED in federal court today on the grounds that it is DISCRIMINATORY. HAHAHAHAHA. Fuck you Lingle!
It was actually two decisions which came down today in federal court, based on two lawsuits filed in massachucetts, one filed by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) and one filed by Saint Martha Coakley, the attorney general of the state of massachucets. Each challenged DOMA on different grounds, the GLAD one filed on behalf of gay and lesbian married federal workers who were denied equal rights and benefits (family medical leave, social security, etc) by the federal government, and the Coakley one on the grounds that the federal government is infringing on the STATES RIGHTS of Massachusetts by forcing the state to discriminate against it’s own citizens and by discriminating against the STATE by unfair federal dispersal of various entitlement funds (COBRA- which is a federal program which subsidizes medical insurance costs for employers – but not for gay employees!) etc. Both lawsuits were somehow lumped together under the same judge and he issued rulings -STRONG STRONG rulings in both today.
“In his opinion, Tauro found that DOMA didn't even survive rational basis review, which is the least exacting form of constitutional scrutiny” National Law Review: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202463377457&Mass_Federal_Judge_Strikes_Down_Defense_of_Marriag e_Act

The next decision being awaited is the Walker decision on the Prop 8 lawsuit which will decide whether california’s prop 8 law is constitutional. Because his online legal docket is blank for the rest of the month of July an imminent decision is being speculated- but that’s not certain, he can take as long as he wants.

Both the DOMA rulings today and the Prop 8 Walker decision (whichever way it goes) will ultimately be appealed to and decided by the supreme court. While today’s DOMA ruling definitely gives Walker more legal ammunition to overturn Prop 8, the real hope is that these DOMA rulings will reach the US Supreme Court before the prop 8 case, because the legal precendent set by the overturning of DOMA will lend immeasurable credence to the arguments in the prop 8 challenge.

The reason is that the prop 8 case does not address any of the clear financial ways in which the federal gov discriminates against gay marriage. The prop 8 case merely argues that civil unions are discriminatory because they are SOCIALLY inferior to marriages. Since civil unions confer all the same STATE rights as marriage, social discrimination is the only basis on which inequity can be argued on the state level. The blatant and outrageous ways in which civil unions are not equivielnt to marriage (taxes, social security, agricultural subsidies, etc etc ) are all FEDERAL marriage entitlements, which under DOMA are illegal anyway so that is a moot point in arguing for marriage over civil union on a state level. If SCOTUS overturns DOMA based on the two rulings today BEFORE the prop 8 case gets to SCOTUS, all the financial discrimination will be applicable to the prop 8 case and it can be argued on much more concrete ground than social discrimination.
At least that’s how I understand todays rulings and things going forward. Hope it made sense! If I see a good re-cap explaining things better I will post it.

All in All, The BEST NEWS we’ve had in 17 years.
I am very happy.
I am loving watching the ‘phobes and the religious reich squirm as they now attempt to support federal power and argue against the very state rights that they have been embracing for the last 50 years. :)

Corkey

07-08-2010, 11:06 PM

Yea I knew all that, it wasn't the confusing problem, which has been solved. But thanks for taking the time to write that all out.

Cyclopea

07-08-2010, 11:11 PM

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/07/doma-ruling-2-gill-letourneau-vs-office.html

MsTinkerbelly

07-09-2010, 08:53 AM

US Federal Judge In Massachusetts Rules Part of DOMA Is Unconstitutional
by Robert Cruickshank

UPDATE: Here’s the PDF of the ruling, via GLAD. Original post begins here:

As we await the ruling from Judge Vaughn Walker on Perry v. Schwarzenegger, we just received word about a decision in two marriage equality suits. A federal judge in Massachusetts just ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law passed in 1996 that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriage and enables states to withhold recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states, is unconstitutional.

The ruling in the cases, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services and Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, does not strike down DOMA in its entirety. But what it does appear to do is to remove the ban on the federal government’s recognition of same-sex marriage.

Bay Windows, New England’s largest GLBT newspaper, provides a very useful overview:

In an enormous victory for same-sex marriage, a federal judge in Boston today (Thursday, July 8) ruled, in two separate cases, that a critical part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.

In one challenge brought by the state of Massachusetts, Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that Congress violated the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when it passed DOMA and took from the states decisions concerning which couples can be considered married. In the other, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, he ruled DOMA violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services, Tauro considered whether the federal law’s definition of marriage — one man and one woman — violates state sovereignty by treating some couples with Massachusetts’ marriage licenses differently than others. In Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), a gay legal group, asked Tauro to consider whether DOMA violates the right of eight same-sex couples to equal protection of the law.

Adam Bink at Open Left offers the key section from Judge Tauro’s ruling in Commonwealth:

This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status. The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and, in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment. For that reason, the statute is invalid.

In other words, Judge Tauro’s ruling in Commonwealth is that the 10th Amendment prevents Congress from defining marriage, a right that the states held until 1996. It should be noted that there is considerable precedent, including Loving v. Virginia, giving the US Supreme Court the right to overturn bans on certain kinds of marriage, so this case should not be construed to limit the federal courts’ ability to provide for marriage equality.

The other suit, Gill v. OPM, further establishes that Section 3 of DOMA was passed with discriminatory intent and is invalid. The outcome of that suit would appear to mandate that the federal government provide benefits to couples in a same-sex marriage that is sanctioned by the state. This may lead to same-sex spouses being able to file a joint return with the IRS, something that has been denied to them (including the 18,000 same-sex couples married in California between May and November 2008) under DOMA.

Early reaction is in from Evan Wolfson at Freedom to Marry:

Today’s historic ruling strikes down federal marriage discrimination enacted under the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” in 1996. DOMA created two classes of marriage – those the federal government respects and some it doesn’t – denying married same sex couples and their families equal treatment and depriving them of the crucial safety-net that marriage brings. In Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management, eight married same-sex couples and three widowers, represented by the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, demonstrated that federal marriage discrimination harms gay and lesbian couples who are trying to make ends meet and protect their families.

Today’s ruling affirms what we have long known: federal discrimination enacted under DOMA is unconstitutional. The decision will be appealed and litigation will continue. But what we witnessed in the courtroom cannot be erased: federal marriage discrimination harms committed same-sex couples and their families for no good reason. Today’s ruling provides increased momentum to the national movement to end exclusion from marriage and Freedom to Marry’s Roadmap to secure the freedom to marry nationwide. The crucial work of changing hearts and minds and winning the freedom to marry in more states is more urgent than ever as we build on today’s momentum and encourage other decision-makers to do the right thing and end exclusion from marriage.

We’ll have more updates as we learn more about the ruling and its likely implications. It will be interesting to see what, if any, bearing this ruling has on Judge Walker’s decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

UPDATE 2: More from Judge Tauro’s decision:

But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA’s passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it “prevent[s] children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure,” when afforded equal recognition under federal law.

Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out in his dissent to Lawrence v. Texas, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country.

This is a very sensible and effective response to the silly argument that same-sex marriage somehow limits or undermines heterosexual procreation.

Adam Bonin has a good analysis up over at Daily Kos.

A key upcoming question is whether the Obama Administration will appeal this decision. It would be wise of them to not do so.

AtLast

07-09-2010, 11:22 AM

As a California resident, I have to say that it is just so damn frustrating (re: Prop 8 recent ruling) knowing that our original movement for same-sex marriage is precident for other states. States in which same-sex marriage is now legal!

Here we are in California, with a bought and paid-for (by the LDS in other states!) consitutional amendment banning anything other than one man and one woman for legal marriage at this point in time!

Talk about banging your head agains a wall!!!

To all in states in which same-sex marriage is legal- I am happy for you, but please send CA your mo-jo, woo-woo... whatever! We need it! Hell, send Lucky Charms....

SuperFemme

07-09-2010, 11:53 AM

Rumor of Prop. 8 ruling brings attorneys, media to S.F. courthouse [Updated] (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/07/california-gay-marraige-prop8.html)

July 8, 2010 | 7:28 pm

Television trucks, attorneys and a few members of the public congregated at the federal courthouse in San Francisco on Thursday afternoon, waiting for a verdict in the Proposition 8 same-sex marriage trial.

But as the sun set, no ruling had come.

A rumor swept through the blogosphere and San Francisco City Hall on Thursday that U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker planned to issue his long-awaited ruling on whether Proposition 8, which banned same sex marriage in California, violates the U.S. Constitution.

But Walker’s chambers were closed Thursday and expected to be closed Friday, and he had not told any of the parties in the closely watched case that a ruling was coming.

Lawyers in the case said they doubted the rumor was true.
“I would be amazed,” said Andy Pugno, an attorney for the proponents of Proposition 8.

[Updated, 8:02 p.m.: A previous version of this post misspelled Pugno's last name as Pugo.]

-- Jessica Garrison in Los Angeles and Maura Dolan in San Francisco

AtLast

07-09-2010, 01:20 PM

SuperFemme

07-09-2010, 08:23 PM

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33082633/Plaintiffs-Responses-to-Prop-8-Judge-s-Questions

Soon

07-10-2010, 05:27 AM

Ph4CiJXwHeU&feature=player_embedded#!

Corkey

07-11-2010, 02:44 PM

http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/a_straight_statement_for_same-sex_marriage

Stearns

07-11-2010, 03:23 PM

http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/a_straight_statement_for_same-sex_marriage

We need more str8t allies like this. Thanks for the article, Corkey.

Soon

07-12-2010, 01:52 PM

6cGV8f2gpKk&feature=player_embedded

MsTinkerbelly

07-14-2010, 12:38 PM

IRS Ruling Is A Recognition of Fact
by Brian Leubitz

While this might not have been on everybody’s radar, the IRS kicked down a huge decision for California same-sex couples. But PLR-149319-09 (PDF) has some big importance to California registered domestic partners and same-sex married couple. Long story short, the IRS is now recognizing California’s community property rules. And that’s big. Really big.

Let’s start from the beginning. I’m no accountant, but bear with me as I try to recall my tax class in law school. Basically, California, like many Western states, has a default rule for marriage that any property acquired (other than through inheritance) is treated as “community property” between the two married spouses. For California same-gender couples that got married in 2008, these community property rules apply unless you have opted out through contract (a “pre-nup”). Also, in 2006 and 2007, the legislature passed, and the Governor signed, two pieces of legislation that granted registered domestic partnerships the same rights and responsibilities of marriage, with community property first being excluded for tax purposes in 2006, and then being completely folded in to the RDP in 2007.

Of course, the problem here is that under the so-called “Defense of Marriage” Act, the federal government was not supposed to recognize any marriage not between a man and a woman. Thus, we had a real pickle on our hands. Under California property law, the property was community property, half belonged to both partners. But how that property got there was anybody’s guess. Just off the top of my head, there are a number of ways the federal government could have handled the issue:

1) Ignored community property between same gender couples entirely. Sure, it would cause conflicts with state tax issues, but who cares, according to the Yes on 8 folks, this is a future of civilization thing here.
2) Acknowledge the community property, treating it as a gift between two unrelated partners for federal tax purposes. This would have been very bad for same-gender couples. Basically, couples would have had to pay gift tax on any difference in income over $13,000 (or so, depending on what the gift tax is that year). That would get pricy fast.
3) Acknowledge the community property, but treat it as earned jointly. Basically, each partner, for tax purposes, earned half of the income. This would be far more favorable and basically treat community property the same for all couples.

I’ll let you read PLR-149319-09 (PDF) on your own if you’d like to, but long story short, the IRS went for #3. Once they went over the law, it seems obvious, but these things rarely are obvious before hand. And that’s the case here. The IRS first relied on past precedent to first say that the federal goverment defers to the states to determine property law (U.S. v. Mitchell) and then to say that California community property law determines who owns what for California couples (US v Malcolm). Finally, the IRS simply stated that once California treated property as community property, the IRS would do so as well.

Now, in practical terms, what does this mean? Well, say you are a couple where one partner earns substantially more than the other. You’ll have noticed that your California tax bills went down with community property. Now the same will apply to the federal government. For example, say “Adam” earns $50,000 as a public school teacher. His husband “Bill” earns $150,000 as a investment hot-shot or something. (No comment on our society’s priorities there.) Under this new law, each would report income of $100,000. For a variety of reasons in the tax code, that’s going to be advantageous. Now, I’m not a tax lawyer, and this isn’t specific advice. If this is something that might apply, ask whomever prepares your taxes or some other tax professional.

There is one wrinkle in here. Technically, the IRS “private letter ruling” specifically addresses registered domestic partnerships, and uses that language. However, the ruling is entirely directed at the concept of community property, which applies in the same way for the 2008 marriages. In theory, it should be handled the same way, but theory often gets you audited.

MsTinkerbelly

07-15-2010, 09:09 AM

Argentina legalizes gay marriage in historic vote

AP By MICHAEL WARREN, Associated Press Writer Michael Warren, Associated Press Writer – 14 mins ago
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina – Argentina legalized same-sex marriage Thursday, becoming the first country in Latin America to declare that gays and lesbians have all the legal rights, responsibilities and protections that marriage brings to heterosexual couples.

After a marathon debate in Argentina's senate, 33 lawmakers voted in favor, 27 against and 3 abstained in a vote that ended after 4 a.m. Since the lower house already approved it and President Cristina Fernandez is a strong supporter, it becomes law as soon as it is published in the official bulletin, which should happen within days.

The law is sure to bring a wave of marriages by gays and lesbians who have found Buenos Aires to be a welcoming place to live. But same-sex couples from other countries shouldn't rush their Argentine wedding plans, since only citizens and residents can wed in the country, and the necessary documents can take months to obtain. While it makes some amendments to the civil code, many other aspects of family law will have to be changed.

The approval came despite a concerted campaign by the Roman Catholic Church and evangelical groups, which drew 60,000 people to march on Congress and urged parents in churches and schools to work against passage. Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio led the campaign, saying "children need to have the right to be raised and educated by a father and a mother."

Nine gay couples had already married in Argentina after persuading judges that the constitutional mandate of equality supports their marriage rights, although their validity was later challenged by other judges. Congressional passage now removes that doubt.

As the debate stretched on for nearly 16 hours, large crowds held rival vigils through the frigid night outside the Congress building. When the final vote came, cheers and hugs broke out among the bill's supporters, with police keeping them separate from frustrated opponents who prayed and held rosaries.

"Marriage between a man and a woman has existed for centuries, and is essential for the perpetuation of the species," insisted Sen. Juan Perez Alsina, who is usually a loyal supporter of the president but gave a passionate speech against gay marriage inside the Senate chamber.

But Sen. Norma Morandini, another member of the president's party, compared the discrimination closeted gays face to the oppression imposed by Argentina's dictators decades ago.

"What defines us is our humanity, and what runs against humanity is intolerance," she said.

Same-sex civil unions have been legalized in Uruguay and some states in Mexico and Brazil. Colombia's Constitutional Court granted same-sex couples inheritance rights and allowed them to add their partners to health insurance plans. Mexico City went further, legalizing gay marriage and launching tourism campaigns to encourage foreigners to come and wed.

Argentina now becomes the first country in Latin America to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide, granting gays and lesbians all the same rights and responsibilities that heterosexuals have. These include many more rights than civil unions, including adopting children and inheriting wealth.

Gay rights advocates said Argentina's historic step adds momentum to similar efforts around the world.

"Today's historic vote shows how far Catholic Argentina has come, from dictatorship to true democratic values, and how far the freedom to marry movement has come, as twelve countries on four continents now embrace marriage equality," said Evan Wolfson, who runs the U.S. Freedom to Marry lobby.

Wolfson urged U.S. lawmakers to stand up "for the Constitution and all families here in the United States. America should lead, not lag, when it comes to treating everyone equally under the law."

Gay activists in neighboring Chile hope Argentina's milestone will improve chances for a gay marriage law currently in committee in their own Congress.

"Argentina's political class has provided a lesson to the rest of Latin America," said Rolando Jimenez in Santiago. "We hope our own countries and political parties will learn that the human rights of sexual minorities are undeniable."

Activists in Paraguay plan to propose a similar law to the senate in October, said Martin Viveros of the group Somosgay. And in Uruguay, gays unsatisfied with the partial rights that come through civil unions are preparing legislation that would replace references to "man and woman" with "spouse" throughout the civil code.

But many Argentines remain firmly opposed to the idea of gay marriage. Teacher Eduardo Morales, for one, said the law was concocted by Buenos Aires residents who are out step with the views of the country.

"They want to convert this city into the gay capital of the world," said Morales, of San Luis province.

Ines Franck, director of the group Familias Argentinas, said the legislation cuts against centuries of tradition.

Opposing the measure "is not discrimination, because the essence of a family is between two people of opposite sexes," he said. "Any variation goes against the law, and against nature."

The president, who helped the law's chances by bringing two senators opposed to gay marriage with her on a state visit to China, spoke out from there against the Catholic Church's campaign and the tone she said some religious groups have taken.

"It's very worrisome to hear words like 'God's war' or 'the devil's project,' things that recall the times of the Inquisition," she said.

That may play well in Argentina's socially liberal capital, where many of the country's gays and lesbians live, but could be costly in the conservative provinces. Some opposition leaders accused Fernandez and her husband Nestor Kirchner, who lobbied hard for passage, of trying to gain votes in next year's presidential elections, when the former president is expected to run again.

The vote came after Sen. Daniel Filmus urged fellow lawmakers to show the world how much Argentina has matured.

"Society has grown up. We aren't the same as we were before," he said.

Soon

07-15-2010, 12:52 PM

FsCkt6zIF88&feature=player_embedded

Soon

07-15-2010, 01:03 PM

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_t6rV3U9ZEHM/TD8_4Q95tRI/AAAAAAAA2iY/NmUfeLHBLDw/s1600/marriagechart.png

Silver:

The big spike you see in 2008 is California recognizing gay marriage through the courts, and then un-recognizing it through the passage of Proposition 8. Right now, it's possible to marry your same-sex partner in Buenos Aires, in Mexico City, in Ames, Iowa, and in Pretoria, South Africa, but not in San Francisco. With countries like Argentina and Portugal now recognizing same-sex marriages, however, the global trajectory has returned to its slow-but-steady upward pace.

Jess

07-15-2010, 06:24 PM

Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere.. but it's a good bit of news...

http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2010/07/breaking-dc-court-rules-against-foes-of-marriage-equality/?utm_source=Convio&utm_medium=email&utm_term=DCmarriage-title&utm_campaign=HRCnews-July-2010

Heart

07-17-2010, 02:49 PM

This is the first time I have ever seen the words "...butch point of view," in the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/us/16marriage.html?_r=1&ref=weddings

Soon

07-17-2010, 06:36 PM

Do you see my love, NOM? A beautiful “Gathering Storm” rains on NOM’s parade in New York (http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/07/17/do-you-see-my-love-a-beautiful-gathering-storm-rains-on-noms-parade-in-new-york/)

By Eden James

Wow. You’ve got to hand it to the equality movement.

Our collective response to the NOM Tour just keeps getting better and better with each tour stop.

First, the Equality Maine and GLAD organizers of the Maine counter-rally to NOM actually attracted more people to their event than NOM’s kickoff event on Wednesday (102 to 76 by our hand-count). Then the New Hampshire counter-rally organizers held a brilliant “silent witness” event across the street from the Manchester event on Thursday.

And now the amazing Albany organizers, led by several wonderful organizations, have taken counter-protesting to a whole new level, surrounding the NOM event with one of the most brilliant actions I have ever seen.

Check out the gathering storm of rainbow umbrellas held aloft by equality movement activists silenting protesting NOM while asking a simple question adorned to their t-shirt:

“Do you see my love?”

NOM Executive Director Brian Brown (above) doesn’t look too happy, does he?
How could he? It’s fair to say that Albany turned into yet another NOM FAIL, due to the beauty of creative counter-protest and the paltry NOM attendance (Danny hand-counted 57 attendees).

Courage staffers Danny and Robert will be writing up their reports later, but for now, take note of this Albany protest. One thing is for sure — local organizers at subsequent counter-protests are going to have a hard time topping this poignant and powerful action. Can’t wait to see what they can do.

Again, here are the amazing organizations that made this counter-protest possible today (from a press release):

Marriage Equality New York
In Our Own Voices
Capital District Gay & Lesbian Community Council
Albany Queer Rising
HomoRadio on WRPI 91.5fm
Empire State Pride Agenda
Freedom to Marry
Courage Campaign
Social Responsibilities Council of the First Unitarian Universalist Society of Albany
Upper Hudson Planned Parenthood
Eleanor Roosevelt Democratic Club (ERDC)
New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) Capital Region Chapter
Albany Law School Civil Liberties Union
Choices Counseling & Consulting/The Institute for Gender, Relationships, Identity & Sexuality
GAES Magazine: Gay Arts, Entertainment & Lifestyle
The Women’s Building
Christians Responding with Equality, Diversity and Openness (CREDO) of the Capital District
National Organization for Women (NOW) Albany Area Chapter
Capital District Area Labor Federation

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_t6rV3U9ZEHM/TEIY1_oXESI/AAAAAAAA2ms/CRnSSoK_4Lc/s1600/NOMAlbanyFail.jpg

Soon

07-18-2010, 07:52 AM

To begin with, I am a bit surprised about the tone, the tenor, and the content the dialogue has taken. The truth is that it's worrisome to listen to expressions such as 'God's Battle', 'The Work of the Devil', things which actually bring us back to the times of the Inquisition, to Medieval times, it seems to me. Particularly coming from those who should promote peace, tolerance, diversity and dialogue. Or at least that's what they've always said in their statements. And all of a sudden [we have] this aggressive language, this dismissive language invoking 'natural law' arguments...
...and to bring it back to our own history, when the civil code was approved, Velez Sarsfield takes - just as he took from the Roman and French civil codes in his notes about different laws - he takes 'marriage' from Canon law. That's why they could only get married through the church! There was no possibility, in Argentina, for people to get married in a civil registry.

When immigration began - there are many people who are not Catholic, who are not affiliated with any religion, or are anarchists, or Communists, or are Jewish ot Muslim - and it turns out that the only way they could get married was through Catholic rites. And so, a reform to the civil code was proposed, which was incorporated in 1888, through which 'civil marriages' were created. [EDIT]

I sincerely believe what's being presented before the current norm is something that the community already has. I believe it's fair - it's fair - to recognize this right for minorities. And I believe it would be a terrible distortion of democracy if the majorities - the actions of those majorities - denied rights to those minorities...

But what worries me the most is the tone in which these issues are being discussed, invoking questions such as the Devil, or the war...I heard someone talk about 'God's War'! As if we were still in the time of the Crusades! I can just imagine Roland going to conquer the Holy Sepulcher! Th truth is I don't believe this is good...

It's not good because it establishes, as a society, a place which I don't think any of us wants to have. We are all willing to debate, discuss, dissent, but do it with a rational frame, without stigmatizing others because they think differently, and, fundamentally, also without violating the constitution [EDIT]

...eh, but in reality I don't think it's a question that should be taken lightly. We are talking about whether we are going to be a society which recognizes the rights of minorities. This is the axis. Or if we are going to require that when someone signs official paperwork, instead of writing an ID, they should write "gay" or "lesbian" so some public official can say "Yes, I will see you", "I won't see you", "You have the right to in-vitro fertilization", "No, you don't have the rights"...

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/16750/argentine-president-cristina-fern%C3%A1ndez-de-kirchner-talks-about-marriage-equality

ixVrmrQg9AM&feature=player_embedded

Soon

07-19-2010, 07:51 AM

A Summer for Gay Rights (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-socarides/a-summer-for-gay-rights_b_650439.html)

This is shaping up as the summer of gay rights in the courts. The twin victories last week from the US District Court in Massachusetts striking down as unconstitutional key portions of the anti-gay "Defense of Marriage Act" and the eagerly anticipated decision in the federal Proposition 8 case in California have made for enormous excitement in the legal and civil rights communities.

We are at a tipping point in which the federal courts appear finally willing to recognize and more aggressively enforce civil rights for gay and lesbian Americans. Much as they did for African Americans a generation ago.

In the Proposition 8 gay marriage case especially (Perry v. Schwarzenegger), lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies have made a comprehensive and overwhelming case for basic fairness and full equality. Their opponents, on the other hand, presented no credible expert testimony and made arguments so flimsy -- and at times even patently false - that a ruling in their favor appears highly unlikely. The decision is expected soon.

Despite all this, there remains some marginalized skepticism from some unusual critics.

The Brookings Institution's Jonathan Rauch recently wrote in The New York Times that while he personally supports equal marriage rights (and is, in fact a married gay man), he nonetheless thinks it is bad public policy for the courts to enforce such rights, suggesting that we should instead let the political process bring about equality, as and when the country is ready for it.

Rauch's argument stems from a comment (which he completely misappropriates) by Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, who said, "The Supreme Court, of course, has the responsibility of ensuring that our government never oversteps its proper bounds or violates the rights of individuals. But the court must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people."

Rauch himself admits that the comment was not in any way a reference to gay marriage - in fact it had nothing to do with the issue. Kagan was speaking broadly about the role of the Supreme Court, historically and today - a role which led to such landmark civil rights victories as Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia.

The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart also has a piece in which he argues that the political environment is not yet ripe for full equality and that the potential backlash against any pro-equality court decision could be so great that the gay-rights movement might be set back by years, even decades.

Capehart's position is that since 30 states currently outlaw gay marriage, the Supreme Court would never stick its neck out to overrule what he claims is the popular view.

But here's another statistic: at the time that the Supreme Court struck down the remaining state laws banning interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia, the Gallup Poll found that some 72% of Americans were opposed to interracial marriage. At one time or another, 37 states had passed anti-miscegenation laws. When civil rights are being infringed, "sticking out its neck" to protect minority rights is not only something the Supreme Court does, it is one of the primary reasons for the Court's existence.

Both Rauch and Capehart are ignoring not only our political history, but the history of civil rights advances through court rulings. Importantly, there is now an emerging consensus among gay rights advocates that these cases, including the one brought by Olson and Boies on behalf of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, can succeed and that the timing is right.

In the two Massachusetts cases, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro (a Republican appointee) concluded that the anti-gay marriage law was so blatantly unconstitutional that he issued summary judgments in favor of the plaintiffs.

While the scope of those cases was somewhat narrow - having to do with the denial of federal benefits for gay couples whose marriages had been fully recognized in the states where they live - the rulings were broad in their implications.

The court cited Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan's famous words (in dissent at the time) that our constitution "neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens," and though the decision does not say, in so many words, that states should be required to recognize same-sex marriage, it systematically undercuts all the arguments that anti-equality groups have used to date - including "harm to the children," "procreation as the goal of marriage," and preservation of the status quo - concluding that "the constitution
will not abide a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group."

These words make for trailblazing precedent, even if they are not now binding.

Let's be clear: this is not an argument about public opinion polls, political environments, or even what motivates the anti-gay movement - we're talking about a basic civil right.

As lead counsel Ted Olson said in his summation, "This case is about marriage and equality. The fundamental constitutional right to marry has been taken away from the plaintiffs, and tens of (if not hundreds of) thousands of similarly situated Californians. Their state has rewritten its constitution in order to place them into a special disfavored category where their most intimate personal relationships are not valid, not recognized and second rate."

In cases like this, our history tells us that the courts are the most appropriate, effective and productive battlefields.

Richard Socarides, an attorney, was White House Special Assistant during the Clinton Administration and senior advisor on gay rights.

Soon

07-19-2010, 09:30 AM

Civil Partnership Bill signed into law (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0719/breaking29_pf.html)

CHARLIE TAYLOR

Mon, Jul 19, 2010

The Civil Partnership Bill, which provides legal recognition for same-sex couples in Ireland for the first time, has today been signed into law.

The Bill was signed into law by President Mary McAleese at Áras an Uachtaráin this morning

It extends marriage-like benefits to gay and lesbian couples in the areas of property, social welfare, succession, maintenance, pensions and tax.

The act also offers additional rights and protections for other cohabiting couples including a redress scheme for financially dependent long-term cohabitants on the end of a relationship.

Announcing the signing of the Bill today, Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern described it as "one of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation to be enacted since independence."

"This Act provides enhanced rights and protections for many thousands of Irish men and women. Ireland will be a better place for its enactment," he said.

"It is of tremendous social significance, for the couples who can now register as partners, for their friends and families - ultimately, for all of us," Mr Ahern added.

Changes to the tax and social welfare code will be made in the next finance and social welfare Bills. The Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 is expected to be commenced when those changes take effect. The first civil registrations for same-sex couples are likely to take place early next year.

The Bill was approved by the Seanad by 48 votes to 4 at 6.30pm on Friday July 9th, having completed its passage though the Dáil the previous week.The legislation was widely supported in both the Dáil and Seanad.

The Green Party this afternoon welcomed the singing into law of the Bill.

"Today is a good day for all Irish citizines. This Act is a significant step forward and a stepping stone towards greater equality in our society, said the party's justice spokesman Trevor Sargent.

"I look forward to the first ceremonies that will be held under this Act from next January. They mark an important venture for our society for which we have waited far too long,” he added.

© 2010 irishtimes.com

blackboot

07-19-2010, 07:06 PM

BATTLEGROUND IN HAWAII

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/15/17291/6252

Soon

07-19-2010, 07:33 PM

Deputy Lib Dem leader Simon Hughes says government will allow gay couples to marry
(http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/07/19/deputy-lib-dem-leader-simon-hughes-says-government-will-allow-gay-couples-to-marry/)
By Jessica Geen • July 19, 2010 - 18:00

Simon Hughes, the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, has said that the government will give gay couples the right to civil marriage.

He predicted that the change would be made before the next general election.

Mr Hughes said a consultation would take place in the coalition government on taking civil partnership to the next level.

Speaking in a video interview, he said: "It would be appropriate in Britain in 2010, 2011, for there to be the ability for civil marriage for straight people and gay people equally.

"That's different of course from faith ceremonies which are matters for the faith communities… they have to decide what recognition to give.

“The state ought to give equality. We’re halfway there. I think we ought to be able to get there in this parliament.”

Currently, gay couples in the UK can have a civil partnership, which is not called marriage. They may not have a religious ceremony.

However, the coalition government is coming under increasing pressure to provide full marriage equality as other countries around the world make the step.

Prime minister David Cameron is on record saying that he will consider the change, while the most senior gay Tory, Nick Herbert, told PinkNews.co.uk on Saturday: “Well as you know, what David Cameron and George Osborne said just before the election was that gay marriage is something that we should look at, in time.”

“It's not something we've got immediate plans to change, but we recognise that there are views that say that the name is important.”

blackboot

07-19-2010, 09:00 PM

YouTube- July 15, 2010 (English-language subtitles)

Soon

07-19-2010, 09:26 PM

YouTube- July 15, 2010 (English-language subtitles) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BDOOvu5luk)

Wow--amazing commercial...my heart is all squeezed up with love.

Why can't those types be produced in the USA when challenges and cases begin?

Stearns

07-19-2010, 09:44 PM

Freedom to Marry is "the leading campaign working to win marriage nationwide." They "partner with a diverse range of organizations and supporters across the country to end the exclusion of same-sex couples from the responsibilities, protections, and commitment of marriage." The founder, Evan Wolfson, was co-counsel in the historic Hawaii marriage case, argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, served in the Peace Corps in West Africa, and is the author of Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality and Gay People's Right to Marry.

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/ has articles from all over the world and an interactive US map, where you can click on a state and be shown the status of equal marriage, what organizations are actively working on equal marriage, and related blogs and resources.

Soon

07-22-2010, 08:37 PM

qe9QNdcRplw&feature=player_embedded#!

I don't get why he was asked to move--is this not a violation of his (the videographer's) rights to be there in the public space?

Soon

07-22-2010, 08:41 PM

ACLU: Donaldson and Guggenheim v. Montana (http://www.aclu.org/print/lgbt-rights/donaldson-and-guggenheim-v-montana)

Seven committed same-sex couples have sued the state of Montana for failing to offer legal protections to same-sex couples and their families in violation of the Montana Constitution’s rights of privacy, dignity and the pursuit of life’s basic necessities and its guarantees of equal protection and due process. The goal of this lawsuit is to see that same-sex couples are able to protect their families with the same kind of legal protections that the State offers to different-sex couples through marriage.

Because there is a constitutional amendment in Montana barring marriage for same-sex couples, this lawsuit is not seeking marriage. The couples in the suit are seeking the protection of state-recognized domestic partnerships.

Cyclopea

07-24-2010, 10:38 AM

http://towleroad.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c730253ef0134859c786f970c-pi
A Russian lesbian couple appealed to the European Court of Human Rights on Wednesday after a registry office in Moscow declined to register their same-sex marriage.

When Irina Fet and Irina Shipitko, who have tried to get married since 2009, were turned away, it hardly came as a surprise in a country where the crime of homosexuality was removed from the books in 1993, and where homophobia remains high and often turns to violence.

"A complaint [on same-sex marriage] was lodged against Russia," gay activist Nikolai Alexeyev said.

"We admit that the Russian law system [currently] forbids same-sex marriage but we hope that after the European Court's ruling, our country will be obliged to change its laws," he said.

Alexeyev said that in rejecting to register the marriage, the Tverskoi registry office in Moscow violated Articles 8 and 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

He said he was confident of a positive outcome and referred to a recent Strasbourg Court ruling over a complaint from an Austrian same-sex couple.
"The Court acknowledged that same-sex marriages are protected under Article 8 of the European Convention and Article 12 doesn't cover just heterosexual marriages," he said.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100721/159899084.html

Cyclopea

07-24-2010, 10:40 AM

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/btb/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/americas-support-for-marriage.jpg

Soon

07-24-2010, 10:40 AM

Judge Blocks Arizona Law That Would Eliminate Domestic Partner Benefits For Gay State Workers (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/24/judge-blocks-arizona-law-gay-rights_n_658163.html)

PHOENIX — A federal judge is blocking Arizona from implementing a state law that eliminates domestic partner benefits for gay and lesbian state employees.

U.S. District Judge John Sedwick on Friday issued a preliminary injunction that requires the state to still make family health insurance available to gay and lesbian state employees who have established relationships that meet standards set under state administration rules.

The judge also dismissed part of a lawsuit challenging the prohibition but left another part intact, allowing the suit to continue.

The Legislature included the prohibition in a budget law enacted last September.

Jess

07-28-2010, 06:26 AM

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/page/s/nomstopthehate

Jess

07-28-2010, 06:30 AM

http://www.keennewsservice.com/2010/07/26/d-c-marriage-victory-supreme-court-and-congress-still-loom/

christie

07-28-2010, 09:24 AM

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/page/s/nomstopthehate

Just to add - NOM's last stop on their hate tour is Aug 15th in DC. I hope with the start of school for Bratboy, we are able to attend - these ppl make my head (and heart) want to explode.

blackboot

07-29-2010, 06:24 AM

By MARK NIESSE
Associated Press Writer
HONOLULU -- Six gay couples in Hawaii are filing a lawsuit Thursday asking for the same rights as married couples, three weeks after Gov. Linda Lingle vetoed a same-sex civil unions measure.

The lawsuit doesn't seek the titles of "marriage" or "civil unions" for gay partners. Instead, it requests that the court system extend them the benefits and responsibilities of marriage based on the Hawaii Constitution's prohibition against sex discrimination.

"We continue to be discriminated against," said plaintiff Suzanne King, who has been in a relationship with her partner for 29 years. "We're a family unit, and we live our lives just like everyone else, but we aren't treated the same."

The legal action in state court comes as a response to the Republican governor's veto July 6, when she said voters should decide whether to reserve marriage for couples of a man and a woman.

Five other states and the District of Columbia permit same-sex marriage. Five more states essentially grant the rights of marriage to same-sex couples without authorizing marriage itself.

Hawaii passed the nation's first "defense of marriage" constitutional amendment in 1998, giving the state's legislature the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples. The amendment is silent on civil unions and rights for same-sex couples.

Most Hawaii residents don't want the government to endorse equal rights for gay couples, said Garret Hashimoto, chairman for the Hawaii Christian Coalition.

"I feel insulted. They keep bringing up Martin Luther King, black rights and women's sufferage. This is not about that. This is about two males or two females practicing sex," he said. "It's behavior. It's no different from smokers or drinkers."

The office of Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett declined comment Wednesday because it hadn't yet been served with the lawsuit.

The state grants some rights to gay couples through its reciprocal beneficiaries system.

But they lack the same legal priviledges and obligations of adoption, child support, alimony and access to family court, said Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel for Lambda Legal, which is bringing the case along with the American Civil Liberties Union.

"This case is not about marriage. It's about the right of same-sex couples to at least have a system that is understandable and complete," Pizer said. "The state's equality guarantee at least has to mean same-sex couples should have the same rights and responsibilities, even if it's segmented off into a system that isn't as respected, understood and revered as marriage."

The case likely won't be settled until it reaches the Hawaii Supreme Court, or if state lawmakers and the next governor approve a new civil unions bill, Pizer said.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/29/1751545/hawaii-lawsuit-seeks-equal-rights.html#storylink=fbuser#ixzz0v4c0d6PM
SIZE]

christie

07-29-2010, 07:05 AM

By MARK NIESSE
Associated Press Writer
HONOLULU -- Six gay couples in Hawaii are filing a lawsuit Thursday asking for the same rights as married couples, three weeks after Gov. Linda Lingle vetoed a same-sex civil unions measure.

The lawsuit doesn't seek the titles of "marriage" or "civil unions" for gay partners. Instead, it requests that the court system extend them the benefits and responsibilities of marriage based on the Hawaii Constitution's prohibition against sex discrimination.

"We continue to be discriminated against," said plaintiff Suzanne King, who has been in a relationship with her partner for 29 years. "We're a family unit, and we live our lives just like everyone else, but we aren't treated the same."

The legal action in state court comes as a response to the Republican governor's veto July 6, when she said voters should decide whether to reserve marriage for couples of a man and a woman.

Five other states and the District of Columbia permit same-sex marriage. Five more states essentially grant the rights of marriage to same-sex couples without authorizing marriage itself.

Hawaii passed the nation's first "defense of marriage" constitutional amendment in 1998, giving the state's legislature the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples. The amendment is silent on civil unions and rights for same-sex couples.

Most Hawaii residents don't want the government to endorse equal rights for gay couples, said Garret Hashimoto, chairman for the Hawaii Christian Coalition.

"I feel insulted. They keep bringing up Martin Luther King, black rights and women's sufferage. This is not about that. This is about two males or two females practicing sex," he said. "It's behavior. It's no different from smokers or drinkers."
The office of Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett declined comment Wednesday because it hadn't yet been served with the lawsuit.

The state grants some rights to gay couples through its reciprocal beneficiaries system.

But they lack the same legal priviledges and obligations of adoption, child support, alimony and access to family court, said Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel for Lambda Legal, which is bringing the case along with the American Civil Liberties Union.

"This case is not about marriage. It's about the right of same-sex couples to at least have a system that is understandable and complete," Pizer said. "The state's equality guarantee at least has to mean same-sex couples should have the same rights and responsibilities, even if it's segmented off into a system that isn't as respected, understood and revered as marriage."

The case likely won't be settled until it reaches the Hawaii Supreme Court, or if state lawmakers and the next governor approve a new civil unions bill, Pizer said.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/29/1751545/hawaii-lawsuit-seeks-equal-rights.html#storylink=fbuser#ixzz0v4c0d6PM
SIZE]

He feels insulted?!?!?!?!?

Diminishing our relationships to how we fuck. Awesome. So evolved. Dickhead.

At times, I am still astonished as to the utter stupidity that rolls out.

Jess

07-29-2010, 07:21 AM

Perhaps he should have said " it's no different than heterosexuals... just practicing sex"

Cyclopea

07-29-2010, 12:31 PM

Christian Coalition seeks marriage ban for smokers and drinkers?
LMAO!
http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/JJ5675-001.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=2AC75F6FAA20674CC3C6644BB1DBB1E1940EE9E0AF7C4FF8 49207362A3F24453

Cyclopea

07-29-2010, 12:33 PM

Perhaps he should have said " it's no different than heterosexuals... just practicing sex"

Practice makes perfect!
:hangloose:

SuperFemme

07-29-2010, 12:50 PM

Threats, Dead Cat for Pro-Gay Pol.

By Michelle Garcia (http://www.advocate.com/authors.aspx?searchterm=Michelle%20Garcia)

A Memphis city council member who has expressed her support for a proposed LGBT antidiscrimination policy has been the target of death threats.

Police may increase patrol units around Janis Fullilove's home because she received threatening phone calls and a dead cat was thrown onto her lawn, WREG News reports. (http://www.wreg.com/news/wreg-fullilove-death-threats-gay-ordinance,0,509816.story)

Nonetheless, Fullilove's position is unchanged, says Jonathan Cole of the Tennessee Equality Project.

"No one should be discriminated against based upon their color, their sexual orientation, not at all," Fullilove said (http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/jul/20/ordinance-banning-sexual-orientation-discriminatio/) at a recent council meeting, according to The Commercial Appeal. "A number of states and businesses here in the Memphis area, including FedEx, put in place mechanisms that would prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation."

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/07/29/Threats_Dead_Cat_Hurled_at_ProGay_Pol/

Soon

07-29-2010, 03:16 PM

utTXA5XIOOA&feature=player_embedded#!

Cyclopea

08-02-2010, 02:19 PM

utTXA5XIOOA&feature=player_embedded#!

omg the Dr. Evil laugh at 0:55 !!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2585179630237241541#

Soon

08-03-2010, 01:31 PM

Behind the numbers of Prop. 8

It's crucial to understand the data about Prop. 8's victory before launching another attempt to legalize gay marriage.

By David Fleischer

August 3, 2010

Immediately after Proposition 8 passed, many who supported same-sex marriage tried to make sense of the results. A set of assumptions gained wide acceptance. Some are correct. Most, however, are just plain wrong. And it's crucial that we know what happened in the last election before launching another attempt to legalize marriage for all.

I recently headed a team that analyzed data from polls conducted by the No on 8 campaign during the run-up to the election. Our analysis sheds new light on what fueled the Proposition 8 victory.

One big question after the election: Who moved? Six weeks before the vote, Proposition 8 was too close to call. But in the final weeks, supporters pulled ahead, and by election day, the outcome was all but certain.

After the election, a misleading finding from exit polls led many to blame African Americans for the loss. But in our new analysis, it appears that African Americans' views were relatively stable. True, a majority of African Americans opposed same-sex marriage, but that was true at the beginning and at the end of the campaign; few changed their minds in the closing weeks.

The shift, it turns out, was greatest among parents with children under 18 living at home — many of them white Democrats.

The numbers are staggering. In the last six weeks, when both sides saturated the airwaves with television ads, more than 687,000 voters changed their minds and decided to oppose same-sex marriage. More than 500,000 of those, the data suggest, were parents with children under 18 living at home. Because the proposition passed by 600,000 votes, this shift alone more than handed victory to proponents.

Perhaps it shouldn't be a surprise. The Yes on 8 campaign targeted parents in its TV ads. "Mom! Guess what I learned in school today!" were the cheery-frightening first words of the supporters' most-broadcast ad. They emerged from the mouth of a young girl who had supposedly just learned that she could marry a female when she grew up.

Among the array of untrue ideas that parents could easily take away: that impressionable kids would be indoctrinated; that they would learn about gay sex; that they would be more likely to become gay; and that they might choose to be gay. California voters, depending on where they lived in the state, were exposed to the Yes on 8 ads 20 to 40 times.

The lesson: It's not enough to make the case for same-sex marriage. It's also important to arm voters — particularly parents — against an inevitable propaganda attack. And it's crucial to rebut lies so parents don't panic.

Another misconception was that those who voted for Proposition 8 were motivated by hate. This does not describe most of the 687,000 who changed their minds in the closing weeks. After all, they supported same-sex marriage before the opposition peeled them away. Yes, they turned out to be susceptible to an appeal based on anti-gay prejudice. But they were frightened by misinformation. No on 8's one TV ad that directly responded to the fear-mongering helped assuage some of the fear, but it was too little, too late.

One final false assumption by same-sex marriage supporters was that the election was so close that it will be easy to pass same-sex marriage the next time out.

It's true that the official election results — 52% to 48% — appeared quite close. But the truth is more complicated. The data we analyzed show that the No on 8 campaign benefitted from voter confusion.

Polling suggests that half a million people who opposed same-sex marriage mistakenly voted against the proposition. They were confused by the idea that a "no" vote was actually a vote for gay marriage. This "wrong-way voting" affected both sides, but overwhelmingly it helped the "no" side. Our analysis suggests that the division among California voters on same-sex marriage at the time of Proposition 8 was actually 54% to 46% — not so close. We are actually 1 million votes away from being able to reverse Proposition 8.

This analysis makes absolutely clear that supporters of same-sex marriage have a lot of work to do before we return to the ballot. But that work is already underway, and now real knowledge can underpin our efforts.

David Fleischer heads the LGBT mentoring project, which is now part of the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center's new leadership program Learn Act Build. The project's full report and data can be viewed at prop8report.org.

Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times
[/SIZE]