![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Timed Out - TOS Drama
How Do You Identify?:
... Preferred Pronoun?:
... Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: ...
Posts: 6,573
Thanks: 30,737
Thanked 22,907 Times in 5,017 Posts
Rep Power: 0 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]()
Judge rules New Jersey lawsuit for marriage equality can proceed
By Adam Bink Seth in Maryland in the comments notes the news. A big hearing this past week, and what came out of it: If the law creating civil unions does not give same-sex couples the same protections as married heterosexual couples, it has to be examined as to whether it is constitutional, Mercer County Assignment Judge Linda Feinberg said during a hearing in Trenton this afternoon. But in dismissing three counts of the complaint, Feinberg also said there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage under the state Constitution. One count of the suit — a claim that the civil union law does not give them equal protection — remains. She noted same-sex couples complain civil unions, created in New Jersey in 2006, still don’t give them the same benefits as marriage in situations such as health benefits sharing and health care decisions. “I don’t think that the court can remain silent and take no action if…the result is that those benefits are not equal in the protections,” Feinberg said |
![]() |
![]() |
The Following User Says Thank You to MsTinkerbelly For This Useful Post: |
![]() |
#2 |
Practically Lives Here
How Do You Identify?:
. Preferred Pronoun?:
. Relationship Status:
. Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: .
Posts: 11,495
Thanks: 34,694
Thanked 26,361 Times in 5,875 Posts
Rep Power: 21474862 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]()
After attending a town hall meeting held by Basic Rights Oregon, I was very sad to receive an email today stating that B.R.O. will not pursue a ballot measure on marriage in 2012.
At the meeting, I felt like we were being herded into deciding not to put this on the ballot. The decision felt like it had already been made, and we were being convinced to agree with the deciders. I also found it disheartening that I heard so many people saying: "I don't want to put it on the ballot unless we have a guarantee that we will win" There is nothing on any ballot that is guaranteed to win. What if other Civil Rights were not fought for because we couldn't be given a guarantee that they would win? I am very disappointed. |
![]() |
![]() |
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Hollylane For This Useful Post: |
![]() |
#3 |
Timed Out - TOS Drama
How Do You Identify?:
... Preferred Pronoun?:
... Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: ...
Posts: 6,573
Thanks: 30,737
Thanked 22,907 Times in 5,017 Posts
Rep Power: 0 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]()
BREAKING: Sen. Judiciary Committee votes to repeal DOMA
By Adam Bink Just now, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-8 to repeal DOMA by passing the Respect for Marriage Act. A huge step forward for our movement to repeal DOMA! Today’s victory will make headlines and help educate the public on what DOMA is and why it needs to go. We know when we tell stories, we win as a movement. Today’s victory will also add momentum and help bring more Senators on board so when we have a pro-repeal leadership in the House, Senate and White House, we can move forward as quickly as possible to repeal DOMA, instead of starting from scratch It was a lift to get to this summer’s hearing and today’s vote. We all did it together — people in each state who contacted their Senator, folks like you who spread the word and chipped in. Below is a statement from Courage Campaign’s Rick Jacobs: “For the first time in history, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to make gays and lesbians whole people,” said Rick Jacobs, the chair and founder of the Courage Campaign, an online, grassroots political organization with more than 750,000 members around the country. “This truly historic vote today should never have been necessary because this absurd law should never have been on the books. Thanks to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, we have a bill that can move to the Senate floor where fair-minded people who believe in a nation united, not divided, can end federal discrimination against gay and lesbian couples legally married in six states and the District of Columbia. Sadly, the Republicans think this is a partisan issue, but then some thought the same about the other great civil rights issues of this nation. Eventually, America is just.” |
![]() |
![]() |
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MsTinkerbelly For This Useful Post: |
![]() |
#4 |
Timed Out - TOS Drama
How Do You Identify?:
... Preferred Pronoun?:
... Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: ...
Posts: 6,573
Thanks: 30,737
Thanked 22,907 Times in 5,017 Posts
Rep Power: 0 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]()
Marriage equality: Basic Rights Oregon decides to not go to ballot in 2012
By Adam Bink Announced by their board. After careful consideration and extensive community input, Basic Rights Oregon’s Board of Directors voted unanimously to extend our public education campaign and continue to build public support. We will not pursue a ballot measure on marriage in 2012. Today we re-commit ourselves to this effort. We’re committed to opening a new dialogue with our friends, family and neighbors and, ultimately, winning the freedom to marry. Here’s the statement from Basic Rights Oregon’s Board of Directors: For three years, Basic Rights Oregon has led a proactive community education campaign to build public support for the freedom to marry for all caring and committed couples. We have reached out to our neighbors in communities across the state, engaged in thoughtful conversations, and shared our stories in TV ads and online. This work is opening hearts and changing minds. Every day more and more Oregonians are coming to support the freedom to marry. In Oregon, the only path to allowing same-gender couples to join in civil marriage is through the ballot. It is not a question of if we will cross this threshold, but when. We have considered the possibility of putting this issue on the ballot for the 2012 election. However several factors, including the expense of waging a statewide political campaign in the midst of an economic crisis, led us to conclude that we are better off extending our education campaign and building momentum for a later election. Ballot measures in Oregon have historically been used to attack the gay and transgender community. Today, we are finally in the driver’s seat, deciding when to go forward with a proactive ballot measure to achieve equality, instead of just fighting back. That presents our community with a tremendous opportunity and an immense responsibility. To reach this decision, we evaluated a variety of data including an online survey with over 1,000 respondents from across Oregon. We convened a group of community leaders and campaign professionals, and held town halls in communities around the state. The feedback we have overwhelmingly heard is that we must allow our education work to continue. The progress we’ve made in increasing support for the freedom to marry will only get better in the next two years. Today we re-commit ourselves to this effort. We’re committed to opening a new dialogue with our friends, family and neighbors and, ultimately, winning the freedom to marry. |
![]() |
![]() |
The Following User Says Thank You to MsTinkerbelly For This Useful Post: |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
How Do You Identify?:
femme woman Preferred Pronoun?:
she Relationship Status:
solo ![]() Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 905
Thanks: 302
Thanked 2,153 Times in 659 Posts
Rep Power: 16642920 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]()
MsT
You are always such a good source of info on this subject. Thanks so much. I am heartened by this vote in the Senate. I do not believe it will pass in the House. BUT I am also heartened by the fact that voting results this week have all opposed reducing rights for people. I feel hopeful that this trend will continue in next years elections. I hope that the Republicans will be held responsible for their total obstructionism in both houses of Congress, and that the Democrats achieve a majority in both houses so we can get DOMA repealed. Another Liberal Supreme Court Justice would be helpful as well, LOL. 14th amendment people!!!! I am disappointed by the decision in Oregon. The only argument against putting marriage equality to a vote that makes any sense at all is is the lack of money to wage a campaign, and its not a very good answer either. Waiting has never helped a civil rights movement. PUSHING hard is what works. Putting the issue in people's face over and over again. Forcing them to re-think their positions over and over again until they see the injustice in the current state of affairs. As for the lack of money, look what was accomplished in Ohio by people with very little money (They overturned the anti-union law passed by the republican run state legislature earlier this year) and in Mississippi. (They voted down a bill declaring life to start at the moment of conception) Both of these measueres were accomplised by word of mouth, by people speaking their minds to each other, by door to door campaigns, and with very little money. I think marriage equality (and civil rights in ALL areas for LGBTQ people) should be put on the ballot EVERY year in EVERY state until we have torn down the walls of anti-us laws that keep us from our dreams. I quote the words of Martin Luther King Jr, spoken in an earlier and yet still ongoing struggle ... Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, Smooches, Keri |
![]() |
![]() |
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to iamkeri1 For This Useful Post: |
![]() |
#6 | |
Timed Out - TOS Drama
How Do You Identify?:
... Preferred Pronoun?:
... Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: ...
Posts: 6,573
Thanks: 30,737
Thanked 22,907 Times in 5,017 Posts
Rep Power: 0 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MsTinkerbelly For This Useful Post: |
![]() |
#7 |
Timed Out - TOS Drama
How Do You Identify?:
... Preferred Pronoun?:
... Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: ...
Posts: 6,573
Thanks: 30,737
Thanked 22,907 Times in 5,017 Posts
Rep Power: 0 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]()
BREAKING: CA Supreme Court to issue opinion on Prop 8/standing tomorrow Will be today the 17th!!!!!!By Adam Bink
The California Supreme Court just announced it will issue its opinion tomorrow, November 17th at 10 AM PST regarding whether the proponents of ballot initiatives have authority to represent the state of California when the state’s public officials (governor and attorney general) decline to do so. From the court’s release: The court granted the request of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to address the following question: “Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative’s validity or the authority to assert the State’s interest in the initiative’s validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.” Opinion(s) in the above case(s) will be filed on: Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. For those not familiar with the timeline of the case, this is not a binding decision on the case. That rests with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Some background: in December of last year, the 9th Circuit heard the appeal of Judge Walker’s ruling, which struck down Prop 8. The court heard arguments on the constitutionality of Prop 8, and arguments on whether the proponents of Prop 8 (ProtectMarriage.com, et al) even have standing to represent the state of California in the case as defendant when Gov. Brown and Attorney General Harris decline to do so. For the live-blogging of those arguments, click here. Rather than immediately rule on those arguments, the 9th Circuit decided to kick the ball over to the California Supreme Court on the issue of standing, asking an important question: do proponents of ballot initiatives in California — in this case, those who collected signatures and raised money and helped pass the initiative — have the authority to represent the state when the state’s public officials decline to defend the initiative? If ultimately not, then Prop 8 goes without a defendant, our side (the plaintiffs) wins and Prop 8 ends. The California Supreme Court accepted the question, heard arguments (for live-blogging of those arguments at the hearing, click here), and tomorrow will issue its opinion. From there, the 9th Circuit 3-judge panel which heard the appeal of Judge Walker’s decision and kicked the ball over to the California Supreme Court will read the opinion and then issue its own ruling some time after, which actually functions as a decision in the case. It’s important to note that tomorrow’s opinion, while influential, is more of a “hey 9th Circuit, here’s what we think about your question.” It’s not a binding decision per se. That said, many legal observers believe that the 9th Circuit will follow what the California Supreme Court decides on standing. The issue of whether Prop 8 is constitutional is another question. From there, the ruling can be appealed to the full 9th Circuit en banc, and of course the U.S. Supreme Court, both of which may or may not take up the case. We’ll have coverage and reaction to the opinion tomorrow here at Prop8TrialTracker.com Last edited by MsTinkerbelly; 11-17-2011 at 08:57 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|