Same-Sex Marriage Update

[Ebon]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

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

[Soon]

Originally Posted by Organicbutch

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]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Toughy

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]

Originally Posted by Toughy

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/pos...p_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]

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

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

[Soon]

AP sources: Gay workers to get family leave

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]

Wow thats fantastic news and its about damn time

[blackboot]

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-co...mplate=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/peti...=0e2b1bf4#sign

[SuperFemme]

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

The fate of California's 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, attorney 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/nati...#ixzz0re4oZWVJ

[Soon]

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]

[MsTinkerbelly]

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]

my brother and his lover are getting married in Iowa today

[SuperFemme]

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]

Iceland's gay prime minister weds partner

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.

[iamkeri1]

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

QUOTE=HowSoonIsNow;142392]Iceland's gay prime minister weds partner

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.
[/QUOTE]

[Soon]

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

Network Uses Faulty Reasoning to Exclude Participants

[Jess]

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.