Same-Sex Marriage Update

[Nat]

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

A girl can dream anyway.

[SuperFemme]

Originally Posted by Nat

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

A girl can dream anyway.

You don't have to wish.

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

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

[Soft*Silver]

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

[Jess]

Originally Posted by gayla

All I can come up with is -

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

or mebbe something retro like..

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

heh

[MysticOceansFL]

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

[Gayla]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

san luis obispo, ca.

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

sigh.

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

[Gayla]

Originally Posted by MysticOceansFL

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

Huh?


_________

[AtLast]

California Prop 8 opinion

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

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

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

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

Kennedy? Hot sauce to go with those words?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[AtLast]

[QUOTE=betenoire;168352]Congratulations, California.

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

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

This is priceless!!

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

[Manul]

I have to love this headline from USAToday.

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

Included in the article:

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

The ruling says:

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

Walker also writes,

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

He cites the California constitution that...

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Soon]

[Linus]

Originally Posted by Manul

I have to love this headline from USAToday.

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

Included in the article:



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

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

[Soon]

[Soon]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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



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

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_671018.html

[Manul]

Originally Posted by Linus

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

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

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

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

[Soon]

Originally Posted by Manul

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Soon]

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


From the WCT's press release:

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

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

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

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


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_157656.html

[Manul]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

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

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

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

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

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

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

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

[Soon]

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

DCmykl 4 hours ago (6:36 AM)

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Soon]

Originally Posted by Manul

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

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

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

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

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

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

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