Same-Sex Marriage Update

[Jess]

We had the privilege of hearing this brilliant young man speak yesterday at the Big Commit Rally. He is the boy from Arkansas who refused to say the pledge of allegiance until ALL people can get married.

[Soon]

Will The Right Sacrifice California to Save Marriage Amendments Elsewhere?


Submitted by Kyle on August 12, 2010 - 2:07pm

Earlier today I posted audio of David Barton talking with Tim Wildmon and Marvin Sanders of the American Family Association about his relationship with Glenn Beck, but now I want to highlight a more important piece of that discussion that occurred later in the interview when they were discussing the Prop 8 ruling.

All three were convinced that the case was eventually going to end up before the Supreme Court and that when it does, Justice Anthony Kennedy was going to be the deciding vote in favor of allowing gay marriage. As such, Barton revealed that there is some talk on the Right of not appealing or fighting the Prop 8 ruling and letting California have gay marriage in order to keep the case away from the Supreme Court and thereby saving the marriage amendments in all the other states:

Barton: Right now the damage is limited to California only, but if California appeals this to the US Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court with Kennedy will go for California, which means all 31 states will go down in flames, although right now this decision is limited only to California.

So there's an effort underway to say "California, please don't appeal this. I mean, if you appeal this, its bad for you guys but live with it, but don't cause the rest of us to have to go down your path."

Wildom: So you think the better situation here would be California not to appeal ...

Barton: Well, I'm telling you that that's what is being argued by a lot of folks now because the other Supreme Court attorney who watched this from afar said "on no, you left too many arguments on the table, you stayed technical." And now, knowing what Kennedy has already done in two similar cases to this and knowing that he's the deciding vote, the odds are 999 out of 1000 that they'll uphold the California decision.

If they do, there's not a marriage amendment in the country that can stand. And so the problem is that instead of California losing its amendment, now 31 states lose their amendment. And that won't happen if California doesn't appeal this decision. It's just California that loses its amendment.

[UofMfan]

Prop 8 Backers: Gay Marriages Would 'Harm The State's Interest In Promoting Responsible Procreation'

LISA LEFF | 08/16/10 03:02 PM | AP

SAN FRANCISCO — California voters had sound reasons and were not motivated by anti-gay bias when they outlawed same-sex unions in 2008, sponsors of the ban said Monday while urging a federal appeals court to stop gay weddings from resuming.

In addition, the state's interest in promoting responsible procreation through heterosexual marriages would be harmed if gay marriages were permitted while the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reviews a previous ruling that overturned Proposition 8, lawyers contended in legal filings.

"The record leaves no doubt, none at all, that California, 44 other states, and the vast majority of countries throughout the world continue to draw the line at marriage because it continues to serve a vital societal interest that is equally ubiquitous – to channel potentially procreative sexual relationships into enduring, stable unions for the sake of responsibly producing and raising the next generation," the lawyers wrote.

The arguments represented a final attempt by gay marriage opponents to persuade the 9th Circuit to step in and prevent the Aug. 4 ruling by Chief U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker from taking effect at 5 p.m. Wednesday.

Walker has said county clerks must stop enforcing the ban at that time, a move that would clear the way for gay couples to obtain marriage licenses unless the appeals court decides otherwise.

Attorneys for the two same-sex couples who successfully sued to strike down Proposition 8 have been joined by state Attorney General Jerry Brown in urging the 9th Circuit to allow gay marriages to resume without delay.

They argued that same-sex couples should not be denied their constitutional rights while the appeal is pursued, and that government agencies would suffer no harm by being required to sanction same-sex marriages.

The Proposition 8 legal team said Walker had erred in concluding there was no evidence that allowing same-sex unions would undermine heterosexual marriages by causing more children to be born into households not headed by a married mother and father.

"Reluctance to fundamentally redefine marriage stems not from blind allegiance to tradition but rather from an eminently reasonable concern that decisively severing marriage from its procreative purposes would harm the institution's ability to serve these still important societal interests," they wrote. They also disputed the notion that Proposition 8 was based on religiously rooted moral disapproval of gay Californians. If that were true, laws against prostitution, assisted suicide and other prohibitions founded on strong moral components would also be invalid, they said.

They also questioned whether the two couples who filed the lawsuit can claim that having to wait for the appeal to be considered would hurt them when neither has concrete plans to get married this week.

The two couples have both said they want to be able to schedule their weddings so their families and friends can join them.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by UofMfan

Prop 8 Backers: Gay Marriages Would 'Harm The State's Interest In Promoting Responsible Procreation'

LISA LEFF | 08/16/10 03:02 PM | AP

SAN FRANCISCO — California voters had sound reasons and were not motivated by anti-gay bias when they outlawed same-sex unions in 2008, sponsors of the ban said Monday while urging a federal appeals court to stop gay weddings from resuming.

In addition, the state's interest in promoting responsible procreation through heterosexual marriages would be harmed if gay marriages were permitted while the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reviews a previous ruling that overturned Proposition 8, lawyers contended in legal filings.

"The record leaves no doubt, none at all, that California, 44 other states, and the vast majority of countries throughout the world continue to draw the line at marriage because it continues to serve a vital societal interest that is equally ubiquitous – to channel potentially procreative sexual relationships into enduring, stable unions for the sake of responsibly producing and raising the next generation," the lawyers wrote.

The arguments represented a final attempt by gay marriage opponents to persuade the 9th Circuit to step in and prevent the Aug. 4 ruling by Chief U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker from taking effect at 5 p.m. Wednesday.

Walker has said county clerks must stop enforcing the ban at that time, a move that would clear the way for gay couples to obtain marriage licenses unless the appeals court decides otherwise.

Attorneys for the two same-sex couples who successfully sued to strike down Proposition 8 have been joined by state Attorney General Jerry Brown in urging the 9th Circuit to allow gay marriages to resume without delay.

They argued that same-sex couples should not be denied their constitutional rights while the appeal is pursued, and that government agencies would suffer no harm by being required to sanction same-sex marriages.

The Proposition 8 legal team said Walker had erred in concluding there was no evidence that allowing same-sex unions would undermine heterosexual marriages by causing more children to be born into households not headed by a married mother and father.

"Reluctance to fundamentally redefine marriage stems not from blind allegiance to tradition but rather from an eminently reasonable concern that decisively severing marriage from its procreative purposes would harm the institution's ability to serve these still important societal interests," they wrote. They also disputed the notion that Proposition 8 was based on religiously rooted moral disapproval of gay Californians. If that were true, laws against prostitution, assisted suicide and other prohibitions founded on strong moral components would also be invalid, they said.

They also questioned whether the two couples who filed the lawsuit can claim that having to wait for the appeal to be considered would hurt them when neither has concrete plans to get married this week.

The two couples have both said they want to be able to schedule their weddings so their families and friends can join them.

I believe this argument can be knocked-down via research data available.... certainly was during the trial.

UGH.... why would any same-sex couple in CA right now make any concrete plans for a wedding with this up in the air? DUH!!

[Corkey]

Share |
View All News
9th Circuit Ruling on Motion for Stay Pending Appeal
AUGUST 16, 2010
“Appellants’ motion for a stay of the district court’s order of August 4, 2010 pending appeal is GRANTED. The court sua sponte orders that this appeal be expedited pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2. The provisions of Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(a) (pertaining to grants of time extensions) shall not apply to this appeal. This appeal shall be calendared during the week of December 6, 2010, at The James R. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco, California.
The previously established briefing schedule is vacated. The opening brief is now due September 17, 2010. The answering brief is due October 18, 2010. The reply brief is due November 1, 2010. In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. See Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997).

IT IS SO ORDERED.”

We are on our way to the 9th District Court of Appeals! This is good news for the rest of the nation. I'm sorry for Californians, but in the end I think we shall prevail.

[Toughy]

Originally Posted by Corkey

Share |
View All News
9th Circuit Ruling on Motion for Stay Pending Appeal
AUGUST 16, 2010
“Appellants’ motion for a stay of the district court’s order of August 4, 2010 pending appeal is GRANTED. The court sua sponte orders that this appeal be expedited pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2. The provisions of Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(a) (pertaining to grants of time extensions) shall not apply to this appeal. This appeal shall be calendared during the week of December 6, 2010, at The James R. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco, California.
The previously established briefing schedule is vacated. The opening brief is now due September 17, 2010. The answering brief is due October 18, 2010. The reply brief is due November 1, 2010. In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. See Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997).

IT IS SO ORDERED.”

We are on our way to the 9th District Court of Appeals! This is good news for the rest of the nation. I'm sorry for Californians, but in the end I think we shall prevail.

So the 9th Circuit is going to move quickly.....first week of Dec. I figured the stay would be upheld.

msdemeanor (or anyone else)..........is this the full Court or the 3 Judge panel on why there is standing for an appeal?

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by Toughy

So the 9th Circuit is going to move quickly.....first week of Dec. I figured the stay would be upheld.

msdemeanor (or anyone else)..........is this the full Court or the 3 Judge panel on why there is standing for an appeal?

3 judge motion panel extended the stay. Different 3 judge merit panel will decide if there is standing. (See post #451)

[MsTinkerbelly]

.

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer Lisa Leff, Associated Press Writer – 14 mins ago
SAN FRANCISCO – A federal appeals court put same-sex weddings in California on hold indefinitely Monday while it considers the constitutionality of the state's gay marriage ban.

The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, trumps a lower court judge's order that would have allowed county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Wednesday.

Lawyers for the two gay couples that challenged the ban said Monday they would not appeal the panel's decision on the stay to the Supreme Court.

In its two-page order granting the stay, the 9th Circuit agreed to expedite its consideration of the Proposition 8 case. The court plans to hear the case during the week of Dec. 6 after moving up deadlines for both sides to file their written arguments by Nov. 1.

"We are very gratified that the 9th Circuit has recognized the importance and the pressing nature of this case by issuing this extremely expedited briefing schedule," said Ted Boutrous, a member of the plaintiffs' legal team.

A different three-judge panel than the one that issued Monday's decision will be assigned to decide the constitutional question.

Chief U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker decided last week to allow gay marriages to go forward after ruling the ban violated equal protection and due process rights of gays and lesbians guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

The Proposition 8 legal team quickly appealed Walker's ruling in the case many believe will end up before the Supreme Court.

Lawyers for two same-sex couples had joined with California Attorney General Jerry Brown in urging the appeals court to allow the weddings, arguing that keeping the ban in place any longer would harm the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

Walker presided over a 13-day trial earlier this year that was the first in federal court to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married without violating the constitutional guarantee of equality.

Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.

Opponents said that tradition or fears of harm to heterosexual unions were legally insufficient grounds to discriminate against gay couples.

Currently, same-sex couples can legally wed only in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C

[suebee]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Will The Right Sacrifice California to Save Marriage Amendments Elsewhere?


Submitted by Kyle on August 12, 2010 - 2:07pm

Earlier today I posted audio of David Barton talking with Tim Wildmon and Marvin Sanders of the American Family Association about his relationship with Glenn Beck, but now I want to highlight a more important piece of that discussion that occurred later in the interview when they were discussing the Prop 8 ruling.

All three were convinced that the case was eventually going to end up before the Supreme Court and that when it does, Justice Anthony Kennedy was going to be the deciding vote in favor of allowing gay marriage. As such, Barton revealed that there is some talk on the Right of not appealing or fighting the Prop 8 ruling and letting California have gay marriage in order to keep the case away from the Supreme Court and thereby saving the marriage amendments in all the other states:

Barton: Right now the damage is limited to California only, but if California appeals this to the US Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court with Kennedy will go for California, which means all 31 states will go down in flames, although right now this decision is limited only to California.

So there's an effort underway to say "California, please don't appeal this. I mean, if you appeal this, its bad for you guys but live with it, but don't cause the rest of us to have to go down your path."

Wildom: So you think the better situation here would be California not to appeal ...

Barton: Well, I'm telling you that that's what is being argued by a lot of folks now because the other Supreme Court attorney who watched this from afar said "on no, you left too many arguments on the table, you stayed technical." And now, knowing what Kennedy has already done in two similar cases to this and knowing that he's the deciding vote, the odds are 999 out of 1000 that they'll uphold the California decision.

If they do, there's not a marriage amendment in the country that can stand. And so the problem is that instead of California losing its amendment, now 31 states lose their amendment. And that won't happen if California doesn't appeal this decision. It's just California that loses its amendment.

Thanks for posting this. I think it underlines what WE all already know: the anti-marriage equality forces know that they don't have any valid legal arguments - the only way they will succeed in blocking our rights is if they appeal to the prejudices of the general public. Hopefully our allies will see this too.

[MsTinkerbelly]

The similarities and differences between the Prop 8 and DOMA cases
by Adam Bink

In last night’s thread, Eden posted some thoughts from UPenn law professor Tobias Wolff:

A victory in this appeal on the jurisdiction / standing issue would be phenomenal. Although the principles established in Judge Walker’s ruling would only result in the striking down of Proposition 8, rather than the establishment of marriage equality nationwide, dismissal of the appeal would eliminate the risk associated with bringing these claims before the Supreme Court of the United States — the most conservative Court that we have had in the last fifty years, in many respects — and Judge Walker’s devastating analysis of the factual record and the utter lack of evidence supporting any reason for excluding same-sex couples from marriage would remain on the books and be available for us to cite in all our future efforts at litigation and legislative reform.

Over the last few weeks an interesting debate has emerged over whether equality advocates should hope that the case is not struck down over the standing issue, so as for the case to make it to the Supreme Court where it has a chance of playing a role in enacting equality for the entire nation, rather than just California.

What I’ve noticed is that the debate is very similar to the discussion around the lawsuit challenging DOMA in Massachusetts. I examined these arguments in depth in a piece at my home blog, OpenLeft.com, titled “The question of whether to hope for a DOJ appeal“. For those unfamiliar with the case, some background from the lede:

The strategy and legal question that has been buzzing around LGBT circles, and articulated here at OpenLeft by Mark Matson, is whether or not advocates for equality between same-sex and opposite-sex couples should actually be hoping for the Department of Justice to appeal the case to the First Circuit and then the Supreme Court. The reason is because these cases are limited in their effects to the married, same-sex couples residing within Massachusetts borders only, while if the case is appealed and won at the First Circuit, same-sex couples in other states (most notably New Hampshire, which has legalized same-sex marriage, but also a few other states and Puerto Rico) would benefit. And of course, if won at the Supreme Court, it would affect the country.

Very interesting similarities to our debate around a Prop 8 appeal. In the end for the DOMA lawsuit, it appears likely that one way or another, the case will end up before the Supreme Court. I wrote:

Aside from it being unlikely for one of the three situations to come true, it appears unlikely that the SCOTUS will not hear this case, sooner or later.

I say that for three reasons Gary [Buseck, the Legal Director at Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders] and I worked through. One, it’s not likely that one by one, a lawsuit or lawsuits will work its way through each of this country’s twelve circuits (not including the Federal Circuit, which only does patent law) over the next few decades, and every single time the federal government declines to appeal. Nor is it likely that if the government does, that every single time the SCOTUS declines to hear them. If we lose at one, it’s also not likely to happen for a second reason, which Gary pointed out to me- where there is a conflict in circuit court rulings- e.g., we win at the 1st Circuit but the 9th Circuit decides differently- that is often where the SCOTUS decides to step in. A third reason it’s also not likely is because if our side prevails, I’m told it’s more likely the SCOTUS will hear the case than if we lose.

So, when it comes to advocates for equality, there are definitely downsides to the government not appealing. On the other hand, this seems to be a road that has an end at the SCOTUS anyway, sooner or later. With that point of view, what would matter in determining whether or not to hope for appeal is your view of how friendly the SCOTUS is, now versus in the future. Which may be the better question to ask.

In the Prop 8 case, this question- the likelihood of the SCOTUS coming down on the side of equality- is, too, burning on all of our minds, and has been since the Olson/Boies lawsuit was announced. “Do you really think there are 5 votes on the Supreme Court for this?” is the most common question I hear asked of the two attorneys in interviews.

But the difference in the case here, as I see it, is that there is far more good news if the Prop 8 case is struck down on standing. I am always a little surprised when friends and colleagues lament that the ruling would be limited to California, the 8th largest economy in the world- large enough to be a country on its own, large enough to be bigger than some entire countries that already have legalized the freedom to marry for same-sex couples. Having thousands of more same-sex couples marry if the case is struck down on standing alone should not be a disappointment. It will help create a favorable environment to a future court ruling. It will help move public opinion and create visibility. It could (potentially) mean saving tens of millions of dollars and countless other resources from a future Prop 8 repeal effort that could be channeled towards advancing equality in other states, like Oregon. I also believe it will help us in efforts to repeal the anti-equality constitutional amendment in Oregon in 2012. And of course, it will make many more same-sex couples a great deal more equal. It is no small deal.

So while I agree with Tobias that a victory on the standing issue would be phenomenal, it is less out of fear or caution regarding the composition of the Supreme Court. I believe, as Olson and Boies do, that we can win there, and that too would be incredible. It is out of a hope for fairness to come sooner rather than later to same-sex couples, and for the sake and usefulness of advancing our movement down the road via other avenues that could even further build our chances of winning at the Supreme Court one day

[Soon]

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

But the difference in the case here, as I see it, is that there is far more good news if the Prop 8 case is struck down on standing. I am always a little surprised when friends and colleagues lament that the ruling would be limited to California, the 8th largest economy in the world- large enough to be a country on its own, large enough to be bigger than some entire countries that already have legalized the freedom to marry for same-sex couples. Having thousands of more same-sex couples marry if the case is struck down on standing alone should not be a disappointment. It will help create a favorable environment to a future court ruling. It will help move public opinion and create visibility. It could (potentially) mean saving tens of millions of dollars and countless other resources from a future Prop 8 repeal effort that could be channeled towards advancing equality in other states, like Oregon. I also believe it will help us in efforts to repeal the anti-equality constitutional amendment in Oregon in 2012. And of course, it will make many more same-sex couples a great deal more equal. It is no small deal.

So while I agree with Tobias that a victory on the standing issue would be phenomenal, it is less out of fear or caution regarding the composition of the Supreme Court. I believe, as Olson and Boies do, that we can win there, and that too would be incredible. It is out of a hope for fairness to come sooner rather than later to same-sex couples, and for the sake and usefulness of advancing our movement down the road via other avenues that could even further build our chances of winning at the Supreme Court one day

I'm one of the ones who want it to go to the SCJ. Probably no surprise there.

I think they have a great case and, of course, a California win--although I'd be happy for all out there--does nothing for other States (some that have rock solid state amendments banning equal marriage) and DOMA still being applied to same sex couples who lack over 1000 benefits.

I also don't think a win in California would do much to change the public opinion of the States around here (that will take generations) where we are located (FL).

Canada has had marriage equality since 2005 and now same sex marriages in Mexico City must be acknowledged by the other 31 states in that country (with a 91 percent Roman Catholic population no less!).

Both of those locations didn't wait until public opinion favoured marriage equality. Both Mexican and Canadian governments, court cases and and/or Supreme Courts took care of it in the name of justice and fairness for all...without a nod to public opinion.

What do you think? Would you consider it a success if the win stays in California and it isn't taken to the SCJ?

Do people still advise patience to those in other States and the issue of Federal rights?

curious.

[UofMfan]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

I'm one of the ones who want it to go to the SCJ. Probably no surprise there.

I think they have a great case and, of course, a California win--although I'd be happy for all out there--does nothing for other States (some that have rock solid state amendments banning equal marriage) and DOMA still being applied to same sex couples who lack over 1000 benefits.

I also don't think a win in California would do much to change the public opinion of the States around here (that will take generations) where we are located (FL).

Canada has had marriage equality since 2005 and now same sex marriages in Mexico City must be acknowledged by the other 31 states in that country (with a 91 percent Roman Catholic population no less!).

Both of those locations didn't wait until public opinion favoured marriage equality. Both Mexican and Canadian governments, court cases and and/or Supreme Courts took care of it in the name of justice and fairness for all...without a nod to public opinion.

What do you think? Would you consider it a success if the win stays in California and it isn't taken to the SCJ?

Do people still advise patience to those in other States and the issue of Federal rights?

curious.

It is no surprise that I agree with you.

Trickle down Equal Rights?

[MsTinkerbelly]

Share |
View All News
9th Circuit Ruling on Motion for Stay Pending Appeal
AUGUST 16, 2010
“Appellants’ motion for a stay of the district court’s order of August 4, 2010 pending appeal is GRANTED. The court sua sponte orders that this appeal be expedited pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2. The provisions of Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(a) (pertaining to grants of time extensions) shall not apply to this appeal. This appeal shall be calendared during the week of December 6, 2010, at The James R. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco, California.
The previously established briefing schedule is vacated. The opening brief is now due September 17, 2010. The answering brief is due October 18, 2010. The reply brief is due November 1, 2010. In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. See Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997).

IT IS SO ORDERED.”

[JustJo]

As several have pointed out here...the government is highly involved in marriage, and at the national level. Marriage conveys a host of legal rights (and obligations) as well as tax status, etc. Some of that's good, some of it isn't...but marriage is not solely a religious issue, it's a legal status.

Until the federal government protects that right nationally, it's going to be an ongoing mish-mash of give and take away again, depending on the public's mood of the day and the whims of the states. That's no way to live.

I'm with you HSIN...I'd like to see this go to the Supreme Court.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

I'm one of the ones who want it to go to the SCJ. Probably no surprise there.

I think they have a great case and, of course, a California win--although I'd be happy for all out there--does nothing for other States (some that have rock solid state amendments banning equal marriage) and DOMA still being applied to same sex couples who lack over 1000 benefits.

I also don't think a win in California would do much to change the public opinion of the States around here (that will take generations) where we are located (FL).

Canada has had marriage equality since 2005 and now same sex marriages in Mexico City must be acknowledged by the other 31 states in that country (with a 91 percent Roman Catholic population no less!).

Both of those locations didn't wait until public opinion favoured marriage equality. Both Mexican and Canadian governments, court cases and and/or Supreme Courts took care of it in the name of justice and fairness for all...without a nod to public opinion.

What do you think? Would you consider it a success if the win stays in California and it isn't taken to the SCJ?

Do people still advise patience to those in other States and the issue of Federal rights?

curious.

Sometimes I bold things just to point them out, not because I agree with them. That being said, I am legally married in the State of California. I am not legally married in Florida (for example), nor do I have the other 1000 rights that are supposed to come with a marriage. Rights, responsibilities, obligations, privileges....my God damn rights!!!!

I will not be happy until we are all equal, and anybody that "settles" for one State at a time is not representing me. We have to get out of that mentality of not wanting to push too hard...because we will only get what we by rights should have always had if we push, and fight, and scream for what is ours.

I have a lot more to say, but I have to get back to work.

Blessings,

Cindy

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

Sometimes I bold things just to point them out, not because I agree with them. That being said, I am legally married in the State of California. I am not legally married in Florida (for example), nor do I have the other 1000 rights that are supposed to come with a marriage. Rights, responsibilities, obligations, privileges....my God damn rights!!!!

I will not be happy until we are all equal, and anybody that "settles" for one State at a time is not representing me. We have to get out of that mentality of not wanting to push too hard...because we will only get what we by rights should have always had if we push, and fight, and scream for what is ours.

I have a lot more to say, but I have to get back to work.

Blessings,

Cindy

I came off kind of....well, kind of like me on my soap box! Sorry, I get very passionate about things I really believe in.

I grieved for weeks after Prop 8 passed because I firmly believe that everyone should have the same joy I have found.

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

I'm one of the ones who want it to go to the SCJ. Probably no surprise there.

I think they have a great case and, of course, a California win--although I'd be happy for all out there--does nothing for other States (some that have rock solid state amendments banning equal marriage) and DOMA still being applied to same sex couples who lack over 1000 benefits.

I also don't think a win in California would do much to change the public opinion of the States around here (that will take generations) where we are located (FL).

Canada has had marriage equality since 2005 and now same sex marriages in Mexico City must be acknowledged by the other 31 states in that country (with a 91 percent Roman Catholic population no less!).

Both of those locations didn't wait until public opinion favoured marriage equality. Both Mexican and Canadian governments, court cases and and/or Supreme Courts took care of it in the name of justice and fairness for all...without a nod to public opinion.

What do you think? Would you consider it a success if the win stays in California and it isn't taken to the SCJ?

Do people still advise patience to those in other States and the issue of Federal rights?

curious.

I think it's a win either way. It doesn't seem like a very good attempt at an appeal- I don't think they are really trying.

I wouldn't mind seeing the massachusetts DOMA case reach the SCOTUS first.
But either way it's a precedent setting win as long as Walker stands. I'm more interested in the recent national poll that shows increasing public support- now an even split: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...lit-evenly-on-
gay-marriage/

I am very attached to the idea of boise and olsen arguing before SCOTUS, (because they are so experienced and have such a good track record) and hope that they will continue to litigate on our behalf.

As long as the issue is decided before 2012 (when a public vote by californians for marriage equality could completely void the whole case) I'll be happy. Although that's not exactly a loss either.

I can't say I advocate for "patience", because if it wasn't for boise and olsen ignoring the gay establishment's cries for "patience" this trial would not have even occurred. I guess I advocate for steadfastness and celebrating the inevitability of marriage equality in the USA.

[Cyclopea]

On a different topic....

Can anyone find any proof that Maggie Gallagher is actually married?

I can't seem to locate that info and would really appreciate it if someone could post that info for me. I know she claims to be married but can't actually find any info supporting that. Thanks for your time.

[Jess]

Originally Posted by Jess

We had the privilege of hearing this brilliant young man speak yesterday at the Big Commit Rally. He is the boy from Arkansas who refused to say the pledge of allegiance until ALL people can get married.

I got our boy in school today. While waiting for the guidance counselor to go through class selection, etc. we listened to the morning announcements. It began with the Pledge of Allegiance. We were sitting in the main office and everyone present stood up, hand over heart, eyes on flag and repeated it along with speaker. The boy glanced at me with a startled look and kinda shook his head muttering "uh-huh". I remained seated beside him.

I'm not sure how he will feel tomorrow am when he is in his first period class but I do know that hearing this young man ( Will) really seemed to have impacted him.

We didn't get a chance to discuss it and I will be discussing it with his other mom tonight, so we are both on the same page "if" Alex decides to follows Will's lead. Part of me hopes he does. Part of me totally understands if he doesn't. Being a new kid in a new school with special needs after being in a non-mainstream school for several years and dyke parents.. he is already in front of the eight ball.

Glad to see so much great participation in this thread! thank you to everyone who has been participating ( either vocally or not! )

[suebee]

"A Hindu priest performed the first wedding ceremony in Nepal for a foreign gay couple, a rights group said Wednesday, as activists and tourist agencies increasingly promote the Himalayan nation as a gay-friendly destination."

Story here.