Same-Sex Marriage Update

[Soon]

Prop 8 Trial Tracker, Day Two

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."

[Soon]

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

[Jess]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Prop 8 Trial Tracker, Day Two

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]

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.



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

[Jess]

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]

Originally Posted by Jess

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]

Originally Posted by Jess

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]

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)
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bICs-aQJHw"]YouTube- Rob Reiner Challenges Prop 8[/ame]

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

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

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

[Jess]

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]

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]

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]

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

[SuperFemme]

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]

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

http://www.mercurynews.com/samesexma...urce=autofeed#

[Cyclopea]

"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.

[iamkeri1]

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

Originally Posted by Blushingfemme

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]

Originally Posted by iamkeri1

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

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]

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.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuCAuI0JGsM"]YouTube- Katherine Young Deposition[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZeCWCSP79E"]YouTube- Paul Nathanson Deposition Video[/ame]

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]

"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.

---