http://calitics.com/diary/12338/prop-8-stay-granted-case-expedited-standing-questioned

Quote :

"First, and drastically most importantly, the Court granted the stay. Consequently the thousands of couples who were waiting for the day of equality will have to wait at least a few more months until December ... Second, the Court wants this case to be resolved quickly. Appellants' opening brief is due in just a month and the hearing will happen on December 6th. This is lightning quick for a Federal Court of Appeals, and it's a very good sign. The Court understands that this case is important, and it doesn't want it to linger. Third, the Court specifically orders the Prop 8 proponents to show why this case should not be dismissed for lack of standing ... It shows that the Court has serious doubts about whether the Appellants have standing. Even better, the Court is expressing an opinion that its inclination is that the case should be dismissed ... The merits panel will be selected shortly before December 6th and we don't know the three judges who will be on the merits panel. But this is a very good sign that the appeal could be dismissed on the ground of standing alone."

Seems sensible to question the standing. It was Perry v Schwarzenegger and Schwarzenegger doesn't want to appeal, so how do the largely religious/mormon funded Yes on 8 people have any standing to appeal on behalf of the state?

I think the 2 DOMA cases from MA are looking more likely to make it to SCOTUS. Although with this being fast tracked, if its not dismissed for lack of standing, it could make it there first.

[Edited on August 16, 2010 at 8:06 PM. Reason : .]

8/16/2010 8:02:19 PM

Quote :

"if you want to play that game, then it is clear that homosexuals already have the right to marry, so this case was pointless. This case is framed and has always been framed as "giving homosexuals the right to marry." Thus it is absurd to say that a hetero judge would be granting himself the right to marry a man."

No it is not absurd at all. It's becoming more and more evident that you do not have the intellectual capacity to make any argument.

And the 2nd Court's ruling was not about protected classes. Quit talking about of your ass.

8/16/2010 8:25:26 PM

yes. it is absurd. I can use your "logic" too.

8/16/2010 8:41:08 PM

Quote :

"if you want to play that game, then it is clear that homosexuals already have the right to marry, so this case was pointless. This case is framed and has always been framed as "giving homosexuals the right to marry." Thus it is absurd to say that a hetero judge would be granting himself the right to marry a man."

homosexuals had the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, before the ruling no one had the right to marry the same sex. its a right that applies to everyone in your convoluted way or trying to reason through this a straight judge is still granting himself the right to marry someone of the same sex.
(and before you say, "well why don't they just marry the same sex" you should read finding of fact #51. and before you say, "well they could just choose to not be gay" you should read finding of fact #43 and #46)

but its stupid to argue down that path because what it comes down to, and what the decision that you refuse to read or reference says, is that the law violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment and you haven't even attempted to show how it doesn't.

8/16/2010 10:47:35 PM

Quote :

"yes. it is absurd. I can use your "logic" too."

More evidence that conservatives see debate and discussion as playing the liberal's "word games"

8/17/2010 12:22:04 PM

A blog entry from a North Carolina father:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/9/17/902376/-I-Want-To-See-My-Son-Marry-Before-I-Die.

Quote :

"I have two sons and COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder). One son is married to a wonderful woman. They have a grandbaby on the way and I will most likely see this child born into the world. I'm a bit of a weeper, so I'll probably cry. But my other son lives with me. He works, but he lives with me because I'm old and he feels the need to take care of his old man. All of them do, really. I'm rich only in love, guys. Yet the son that lives with me is gay. I've known this since he was in high school. I love him more than life itself. And I want what my married son has for him. My plea to my nation below. "

Quote :

"I was a good father. I think. I worked. Sold vacations. Worked my ass off. When my wife divorced me she was in a bad state, so both my boys stayed with me. I love her to this day, and unfortunately she died of cancer some six years ago. I loved her very much. And we were married. And this society recognized our marriage. And my son is married. And our society recognizes his marriage. America, why can't my gay son get married? His love is every bit as strong as mine, my other son's. His love is boundless. His love is like any other love on this loveless planet. I see the pain in his eyes when he sees bigotry on the news. I have tried not to make him feel different from the general populous, but that has been impossible. He has been called horrible names. A brick was thrown through our window one night when he was in high school. Why are we like this? I grew up during civil rights in the sixties. My father was a barber--the only barber in our town--to serve black people. We lived civil rights. This debate ended then. I thought we were better. I thought we were more. I thought we were equal. But my son has someone he loves. And because my son loves this man, I love this man. He is a good and decent man and it makes me feel good to see them together. I enjoy their company. And I want to see them married. I want to attend their wedding. Yet they can't validate their love. As if their love needed YOUR goddamned validation. Love simply is. It isn't a wedge issue. It isn't a policy position. It isn't even a religious issue. They want to be married. Here in North Carolina. That, my good kossacks, is a fucking CIVIL RIGHTS issue. So let me ask you...why can't they be married? Why is one son better and more normal than the other? Bullshit! I love my boys equally and they love the loves of their lives equally and love is about more than politics! Now is the time. Bigotry and homophobia ends with this generation, I feel it. I feel it, even though I am old and sick. I feel it because I can feel the passion and energy coming from this site and from the very core of our society that we WILL NOT tolerate hatred and ignorance any longer. This is a simple plea to my nation. I am old. Let me see my son married to his love before I die. Please."

9/17/2010 8:35:41 PM

I am madly in love with my dog. and my dog loves me. why can't I marry my dog? It's so fucking wrong!

9/17/2010 9:33:47 PM

Besides the 2 MA cases (on DOMA) and the 1 CA case (on DOMA/prop8) that have ruled against DOMA and are working their way up, a few more cases have now been introduced as of today by the ACLU/GLAD covering couples in Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire.

I'm not sure what the game plan is though. I think I saw they filed in Connecticut which maybe means they are looking to have cases working their way up in district court 1, 2, and 9. Maybe they feel that SCOTUS will be more likely to take the case if they have more active cases? Can SCOTUS combine different cases and lump them together to consider if they're all on the same topic? I don't know the judicial system's inner workings here well enough to see the broader strategy. Anyone else got any ideas?

11/10/2010 12:32:53 AM

This doesn't really interest me.

So Supplanter, what do democrat PR lackeys like yourself do when you lose an election?

11/10/2010 1:00:27 AM

Quote :

"This doesn't really interest me."

Then why post in this thread?

11/10/2010 1:13:06 AM

You seemed lonely.

11/10/2010 1:27:29 AM

The Illinois House & Senate recently passed a civil unions bill. The Governor is expected to sign it soon.

Quote :

"IL, CT, IA, MA, NH, VT, CA, CO, HI, ME, NJ, NV, OR, WA, WI, MD, RI and DC"

Just added IL to the list of states/regions in the US with some level of marriage/union type recognition for gay couples.

12/2/2010 5:55:53 AM

A few states to watch this year in addition to the DOMA constitutional challenges:

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2011/01/18/smw-2/

Quote :

"– MARYLAND: Maryland State Senator Rich Madaleno told On Top Magazine that “a gay marriage bill will be introduced in the Maryland Senate this week.”"

Quote :

"– NEW YORK: The New York Daily News is reporting that New York State Senator Thomas Duane will introduce a same-sex marriage bill “within weeks” and will push for a vote before June."

http://www.bilerico.com/2011/01/supreme_court_saves_dc_same-sex_marriages.php

Quote :

"Supreme Court Saves DC Same-Sex Marriages The US Supreme Court's denial of certiorari today effectively ends the debate on same-sex marriage in the capital. Reverend Harry Jackson's one man crusade to try and invalidate same-sex marriage in DC has effectively been squashed."

1/19/2011 2:44:14 AM

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/02/14/Arrests_in_Chi_Marriage_Protest/

Quote :

"Arrests in Chi. Marriage Protest Six marriage equality activists were arrested Monday afternoon in Chicago. By Advocate.com Editors Six LGBT activists were arrested Monday afternoon in Chicago after refusing to leave a city marriage bureau after a same-sex couple was denied a marriage license. Judy Heithmar and Danelle Wylder sought the license at the marriage bureau in the Richard J. Daley Center in downtown Chicago. They were arrested along with Cassandra Avenatti, Lindsey Dietzler, Corrine Mina, and Noa Francis Shayden, said Andrea Crain, a spokeswoman for their group. The people arrested are affiliated with Join the Impact Chicago and Video Action League, which were responding to a call by Marriage Equality USA and GetEqual for coordinated actions across the country on Valentine's Day to raise awareness about the need for federal marriage equality. As of late afternoon, they were still being processed by police, but were likely to be charged with trespassing and released on bond, Crain told The Advocate in an e-mail."

It's not a perfect lunch counter parallel, but its still going for the whole we're staying until we get the same service that everyone else is getting type situation. I saw videos from people doing it New York too, and I believe there were a lot of people doing it around the country today. I think its an effective approach to activism. Rather than a few discharged gay veterans chaining themselves to the White House fence in grand spectacle, this is much more local and regular people acting in their own towns, with some civil disobedience, but in a way that doesn't hurt anyone. Still I think any effort has to be comprehensive and can't rest on protest type events alone. For my part I'm going to Equality NC's day of action tomorrow where they coordinate scheduling meetings between constituents from all across the state with their elected officials from their districts to explain first hand why things like a constitutional discrimination amendment would be a bad thing, and I'll probably mention my piece on my opposition to voter ID, and encouraging that if it must happen, pushing for college student IDs to count (not that IDs is particularly an lgbt equality issue, but I can't but believe that young & educated people voting more often necessarily improves our government on all issues).

In other marriage equality news, Hawaii, which had some reciprocal beneficiary thing set up before, just passed a civil unions bill in the house and senate, so it should be going for the governors signature any time now (if it hasn't already).

And it looks like Washington state is starting the legislative process to possibly move from civil unions to marriage equality since civil unions is so often a precursor.

http://blog.senatedemocrats.wa.gov/ed-murray-news/a-legislative-valentine-to-gay-and-lesbian-families/

Quote :

"A legislative Valentine to gay and lesbian families OLYMPIA – Lawmakers have chosen today – the day that millions across the country celebrate the bonds of affection shared between two people in love – as the day to introduce major legislation that would no longer restrict gays and lesbians from their right to marry."

Additionally, the UK is making progress too, in going from civil union type arrangements to marriage equality:

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2011/02/british-government-ready-to-implement-full-marriage-equality-in-united-kingdom/

Quote :

"British government ready to implement full marriage equality in United Kingdom The British government is expected to announce full marriage equality for gays and lesbians under reforms to marriage laws expected to be announced later this week by the Liberal Democrat equality minister, Lynne Featherstone."

[Edited on February 14, 2011 at 11:31 PM. Reason : .]

2/14/2011 11:25:23 PM

A small bit of Prop 8 news:

http://gay.americablog.com/2011/02/key-decision-expected-today-from.html

Quote :

"Key decision expected today from California Supreme Court on Prop. 8 case ... The state high court, meeting in closed session, will review a request by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to determine whether Proposition 8’s sponsors have legal authority to defend the ballot measure."

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/02/16/Calif_Supreme_Court_to_Hear_Prop__8_Standing_Issue/

Quote :

"Another Prop. 8 Delay ... The California supreme court Wednesday announced it would hear arguments as to whether marriage-equality opponents have standing to defend Proposition 8 in court when state officials refused to do so. "

http://pamshouseblend.com/

Quote :

"The California Supreme Court has decided to accept the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals request to decide whether the Defendant-Intervenor's in Perry v Schwarzenegger (the Proposition 8 case) have standing under California law to act as defendants in the case. As the notice says, oral arguments are estimated to be heard sometime in September of 2011. That would mean a decision would not be likely until December, 2011 (California law gives appellate courts three months to decide a case after oral arguments). That would mean the case would not get back to the Ninth Circuit until some time after that, probably in 2012. When they would issue an opinion on standing and/or an opinion of the actual case (whether Proposition 8 violates the US Constitution) is anyone's guess. In any case any decision is likely to be appealed to the US Supreme Court, which would not likely hear the case until late 2012 or 2013. "

http://www.towleroad.com/2011/02/california-supreme-court-will-answer-prop-8-question-from-9th-circuit.html

Quote :

"The California Supreme Court announced today that it will accept (and answer) the certified question from the Ninth Circuit about whether state law gives the Prop 8 proponents -- Protect Marriage dot com -- the right to defend the law in federal court. The Court has outlined a fast-track schedule -- briefing done by May, oral argument by September and a decision one to two months later. Throughout this time, the federal case is technically on hold and the stay that prevents same-sex couples from marrying in California will remain in effect. If you recall, the Prop 8 case came to the 9th Circuit with two issues: (1) whether the Prop 8 proponents had standing to appeal Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling striking down Prop 8, and (2) whether Judge Walker was right to do so. After oral argument, the three-judge panel declined to pass judgment on either issue and instead certified a question to the California Supreme Court about what California law has to say about initiative proponents' rights to defend the law when the state declines to do so."

I tried to grab a few different articles that together told the story of what happened today in a more succinct way. 1) A ruling of some sort had been expected today 2) That ruling turned out to be the higher up 9th circuit court of appeals telling the lower down California Supreme Court to figure out the issue of standing for themselves (can the anti-gay website appeal, or does it have to be an official representative of the state such as an attorney general, governor, or legislator) 3) Whatever they decide, this means Prop 8 won't be decided this year, probably not for several more years 4) Proving standing is going to be difficult for them given the precedents saying certain state officials not random citizens are the ones with standing here, and additionally they would likely also have to prove harm, as in how gays getting married is imposing a significant burden on them which is also hard to do. That's my take from reading all these stories anyways, which very well could be not fully accurate.

This makes it slightly more likely that this stops with California, which is good and bad in its own way.

If this stops are CA it almost assuredly will result in marriage equality returning to California for good.

If this gets decided higher up, at the 9th, or at SCOTUS, it won't necessarily come down in the right way. So there is risk for setting bad regional or nation precedent. On the other hand going up to SCOTUS is the best way this can be used to tackle DOMA. (Although there are certainly other solid DOMA challenges without this).

I would definitely like to see SCOTUS take on DOMA, but on the other hand public opinion changes over time, and so to does the way SCOTUS is likely to rule on any given issue. Delaying this a couple of years might be a good thing in the end. Too early to tell I guess.


----

tl;dr: A decision happened today relating to Prop 8. It makes it slightly more likely for whatever the final decision is to only affect CA, rather than a larger region or the nation, but IMO it makes it a little more likely that the end result will be in favor of marriage equality. Today's decision definitely adds another year, or two, or more to this process of deciding the appeals.

[Edited on February 17, 2011 at 1:00 AM. Reason : .]

2/17/2011 12:54:09 AM

Interesting bit of DOMA news today. President Obama has asked the DOJ not to defend DOMA any further because of its unconstitutionality.

But this leaves it to the congress to decide if they want to take up the torch. So basically its up to the Boehner and the GOPs in congress whether they want to continue to spend tax payer money defending this, or focus doing their real jobs instead.

We'll see which they pick.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/23/6116207-obama-admin-will-no-longer-defend-federal-marriage-act-in-court

Quote :

"Obama admin will no longer defend federal marriage act in court In a major reversal, the Obama administration has notified Congress that it will no longer defend the federal law that says marriage can exist only between a man and a woman. Attorney General Eric Holder says he has recommended, and the president has agreed, that the law unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex couples who are legally married but whose status is not recognized by the federal government."

Quote :

"Here's the immediate practical effect of this change: -The Defense of Marriage Act remains in effect unless a federal court strikes it down or Congress repeals it. -The government will stop defending the law in two court cases, in New York and Connecticut, where the law has been challenged, and in any other cases challenging the law. -If the law is to be defended, members of Congress would have to step up and join those lawsuits."

2/24/2011 5:17:34 AM

But according to conservatives the president is refusing to enforce the law of the land which is his job!!!1. And then once reality is explained to them (albeit very slowly) they shift gears and ask why is the president talking about something like this when there are seemingly more important things to focus on like union busting in Wisconsin, Iranian warships in the Suez, civil war in Libya, a potential government shutdown, MLB spring training, etc. You stay classy stupid, Republicans

2/24/2011 6:44:55 AM

Marriage equality just passed in NY state... a state with a population of nearly 20 million people.

A crowd gathered outside of Stonewall Inn supporting the vote:





[Edited on June 24, 2011 at 10:34 PM. Reason : .]

6/24/2011 10:30:44 PM

6/24/2011 10:41:02 PM

6/25/2011 12:02:28 AM

This is going to create a backlash in conservative states that are going to now move more quickly and aggressively to ban gays.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/25/us-gaymarriage-usa-idUSTRE75O0G420110625

6/25/2011 12:27:08 AM

Photo I was trying to post, but apparently screwed up (thanks to being too new to having a Droid):



^I'm not so sure about that, I mean the GOP take over of many state legislatures last election has already led to many marriage discrimination constitutional amendments being pushed, including here in NC. The ball is already rolling on that one basically everywhere they think they can pass it, so I don't see this really creating any new efforts. Maddow was saying that this practically doubles the number of gay couples that have access to marriage.

DC passed a similar measure not too long ago. Kind of cool that the nation's capital, and now the nation's largest city both have this. Definitely momentum in the right direction.

6/25/2011 1:17:07 AM

More from Stonewall:

6/25/2011 2:07:02 AM

^OMG gay people that are not wearing dresses or dancing in the street naked or wearing flamboyant outfits?!!

[Edited on June 25, 2011 at 2:59 AM. Reason : ...they look almost normal.]

6/25/2011 2:59:22 AM

I went to an LGBT-themed event just over 3 months ago

it was crawling with hipsters (srsly, I shoulda snapped a buncha pix and then posted them saying "LOOK AT THAT FUCKING HIPSTER" on every single one)

but there was one guy wearing a very sparkly outfit and plastic-wrapped stilettos blowing glitter nearby for the lulz

6/25/2011 6:51:52 AM

^^Yeah, but that doesn't make for sensational tv, so its never the masses that get covered in the media.

6/25/2011 7:34:59 PM

In states where gay marriage passes, do employers then begin to require that a couple be married to receive same-sex partner benefits? If that's not already happening, will it?

If so, it's conceivable that gay marriage will actually reduce the number of recipients of same-sex partner benefits.

6/26/2011 8:12:36 AM

Quote :

"In states where gay marriage passes, do employers then begin to require that a couple be married to receive same-sex partner benefits?"

It certainly should. Who knows though.

6/26/2011 8:20:25 AM

6/26/2011 3:49:35 PM

I bet there's a lot of gay people out there who told their lover they'd marry them if they could, but didn't really mean it... sucks for them

6/26/2011 4:28:01 PM

Quote :

"In states where gay marriage passes, do employers then begin to require that a couple be married to receive same-sex partner benefits?"

On a related note, I just saw this:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/new-york-bishop-orders-gay-clergy-to-marry-52529/

Quote :

"New York Bishop Orders Gay Clergy to Marry In the wake of gay marriage soon becoming a legal institution in the state of New York, the Episcopal Bishop of Long Island, has ordered that homosexual priests wed their partners. Long Island Episcopal Bishop Lawrence Provenzano has put his foot down against gay clergy who residing in homosexual relationships, and has given a nine month deadline for them to either get married or stop living together, according to the News Observer. “I need to be mindful that the church has always asked people to live in committed monogamous, faithful relationships. I won’t allow heterosexual clergy to live in a rectory or church housing without the benefit of marriage. When one puts it in that context, then you see how it all begins to make sense,” said Provenzano. Reverend Christopher Hofer, pastor of the Episcopal Church of St. Jude agrees with Provenzano, “I think his statement was not only fair, but beyond generous. It gives people time, acknowledging that there’s a financial component involved and recognizing that some may not choose to live together. “Now that the state is recognizing civil marriage, we as priests, perhaps deacons too, who are in committed relationships, have a choice: we either live what we preach to become civilly married or we live apart,” he said."

Also, today there are hearings going on in the Senate on repealing DOMA, and earlier this week the President came out in support of the specific DOMA repeal legislation that is under consideration (he was already for DOMA repeal, but hadn't gone as far as endorsing specific legislation until now).

Between the several court cases challenging this law with the judicial branch, the legislature finally considering repeal legislation and holding hearings, and the President getting behind specific legislation, this is starting to feel like where the effort to end DADT was a year or two ago or so with all 3 branches of our gov chipping away at it. Maybe this law will be dead within the next 2 or 3 years after all.

[Edited on July 20, 2011 at 12:35 PM. Reason : .]

7/20/2011 12:26:15 PM

I'd be careful though. After their likely loss coming up on the debt ceiling, the Teavangelicals will likely intrench and go back to beating the war drums on social issues.

7/20/2011 1:17:05 PM

http://youtu.be/ZyAueltLsa4

Al Franken FTW

7/21/2011 1:26:12 PM

7/25/2011 12:19:57 PM

Ruling out today from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Quote :

"Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for ‘laws of this sort.’"

My understanding is that at a minimum it will be 21 days before couples can start getting legally married again. There are 2 routes this could be appealed, to a full panel of the 9th, or to SCOTUS. In either case a continued stay could be requested. It'll be a little harder to get a stay than before with rulings continuing to pile up saying this is unconstitutional which makes it harder to keep prop 8 in place, but it's still possible a stay could be in effect until SCOTUS is done making a decision about this (if they even take the case).

2/7/2012 9:02:33 PM

It's kind of a shame that this was overturned, now gays will be negatively impacting the marriages of straights all over again. I feel bad for married straight people whose marriages will now mean less.

2/7/2012 9:10:15 PM

the logic of the court was absurd: "we can't take back stuff once it's been given out, and we can't stop giving stuff out once we've started." pure mindblowing stupidity there

2/8/2012 4:02:26 PM

Seems like a pretty clear cut use of equal protection to me. What's your problem with it?

2/8/2012 7:33:09 PM

i'm going on what I heard was the explanation yesterday on NPR, and it didn't even rule on equal protection. it just said "if you give something out, you can't take it back". sounds dumb to me

2/9/2012 8:28:05 AM