"Walker was right to say that separate isn't equal. Civil unions are hardly ideal. But his decision treats civil unions as if they were trivial or worthless. By refusing to give them any weight and declaring them not just inadequate as a matter of policy but prohibited as a matter of law, Walker uses the Constitution to put compromise out of bounds. [snip]
I have to say I’d definitely go into a bar called Jihard. “Who’s Your Baghdaddi?” isn’t bad either. Infidel-ity is too upscale – that should be a piano bar playing only Gershwin. Halal Sailor: a little retro. Dicka Dicka Dicka should be a sex club. The Sixth Pillar is a little T.E. (but could definitely add a little upper-class English S&M for spice). imam4imam should be a website. Men-R-It is a nice play on minaret, but way too subtle. TGI Thursdays is a classic.Go here to see his winning bar name. Sully suggests that Anderson Cooper’s partner would be the perfect manager.
The 410,000 member 132-year old American Bar Association, arguably the most influential legal group in the world, has announced its firm support for same-sex marriage. The Advocate reports:In a resolution adopted less than one week after a federal judge in San Francisco struck down California's Proposition 8 as unconstitutional, the group acknowledges that same-sex couples "are only seeking to participate in an equal basis in a foundational institution of our civil life," former ABA president Tommy Wells told the organization's house of delegates. "They simply want to share in the legal blessings that we give to married couples. It can only strengthen marriage.”The ABA's statement: "RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges state, territorial, and tribal governments to eliminate all of their legal barriers to civil marriage between two persons of the same sex who are otherwise eligible to marry."r
The Parents Television Council is calling for a boycott of William Shatner's new show, $#*! My Dad Says, because the title implies a naughty word. Last week the group sent letters to hundreds of advertisers demanding that they not support the show. "Parents really do care about profanity when their kids are watching TV," said PTC President Tim Winter. "All parents? No, but something like 80 or 90 percent of parents. Putting an expletive in the title of a show is crossing new territory, and we can't allow that to happen on our watch." Winter's letter to companies asks bluntly: "When you advertise on television, do you want your customers to associate your product with (bleep)?" His letter uses the expletive, not the word "bleep." Winter uses the real word 10 times in two pages. But how much do parents care? Parental concern about profane language on TV is clearly waning, according to the Rasmussen Reports pollsters. Rasmussen's survey of 1,000 American adults taken July 27-28 found that 57 percent said there was too much inappropriate content on television and radio. Sex and violence is the main concern; only 9 percent of those polled pointed to profanity as the biggest problem area.The title of the show, of course, derives from the best-selling book Shit My Dad Says. If the show is a fraction as funny as the book is, we've got a winner.
While many legal analysts thought that Judge Walker was likely to grant the stay pending appeal, Friday’s filings have dramatically changed the likelihood of that. The standards for when a stay or a trial court’s order pending appeal are well-settled. In order to be entitled to such a stay, the party seeking the stay has to make a “strong showing” that the party is likely to succeed on the merits of the appeal and also has to show that that party will be irreparably injured if there is no stay. In addition, courts consider whether the issuance of a stay will substantially injure other parties and where the public interest lies. Normally, it is the party ordered to do or not do something that seeks a stay. This is an unusual situation, however, because the parties whom Judge Walker ordered not to enforce Proposition 8 have asked him not to stay his order while the appeal proceeds. [snip]The Ninth Circuit Court has tentatively scheduled to hear Protect Marriage's opening appeal brief on November 12th, but that date could be delayed upon request. Davidson questions whether Protect Marriage actually has the legal right to file an appeal at all.
Even if he denies the proponents’ stay pending appeal, Judge Walker might extend his temporary stay for a brief period of time (a week or so) in order to give the proponents time to ask for a stay from the Ninth Circuit while there’s a temporary stay in place. If he does not do that, the proponents are likely to file a request for an emergency stay from the appellate court. The Ninth Circuit would then apply the same test as Judge Walker did in deciding whether or not to issue a stay of Judge Walker’s order pending the appeal. If they deny a stay as well, the proponents could ask Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy (who reviews such matters arising out of the Ninth Circuit) to issue a stay pending the appeal. If he also denies a stay, the proponents could seek a stay from the full Supreme Court.
So far, the government-defendants in the case have not appealed. Given what they have said in their oppositions to the stay request, it seems likely that they will not. If that happens, there will be a legal question of whether, when those who are ordered to do something don’t appeal, someone not ordered to do anything has any right to appeal. To understand this, one has to appreciate a few things about federal courts.
Federal courts can only hear cases where there is what’s called a “case or controversy.” They can’t issue advisory opinions about issues just because parties may have an abstract dispute with one another. Rather, in order to be able to pursue an appeal, a party has the burden of showing that it has “a direct stake in the outcome” and has been injured by the ruling in a concrete manner that is particularized to that party and different from citizens at large who may not like the judge’s ruling. In a previous case, the U.S. Supreme Court said it had “grave doubts” about whether proponents of a ballot initiative limiting government action who had been allowed to intervene in a case can pursue an appeal when the initiative has been found unconstitutional and the government does not appeal.
 | |
Dear Daniel,
Just when you thought they couldn't stoop any lower... At one of 20 rallies on their anti-equality summer tour, the president of the far-right National Organization for Marriage (NOM) had the gall to compare their bigoted cause to that of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. "What if Martin Luther King, Jr. would have listened to those who tried to silence him and tell him that his faith has no place in the public square?" he asked. He then told the crowd they were "part of a new civil rights group." It's revolting. But last week's ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional has them angrier than ever, and they'll only ratchet up their hypocrisy as the 2010 election approaches. The next big fight for marriage is on, and they know it. So do we. That's why we're well on our way to raising $100,000 by Wednesday for a campaign to beat back the right-wing challenge by voting out NOM's cronies. Can we count on you at this pivotal moment? Groups like NOM have a new strategy: to cloak their bigotry in the guise of a "civil rights" movement – to claim that they're being persecuted for their views, and saying they're for "fairness" and "equality." Just look at the photo below from the same NOM rally in New Jersey where they invoked Dr. King's legacy:  Unless we're there to answer every charge and expose every shred of propaganda, we give them the upper hand. And then everything we've fought for is in jeopardy.Here's just one example of how HRC's rapid-response team and our huge grassroots force can make a difference. When Target and Best Buy (despite their solid records as leaders in workplace equality) donated to support a rabidly anti-equality candidate, we ran a full-page ad and mobilized almost 100,000 people asking them to make it right. This campaign is one of the most urgent we’ve undertaken. The 2010 election will have a major impact on every single issue we work on – not just marriage and relationships, but our efforts in the workplace, schools, hospitals, houses of worship... Your donation today could make the difference. We're well underway, with staff already placed in key states and volunteers trained and mobilized. And throughout the lead-up to the election, we’ll be firing on all cylinders, funding full-time grassroots organizers, supporting door-to-door programs and phone banks, turning out volunteers, running ads, and striking back against right-wing lies. The outcome in November will be with us for years, perhaps decades: Equality or discrimination. Dignity or denigration. Which will it be? The weight of history is on our shoulders. Thank you for doing your part. Sincerely,  Joe Solmonese President P.S. If you've recently donated through the mail or by any other means, please disregard this message and accept our sincere thanks. If not, I hope you'll donate now and support this fight.  This link is specific to you, so please make your own gift before you forward to your friends. Having trouble clicking on the links above? Simply copy and paste this URL into your browser's address bar to reach the donation form: https://secure3.convio.net/hrc/site/Donation2?df_id=5581&5581.donation=form1 |
