The West Hollywood city clerk posts the rules. Read more...
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Via 365gay: Culhane: Prop 8 stay analysis
August 12th, 2010
Culhane: Prop 8 stay analysis
By John Culhane 08.12.2010Professor of Law, Widener University
What happens after Thursday's explosive ruling. Read more...
Via JMG: Reactions To Lifting Of Prop 8 Stay
Equality California
Monumental! U. S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker has denied Yes on 8 proponents their request that he stay his decision which declared that Prop 8 unconstitutional, paving the way for couples to get married. This is an incredibly joyful moment in our history, not only for all of the committed couples who will finally be able to get married, but also because a fundamental constitutional freedom has been restored in our great state. Our victory today is due in no small part to the State of California’s stance on the case. Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown both asked the court to lift the stay and allow marriages to commence. Both have refused to defend Prop. 8 in court, preventing the State’s talented attorneys and vast legal resources from playing a role in this case.National Gay & Lesbian Task Force
“We extend our heartfelt congratulations to the same-sex couples who will again be free to experience the joy and celebration of legally marrying in California. This is a remarkable moment, stemming from the landmark ruling declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional. That decision came down to a simple yet profound principle: People should be treated equally under the law. Lifting the stay puts that principle into practice. We thank the judge for his continuing sense of fairness and sound reasoning in this case.”Stonewall Democrats
"At a time when a majority of the American public believe that same-sex couples should have the legal right to marry, Judge Walker’s decision to lift the stay on marriage for same-sex couples is simply a natural expression of a Constitution that guarantees equality for all Americans,” said Michael Mitchell, Executive Director of the National Stonewall Democrats. “It only seems radical to a shrinking minority of people who are on the wrong side of history.” “As we head into midterm elections, it’s important to remember that in large part, it’s been the Republican party that has used marriage equality as a wedge issue, Republican governors who vetoed marriage equality measures and Republican Members of Congress who pushed for a Constitutional amendment that would forever keep LGBT people as second-class citizens. We, of course, welcome and applaud any elected official of either party who supports marriage equality, but time and again, it’s pro-equality Democrats who are doing the lion’s share of the work that will ultimately result in full marriage equality.”Faith In America
"We applaud Judge Walker's responsible handling of the stay regarding Prop 8. Clearly his ruling that Proposition 8 violates Constitutional rights is a landmark opinion and it deserves careful deliberation. No longer will religious-based objections to marriage be a justification for the government to keep the right to marriage away from same-sex couples,² said Mitchell Gold, founder of Faith in America. Judge Walker¹s ruling last week in which he found that banning marriage between same-sex couples was unconstitutional, also acknowledged that religion has been misused to justify harm to gays and lesbians and their families. "We are so happy for the LGBT couples in California who wish to marry the love of their life, just as I was able to do a few short weeks ago in the State of Iowa," Gold continued. "Same-sex couples deserve the same freedom and rights allowed by the Constitution. Today is another historic day."Lambda Legal
"Although we're disappointed that Judge Walker elected today to give the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals a chance to consider the issue of the stay, we are gratified that he has denied the request to put his historic ruling on hold during any appeals. He has applied the standard legal tests in the standard way and reached the only logical conclusions given the overwhelming evidence produced at trial: nobody is harmed - especially not the backers of Prop 8 - by restoring equality in marriage to California's same-sex couples. Nobody suffers when everyone is treated equally. There's enough equality to go around. "To maintain the stay, the Ninth Circuit will have to find that Prop 8's proponents are likely to win on appeal or will suffer irreparable harm if same-sex couples again are allowed to marry. But at this point, the truth is crystal clear, as last week's decision explains: the only people suffering harm are lesbian and gay couples whose constitutional rights are violated every day that Prop 8 remains in force, and who simply seek the same rights everyone else already enjoys."
Via Freedom to Marry:
 | |
|
Via PFAW: Will The Right Sacrifice California to Save Marriage Amendments Elsewhere?
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:
make the jump here to read the full article
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:
make the jump here to read the full article
Via JMG: Here's The Ruling Lifting The Stay
VIA EDCA: Monumental!
U. S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker has denied Yes on 8 proponents their request that he stay his decision which declared that Prop 8 unconstitutional, paving the way for couples to get married. This is an incredibly joyful moment in our history, not only for all of the committed couples who will finally be able to get married, but also because a fundamental constitutional freedom has been restored in our great state. And Equality California pledges to do whatever is needed to preserve this critically important win. We’ll need your help. Our victory today is due in no small part to the State of California’s stance on the case. Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown both asked the court to lift the stay and allow marriages to commence. Both have refused to defend Prop. 8 in court, preventing the State’s talented attorneys and vast legal resources from playing a role in this case. All that can change if we don’t do our part. We must ensure that that the State does not work against us. We need to elect a governor and attorney general this November who will maintain the State’s position and support the lawsuit brought by the American Foundation for Equal Rights. Donate today to elect a governor and attorney general who will refuse to defend Prop. 8 in court. Just pledging $1 a day for equality will make a huge difference. Gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown and Attorney General candidate Kamala Harris have pledged not use their offices to defend discrimination, something that cannot be said about their opponents. Make sure the scales of justice stay on the side of equality. Donate today to the state’s largest LGBT Political Action Committee to elect pro-equality candidates and keep this historic victory forever. In solidarity,  Geoff Kors Executive Director Equality California PAC P.S. We also need your help petitioning Meg Whitman and Steve Cooley not to defend Prop. 8 in court.  |
|
SACBEE.COM BREAKING NEWS ALERT
U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker this morning lifted a stay on his finding that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, paving the way for same-sex marriages to resume on Aug. 18 unless the measure's defenders quickly obtain a stay from a higher court.
Read more at Capitol Alert.
Via JMG: Maddow On DADT: Why Aren't We Holding Off On The Ruination Of Careers?
Last night Rachel Maddow devoted nearly her entire show to the repeal of DADT, interviewing several of its most high-profile victims, including Lt. Colonel Victor Fehrenbach, who has just filed suit to stop his dismissal. Here's how Maddow closed out the show.
VIVA! its LIFTED!
Wedding Bells To Ring! Proposition 8 Stay LIFTED By Judge Vaughn Walker!!!
The stay is LIFTED. California's same-sex couples may begin marrying immediately. Stand by for the ruling, wedding photos, videos and reactions!Those Damn Homos are Changing Word Definitions! Stop Them NOW!
Posted: 10 Aug 2010 07:15 PM PDT by the Atheist Camel  Recently Tony raged against the overturning of Prop 8 in California. He made these two statements: "The fact that homosexuals prefer not to enter into marriages as historically defined does not give them a right to change the definition of what a 'marriage' is." "FRC has always fought to protect marriage in America and will continue to do so by working with our allies to appeal this dangerous decision. http://www.frc.org/newsroom/frc-criticizes-court-ruling-warns-against-the-roe-v-wade-of-same-sex-marriage “Protect marriage”? Protect it from what exactly? My marriage doesn’t require his protection, whose does? I understand protecting children from clergy pedophiles, but how does one protect a word or concept from evolving, and why? Like all religious extremists Tony is living in denial. The "historic definition" of any word in the English lexicon evolves. I suppose he’s still wringing his hands over the evolved “historic definition” of the word "gay." He and his ilk must have accepted it, since I don't hear any of them saying things like "I'm feeling quite gay today." I imagine they stay up nights bemoaning the evolution of the word “awful,” which once meant “deserving of awe.” Sorry Tony, but just like language, cultural mores evolve. Women can now own property – historically & biblically they couldn't. People can’t own slaves – historically and biblically they could. Inter racial couples can now marry - historically they couldn't. Being gay, committing adultery, and working on the “Sabbath” is no longer punishable by death - historically & biblically it was. Inter racial marriage was once deemed to be in violation of God's plan. You'll get used to gay marriage, Tony, just like you've gotten used to, or at least grudgingly accepted, these other examples of cultural evolution.. I keep asking why religionists insist on forcing selected / cherry picked ancient Hebraic admonishments on society. How does the evolution away from these things directly negatively affect their lives, their freedoms? Why don't they rage just as much against people wearing mixed fiber clothes (Lev. 19:19), or boiling a kid goat in it's mother's milk (Exodus 23:14-19) and demand constitutional amendments to enforce them? In the absence of a satisfactory response the only answer I can come up with is hypocrisy and hate born of the religious virus. But it doesn't matter. In 5 or 6 years gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states. And in 100 to 300 years the Christian churches will apologize for their homophobic hysteria , just like they apologized for Galileo's persecution, burning of heretics, the Inquisition, and the impact of Martin Luther's anti-Semitism on Europe. It just takes them that long to catch up to humanity.  |
via This Is What I Think: Traditional Marriage Perverts the Tradition of Marriage
Traditional Marriage Perverts the Tradition of Marriage
A brilliant playwright (and close personal friend of mine) recently sent this editorial out regarding Prop 8. I thought I'd share.Traditional Marriage Perverts the Tradition of Marriage
by Jeff Goode (Californian)
About a decade ago, as a young playwright, I was hired to write a script for the Renaissance Festival of Kansas City. It was a period piece about knights and jousts and intrigues of the court, building up to a lavish royal wedding between a prince and a princess, restoring peace to the troubled land.
This was one of my first professional writing assignments, so I was really excited about doing all the research and making sure that everything was historically accurate, especially the royal wedding which needed to follow all the traditions exactly.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Via SacBee: Judge to rule on stay Thursday in Prop. 8 case
Read more
Via 365gay: Costa Rica court blocks gay civil union referendum
(San Jose, Costa Rica) Costa Rica’s top court has blocked the electoral tribunal from holding a referendum that would have let voters decide if same-sex civil unions should be allowed in the Central American country. The Constitutional Court’s 5-2 decision released Tuesday says such a referendum would put a minority at a disadvantage in a largely Roman Catholic country. It also says gay civil unions is a legislative issue and not an electoral one.
The court says it considers homosexuals a group that is at a disadvantage and the target for discrimination, requiring government authorities to protect their rights.
The electoral tribunal had planned to hold the referendum Dec. 5, when Costa Rica also is holding municipal elections.
The court says it considers homosexuals a group that is at a disadvantage and the target for discrimination, requiring government authorities to protect their rights.
The electoral tribunal had planned to hold the referendum Dec. 5, when Costa Rica also is holding municipal elections.
Via JMG: HomoQuotable - Jonathan Rauch
"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]"So I think the decision is a radical one, but not, ironically, as it pertains to homosexuality or to marriage. No, Walker's radicalism lies elsewhere: In his use of the Constitution to batter the principles of its two greatest exponents - Madison and Abraham Lincoln, a Burkean who was steadfast in his belief that ideals must be leavened with pragmatism.
"History will, I believe, vindicate Walker's view of marriage. Whether it will see him as having done gay rights a favor is less clear. For all its morally admirable qualities, his decision sets the cause of marriage equality crosswise with moderation, gradualism and popular sovereignty. Which, in America, is a dangerous place to be." - Jonathan Rauch, writing for the New York Daily News. Rauch, who gay-married in Washington DC in June, is the co-founder of the homocon site, Independent Gay Forum.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)