Thursday, August 19, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
via JMG: HomoQuotable - Richard Socarides
"Can President Obama, who once supported gay marriage, only to oppose it now, change his position again? The answer is yes — and he in fact has no choice. People understand that most public officials who now support gay marriage once opposed it. It wasn’t until after they left office that Bill Clinton and Al Gore (and, most recently, Laura Bush) said that they favored marriage equality. As Nate Silver recently wrote on his blog FiveThirtyEight.com: “Does anyone really believe, in a country that is becoming close to evenly divided on gay marriage, that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Kerry are among the half who oppose it? “"The sooner Obama changes his answer on this most important equal-rights issue of the day, the better off he will be. The Perry ruling provides the right opportunity to shift his emphasis and provide real leadership, reminding people that in this country, we look to the courts for direction on what our Constitution requires. It might also help the president’s popularity with those that elected him, and it puts him and his party on the right side of the equality question, where he, of course, belongs and presumably wants to be." - Former Clinton White House adviser Richard Socarides, writing for Politico.
reposted from Joe
via JMG: Hate Group Vs. Hate Group!
The anti-gay Liberty Counsel wanted to be one of the hate groups arguing Prop 8. The anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund blocked their involvement, saying, "No fucking way, bitches. We're the only haters up in this here case." Protect Marriage even dissed the Liberty Counsel as the "extreme fringe" of the hate movement and "not part of the coalition that got Prop 8 passed." And ever since Walker ruled, the Liberty Counsel's Matt Staver has been screaming about the lousy job the ADF did, whining that ADF didn't hate nearly hard enough during the case. Why, they never even said that dirty homos were doomed to eternal damnation!
"First was a misplaced idea of competition or domination of the case," he said. "And second, a desire to narrow the defense so as not to focus or even address the consequences of homosexuality and homosexual marriage." "We wanted to include that as part of our defense," he continued. According to Staver, the ADF "basically gave away the essence of the case, because they wanted to shy away from homosexuality and really were not willing to take the issue directly head on." The ADF wished to stipulate, he said, that counseling some homosexuals to change could be harmful, that homosexual partners form long and lasting relationships, and that homosexuality does not impair any area of life. Liberty Counsel was not willing to do so.Staver further bitches that none of the Liberty Counsel's suggested witnesses, all of whom were ready to testify about the inherent eeee-ville of teh gay, were ever contacted, much less asked to appear in court.
Regardless of the reason that the ADF opposed Liberty Counsel’s entrance, the attitude that the ADF wished to project towards the court was reflected in the witnesses they planned on calling: at least three seemed to think that homosexuality, in itself, was perfectly fine. Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson had been slated to testify before the court for the proponents of Proposition 8, but they were both withdrawn before they did so.
Advocates of same-sex “marriage,” however, used Young’s and Nathanson’s videotaped depositions to help bolster their own arguments. In Nathanson's deposition he stated that homosexuals can be good parents, while Young said in his videotaped testimony that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality and that homosexuals have the same potential and desire as heterosexual couples to raise children. In 2003, Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson wrote that although legalizing "same sex marriage is a bad idea" they only opposed "gay marriage, not gay relationships." "There's nothing wrong with homosexuality," they stated. "One of us, in fact, is gay."
Labels: Alliance Defense Fund, HA HA HA, hate groups, infighting is funny, Liberty Counsel, Matt Staver, Proposition 8
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Via TBP: Which Supreme Court Justices Will Uphold Judge Walker's Ruling?
As I explained in my previous post, Judge Walker held that Prop 8 failed the easiest of constitutional tests, even though it perhaps deserved a much more difficult test.
In other words, he could have used a sledgehammer to test the Prop 8 brick, but he threw some jello at it and it collapsed. Which it deserved to do, because Prop 8 has no rational basis except for "we hate teh gayz," and that is not a "legitimate government interest."
Justices Scalia and Thomas, however, would definitely love to strike down Judge Walker's ruling with lighting and thunder. Not because they hate gays, but because they don't believe in using the Constitution's Due Process clause to invalidate laws unless it involves gun restrictions. They wouldn't use the jello test like Judge Walker does.
But there are nine justices on the Supreme Court. Five are needed for a majority. Do we have five?
Now, scientific studies show that there are 101 ways to eat jello. (That hilarious video after the jump.)
Our job is to figure out how each of the Supremes like their jello, and what that will mean for Judge Walker's opinion.
Continue reading "Which Supreme Court Justices Will Uphold Judge Walker's Ruling?" »
In other words, he could have used a sledgehammer to test the Prop 8 brick, but he threw some jello at it and it collapsed. Which it deserved to do, because Prop 8 has no rational basis except for "we hate teh gayz," and that is not a "legitimate government interest."
Justices Scalia and Thomas, however, would definitely love to strike down Judge Walker's ruling with lighting and thunder. Not because they hate gays, but because they don't believe in using the Constitution's Due Process clause to invalidate laws unless it involves gun restrictions. They wouldn't use the jello test like Judge Walker does.
But there are nine justices on the Supreme Court. Five are needed for a majority. Do we have five?
Now, scientific studies show that there are 101 ways to eat jello. (That hilarious video after the jump.)
Our job is to figure out how each of the Supremes like their jello, and what that will mean for Judge Walker's opinion.
Continue reading "Which Supreme Court Justices Will Uphold Judge Walker's Ruling?" »
Via TBP: Terror Babies, Mosques in Manhattan, and Gay Marriage
In case you missed it, Republican leadership has completely gone off the deep end. I mean, completely.
From Texas's Congressmen Lou Gohmert (whose insanity brought us "terror babies." I swear they are real. There was one at brunch on Sunday who wouldn't stop screaming. No, I don't have evidence. Stop badgering me!) to Newt Gingrich's attack on the First Amendment. Gingrich has led some low IQ Americans into a frothy idiotic mess over a mosque in Manhattan that happens to be near the 9/11 wound on New York. Manhattan is a small Island. Everything on Manhattan is near the 9/11 memorial. (Even this NSFW link.)
President Obama, wisely and accurately, made a statement on Friday defending the First Amendment and the right for every American to practice the religion of his or her choosing.
What did Newt Gingrich do? He poured gasoline and lit a match.
Continue reading "Terror Babies, Mosques in Manhattan, and Gay Marriage" »
From Texas's Congressmen Lou Gohmert (whose insanity brought us "terror babies." I swear they are real. There was one at brunch on Sunday who wouldn't stop screaming. No, I don't have evidence. Stop badgering me!) to Newt Gingrich's attack on the First Amendment. Gingrich has led some low IQ Americans into a frothy idiotic mess over a mosque in Manhattan that happens to be near the 9/11 wound on New York. Manhattan is a small Island. Everything on Manhattan is near the 9/11 memorial. (Even this NSFW link.)President Obama, wisely and accurately, made a statement on Friday defending the First Amendment and the right for every American to practice the religion of his or her choosing.
What did Newt Gingrich do? He poured gasoline and lit a match.
Continue reading "Terror Babies, Mosques in Manhattan, and Gay Marriage" »
Via Belirico:
"As the leading proponent of stopping bullying in America, I was not allowed to be bullied out of my job. I've been preaching for 25 years that bullying is not OK. There was no way I could then say, 'OK, you can bully me.'[...]
At the peak of the attacks on me last fall, when I had Federal Protective Service in my office because there had been so many death threats, I thought, 'This is the right thing to do?' All I could think is, no matter how this ends, it's better than sitting at home wondering, 'Gosh, I wonder what it would have been like to be part of the Obama administration?'
Get into the arena. You won't win every time. You may find yourself like me with 1.1 million Google hits, most of which are negative, thanks to the Fox News Network."
--Kevin Jennings
Via JMG: Rachel Maddow To Get Cronkite Award
Rachel Maddow will receive an award named after CBS newsman Walter Cronkite for her coverage of religion and politics. The award, which will be presented at a gala dinner in New York in October, "recognizes individuals who courageously promote democratic values, defend religious freedom and reinvigorate informed civic participation," according to the announcement. Cronkite served as Honorary Chairman of the Interfaith Alliance until his death last year. "Walter Cronkite once told me that no less than the future of our nation was at stake in the work of Interfaith Alliance, and I can think of no two people who contribute more to advancing our mission than Rachel Maddow and Joan Brown Campbell," said Interfaith Alliance President Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy. "Rachel's passionate coverage of the intersection of religion and politics exhibits a strong personal intellect coupled with constitutional sensitivity to the proper boundaries between religion and government."Very deserved!
Via JMG: GOProud's HomoCon 2010 Agenda
reposted from Joe
Via Courage Campaign:
"I cried when I heard the news... This straight ally will not give up the fight... I will do everything I can to see (that) your love gets the recognition it deserves... Until all of us are free, none of us are." -- John, who posted this comment on Courage's Prop 8 Trial Tracker web site, one of 463 comments shared by the P8TT community last night.Dear Daniel --
 |
It breaks our hearts as well, John.
Late yesterday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals announced an indefinite stay of Judge Walker's ruling striking down Proposition 8. No matter the legal justification for the stay, this news is deeply painful for millions of Americans.
The (very) good news is that the 9th Circuit expedited the case for a hearing on December 6 -- an unusual fast-tracking of the appeals process and a positive sign of what may come.
Still, this is a difficult reminder that the work to restore marriage equality to California -- and to make marriage equality the law across America -- will be a roller-coaster full of ups and downs.
That's why we're relaunching "It Breaks Your Heart" -- a 60-second version of an online video we released last year that was viewed by more than 1.3 million people. Featuring the hit song "Fidelity" by Regina Spektor, the video's message is crystal clear: fundamental civil rights should never be put up for a vote.
Please watch "It Breaks Your Heart" now. Then join more than 700,000 other Courage Campaign members in taking our "1 Million for Marriage Equality" pledge today. It only takes one minute to watch the video and 10 seconds to sign the short pledge. Click here now to join us:
http://www.couragecampaign.org/1Million
When you sign the pledge, you'll be joining a movement to change the conversation about equality across our country and bring the Prop 8 trial into the lives of Americans. It started with our Testimony: Equality on Trial campaign and it won't stop until a court ruling strikes down Prop 8. Forever.
In the coming weeks and months, we'll be launching several actions to give Americans -- straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender -- the opportunity to provide your own Testimony about the Prop 8 trial.
Whether in writing, video, or through family photos, your personal testimony will help us defend Judge Walker's ruling in the court of public opinion -- establishing his decision as the social and cultural foundation for victory in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Just like John said above, we must stay in this fight until we win. That's why we're asking you to spend one minute watching "It Breaks Your Heart" -- and then 10 more seconds to sign our "1 Million for Marriage Equality" pledge. Click here to take action now:
http://www.couragecampaign.org/1Million
Thank you for staying in this fight until Prop 8 is gone. For good. We can't do it without you.
Rick Jacobs
Chair, Courage Campaign Institute
Courage Campaign Institute is a part of the Courage Campaign's multi-issue online organizing network that empowers more than 700,000 grassroots and netroots supporters to push for progressive change and full equality in California and across the country. To get involved in the Courage Campaign Institute, visit "Testimony: Equality on Trial" -- our year-long campaign to bring the Prop 8 trial into the lives of Americans.
To power our campaign to defend Judge Walker's Prop 8 decision, please chip in what you can today:
Monday, August 16, 2010
Via Beyond the Chron: Out Christianing Each Other
James Lankford & Kevin Calvey
Out Christianing Each Other It’s not hard to court conservative Christian voters. All a politician has to do these days is spew lots of hatred towards the LGBT community and oppose abortion, national healthcare and of course gay marriage. Such is the case in Oklahoma with Republicans James Lankford and Kevin Calvey, who are in a heated runoff for their party’s nomination to fill the seat vacated by retiring Congress woman Mary Fallin, a right-winger who opposes abortion and believes in border fences and walls and the right of every man, woman and child (and possibly pet dog) to carry a gun. [more]->
Via EQCA:
August 16, 2010 | ||||
 | ||||
| Dear Daniel, Right-wing, anti-equality groups are targeting Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic Attorney General Brown, urging them to appeal Judge Walker’s historic decision. We need to make sure they don’t succeed. Email Gov. Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown and urge them to stand strong against right-wing attacks. At a time when the state is strapped for cash, our leaders should be concentrating resources on keeping teachers, firefighters and police on the job, not defending discrimination in court. So far the Governor and Attorney General’s offices have stood with the majority of Californians who now support marriage for same-sex couples. Urge Governor and Attorney General to keep doing the right thing: not defending bigotry in court. And urge your friends and family to do the same. www.eqca.org/standstrong On Wednesday evening, the U. S. Constitution’s promise of equality for all will hopefully be restored and couples will start getting married again. We need to protect their marriages by making sure the state stays out of the business of discrimination. Thank the Governor and Attorney General for standing on the side of equality, and urge them to continue to stand strong. Warmly,  Geoff Kors Executive Director Equality California  |  
| |||
Via JMG: Here's Protect Marriage's Final Motion
Protect Marriage's final motion claims that the state's job of promoting "responsible procreation" would be irrevocably harmed by gay marriage. Because in California, there has been ABSOLUTELY no irresponsible procreation so far. Hilarious. Considering that the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference is kicking off today in Hawaii, don't be surprised if we get a ruling before the end of the office day in California. It's important to note that some anti-gay evangelicals don't want this appealed to the Supreme Court. They'd rather "sacrifice" California to the evil homos than risk losing at SCOTUS and seeing same-sex marriage become the law of the nation.
CA9Doc 11
Via JMG: BREAKING: Ninth Circuit Court Grants Stay Of Prop 8 Overturn Pending Appeal
No same-sex marriage for California, for now. Via Rex Wockner, here's the legalese:
Filed order (EDWARD LEAVY, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and SIDNEY R. THOMAS) 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. [7441574] (JS)This may get to the Supreme Court yet.
Labels: California, marriage equality, Ninth Circuit Court., Proposition 8, Supreme Court, Vaughn Walker
Via JMG: Prop 8 Plaintiffs Respond To Stay
From Ted Olson and the American Foundation for Equal Rights:
Today the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit set a highly expedited schedule for briefing and argument of proponents' appeal from the district court's August 4, 2010 decision striking down California's Proposition 8 as an unconstitutional violation of the rights of gay and lesbian citizens to due process and equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment, and it granted proponents' request to stay the judgment of the district court's order while the appeal is decided. This means that although Californians who were denied equality by Proposition 8 cannot marry immediately, the Ninth Circuit, like the district court, will move swiftly to address and decide the merits of Plaintiffs' claims on their merits.
"We are very gratified that the Ninth Circuit has recognized the importance and pressing nature of this case and the need to resolve it as quickly as possible by issuing this extremely expedited briefing schedule. As Chief Judge Walker found, Proposition 8 harms gay and lesbian citizens each day it remains on the books. We look forward to moving to the next stage of this case,” said Attorney Theodore B. Olson.
“Today’s order from the Ninth Circuit for an expedited hearing schedule ensures that we will triumph over Prop. 8 as quickly as possible. This case is about fundamental constitutional rights and we at the American Foundation for Equal Rights, our Plaintiffs and our attorneys are ready to take this case all the way through the appeals court and to the United States Supreme Court,” said Chad Griffin, Board President, American Foundation for Equal Rights.
Via Marriage Equality USA:
Marriage Equality USA has just received word that Ninth Circuit has granted the stay but expedites appeal.
Filed order (EDWARD LEAVY, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and SIDNEY R. THOMAS) 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. [7441574] (JS)
We were hoping that Wednesday would mark the day that marriage equality would return to California. But there is some good news with this decision.
The Ninth Circuit has asked for opening briefs by September 17th and that parties must discuss why the appeal should not be dismissed due to lack of standing. Also, the schedule for the briefs are similar to what Plaintiff attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies requested. And oral arguments should begin by the end of this year.
So it's not what we wanted, but Harvey Milk would want us to keep hope alive. We have an amazing legal team (including our friends with the City & County of San Francisco). We have a fact-based district trial court decision that overwhelmingly explains why Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. And we know that eventually we will win.
Stay engaged with Marriage Equality USA. Join our facebook page, get involved with your local chapter, donate, and volunteer. And go out an make every moment a marriage equality moment.
Founded in 1998, Marriage Equality USA is a national grassroots organization whose mission is to secure legally recognized civil marriage equality for all, at the federal and state level, without regard to gender identity or sexual orientation. For more information go to www.marriageequality.org
Filed order (EDWARD LEAVY, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and SIDNEY R. THOMAS) 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. [7441574] (JS)
We were hoping that Wednesday would mark the day that marriage equality would return to California. But there is some good news with this decision.
The Ninth Circuit has asked for opening briefs by September 17th and that parties must discuss why the appeal should not be dismissed due to lack of standing. Also, the schedule for the briefs are similar to what Plaintiff attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies requested. And oral arguments should begin by the end of this year.
So it's not what we wanted, but Harvey Milk would want us to keep hope alive. We have an amazing legal team (including our friends with the City & County of San Francisco). We have a fact-based district trial court decision that overwhelmingly explains why Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. And we know that eventually we will win.
Stay engaged with Marriage Equality USA. Join our facebook page, get involved with your local chapter, donate, and volunteer. And go out an make every moment a marriage equality moment.
Founded in 1998, Marriage Equality USA is a national grassroots organization whose mission is to secure legally recognized civil marriage equality for all, at the federal and state level, without regard to gender identity or sexual orientation. For more information go to www.marriageequality.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)