Unlike the five federal judges who have struck down laws prohibiting same-sex marriages in other states in recent months, McShane won't have anyone in the courtroom defending Oregon's constitutional ban when he holds oral arguments Wednesday. And, unlike the other judges, McShane also happens to be one of just nine openly gay members of the federal judiciary, according to the Human Rights Campaign. It's an unusual combination of factors for the 53-year-old jurist, who has served as a federal judge for less than a year. McShane, citing the sensitivity of the case, declined to be interviewed for this story. But friends say they're confident he'll produce a careful decision while setting aside any personal feelings. "You don't want to be the lawyer going in saying with a wink, 'I'm the lawyer on the gay-marriage side and he's going to be with me,'" says Lane Borg, who heads Metropolitan Public Defender and has known McShane for decades. "They would be ill-advised to think that just because Michael is gay that he is going to rule that way."NOM chairman John Eastman has the sadz: "The question is not his sexual orientation, but whether he is situated identically to the plaintiffs and will benefit from the exact relief he provides to them."
In light of the Oregon attorney general's decision to not defend the state's ban on gay marriage, Oregon is now revising its marriage licenses to include forms for same-sex couples. Previously, when people applied for a marriage license, they were asked either to identify as a "bride" or "groom." Now, the new form designates as "Party A" and "Party B." Applicants can also choose to be identified as "bride," "groom" or "spouse." Another change to marriage licenses: eliminating the term "maiden name." Instead, applicants will be asked to provide their "name at birth." Most of Oregon's counties use an electronic version of the marriage form. Clerks are in the process of working with a software vendor to update the online forms.(Tipped by JMG reader Robert)
The revelation is an unexpected footnote in the years-long debate over Proposition 8, the California measure struck down by the Supreme Court last year. It is also offers a glimpse, through the eyes of one family, of the country's rapidly shifting opinions of gay marriage, with most public polls now showing majorities in favour of allowing the unions. Cooper learned that his stepdaughter Ashley was gay as the Proposition 8 case wound its way through appellate court, according to a forthcoming book about the lengthy legal battle.Cooper's daughter will marry in Massachusetts in June. He says, "My daughter Ashley's path in life has led her to happiness with a lovely young woman named Casey, and our family and Casey's family are looking forward to celebrating their marriage in just a few weeks."
And with the Supreme Court ruling now behind him, Cooper cast his personal opinion on gay marriage as an evolving process. "My views evolve on issues of this kind the same way as other people's do, and how I view this down the road may not be the way I view it now, or how I viewed it ten years ago," Cooper said in journalist Jo Becker's book "Forcing the Spring: Inside the Fight for Marriage Equality." Cooper's words are reminiscent of the language President Barack Obama used throughout his first term to describe his "evolving" views on gay marriage. In 2012, Obama announced publicly that he did, in fact, support the rights of same-sex couples to marry.
A House Committee passed the legislation onto the body's floor by a vote of 9-6 last week. But one of the state's most powerful lobbying groups, the conservative Christian Louisiana Family Forum, opposes striking the sodomy ban. The group sent out a letter to every legislator urging them to vote against the proposal, claiming that teenagers would be less protected from sexual predators if they went through with the repeal. They also said the bill would put the public health at risk. "Louisiana's anti-sodomy statute is consistent with the values of Louisiana residents who consider this behavior to be dangerous, unhealthy and immoral," stated the letter to lawmakers from the Louisiana Family Forum. During a floor discussion of the bill, the legislation's sponsor, Rep. Patricia Haynes Smith, pushed back on the Family Forum's assertions. The bill only seeks to repeal a statute that is already unconstitutional, she said.Fucking a human corpse? Legal in Louisiana. A blowjob from a consenting adult? Technically a felony and punishable by five years in prison. Praise! Glory!
Mr. LaBarbera approached the podium and apologized affably for keeping us waiting. He talked about the importance of dialogue and respect. And then he said there was no scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. He reminded us that the hypocritical left, in silencing voices like his, is really the party guilty of intolerance. And that was our cue to leave. We stood, without a word, and walked out. I heard a woman shouting, “Shame! Shame on you!” There were gasps and a few loud grumbles of disapproval, LaBarbera’s aforementioned “Are you effing kidding me” among them. We walked out of the venue and into the Student Activities Center, where we hugged and laughed and ate Honey Maid graham crackers. Photographs of the venue after we walked out show that about 12 people remained behind, at least two of whom I recognize as allies who likely stayed to see what he would say. It was a beautiful, beautiful thing.Hit the first link and read the full story. (Tipped by JMG reader AJ)
Mr. Obama said in November that workplace discrimination “needs to stop, because, in the United States of America, who you are and who you love should never be a fireable offense.” An executive order barring discrimination by federal contractors would extend badly needed job protections to more than 11 million employees who work in states that lack such protections and whose companies fail to provide them voluntarily, according to the Williams Institute at the U.C.L.A. School of Law. What Mr. Obama needs to do is act on his principles and issue such an order, without the religious exemption that was put into the Senate bill to lure Republican votes. Challenged last week to explain the mystifying delay on this issue, Mr. Obama’s spokesman said that the president supported broader legislation and that its enactment by Congress would make an executive order “redundant.”The Times concludes that the president should "lead by example" in order to prod the House to do the right thing on ENDA. The Senate passed ENDA in November.
