Essence Magazine features first lesbian wedding
 

Essence Magazine is featuring its first ever wedding of a lesbian couple. Aisha Mills and Danielle Moody were married last year in DC. Check out their story and the beautiful photos from their wedding day!

http://www.essence.com/relationships...lle_moodie.php


http://www.essence.com/images/mt/ais...die-bb-475.jpg

BUSTED: HRC/Courage Campaign call on IRS to investigate NOM’s sister organization
 

National anti-gay groups unite to target Iowa judges

The campaign to oust three Iowa Supreme Court justices over a 2009 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage has attracted the attention of some of the most influential conservative organizations in America, each working together and sharing materials, funding and staff with Iowa groups and churches.

Here's an update on Florida adoption law. Not exactly about marriage, but closely alligned, and good news nonetheless.
Smooches,
K

Florida Anti-Gay Adoption Ban Comes to an End
Opinion by GLAAD
(1 Day Ago) in Society / Gay Issues
Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum Friday announced that he will not appeal last month’s ruling by a state appellate court striking down a state law barring gay people from adopting. Governor Charlie Crist and the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) had already announced that they would not appeal the decision. Attorney General Bill McCollum’s announcement puts a final end to the law after 33 years on the books.
In late September, a Miami appeals court ruled that Florida’s 33-year-old adoption ban, which bars gay and lesbian parents from providing loving and permanent homes to children, is unconstitutional.
“Given a total ban on adoption…one might expect that this reflected a legislative judgment that [gay] persons are, as a group, unfit to be parents,” the opinion states, according to The Miami Herald.
“No one in this case has made, or even hinted at, any such argument. To the contrary, the parties agree ‘that gay people make equally good parents,’” the opinion continues.
The decision came down nearly two years after Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman ruled that “sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person’s ability to parent…The most important factor in ensuring a well-adjusted child is the quality of parenting,” in the case of Martin Gill, who was challenging the state’s Department of Children and Families over the adoption of two young brothers whom he had been caring for under the foster care system.
“Having raised our boys for nearly five years and seeing them overcome their difficult beginnings to become happy, healthy, outgoing kids, it was especially difficult to listen to the state try to justify a law that not only jeopardizes our children but makes it harder for other foster kids to find permanent families,” said Gill. “I am thrilled that the court has recognized what a disservice this law does to the children most in need.”
Florida had been the only state in the country that categorically denied gay people from adopting, which has adversely affected the state’s youth. Currently, there are 3,500 eligible kids in the foster system waiting to be adopted.
“Finally, a piece of 30-year-old prejudice has been struck from the law books in Florida,” Howard Simon, who heads the America Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida and represented Gill in his court battle, told the Herald. “This is good news for the advancement of human rights and the children in Florida’s troubled foster-care system.”
GLAAD, in a three-year public education campaign with the ACLU of Florida’s LGBT Advocacy Project, has been working to build public support among Floridians to end the adoption ban. The campaign that GLAAD is assisting on is designed to help people understand how the adoption ban hurts children and families and to shift public opinion about the issue.
GLAAD has conducted media trainings in Miami, Tampa, Ft. Lauderdale, Naples, Orlando, and Gainesville.

Prop 8 Trial Tracker...I'm heart sick.
 

BREAKING: Iowa Supreme Court Justices ousted in retention vote driven by marriage equality decision


By Eden James

It’s over in Iowa.

96% precincts reporting:

Supreme Court – Retain Baker
No: 54.1%
Yes: 45.9%

Supreme Court – Retain Streit
No: 54.1%
Yes: 45.9%

Supreme Court – Retain Ternus
No: 54.7%
Yes: 45.3%

The Iowa Supreme Court justices issued the following statement moments ago:

It was our great privilege to serve the people of Iowa for many years. Throughout our judicial service we endeavored to serve the people of Iowa by always adhering to the rule of law, making decisions fairly and impartially according to the law, and faithfully upholding the constitution.

We wish to thank all of the Iowans who voted to retain us for another term. Your support shows that many Iowans value fair and impartial courts. We also want to acknowledge and thank all the Iowans, from across the political spectrum and from different walks of life, who worked tirelessly over the past few months to defend Iowa’s high-caliber court system against an unprecedented attack by out-of-state special interest groups.

Finally, we hope Iowans will continue to support Iowa’s merit selection system for appointing judges. This system helps ensure that judges base their decisions on the law and the Constitution and nothing else. Ultimately, however, the preservation of our state’s fair and impartial courts will require more than the integrity and fortitude of individual judges, it will require the steadfast support of the people.

Chief Justice Marsha Ternus
Associate Justice Michael Streit
Associate Justice David Baker

The Courage Campaign and the Human Rights Campaign just sent the following press release:

Iowa Courts Hijacked By National Organization for Marriage Intimidation Campaign

Marriage equality remains law in Iowa

WASHINGTON — After tonight’s defeat of the three Iowa state Supreme Court justices who ruled in favor of marriage equality last year, the Human Rights Campaign and Courage Campaign condemned the National Organization for Marriage’s efforts to intimidate judges across the country.

NOM’s president Brian Brown has admitted (here) that his group’s effort in Iowa’s judicial election was actually about intimidating judges around the country into ruling against equality for millions of loving American families. In Iowa, NOM spent an unprecedented $600,000 on TV ads and a 45-county bus tour. Despite NOM’s mean-spirited and fear-driven campaign, same-sex marriage remains legal in Iowa.

“By their own admission, NOM’s Iowa strategy was about sending a warning shot to judges nationwide,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “NOM and its secret donors will target judges around the country if they rule in favor of marriage equality and will foster an anti-gay, hostile environment in the process.”

“Having seen its extremist agenda increasingly rejected by the courts and the American people, it is telling that NOM has now settled on a strategy of evading tax and election laws and trying to intimidate judges,” said Courage Campaign Founder and Chairman Rick Jacobs. “These are the tactics one might expect from Al Capone, not a credible political organization.”

Prior to its involvement in this election, NOM received a strong warning from Iowa’s ethics agency for evading campaign laws. During a 2009 special election in the state, NOM told supporters they could contribute to its Iowa campaign efforts secretly–without disclosing their names. Iowa law requires disclosure of contributors to political campaigns.

NOM is also fighting campaign finance laws in New York, Washington, Rhode Island, California and Maine, where it remains under investigation by the Maine Ethics Commission for failing to register with the state as a ballot question committee and refusing to disclose the donors to its campaign to overturn Maine’s marriage equality law in 2009.

The Washington Independent has reported that NOM is funneling charitable donations into political campaigns. NOM’s charitable arm, The Ruth Institute, was also the subject of a recent IRS complaint filed by HRC and the Courage Campaign for repeated violations of federal law prohibiting charitable organizations from advocating on behalf of political campaigns.

UPDATE: Statement from One Iowa’s Carolyn Jenison on Iowa’s election results:

On April 3, 2009, Iowans celebrated a historic Iowa Supreme Court decision that granted the freedom to marry to gay and lesbian couples. This ruling continued a long tradition of recognizing equal rights for all Iowans. It was a hard fought victory and we knew we would have to work very hard to protect it in the years ahead. Over the past year and a half Iowans have fought off and beaten back every attempt to diminish this ruling.

In this election, three of the courageous justices who recognized the freedom to marry in Iowa fell victim to a perfect storm of electoral discontent and out-of-state special interest money. In addition, many of our pro-equality allies from Governor Culver to statehouse candidates lost their seats due to an anti-incumbent mood that swept the nation. We thank them for their distinguished service and we look forward to working with our newly elected legislature and Governor in the weeks and months ahead.

While the full implications of these election results remain to be seen, one thing remains the same:

The freedom to marry in Iowa remains intact.

In the months and weeks ahead we can expect renewed attempts to overturn the freedom to marry and write discrimination into the Iowa Constitution. It will take a concerted and collective effort on the part of pro-equality Iowans to respond to these attacks and defend on our liberties. We hope you’ll join us.

This is no time to be discouraged. While our fight may be tireless, our mission is clear. Together, we will protect marriage equality and preserve Iowa’s long tradition of equal rights for all.

With Gratitude,

Carolyn Jenison,
Executive Director

From the Prop 8 Trial Tracker
 

BREAKING: Double dose of DOMA challenges in court
By Eden James

Mr. Scoop, otherwise known as Chris Geidner, just posted some big news over at Metro Weekly:

The Defense of Marriage Act is due for a two-pronged attack on Tuesday, as two separate organizations and sets of lawyers, representing different plaintiffs, plan to file lawsuits in federal court challenging the federal definition of marriage.

The Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) plans to file a lawsuit in Connecticut challenging DOMA’s Section 3, which defines “marriage” and “spouse” in federal law as being limited only to opposite-sex couples. The plaintiffs are to include couples from several New England states with marriage equality, including Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont.

Meanwhile, in New York City, the American Civil Liberties Union and the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP plan to file a lawsuit on behalf of Edith Windsor, the widow of Thea Spyer. Windsor was forced to pay a $350,000 estate bill because of the federal government’s refusal to recognize Windsor’s marriage to Spyer.

You really need to real the full story from Chris to understand the context for these cases. Head on over to Metro Weekly.

From Joemygod
 

Ninth Circuit Sets Prop 8 Timetable

Here's how it's going to go down at 10am on December 6th.

The Court orders that oral argument in these appeals be conducted in the following manner: The argument shall be divided into two hour-long sessions, with a brief recess in between. In the first hour, the parties shall address each appellant's standing and any other procedural matters that may properly be raised. In the second hour, the parties shall address the constitutionality of Proposition 8. During the first hour, the Hollingsworth defendants-intervenors-appellants (Proponents) shall first have 15 minutes, and the Imperial County movants-appellants shall next have 15 minutes in which to present their opening arguments regarding standing and other procedural issues. The Perry plaintiffs-appellees shall then have 30 minutes in which to respond. Any time reserved by either appellant may be used for rebuttal, but only one rebuttal argument may be made and that by either appellant. During the second hour, the Proponents shall first have 30 minutes to present their opening argument on the merits of the constitutional question.

The Perry plaintiffs-appellees shall then have 15 minutes, and the plaintiff-intervenor-appellee City and County of San Francisco shall have the next 15 minutes, in which to respond. Any time reserved by the Proponents may be used for rebuttal. No later than November 24, 2010, the parties shall advise the Court of any objection they have to the allocation of time within each hour or of any reallocation of time within each hour that they wish to propose, by electronically filing letters with the Clerk of the Court. If any party wishes to give its full allotted time within either hour to an amicus curiae, it may request that the Court reallocate that time accordingly. Otherwise, no motions for leave to participate in oral argument by amici curiae will be entertained

Get ready for more of this as our Congress begins the new sessions with recently elected Tea Baggers! And as elections go forward under the Supreme Court decision on election contributions.

We really are in a time (in the US) when our civil rights are being pushed further back.

Prop 8 Trial Tracker---Exciting news!!
 

BREAKING: 9th Circuit Prop 8 hearing will be televised LIVE on C-SPAN
By Eden James

By way of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Notice of Docket Activity
The following transaction was entered on 11/17/2010 at 3:54:16 PM PST and
filed on 11/17/2010
Case Name: Kristin Perry, et al v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al
Case Number: 10-16696

…

C-SPAN applied to televise live the case captioned above, scheduled to be heard in San Francisco, on December 6, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. C-SPAN’s request to televise live is GRANTED. A maximum of two (2) video cameras will be permitted in the courtroom. C-SPAN will serve as the pool-feed for all media organizations that submit an application.

According to another court notice, there will be two hearings, back-to-back. The first about the standing issue and the second covering the constitutionality of Prop 8:

Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk:KKW): The Court orders that oral argument in these appeals be conducted in the following manner: The argument shall be divided into two hour-long sessions, with a brief recess in between. In the first hour, the parties shall address each appellant’s standing and any other procedural matters that may properly be raised. In the second hour, the parties shall address the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

During the first hour, the Hollingsworth defendants-intervenors-appellants (“Proponents”) shall first have 15 minutes, and the Imperial County movants-appellants shall next have 15 minutes in which to present their opening arguments regarding standing and other procedural issues. The Perry plaintiffs-appellees shall then have 30 minutes in which to respond. Any time reserved by either appellant may be used for rebuttal, but only one rebuttal argument may be made and that by either appellant.

During the second hour, the Proponents shall first have 30 minutes to present their opening argument on the merits of the constitutional question. The Perry plaintiffs-appellees shall then have 15 minutes, and the plaintiff-intervenor-appellee City and County of San Francisco shall have the next 15 minutes, in which to respond. Any time reserved by the Proponents may be used for rebuttal.

No later than November 24, 2010, the parties shall advise the Court of any objection they have to the allocation of time within each hour or of any reallocation of time within each hour that they wish to propose, by electronically filing letters with the Clerk of the Court. If any party wishes to give its full allotted time within either hour to an amicus curiae, it may request that the Court reallocate that time accordingly. Otherwise, no motions for leave to participate in oral argument by amici curiae will be entertained.. [7545517]

More to come, as news develops.

UPDATE: KGO-TV, a San Francisco ABC affiliate, also applied to televise the hearing. The good news from the court:

Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk:PA):KGO-TV applied to televise live and videotape for later broadcast the case captioned above, scheduled to be heard in San Francisco, on December 6, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. KGO- TV’s request to televise live and videotape for later broadcast is GRANTED.[7549438] (PA)

From joemygod
 

NOM Battles Illinois Civil Unions

As the Illinois legislature prepares to "fast track" a bill to legalize civil unions, NOM has launched a campaign urging their followers to deluge state reps with complaints. Here's an excerpt from their sample letter.
Same-sex marriage advocates have made clear time and again that civil unions are not a compromise, but rather a stepping stone to full same-sex marriage recognition. Today they argue for civil unions in the name of equality -- but tomorrow they will argue that only bigotry and prejudice can support this "separate but equal" arrangement. It's already happened in California and Connecticut, where the civil unions bill was used to persuade courts that the state no longer had any interest in protecting marriage. The American people have spoken clearly time and again. Every time they've had the chance to vote on marriage -- 31 times in a row -- they've rejected the same-sex marriage agenda in favor of marriage as the union of a husband and wife. It's time the people of Illinois had the same opportunity to be heard. Senate Bill 1716 is a trojan horse -- presented as a compromise, but it is intentionally unsustainable and part of a larger attempt to force same-sex marriage on the state. I urge you to vote no.
The Human Rights Campaign responds via press release.
“NOM’s opposition to civil unions for gay and lesbian couples shows how far out of the mainstream it truly is,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “This new battleground plainly reveals NOM's deep-seated enmity toward the LGBT community, with no regard to public support." Two thirds of Illinois voters, according to an October 2010 poll by the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute, support either civil unions or marriage equality. A Chicago Tribune poll registered 57 percent of Illinoisans approve of civil unions, compared to 32 percent who disapprove.

FROM THE PROP 8 TRIAL TRACKER
 

BREAKING: 9th Circuit names three judges who will hear Prop 8 case
By Eden James

Samuel Chu of California Faith for Equality broke the news this morning that the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals named the three judges who will hear the Prop 8 appeals case, starting at 10 a.m. on Monday, December 6.

The three-judge panel was randomly selected from the pool of 23 judges who serve on the 9th Circuit. Two of the judges were appointed by Democratic presidents and one by a Republican president.

More details, as picked up from California Faith for Equality by SDGLN:

– Judge Stephen Roy Reinhardt. He was confirmed in 1980 after being nominated by President Jimmy Carter. He served in the Air Force. On Nov. 18, 2009, the judge ruled in favor of a gay couple who were having their spousal health care benefits denied – Brad Levenson and Tony Sears were married during the period gay marriage was legal in California during 2008, and was seeking benefits for his partner while working as a public defender for the federal government. Judge Reinhardt also wrote an opinion relating to “standing” in a 1997 case relating to Arizona voters amending the state Constitution to make English the state’s official language. In that opinion written by Judge Reinhardt, the court held that the sponsors of the ballot initiative could intervene. But later that year, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously thought the Ninth Circuit had “lost sight” of the limitations of federal courts to decide definitively on the meaning of state legislation.

– Judge Michael Daly Hawkins. He joined the court in 1994 after being nominated by President Bill Clinton. He was U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona from 1977 to 1980 and then as Special Prosecutor for the Najavo Nation from 1985 to 1989.

– Judge Norman Randy Smith. He was confirmed in 2007 after being nominated by President George W. Bush. Born in Logan, Utah, Smith graduated from Brigham Young University with a bachelor’s degree in 1974, and received his J.D. from Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark School of Law in 1977.

“I am hopeful that the 9th circuit court panel will affirm equality and fairness,” said Samuel Chu, executive director of California Faith for Equality, which filed an amicus brief to the court supported by 700 clergy and congregations urging the panel to affirm Judge Walker’s ruling.

“Marriage is a right that every Californian deserve and this is another critical moment for the justice system to add momentum to winning full equality. Our state and our government should never be in the business of discrimination.”

More to come, as news develops.

UPDATE: Apparently, Judge Reinhardt is the husband of ACLU advocate Ramona Ripston. According to Wikipedia, Ripston is the Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California, until her February 2011 retirement

From Joemygod
 

MINNESOTA: "Family Values" Group Denied Standing In Marriage Suit

Via a press release from Marry Me Minnesota, we learn of a positive development that took place last week.
On November 24th, Minnesota Fourth District Court Judge Mary S. DuFrense denied a motion by the Minnesota Family Council to intervene as defendants against a lawsuit brought by three same same-sex couples and one minor child to strike down Minnesota laws that deny marriage equality. In her rebuff to the Minnesota Family Council and its multi-million dollar backers in the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, Judge DuFrense held that the Council's "strong feelings" and "purely ideological" interest in the lawsuit do not give it standing in court. "We appreciate the Judge's decision to deny the Minnesota Family Council's motion and believe it ensures that our case will be decided on its merits, without the interference of anti-gay ideologues," said, Douglas Benson, Executive Director of Marry Me Minnesota, a non-profit organization formed by the litigating gay couples. The couples' lead attorney, Peter J. Nickitas of Minneapolis, declared, "This decision is a great victory for the plaintiffs and their families, marriage equality, and the integrity of the court system."

From the Prop 8 Trial Tracker
 

NOM attacks civil unions in Illinois; Bill may be voted on today
by Andy Kelley
New Media Organizer, Courage Campaign

In developing news, Illinois could vote to pass the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act (SB 1716), creating civil unions for same-sex couples, as soon as today.

Illinois Governor Patrick Quinn has pledged to sign the bill if passed telling the Chicago Tribune on Monday “I do think this is the time for Illinois to do this. This is a good way to show employers — big businesses all across the country — that Illinois treats everyone with tolerance.”

Despite their previous claims to not oppose civil unions, the National Organization for Marriage is hard at work urging their supporters to contact their legislators and urge them to oppose passage of the bill, calling it “same-sex marriage by a different name.”

Advocates of the bill are not allowing this challenge by out of state, Washington DC based interests to go unanswered. As Chicago Pride reports:

Gay rights activists continue to encourage the LGBT community to contact their legislators on Tuesday morning by calling the Illinois Capitol switchboard at 217-782-2000. EQIL has also established a hotline to help people identify their legislators, that number is 773-477-7173.

We will continue to bring you updates as this story develops.

UPDATE:

Good news. The Daily Herald is reporting that the bill has passed the state house and will move to the state senate for consideration:

By a 61-52 vote, lawmakers voted to allow civil unions, which would give nonmarried partners both gay and straight additional rights and benefits under state law

Just a note from my thoughts:

I want equal....Civil Unions are not equal unless EVERYONE has civil unions, and then they have the option of a religious or non-religious "Marriage" of their choice. There are several countries that have this procedure in place. Italy comes to mind as one.....

However Civil Unions are a start, and at least offer the same protections and responcibilities in the home state. Equal Federal "Marriage" is what we have to fight for, until there is something better for EVERYONE!!!

:byebye:

From joemygod
 

BREAKING: Civil Unions PASS In Illinois Senate, Gov. Quinn To Sign Bill

The bill just passed 32-24! Updates will be added to this post shortly.

Yay for Illinois!!!!!

From joemygod
 

European Parliament Says Gay Unions Must Be Recognized By All EU Members

The European Parliament has declared that official documents such as marriage, civil union, birth, and death certificates must be recognized by all members of the European Union. Rex Wockner reports at Pink Paper:

"This is a great development for the many couples and families who see their fundamental rights diminished every day when crossing a border inside the EU," said Ulrike Lunacek, co-president of the European Parliament Intergroup on LGBT Rights. Co-President Michael Cashman said the statement adopted by the Parliament "follows the Commission's assertion in September that freedom of movement must be guaranteed for all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation." "Claims that mutual recognition will undermine national sovereignty are plain wrong; it won't affect national marriage or partnership laws, but simply recognize civil unions that already exist," Cashman said.
Same-sex marriage is legal in the EU member nations of Belgium, Iceland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. Civil unions or partnerships are recognized in Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom.

PROP 8 TRIAL TRACKER...Yesterday's post
 

Official Prop 8 Trial Tracker preview of the 9th Circuit hearing tomorrow(12/6)
By Adam Bink

Tomorrow is the 9th Circuit hearing of the appeal on Perry v. Schwarzenegger. As usual, it’ll be trial central here at P8TT. Here’s a run-down for all your 9th Circuit hearing needs:

What coverage you’ll find here at P8TT. The hearing starts at 10 AM PST tomorrow. As in Judge Walker’s courtroom, Courage Campaign’s Rick Jacobs and Arisha Michelle Hatch will be in the courtroom, sending back dispatches as they become available. I will be watching the proceedings and live-blogging, format similar to the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell hearings on Thursday and Friday. I will also be live-tweeting occasionally, and my handle is @adamjbink. Brian Leubitz, publisher of the Calitics blog and occasional legal contributor to P8TT, will be joining us tomorrow to post his occasional thoughts in the trial thread, and answer legal questions/comments from you in the comments. He’ll also have an analysis piece later tomorrow.

How the hearing will be divided. Oral arguments will be divided into two hour-long sessions with a brief recess in between. The issue of standing will be addressed in the first hour, and the constitutionality of Prop 8 in the second. David Boies will be arguing the standing issue, and Ted Olson, along with Therese Stewart from the City/County of San Francisco, will be arguing the constitutionality for our side. Charles Cooper will be addressing the constitutionality for the Pro-Prop 8 side, and it’s as-yet undetermined who will argue standing for their side, although Lisa Keen reports Imperial County will be represented by an attorney from Advocates for Faith and Freedom.

Possible rulings. Brian and the rest of the legal team will have more on this in the week ahead, but brief, potential rulings include upholding Judge Walker’s ruling denying standing to the defender/intervenors, not to mention the issue of constitutionality itself. And naturally, that could go the other way. The case may be appealed to the Supreme Court, but if the court does not take the case and the ruling goes our way, Prop 8 will be overturned. P8TT friend Karen Ocamb reports that if the Supremes do not take the case, AFER announced it will then file a new lawsuit to try and achieve marriage equality at the federal level. The losing party could also appeal for a ruling by the full 9th Circuit, which can decide to hear or not to hear such an appeal. And last, if proponents of Imperial County lose on standing, there may not be a ruling on the merits (constitutionality) at all. But then, the Supremes could rule that defendant/intervenors do have standing and send the case back to the 9th Circuit for a ruling on merits. We’ll have more legal scenarios and analysis tomorrow and later this week at P8TT, as well.

Where to watch. You can watch in-person, on C-SPAN, at a local law school near you, at a local courthouse near you, at the LA Gay and Lesbian Center (doors open at 9:30), and other places. Karen has the skinny on some other viewing possibilities. But of course, the best place to follow along, comment and read your fellow community members’ analysis, especially if you’re busy for the two hours, will be P8TT!

Where to go to be with supporters. If you’re in the area, tomorrow from 7:30-9:30 AM, various LGBT community leaders and allies will be holding a community rally before the hearing starts. The location is the courthouse at 7th and Mission Streets in San Francisco. In attendance will be NCLR’s Kate Kendall, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart, Lambda Legal’s Jenny Pizer, and other community leaders. You can also stick around to watch the hearing in overflow courtrooms, or head out to follow along here. A Facebook invite is here.
If you have any other tidbits to add, or questions/comments/expectations, please leave them in the comments.

Big day tomorrow. See you all then

All of the information above is for the start of the hearings TODAY 12/6, I just didn't have time to be on-line and post this last night.

I can hardly sit still!!

This one thrills me more than any of the others. 35 yrs ago my ex and I sat in, got arrested and did jail time, trying to get a marriage license in Chicago. 35 years ago the word 'gay' never appeared in the local media... Its been a long time coming, and while civil union is not acceptable because separate is never equal. It coming to Illinois, which was the last northern state to ratify the Civil rights Act of 1954, (what an awful bit of noteriety), says a lot. Outside of chicago area, Illinois is really a bible belt state.

Perhaps it isn't ridiculous to hope that we truly will be equal under all laws in my life time.

peace

Wolf

Live broadcast: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN.aspx

From joemygod
 

Monday, December 20, 2010
LAUNCHED: Equality Matters

Media Matters has launched Equality Matters, a new LGBT activism site meant to serve as a "communications war room for gay equality."
It will be run by Richard Socarides, a former domestic policy adviser to President Bill Clinton who has been deeply critical of President Obama’s record on gay rights. A well-known gay journalist, Kerry Eleveld, the Washington correspondent for The Advocate, will leave that magazine in January to edit the new group’s Web site, equalitymatters.org, which is to go online Monday morning. “Yesterday was a very important breakthrough,” Mr. Socarides said in an interview on Sunday, “and President Obama’s comments, especially following the vote, were very significant, where he for the first time connected race and gender to sexual orientation under the banner of civil rights. “But we will celebrate this important victory for five minutes, and then we have to move on, because we are the last group of Americans who are discriminated against in federal law and there is a lot of work to do.”
Among the major backers of Media Matters is billionaire philanthropist George Soros.

Joe Biden Just Scared a Lot of People

President Obama’s Fake Evolution on Gay Marriage Is Still Ongoing

http://nomexposed.org/2011/01/03/bre...night-tonight/

Keeping an eye out for this tonight.

JMG:
 

Debate Watch: 100% Of RNC Chair Candidates Denounce Same-Sex Marriage

RNC Chairman Michael Steele is fighting for his job at today's debate, where every single candidate responded to NOM's question on marriage equality by invoking Jeebus, traditional values, and the sanctity of one man-one woman.

I believe we will have a decision from The 9th Circut this week, but for the life of me I can't find where I posted that before, or where I found it in the first place!

If the decision comes down that Prop 8 is out and we can marry in California again, I am not sure if the Federal Appeals Court or the SCOTUS will grant a stay until the case can be heard or passed on by the SCOTUS.

Sorry, clear as mud!

Prop 8 Trial Tracker....here we go
 

BREAKING: 9th Circuit rules on the Prop 8 case
By Adam Bink

Update 5: Folks are asking about the timeline. There’s nothing on the timeline of a CA Supreme Court decision. There is this:

The case is withdrawn from submission, and further proceedings in this
court are stayed pending final action by the Supreme Court of California. The
parties shall notify the Clerk of this Court within three days after the Court accepts
or rejects certification, and again within three days if the Court renders an opinion.
The panel retains jurisdiction over further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Update 4: Here’s the meat of the ruling. I bolded the key parts:

“Filed Order for PUBLICATION (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and N. RANDY SMITH) for certification to California State Supreme Court. Before this panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is an appeal concerning the constitutionality under the United States Constitution of Article I, § 7.5 of the California Constitution (“Proposition 8”). Because we cannot consider this important constitutional question unless the appellants before us have standing to raise it, and in light of Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) (“Arizonans”), it is critical that we be advised of the rights under California law of the official proponents of an initiative measure to defend the constitutionality of that measure upon its adoption by the People when the state officers charged with the laws’ enforcement, including the Attorney General, refuse to provide such a defense or appeal a judgment declaring the measure unconstitutional. As we are aware of no controlling state precedent on this precise question, we respectfully ask the Supreme Court of California to exercise its discretion to accept and decide the certified question below. (See order for full text) The Clerk is hereby directed to transmit forthwith to the Court the original and ten copies of this order and accompanying memorandum, as well as a certificate of service on the parties. Cal. R. Ct. 8.548(d). The clerk shall also transmit the following along with this request: ten copies of the district court Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law / Order (704 F. Supp. 2d. 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010)); ten copies of the Permanent Injunction issued by the district court (docket entry 728 in No. C 09-2292-VRW (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2010)); a copy of the video recording of the oral argument heard in these appeals on December 6, 2010; the briefs of the parties and intervenors in this appeal; and the briefs amicus curiae filed by (1) the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and (2) Equality California in No. 10-16696. The Clerk shall provide additional record materials if so requested by the Supreme Court of California. Cal. R. Ct. 8.548(c). The case is withdrawn from submission, and further proceedings in this court are stayed pending final action by the Supreme Court of California. The parties shall notify the Clerk of this Court within three days after the Court accepts or rejects certification, and again within three days if the Court renders an opinion. The panel retains jurisdiction over further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. [7598921] (RP)”

On the issue of standing for Imperial Valley (h/t Karen Ocamb):

FILED PER CURIAM OPINION (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and N. RANDY SMITH) AFFIRMED; DISMISSED. The district court order denying the motion to intervene is AFFIRMED. Movants’ appeal of the district court order concerning the constitutionality of Proposition 8 is DISMISSED for lack of standing. The deadline for filing a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc is hereby EXTENDED until the deadline for such petitions in No. 10-16696, which will be 14 days after an opinion is filed in that appeal. The Clerk is DIRECTED to stay the issuance of the mandate in this case until the mandate issues in No. 10- 16696. AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part. FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [7598965] (RP)

Update 3: The filing can be found here.

Update 2: Reading through the documents, the 9th Circuit has issued a question to the CA Supreme Court asking if proponents have standing. No decision on the merits yet. More soon.

Update: According to the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the 9th Circuit ruled that Imperial County is denied standing in the process.

The breaking news is that the 9th Circuit will rule any minute on the Prop 8 case. The filings are being uploaded and I’m sorting through. I will update this post from the top.

Joemygod
 

BREAKING: 9th Circuit Court Punts Prop 8 To State Supreme Court On "Standing"

Analysis and reactions shortly.

My Opinion....

This is the moment...If the appllants (US) do not have standing, then the case will probably be thrown out and we will have to live with Prop 8 until the next election in 2012.

It is up to the California Supreme Court (which once ruled in our favor and allowed equal marriage) to decide the standing issue.

I am a "the glass is half full" kind of person, but I have a really bad feeling about all of this.....

No more chic fil a!!!!
 

Analysis: 9th Circuit Appears Ready to Grant Proponents Standing to Appeal
by Robert Cruickshank

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today issued a “ruling” of sorts on the appeal of Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling that found Prop 8 to be unconstitutional*. The “ruling” was actually a certification of a question to the California Supreme Court about the all-important matter of whether Prop 8 proponents have standing to appeal Judge Walker’s decision. Here’s the question they want answered:

Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative’s validity or the authority to assert the State’s interest in the initiative’s validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.

We understand that the Court may reformulate our question, and we agree to accept and follow the Court’s decision.

A further reading of the document suggests that the 9th Circuit is ready to rule that Prop 8 proponents DO have standing to appeal. In turn, that would enable the 9th Circuit to decide whether Prop 8 is a violation of the 14th Amendment (and obviously it is), a decision that would have major ramifications across California and the country. Here’s what the 9th Circuit said:

If California does grant the official proponents of an initiative the authority to represent the State’s interest in defending a voter-approved initiative when public officials have declined to do so or to appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, then Proponents would also have standing to appeal on behalf of the State….

We are aware that in California, “All political power is inherent in the people,” Cal. Const. art. II, § 1, and that to that end, Article II, section 8(a) of the California Constitution provides, “The initiative is the power of the electors to propose statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject them.” We are also aware that the Supreme Court of California has described the initiative power as “one of the most precious rights of our democratic process,” and indeed, that “the sovereign people’s initiative power” is considered to be a “fundamental right.”…

The power of the citizen initiative has, since its inception, enjoyed a highly protected status in California. For example, the Legislature may not amend or repeal an initiative statute unless the People have approved of its doing so….

Similarly, under California law, the proponents of an initiative may possess a particularized interest in defending the constitutionality of their initiative upon its enactment; the Constitution’s purpose in reserving the initiative power to the People would appear to be ill-served by allowing elected officials to nullify either proponents’ efforts to “propose statutes and amendments to the Constitution” or the People’s right “to adopt or reject” such propositions. Cal. Const. art. II, § 8(a). Rather than rely on our own understanding of this balance of power under the California Constitution, however, we certify the question so that the Court may provide an authoritative answer as to the rights, interests, and authority under California law of the official proponents of an initiative measure to defend its validity upon its enactment in the case of a challenge to its constitutionality, where the state officials charged with that duty refuse to execute it.

So what does that all mean? Let me boil it down. Basically, California’s constitution and various CA Supreme Court decisions in the last few decades have indicated that the initiative power is a right inherent to the people of the state, and does not stem from the Legislature. It sets up the people as a kind of fourth branch of government, with its own sovereign power. And therefore, if the Governor and the Attorney General refuse to defend a proposition in court, that could essentially nullify the fundamental rights of the voters. Since ballot initiatives stem from the people, presumably the people – in the form of the initiative proponents – DO have standing to defend Prop 8 in court and to appeal it to the 9th Circuit in order to preserve the people’s initiative power.

But because such a ruling would have a significant impact on future legal battles over California ballot initiatives, the 9th Circuit is deferring to the CA Supremes. The CA Supremes could say “yes, the proponents do have standing” or “no, the proponents do not have standing,” or they could simply not respond at all. The first and third options are more likely, and based on the CA Supremes’ longstanding (and I believe flawed) unwillingness to interfere with ballot initiatives, the CA Supremes will probably conclude that the Prop 8 proponents do indeed have standing to appeal.

In which case, the 9th Circuit would then rule on the issue of Prop 8′s constitutionality. I am guessing that their ruling will be to uphold Judge Walker, otherwise they would just say Prop 8 is constitutional and moot the question of standing. Still, that’s just my view, and we should prepare for any outcome.

The 9th Circuit also concurrently ruled that Imperial County does not have standing to appeal Judge Walker’s decision, a ruling that was widely expected in the wake of the farcical appearance before the 9th Circuit court by Imperial County officials.

The CA Supremes can take as long as they want in answering the 9th Circuit. It could be days, weeks, or months. Whatever the outcome, it shows again the need to reform our initiative process. One reason our state government fails is that we’ve essentially set up a fourth branch of government – the people – that can negate anything done by the other three branches, but without any real checks or balances on the powers of that fourth branch.

In American constitutions, at least until the present day, the power of the people has been limited and bounded to ensure that all rights are protected. The right clearly wants to undo that convention, and give the people the power to trump the Constitution by mob rule. Whatever the outcome of the Prop 8 case, it’s time to bring some sense and sanity to ballot initiatives here in California.

*Somehow I doubt that the 14th Amendment will be read out on the House floor this week by Republicans, who hate the 14th Amendment and want to pretend it doesn’t exist.

Robert Cruickshank worked at the Courage Campaign from November 2007 to November 2010, when he stepped down as Public Policy Director. His analysis represents his views alone.

JOEMYGOD
 

Governor Lincoln Chafee (RI) Uses Inauguration To Call For Marriage Equality

On Top Magazine has the transcript: “When marriage equality is the law in Rhode Island, we honor our forefathers who risked their lives and fortune in the pursuit of human equality. Rhode Island today must be as welcoming to all as [founder] Roger Williams intended it to be. Mark my words, these two actions will do more for economic growth in our state than any economic development loan."

JOEMYGOD
 

NEW MEXICO: AG Claims State Can Recognize Out Of State Gay Marriages

New Mexico Attorney General Gary King has issued an opinion declaring that his state can legally recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.
“While we cannot predict how a New Mexico court would rule on this issue, after review of the law in this area, it is our opinion that a same-sex marriage that is valid under the laws of the country or state where it was consummated would likewise be found valid in New Mexico,” King said. While 40 states explicitly bar gay marriage, King says that New Mexico’s law does “not explicitly address the recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions,” according to the release announcing the opinion.

Currently only New York, Rhode Island and Maryland do not perform same-sex marriages, but do recognize them from elsewhere.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uoopp5801XI&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - AFER Attorneys Explain 9th Circuit Prop. 8 Ruling on Standing[/nomedia]

Youtube of Mr. Olson explaining the latest ruling.

JMG:
 

CANADA: Appeals Court Rules Against "Religious Objection" On Gay Weddings

Saskatchewan's provincial Court of Appeals has ruled that it is unconstitutional to allow marriage commissioners to opt-out of performing same-sex weddings due to religious objections. In its decision, the Court noted that marriage commissioners are "the only option" for Canadians who wish to marry in a non-religious ceremony.

The Appeal Court said that accommodating commissioners' religious convictions does not justify discriminating against same-sex couples who want to tie the knot. Five judges on the bench at Saskatchewan's Court of Appeal have been considering the case since it heard arguments on the proposed law last May. That's when the provincial government sought advice on two versions of its proposed law -- one that would allow all of the province's approximately 370 commissioners to refuse to wed couples on religious grounds, and another that would only allow the exemption for those who held the job before gay marriage was legalized in 2004.

In the ruling issued Monday, the court said the effect of both options runs counter to Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. "Either of them, if enacted, would violate the equality rights of gay and lesbian individuals. This violation would not be reasonable and justifiable within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter. As a result, if put in place, either option would be unconstitutional and of no force or effect."

Stand by for the World Net Daily headline: "Canada FORCES Christians To Marry Homosexuals! And It Can Happen HERE!"

God
Bless
Canada!!!