From joemygod:
 

Prop 8 Trial Tracker, Day Two

I realize that it'll be tough to keep everybody's interest up over two or three weeks, but you should really drop in on Rick Jacobs' live-blogging of Perry vs. Schwarzenegger today. Just now the anti-gay side is presenting witnesses who are arguing that marriage is "from the Bible."

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH8B7s1MKPE&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube- Rachel Maddow-Gay marriage opponents win right to hide[/ame]

Thanks for the Day 2 link. I looked earlier but I guess it wasn't up yet! I can hardly wait to see how they endorse supporting marriage if it IS "from the Bible".. What happened to separation of church and state?

I don't understand how Hak-Shing William Tam, one of the five original sponsors of Prop 8, can be allowed to simply withdraw from a case challenging the constitutionality of Prop 8.
I can understand why the 'phobes want him off the case since his writings clearly prove anti-gay bias. But that is all the more reason for "our side" to want him deposed.
He still can and will be deposed, right???
Inquiring minds want to know...

All in all a pretty interesting day.

Anxiously awaiting Supreme Court's YouTube decision tomorrow.
:LGBTQFlag:


ETA: did anyone waste 2 minutes of their life reading douchebag Ed Meese's NYT op/ed? What an idiot.

Part of the Day2 summary from Rick Jacobs ( who has been blogging the proceedings)

" This time, in this trial of homosexuality and of America, we have the best conservative legal advocate in the nation on our side along with arguably the best advocacy team in Olson, Boutros, Boies and Stewart, among others. And they are backed up by decades of hard work from Jenny Pizer and so many other brilliant advocates in the LGBT community. This time, though, it’s not the gays stirring it up; it’s the establishment demanding equality for all of America."

Do you think the trial will discuss the economic discrimination as well as the social aspects? It seems thus far to be mostly based on social issues. Marriage would afford same sex couples equal insurance coverage instead of the scant and unequal plans available today. Not to mention our spouses could receive social security benefits whereas now, the go right back into the pot since we aren't married.

I am very grateful to Rick Jacobs for being there and sharing this process with us!

I am also honestly a little surprised that more attention and support hasn't been obvious here. I wonder why.

This is where this case gets really tricky. They can not, and will not present anything related to FEDERAL marriage benefits, only state benefits. DOMA will not be addressed in any way. It's the "elephant in the room". Equal insurance benefits, social security, immigration, estate taxes, etc. are all based on FEDERAL recognition of same-sex marriage, not state.

This is why "gay activists" wanted to wait until DOMA is overturned before bringing such a case. And that process has already begun, pre-dating the massive egos of the legal "establishment" that have now taken over "our" movement in pushing this case forward.

From the NewYorker article I recommended above:

"Perry v. Schwarzenegger is not the only federal lawsuit for gay marriage. Another one, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, is thought by some scholars to stand a better chance of success, though it has been overshadowed by Olson and Boies’s effort. Gill was filed last March, by a public-interest law firm, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), in Boston. One of the GLAD lawyers on the case is Mary Bonauto—the attorney who successfully argued the case that legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. "

"Gill is not the damn-the-torpedoes case that Perry is. It challenges a section of the Defense Against Marriage Act which prevents same-sex couples from receiving the many benefits accorded to married couples at the federal level—from joint tax filing to health insurance for federal employees’ families—even though in the state of Massachusetts those couples are lawfully married. Gill insists not on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage but on the unconstitutionality of denying federal benefits to a class of citizens whose marriages are recognized by the state.

“This is not going to be a case that results in more people getting married if we win,” Bonauto told me when I met with her at her offices, across from the Boston Common. A conservative dresser, she has the low, soothingly intelligent voice of a National Public Radio announcer. “But it very clearly presses on the federal government’s double standard,” she added. “Americans don’t like double standards. The federal government recognizes all kinds of marriages once they’re licensed by the state except the ones for gay people. We’re in the legal mainstream here, when you look at cases like Romer and Lawrence, where the federal courts have condemned gay exceptionalism. And that’s what this is.” GLAD could have brought the suit that Olson and Boies did but feared “pushing the ball too far and potentially having a setback.” She added, “We are wishing the Perry folks the absolute best. That said, we can’t help but have concerns about the timing.”

As in the Perry case, the plaintiffs in Gill make for an all-American picture." "... the lead plaintiff is Nancy Gill, who has been a postal clerk in Massachusetts for twenty-two years. Among the other plaintiffs are Mary Ritchie, a state police sergeant, whose wife, Kathy Bush, left her job at The New England Journal of Medicine to stay at home with their eight- and ten-year-old boys..."
"If Ritchie were to be killed in the line of duty, they explained to me, Bush would not be entitled to the federal benefits for spouses of public-safety officers. Bush said, “It’s just so odd that one marriage can be treated one way, and another another way.”

Two other plaintiffs are Al Koski, a retired Social Security claims representative, and his husband, Jim Fitzgerald, who works at a rehab clinic. They’ve been together for thirty-four years, but the federal government does not allow Fitzgerald to be the beneficiary of Koski’s pension or to be covered by his health-insurance plan."

"As seemingly modest as the Gill case is, it could help create a favorable climate for more ambitious challenges, including the Perry case. Thomas Keck, a political-science professor at Syracuse University who is an expert on the Supreme Court, told me, “I don’t think any of us can predict how it’s all going to turn out. But Gill is a very well-designed case, a well-targeted challenge that has a good chance of winning, and that broader challenges could be built on. If it wins, in a practical sense we would have federally recognized same-sex marriage. At that point, it would be much harder to defend the federal government’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriage in other parts of the country.” Gill could also go to the Supreme Court, and if it makes it there first, and succeeds, it could help Olson and Boies. As Gary Buseck told me, “I haven’t said this out loud even to myself before, but, to the extent that either of these cases is going to get to the Supreme Court, I think it would be better if our case got there first.” (Predicting the trajectory of court cases is, of course, a futile endeavor.) He added, “You have to approach the Supreme Court in an incremental way.” For Buseck, this, and not the “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” was the relevant lesson from the civil-rights movement. He recalled that the N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense and Educational Fund had recognized it would be a stretch to try to desegregate the public schools first—it would be too sweeping and provocative an effort. “So they first won cases about a law school and a university, to make it inevitable that when they brought the case that became Brown the chances of winning would be so much better.”
------------------------

That is why the Prop 8 trial is so focused on social benefits, etc. I agree, Jess, that it is in a sense disingenuous, insulting and misleading even to have a trial on Same-Sex Marriage that cannot and will not bring up, even for purposes of educating the public, the financial, economic and fundamentally civil rights being denied same-sex partners because of FEDERAL discrimination and lack of recognition of same-sex marriages, even those which are LEGALLY SANCTIONED by a state.

A mystery to me as well.
(((Jess)))

Great segment on Maddow with Olsen and Boies tonight:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#34833785


-----------------------------

And this: (Towle:"Meathead will save us all!"lol)
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bICs-aQJHw"]YouTube- Rob Reiner Challenges Prop 8[/ame]

Love when she asked "Whatever happened to Anti-Gay Pride?"
lol.

Thanks for the links!

I'm still not sure exactly how I feel about Olsen and Boies stepping in and "taking over our fight". Part of me is very happy to see two conservative white men behind a human rights issue. Part of me sees it as yet another "saved by the white men" moment.

The bottom line is that if we win our rights in a federal court, in at least one state, it may open up and set up victories on a broader level. Perhaps we don't need to "choose" our champions, just be thankful that we have them. Who better, afterall, to fight the "white male system" than a couple of their own?

Will keep tracking the trial and hoping more folks do as well.

US Supreme court just ruled no cameras

1:57 PM: The US Supreme Court just ruled — no cameras. It was a 5-4 decision. www.scotusblog.com

With a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to keep the Prop 8 trial dark on the Web, rejecting Judge Vaughn Walker's attempt to broadcast the proceedings on the federal court's Web site by using YouTube., as well as allowing it to be circulating for viewing at various federal courthouses around the West. The majority opinion said that Walker and officials with the 9th Circuit Judicial Conference, including Chief 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, did not follow proper procedures in changing federal court rules that would allow the broadast. The majority stressed that it was not "expressing any view on whether such trials should be broadcast." Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the four dissenters, decried the decision, saying there was no reason to interfere with the broadcast and that there would not be any harm in allowing the webcast.

Meanwhile, UCLA prof Letitia Peplau, a plaintiffs expert, is testifying on research she says shows that same-sex couples enjoy the same benefits from marriage as heterosexual couples. She also said he will offer an opinion that allowing gay marriage will have no impact on heterosexual marriage

http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_14179875

Yay Sotomayor.
 

A closer look at the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling indefinitely barring any broadcast of the Prop 8 trial shows the difference between the majority and dissenters boiled down to two things. The majority (Justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy and Scalia) concluded that Chief Judge Vaughn Walker did not follow federal law in changing rules to allow cameras in his courtroom for the trial, in large part because they believe he didn't allow enough time for public comment on changes to local federal court rules. And the justices also determined that Prop 8 supporters demonstrated there could be harm to their fair trial rights because certain witnesses could be intimidated by broadcast exposure, reason to keep the stay in place.


The dissenters (Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Stevens) couldn't have disagreed more. They said Walker easily followed the rules, and rejected the idea Prop 8's defense would suffer any harm. They called the decision an unprecedented attempt to "micromanage" a district court's administration.


Same-sex marriage advocates can only hope the justices don't break down along the same party lines if the main issue reaches the high court.

from pam
 

"Fed Prop 8 trial to receive re-enactment treatment by L.A. filmmaker - debuts this week

by: Pam Spaulding
Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 07:27:23 AM EST

When I saw this story, I recalled that the 1996 O.J. Simpson civil trial was not televised -- unlike the infamous murder trial when he was acquitted. The E! channel produced a next-day re-enactment of the prior day's verbatim transcripts using actors in a courtroom. Simpson was found liable for the deaths of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman in the civil trial.

I don't know if filmmaker John Ireland was inspired by the above, but it's a great idea to bring the Prop 8 federal trial trial to life since SCOTUS has blocked the broadcast of the landmark event.

Freelance journalist and filmmaker John Ireland, who's based in Los Angeles and regularly examines gay rights issues, will produce a daily re-enactment of the Proposition 8 federal trial and post it on YouTube, starting this week.

Ireland has been casting the parts of pro-gay marriage lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, and anti-gay marriage attorney Charles Cooper, among others, over this weekend.

Filming started over the weekend according to On Top Magazine, and the first "episode" will debut on YouTube on Tuesday.

"People want to see this drama unfold and there is a tremendous narrative that was propelled by that first day of testimony. This is the first time that gay and lesbian people have talked about their lives in federal court. It's historic from that point of view."
-----------------------------------------------------

Not sure if this will be a reenactment of the actual transcript, or some interpretation thereof. I would like to see (or hear- radio would be fine) a word by word minimally dramatized version.

I hope that the video of the proceedings is not destroyed and that we will some day have access to it.
:rainbowAfro:

I know that this is a loss for our side, but there is a certain ironic humor to it. The ones who have put so much energy into keeping us in hiding, now want to have their privacy protected.

Doesn't this tell you that somewhere in the back of their minds or in their heart of hearts (whatever cliche you want to use), they know that what they are doing is wrong? Or maybe they are afraid? OMG we are making headway. The far right is afraid of us dykes and sissies!!! Get in the closet and hide yourselves you hate mongers! There's lots of room in there because the queers have left the building. Oh yah... we bad!
Smooches,
Keri
:fastdraq:

stranger than fiction
 

Prop 8 backers have now withdrawn all but two witnesses.

Watch below excerpts from the cross testimony of two of the Prop 8 witnesses. Keep in mind these are the primary (now withdrawn) witnesses AGAINST gay marriage.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuCAuI0JGsM"]YouTube- Katherine Young Deposition[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZeCWCSP79E"]YouTube- Paul Nathanson Deposition Video[/ame]

Strangely, when I searched YouTube for "Paul Nathanson Deposition Video" nothing came up. I tried various search configurations=nothing, even though the video is TITLED "Paul Nathanson Deposition Video". I had to go back to google to get the direct link. Weird. They may be in the process of being removed? So, enjoy them while you can! They were posted by the American Foundation For Equal Rights, the group which launched and is funding the Perry vs. Schwarzenegger case.

ETA: questioning is by Boies.

"McCain's wife, daughter back gay marriage movement

By JOAN LOWY
The Associated Press
Wednesday, January 20, 2010; 9:57 PM

WASHINGTON -- Cindy McCain, the wife of 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain, and their daughter Meghan have posed for photos endorsing pro-gay marriage forces in California.

Mrs. McCain appears with silver duct tape across her mouth and "NOH8" written on one cheek in a photo posted Wednesday to the Web site of NOH8, a gay rights group opposed to Proposition 8. The ballot measure passed by California voters in 2008 bans same-sex marriage.

The McCains' daughter Meghan, who has been outspoken in her support for gay rights, has also endorsed NOH8. She appears with silver duct tape across her mouth and "NOH8" on a cheek in a photo on her Twitter site.

Cindy McCain contacted NOH8 and offered to pose for the photo endorsement, the Web site said.

John McCain's office said in a statement that the Arizona senator respects the views of members of his family but remains opposed to gay marriage.

"Sen. McCain believes the sanctity of marriage is only defined as between one man and one woman," the statement said.

John McCain backed an Arizona ballot measure passed by voters in 2008 that defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

The NOH8 Web site praised Cindy McCain's willingness to publicly endorse a cause that is unpopular within the Republican Party.

"The McCains are one of the most well-known Republican families in recent history, and for Mrs. McCain to have reached out to us to offer her support truly means a lot," the site says.

"Although we had worked with Meghan McCain before and were aware of her own position, we'd never really thought the cause might be something her mother would get behind. We have a huge amount of respect for both of these women for being brave enough to make it known they support equal marriage rights for all Americans."

Meghan McCain said Wednesday in a Twitter message linked to her blog: "I couldn't be more proud of my mother for posing for the NOH8 campaign. I think more Republicans need to start taking a stand for equality."

Meghan McCain was asked to be the keynote speaker at next month's National Equality Week at George Washington University in Washington for her advocacy, but her appearance has drawn criticism from Republicans on campus, the NOH8 site said.

McCain's Senate re-election campaign said Wednesday that his presidential running mate, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, will come to Arizona to campaign for him in March. Palin has been a vocal opponent of gay marriage.

---
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...McCain-001.jpg
http://secondclasscitizens.files.wor...9/06/06511.jpg

Same-sex marriage foe: Ban keeps Satan at bay
 

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/btb...970b-800wi.jpg
Court rejects Russian lesbians' Canada marriage
Thu Jan 21, 2010 7:58am EST
By Amie Ferris-Rotman

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Two Russian lesbians on Thursday lost their bid to have their marriage in Canada recognized by a Moscow court, after a judge dismissed their argument that Russian law recognizes foreign marriages.

Public relations worker Irina Fyet, 30, and beauty parlor owner Irina Shepitko, 32, married in Toronto in October after an application for a marriage license in Moscow was rejected on the grounds that such a union must be between a man and a woman.

The couple are the first gay pair to attempt to get a marriage license in Russia.

"I will have to uphold the decision made by the registry office in May. Foreign marriages accepted in Russia must involve a couple of opposite sex," judge Boris Gerbekov ruled.

Fyet said the couple would take their case to the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights, though a judgment could take up to five years.

"We were born here, this is our country, we want to be married in our homeland, Russia," said Fyet.

"We are putting a lot of hope into the European Court. Russia simply has to accept their decision," she said.

Homophobia is deeply rooted in Russia, where gay pride marches are widely condemned and the homosexual scene is largely underground.

Since their Russian marriage attempt, the pair have been flooded with letters of support from the country's hidden gay community but also received hate mail.

The Soviet Union banned homosexuality and any type of nudity on television and Russia did not decriminalize gay sex until 1993, two years after the collapse of communism.

Four years ago, police, militant Orthodox Christians and neo-fascists attacked and violently broke up the first gay rights march in Moscow.

(Editing by Jon Boyle)

Gay Couple Face 14 Years In Malawi Prison
9:55am UK, Monday January 25, 2010
Emma Hurd, Africa correspondent

A new crackdown on homosexuality in parts of Africa has forced gay communities into hiding, fearing for their lives.


Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga appear in court on charges of indecency.

In Malawi, two men who dared to go public with their relationship by holding a traditional "marriage" ceremony are on trial for indecency, and face 14 years in jail.

"It's so scary," one gay man, who didn't want to be identified, told Sky News in the city of Blantyre, where the trial is taking place.
"We are not feeling free and are worried about being arrested.
It is the first case to be brought under Malawi's longstanding legislation banning homosexuality in years.

The rise of US style evangelist preachers has contributed to a hardening of attitudes in the tiny southern African state.

"Biblically it is demonic," pastor Stanley Ndovi said, flipping through the pages of his bible to show me the passages that condemn homosexuality.
"It is wrong and these people should be counselled and helped."

Inside his church on the outskirts of Blantyre, his congregation laughed when he told them that Sky News had come to talk to him about "gay rights".
At best, homosexuality is viewed as a mental illness in Malawi, at worst a form of Satanism with the power to infect the entire population.
"In the West you have allowed homosexuality and it has spread," pastor Ndovi said.

The gay couple on trial are considered such a risk to the public that they have been denied bail and are handcuffed every time they appear in court, jeered by the crowds as they're led to the dock.
"Sometimes I think it would be better to kill myself," another gay man said. "We are not even treated as human."
Malawi is not alone in its new hardline approach to gays and lesbians. Uganda is considering introducing legislation that would result in the death penalty for some "homosexual offences".
The Ugandan government has tried to distance itself from the plan after criticism from its biggest donor, the United States.

Rwanda is also seeking to tighten the laws banning homosexuality.
The crackdown has alarmed human rights campaigners and health workers who are trying to combat the spread of HIV and Aids.
In Malawi, 10% of the general population is HIV positive, with the figure rising to 25% among homosexual men.
There are fears that the gay community will be too scared to come forward to be tested, fearing reprisals from the state.
Just one African nation, South Africa, specifically safeguards the rights of lesbians and gays.
But even there, there have been attacks on gay men, and lesbians have been subjected to so-called "corrective rape".

BEIJING (AFP) – State press splashed a front-page photo of China's first publicly "married" gay couple on Wednesday -- the latest sign of new openness about homosexuality in a country where it has long been taboo.
The page-one story in the English-language China Daily featured a photograph of the "newlyweds" arm-in-arm during a January 3 ceremony.
Zeng Anquan, 45, and Pan Wenjie, 27, tied the knot at a gay bar in the southwestern city of Chengdu, the paper said, calling it "the first such public event in the country".

Homosexuality remains a sensitive issue in China. It was officially considered a form of mental illness as recently as 2001. Same-sex marriages or civil unions have no legal basis.
"We are no longer hiding any more. The wedding is our happiest and most precious moment," Zeng, a divorced architect, told the paper.
"Thousands of gays and lesbians get married in France, Finland, the UK. Why couldn't we?"
Although the vast majority of gays in China are believed to remain in the closet, a number of signs have emerged recently that official attitudes may be softening.
Last month, China's first government-backed gay bar opened in the tourist town of Dali in southwestern Yunnan province, after a three-week delay sparked by intense media attention, in a bid to boost HIV/AIDS prevention efforts.
On Friday, the country's first gay pageant is scheduled to be held in Beijing to choose the Asian nation's candidate for the Mr Gay World contest in Norway next month. [*Shut down at last minute by Chinese government- see http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/16/wo...16beijing.html ]

China's top state-run radio network plans to launch a new programme this weekend about AIDS that features an HIV-positive host, according to a recent report by Xinhua news agency, which did not mention whether the host was gay.

However, the deep-seated sensitivity of the issue in Chinese society has reared its head in the Zeng-Pan wedding, with the families of the two men reportedly condemning their nuptials.
"My sister warned me she would never call me her brother unless I break up with Pan, and I have answered hundreds of phone calls from friends and relatives who say they feel ashamed of me," said Zeng.
"But we are deeply in love and will never desert each other," he said of his relationship with Pan, a recently demobilised soldier.
More than 200 of the couple's gay friends attended the ceremony, which one of the newlyweds attended in a white wedding dress, the China Daily said, without specifying who was the "bride".

Zeng said the couple feared discrimination and had thus moved to a small town near Chengdu where they were unknown to avoid unwanted attention.
According to Chinese experts cited in press reports, there are an estimated 30 million homosexuals in China, and 20 million of them are men.

Gay couple live streams hunger strike

Francesco Zanardi and Manuel Incorvaia are starving themselves in a demand for gay marriage.

By Angelica Marin — Special to GlobalPost
Published: January 23, 2010 09:10 ET

ROME, Italy — One night last September, Francesco Zanardi walked toward the back of a gay nightclub on the Greek island of Mykonos. Before he reached his moped, four men came from behind, pulled him to the ground and beat him unconscious.

The next day Zanardi awoke in the ER wing of a Mykonos clinic with severe internal bleeding and an unshakeable anxiety. Had he died, his young partner would have been left without the home they share in Italy and all legal rights spouses are granted under Italian law.

It was then that Zanardi decided to stage a hunger strike to advocate gay marriage, and publicize it online. Now he and his 22-year-old partner, Manuel Incorvaia, are webcasting their own campaign, streaming it live, 24-hours a day, on www.glbt-tv.it.

“We came to a point where we wanted to protect each other,” said Zanardi, 39, who began fasting on Jan. 4 and is now living off just three cappuccinos a day. “This is not my first relationship, but for the first time I feel the need to protect my partner,” he said.

More than 1,500 fans have shown their support on Facebook and according to GLBT TV, thousands more are following the webcasts every day.
In Rome, the couple's supporters recently organized a vigil of about 200 people. Activists of all ages silently gathered outside the Parliament building. Within the crowd was Europe’s first transgender legislator, Vladimir Luxuria, who served in the Italian Parliament for one term in 2006.

“If you’re gay and have the fortune of falling in love like Francesco and Manuel have,” she said, “then the Italian government says you aren’t legally tied even as distant relatives. And you don’t benefit from any rights."
Without civil unions, same-sex couples have no right to care for a partner during illness, or claim property in case of death. The fear that Zanardi’s home could go to a distant cousin over his own partner is what first prompted them to begin the fast.

Citing Catholic moral values and national civil codes, Italian legislators have continually pushed gay civil rights aside. The law forbids same-sex partners from engaging in legal domestic partnership or adopting children as a couple.

Zanardi himself wrote letters to all the 630 parliament deputies demanding a new civil rights law. Only two replied.
“I think their initiative is courageous, very important and I admire them so much for what they are doing,” said Francesco Bilotta, an attorney at Rete Lenford, a national agency for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights in Italy.

Last November, Zanardi and Incorvaia and 23 other same-sex couples walked into their local city halls and requested that they be married. Once mayors denied their request, the couples took their cases to court, claiming that the Italian constitution doesn’t forbid gay couples from marrying.
“Because the constitution is so broadly written one could interpret it in light of social change,” said Bilotta who is the attorney for all 24 couples. “So extensively, to include same-sex couples,” he said.

By demanding gay marriage, same-sex couples organized under the so-called “Civil Affirmation” campaign are asking courts to re-examine current interpretation of Italian law.
Four tribunal courts in Florence, Venice, Ferrara and Trento — where the couples first made their claims — now must reject the cases or send them to a higher constitutional court.

“The outcome is a given,” said Claudio Mori, an upbeat gay rights activist in Rome. The 68-year-old veteran, who has pushed for LGBT rights since the 1970s, said it’s time for a progressive turn. Like many others, Mori is betting on Zanardi’s and Incorvaia’s case reaching constitutional courts.
“If they don’t respond to the call, they will be remembered as those constitutional judges who didn’t love the people,” said Mori, “who discriminated against people based on their sexual orientation.”

On Wednesday, Zanardi and Incorvaia will appear in court for their first hearing — that is, if they still have enough energy to leave their house. The tall and slender Zanardi has already lost 18 pounds. He has collapsed several times and is now unable to retain any liquids. “My body is giving up,” he said.
But that doesn’t deter him.
“I am not going to stop striking,” said Zanardi. “If necessary, I’ll die at home.”

Thanks for all the news clips, Cy. Sad and enlightening and in some way encouraging to see so many folks willing to put themselves on the line for their rights. For our rights.

Sending prayers for their well being and our "arrival".

I haven't kept up with Prop 8 in the past week, so i am behind. Have some reading to do.

Thanks again!

I would marry to protect my partner. I want to be treated fairly BUT it doesn't mean I want to support a system I think is FUCKED UP. lol

I will marry under the stars and declare my love and devotion. That means something to me.

paper holds no value, in my heart.

But I agree that we should be offered the same rights. It's the point and not the reason.

From the live blog Prop 8 Tracker
 

Explosive evidence exposes Prop 8 campaign
by Robert Cruickshank

During the fall of 2008 – and again in 2009 in Maine – the forces behind Proposition 8 ran a very slick and clever campaign that emphasized “protecting marriage” and “protecting children.” They deliberately left it unclear just what was being protected against, assuming that voters would know to fill in the blanks. Prop 8 backers did a good job of keeping a tight lid on their own true beliefs, making their own position seem less discriminatory and less radical than it actually is.

That all changed this morning in the trial courtroom, as explosive Yes on 8 campaign videos and documents were introduced into evidence. One of the videos was of a campaign rally from 2008 paid for and simulcast by ProtectMarriage.com that shows what they really believe. As reported to us by Yusef Robb of the American Foundation for Equal Rights and shown at the trial today, the video included the following stunning quotes:

“Then pedophiles would have to be allowed to marry 6-7-8 year olds. The man from Massachusetts who petitioned to marry his horse after marriage was instituted in Massachusetts. He’d have to be allowed to do so. Mothers and sons, sisters and brothers, any, any combination would have to be allowed.”

Of course, no such marriages were allowed in Massachusetts, or any other state where same-sex marriage is legal.

“Second of all, the polygamists are waiting in the wings because if a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman based on the fact that you have the right to marry whoever you want to marry, then the polygamists are going to use that exact same argument and they’re probably going to win.”

Opponents of marriage equality love to raise this example, even though it is not what is at issue here. It’s an example of what is often called “moving the goalposts” – shifting the ground from a discussion they might lose (“should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?”) to one they feel they might win, even though it isn’t actually what is at issue. No serious and credible organization supporting same-sex marriage has expressed support for polygamy. This is farcical at best.

“We are seeing the people of Massachusetts being desensitized day by day concerning homosexuality and becoming more and more adjusted to the idea of homosexual marriage being the law of the land and the homosexual agenda becoming more and more of a powerful element in the life of our society.”

Here we see very clearly that to Prop 8 backers, this isn’t about marriage at all. It’s about whether homosexuality is accepted by the public and by the law. They believe that legal recognition of same-sex marriage would make it harder to discriminate against LGBT Americans. This quote is indicative of what Prop 8 was really all about.

“I think a helpful way to think about this is to compare it to 9/11 because a lot of us are asking: How does this directly affect us? Well I wasn’t directly affected by 9/11 and my guess is most of you weren’t either in the sense I didn’t know somebody who crashed the plane in the building. I didn’t know somebody who was in the building. But after 9/11 the world was a fundamentally different place and that has affected me. The change in the redefinition of marriage is the same type of thing.”

Can you imagine the public reaction if Californians had known in the fall of 2008 that Prop 8 backers compared marriage equality to the murder of over 3,000 innocent people on that September morning in 2001? Such an outrageous and offensive statement would have caused major damage to the Yes on 8 forces and showed how callous and radical they truly are. When Democrats mistakenly used footage that included the old World Trade Center towers in an ad for Martha Coakley just days before the Massachusetts Senate election, it was seen as a major gaffe that helped ensure Coakley lost the race. Who knows what would have happened had the public known this was being said at a rally paid for and simulcast by the Prop 8 backers?

Rick Jacobs took a moment from his trial liveblogging to offer these comments on the video and quotes:

“This morning’s evidence made the Prop 8 side’s strategy crystal clear — use fear and lies to promote hate. It is horrifying that Prop 8 proponents would compare marriage equality to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and imply that marriage equality will open the door to pedophilia, incest and bestiality.”

“Ron Prentice, Andrew Pugno and their Prop 8 team — with the highly capable and apparently deeply cynical leadership of Frank Schubert — created a permanent campaign to scare voters into believing that same-sex marriage would threaten children, undermine America and lead to every form of illicit behavior imaginable.”

“This evidence is not just a smoking gun. It was an arsenal of incendiary devices directed at the LGBT community and voters. This is how the Prop 8 side won — through fear and lies.”

“Finally, this morning we saw indisputable, documented evidence in the form of emails and videos that Ron Prentice and Protect Marriage coordinated closely and relied upon the Catholic Church, the LDS Church, the Family Research Council, Maggie Gallagher, Brian Brown and the National Organization for Marriage to get Prop. 8 on the ballot and to win through a campaign of lies.”

“Last week, the Supreme Court erased decades of precedent by ruling that corporations have the same rights as people when it comes to speech. Let’s hope that the court will as readily see that LGBT people have at least the same rights as corporations and surely the same rights as other people.”

Looking at these quotes, it’s no wonder why Protect Marriage fought so hard to keep this trial as hidden away from the public as possible. The truth is revealing. The truth is explosive. The truth shows that far from “protecting” families and children, the primary goal of Prop 8 backers was to impose their radical views of society on us, and discriminate against LGBT people in California and across the nation

http://prop8trialtracker.com/

from bigpondnews
 

http://homomento.files.wordpress.com...ingh_gohil.jpg

Nepal gay wedding in bid for tourism

Sunday, January 24, 2010 » 02:59pm

Nepal will host the wedding of a gay Indian prince and his partner in a bid to attract gay tourists.

Nepal will play host to a royal wedding with a difference when an openly gay Indian prince marries his partner at a Hindu temple in Kathmandu.

The ceremony is the start of what Nepalese lawmaker Sunil Babu Pant hopes will become a lucrative business for his country, whose once thriving tourist industry is still reeling from a decade-long civil war that ended in 2006.

Pant, the only openly gay member of Nepal's parliament, has set up a travel agency catering specifically for homosexual tourists, who he says face severe discrimination in many Asian countries.

He believes Nepal, which has made large strides forward on gay rights issues in recent years thanks largely to his own efforts, is well placed to cash in on an industry worth an estimated US$670 million (AUS$743.12 million) worldwide.

'If we brought even one per cent of that market to Nepal it would be big. But I'm hoping we can attract 10 per cent,' said Pant, who was selected in May 2008 to represent a small communist party in Nepal's parliament.

'The choices (for gay tourists) in this region are very limited, and there is really no competition from China or India. Nepal is one of the few places where adventure tourism is available to people,' he said.

Pant said he has been overwhelmed with enquiries since setting up his travel agency, Pink Mountain. The company will offer gay-themed tours of Nepal's major tourist sites - including Hindu temples that feature carvings of the god Shiva depicted as half man, half woman - as well as organise wedding ceremonies. Pant's plans have won the support of the tourism ministry in Nepal, a deeply conservative, mainly Hindu country that nonetheless has some of the most progressive policies on homosexuality in Asia.

Two years ago, the country's Supreme Court ordered the government to enact laws to guarantee the rights of gays and lesbians after the Blue Diamond Society, a pressure group run by Pant, filed a petition.

The country's new constitution, currently being drafted by MPs, is expected to define marriage as a union between two adult individuals, regardless of gender, and to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation. Laxman Bhattarai, joint secretary in Nepal's Tourism Ministry, said the government had no specific policies on gay tourism, but would support Pant's enterprise.

'The government has declared its ambition of attracting a million tourists to Nepal in 2011 which is a big increase,' he said.

Around 500,000 foreign tourists travelled to Nepal in 2009.

'Nepal is a safe place to come now. We want to develop new tourist destinations and get people coming back after the civil war. If he can help us in any way, we are happy.'

The wedding of Indian prince Manvendra Singh Gohil, scion of the family that once ruled Rajpipla in the western state of Gujarat, looks likely to create the kind of publicity Nepal's tourism business so desperately needs.

Pant believes it will be followed by many more such ceremonies, and is already organising a wedding for a lesbian couple from Massachusetts who want to hold their nuptials in Mustang, high in the Himalayas.

SAN FRANCISCO – The first federal case to decide if the U.S. Constitution prevents states from stopping same-sex weddings came to an anti-climatic break Wednesday after a judge heard nearly 12 days of wide-ranging testimony on the meaning of marriage, the nature of sexual orientation, and the role of religion in shaping attitudes about both.

Attorneys for sponsors of California's Proposition 8 tentatively rested their case after introducing materials from the 2008 election campaign.

They called just two expert witnesses, including David Blankenhorn, president of the New York-based Institute for American Values, who capped the historic proceedings by saying the rights of same-sex couples should come second to preserving the cherished social institution of marriage.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker heard the case without a jury and said he will take time to review the evidence before allowing closing arguments, probably in March or April. He has no deadline for reaching a decision.

After testimony ended, Walker came down from the bench and shook hands with both legal teams.

"I just want to take a moment to congratulate you (on) what a good job you've both done," he said, calling it a fascinating case.

His eventual verdict is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Throughout the trial, lawyers for the two gay couples who filed the lawsuit seeking to overturn the ballot measure tried to show the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized marriage as a fundamental right and that there is no lawful reason to deny it to gays.

They also argued that Proposition 8, which passed with 52 percent of the vote, was a product of anti-gay prejudice rooted in religion and psychological theories about homosexuality that have long since been discredited.

Plaintiffs' lawyer David Boies said Walker had been provided with more than enough evidence to strike down the ban.

"We said on the first day of trial we would prove three things," he said during a news conference outside court. "Marriage is a fundamental right; that depriving gays and lesbians the right to marry hurts them and hurts their children; and there was no reason, no societal benefit in not allowing them to get married."

The defense countered that limiting marriage to a man and a woman serves a paramount social function by promoting stable biological families — a purpose that outweighs civil rights concerns.

Defense lawyers methodically cross-examined the parade of academic experts who testified for the plaintiffs then kept their part of the case brief.

Andy Pugno, a lawyer who served on the executive committee of the Proposition 8 campaign, said the burden of proof was on the plaintiffs.

"They have to prove the people voted irrationally when they voted to preserve the traditional definition of marriage," said Pugno, who often complained during the trial that voters and religion should not be put on trial.

"The question is whether the people have a right to decide what is best," he told reporters.

Lawyers on both sides delved into the premises that surround the polarized public discourse on gay marriage, touching on the fitness of gay parents, religious views on homosexuality, gender roles in marriage and the history of the gay rights movement.

They also aired topics that are less likely to be part of the polite debate, such as stereotypes that depict gays as pedophiles and link same-sex relationships to the specter of polygamy.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs called more than a dozen witnesses, including Nancy Cott, a Harvard University historian who testified that monogamous, state-sanctioned marriage between one man and one woman is a relatively recent concept in human civilization.

Ryan Kendall, a gay Colorado man, recalled how being subjected to therapy designed to make him straight drove him to the brink of suicide.

The plaintiffs — Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, a lesbian couple from Berkeley, and Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo, a gay couple from Burbank — also took the witness stand to describe why they regard the domestic partnerships that California allows gay couples to enter are a poor substitute for matrimony.

Lawyers for the couples also called William Tam, a proponent of Proposition 8, as a hostile witness to discuss his view that allowing gays to get married would lead to incest, polygamy and child abuse.

Defense lawyers called just two witnesses. Kenneth Miller, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College, testified that gays enjoy considerable political clout and were not a disadvantaged minority, as depicted by plaintiffs.

Under cross-examination, Blankenhorn conceded there were many valid reasons for allowing gays to wed, but the considerations are outweighed by the likely damage it would cause the already weakened state of heterosexual unions.

He acknowledged, however, that allowing gays to wed would have positive consequences for same-sex couples and society, such as scoring "a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion," reducing anti-gay prejudice and hate crimes, and creating a higher standard of living for same-sex couples.

from The Advocate:
 

Minter's Take on the Prop 8 Trial

(it's worth the read!)

I was excited to see this, though I don't think it willl pass.

Florida Legislators Hear Testimony on Domestic Partnership Bill
January 27, 2010 by Gay Agenda News Team

From Palm Beach Human Rights Council:

Florida legislators were urged this afternoon to enact pro-family legislation creating a statewide domestic partnership registry. Once enacted, the legislation would provide unmarried couples many of the benefits provided by the state to married couples.

Palm Beach County Human Rights Council President Rand Hoch addressed local legislators at their final public hearing prior to the opening of the Florida legislature on March 2.

“Many couples choose not to marry so that they may preserve their social security, pension, and veterans benefits,” said Rand Hoch, President of the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council. “However marriage is not an option for gay and lesbian Floridians in committed relationships.”

Nine states and the District of Columbia have enacted comprehensive laws recognizing gay and lesbians relationships. Four states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire and Vermont) and the District of Columbia provide full marriage equality. New Jersey recognized civil unions. Four additional states (California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington) have domestic partnership legislation.

While marriage equality for gay men and lesbians is denied by Florida’s laws and state constitution, gay couples may register their domestic partnerships in some parts of Florida.

“Thanks to the efforts of local organizations such as Save-Dade, the Human Rights Council of North Central Florida, and the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council, gay couples may register as domestic partners throughout Broward, Miami-Dade, Monroe and Palm Beach counties, as well as in the city of Gainesville,” said Hoch.

“Regardless of where our families make our homes, we should be accorded the same rights and benefits that other families take for granted,” Hoch told legislators.

“Once the law is enacted statewide, domestic partners will be allowed to visit their partners in a hospital with the same authority as spouses with regard to health care decisions,” said Hoch. “Domestic partners will be notified as family members in the event of an accident, and in the event of a partner’s death, they will be empowered to make funeral decisions.”

With legislators wary of the Florida’s multi-billion dollar deficit, Hoch informed legislators that the legislation requires no expenditure of state funds for office space or personnel, since the paperwork will be done by the Clerks of the Circuit Courts who are charged with processing marriage licenses.

“Since fees are assessed to register and terminate domestic partnerships, the legislation will actually generate income for the state,” said Hoch.

The domestic partnership legislation was co-introduced by state senator Eleanor Sobel (D-Hallandale) and state representative Richard Steinberg (D-Miami Beach).

The Advocate:
 

Prop 8 Plaintiffs Speak

:LGBTQFlag:

Another Advocate article: Interview with a football player who is for equality!
 

Saints Linebacker Fujita Tackles Gay Marriage

As New Orleans Saints linebacker Scott Fujita gears up for Super Bowl XLIV, Fujita talks to The Advocate about standing up for gay rights and against inequality, and about Tim Tebow's draft prospects thanks to Focus on the Family.

BREAKING: Prop 8 Judge Outed

Today the San Francisco Chronicle outed Perry vs Schwarzenegger Judge Vaughn Walker. While Walker's gayness has long been known by insiders, this is the first acknowledgment by the press.

The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay. Many gay politicians in San Francisco and lawyers who have had dealings with Walker say the 65-year-old jurist, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1989, has never taken pains to disguise - or advertise - his orientation.

They also don't believe it will influence how he rules on the case he's now hearing - whether Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure approved by state voters to ban same-sex marriage, unconstitutionally discriminates against gays and lesbians. "There is nothing about Walker as a judge to indicate that his sexual orientation, other than being an interesting factor, will in any way bias his view," said Kate Kendell, head of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is supporting the lawsuit to overturn Prop. 8. As evidence, she cites the judge's conservative - albeit libertarian - reputation, and says, "There wasn't anyone who thought (overturning Prop. 8) was a cakewalk given his sexual orientation."

The lead counsel for Protect Marriage says that his side does not intend to make an issue of Walker's sexuality should he rule against them. Riiiight. Walker hasn't necessarily been considered a friend of the gays. In 1987 he defended the U.S. Olympic Committee in its copyright lawsuit against Tom Waddell, the creator of the Gay Olympics who was dying of AIDS. Even after winning the case, Walker had a lien placed against Waddell's home in order to recoup the USOC's legal costs. Only after Waddell died was the lien lifted. The Gay Olympics case delayed Ronald Reagan's nomination of Walker to the federal bench.

UPDATE: The far-right National Review is already calling for Walker to step down. The linked editorial cites Walker's attempt to have the trial televised, then closes with this:

Take Walker’s failure to decide the case, one way or the other (as other courts have done in similar cases), as a matter of law and his concocting of supposed factual issues to be decided at trial. Take the incredibly intrusive discovery, grossly underprotective of First Amendment associational rights, that Walker authorized into the internal communications of the Prop 8 sponsors—a ruling overturned, in part, by an extraordinary writ of mandamus issued by a Ninth Circuit panel consisting entirely of Clinton appointees. Take Walker’s insane and unworkable inquiry into the subjective motivations of the more than seven million Californians who voted in support of Prop 8. Take Walker’s permitting a parade of anti-Prop 8 witnesses at trial who gave lengthy testimony that had no conceivable bearing on any factual or legal issues in dispute but who provided useful theater for the anti-Prop 8 cause. And so on. Walker’s entire course of conduct has only one sensible explanation: that Walker is hellbent to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage. Given his manifest inability to be impartial, Walker should have recused himself from the beginning, and he remains obligated to do so now.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5t233AUh8s&feature=popular"]YouTube- Kitty Lambert's Wedding[/ame]

From the Prop 8 trial tracker blog.....
 

Mooting Perry?
by Brian Leubitz

A while back, one of our trial trackers here at the site asked an important question. My apologies to the original commenter, I wasn’t able to find the link back to the question, but here’s the gist:

“IF the attempt to get the “Restore Marriage 2010″ proposal onto this years ballot succeeds, & IF it gets passed, what effect would that have on Prop 8’s journey through the Federal Courts?

For example, if Judge Walker invalidates Prop 8 & if the 9th Circuit hasn’t yet ruled on the likely appeal, would the passage of the proposal repealing Prop 8 eliminate the possibility that Prop 8 would at some point be declared unconstitutional, &/or LGBTs to be declared a Suspect Class? (Hope this question makes sense.)

If that is a real possibility, it seems like it would be better to wait until after the final ruling on Prop 8, even though that might be risking a loss somewhere along the line. Otherwise, if the “Restore Marriage 2010″ passes, it seems like we only get marriage rights at the CA state level, vs a very real possibility of getting a whole lot more at the Federal level.

This is, generally, question about the legal doctrine of “mootness.” In a general sense, a case is moot if the decision wouldn’t have any legal consequense. Courts have declined to hear such cases because the parties wouldn’t have the vested interested, and wouldn’t be be the best advocates for the arguments. Despite the fact that frequently litigants would like to have a legal decision stemming from a case that has been mooted, courts generally dismiss such cases. This could happen with Prop 8, but let’s pick this apart and try to answer all of the various possibilities of what could happen.

1) The “Restore Equality 2010″ folks are able to get the measure on the ballot, and they succeed in overturning Prop 8.

The federal court would likely dismiss the case. Just being brutally honest here, but the last news I’ve heard from the campaign indicates that they are far behind where they need to be in order to get on the ballot. While a last month miracle could happen, it seems a long shot. That being said, in November 2010, the court will probably have made its decision and the case will be in the hands of the 9th Circuit, probably with a stay pending appeal if Prop 8 is overturned. The electoral defeat of Prop 8 would mean that a legal decision would have no impact on the litigants, in this case Perry and the other plaintiffs.

We need to remember here that the court case is only about Prop 8, and marriage in California, not federal law. While this case does present good facts, and I’ll go into that angle in a later post, there is no facial challenge of DOMA or any other federal law. This case could provide important precedent for a challenge to DOMA, but it is not itself such a challenge.

2) Prop 8 is repealed in 2012.

This seems to be the more likely scenario, with the majority of the funders of a prop 8 repeal pushing for a November 2012 campaign. The question here is speed of the case. It wouldn’t be unheard of either way for the case to have gone all the way to the Supreme Court in the three years since filing, but nor would it be unheard of for the case to be delayed past that date. In this case, the Court would seem to have a vested interest in waiting for a resolution via the ballot box. They have ways of delaying such things, and if they see that at ballot fight is likely, they are likely to use every delay tactic they have to avoid this case until it’s settled at the ballot box.

My take on this is that despite the tremendous value of a legal win, a win at the ballot box would be far more valuable. You would end up giving some good facts to make some good law, however, once California strikes the domino, we would likely set the nation on a path towards equality. We will need a legal victory. As the Court showed in Loving v. Virginia, on the big social issues of the day, the Court likes to have somebody else blaze the trail. In that instance, it was the California Supreme Court in Perez v. Sharp and other state supreme courts that struck down anti-miscegenation laws.

In this case, Perry v Schwarzenegger just might be the case that sets the legal process really moving federally. Even with that as a possible outcome, I think I’d take the electoral win and a mooted case every day. (And twice on Sundays.)

Is There a Place for Gay People in Conservatism and Conservative Politics?

Featuring Nick Herbert, MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Conservative Party, United Kingdom; Andrew Sullivan, The Daily Dish Blog, The Atlantic; and Maggie Gallagher, President, National Organization for Marriage.


Under the leadership of David Cameron, Britain's Conservative Party has jettisoned much of its former opposition to gay rights. Cameron supported civil unions for gays and appointed a number of openly gay men to his shadow cabinet. Nick Herbert will explain the reasons for those changes and elaborate on the new Conservative social agenda. Will the United States follow the British example? Our distinguished panel will consider the future of gay people's participation in mainstream society and conservative politics on both sides of the Atlantic.

The Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001