[quote=Corkey;428659]There should be no separation of our rights as humans.

[quote=Okiebug61;428961]Well no there shouldn't, but there are laws on the books that need to be repealed, and until then there are no benefits to partners. So tell your Senator, your Congressperson they need to do as you ask not as they wish for a change.

[quote=Corkey;429101]No worries! I am very active in making sure those that represent me know that I am for equal rights across the board.

Nadine Smith at tedx tampa bay
 

I found this amazingly beautiful video on the Equality Florida website.

I wish this woman would run for congress.
Smooches,
Keri

I was just going to give you the link and ask for help uploading it, but I found the video on youtube as well, so here (hopefully) it is

Where do I volunteer to help!?
 

Prop 8 Repeal Fight May Go Forward

As Equality California is mired by internal turmoil and the loss of its second executive director in several months, another LGBT rights group says they are moving forward with plans to place a repeal of Proposition 8 on California's 2012 ballot. Rex Wockner reports:
Love Honor Cherish will submit language to the California attorney general by Friday for a ballot measure to overturn Prop 8. The attorney general will write a petition title and summary, and then LHC can collect voter signatures for 150 days. The group would need to collect valid signatures from 807,615 registered California voters. The initiative would amend the California Constitution to delete or overturn Prop 8, via which voters amended the Constitution in 2008 to re-ban same-sex marriage. The Los-Angeles-based organization's outreach director, Lester Aponte, said Oct. 11 that LHC already has launched efforts to build a statewide campaign structure.

I guess this is an OK idea. However, it will limit legality of Lgbtq marriages to California. The decision regarding prop 8 that is already underway in the California Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of banning lgbts marriage will, it is my understanding, have broader, national effects. I live in Florida, where ANY recognition of glbtq couples is forbidden by law. My hopes lay in having these "banning" laws overturned in all states with the result that lgbtq marriages will be legalized nation wide.

That way I don't have to move to achieve equal rights.
Smooches,
Keri
I edited this to say that I understand the new petition will not stop the case currently in the Supreme Court in Cali. However, if the court decides that prop 8 was illegal in the first place, then the new petition is redundant.

I have very mixed feelings about putting this up to a vote again....but I know how it felt to have my equality RIPPED from me in one night. Maybe it was a false (only California) equality, but I grieved for weeks over the thought of that many fellow Californians voting to make me "less than". Oh they couldn't take my marriage away, but they made me belong to a seperate class of citizens my fellow queers could no longer join.

I can understand how the people behind the repeal would want to have Prop 8 removed from our Constitution...it is a stain upon this state (dramatic I know) and I too want to have it erased.

Is it the best idea? Probably not, but I get the NEED of people to actually try and do something. (f)

I feel your pain, MsT. I too grieved that loss when prop 8 passed. I am 63 years old, and even though I have dealt with sooooo much discrimination in my life, I could actually not believe that people could go to the polls and vote to take civil rights (that they hold dear themselves), away from other people; my people. It IS a stain upon our countries history that this has happened. I agree with you completely.

In 1988, after my then lover transitioned, we were able to legally marry. It was like being given a treasure that we had sought after our whole life. Our happiness was overwhelming, yet it was tinged with sadness as well. Our beloved gay friends had not yet gained this right that we treasured. We talked for months over whether it would be "right" for us to marry when they could not. In the end our desire to marry won out.

l know your joy at your own marriage is leavened with disappointment that other lgbtq folk can no longer exercise that right. You have to do what feels right to you. I wish you and those you work with success in getting the new proposition on the ballot and passed by an overwhelmong vote of the people. I hope a similar measure will soon be passed in Florida.
Smooches,
Keri

SLDN To Sue Over DOMA

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network will file a federal lawsuit on behalf of married gay military members impacted by DOMA.
The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network will argue that the federal Defense of Marriage Act violates the Fifth Amendment right to due process, in what the group says will be the first case of its kind. "That has never been done before," Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of SLDN, told The Huffington Post. Sarvis, who spoke about his group's plans at the OutServe Armed Forces Leadership summit here over the weekend, said the case would be brought by several currently serving members of the military who were married in the seven jurisdictions where same-sex marriages are legal. He declined to identify the plaintiffs. "We're looking at all the legal remedies available," Sarvis said, noting that the group also is working to change Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which governs the armed forces and defines marriage as between two individuals of the opposite sex.

Due Process - that is an interesting take on it. Can't see how it would help with any long term legal precedent, but DOMA is fairly new, so it might have some application there. Blessings to them. Knock on every door. Maybe one will open (or fall over from the pressure) Worksfor me either way.

Thanks MsT!
Smooches,
Keri

From the Prop 8 Trial Tracker blog
 

DOMA: New lawsuit filed on behalf of gay and lesbian servicemembers
By Adam Bink

As noted in the comments by Greg in SLC, today a new lawsuit was filed on behalf of gay and lesbian servicemembers, challenging the Defense of Marriage Act. The lawsuit is being filed in district court in Boston (the same court that handed down the successful decision in Gill v. OPM). Michael Lavers from EDGE Media Network:

A group of gay and lesbian servicemembers and veterans filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act in a federal court in Boston on Thursday, Oct. 27.

The eight plaintiffs, who have 159 years of military service between them, maintain that DOMA specifically prohibits the military from offering their spouses the same family support and benefits that married heterosexual servicemembers automatically receive. These include on-base housing, health care, survivor benefits and burial rights at national cemeteries.

“The case we are bringing today is about one thing, plain and simple: It’s about justice for gay and lesbian servicemembers and their families,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, at a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, Oct. 27. “These couples are in long-term, committed and legally recognized marriages and the military shouldn’t be forced to turn their back on them because the federal government refuses to recognize their families.”

Among the plaintiffs is Capt. Steve Hill, an Army reservist who is stationed in Iraq who submitted a YouTube question about the end of the military’s ban on openly gay and lesbian servicemembers during a Republican presidential candidate debate in Florida last month.

Chief Warrant Officer Charlie Morgan returned to New Hampshire from Kuwait in August where she lives with her wife Karen Morgan and their four-year-old daughter. A full-time officer with the New Hampshire National Guard, Charlie Morgan was recently diagnosed with breast cancer after a recurrence. She pointed out that her inability to obtain a military identification card prevents her from taking her daughter on base to take advantage of the facilities and other services other married couples receive.

“We’re just looking to receive the same benefits and opportunities as our married heterosexual counterparts,” said Charlie Morgan as her wife stood by her side. “Time may not be on our side.”
The repeal of ’don’t ask, don’t tell’ became official on Sept. 20, but SLDN and other groups continue to stress that the end of the Clinton-era law is an important first step towards remedying long-standing inequalities against gay and lesbian servicemembers.

The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit a week before the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to debate a bill that would repeal DOMA. The White House announced earlier this year that it would no longer defend the Clinton-era statute, but House Republicans continue to back the law.

Retired Capt. Joan Darrah of Alexandria, Va., was a naval intelligence officer until she retired from the Navy in 2002. Seven of her colleagues died in the room in which she had been working in the Pentagon moments before American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the building on Sept. 11, 2001. Under DADT, Darrah said her partner of nearly 20 years, Lynne Kennedy, would not have been notified of her death.

NOM wants to "protect" marriage? ROTFLMAO
 

By Kat Giantis MSN

That sound you hear? It's the institution of marriage banging its head against the wall and asking for mercy. A little more than two months after tying the knot in a ridiculously ostentatious, E!-sponsored ceremony, Kim Kardashian is giving Kris Humphries the heave-ho.


Following weeks of rift rumors, Kim, 31, filed for divorce on Monday, citing the usual "irreconcilable differences," according to legal papers obtained by TMZ.

Kim has retained go-to celebrity divorce attorney Laura Wasser to get her out of the 72-day-old marriage (and presumably enforce the ironclad prenup). In the divorce docs, she requests that no spousal support be awarded to the NBA player.

The date of separation is listed as Oct. 31, 2011.

"She wanted the fairy tale, and she got caught up in it all," a Kardashian konfidante tells People. "She felt like the pressure of the TV show just isn't what they could have handled."

According to TMZ, Kris thought they could work through their problems, and he didn't know Kim planned to pull the plug until Monday morning.

The reality starlet, whose first union to music producer Damon Thomas also ended in divorce, flew solo at a Halloween bash on Saturday, explaining to Us Weekly that Humphries, 26, was back home in Minnesota.

"It's always tough when you're apart," she said. "But we do what we can to try and spend time together and make that time for each other."

Last week, Kim admitted to People that married life hasn't been "ideal."


I suppose that this will be the "queers fault"...I mean, if it weren't for us, idiots like this might stay married longer than 2 months! Nah, probably not...

Cindy

Only in America, where most of the couples here on this site cannot legally marry, after only being together for a million years. And "they" say we ruin the institution of marriage?!

From the Prop 8 Trial Tracker
 

DOMA: Senate Judiciary Committee markup on Respect for Marriage Act begins today
By Adam Bink

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin the markup process on the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. All 10 committee Democrats publicly pledge support for the bill, though it’s not clear what amendments will be offered and whether that calculus could be changed.

Republicans are expected to exercise their prerogative to hold over the bill one week, which they have done on every committee bill this year. That means that today’s meeting will likely be about other business and Senators will make only brief remarks on the Respect for Marriage Act. Actual votes, including amendments if offered, are therefore expected to take place on Thursday, November 10th. Sen. Grassley, the ranking Republican, is expected to offer an amendment to strike Section 2 of the bill, which provides for the ability to retain federal rights for same-sex married couples no matter which state they reside in. There may be other amendments introduced shortly before the 10th. In short, no fireworks expected today, though I’ll update if that changes. Courage Campaign and our members are working with our allies in and outside of the Senate to ensure anti-LGBT amendments are not adopted by the committee and that we have a successful vote on the overall bill.

Whenever the vote happens, it will make headlines around the nation and serve as a chance to again move people’s hearts and mind on this issue, as well as educate the public, so the committee consideration should not be dismissed as a non-starter simply because we are short on the votes in the full Senate. As I wrote in this essay, we have a long way to go and every moment builds a majority for DOMA repeal

Heads up
 

The California Supreme Court has until December 5th to rule on whether or not the groups that are fighting Judge Walker's decision to overturn Prop 8 have standing to do so. If they rule that they do not, Judge Walker's decision stands and marriage may resume, and if they do have standing then we move on and fight to have the Supreme court rule Prop 8 unconsitutional once more.

The Court might rule before that date, so if anyone sees something in the news please post!

From the Prop 8 blog-DOMA repeal now!!!
 

How gay and lesbian servicemembers remain treated as second-class
By Adam Bink

Over at Talking Points Memo, Brian Beutler examines some cases:

Two weeks ago, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) neatly demonstrated the power of retail politics — and at the same time brought to light a legal conflict that has made the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell a bumpy affair.

Shaheen had intervened on behalf of a constituent named Charlie Morgan — an openly gay Chief Warrant Officer in the New Hampshire National Guard — who had just returned from a deployment in Kuwait, only to be forbidden by the military from bringing her spouse Karen to an event aimed at helping families deal with the transition back to life at home.

It’s unthinkable that a straight, married service member would have faced this kind of obstacle. But though Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell had been stricken from the books, and Morgan was allowed to serve openly, the Defense of Marriage Act still allowed the New Hampshire National Guard to deny her spouse authorization to attend the so-called Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program.

Shaheen took Morgan’s case straight to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the policy was quickly reversed — the Morgans were allowed to attend Yellow Ribbon event earlier this month.

But the problem isn’t limited to reintegration events or the New Hampshire National Guard. It’s happening nationwide — the ripples of an inherent tension between the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the continued existence of the Defense of Marriage Act. So advocates, politicians, and service members are handing megaphones to service members and their spouses who have suffered as a result of the conflict, to see the Defense of Marriage Act overturned by the courts or repealed by Congress.

“We’ve got a conflict here between the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act,” Shaheen told me in a telephone interview recently. “Until DOMA is repealed or stricken, they and their families will be caught in the middle.”

It’s the obverse of “Separate but Equal” — gay services members who no longer fear for their jobs but find themselves treated unequally under the law.

Shannon McLaughlin is an Army Major and JAG in the Massachusetts Air National Guard. She and her spouse Casey have 10 month old twins and decided recently that Casey should leave her teaching job — and the health benefits that came with it — to be a full-time parent.

“Babies are covered under my health insurance, but Casey is not,” McLaughlin told me in a phone interview Wednesday. “We went down to one income for the benefit of the children…but then we got whapped with an extra bill, which is over $700 a month…. My male counterpart who does the same job I does, his family’s covered, and we do the same work.”

Gay spouses are also denied housing privileges and ID cards providing access to discounted amenities and services.

Lt. Col. Victoria Hudson’s family faces a similar risk. Her wife Monika Poxon is insured, but lacks the safety net other military spouses have in the event that she leaves or loses her job.

“I have a child — my wife is the birth mother of my child,” Hudson told me. “I can add the child to the insurance if I want to, but I can’t add the mother. But if something happened to her job, and she lost her insurance, she’d have no safety net.

Joshua Snyder is married to army reservist, Capt. Steven Hill — who gained notoriety in September when he submitted a YouTube video questioning GOP presidential primary candidates about the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Snyder recalls listening while mortars landed within feet of Hill, who is currently deployed, while the two were speaking on Skype.

Hill was unscathed, but if he’d been injured or killed, Snyder wouldn’t find out through normal channels.

“There’s a lot more hoops to jump through…to make sure I’m the first contact,” he said. “There’s nothing automatic to make sure I’d be notified.”

Morgan, McLaughlin, Hudson, and Hill are among the plaintiffs in a federal district court lawsuit, filed late last week by the Servicemember’s Legal Defense Network, against Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki

Prop 8 Blog
 

New Jersey couples go back to court seeking marriage equality today
By Adam Bink

Today in Superior Court:

TRENTON — In the latest attempt to legalize gay marriage in New Jersey, same-sex couples are headed to court today to try to convince a judge their partnerships are more than civil unions.

The couples, defeated in their efforts last year to get the state Legislature to recognize same-sex marriages, turned to the courts to obtain what they say would be true marriage equality.

Superior Court Assignment Judge Linda Feinberg will hear arguments from Garden State Equality, a civil rights organization for same-sex couples, and the state Attorney General’s Office, which is defending New Jersey’s civil union law.

In a 2006 decision that stopped short of recognizing gay marriage, the state Supreme Court said legislators have to provide marriage-like rights to same-sex partners. It left the details of those rights up to the lawmakers. Later that year, legislators created civil unions, giving the same benefits of marriage but not using the term.

In January 2010, the state Senate defeated an effort to legalize same-sex marriage. Two months later, six same-sex couples went to the Supreme Court asking for the right to marry. But the state’s highest court declined to hear the issue and instead said the case has to work its way through the trial courts. That starts today with arguments before Feinberg.

This amid public support continuing to rise in the new Pew Center poll (though the numbers are less in support than in other surveys showing a majority).

Prop 8 Blog
 

Judge rules New Jersey lawsuit for marriage equality can proceed
By Adam Bink

Seth in Maryland in the comments notes the news. A big hearing this past week, and what came out of it:

If the law creating civil unions does not give same-sex couples the same protections as married heterosexual couples, it has to be examined as to whether it is constitutional, Mercer County Assignment Judge Linda Feinberg said during a hearing in Trenton this afternoon.

But in dismissing three counts of the complaint, Feinberg also said there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage under the state Constitution. One count of the suit — a claim that the civil union law does not give them equal protection — remains.

She noted same-sex couples complain civil unions, created in New Jersey in 2006, still don’t give them the same benefits as marriage in situations such as health benefits sharing and health care decisions.

“I don’t think that the court can remain silent and take no action if…the result is that those benefits are not equal in the protections,” Feinberg said

BREAKING: Sen. Judiciary Committee votes to repeal DOMA
By Adam Bink

Just now, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-8 to repeal DOMA by passing the Respect for Marriage Act. A huge step forward for our movement to repeal DOMA!

Today’s victory will make headlines and help educate the public on what DOMA is and why it needs to go. We know when we tell stories, we win as a movement. Today’s victory will also add momentum and help bring more Senators on board so when we have a pro-repeal leadership in the House, Senate and White House, we can move forward as quickly as possible to repeal DOMA, instead of starting from scratch

It was a lift to get to this summer’s hearing and today’s vote. We all did it together — people in each state who contacted their Senator, folks like you who spread the word and chipped in.

Below is a statement from Courage Campaign’s Rick Jacobs:

“For the first time in history, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to make gays and lesbians whole people,” said Rick Jacobs, the chair and founder of the Courage Campaign, an online, grassroots political organization with more than 750,000 members around the country. “This truly historic vote today should never have been necessary because this absurd law should never have been on the books. Thanks to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, we have a bill that can move to the Senate floor where fair-minded people who believe in a nation united, not divided, can end federal discrimination against gay and lesbian couples legally married in six states and the District of Columbia. Sadly, the Republicans think this is a partisan issue, but then some thought the same about the other great civil rights issues of this nation. Eventually, America is just.”

From the Prop 8 Blog and a follow up to the post by Hollylane
 

Marriage equality: Basic Rights Oregon decides to not go to ballot in 2012
By Adam Bink

Announced by their board.

After careful consideration and extensive community input, Basic Rights Oregon’s Board of Directors voted unanimously to extend our public education campaign and continue to build public support. We will not pursue a ballot measure on marriage in 2012.

Today we re-commit ourselves to this effort. We’re committed to opening a new dialogue with our friends, family and neighbors and, ultimately, winning the freedom to marry.

Here’s the statement from Basic Rights Oregon’s Board of Directors:

For three years, Basic Rights Oregon has led a proactive community education campaign to build public support for the freedom to marry for all caring and committed couples. We have reached out to our neighbors in communities across the state, engaged in thoughtful conversations, and shared our stories in TV ads and online.

This work is opening hearts and changing minds. Every day more and more Oregonians are coming to support the freedom to marry.

In Oregon, the only path to allowing same-gender couples to join in civil marriage is through the ballot. It is not a question of if we will cross this threshold, but when.

We have considered the possibility of putting this issue on the ballot for the 2012 election. However several factors, including the expense of waging a statewide political campaign in the midst of an economic crisis, led us to conclude that we are better off extending our education campaign and building momentum for a later election.

Ballot measures in Oregon have historically been used to attack the gay and transgender community. Today, we are finally in the driver’s seat, deciding when to go forward with a proactive ballot measure to achieve equality, instead of just fighting back. That presents our community with a tremendous opportunity and an immense responsibility.

To reach this decision, we evaluated a variety of data including an online survey with over 1,000 respondents from across Oregon. We convened a group of community leaders and campaign professionals, and held town halls in communities around the state.

The feedback we have overwhelmingly heard is that we must allow our education work to continue. The progress we’ve made in increasing support for the freedom to marry will only get better in the next two years.

Today we re-commit ourselves to this effort. We’re committed to opening a new dialogue with our friends, family and neighbors and, ultimately, winning the freedom to marry.

MsT
You are always such a good source of info on this subject. Thanks so much. I am heartened by this vote in the Senate. I do not believe it will pass in the House. BUT I am also heartened by the fact that voting results this week have all opposed reducing rights for people. I feel hopeful that this trend will continue in next years elections. I hope that the Republicans will be held responsible for their total obstructionism in both houses of Congress, and that the Democrats achieve a majority in both houses so we can get DOMA repealed. Another Liberal Supreme Court Justice would be helpful as well, LOL. 14th amendment people!!!!

I am disappointed by the decision in Oregon. The only argument against putting marriage equality to a vote that makes any sense at all is is the lack of money to wage a campaign, and its not a very good answer either.

Waiting has never helped a civil rights movement. PUSHING hard is what works. Putting the issue in people's face over and over again. Forcing them to re-think their positions over and over again until they see the injustice in the current state of affairs. As for the lack of money, look what was accomplished in Ohio by people with very little money (They overturned the anti-union law passed by the republican run state legislature earlier this year) and in Mississippi. (They voted down a bill declaring life to start at the moment of conception) Both of these measueres were accomplised by word of mouth, by people speaking their minds to each other, by door to door campaigns, and with very little money. I think marriage equality (and civil rights in ALL areas for LGBTQ people) should be put on the ballot EVERY year in EVERY state until we have torn down the walls of anti-us laws that keep us from our dreams.
I quote the words of Martin Luther King Jr, spoken in an earlier and yet still ongoing struggle ...

Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself,

Smooches,
Keri

Very well said!(f)

From the Prop 8 Trial Tracker
 

BREAKING: CA Supreme Court to issue opinion on Prop 8/standing tomorrow Will be today the 17th!!!!!!By Adam Bink

The California Supreme Court just announced it will issue its opinion tomorrow, November 17th at 10 AM PST regarding whether the proponents of ballot initiatives have authority to represent the state of California when the state’s public officials (governor and attorney general) decline to do so. From the court’s release:

The court granted the request of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to address the following question: “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.”

Opinion(s) in the above case(s) will be filed on:

Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 10:00 a.m.

For those not familiar with the timeline of the case, this is not a binding decision on the case. That rests with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Some background: in December of last year, the 9th Circuit heard the appeal of Judge Walker’s ruling, which struck down Prop 8. The court heard arguments on the constitutionality of Prop 8, and arguments on whether the proponents of Prop 8 (ProtectMarriage.com, et al) even have standing to represent the state of California in the case as defendant when Gov. Brown and Attorney General Harris decline to do so. For the live-blogging of those arguments, click here.

Rather than immediately rule on those arguments, the 9th Circuit decided to kick the ball over to the California Supreme Court on the issue of standing, asking an important question: do proponents of ballot initiatives in California — in this case, those who collected signatures and raised money and helped pass the initiative — have the authority to represent the state when the state’s public officials decline to defend the initiative? If ultimately not, then Prop 8 goes without a defendant, our side (the plaintiffs) wins and Prop 8 ends.

The California Supreme Court accepted the question, heard arguments (for live-blogging of those arguments at the hearing, click here), and tomorrow will issue its opinion. From there, the 9th Circuit 3-judge panel which heard the appeal of Judge Walker’s decision and kicked the ball over to the California Supreme Court will read the opinion and then issue its own ruling some time after, which actually functions as a decision in the case. It’s important to note that tomorrow’s opinion, while influential, is more of a “hey 9th Circuit, here’s what we think about your question.” It’s not a binding decision per se. That said, many legal observers believe that the 9th Circuit will follow what the California Supreme Court decides on standing. The issue of whether Prop 8 is constitutional is another question.

From there, the ruling can be appealed to the full 9th Circuit en banc, and of course the U.S. Supreme Court, both of which may or may not take up the case.

We’ll have coverage and reaction to the opinion tomorrow here at Prop8TrialTracker.com

More from the Prop 8 Trial tracker blog.....
 

Prop 8 trial: Preview of today’s California Supreme Court opinion in Perry v. BrownBy Adam Bink

Today, the California Supreme Court will issue its opinion regarding whether the proponents of ballot initiatives have authority to represent the state of California when the state’s public officials (governor and attorney general) decline to do so. The specific case around which this arises is Perry v. Brown and the proponents being ProtectMarriage.com et al, e.g., the people who filed and helped pass the ballot initiative. It was referred to the California Supreme Court by the 9th Circuit, which will take the California Supreme Court’s opinion and then issue a ruling in the case down the road.

Some background and links:

•You can read more about how we got to this point in the case and why today’s opinion is important in yesterday’s preview post.
•The decision will come down at 10 AM PST/1 PM EST today. Jacob Combs, Prop8TrialTracker.com’s writing intern, will have the decision up as soon as it comes in, and update that post with coverage and reaction throughout the rest of the day. Be sure to refresh the post for updates when it goes up. We’ll also have legal commentary from Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who led the legal team for the In re Marriage Cases decision before the California Supreme Court in 2008, among others.
•Meanwhile, on the preview side of things, many questions have come in on how long it would take for the 9th Circuit to turn around a decision in Perry v. Brown after today’s opinion is issued, and the timeline from there. Lyle at SCOTUSBlog has a thought on the timeline for the case:
Although both sides in the historic lawsuit over the gay marriage ban have expected their dispute ultimately to reach the Supreme Court, it now seems quite unlikely that the case will move fast enough in federal court from here on to reach the Justices in time for a decision during the current Term. A case must be ready for the Justices to consider by no later than the end of January in order for it to be decided in the current Term, which is likely to end late next June. The Circuit Court is considering the Proposition 8 case on an expedited basis, but it is doubtful that it could act quickly enough, and that preliminary filings in the Supreme Court could be made soon enough, for the case to be ready within the next two and a half months.

•Elsewhere, Ari Ezra Waldman has an interesting meta piece at Towleroad on the implications of the Perry case overall.
•If you’d like to read the live-blogging transcript of arguments before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on this issue, you can find it here. If you’d like to read the arguments before the California Supreme Court back in September, you can find them here. From a legal point of view on whether people should be allowed to stand in for duly elected officials in court (and for the sake of trying to divine how the Court will rule today), they are fascinating.
•Many folks in the comments yesterday opined on whether the California Supreme Court will rule that state law allows for ballot proponents to have standing to represent the state. What’s your prediction of today?
•There’s also a robust debate being had over whether the case should be decided on the merits (e.g. whether Prop 8 is constitutional or not) versus standing (which many people refer to as a more technical issue). Remember that if the proponents of Prop 8 are found to not have standing and that is held up on appeal, the case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and Prop 8 ends. On the one hand, many hope the California Supreme Court decides in favor of standing for ballot proponents and the 9th Circuit ultimately grants standing for the Prop 8 backers to represent the state in court so that a final decision can be had on the constitutionality of Prop 8 and perhaps even marriage equality nationwide, e.g. whether laws and constitutions across many states that limit marriage to opposite-sex couples are in violation of the U.S. Constitution. On the other hand, many others wish to see Prop 8 end however it can. Aside from the serious implications of whether ballot proponents can represent the state in California instead of elected officials, one way to view this is that there are two bites at the apple to take down Prop 8: constitutionality and standing. For the sake of allowing couples who desperately wish to wed — some, like Ed and Derence in Palm Springs, with serious medical conditions like Alzheimer’s threatening their right to the pursuit of happiness — many just want Prop 8 to end however it can end, standing or otherwise. There is also a concern on the merits side that 5 Justices cannot be had on the U.S. Supreme Court who find Prop 8 to be unconstitutional. What do you think?
•We’ll see you when the ruling comes down later today

Moving to same sex marriage state. Next... DOMA... :cheer::cheer::cheer:

Prop 8 trial Tracker
 

BREAKING: CA Supreme Court rules Prop 8 proponents do have standing to appeal
By Jacob Combs

This morning, the CA Supreme Court ruled that the proponents of Prop 8 do have standing under state law to appeal the decision in Perry v. Brown:

…In response to the question submitted by the Ninth Circuit, we conclude, for the reasons discussed above, that when the public officials who ordinarily defend a challenged state law or appeal a judgment invalidating the law decline to do so, under article II, section 8 of the California Constitution and the relevant provisions of the Elections Code, the official proponents of a voter-approved initiative measure are authorized to assert the state’s interest in the initiative’s validity, enabling the proponents to defend the constitutionality of the initiative and to appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative.

For background on how we came to this point, what today’s opinion means and where we go from here, Prop 8 was declared unconstitutional by a California district court in August 2010. Both the duly elected governor and attorney general at the time (Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown, respectively) as well as the governor and attorney general elected in the 2010 elections (Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris, respectively) have declined to represent the state in the case, believing Prop 8 to be unconstitutional. So the proponents of Prop 8 (ProtectMarriage.com et al, who put the measure on the ballot and worked to pass it in the first place) stepped forward to do so.

The case was appealed to the 9th Circuit, which not only heard arguments on whether Prop 8 is constitutional or not, but whether the proponents — unelected, unaccountable ProtectMarriage.com et al — even have standing to defend Prop 8 in the first place. The 9th Circuit decided to ask the California Supreme Court whether or not proponents of ballot initiatives have standing under California law to represent the entire state when the state’s elected officials refuse to do so. Today, the Court responded to that question. The CA Supreme Court’s decision is not binding on the 9th Circuit: it’s really more of an advisory opinion. However, it is a very influential opinion that the 9th Circuit will take very seriously.

Why is this all important? Because there are essentially two bites at the apple to take down Prop 8: constitutionality and standing. Whether the courts find Prop 8 to be constitutional is critically important for obvious reasons. But if the 9th Circuit rules that the proponents of Prop 8 do not have standing and we win on appeal, Prop 8 will end. Beyond that, it has critical implications for the ballot initiative process in California and who represents the state.

As for next steps, many legal observers believe the 9th Circuit is likely to adopt the CA Supreme Court’s opinion and say Prop 8′s proponents do have standing to appeal. That’s not for certain, however, since the proponents could have standing under California law but not in federal court (i.e., a federal appeals court). It’s uncertain when the 9th Circuit will issue its ruling, though many legal observers believe it will be sometime in the next few months, and it may even hold another hearing for additional arguments.

The full ruling can be found here. Check back throughout the day for updates and analysis.

Update 8: Some more notes from the AFER press call:

Olson and Boies expressed hope that there would be no need for further hearings at the 9th Circuit, since both sides made detailed arguments at last year’s hearing and nothing has changed regarding the facts of the case. Furthermore, they stressed that both the district court and the 9th Circuit have agreed several times to expedite the case in the past, and predicted that it would do so again moving forward.

One reporter asked whether AFER’s team could drop the standing issue and just ask the court to consider the case on the merits. Both Olson and Boies made it very clear that every court has to determine whether a specific case is in its jurisdiction, and that therefore the issue of standing is one that is brought up by the court itself, not the litigants. Parties can’t waive this discussion—if the court asks them to argue about standing, they must. They also predicted that the if the case ended up before the US Supreme Court, they believe that court would ask them to address the issue of standing just like the 9th Circuit did.

Update 7: I was on a press call with AFER, which is sponsoring the case. Some notes:

Ted Olson, David Boies and Chad Griffin spoke on the call. They hope the 9th Circuit will proceed without further argument, although in some cases, they want one more briefing. They do not want to predict a day or month, however. Further, as we’ve explained here at P8TT, either side can seek review of the case to the 9th Circuit or the US Supreme Court. If petitions are filed in the Supreme Court after the panel decision, they’d be filed this spring. No prediction on when the US Supreme Court would take the case — it could be in June, or in October.

Update 6: NCLR’s Executive Director Kate Kendell also weighs in:

“We disagree profoundly with the California Supreme Court’s holding that a handful of unelected initiative sponsors have the power to represent the interests of the entire public and to override the decisions of the state’s elected executive officers. Nonetheless, we are relieved that the case is once again moving forward and the Ninth Circuit will now address whether the initiative proponents can continue this appeal and, if so, whether Prop 8 is constitutional. We hope the Ninth Circuit will issue its decision soon and hasten the day when this damaging law is off the books. Every day that goes by, same-sex couples in California are being denied not only the basic right to marry, but the right to be treated with equal dignity and respect. Same-sex couples in California have lived under the shadow of this unfair law for far too long.”

Update 5: Statement from Lambda Legal’s Legal Director, Jon Davidson:

While today’s ruling from the California Supreme Court is disappointing, the good news is that the Perry case is now back in federal court, where we expect a quick victory. It’s important to keep in mind, though, that today’s ruling addresses only a procedural legal question. The key issue in this case is whether the U.S. Constitution permits a state electorate to treat one group of people unequally to everyone else by depriving them of what the state’s high court has held to be a fundamental right. A federal court has already ruled that the federal Constitution prohibits the voters from doing that and that Prop. 8 therefore is unconstitutional. We look forward to seeing that decision upheld so that same-sex couples in California may once again enjoy the freedom to marry.
In addition, today’s ruling does not settle the federal law question of whether Prop 8 proponents have standing in federal court. It remains up to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to decide whether or not the U.S. Constitution allows initiative proponents to defend a challenge to the measure the proponents supported when elected state officials don’t. Regardless of today’s decision, we at Lambda Legal believe that the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that initiative proponents don’t have that right.

In the end, the proponents of Prop. 8 are just people with an opinion. That does not make them entitled to stand in for the government when they don’t agree with its decisions. We believe the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit should rule that Prop. 8′s proponents lack standing under federal law and, if the judges who originally heard the appeal rule otherwise, that the full Ninth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court should rule that initiative proponents are not entitled to take over the government’s role.

Even if the federal courts find that the proponents have the right to appeal, we continue to believe that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional and that the appellate courts will agree. As Judge Walker ruled, there is not even a legitimate government interest in denying same-sex couples access to the title and status of marriage when the state provides them all of the rights, benefits, and duties afforded different-sex couples through marriage. Prop. 8′s only purpose was to send the message that the same-sex couples don’t deserve to be seen as equal to different-sex couples and that message is one the federal Constitution prohibits. That is especially so when, as here, the state supreme court has ruled that denial of access to marriage violated the state’s guarantee of equal protection. What Prop. 8 did was amend the California Constitution’s equal protection clause to create a gay exception and provide that all people in the state have equal rights except for lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. That too is something the U.S. Constitution does not allow.

We therefore remain very optimistic that, one way or another, Prop. 8 will eventually be overturned.

Update 4: Attorney Adam Bonin over at DailyKos adds his take.

Update 3: More from Shannon on timing:

It is likely the Ninth Circuit will issue a ruling fairly quickly, since they agreed to hear the case on an expedited basis. But even if they do, it likely will not be soon enough to permit the Supreme Court to hear the case during its current term. It is also possible that the Ninth Circuit may ask for supplemental briefing, which would delay things further.

Update 2: Shannon Minter, Legal Director at National Center for Lesbian Rights who led the legal team to win In re Marriage Cases at the California Supreme Court in 2008, sent his reaction in over e-mail:

This is a terrible decision in terms of its impact on California law. The court has given initiative proponents unprecedented and virtually unlimited power, and the people of California will be living with the dangerous consequences of that decision for years to come. That said, the Court’s ruling means that the Ninth Circuit will almost certainly find that the proponents of Prop 8 have standing to pursue the appeal, which means that the Ninth Circuit will now decide whether to affirm or reverse Judge Walker’s decision finding that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. If the Ninth Circuit agrees with Judge Walker, the Supreme Court is very likely to take the case. In the bigger picture, this is good news for same-sex couples in California. Prop 8 is blatantly unconstitutional for many reasons—not only because it deprives same-sex couples of a basic right, but because it was enacted for the sole purpose of targeting a particular group in order to deny them equal protection of the laws.

Update 1: Statement from Courage Campaign

California Supreme Court Rules Prop 8 Proponents Have Legal Standing to Appeal Judge Walker’s Decision Regarding Prop 8

Statement from Rick Jacobs, Chair and Founder of the Courage Campaign

“While we respect the recommendations that the California Supreme Court made to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals– that they grant standing to the proponents of the so-called ProtectMarriage.com — it is only a recommendation,” said Rick Jacobs, chair and founder of the 750,000 member Courage Campaign. “Allowing the Prop 8 proponents to have special rights in Court may open the floodgates to wealthy special interests to do the same. The judges of the 9th Circuit must determine if people who had enough money to buy a ballot measure that calls for people to vote on each other’s rights should have special rights in federal court. Regardless, we are confident that justice and love will prevail.”

Throughout the Perry v Schwarzenegger (now Perry v Brown) Prop 8 trial, Jacobs live-blogged daily from the courthouse and documented all of the latest motions and court rulings. Prop 8 Trial Tracker (www.Prop8TrialTracker.com), a project of the Courage Campaign Institute, has logged over 4 million page views, 110,000 comments and is the #1 Google search result for “Prop 8 Trial.” The highly-popular blog has followed every aspect of the Prop 8 trial, in addition to its NOM Tour Tracker that followed the National Organization for Marriage on three tours across the country

OK This sucks. One f-ing delay after another by these people who have no skin in the game. So now I see the wisdom of placing same sex marriage on the ballot again in 2012. Peoples opinions have changed over the last couple of years and we can at least hope it will pass.

I wonder if passage of a new law would make this case moot in the opinion of the court, and result in it perhaps being thrown out? If so, then that will delay federal court exploration as to the constitutionality of any marriage law that descriminates against a specific group, since the new CA law will apply to CA only.

Thanks for the updates, Ms T.
Smooches.
Keri

While it may not be about same sex marriage, this certainly speaks to the journey toward equal rights and benefits for US.

taken from a news release on 11/18/2011:

Log Cabin Republicans Challenges the Federal Government to be a Competitive Employer

(Washington, DC) – Log Cabin Republicans are pleased to support legislation led by two great allies Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) and Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), that would provide domestic partner benefits to Federal employees.
“As the largest employer in the nation, the United States government should lead the way in attracting and retaining the best and brightest for public service,” said R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director. “Right now the Federal government lags behind 22 states, the District of Columbia, and a majority of Fortune 500 companies when it comes to providing competitive personnel policies. This commonsense legislation would provide greater access to benefits for employees, and would do so without adding to the Federal debt.”
In the Senate, Log Cabin Republicans ally, and Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee Ranking Member, Senator Collins introduced the legislation with Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT). In doing so, she said, “this change is both fair policy and good business practice. The federal government must compete with the private sector when it comes to attracting the most qualified, skilled, and dedicated employees. Today, health, medical, and other benefits are a major component of any competitive employment package. Indeed, private sector employers are increasingly offering these kinds of benefits as standard fare. Among Fortune 500 companies, for example, domestic partner benefits are commonplace. According to the Office of Personnel Management, nearly 60 percent of Fortune 500 companies, including some of our top federal contractors, extend employment benefits to domestic partners.”
In the House, longtime Log Cabin Republicans champion, and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen introduced the legislation with Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), saying “I am pleased to co-sponsor this legislation because we are a nation that prides itself on treating everyone as equals and this bill assures that we bring those same ideals to the regulations that guide federal benefits for domestic partners of federal employees. We have taken steps to gain equal rights for all but much remains to be done. Passage of this legislation will be one step in the right direction. I am pleased that the Senate has also introduced a similar bill.”

Under the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2011, same-sex domestic partners of federal employees living together in a committed relationship would be eligible for health benefits, long-term care, Family and Medical Leave, and federal retirement benefits, among others. Federal employees and their domestic partners would also be subject to the same responsibilities that apply to married federal employees and their spouses, such as anti-nepotism rules and financial disclosure requirements.
According to a 2009 UCLA Williams Institute report, over 30,000 federal workers live in committed relationships with same-sex domestic partners who are not federal employees.
Lieberman and Collins, along with Ros-Lehtinen and Baldwin have introduced the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act in the past two Congresses.
Almost 60 percent of all Fortune 500 companies, one out of three employers - and 50 percent of employers with 5,000 or more workers - provide benefits to domestic partners of their employees. Twenty states and several hundred local jurisdictions extend benefits to their employees with same-sex domestic partners.
Based on the experience of private companies and state and local governments, the Congressional Budget Office estimated last year that the total cost of benefits would average about $70 million per year through 2020. Considered as a share of the federal government's total budget for federal employees, this estimated cost would amount to only about two hundredths of a percent (0.0002).

From the Prop 8 Blog
 

A snip from Matt Baume...

"And in Spain, the conservative Popular Party won big in national elections. Party leaders have vowed to repeal the country’s marriage equality law, so now Spanish LGBTs are rushing to marry before lawmakers have a chance to make good on their threats."

From the Prop 8 Blog
 

Iowa House Speaker says gay marriage is not the focus…so far
By Adam Bink

Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen:

House Speaker Kraig Paulsen, R-Hiawatha, said he has no plans to revisit volatile social issues like gay marriage and abortion when lawmakers convene Jan. 9. Republicans who control the House approved tough restrictions on abortion and a resolution calling for a statewide vote on banning gay marriage last time around, but the Senate‘s Democratic leader blocked debate on both measures.

Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, has indicated he would do the same again, and given that, Paulsen said there’s little incentive to revisit the issues.

“We’re not afraid to address those issues, but we’re also not interested in squandering Iowans’ time,” he said. “We have a job to do and we’re going to do it.”

Gronstal said he also expected to focus on economic issues and avoid drawn-out arguments of social issues.

“Iowans would prefer that we all work on things that would get 100,000 Iowans back to work,” he said. “Kraig and I have talked and he seems to be in agreement that this session is going to be much shorter than last session.”

[...]

Paulsen said he’s not interested in spending more time on issues that can’t be resolved. There have been some discussions about gun control issues, but no firm proposals have surfaced, he said.

“Right now, the primary focus of the caucus, make no mistake, is on jobs and the economy,” Paulsen said.

With the session scheduled to end April 17, both leaders said they also want to avoid the kind of gridlock that kept lawmakers in session this year until the end of June. But they conceded that’s always a challenge when each party controls one chamber.

“Some of those issues, particularly the budget issues, are difficult to work through,” Paulsen said.

Of course, we’ve seen this movie before in New Hampshire, where the new Republican majority earlier this year said its primary focus was jobs and the economy and that it had no plans to repeal marriage equality for New Hampshire residents, then moved to do just that until a broad coalition rose up against it and an overwhelming majority opposed doing so in the polls. And next year, they’re planning on doing it again. So we’ll see if Paulsen and his folks stick to their word.

The longer it stays on the books, the longer it is likely to stay.
Let's keep our fingers crossed.
Smooches,
Keri

From the Prop * blog re: Prop 8!!
 

Details about the coverage of next week’s Perry hearings
By Jacob Combs

As you probably know, next Thursday, Dec. 8, is the date for the final two hearings in the 9th Circuit appeal of Perry v. Brown. At 2:30 pm PST, the appellate panel will hear arguments regarding the release of court recordings made during the trial, and at 3:30, the panel will hear arguments regarding the motion to vacate Judge Walker’s decision because he has been in a long-term relationship with a man. Both hearings will last one hour. There will be no further arguments on the constitutional issues of the case, and the 9th Circuit could issue a decision at any time after next Thursday.

As always, we will be providing full coverage of the court proceedings. Courage Campaign’s Rick Jacobs and Arisha Hatch will be at the James R. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco, liveblogging the proceedings, and Adam and I will be on P8TT helping them and bringing you all the day’s news.

The 9th Circuit panel has also agreed to allow the proceedings to be videotaped for a later broadcast by C-SPAN and NBC-7 San Diego. For those living in San Francisco, the court will also be providing a live stream of the hearings in Courtroom One to other parts of the Browning Courthouse. (There will also be limited public seating in the courtroom itself). A live remote feed will also be available at the Richard H. Chambers Courthouse in Pasadena, the U.S. Pioneer Courthouse in Portland and the William K. Nakamura Courthouse in Seattle. Finally, the audio and video recordings will be available on the court’s website at or before noon of Dec. 9. For more information on watching the live video streams in San Francisco or elsewhere, check here.

If you don’t happen to live in one of those cities or can’t make it to the courthouse to watch the live stream, make sure to follow next Thursday’s proceedings at Prop8TrialTracker.com!

From joemygod
 

Maine Has The Marriage Signatures

Maine's activists have raised almost twice the required petition signatures to place marriage equality on the 2012 ballot. In 2009 the state legislature approved same-sex marriage, but that action was undone by the fascist criminals at NOM, who immediately launched their successful repeal campaign. No gay marriages ever took place in Maine.
"Not only were we incredibly successful at gathering signatures at the polls today, but volunteers all over the state met voters who have changed their minds on this issue in the last two years," said Betsy Smith, EqualityMaine Executive Director. EqualityMaine filled more than 500 volunteer shifts, from Aroostook to York County and many places in between. The enthusiasm was incredible, we had a volunteer in Gardiner who kept calling to extend her shift because she was so excited at how many people were signing," Mello said. Volunteers from around the state reported Mainers who said they'd had changes of heart since 2009. "I met a man today in Caribou, who told me he wouldn't have signed two years ago, but his daughter has now convinced him," said EqualityMaine Political Director Ali VanderZanden, who spent the day with volunteers in Aroostook County.
About 35,000 of the over 100K petitions were signed last month on Election Day.

I really hope Maine gets the same sex marriage passed. I have a cousin who lives in Maine and it would be so nice to see him and his partner be able to get married.

From the Prop 8 Blog
 

Tomorrow’s Prop 8 hearings: what to expect, where to watch
By Jacob Combs

Tomorrow is an exciting day in the Perry trial: we’ll be before the 9th Circuit arguing for the release of the trial recordings and against our opponents’ motion to vacate Judge Walker’s decision because he is in a relationship with a man. As Gayapolis reports, the day will start off with a “Free the Tapes” and “Motion to Marry” rally on the steps of the 9th Circuit courthouse at 1 pm, immediately preceding the hearings, which begin at 2:30 p.m. and will last for two hours.

There are many ways to get coverage of tomorrow’s hearings, not least of which is right here at Prop8TrialTracker.com. Rick and Arisha will be liveblogging from the courthouse in San Francisco, and Adam and I will be here on the site bringing you updates from news outlets throughout the day.

If you live in San Francisco, there is a chance you could watch the trial live at the James R. Browning Courthouse at 95 7th St. There will be a limited number of public seats available in Courtroom One, so if you’re interested, get there early! Remote viewing will also be available live at the Richard H. Chambers Courthouse in Pasadena, the U.S. Pioneer Courthouse in Portland and the William K. Nakamura Courthouse in Seattle.

Last week, the appellate panel that will hear the case granted a request from KRON-4, a San Francisco TV station, asking to televise the proceedings live and videotape them for later broadcast. The court had already approved requests from C-SPAN and NBC-7 San Diego to record the hearings for later broadcast. I spoke with KRON-4 earlier today and was informed that they have decided not to broadcast the hearings live (a disappointment), so for now, if you can’t get to one of the courthouses, you’re best bet is to follow us here on P8TT. The audio and video recordings of the trial will be available on the 9th Circuit’s website by noon on December 9. For more information about the hearings, check out this document from the 9th Circuit.

After tomorrow, the appeals panel could issue a decision any day (on the merits of Prop 8 and standing of its proponents to appeal; on releasing the tapes; and on the appeal of the decision concerning Judge Walker’s sexual orientation), either in one cumulative ruling or in several separate ones. The panel has moved swiftly in the past, and it seems likely that we will have a decision by the end of the year or in early 2012. Of course, we’ll have those updates when they happen. See you tomorrow for the hearings

Some good news! WOW,

This is from 2010

Don't we wish!