Same-Sex Marriage Update

[Toughy]

It was not the Supreme Court who ruled no cameras. It was Judge Vaughn Walker...the Presiding Judge. Incidentally he is a gay man.

[Soon]

Originally Posted by Toughy

It was not the Supreme Court who ruled no cameras. It was Judge Vaughn Walker...the Presiding Judge. Incidentally he is a gay man.

Thanks for that--I thought they brought it up that the SCJ for the televised or not! My mistake!

I did know the presiding judge is a gay man and, of course, the rightxtian wing is making a huge deal of that!


(i dont know where i got that it went to a higher court about the televised or not--maybe not SCJ but something else?)

[Soon]

Originally Posted by Toughy

It was not the Supreme Court who ruled no cameras. It was Judge Vaughn Walker...the Presiding Judge. Incidentally he is a gay man.

Here's one article who said it was a SCJ ruling to disallow its broadcast. I also seem to remember that people were concerned that this ruling could be a predictor of perhaps the Supreme Court not judging in favour of marriage equality when the case is presented before them.

No cameras in Prop 8 trial

By a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court has barred broadcast of the federal court challenge to Proposition 8, the California referendum that nullified same-sex marriage in the state. I'm deeply saddened to say that I think the court made the right decision.

I would have loved to have had a direct glimpse of the proceedings. But I live and work in Washington, and I am unable to spend two to three weeks in the California courtroom that is hosting the trial. A broadcast -- traditional or over the Internet -- would have been my only chance to witness the potentially groundbreaking proceedings. I'm sure there are lots of folks who feel the same way.

But the conservative justices in the majority -- Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito -- were right in concluding that Judge Vaughn R. Walker, the trial judge in this case, improperly cut corners to jam through novel court rules to allow the first-ever transmission of a federal trial. In the process, he gave short shrift to the concerns of Proposition 8 supporters, who worried that such a broadcast would increase the likelihood that they'd be threatened or harassed.

It is time -- long past time, actually -- that the federal courts entered the 21st century and allowed cameras in the courtroom. This is especially true for cases such as the Prop 8 matter, which trigger heightened public interest. But in moving forward, judges must make sure they respect the procedures already in place. They -- no less than the people who appear before them -- must follow the rules.

By Eva Rodriguez | January 13, 2010; 6:55 PM ET

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/pos...p_8_trial.html


Here's another one:

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that cameras will not be allowed in the court room for the duration of the federal case challenging California's same-sex marriage ban. This overrules Judge Vaughn Walker's move to permit real-time video streaming of the trial.

The ruling comes after a half day of proceedings Wednesday morning that found attorneys for Proposition 8 arguing that voters could support a ballot measure against marriage equality without being motivated by antigay sentiment.

http://www.shewired.com/Article.cfm?ID=24252

[Toughy]

and my bad to you........swiss cheese for brains sometimes....

thanks for correcting me.............

[Soon]

AP sources: Gay workers to get family leave

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer
23 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The Labor Department intends to issue regulations this week ordering businesses to give gay employees equal treatment under a law permitting workers unpaid time off to care for newborns or loved ones.

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis planned to announce Wednesday that the government would require employers to extend the option that has been available to heterosexual workers for almost two decades, two officials briefed on the plan said Monday. Neither was authorized to speak publicly ahead of the announcement.

The move, coming less than five months before November's congressional elections, seemed likely to incite conservatives and Republicans who stood in lockstep against the Obama administration's earlier efforts to repeal a ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military. It also appeared likely to be popular with loyal Democrats and organized labor.

The Family and Medical Leave Act allows workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave each year to take care of loved ones or themselves. The 1993 law, which also allows employees to take time off for adoptions, has previously only been applied to heterosexual couples.

The Labor Department planned to extend those rights based on a new interpretation of the law, the officials said. There was no plan to ask Congress to change the law, which means future presidents could reverse the decision.

President Barack Obama and his administration have slowly rolled out policies to help gays and lesbians, who supported his candidacy but have soured on what they consider his slow pace in making incremental instead of wholesale changes. He planned to meet with gay activists Tuesday at the White House, the second time such a reception has been held at the executive mansion.

Gay activists have been frustrated with Obama's approach to gay policies. The White House reluctantly backed a compromise on the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy on gays in the military that would move ahead on repeal but still allow the Pentagon time to implement new policies.

Earlier this month, Obama issued orders for government agencies to extend child care services and expanded family leave to their workers. Obama's order for federal employees, though, covers only benefits that can be extended under existing law, without congressional action. Legislative action would be required for a full range of health care and other benefits.

Last year, Obama gave federal workers' same-sex partners a first round of benefits including visitation and dependent-care rights. He also authorized child-care services and subsidies; more flexibility to use family leave to attend to the needs of domestic partners and their children; relocation benefits; giving domestic partners the same status as family members when federal appointments are made; and access to credit union and other memberships when those are provided to federal workers.

[Mitmo01]

Wow thats fantastic news and its about damn time

[blackboot]

It is Official - "Time to Kick up into HIGH Gear!"

"Aloha all,

Well Gov. Lingle placed HB 444 on the POTENTIAL veto list today.

Yes we did expect this, so it was not a total shock all this does is it gives us another 14 days to reach Gov. Lingle and ask her to sign HB 444 into law. So to that end.... things YOU can do to help Civil Unions become law in Hawaii:

Write a Letter to the Editor of a Hawaiian daily or weekly paper(s) why you want HB 444 to be signed into law. Remember the shorter the better - here are where to send in your letters---

Star-Advertiser - letters@staradvertiser.com
Garden Isle News - http://thegardenisland.com/shared-co...mplate=letters
Maui News - letters@mauinews.com
Hawaii Tribune Herald - letters@hawaiitribune-herald.com
West Hawaii Today - http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/contact_us/letters/
Honolulu Weekly - editorial@honoluluweekly.com "

Get people to call Gov Lingle at (808) 586-0034, 586-0222 or 0221 and ask her to sign HB 444 into law.

Sign the petition on Facebook--- http://apps.facebook.com/causes/peti...=0e2b1bf4#sign

[SuperFemme]

Proposition 8 supporters argue 18,000 same-sex marriages should not be recognized: report

The fate of California's Proposition 8, as well as 18,000 same-sex marriages, will soon be determined.

Closing arguments in the long-running trial aimed at defeating the controversial gay marriage ban will be heard today, and reports suggest supporters of Prop 8 not only want to keep the ban, but virtually erase thousands of gay marriages.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, attorney Andrew Pugno isn't looking to "nullify" the 18,000 marriages. His clients, however, just don't want them recognized by government agencies, courts and businesses.
The trial, which challenges the constitutionality of Proposition 8, began in January. The lawsuit was filed by two couples -- two lesbians and two gay men.

The closing arguments are expected to go all day, and cameras are not being allowed in the courtroom.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...#ixzz0re4oZWVJ