Same-Sex Marriage Update

[MsTinkerbelly]

BREAKING: Prop 8 legal team files argument to 9th Circuit attacking Judge Walker
September 17, 2010
By Eden James

The defendant-intervenors filed their written arguments to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals shortly after 9 p.m. PST — just 3 hours before the court’s deadline. We will be posting it here ASAP.

According to Lisa Leff at the Associated Press, it targets Judge Vaughn Walker for being “egregiously selective and one-sided.” More to come.

UPDATE: Here it is (h/t to both Kathleen, in this thread, and Ann S. in the previous thread, where the news broke almost immediately in the comments):


View this document on ScribdMore from the Associated Press:

In written arguments to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, lawyers for the ban’s sponsors alleged that Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker “quite willfully” disregarded a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court precedent and other relevant information when he decided the voter-approved measure was an unconstitutional violation of gay Californians’ civil rights.

“The district court based its findings almost exclusively on an uncritical acceptance of the evidence submitted by Plaintiffs’ experts, and simply ignored virtually everything — judicial authority, the works of eminent scholars past and present in all relevant academic fields, extensive historical and documentary evidence — that ran counter to its conclusions,” they wrote in their 134-page opening brief.


UPDATE: Trial Trackers are quickly digesting the document and posting their thoughts in the comments. Below are some of the best comments posted so far.

James UK:

I’ve just read the Proponents brief. The problem I think that they have is the cursory treatment given to Lawrence v Texas, and to a lesser extent, Romer v Evans, which cases have so changed the landscape regaring the classification of lesbian and gay people, to the extent that Baker v Nelson is unlikely any longer to be good law. Whilst Lawrence specifically did not mandate recognition of gay marriage, which it could not and was not required to do, since the subject matter under discussion was a Texas criminal statute, it did not foreclose such a finding in future cases. It merely left that argument to be made in future cases. Lawrence did not apply standard rational review. It applied some higher level of scrutiny, whether rational review with bite or intermediate scrutiny. Thus the Propents complaints on rational basis review are probably nothing to the point.

The brief is noticeably silent on Justice Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence too, where he asserted, rightly, that if moral approbation was not an acceptable basis upon which to legislate against lesbians and gays as a class, then same sex marriage could not be prevented either, because procreation was not and never has been a requirement for marriage.

Justice Ginsberg’s recent note in Christian Legal Soc v Martinez that the USSC”s recent jurisprudence does not distinguish between behaviour and status as regards lesbians and gays also goes unmentioned.

“Lightning Baltimore” posted this gem of a quote from page 33 of the brief:

The State, it follows, “has no obligation to produce evidence to sustain the rationality of” its laws. Heller, 509 U.S. at 320 (emphasis added). To the contrary, the State’s “legislative choice is not subject to courtroom factfinding and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data.”

Here is Kathleen Perrin’s response to the above quote:

It’s true that it can be based on rational speculation…. but the key word here is “rational.”

IF the standard of review is only “rational basis”, then the court can actually come up with its own rationale for the law, even if the parties have not presented one. However, neither the Proponents nor Walker could come up with any justification for the law that was “rationally related” to a “legitimate” government interest.

Anonygrl:

They wrote: “The trial proceedings were skewed from the outset, given that four of Proponents’ expert witnesses refused to testify…”

Basically they are claiming that the fact that the judge videotaped the proceedings EVEN THOUGH NOT FOR BROADCAST scared away the experts. And THAT is why they had no evidence! The fact that they were unable to explain properly to their own witnesses that this was for court records, not broadcast is why this should be overturned.

This leaves me somewhat speechless. I think that Olson and Boies must be laughing their asses off somewhere right now, as they read this.

UPDATE (h/t to Kathleen): Imperial County just filed their brief on the standing issue:


View this document on ScribdFinally, AFER released the following statement shortly after the Prop 8 legal team filed their brief earlier tonight:

OFFICIAL PROP. 8 PLAINTIFFS’ STATEMENT ON TODAY’S 9th CIRCUIT FILING
Statement from Chad Griffin, Board President, American Foundation for Equal Rights

“Regardless of the defendant-intervenors’ protests, the fact remains that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, as was proven conclusively and unequivocally through a full federal trial. There is no getting around the fact that the court’s decision was based on our nation’s most fundamental principles, and that the Constitution does not permit unequal treatment under the law,” said Chad Griffin, Board President of the American Foundation for Equal Rights. “We are eager to proceed with affirming the unconstitutionality of Prop. 8, and the equality of all Americans, in the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court.”

The American Foundation for Equal Rights is the sole sponsor of the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case. After bringing together Theodore Olson and David Boies to lead its legal team, the Foundation successfully advanced the Perry case through Federal District Court and is now leading it through the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals before the case is brought to the United States Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs in the case are two couples — Kris Perry & Sandy Stier and Paul Katami & Jeff Zarrillo — who wish to marry but cannot because of Proposition 8.

Kris and Sandy have been together for more than ten years and their family includes four boys. Both are in public service — Kris leads a childhood health and education agency and Sandy works for a county health department. Their home life centers around their kids, with PTA meetings, soccer and music lessons taking up much of their free time.

Paul and Jeff have been together for nine years. Jeff is a general manager for a movie theater company and Paul is a business owner. They own a home together and are proud uncles.

Leading civil rights organizations, legal scholars, doctors, scientists, and religious organizations filed amicus briefs in support of the the Foundation’s case, including: the California NAACP, Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund (MALDEF), Asian Law Caucus, National Black Justice Coalition, South Asian Bar Association of Northern California, ACLU, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, National Center for Lesbian Rights, retired California Court of Appeal Justice Donald King, family law professors from across the state, American Anthropological Association, American Psychoanalytic Association, National Association of Social Workers, and the American Academy of Pediatrics California Chapter.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights Advisory Board is co-chaired by John Podesta, head of the progressive Center for American Progress, and Robert Levy, head of the libertarian Cato Institute. The Board also includes former NAACP Chairman Julian Bond, UFW founder Dolores Huerta and FOX News Commentator Margaret Hoover.

For complete information about the case, including court documents, photographs, video and more, visit www.equalrightsfoundation.org .

Specifically, the District Court’s comprehensive, 136-page decision may be found here: http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org...ourt-decision/

A summary of the trial is available here: http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org...trial-summary/

Video evidence and other court filings are available here: http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org...legal-filings/

“More than 30 years ago, the United States Supreme Court recognized that marriage is one of the basic rights of man,” the original suit against Prop. 8 stated, referring to the Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down bans on interracial marriage

[MsTinkerbelly]

Prop 8 proponents still arguing procreation in 9th Circuit brief
(Here is Karen Ocamb’s take, cross-posted from LGBTPOV, on the written arguments filed by the Prop 8 legal team late last night. Check out Friday night’s breaking news post for more on the brief).

By Karen Ocamb

The defendant-interveners in the federal Prop 8 trial filed a 134-page argument with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, three hours before it was due. Prop8TrialTracker has the brief scribed. Interestingly, Austin Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, (pictured in this photo by Mark Hefflinger at the Yes on 8 podium with attorney Andy Pugno) is not a named author in the brief, despite being ubiquitous during the trial. Wonder what happened there.

The Proponents argument that they have standing in the case starts on page 19, after a list of citations – but it reads like they are submitting their case in full, once again arguing the incredible importance of procreation as the distinguishing characteristic of heterosexual relations. And once again, we’re jumping through the Looking Glass:

“Nowhere in its 136-page opinion does the district court even cite any of the evidence overwhelmingly acknowledging responsible procreation and child-rearing as the animating purpose of marriage. All of the evidence – the judicial authority from California and almost every other State, the works of eminent scholars from all relevant academic fields, the extensive historical evidence – is simply ignored. And the district court ignored it quite willfully; in the court’s view, apparently only oral testimony presented at trial constituted “evidence” on the issue (and its treatment of even this evidence was egregiously selective and one-sided….).”

In another interesting twist, the Prop 8 proponents claim the plaintiffs erroneously argued that there was animus on the part of the people of California, when in fact the legal team of Ted Olson and David Boies argued convincingly that it was the proponents and pushers of Prop 8 who were motivated by animus toward gay people:

“This charge is false and unfair on its face, and leveling it against the people of California is especially unfounded, for they have enacted into law some of the Nation’s most sweeping and progressive protections of gays and lesbians, including a domestic partnership law that gives same sex couples all the same substantive benefits and protections as marriage. And it defames as anti-gay bigots not only seven million California voters, but everyone else in this Country, and elsewhere, who believes that the traditional opposite-sex definition of marriage continues to meaningfully serve society’s interests – from the current President of the United States, to a large majority of legislators throughout the Nation, both in statehouses and in the United States Congress, and even to most of he scores of state and federal judges who have addressed the issue.”

On the issue of Standing, they write:

“As official proponents of Proposition 8, Appellants are authorized by California law to defend that Proposition on behalf of the people of that State. Accordingly, they have standing to defend this appeal. The Imperial Interveners, who directly administer California’s marriage laws, likewise have standing, and should have been permitted to intervene in this case…..”

Specifically, Proponents have “authority under state law” (Karcher v May 1987) to defend the constitutionality of an initiative they have successfully sponsored, for they are acting “as agents of he people” of California “in lieu of public officials” who refuse to do so,” ie Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown.

They cite Arizonans for Official English v Arizona (1997) as backup – but as Lambda Legal’s Jon Davidson wrote earlier, other attorneys believe the Arizona decision went against the initiative proponents.

The defender-interveners also say they have standing because the California Supreme Court “has already permitted these very Proponents to defend this very Proposition when the Attorney General would not do so.”

[MsTinkerbelly]

Knights Of Columbus Donate More To Fight Gay Marriage Than Fight Hunger

God's Gentle People™ at the Catholic charity Knights of Columbus have donated more to fight marriage equality than it has allocated for its own food bank program.
The Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal society founded in New Haven in 1881, does a lot of good work. In a report detailing its charitable giving during 2009, the organization noted that while the “Knights and their families are hardly immune to the economic downturn,” they had once again furthered their proud 128-year tradition of service — a tradition including “helping the widows and orphans of the late 19th century” and “providing coats to poor, cold children.” Add to that list a donation of a whopping $1.4 million in 2009 to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a nonprofit group dedicated to fighting same-sex marriage through the ballot initiative system in California, Maine and other states. While NOM hasn’t yet made public its 2009 fundraising numbers, the amount of charitable contributions it received in 2008 totaled approximately $2.9 million. The NOM donation eclipses what the Knights’ Supreme Council spent on some of its own charitable programs — such as its new effort supporting food banks or its total spending on education initiatives — in the same year, much to the outrage of some observers, including Catholic groups.

NOM has sued in state courts to prevent the disclosure of their donors, but the Knights of Columbus proudly announced their donation in a public report.

[PearlsNLace]

TinkerBelly, I have purchased a Yule/christmas tree from the KofC in the past.

Thank you for this post. I found a link, and shared it on my facebook!

[MsTinkerbelly]

Not a marriage rights victory, but still one for equality!

Another court victory: Florida gay adoption ban ruled unconstitutional
By Eden James

As our friends at the ACLU and Equality Florida (as well as Alan E. in the comments) alerted us this morning, we have some more excellent news coming out of the courts on LGBT rights — this time from a state court in Florida:

MIAMI — Florida’s strict ban on adoption by gay people is unconstitutional because no other group, even people with criminal backgrounds, are singled out for a flat prohibition by state law, an appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The ruling by the 3rd District Court of Appeal upholds a 2008 decision by a Miami-Dade County judge who found “no rational basis” for the ban when she approved the adoption of two young brothers by Martin Gill and his male partner. The prohibition was first enacted in 1977 and is the only law of its kind in the nation, according to court records.

In a 28-page opinion, a three-judge panel of the court noted that gay people are permitted to become foster parents or legal guardians in Florida, yet are the only group not allowed to adopt.

“It is difficult to see any rational basis in utilizing homosexual persons as foster parents or guardians on a temporary or permanent basis, while imposing a blanket prohibition on those same persons,” wrote Judge Gerald Cope for the panel. “All other persons are eligible to be considered case-by-case to be adoptive parents.”

The decision is likely to be appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, which could then determine the ultimate fate of the law. “We note that our ruling is unlikely to be the last word,” the appeals panel said

[Jess]

http://fundraising.meny.us/fundprogram.aspx?programid=5

[Jess]

http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/...pending_in_NY/

[MsTinkerbelly]

The cost of marriage discrimination? A $3,500 pay cut!
The comments lately are abuzz with people talking about the tax penalty on their same-sex partner’s health insurance. A few months back I calculated the exact impact for my partner and me — and I work at a company with full domestic partner benefits. This is what I wrote about it. You’ll also find links to help you calculate your own penalty, too.

by Rob Tisinai

I investigated how much it would cost to add a domestic partner to my heath plan. If I were a straight man adding a wife, I could find the answer right in my employee handbook: $729.04 a year. And of course I wouldn’t have to pay taxes on that money, which eases the pain.

But a domestic partnership is more complex, because the law says I do have to pay federal income tax on it — and by “it” I don’t just mean my own contribution. The feds tax me on my employer’s contribution, too: $5876.52 a year. This appears on my W-2 as “imputed income.”

Add it up, and being gay means my taxable income would be $6605.56 greater than if I were straight. So, at my marginal tax rate, my federal taxes would be higher by $1849.56.

But there’s more. That’s $1849.56 in take-home pay. What kind of salary cut does that represent? Don’t forget, take-home pay is only a fraction of your actual salary. My employers sent me to this site for calculating that sort of thing. It turns out a take-home hit like that is equivalent to a $3500 salary cut.

That’s right. Adding a spouse to my health plan is like getting $3500 pay cut, compared to what would happen if I were straight.

And this is at a company with full domestic partner benefits.

[Cyclopea]

Unnamed donor paid for Catholic DVD against same-sex marriage
by Elizabeth Dunbar, Minnesota Public Radio,
Madeleine Baran, Minnesota Public Radio
September 22, 2010

St. Paul, Minn. — An anonymous donor paid for the Catholic Church in Minnesota to produce and distribute a DVD opposing same-sex marriage, Archbishop John Nienstedt said Wednesday.

In a video message being mailed this week to more than 400,000 Catholics throughout the state, church leaders called for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to be put before Minnesota voters.

Nienstedt, who serves as the Archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis, expressed this view in remarks included in the version of the DVD being mailed to metro-area church members.

Nienstedt told Minnesota Public Radio News that it's the first time the diocese has used a mass DVD mailing to inform church members of specific church teachings or beliefs.

He said the video, distributed about six weeks before the gubernatorial election, was not a "political statement" or an endorsement of any candidate. He said he does not know how much it cost to produce or distribute the DVD, and said that private donor who funded the effort "asked to remain anonymous."

In the video, Nienstedt says that allowing same-sex couples to marry would change the meaning of marriage for all Minnesotans.

"At best, so called same-sex marriage is an untested social experiment," he said in the video. "And at worst, it poses a dangerous risk with potentially far-reaching consequences. An exercise of caution should be in order."

Nienstedt told MPR's Tom Crann his remarks are consistent with church teachings on marriage, and are not meant to discriminate against gays and lesbians. He said God intended that marriage be reserved for opposite-sex couples.

"There's no discrimination when there isn't a basic right to something," he said.

Nienstedt begins the video by telling viewers that some legislators want to change state law to allow same-sex couples to marry. Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville, introduced legislation to legalize same-sex marriage in 2009, and last spring a hearing was held on a similar bill in the House. No votes have been taken on either bill.

Thirty-one states have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, but Minnesota currently only has a state law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. A lawsuit challenging that law was filed earlier this year, though it will likely take years before it makes it through the courts.

While arguing that same-sex marriage goes against the teachings of the Catholic Church, Nienstedt said Minnesotans should be able to vote on the issue.

Nienstedt said the video, distributed about six weeks before the gubernatorial election, was not a "political statement" or an endorsement of any candidate.
"I hope we can all agree on this: If we are to change our societal understanding of marriage, it should be the people themselves, and not politicians or judges, who should make this decision," he said in the video.

Gay rights groups have opposed putting the same-sex marriage issue before voters, opting instead to step up efforts to educate Minnesotans and persuade people to see the issue as a question of equal rights.

Michael Bayly, executive coordinator of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities in Minneapolis, said part of the government's role is to protect the rights of minorities, and holding a vote on people's rights would be wrong.

"If we just allowed people to vote on all sorts of things in the past, we may not be the society we are today in terms of our tolerance, our acceptance and our laws for all types of people," he said.

OutFront Minnesota, a key organization in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage, has focused its efforts at the Capitol, where gay rights advocates think it could be possible to change Minnesota's law.

Putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot requires approval of the state House and Senate, but not the governor. But for state law to be changed to allow same-sex marriage, the Legislature and governor would both have to approve a bill.

The gubernatorial candidates are split on the issue. Democrat Mark Dayton and Independence Party candidate Tom Horner support same-sex marriage, while Republican Tom Emmer opposes it.

On Wednesday, the National Organization for Marriage launched a new TV ad in Minnesota criticizing Dayton and Horner, while praising Emmer's stance on the issue of allowing people to vote on whether marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman.

Bayly said the campaign by Minnesota's Catholic bishops appears to be a "last-ditch effort" to influence the election.

"They're trying to force their particular understanding of marriage in the civil arena," Bayly said, adding that his group has sent out e-mails to members encouraging those who receive the DVD to send it back to the archdiocese.

Video includes message from national group

The video being distributed to Minnesota Catholics includes a statement from one of the state's six local bishops, followed by a video produced by the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization active in the U.S. and many other countries.

That video includes images of a Catholic wedding, contrasting it with images of same-sex couples marrying in states where it's legal.

"What will happen to marriage, to children, and to Catholics and our institutions if judges and politicians are allowed to redefine marriage?" the video's narrator asks.

The video includes a Princeton University professor, an expert on jurisprudence, expressing his view that children raised by a mother and a father fare better than children raised by two mothers or two fathers.

The director of a Catholic marriage organization also is seen arguing that any laws legalizing same-sex marriage go against moral values and should be resisted -- just as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. called on citizens to resist unjust laws during the civil rights movement.

Christopher Leifeld, executive director of the Minnesota Catholic Conference, said all six Roman Catholic bishops of Minnesota have endorsed the outreach effort, which includes distributing the DVDs to parishioners.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://ReturnTheDVD.org/

We are a group of Catholics who are concerned about the priorities of the leaders in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis. Their action, distributing 400,000 DVDs on the single subject of same-sex marriage shortly before the upcoming election, reflects misguided priorities and strays from the essential teachings of Christ.

Our call to action is to create some good out of this unfortunate situation.

Our Plan

We are collecting as many DVDs as possible and will return them to Archbishop John Nienstedt with a letter asking him to make the needs of the poor and love of neighbor his highest priority.

We will personally make a financial donation for every DVD we collect to St. Stephens Human Services and Episcopal Community Services-non-profits working to help fight poverty and end homelessness in Minnesota.

We are not affiliated with either organization but have chosen them because:
They provide much needed services to the poor and homeless in Minnesota.
Services are provided to all regardless of race, creed, or sexual orientation.
For more information about the organizations we are supporting, visit their websites:

St. Stephens Human Services

Episcopal Community Services
Questions We Are Asking

How could the over $1 million spent to distribute these DVDs have benefited the poor?

Why did the Minnesota Bishops choose same-sex marriage as the central issue to educate Catholics about now? Shouldn't we spend at least as much (or more) time and energy educating Catholics about the plight of the poor in our area?
-------------------------------------------------------
DVD to Art
ReturnTheDVD.org is joining forces with the DVD to Art project. Local artist Lucinda Naylor is collecting the DVDs to create a work of art. Lucinda says "The Catholic Church is full of wonderful, loving people. The DVD to ART project is about highlighting those folks who say, “Yes, let’s come together and welcome everyone.”

We will still be returning DVDs to the Archbishop, but we also plan to share DVDs with the DVD to Art project. When you send us your DVD please let us know if you would prefer us to send it to the DVD to Art project.
http://www.dvdtoart.blogspot.com/

[Cyclopea]

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) pretends to be tolerant – but this new site proves it's a hateful group led by anti-gay extremists.

http://nomexposed.org/

[Cyclopea]

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by Cyclopea

omg I had the biggest crush on her when I was in highschool (Untamed Heart was my favourite movie back then). I knew I had taste.

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by betenoire

omg I had the biggest crush on her when I was in highschool (Untamed Heart was my favourite movie back then). I knew I had taste.

She's Mine! Mine I tell ya!

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by Cyclopea

She's Mine! Mine I tell ya!

Don't you just want to stick your tongue in her dimple?

I'll wrassle you for her and I'll win.

You know, I actually haven't seen much of her since the 90s. She's way cuter now that she's all grown up.

[Cyclopea]

She certainly is...

Ok give it your best shot- it's not like we're married or anything!

[MsTinkerbelly]

Cynthia Nixon from a panal she was on:

“I want to say to the gentleman to my left, gay people who want to marry have no desire to redefine marriage in any way. When women got the vote they did not redefine voting. When African-Americans got the right to sit at a lunch counter alongside white people, they did not redefine eating out. They were simply invited to the table…We have no desire to change marriage. We want to be entitled to not only the same privileges, but the same responsibilities as straight people.”

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

The cost of marriage discrimination? A $3,500 pay cut!
The comments lately are abuzz with people talking about the tax penalty on their same-sex partner’s health insurance. A few months back I calculated the exact impact for my partner and me — and I work at a company with full domestic partner benefits. This is what I wrote about it. You’ll also find links to help you calculate your own penalty, too.

by Rob Tisinai

I investigated how much it would cost to add a domestic partner to my heath plan. If I were a straight man adding a wife, I could find the answer right in my employee handbook: $729.04 a year. And of course I wouldn’t have to pay taxes on that money, which eases the pain.

But a domestic partnership is more complex, because the law says I do have to pay federal income tax on it — and by “it” I don’t just mean my own contribution. The feds tax me on my employer’s contribution, too: $5876.52 a year. This appears on my W-2 as “imputed income.”

Add it up, and being gay means my taxable income would be $6605.56 greater than if I were straight. So, at my marginal tax rate, my federal taxes would be higher by $1849.56.

But there’s more. That’s $1849.56 in take-home pay. What kind of salary cut does that represent? Don’t forget, take-home pay is only a fraction of your actual salary. My employers sent me to this site for calculating that sort of thing. It turns out a take-home hit like that is equivalent to a $3500 salary cut.

That’s right. Adding a spouse to my health plan is like getting $3500 pay cut, compared to what would happen if I were straight.

And this is at a company with full domestic partner benefits.

Looks like "taxation without representation", to me!

[Cyclopea]

Activists In Paraguay Optimistic About Upcoming Gay Marriage Debate
From On Top Magazine:

BY CARLOS SANTOSCOY
PUBLISHED: OCTOBER 05, 2010
Supporters of gay marriage in Paraguay say they have a good chance of having the legislation approved.

The debate on whether to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry in the Roman Catholic stronghold kicked off Saturday with two large demonstrations.

Opponents of marriage equality protested at town squares throughout the nation, while advocates gathered in front of the Pantheon of Heroes, Asuncion's memorial to the country's fallen soldiers, to urge Paraguayans to support gay marriage.

The gay rights group SOMOSGAY (we are gay) will present the gay marriage bill to legislators this month. Opposition, however, began mobilizing just days after neighboring Argentina approved a similar law in July.

“We are going to put out an intense educational campaign on Christian values, to avoid the law of marriage between people of the same sex that was approved in Argentina from coming to Paraguay,” Bishop Adalberto Martinez of San Pedo told La Nation.

The church is backing the campaign Queremos Papa y Mama (We want a mother and a father), which sponsored Saturday's anti-gay marriage Festival Por La Vida Y La Familia (Festival For Life & Family).

SOMOSGAY President Simon Cazal said that while his group will present the gay marriage bill this month, lawmakers aren't expected to take up the bill until early next year. “There is a possibility that it'll be approved,” Cazal told On Top Magazine in an email.
----------------------------------------------------------

[Glenn]

Mayor Daley is on the list of same sex marriage rights supporters in Illinois. 365gay.com/news/illinois-takes-up-gay-marriage-bill. Wyoming is up on board also.

[Cyclopea]

From GLAD:

Department of Justice will Appeal GLAD’s Victory in DOMA Lawsuit

October 12, 2010
For immediate release
Contact: Carisa Cunningham

Today, the Department of Justice filed a notice of appeal in the case of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, the challenge brought by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Representing seven married same-sex couples and three widowers, GLAD filed Gill in March 2009. The case was heard in May 2010 by U.S. District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro, who issued a decision finding DOMA Section 3 unconstitutional on July 8, 2010.

“We fully expected an appeal and are more than ready to meet it head on,” said Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD’s Civil Rights Project Director. “DOMA brings harm to families like our plaintiffs every day, denying married couples and their children basic protections like health insurance, pensions, and Social Security benefits. We are confident in the strength of our case.”

The case is now before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The next step will be for the government to file its brief to that court arguing that Judge Tauro’s ruling was wrong. GLAD will then file its brief in opposition to the government, and finally the government will file a reply brief. At that point, the appeal will be scheduled for oral argument. Briefing could be concluded by the spring of 2011 with oral argument to follow by the fall of 2011.

The government also today filed its notice of appeal in the related case Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Department of Health and Human Services.

Co-counsel in the Gill case are attorneys from the firms Foley Hoag LLP, Sullivan & Worcester LLP, Jenner & Block LLP, and Kator, Parks & Weiser, PLLC.