Same-Sex Marriage Update - Page 30

MasterWolf · 12-06-2010, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

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

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

Yay for Illinois!!!!!

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

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

peace

Wolf

Sparkle · 12-06-2010, 12:32 PM

Live broadcast: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

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

MsTinkerbelly · 12-20-2010, 11:10 AM

Monday, December 20, 2010
LAUNCHED: Equality Matters

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

Soon · 12-24-2010, 04:50 PM

Joe Biden Just Scared a Lot of People

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

iamkeri1 · 12-27-2010, 10:10 PM

Ms Tinkerbelly,

Do you know how long "they" plan to keep same sex marriage on hold in CA while waiting for further appeals? Also, am I mistaken, or wasn't the purpose of the last hearing to decide if any one/group had standing to file such an appeal? And wasn't it decided that no group existed with standing to file an appeal?

Thanks so much for being such a great ongoing source of information.

Hugs and smooches,
Keri

Corkey · 01-03-2011, 02:30 PM

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

Keeping an eye out for this tonight.

Soon · 01-03-2011, 05:32 PM

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

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

MsTinkerbelly · 01-04-2011, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamkeri1

Ms Tinkerbelly,

Do you know how long "they" plan to keep same sex marriage on hold in CA while waiting for further appeals? Also, am I mistaken, or wasn't the purpose of the last hearing to decide if any one/group had standing to file such an appeal? And wasn't it decided that no group existed with standing to file an appeal?

Thanks so much for being such a great ongoing source of information.

Hugs and smooches,
Keri

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

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

Sorry, clear as mud!

MsTinkerbelly · 01-04-2011, 01:35 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update 3: The filing can be found here.

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

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

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

MsTinkerbelly · 01-04-2011, 01:40 PM

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

Analysis and reactions shortly.

MsTinkerbelly · 01-04-2011, 01:55 PM

My Opinion....

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

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

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

weatherboi · 01-04-2011, 02:20 PM

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_N...Antigay_Group/

MsTinkerbelly · 01-04-2011, 03:19 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

iamkeri1 · 01-04-2011, 08:53 PM

Tink,
Thanks for all the info - as unbalanced and schizophrenic as it makes me feel.
You do so much to keep us up to date on what is going on, and I really appreciate it.

Smooches,
Keri

MsTinkerbelly · 01-05-2011, 01:50 PM

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

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

MsTinkerbelly · 01-05-2011, 01:50 PM

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

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

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

Corkey · 01-05-2011, 07:17 PM

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

Youtube of Mr. Olson explaining the latest ruling.

Soon · 01-10-2011, 01:30 PM

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

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

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

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

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

AnaLee · 01-10-2011, 11:51 PM

God
Bless
Canada!!!

Leigh · 01-11-2011, 12:54 AM

I'm proud to be canadian

12-06-2010, 12:32 PM	#582
Sparkle Senior Member How Do You Identify?: Femme Preferred Pronoun?: She, please Relationship Status: Loved Up Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Western MA Posts: 2,183 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 9,001 Thanked 6,618 Times in 1,559 Posts Rep Power: 21474853	Live broadcast: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN.aspx __________________ I am made of stars

12-20-2010, 11:10 AM	#583
MsTinkerbelly Timed Out - TOS Drama How Do You Identify?: ... Preferred Pronoun?: ... Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: ... Posts: 6,573 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 30,737 Thanked 22,957 Times in 5,020 Posts Rep Power: 0	From joemygod Monday, December 20, 2010 LAUNCHED: Equality Matters Media Matters has launched Equality Matters, a new LGBT activism site meant to serve as a "communications war room for gay equality." It will be run by Richard Socarides, a former domestic policy adviser to President Bill Clinton who has been deeply critical of President Obama’s record on gay rights. A well-known gay journalist, Kerry Eleveld, the Washington correspondent for The Advocate, will leave that magazine in January to edit the new group’s Web site, equalitymatters.org, which is to go online Monday morning. “Yesterday was a very important breakthrough,” Mr. Socarides said in an interview on Sunday, “and President Obama’s comments, especially following the vote, were very significant, where he for the first time connected race and gender to sexual orientation under the banner of civil rights. “But we will celebrate this important victory for five minutes, and then we have to move on, because we are the last group of Americans who are discriminated against in federal law and there is a lot of work to do.” Among the major backers of Media Matters is billionaire philanthropist George Soros.

01-03-2011, 02:30 PM	#586
Corkey Infamous Member How Do You Identify?: Human Preferred Pronoun?: He Relationship Status: Very Married Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Where I want to be Posts: 8,155 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 47,491 Thanked 29,299 Times in 6,640 Posts Rep Power: 21474859	http://nomexposed.org/2011/01/03/bre...night-tonight/ Keeping an eye out for this tonight. __________________ "Many proposals have been made to us to adopt your laws, your religion, your manners and your customs. We would be better pleased with beholding the good effects of these doctrines in your own practices, than with hearing you talk about them". ~Old Tassel, Chief of the Tsalagi (Cherokee)

01-03-2011, 05:32 PM	#587
Soon Infamous Member How Do You Identify?: femme Relationship Status: attached Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: . Posts: 6,896 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 29,046 Thanked 13,118 Times in 3,391 Posts Rep Power: 21474857	JMG: Debate Watch: 100% Of RNC Chair Candidates Denounce Same-Sex Marriage RNC Chairman Michael Steele is fighting for his job at today's debate, where every single candidate responded to NOM's question on marriage equality by invoking Jeebus, traditional values, and the sanctity of one man-one woman.

01-04-2011, 01:35 PM	#589
MsTinkerbelly Timed Out - TOS Drama How Do You Identify?: ... Preferred Pronoun?: ... Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: ... Posts: 6,573 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 30,737 Thanked 22,957 Times in 5,020 Posts Rep Power: 0	Prop 8 Trial Tracker....here we go BREAKING: 9th Circuit rules on the Prop 8 case By Adam Bink Update 5: Folks are asking about the timeline. There’s nothing on the timeline of a CA Supreme Court decision. There is this: The case is withdrawn from submission, and further proceedings in this court are stayed pending final action by the Supreme Court of California. The parties shall notify the Clerk of this Court within three days after the Court accepts or rejects certification, and again within three days if the Court renders an opinion. The panel retains jurisdiction over further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Update 4: Here’s the meat of the ruling. I bolded the key parts: “Filed Order for PUBLICATION (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and N. RANDY SMITH) for certification to California State Supreme Court. Before this panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is an appeal concerning the constitutionality under the United States Constitution of Article I, § 7.5 of the California Constitution (“Proposition 8”). Because we cannot consider this important constitutional question unless the appellants before us have standing to raise it, and in light of Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) (“Arizonans”), it is critical that we be advised of the rights under California law of the official proponents of an initiative measure to defend the constitutionality of that measure upon its adoption by the People when the state officers charged with the laws’ enforcement, including the Attorney General, refuse to provide such a defense or appeal a judgment declaring the measure unconstitutional. As we are aware of no controlling state precedent on this precise question, we respectfully ask the Supreme Court of California to exercise its discretion to accept and decide the certified question below. (See order for full text) The Clerk is hereby directed to transmit forthwith to the Court the original and ten copies of this order and accompanying memorandum, as well as a certificate of service on the parties. Cal. R. Ct. 8.548(d). The clerk shall also transmit the following along with this request: ten copies of the district court Findings of Fact / Conclusions of Law / Order (704 F. Supp. 2d. 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010)); ten copies of the Permanent Injunction issued by the district court (docket entry 728 in No. C 09-2292-VRW (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2010)); a copy of the video recording of the oral argument heard in these appeals on December 6, 2010; the briefs of the parties and intervenors in this appeal; and the briefs amicus curiae filed by (1) the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and (2) Equality California in No. 10-16696. The Clerk shall provide additional record materials if so requested by the Supreme Court of California. Cal. R. Ct. 8.548(c). The case is withdrawn from submission, and further proceedings in this court are stayed pending final action by the Supreme Court of California. The parties shall notify the Clerk of this Court within three days after the Court accepts or rejects certification, and again within three days if the Court renders an opinion. The panel retains jurisdiction over further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. [7598921] (RP)” On the issue of standing for Imperial Valley (h/t Karen Ocamb): FILED PER CURIAM OPINION (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and N. RANDY SMITH) AFFIRMED; DISMISSED. The district court order denying the motion to intervene is AFFIRMED. Movants’ appeal of the district court order concerning the constitutionality of Proposition 8 is DISMISSED for lack of standing. The deadline for filing a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc is hereby EXTENDED until the deadline for such petitions in No. 10-16696, which will be 14 days after an opinion is filed in that appeal. The Clerk is DIRECTED to stay the issuance of the mandate in this case until the mandate issues in No. 10- 16696. AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part. FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [7598965] (RP) Update 3: The filing can be found here. Update 2: Reading through the documents, the 9th Circuit has issued a question to the CA Supreme Court asking if proponents have standing. No decision on the merits yet. More soon. Update: According to the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the 9th Circuit ruled that Imperial County is denied standing in the process. The breaking news is that the 9th Circuit will rule any minute on the Prop 8 case. The filings are being uploaded and I’m sorting through. I will update this post from the top.

12-24-2010, 04:50 PM	#584
Soon Infamous Member How Do You Identify?: femme Relationship Status: attached Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: . Posts: 6,896 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 29,046 Thanked 13,118 Times in 3,391 Posts Rep Power: 21474857	Joe Biden Just Scared a Lot of People President Obama’s Fake Evolution on Gay Marriage Is Still Ongoing

12-27-2010, 10:10 PM	#585
iamkeri1 Member How Do You Identify?: femme woman Preferred Pronoun?: she Relationship Status: solo Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Central Florida Posts: 821 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 250 Thanked 1,944 Times in 584 Posts Rep Power: 14065934	Ms Tinkerbelly, Do you know how long "they" plan to keep same sex marriage on hold in CA while waiting for further appeals? Also, am I mistaken, or wasn't the purpose of the last hearing to decide if any one/group had standing to file such an appeal? And wasn't it decided that no group existed with standing to file an appeal? Thanks so much for being such a great ongoing source of information. Hugs and smooches, Keri

01-04-2011, 01:40 PM	#590
MsTinkerbelly Timed Out - TOS Drama How Do You Identify?: ... Preferred Pronoun?: ... Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: ... Posts: 6,573 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 30,737 Thanked 22,957 Times in 5,020 Posts Rep Power: 0	Joemygod BREAKING: 9th Circuit Court Punts Prop 8 To State Supreme Court On "Standing" Analysis and reactions shortly.

01-04-2011, 01:55 PM	#591
MsTinkerbelly Timed Out - TOS Drama How Do You Identify?: ... Preferred Pronoun?: ... Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: ... Posts: 6,573 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 30,737 Thanked 22,957 Times in 5,020 Posts Rep Power: 0	My Opinion.... This is the moment...If the appllants (US) do not have standing, then the case will probably be thrown out and we will have to live with Prop 8 until the next election in 2012. It is up to the California Supreme Court (which once ruled in our favor and allowed equal marriage) to decide the standing issue. I am a "the glass is half full" kind of person, but I have a really bad feeling about all of this.....

01-04-2011, 02:20 PM	#592
weatherboi Infamous Member How Do You Identify?: Owned boy Preferred Pronoun?: Hey boy!!! Relationship Status: counting freckles slowly under Her direction!!! Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: i have 2 sets of geographic coordinates!!! Posts: 6,097 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 26,797 Thanked 12,558 Times in 2,992 Posts Rep Power: 21474857	No more chic fil a!!!! http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_N...Antigay_Group/

01-04-2011, 03:19 PM	#593
MsTinkerbelly Timed Out - TOS Drama How Do You Identify?: ... Preferred Pronoun?: ... Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: ... Posts: 6,573 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 30,737 Thanked 22,957 Times in 5,020 Posts Rep Power: 0	Analysis: 9th Circuit Appears Ready to Grant Proponents Standing to Appeal by Robert Cruickshank The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today issued a “ruling” of sorts on the appeal of Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling that found Prop 8 to be unconstitutional. The “ruling” was actually a certification of a question to the California Supreme Court about the all-important matter of whether Prop 8 proponents have standing to appeal Judge Walker’s decision. Here’s the question they want answered: Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative’s validity or the authority to assert the State’s interest in the initiative’s validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so. We understand that the Court may reformulate our question, and we agree to accept and follow the Court’s decision. A further reading of the document suggests that the 9th Circuit is ready to rule that Prop 8 proponents DO have standing to appeal. In turn, that would enable the 9th Circuit to decide whether Prop 8 is a violation of the 14th Amendment (and obviously it is), a decision that would have major ramifications across California and the country. Here’s what the 9th Circuit said: If California does grant the official proponents of an initiative the authority to represent the State’s interest in defending a voter-approved initiative when public officials have declined to do so or to appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, then Proponents would also have standing to appeal on behalf of the State…. We are aware that in California, “All political power is inherent in the people,” Cal. Const. art. II, § 1, and that to that end, Article II, section 8(a) of the California Constitution provides, “The initiative is the power of the electors to propose statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject them.” We are also aware that the Supreme Court of California has described the initiative power as “one of the most precious rights of our democratic process,” and indeed, that “the sovereign people’s initiative power” is considered to be a “fundamental right.”… The power of the citizen initiative has, since its inception, enjoyed a highly protected status in California. For example, the Legislature may not amend or repeal an initiative statute unless the People have approved of its doing so…. Similarly, under California law, the proponents of an initiative may possess a particularized interest in defending the constitutionality of their initiative upon its enactment; the Constitution’s purpose in reserving the initiative power to the People would appear to be ill-served by allowing elected officials to nullify either proponents’ efforts to “propose statutes and amendments to the Constitution” or the People’s right “to adopt or reject” such propositions. Cal. Const. art. II, § 8(a). Rather than rely on our own understanding of this balance of power under the California Constitution, however, we certify the question so that the Court may provide an authoritative answer as to the rights, interests, and authority under California law of the official proponents of an initiative measure to defend its validity upon its enactment in the case of a challenge to its constitutionality, where the state officials charged with that duty refuse to execute it. So what does that all mean? Let me boil it down. Basically, California’s constitution and various CA Supreme Court decisions in the last few decades have indicated that the initiative power is a right inherent to the people of the state, and does not stem from the Legislature. It sets up the people as a kind of fourth branch of government, with its own sovereign power. And therefore, if the Governor and the Attorney General refuse to defend a proposition in court, that could essentially nullify the fundamental rights of the voters. Since ballot initiatives stem from the people, presumably the people – in the form of the initiative proponents – DO have standing to defend Prop 8 in court and to appeal it to the 9th Circuit in order to preserve the people’s initiative power. But because such a ruling would have a significant impact on future legal battles over California ballot initiatives, the 9th Circuit is deferring to the CA Supremes. The CA Supremes could say “yes, the proponents do have standing” or “no, the proponents do not have standing,” or they could simply not respond at all. The first and third options are more likely, and based on the CA Supremes’ longstanding (and I believe flawed) unwillingness to interfere with ballot initiatives, the CA Supremes will probably conclude that the Prop 8 proponents do indeed have standing to appeal. In which case, the 9th Circuit would then rule on the issue of Prop 8′s constitutionality. I am guessing that their ruling will be to uphold Judge Walker, otherwise they would just say Prop 8 is constitutional and moot the question of standing. Still, that’s just my view, and we should prepare for any outcome. The 9th Circuit also concurrently ruled that Imperial County does not have standing to appeal Judge Walker’s decision, a ruling that was widely expected in the wake of the farcical appearance before the 9th Circuit court by Imperial County officials. The CA Supremes can take as long as they want in answering the 9th Circuit. It could be days, weeks, or months. Whatever the outcome, it shows again the need to reform our initiative process. One reason our state government fails is that we’ve essentially set up a fourth branch of government – the people – that can negate anything done by the other three branches, but without any real checks or balances on the powers of that fourth branch. In American constitutions, at least until the present day, the power of the people has been limited and bounded to ensure that all rights are protected. The right clearly wants to undo that convention, and give the people the power to trump the Constitution by mob rule. Whatever the outcome of the Prop 8 case, it’s time to bring some sense and sanity to ballot initiatives here in California. Somehow I doubt that the 14th Amendment will be read out on the House floor this week by Republicans, who hate the 14th Amendment and want to pretend it doesn’t exist. Robert Cruickshank worked at the Courage Campaign from November 2007 to November 2010, when he stepped down as Public Policy Director. His analysis represents his views alone.

01-04-2011, 08:53 PM	#594
iamkeri1 Member How Do You Identify?: femme woman Preferred Pronoun?: she Relationship Status: solo Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Central Florida Posts: 821 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 250 Thanked 1,944 Times in 584 Posts Rep Power: 14065934	Tink, Thanks for all the info - as unbalanced and schizophrenic as it makes me feel. You do so much to keep us up to date on what is going on, and I really appreciate it. Smooches, Keri

01-05-2011, 01:50 PM	#595
MsTinkerbelly Timed Out - TOS Drama How Do You Identify?: ... Preferred Pronoun?: ... Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: ... Posts: 6,573 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 30,737 Thanked 22,957 Times in 5,020 Posts Rep Power: 0	JOEMYGOD Governor Lincoln Chafee (RI) Uses Inauguration To Call For Marriage Equality On Top Magazine has the transcript: “When marriage equality is the law in Rhode Island, we honor our forefathers who risked their lives and fortune in the pursuit of human equality. Rhode Island today must be as welcoming to all as [founder] Roger Williams intended it to be. Mark my words, these two actions will do more for economic growth in our state than any economic development loan."

01-05-2011, 01:50 PM	#596
MsTinkerbelly Timed Out - TOS Drama How Do You Identify?: ... Preferred Pronoun?: ... Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: ... Posts: 6,573 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 30,737 Thanked 22,957 Times in 5,020 Posts Rep Power: 0	JOEMYGOD NEW MEXICO: AG Claims State Can Recognize Out Of State Gay Marriages New Mexico Attorney General Gary King has issued an opinion declaring that his state can legally recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. “While we cannot predict how a New Mexico court would rule on this issue, after review of the law in this area, it is our opinion that a same-sex marriage that is valid under the laws of the country or state where it was consummated would likewise be found valid in New Mexico,” King said. While 40 states explicitly bar gay marriage, King says that New Mexico’s law does “not explicitly address the recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions,” according to the release announcing the opinion. Currently only New York, Rhode Island and Maryland do not perform same-sex marriages, but do recognize them from elsewhere.

01-05-2011, 07:17 PM	#597
Corkey Infamous Member How Do You Identify?: Human Preferred Pronoun?: He Relationship Status: Very Married Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Where I want to be Posts: 8,155 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 47,491 Thanked 29,299 Times in 6,640 Posts Rep Power: 21474859	[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uoopp5801XI&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - AFER Attorneys Explain 9th Circuit Prop. 8 Ruling on Standing[/nomedia] Youtube of Mr. Olson explaining the latest ruling. __________________ "Many proposals have been made to us to adopt your laws, your religion, your manners and your customs. We would be better pleased with beholding the good effects of these doctrines in your own practices, than with hearing you talk about them". ~Old Tassel, Chief of the Tsalagi (Cherokee)

01-10-2011, 01:30 PM	#598
Soon Infamous Member How Do You Identify?: femme Relationship Status: attached Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: . Posts: 6,896 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 29,046 Thanked 13,118 Times in 3,391 Posts Rep Power: 21474857	JMG: CANADA: Appeals Court Rules Against "Religious Objection" On Gay Weddings Saskatchewan's provincial Court of Appeals has ruled that it is unconstitutional to allow marriage commissioners to opt-out of performing same-sex weddings due to religious objections. In its decision, the Court noted that marriage commissioners are "the only option" for Canadians who wish to marry in a non-religious ceremony. The Appeal Court said that accommodating commissioners' religious convictions does not justify discriminating against same-sex couples who want to tie the knot. Five judges on the bench at Saskatchewan's Court of Appeal have been considering the case since it heard arguments on the proposed law last May. That's when the provincial government sought advice on two versions of its proposed law -- one that would allow all of the province's approximately 370 commissioners to refuse to wed couples on religious grounds, and another that would only allow the exemption for those who held the job before gay marriage was legalized in 2004. In the ruling issued Monday, the court said the effect of both options runs counter to Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. "Either of them, if enacted, would violate the equality rights of gay and lesbian individuals. This violation would not be reasonable and justifiable within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter. As a result, if put in place, either option would be unconstitutional and of no force or effect." Stand by for the World Net Daily headline: "Canada FORCES Christians To Marry Homosexuals! And It Can Happen HERE!"

01-10-2011, 11:51 PM	#599
AnaLee Junior Member How Do You Identify?: femme Preferred Pronoun?: she's a femme, dawg! Relationship Status: one toe in Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: downriver Posts: 23 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 3 Thanked 33 Times in 12 Posts Rep Power: 984	God Bless Canada!!!

01-11-2011, 12:54 AM	#600
Leigh Infamous Member How Do You Identify?: Femme Preferred Pronoun?: She, Her, etc Relationship Status: Single Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 7,767 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 9,029 Thanked 13,026 Times in 4,786 Posts Rep Power: 21474858	I'm proud to be canadian __________________ "When you fall off the wagon ... clutch the sides of it until you get a better grip!"