Calif. Assembly modifies law seeking to cure gays

(Sacramento) California lawmakers have voted to modify a decades-old law that classifies gays as sexual deviants and calls for research on the causes of homosexuality.

Supporters say a change was long overdue in the law, which was written in 1950 in reaction to a series of sex crimes, including the molestation and murder of a 6-year-old girl in Los Angeles.

The law classifies gays as sexual deviants and requires the state to conduct research to find the causes of sex crimes against children. It also singles out gays as a group that should be studied, and calls for research into a cure for homosexuality.

The bill, approved 62-0 Monday by the state Assembly, changes that law by removing all references to homosexuals in the provision that calls for research.

The measure now goes to the state Senate.

Neff: In Texas, only gay marriage is til death do they part

Spouses can’t always take that bit about “till death do us part” literally.

And judges and lawyers don’t always take that bit about “till death do us part” literally either. Some dedicate their workdays dissolving such vows.

Yet in some states that don’t recognize same-sex marriages, same-sex marriages could last till death do they part.

Oh, these funny times.

A Dallas man, identified only as J.B. in court papers and the press, is trying to divorce a man he married four years ago in Massachusetts and separated from — amicably enough — two years ago.

J.B. was winning his case for divorce before District Judge Tena Callahan, when the Texas Attorney General tried to intervene and stop the process. It seems that because the state of Texas does not recognize same-sex marriages, the court shouldn’t divorce the two men, according to the AG.

Callahan ruled against the AG, which appealed her decision.

“My client is a married man and he needs a divorce. But for the actions of the attorney general, there would already be one less same-sex marriage in Texas,” attorney Jody Scheske told a three-judge appeals court panel in a hearing last week.

Oh, these funny times.

“The parties lack standing to file a divorce because they are not married. If you are not party to a marriage, you cannot file for a divorce,” an assistant Texas solicitor general argued last week before the federal appeals court.

The assistant Texas solicitor general said, the court should “void” the union not divorce the men.

An annulment, then, is Texas’ preferred alternative to a gay couple’s divorce.

Oh, these funny times.

The stakes in this Texas case are considerable, because in finding that she has standing to hear the gay man’s request for a divorce, Callahan also found that Texas’ 2005 constitutional amendment that defines marriage exclusively as a union between a man and a woman violates the right to equal protection and therefore violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Had the Texas Attorney General not tried to intervene and block the court from hearing the divorce case, the district court judge might not have deemed the anti-gay amendment unconstitutional. We don’t know really. Callahan might have taken up the constitutional issue, or she simply might have granted the divorce.

Attorneys for J.B. say they didn’t want a constitutional fight or a federal case — just a divorce for their client.

“My client’s very private matter has become a public spectacle,” Scheske told the court last week.

Oh, these funny times.

J.B., seeking to end his marriage, is at the forefront of a legal dispute that could tear down a ban against gay marriage in Texas.

And opponents of gay marriage are worried, which is why the Plano-based right-wing Liberty Institute argued alongside the attorney general against what it called “judicial activism at it’s worst.”

Opposing J.B.’s divorce, Liberty Institute attorney Hiram Sasser said a gay divorce is an attack on same-sex marriage.

Oh, these funny times.

And Sasser, who said he represented the two authors of the anti-gay amendment that 76 percent of Texas voters supported in 2005, cited Bill Clinton in his defense of the Texas ban and his opposition to the gay couple’s divorce.

Clinton signed the federal Defense of Marriage Act that allowed states to refuse to honor another state’s same-sex marriage and defined marriage at the federal level as the union of one man and one woman.

“I think President Clinton said it best when he said we have to honor the decisions of the states,” Sasser said.

The former president, however, has said that his position on same-sex marriage is evolved and he “didn’t like signing DOMA.”

Oh, these funny times.

Ruby-Sachs: Supreme Court case pits gay activists v. free speech

[1]

There is a very important case arriving in the Supreme Court tomorrow. Referendum 71 was a ballot initiative in Washington attempting to undo domestic partnership privileges for same-sex couples. Many signed the petition for the law, but ultimately their regressive bid failed. Still, gay rights groups want to release the names from the petition on a searchable website. Under Washington law, that kind of disclosure is mandatory.

But the lawyer for the other side argues that the release of names on the web will lead to the intimidation and harassment of those individuals who signed the petition.

That argument holds little water. Although courts have, in the past, found that harassment did occur against homophobic individuals in the wake of Prop 8, the objective evidence illustrates that there is not one case of harassment or intimidation resulting from the political participation of homophobic individuals. The worst we saw was a highly organized and very legal boycott of certain businesses in California – a political initiative that is the very expression of democracy in the U.S.

However, that doesn’t mean that releasing the names won’t affect free speech in Washington. Individuals who already signed the petition obviously feel that the release of their names will harm their reputation or livliehood (frankly, it should). And that feeling, that fear, results in a chill on free speech. Public petitions might discourage some from signing certain petitions calling for certain laws.

The Supreme Court has to decide if the chill on free speech outweighs the public’s right to access its political process. Is it unconstitutional free speech? If you listen to the presentation tomorrow, you will likely get a feel for how the court is going to decide. The result of this case could seriously affect the political process, certainly around gay marriage, for many years to come.

Transcripts of the oral arguments are available here [2] and the transcripts from this case will be up some time before the end of the day tomorrow.

[1] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-supreme-court-top.jpg
[2] http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.aspx