Voter ‘animus’ to be issue in Calif marriage case
When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that outlawed discrimination protections for gay people, same-sex couples could not enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships anywhere in the nation, much less get married. But as they seek to persuade a federal judge to strike down California’s ban on gay marriages, lawyers for two unmarried gay couples are using that 13-year-old decision as their road map — one they expect will eventually lead the high court to take up the marriage issue. In the Colorado case, Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court majority held that voters’ dislike of gays and the laws that several cities had approved to shield them from bias motivated the state amendment. Such “animus,” it said, was incompatible with the section of the U.S. Constitution that requires the government to treat its citizens equally absent a compelling reason to do otherwise. The attorneys behind the challenge to California’s Proposition 8 plan to argue during a pretrial hearing Thursday that by stripping gays of the right to wed, the voter-approved ban runs afoul of America’s founding framework in the same way — and for the same reason. “Romer is a strikingly similar situation to what we have here. You had a ballot initiative, a majority vote of the people, taking away a right,” said Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., a member of the legal team led by former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson and veteran trial lawyer David Boies. “And there was no justification or rationale other than disapproval by that majority of that group.” U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker on Tuesday issued a tentative order to fast-track the case in his San Francisco court. Among the questions he said he wants covered at trial are whether sexual orientation is unchangeable, if permitting same-sex marriage “destabilizes” traditional unions and whether Proposition 8’s ballot history demonstrates the measure had “discriminatory intent.” California Attorney General Jerry Brown, a defendant in the case, has sided with gay rights advocates and declined to defend the ban, which overturned a California Supreme Court ruling that had legalized same-sex marriages. The state Supreme Court five weeks ago upheld the measure, saying it represented a valid exercise of voters’ authority to amend the California Constitution. Proposition 8’s sponsors, a coalition of religious conservative groups called Protect Marriage, has been given permission to intervene in the federal case. In court papers, the group’s lawyers rejected the assertions that anti-gay attitudes fueled the November measure and that the 1996 Colorado case was applicable. “Nothing in California law, either Proposition 8 or otherwise, indicates that Californians harbor animus towards gay and lesbian individuals,” they wrote. Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision, attorneys for gay rights and Christian conservative groups have debated whether the Romer decision could be used to expand gay rights. The ruling marked the first time the Supreme Court determined that the Constitution’s equal rights guarantees extended to gays and lesbians. “The basic point of Romer is that government cannot ever act out of hostility toward a group of people, and whether that is in the context of marriage or anti-discrimination law, the point carries over,” said Suzanne Goldberg, who worked on the case and now directs Columbia Law School’s Sexuality and Gender Law Program. The ruling has been cited, though so far unsuccessfully, in past challenges to gay marriage bans in Nebraska and Florida. At the same time, gay rights groups mostly have shied away from pursuing federal marriage cases in favor of pursuing marriage rights in state courts. Legal observers on both sides of the debate agree, however, that California’s Proposition 8 presents novel questions that could make the issue ripe for federal action.
San Francisco Chronicle
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/voter-animus-…
An Exorcism of Hate
A recently posted YouTube video shows church members in southern Connecticut performing an exorcism on a 16-year-old boy in order to remove the “homosexual demons” from his body. The video is horrifying to watch — the church audience screams at the supposed evil spirits as the boy convulses on the ground.
The logic and belief set behind this act are so far beyond my comprehension that it defies comment. What I do find compelling, however, is the church’s response to the uproar that the video created. “We have nothing against homosexuals,” protested the Reverend Patricia McKinney. “I just don’t agree with their lifestyle.” I frequently hear comments such as this from those who oppose equality for homosexuals. These people say they love gay people — they even have gay friends and family! — but it’s unfortunately “against their beliefs” to treat homosexuals equally. This video, however, is a perfect example of how this explanation is a blatant lie.
The phrase “I just don’t agree with,” connotes a mild dislike. I don’t agree with mustard, but I can still enjoy my dinner to the fullest when it’s present at the table. What people such as Reverend McKinney feel toward homosexuals is nothing short of loathing. It is impossible for her to argue she respects gays when she believes that demonic spirits live inside their bodies. She could preach tolerance to her parish every Sunday, but her actions unambiguously declare that being gay is a sinful, satanic state that must be cured. McKinney clearly has something very big against homosexuals, and it’s insulting for her to suggest otherwise.
Politicians are guilty of similar dishonesty, but they tend to be more subtle. A senator who opposes gay marriage shouldn’t be able to say that he’s protecting “family values.” He should say that he believes that gay couples are incapable of raising the kinds of families that our society accepts. A congresswoman who disqualifies a lesbian couple from adopting children should proclaim that two women will irreparably damage a child should their adoption request succeed. It’s the typical political non-speak, but it’s even more damaging when those who say it can claim that they aren’t prejudiced.
Outright homophobia has become socially unacceptable in most circumstances. This is momentous progress from a hatred that had until now been painfully public. But, ironically, this political correctness is now hurting the gay rights movement.
Homophobic people, such as Reverend McKinney, should have to state their beliefs openly, without duplicitous assertions that they “have nothing against homosexuals.” What they should really be saying is that homosexuality is disgusting and perverted — that any person practicing it is a sinner who needs to be saved now before suffering an eternity in Hell. Judging from their comments and actions, that’s what they believe, and they should own up to those principles.
Polls have shown that young people as a whole have a more liberal view regarding homosexuality than their parents. It stands to reason that, as a society, we’re marching on a path towards equality and tolerance for gay people. But I hope this liberalization permeates far deeper than the blatant dishonesty of people such as Reverend McKinney and her congregation. Those of us who actually have nothing against homosexuals — who feel no need to cast the ‘homosexual demons’ from their body— should reject such flagrant duplicity.
See An Exorcism of Hate The Dartmouth
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/exorcism-of-h…
Sotomayor unlikely to change Court balance
(Washington) In more than 16 years as a federal judge, Sonia Sotomayor has often sided with people claiming discrimination in education and employment. She’s backed police and prosecutors over defendants. She’s upheld assertions of free speech and religion.
Not easily pigeonholed, Sotomayor has also been part of rulings that go the …
Tags: Assertions, Discrimination, Education, Federal Judge, Free Speech, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Prosecutors, Religion
