Gay sex ruling: HC judge accused of judicial impropriety in India
NEW DELHI: A Supreme Court advocate has raised the issue of “judicial impropriety” on the part of Justice S Murlidhar, who had sat on the bench that delivered the judgment in the ‘gay sex’ case.
In two separate letters written to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court Justice A P Shah and Members of Parliament, the advocate Janak Raj Jai contended that Justice Murlidhar had himself filed a writ petition in 1994 as a lawyer in the high court seeking quashing of Section 377 of the IPC.
When contacted, Justice Murlidhar’s secretary said the judge was aware of the letter (of the advocate) but had no comments to make.
Jai said Justice Murlidhar had appeared as intervenor in the original writ petition on behalf of an organisation “AIDS Bedhav Virodhi Andolan.”
“Propriety demands that a judge who had been an advocate in a similar case, should not have heard the present petition (Naz Foundation) challenging parts of Section 377 IPC,” the letter, written by Jai to the Chief Justice three days before the judgment was delivered, stated.
In his letter, Jai had sought deferring of the judgment and pleaded that the matter be posted before another bench. See Gay sex ruling: HC judge accused of judicial impropriety
Times of India
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/gay-sex-rulin…
Delhi HC verdict on panel provision of gay sex likely Toda
See
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court is likely to pronounce its verdict tomorrow on the controversial penal provision on homosexuality even as the government is grappling with the option to scrap it from the statute.
A bench of Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice S Muralidhar had reserved its order on November 7 last year after marathon proceedings in which the government had vociferously opposed scrapping of section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which prescribes punishment upto life imprisonment for indulging in unnatural sexual acts.
Before the judgement was reserved, the Ministries concerned with the issue in the previous UPA government had unanimously described homosexuality as “the most indecent behaviour” in society.
The Centre had submitted that gay sex is immoral and reflection of a perverse mind and its decriminalisation would lead to moral degradation of society.
“Every citizen has the right to lead a decent and moral life in society and the right would be violated if such behaviour (gay sex) is legalised in the country,” the government had contended adding allowing gay sex would pose a health hazard to society.
The Centre had said that homosexuals comprise only 0.3 per cent of the population and the right of rest 99.7 per cent of the population to lead a decent and moral life in society would be violated if such behaviour (gay sex) is legalised. See Delhi HC verdict on panel provision of gay sex likely tomorrow
SamayLive
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/delhi-hc-verd…
Ga. Supreme Court rules against ban against allowing kids around father’s gay friends
The Georgia Supreme Court tossed out part of a Fayette County court’s decision that kept a divorced gay father from allowing his children to interact with his gay friends, according to a ruling today from the state Supreme Court.
In the ruling, Justice Robert Benham wrote the high court acknowledges that trial courts have the discretion to “limit a parent’s exposure of the children to certain people, if it can be shown that the children would be adversely affected.”
In this case, the Supreme Court justices rejected Fayette County Superior Court Judge Christopher Edwards’ ban on having the gay father bring his gay friends around his children. Edwards has been nominated to fill the a seat on the state Supreme Court after Chief Justice Leah Sears steps down at the end of June.
“The blanket prohibition against exposure of the children to members of the gay and lesbian community who are acquainted with husband is another matter,” says today’s opinion. “There is no evidence in the record before us that any member of the excluded community has engaged in inappropriate conduct in the presence of the children or that the children would be adversely affected by exposure to any member of that community.”
See Ga. Supreme Court rules against ban against allowing kids around … Sovo.com
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/ga-supreme-co…
LA Times Editorial: A court battle California doesn’t need
The Supreme Court’s ruling last week in the case of a grandiosely unethical West Virginia justice opened a new field of constitutional review — the high court may now consider when an elected state court jurist has been so tainted by politics that due process requires him to recuse himself from a case.
In West Virginia, a coal executive spent more than $3 million to unseat a sitting state Supreme Court justice; it was money well spent, as the justice was defeated by voters and replaced by Brent Benjamin. Benjamin then did what was expected of him and cast a deciding vote in overturning a $50-million jury award against the executive’s coal company.
Indeed, California has wrestled with this problem before — and quite possibly could again.
California’s system for selecting Supreme Court justices is much better than West Virginia’s. Candidates for the court here are nominated by the governor, confirmed by a state commission and then placed on the bench. They must periodically stand for retention, but they are not, as they are in West Virginia, subject to direct challenge by rival candidates. A retention election can cost a justice his or her seat, but it does not let voters kick out one justice and install their own replacement.
California’s rules have helped balance the judiciary’s independence with the public’s fair insistence on accountability, but even this state’s reasonable retention process has been subject to tilt. Most notable was the 1986 retention election that removed Chief Justice Rose Bird and two associate justices, Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin. Much reflection has gone into that race in the decades since, and opinions differ on its merits. Two truths, however, stand the test of deep inquiry: The forces arrayed against Bird were not motivated solely by her opposition to the death penalty — that was cover for a second complaint, which was her defense of consumer rights against corporate power — and Reynoso and Grodin were victims of a special-interest crusade against a vulnerable chief.
Would that we could relegate that episode to California’s history. In fact, the state rumbles with discontent over its high court and chief, and those stirrings contain alarming echoes of the battle of 1986.
At issue are the court’s rulings on same-sex marriage and Proposition 8, and its chief justice, Ronald M. George. In May 2008, the court overturned the state’s ban on gay marriage, striking a victory for civil rights in the grandest tradition of constitutional protection of minorities. A few months later, after voters approved Proposition 8 and amended the state Constitution to ban the same institution that the court had upheld, George and his colleagues upheld the amendment. Both times, George wrote for the majority. He thus angered opponents of gay marriage in 2008 and supporters of it in 2009.
By California’s rules, George faces a retention election in 2010, and some predict that he could face challenges from either side — or even both — in this polarizing debate.
That would be a shame for the state’s judiciary, an unfortunate attack on judicial independence and an unfair castigation of one of this state’s most principled and admirable public officials. In the gay-marriage cases, George’s votes demonstrated conscience, professionalismand restraint. He voted to uphold same-sex unions out of the strong conviction — which this page shares — that the Constitution does not allow society to deny the protection of marriage to gay couples any more than it once denied it to those united across race. The ruling was right on the law, and will certainly be validated over the long march of history.
Months later, voters tacked in the other direction, narrowly rejecting gay marriage and amending the Constitution to allow California to recognize only the unions of heterosexual couples. That was challenged, naturally, and the lawsuit offered the court the opportunity to extend its earlier ruling, though on shaky constitutional grounds — advocates for same-sex marriage argued that Proposition 8 was such an affront to the rights of Californians that it revised the Constitution rather than merely amending it. Scholars split on the merits of that argument, and although the strong consensus of legal opinion rejectedit, an opportunistic justice might have seized the chance to solidify his legacy.
Instead, George subordinated his politics — as evidenced by his writing — to the weight of constitutional opinion. He voted to uphold the proposition, even though it undid his own work. Permitted latitude within the strictures of the Constitution in the first case, George was able to vote his conscience; bound by the Constitution in the second case, he yielded.
Such is the lot of a principled judicial officer, but those concerned only with results already have signaled their unhappiness with George. The moneyed interests that supported Proposition 8 last fall are considering whether to finance a campaign against George next year. Supporters of gay marriage, who championed his heroism in 2008, were bitterly disappointed when the court upheld the hateful initiative.
This is not West Virginia. Corporate interests are not knocking off justices who disagree with them and seating more accommodating replacements. But intimidation has no place in our judicial life any more than it does in Appalachia. The 1986 campaign against Bird and her colleagues now stands for many as a reminder that well-intentioned systems of accountability may be hijacked by special interests, a lesson learned too often and at great cost in California. It was misguided in its first iteration; it would be regrettable in its second.
See A court battle California doesn’t need
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/la-times-edit…
Gay-rights groups criticize prospective justice
- Gay-rights groups criticize prospective justice
Gay-rights groups are criticizing Georgia Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears for joining a think tank founded by a marriage-rights opponent. Sears is considered a candidate for a U.S. Supreme Court appointment. Chicago Tribune/The Associated Press (free registration) (5/15)
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/gay-rights-gr…
Supreme Court prospect draws criticism from gay groups
(Atlanta) Georgia Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears, considered a potential nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, has drawn criticism from gay rights groups after announcing plans to join a think tank whose founder is an outspoken opponent of gay marriage.
Sears, the nation’s first black female chief justice of a state …
Tags: Atlanta Georgia, Chief Justice, Gay Atlanta, Gay Georgia, Gay Groups, gay marriage, Gay Rights Groups, Leah, marriage, Outspoken Opponent, Sears, Supreme Court, Think TankSupreme Court takes up dispute over endorsement of gay adoption by Florida Bar’s family-law section
State Supreme Court justices critically questioned both sides today in a dispute over whether the family-law section of the Florida Bar should be allowed to legally endorse adoption for gay couples. A circuit judge in Miami threw out the statute banning adoption by gays but the case is headed for the Supreme Court. The Bar itself has not taken a position but its family-law section sought to file a “friend of the court” brief supporting the circuit court ruling. Lawyers supporting the statute objected — saying the Bar shouldn’t be using compulsory dues paid by all lawyers to fight on one side of a controversial issue.
Tallahassee attorney Barry Richard said the family section is a voluntary association and that its lawyer members have a right to take positions. But Matt Staver, representing the conservative Liberty Counsel, said Bar rules forbid lobbying on either side of a hot topic.
The attorneys argued over the distinction between lobbying the Legislature and filing a legal brief in court. They also disagreed about whether a voluntary section of the bar is restrained by the same rules applying to the full bar.
Chief Justices Peggy Quince and Justices Barbara Pariente, Fred Lewis, Charles Canady and Ricky Polston pressed Richard and Staver on the legal distinctions.
Pariente said that if the prohibition on pursuing controversial, divisive issues had been interpreted as a ban 50 years ago, the Bar could not have taken sides on racial integration. Lewis said he doesn’t think much of “friend of the court” briefs, because they are usually partisan advocacy rather than independent guidance on the law, and that the public doesn’t make a distinction between a section of the Bar and the whole Bar itself.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/04/supreme-court…
Ruling could mean civil unions for all in Calif.
he California Supreme Court could decide that there are two kinds of same-sex couples: those who can’t get married, and those who already did.
A ruling that upholds both voters’ November decision to ban gay marriage and the 18,000 same-sex marriages conducted earlier in California could come off as a safe compromise. But it also promises to keep alive an issue that has split the state as few others have.
Such a decision would give same-sex marriage advocates an avenue to pursue a federal appeal, and an argument for compelling the state to, as Associate Justice Ming Chin put it, “get out of the marriage business.”
Justices on the high court appear hesitant to overturn Proposition 8, while also reluctant to invalidate same-sex marriages performed before it passed, legal observers agreed Friday.
During Thursday’s oral arguments on a trio of lawsuits seeking to overturn the ban, Chin and Chief Justice Ronald George seemed to anticipate the difficulty in reconciling the state constitution’s promise of equality with its commitment to giving voters wide discretion to pass laws.
See Ruling could mean civil unions for all in Calif.
The Associated Press
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/ruling-could-…
Gay Marriage: Is California’s Supreme Court Shifting?
The prospects of same-sex marriage in California grew dimmer Thursday, when two Supreme Court justices who helped create the right for gays to marry in last year’s historic decision expressed deep reservations about attempts to strike down a statewide referendum passed last fall to ban the practice. “You would have us choose between these two rights: the inalienable right to marry and the right of the people to change their constitution,” said Justice Joyce L. Kennard, one of those two key judges. “You ask us to willy-nilly disregard the right of the people to change the constitution of the state of California. But all political power is inherent in the people of California.” (See the top 10 ballot measures.)
The justices created the right to marry same-sex partners in California last year in a sweeping 4-3 decision. But in November, Californians went to the polls to amend the constitution to prohibit gay marriage. The amendment passed with 52% of the vote, but protests spread throughout the state in the days immediately after the vote. Several groups sued, arguing that stripping away the right to marriage amounted to such a serious change to the constitution that it should require more than a simple majority vote. (Read “A Brief History of Gay Marriage.”)
Chief Justice Ronald George, the Republican justice who authored last year’s opinion, appeared to agree that the barrier to constitutional amendments is far too low in California, noting that the Golden State has seen fit to amend its constitution no fewer than 500 times since 1911, while the U.S. Constitution has survived more than 200 years with just 27 amendments. But like Kennard, who had also voted with the majority to establish the right to gay marriage last year, George seemed to suggest Thursday that until the people of California raise the barrier for amendments, the court has little power to overturn their decisions.
See Gay Marriage: Is California’s Supreme Court Shifting? @ Time
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/gay-marriage-…
California State Supreme Court meets on gay marriage
The California Supreme Court will hear arguments today on whether Proposition 8, the anti-gay-marriage initiative, should be upheld and, if so, whether the marriages of an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples should remain valid.
During a three-hour televised hearing this morning, the San Francisco-based high court will examine whether the November ballot measure was an impermissible constitutional revision or a more limited constitutional amendment.
The court will need to decide the fate of existing same-sex marriages only if it is prepared to uphold Proposition 8, which many legal analysts believe is likely.
The justices’ questions to lawyers often reveal how the court is leaning. Legal analysts will be carefully watching Chief Justice Ronald M. George, whose vote often determines whether the conservative or more liberal wing of the court prevails.
The state high court ruled 4 to 3 on May 15 that same-sex couples should be entitled to marry. George wrote the ruling, which was signed by Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Carlos R. Moreno.
Justices Marvin R. Baxter, Ming W. Chin and Carol A. Corrigan voted against overturning the state’s previous ban on same-sex marriage, arguing that the matter should be left to voters.
After Proposition 8 passed, only Moreno voted to put the measure on hold pending a decision on the legal challenges. Kennard, who usually votes in favor of gay rights, voted against accepting the revision challenge to the proposition but said she would hear arguments over the validity of existing same-sex marriages.
Some legal analysts believe the vote signaled that Kennard did not believe the revision argument would prevail. Without her vote, the court would be unlikely to muster a majority for overturning the measure.
In addition to arguing that Proposition 8 was an illegal constitutional revision, gay rights lawyers contend that it usurped the authority of the courts.
The hearing, scheduled to start at 9 a.m. and end at noon, will be broadcast live on the California Channel and streamed on its website. See State Supreme Court meets on gay marriage
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/california-st…
