Federal Judge Stresses Trial Record on Calif. Gay-Marriage Ban
Whatever Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker winds up deciding on Proposition 8, it’s clear he wants an airtight trial record to support it.
Holding his first hearing Thursday on the controversial measure that outlawed same-sex marriage, Walker repeatedly stressed the importance of establishing a record that will stand the test of time.
He told a packed courtroom that he was “reasonably sure” that the challenge launched by two high-profile litigators is “only touching down in this court” and merely a “prelude” for things to come.
“How we do things here,” Walker said, “is more important than what we do.”
He noted that other courts have rendered decisions on same-sex marriage without holding full trials, which he suggested was a “problem.”
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 09-CV-2292, was filed in May by Theodore Olson, who represented George W. Bush in the landmark Bush v. Gore case, and David Boies, who represented Al Gore. Boies wasn’t present on Thursday. The suit attacks Prop 8 on equal protection and due process grounds.
Walker had already issued a tentative order allowing Prop 8 proponents to intervene and denying a preliminary injunction (pdf). He stood by both orders during Thursday’s 50-minute session.
Olson, a partner in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher’s Washington, D.C., office who has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court 55 times, nonetheless made a fleeting attempt to persuade Walker to change his mind on the injunction.
“Every day that Prop 8 is enforced perpetuates a tragic injustice” on gays and lesbians, he argued, saying it “brands” them as “second-class citizens, unworthy and different.”
“The Supreme Court,” Olson argued, “has held again and again and again that the right to marry is the most important relationship in life.”
Representing the Prop 8 proponents, Washington attorney Charles Cooper, who was a top Justice Department lawyer during the Reagan administration, warned that the lawsuit could “sweep away” not only Prop 8, but the definition of marriage in 43 states and the federal government.
The Cooper & Kirk partner also argued that marriage has by tradition always been the union of a man and a woman, and said that every Supreme Court case that describes marriage has noted that its central purpose is procreation.
See Federal Judge Stresses Trial Record on Calif. Gay-Marriage Ban Above the Law
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/federal-judge…
Dismay Over Obama’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Turnabout
When Barack Obama sought the presidency, he pledged to reverse the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy preventing gays and lesbians from serving openly in the U.S. military. Yet on Monday, the Supreme Court rejected a gay Ohio soldier’s challenge to the law — with the legal backing of none other than the Obama Administration.
James Pietrangelo II, the former Army infantryman and lawyer whose case the high court declined to review, reserved most of his ire for President Obama instead of the court. “He’s a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar,” Pietrangelo said in an interview with TIME shortly after the high court declined to hear his appeal. “This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people,” he added. “If there were millions of black people as second-class citizens, or millions of Jews or Irish, he would have acted immediately” upon taking office to begin working to lift “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Pietrangelo fought in Iraq in 1991 as an infantryman, and returned as a JAG officer for the second Iraq War, before being booted out in 2004 for declaring he was gay as he was readying for a third combat tour. He was representing himself before the high court. (See pictures of the gay rights movement.)
The Obama Administration, in its brief in the case last month, said a lower court acted properly in upholding the gay ban. “Applying the strong deference traditionally afforded to the Legislative and Executive Branches in the area of military affairs, the court of appeals properly upheld the statute,” argued Elena Kagan, who as Solicitor General represents the Administration before the Supreme Court. The bar on gays serving openly is “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion,” her 12-page filing added.
The endorsement of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” by the Administration marks the latest rightward tack by Obama. The President denounced many of George W. Bush’s national-security policies during the campaign, but in office has adopted more conservative positions, including endorsing military commissions to try purported terrorists, and declining to release a second batch of photographs depicting alleged U.S. maltreatment of Iraqi detainees. His stance on “Don’t ask, don’t tell” may be more surprising, because Obama aides have made clear the President wants the ban lifted eventually. (Watch a gay marriage wedding video.)
Pietrangelo doesn’t buy the line from Obama aides — and the Pentagon — that they’re too busy grappling with a faltering economy and two wars to handle the gay ban right away. “It’s a complete lie that he has too much stuff on his plate — this is the guy who criticized Bush for not being able to multitask,” Pietrangelo says. “We have an old saying in the military — the maximum effective range of an excuse is zero meters.” See Dismay Over Obama’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Turnabout TIME
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/dismay-over-o…
LOS ANGELES: All Saints, Pasadena, clergy opt out of civil marriages until gay couples can legally wed
Clergy at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California, are opting out of performing civil marriages until gay couples can legally wed–and are encouraging other clergy to do likewise, according to the Rev. Ed Bacon, rector.
“At the heart of Jesus’s moral vision and All Saints’ historic mission is respecting the dignity of every human being,” Bacon said in a June 3 press release announcing the decision, which is effective immediately.
“The California Supreme Court in its recent opinion has ruled that those of same-gender affections are second-class citizens,” Bacon added. “Denying fundamental rights to a certain classification of humanity is blatant discrimination with which our governing board, the other clergy of All Saints, and I will not participate. We invite other clergy and congregations to join us in this stand for marriage equality.”
Bacon referred to the May 26 state Supreme Court ruling that upheld the controversial Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment providing that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid in California.” Their decision sparked nationwide rallies by both advocates and opponents of the measure.
The Rev. Susan Russell, an associate at the Pasadena congregation known for its social activism and progressive politics, said on June 4 that clergy are meeting with couples whose nuptials were already planned “to explain the new policy and hold pastoral conversations about the impact on them.
“We only do member weddings, so folks married here at All Saints typically share our values of inclusion and would be on board, we think, with making arrangements to have the civil part of their marriage take place external to All Saints clergy,” said Russell, who is president of Integrity USA, an advocacy group for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Episcopalians.
But she added that: “We will continue to serve and marry them civilly if that’s what the couple prefers for whatever reason because that was the contract going in.”
All Saints vestry, at its June 2 meeting, had unanimously passed a resolution declaring that “the sacramental right of marriage is available to all couples, but that the clergy of All Saints Church will not sign civil marriage certificates so long as the right to marry is denied to same-sex couples.”
The vestry’s decision acknowledged “our active participation in the discriminatory system of civil marriage is inconsistent with Jesus’s call to strive for justice and peace among all people and respect the dignity of every human being.” The resolution states “civil marriage in the State of California is, as a result of Proposition 8 and the Court’s decision, a constitutionally-mandated instrument of discrimination, which furthers injustice and denies same-sex couples the fundamental dignities to which each human being is entitled,” Bacon said. Russell said there was little discussion in the vestry meeting. “It was just a no-brainer that of course we want to take steps that keep us from being complicit in state-sponsored discrimination.
“I keep thinking I couldn’t be prouder to work at All Saints church than I already am and then our leadership keeps taking steps that make me even prouder,” Russell said. “It was it is such a part of the DNA of All Saints Church to stand with those in need of solidarity. This stand is so deeply rooted in our baptismal covenant, it gives us such a strong theological place to stand. It feels like very firm foundation, indeed.”
The Rev. Neil Thomas of the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) in Los Angeles, a petitioner in the Proposition 8 case, said the 40-year-old 500-member congregation likewise is observing a moratorium on signing civil weddings.
“We will not sign the paperwork” for civil marriages, said Thomas, whose ministry is primarily, but not exclusively, to the LGBT community. He is also the president of California Faith for Equality, a progressive interfaith movement of about 6,000 clergy, which submitted an amicus brief advocating that the California Supreme Court overturn Proposition 8.
– The Rev. Pat McCaughan is Episcopal Life Media correspondent for Provinces VII and VIII and the House of Bishops. She is based in Los Angeles.
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/los-angeles-a…
Same-sex spouses challenge US curbs
Fifteen gay and lesbian residents from Massachusetts who wed after this state legalized same-sex marriages filed a discrimination suit today, challenging a federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Six same-sex couples and three men whose husbands have died — one of the deceased was retired congressman Gerry E. Studds — said in the suit that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act treats them like second-class citizens and is unconstitutional. The 92-page complaint was filed in US District Court in Boston.
The suit, which legal specialists described as the first serious challenge to the federal law signed by President Bill Clinton, contends that the statute has deprived the plaintiffs of benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.
Those benefits include health insurance for spouses of federal employees, tax deductions for couples who jointly file federal income tax returns, and the ability to use a spouse’s last name on a passport.
See Same-sex spouses challenge US curbs Boston Globe
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/same-sex-spou…
In New Jersey, a Blue-Ribbon State Government Commission Tells Governor Corzine and the Legislature: It’s Time to Enact Marriage Equality
To Read the Complete Report Online, visit http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcr/ curc.html
Making its final recommendation, the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission says the civil union law ‘invites and encourages’ harm to same-sex couples and their children
The commission cites ‘overwhelming evidence’ the civil union law will never provide equality with the passage of time
The 13 Commissioners include not only LGBT leaders, but also a right-to-life Republican, plus two clergy, plus six government officials representing an Administration that had opposed marriage equality in the courts
To watch video of same-sex couples testifying before the Commission, visit www.CivilUnionsDontWork.com
TRENTON, N.J. — A New Jersey state government commission today unanimously recommended to Governor Corzine and the New Jersey legislature that they enact a law to allow same-sex couples to marry “expeditiously because any delay in marriage equality will harm all the people of New Jersey.”
The recommendation is part of the 79-page final report just released by the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission, a 13-member body created by the civil union law enacted in December 2006. The 13 Commissioners include not only LGBT leaders, but also a right-to-life Republican, plus two clergy, plus six government officials representing an Administration that had opposed marriage equality in the courts. Their report, passed on a 13 to 0 vote with no abstentions, is based on testimony from more than 150 witnesses over 26 hours spanning 18 public meetings in 2007 and 2008.
The civil union law “invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children,” concludes the final report, titled The Economic, Legal, Medical and Social Consequences of New Jersey’s Civil Union Act. “In a number of cases, the negative effect of the Civil Union Act on the physical and mental health of same-sex couples and their children is striking, largely because a number of employers and hospitals do not recognize the rights and benefits of marriage for civil union couples.”
“The Commission is compelled to issue its final report now because of the overwhelming evidence that civil unions will not be recognized by the general public as the equivalent of marriage in New Jersey with the passage of time. Nearly a decade later, civil union couples in Vermont report the same obstacles to equality that New Jersey civil union couples face today,” the report states, citing the recent study of a panel in Vermont.
Besides assessing the civil union law’s impact on same-sex couples, today’s final report describes how the absence of a marriage equality statute deprives New Jersey’s entire economy of considerable revenue. “Spending on weddings and tourism could boost the New Jersey economy by approximately $248 million over three years,” the report states. One expert testifying before the Commission estimates the figure could be $500 million or more.
But the heart of today’s report is its delineation of the harm that New Jersey’s civil union law has pro-actively inflicted upon same-sex couples.
“I’m a pro-life Republican and past Director of Gloucester County Right-to-Life,” said Commission member AnnLynne Benson on the release of today’s report, “so I know the diversity of this Commission. Our report demonstrates in exquisite detail why amending New Jersey’s law to extend marriage to same-sex couples is a necessity. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that ‘denying rights and benefits to committed same-sex couples violates the equal protection guarantee and can no longer be tolerated under our State constitution.’ Implementation of that ruling by the invention of a parallel status failed to deliver equality. It was like planting a toothpick and hoping a tree would grow.”
According to the final report, the civil union law’s harm to same-sex couples includes:
– The inability of a number of same-sex partners to visit one another in
the hospital, and to make medical decisions for one another, because
hospitals don’t accept civil unions as equal to marriage. The
Commission’s final report begins with the story of Naomi and Gina, a
couple in Montclair, New Jersey who had a humiliating and
life-threatening experience at a hospital. Gina was admitted to the
emergency room with cardiac arrhythmia, unable to give consent for
treatment. When Naomi arrived and said she was Gina’s partner, the
doctor interrogated Naomi about the nature of the relationship and
initially kept Naomi away from Gina and refused to let her give
consent for Gina. The report has other stories like this.
– “Significant psychological damage” to the children raised same-sex
couples because their families are given the stigmatizing label of
civil union; and to LGBT youth who view themselves as inferior because
they cannot marry. “Their heartbreaking testimony,” the report
states, “brings to life their struggle in a way that no numbers –
whether complaints filed with government agencies or advocacy
organizations — can encapsulate on their own.” As Dr. Marshall
Forstein, a Harvard Medical School professor, testified:
“Second-class citizenship, now institutionalized in some states in the
form of civil unions, contributes to increased rates of anxiety,
depression and substance use disorders in marginalized populations.”
– The denial of health insurance by employers to same-sex partners,
especially harmful during the current economic crisis. Today’s final
report underscores what the Commission’s interim report of February
2008 found, that the federal Employment Retirement Insurance Security
Act (ERISA) preempts the New Jersey Civil Union law for approximately
50 percent of all employers in the state. For that 50 percent,
providing equal rights and benefits for same-sex couples under the
civil union law is an option rather than a requirement.
The Commission’s final report refutes the notion — as the interim
report did — that a change in state law from civil unions to
marriage equality would have minimal impact because Federal law does
not recognize same-sex relationships. The final report provides
ample evidence to the contrary, based on the dramatically lower
invocation of ERISA by companies in Massachusetts, which has a
marriage equality law. “The term ‘marriage,’ the report concludes,
“would make a significant difference in providing equality even with
no change in federal law.”
– Compounded harm to women, African-Americans and Latino-Americans, all
of whom face discrimination because of their gender, race or
ethnicity, and who now suffer double discrimination when denied equal
rights and benefits under the civil union law. The state Public
Advocate told the Commission about “the particular difficulty for
lower-income same-sex couples who encounter discrimination because
they have fewer resources with which to seek legal counsel and
redress, and who have difficulty meeting expenses if faced with
reduced healthcare benefits.”
– Harm to the marriages of couples where one partner is transgender.
The final report reaffirms the finding in the Commission’s interim
report that the classification of civil union places marital status in
question for these couples, who had gotten married legally when they
were opposite-sex couples. * Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2008/12/in-new-jersey…
Gay marriage bill begins an important debate
After a recent screening of Rachel Getting Married at Red River Theatres in Concord, an older woman in the audience commented that the entire film struck her as far-fetched - not because of the grim drama of drug addiction and family dysfunction, but because the wedding at the center of the story was between a black man and a white woman. Those two, she said, would never be together.
Younger audience members reacted to her in puzzled disbelief, as if to say, What on earth are you talking about - it’s the 21st century, for Pete’s sake.
Of course, marriages like that of the fictional Rachel and Sidney were once taboo in this country. In much of the United States, they were illegal. In fact, for generations, marriages between two black people, assuming they were slaves, brought none of the privileges or protections afforded white couples.
Mercifully, times change, and the rules of marriage have changed as well. Black people can marry each other, as can blacks and whites. Both changes faced strenuous resistance at the time - but most Americans today would surely agree that those were changes for the better.
Now comes state Rep. Jim Splaine of Portsmouth, who is sponsoring legislation legalizing gay marriage in New Hampshire. Victory will not necessarily come quickly, nor is his success assured. But as in the changes involving African-Americans’ rights to marry whom they choose, his cause is just. He has taken on a great struggle, but with luck, 10 or 20 years from now, we will wonder what all the fuss was about.
Splaine’s effort comes as states across the country are wrestling with the same issue. In Connecticut, as in Massachusetts before it, the court has declared gay marriage legal. In California, a similar ruling was overturned by voters last month via a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexuals. Florida and Arizona passed similar gay marriage bans. The votes were definitive and yet had the feel of a last stand. Most Americans have friends or family or co-workers who are openly gay; discriminating against them becomes less accepted with each passing year.
In New Hampshire, thanks to the efforts of Splaine and others, civil unions for gay couples have been legal for nearly 12 months - an enormous first step toward full equality that granted gay couples many but not all the rights of marriage. Compared with Vermont, the first state to legalize civil unions, the change came strangely, marvelously easily. Nearly 600 gay couples across New Hampshire have joined in civil unions, and life for them - and everyone else - has gone on without strife or unrest.
We’d hope that experience would temper some of the most hateful reaction to Splaine’s proposed bill. But judging from the website comments posted after Monitor reporter Lauren R. Dorgan’s recent story about the legislation, it’s still out there. Readers, largely anonymous, described not just gay marriage, but homosexuality in general with words like “vile,” “disordered,” “unnatural” and “turns my stomach.” At least one confused homosexuality with pedophilia. One writer urged gay residents to “go back into the closet.” All in all, a horrible stew of fear, resentment and anger toward folks just hoping to declare their commitment to each other.
Squeamish legislators and governors may take years to come around to Splaine’s point of view. But treating some residents as second-class citizens will always be wrong. Beginning the debate now is critical.
See Gay marriage bill begins an important debate
Concord Monitor - Concord,NH,USA
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2008/12/gay-marriage-…
Mormon Church Whines: “Prop 8 Backlash Is ‘An Outrage That Must Stop’” - but if the shoe fits ….
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is claiming “violence and intimidation” have been toward the Church because of its support of Proposition 8.
Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles claimed “the right of free expression of people of faith has come under attack.”
It seems some Mormons think they should be exempt from criticism if they claim their acts are based on religion.
That would be fair if the Mormon Church focused on telling its members how to act.
When a church tries to legislative its religious views and turn them into laws that force others to abide by Mormon beliefs, then they loose the ability to claim their “right of free expression of people of faith has come under attack” when people object to their strong arm methods.
It is simple: the Mormon Church cant each and tell its members to do what their faith requires. But when the Mormon Church - or any other Church - tries to compel others to live by Religious standards, then that church is fair game in the rough and tumble world of politics.
Individuals who use politics to impose their religious beliefs on others can fairly be opposed, and that opposition can include boycotts, demonstration and the like. You can’t make money off the LGBT community, work to make the LGBT people second class citizens and then expect the LGBT community to continue to support your business.
Odd that Elder Ballard never complained when his Evalngelical allies lauinched boycots of companies that were “pro-gay.” I guess the “the right of free expression of people of faith” only comes under attack when you are a Mormon or a right wing nut.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2008/12/mormon-church…
