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.
See Voter ‘animus’ to be issue in Calif marriage case
San Francisco Chronicle
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
San Francisco has asked a federal judge to overturn California’s ban on same-sex marriage, allying the city with a lawsuit that could reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
In papers filed Thursday night in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, City Attorney Dennis Herrera’s office argued that Proposition 8 was motivated by hatred of gays and lesbians and violates their constitutional right to be free of discrimination.
Although sponsors of the November ballot measure said they were trying to promote traditional marriage and protect children, “excluding same-sex couples from marriage does nothing to advance those goals,” Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart said in the 49-page brief.
Prop. 8′s “real aim (was) harming gays and lesbians and expressing moral disapproval of them,” Stewart said.
In arguing to throw out Prop. 8, Stewart cited the Supreme Court’s 1996 ruling that struck down Colorado’s ban on state and local gay-rights measures and said a law motivated by hostility toward gays and lesbians is unconstitutional.
See S.F. asks federal judge to toss Prop. 8
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
The mayors of Los Angeles and San Francisco joined gay rights groups Sunday in raising concerns about the Obama administration’s defense of a federal law restricting same-sex marriage.
“I think it’s a big mistake,” San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said shortly before he and his Los Angeles counterpart, Antonio Villaraigosa, kicked off the annual L.A. Pride parade in West Hollywood. The mayors, potential rivals in next year’s Democratic primary for governor, were each careful to avoid direct criticism of President Obama.
But their mutual disapproval of a Justice Department brief filed Thursday in support of the Defense of Marriage Act comes amid growing discontent with Obama among gay rights groups.
The battle over same-sex marriage added a serious note to the West Hollywood celebration of the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots in Greenwich Village that launched the modern gay rights movement.
“I’m concerned about some of the arguments being made by the Justice Department,” Villaraigosa told a cluster of news crews on Santa Monica Boulevard as motorc
The battle over same-sex marriage added a serious note to the West Hollywood celebration of the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots in Greenwich Village that launched the modern gay rights movement.
See LA gay pride parade darkened by US stance on marriage
Los Angeles Time
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
By mid-afternoon, authorities reportedly had someone in custody in connection with the murder of Wichita abortion doctor George Tiller at his church on Sunday morning.
So far, we know nothing about the suspect. Though the motive for the crime we can all surmise in light of the vitriolic campaign that has been waged against Tiller for more than two decades by anti-abortion groups.
And if we’re right about that, then we already know the identities of his accomplices.
They include every one who has ever called Tiller’s late term abortion clinic a murder mill.
Who ever called Tiller “Tiller the Killer.”
The groups who spent decades fomenting hate toward a man who simply believed that he was serving a purpose by being one of the few doctors in the country performing late-term abortions.
Hate. Not heated opposition. Not strong disagreement.
But blind hatred.
The kind of hate that would prompt some maniac to take a gun into a church and shoot a man to death in front of friends and family.
His accomplices know they have blood on their hands, which might explain why they were quick to issue statements today expressing disapproval of Tiller’s murder.
Among them, the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue.
“Operation Rescue denounces the killing of abortionist Tiller,” read the headline of a new release posted on that group’s website.
Those words drip with hypocrisy.
After all, it was Operation Rescue that coined the nickname “Tiller the Killer.” It was Operation Rescue that was most responsible for ratcheting up the heated rhetoric toward Tiller over the past two decades.
The group issued the following statement today:
“We are shocked at this morning’s disturbing news that Mr. Tiller was gunned down. Operation Rescue has worked for years through peaceful, legal means, and through the proper channels to see him brought to justice. We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning. We pray for Mr. Tiller’s family that they will find comfort and healing that can only be found in Jesus Christ.”
Shocked? Are any of us really shocked that it would come to this after the many years of demonizing one man?
Certainly the group’s founder, Randall Terry, didn’t seem shocked when he issued a statement that, I would suggest, provides a truer sense of how the anti-abortion movement saw today’s events:
”George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller’s killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name; murder.
Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God. We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches.”
I’d suggest that if anyone is in need of salvation right now it’s the anti-abortion movement in Kansas and across the nation.
As Terry’s statement makes clear, the same bullet that killed George Tiller also shattered the moral underpinnings of the movement that inspired its firing.
PRINCETON — Waving umbrellas and posters, around 30 Princeton students danced and cheered in front of the National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) Nassau Street offices Wednesday to voice disapproval of the group’s opposition to same-sex marriage.
NOM, which was founded in 2007 by Princeton politics professor Robert George and Maggie Gallagher of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, is a nonprofit organization that serves as a resource for organized opposition to same-sex marriage around the country, according to its Web site. The group is based in Princeton, across the street from the university.
”The fact that NOM exists so close to campus and that it was founded by a Princeton professor, yet that there hasn’t been much discussion about the issue, gives the impression that Princeton is ambivalent,” said Emily Sung, a sophomore who helped organize the protest. “That’s what we’re combating. We want to end the silence.”
Many protestors showed up in rain gear, referencing NOM’s “Gathering Storm” commercial, which features actors standing in front of a foreboding background of storm clouds. The commercial, part of NOM’s $1.5 million “Religious Liberty Ad Campaign,” warns of a coming “storm” in the fight over same-sex marriage.
See PRINCETON: Students picket same-sex marriage opponents
Packet Online – Princeton,NJ,USA * Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
It’s hard to believe things could get worse for the bungled “No on Prop 8″ campaign in hindsight, but it appears they have. Over the weekend, fury re-erupted across the gay blogosphere following a report on the recent “No on 8″ Town Hall in the Bay Area Reporter. The fury is centered around a letter to the Alice B. Toklas club from Barack Obama expressing the candidate’s disapproval of Proposition 8. It was a letter that was never used. Revelations emerged from the meeting about the decision not to use the letter: See
Towleroad
by Rabbi Ben Kamin, Spiritual Life Examiner
It was years ago that I heard a particularly poignant segment of the Hebrew Scripture chanted in the synagogue—the story, in the Book of Samuel—of the powerful boyhood friendship between Jonathan and David. Jonathan was the emotional son of King Saul; David, the future king, was his companion and fast friend. Their bond, described without restraint in the Bible, was robust: Jonathan declares to David: “Tomorrow is the new moon, and you will be missed, because your seat will be empty.”
It’s hard to let pass the unfolding passionate relationship between these two young scriptural heroes. The romantic tension they shared was reinforced by the fierce and jealous hostility felt by King Saul against David; the paranoid monarch once even threw a spear at the lad. Jonathan so adored David that he eschewed his role as prince and gave his heart freely to his friend. His father’s disapproval did not repress his loyalty and devotion to his amour.
Granted, there are edicts in the earlier Book of Leviticus forbidding homosexual love; this is what makes the Jonathan-David affair so remarkable. Here is an intense saga of love, rivalry, and Oedipal complexes all being driven by the force of homosexual tenderness. There are deep implications of Jonathan feeling “empty” when David’s chair was vacant.
The Bible does not exactly mince words about the whole thing. In First Samuel, Chapter 20, it describes an outdoor rendezvous between the two boys: “David arose out of the place…and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed three times; and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.”
Until David “exceeded?” This is interpreted by some biblical critics as an explanation of David’s expressive weeping—that is, he ran out of tears. However, the literal translation of the Hebrew is, unequivocally, “until David enlarged.” One can have no illusions what the Bible is describing in this particular instance. See Sorry, right-wingers, but King David was gay
Examiner.com -
Fearing taunts and disapproval, they kept their love hidden for nearly two years. But with the Nov. 4 election looming, Christopher Lewis and Cody Horton resolved to take a leap of faith.
Following in the footsteps of generations of adventurers and romantics, the shy young couple from Ohio announced they were heading west to marry and begin a new life in California. They put on dark suits and exchanged vows on an unseasonably balmy afternoon in late October, before family, friends and the wide Pacific Ocean. See
Los Angeles Times
Gay couple won’t let Proposition 8 steal their dream
Los Angeles Times, CA
