The report attempts to debunk the conventional wisdom of some post-Prop. 8 analyses that pinned the measures' victory on huge support among African Americans and Republicans.posted by rtha at 8:30 AM on August 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
While those two groups supported the initiative in large numbers, from Sept. 22, 2008, until the Nov. 4, 2008, election, the report said the "No on 8" campaign "lost most ground among parents, white Democrats, Latinas and voters in the greater Bay Area."
Using daily tracking polls to draw his conclusions, Fleischer said that anti-gay marriage commercials like one called "Princes" "charged that schools would expose kids to inappropriate information about gay people." Even though the report said these ads "only peripherally concerned marriage" they were effective in the campaign's home stretch.
"The anti-gay side knows how to stimulate and exploit anti-gay prejudices," Fleischer said in an interview Tuesday. And until supporters of same-sex marriage learn how to respond more directly, they won't be successful at the ballot box.
U.S. District Court website dedicated to the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case.posted by ericb at 8:45 AM on August 4, 2010 [1 favorite]
American Foundation for Equal Rights website -- created and managed by those who filed the suit.
Firedoglake.
Prop 8 Trial Tracker.
San Jose Mercury News Prop 8 Coverage.
“If you were the proponents of the ban, what's one argument you'd probably want to avoid mentioning in your request for a stay?posted by ericb at 8:57 AM on August 4, 2010 [30 favorites]
Just... read this. I'm in awe:'Further, absent an immediate stay of any ruling invalidating Prop 8, same-sex couples would be permitted to marry in the counties of Alameda and Los Angeles (and possibly throughout California). Same-sex marriages would be licensed under a cloud of uncertainty, and should Proponents succeed on appeal, any such marriages would be invalid ab initio. Indeed, in 2004, the City and County of San Francisco issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples, resulting in approximately 4,000 purported same-sex marriages in about one month’s time.See Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco, 95 P.3d 459, 465, 467 (Cal. 2004). The California Supreme Court held that San Francisco lacked authority for its actions, and ordered that ‘all same-sex marriages authorized, solemnized, or registered by the city officials must be considered void and of no legal effect from their inception.’ Id. at 495.2Yes. You actually read that. You really did. The Prop. 8 proponents admit, and are worried about, the harm inflicted on gay couples who are put through the ordeal of a trial and then denied marriage rights. They said that.
Repeating that experience would inflict harm on the affected couples and place administrative burdens on the State.'
I'm just wondering: why do this then? Why put everyone through this? Why have your witnesses like William Tam say some horrific things? Why make ads and videos about the threat to kids and stability? Why set out to purposely hurt Americans and then put them through this trial and keep it going on and on until you have no other avenue to pursue? Why not just stop now?
If there is actual harm done to LGBT Americans by putting them through situations where their rights and their happiness are constantly in flux then just stop fucking doing it. Just stop torturing us.
I don't know what kind of cognitive dissonance was even going on here for these people to write a brief saying this. Then again these are the same people who sued the Courage Campaign because their banner of a lesbian married couple was exactly the same to them as their banner of an opposite marriage couple. I'm not sure they really think about much. It seems like they just throw things out and see what works.
This is what we're up against. This is the dreaded anti-equality side. Their side admitted we will be ‘more American’ on the day same sex marriage is legal. Their side admitted that including gay couples in marriage will not harm children, families, and will only enhance the institution of marriage. Their side went further than that and even talked about how it would be better for kids if gay couples are allowed to marry. Their side doesn't know the difference between a lesbian couple and an opposite marriage couple. Their side worries about harm to gay couples whose legal marriage status is up in the air like this.
When people look back on this time I just have to imagine there will be so much head scratching. I'm living through it and I'm fairly smart, yet I have no idea what the fuck is going on. We were governed by the bafflingly stupid for eight years and now our laws are being shaped by them in courts and in ballot initiatives.
And they're not just stupid, they're hypocrites. It takes an insane amount of hypocrisy to do these things, to even write them into their public records - court filings. I just don't believe anything they say because everything they do completely contradicts it. They are full of shit and always will be. They have nothing to use as a valid argument. Nothing. I swear to god I almost get the feeling that if we let them keep talking they'll eventually pronounce themselves in favor of full marriage equality and every LGBT right we could possibly ever want. Shit, we came close when they admitted that gay marriage would make us more American. It's like we just have to allow some people extra time to think out loud for awhile and stumble upon the right idea completely by accident.
Like I said, I'm just in awe.” *
"It’s Prop 8 Decision Day and California is exporting as much angst and anticipation as a Jim Jarmusch film. Whichever way the winds blow this afternoon, we can be certain of three things: Death, taxes and the losing side will appeal.posted by ericb at 9:05 AM on August 4, 2010
But make no mistake; August 4, 2010 will be a momentous day in the history of LGBT law. Today’s decision will mark the first time a federal district court has ruled explicitly on the constitutionality of a voter-approved initiative that withdrew marriage equality rights from millions of Californians. It will tell the story of why millions of dollars were spent to prevent committed gay couples from marrying and whether that story merits legal legitimacy. It will also set the stage for the upcoming legal battles at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. ... more ...."
Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both theAnd the decision appears to be done in a way as to make it as hard as possible to overturn on appeal, in that he gets there by way of rational basis review (even though he says that strict scrutiny could well be applicable) and finds that privately held bias is the only proven reason for the proposition. Findings of fact are hard to overturn on appeal.
Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of
judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the
official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and
directing the official defendants that all persons under their
control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8.
Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidenceGET THEE TO A COURTHOUSE, MY HOMO BRETHREN!
that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection
rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional
violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition
8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex
couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to samesex
couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result,
see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to
defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.
According to friend of the Appeal and (more importantly) lawyer who understands this stuff:We knew this would happen. But the ruling is extremely well done. Will be very hard to overturn.
"A stay is pretty much exactly what you'd think it is; they're asking the judge not to have the ruling go immediately into effect while the case goes up to the 9th Circuit for appeal. So if the stay is granted, all invalidated marriages would remain invalidated, and no one would be entitled to restart marrying same-sex couples while the appeal is pending."
“Judge Walker had the great responsibility of deciding whether Proposition 8 violates the Constitution of the United States. He heard in-depth arguments from both sides on fundamental questions of due process, equal protection and freedom from discrimination. There are strong feelings on both sides of this issue, and I am glad that all viewpoints were respected throughout the proceedings. We should also recognize that there will continue to be different points of view in the wake of this decision.That last line says alot!
“For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves. At the same time, it provides an opportunity for all Californians to consider our history of leading the way to the future, and our growing reputation of treating all people and their relationships with equal respect and dignity.
“Today's decision is by no means California's first milestone, nor our last, on America's road to equality and freedom for all people.”
08/04/2010 (710) ORDER granting [docket entry number] 706 Motion to Shorten Time. Plaintiffs, plaintiff-intervenor and defendants are DIRECTED to respond to Doc #705 on or before August 6, 2010. The clerk shall STAY entry of judgment herein until the motion to stay pending appeal has been decided. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2010) (Entered: 08/04/2010)# 705 is the "motion to stay pending appeal". So yeah, looks like it's stayed long enough to hear the official motion to stay while the appeal is heard.
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown says a federal judge's decision to overturn California's ban on gay marriage is great news.posted by homunculus at 2:51 PM on August 4, 2010
Brown posted the comment Wednesday on his Twitter account shortly after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker issued his decision.
The attorney general also released an official statement through his office, reiterating his belief that Proposition 8, passed by voters in 2008, is unconstitutional.
The lawsuit was filed by two gay couples who claimed the ban violated their civil rights.
Republican candidate Meg Whitman told reporters before the ruling that she is against gay marriage but favors civil unions. She has said she voted for Proposition 8.
Upon hearing of federal Judge Vaughn R. Walker's ruling on Proposition 8, 85-year-old Phyllis Lyon uttered a quiet, "Bless his heart."Okay, I had managed to hold it together till this afternoon, but now
She and her lifelong partner Del Martin were the first to be married in San Francisco’s City Hall in February 2004, in a private ceremony that opened the floodgates to thousands more weddings and multiple court battles.
Martin died in 2008, 56 years after she and Lyon joined together in a lasting lovers’ union. Lyon on Wednesday called Walker’s ruling "a wonderful statement" and said she planned to stick around until this battle was ultimately won nationwide.
Project 1138posted by ericb at 5:15 PM on August 4, 2010 [2 favorites]
"Project 1138 is designed to increase public awareness of the 1,138 federal marital benefits and protections denied to same-sex couples as the result of marriage inequality."
"Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.posted by ericb at 5:23 PM on August 4, 2010 [14 favorites]
Creating a 'family partnership' under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf.
Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.
Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies.
Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.
Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
Living in neighborhoods zoned for 'families only.'
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family."
1,138 federal marital benefits and protections denied to same-sex couples as the result of marriage inequality
Any way you look at it, today's decision was written for a court of one—Kennedy—the man who has written most eloquently about dignity and freedom and the right to determine one's own humanity. The real triumph of Perry v Schwarzenegger may be that it talks in the very loftiest terms about matters rooted in logic, science, money, social psychology, and fact.posted by scody at 6:42 PM on August 4, 2010 [3 favorites]
There are currently only a few proposals for amendments which have entered mainstream political debate. These include the Federal Marriage Amendment, the Balanced Budget Amendment, and the Flag Desecration Amendment. All three proposals are supported primarily by conservatives, but failed during periods of Republican control of Congress to achieve the supermajorities necessary for submission to the states.posted by muddgirl at 5:43 AM on August 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
For gay and lesbian couples, it is rather obviously a big deal. For the rest of us, there’s really no evidence that it will have any effect at all, beyond the necessity to buy a few more wedding presents (wedding present tip: Kyocera ceramic knives). Part of that is that proportion of the population involved is small (~3%), but much of it is due to the conservative nature of marriage itself. The choice of getting married or not is an extremely important life option, but once any given couple chooses it _they greatly limit their personal life options_. This is not a recipe for massive social change for any but those directly involved, and for those directly involved it will likely make their personal lives and political outlooks more conservative.and
You are confusing an advance for civil rights with sweeping social change. They *might* be the same thing, or one *might* lead to they other, but they are not the same thing.And so on. Fascinating.
IF there is sweeping social change, it has already occured — gay people are choosing to couple up just as heterosexuals are. The question is merely whether these couplings will be legally recognized. But the fact that they exist already, and sometimes in substantial or very visible circumstances, in every area of the union is undisputed.
Today’s opinion [remember, I'm quoting from Lawrence, 2003] dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), “[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case “does not involve” the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court.Damn right, Scalia. If you can't discriminate against the gays in sodomy laws, you probably can't discriminate against them in marriage laws. I'm not sure if it's more bewildering or appalling that he's using this argument as a reason why they should have upheld the anti-sodomy laws.
"Knives, scissors and all other types of utensils that are used for cutting things are not traditionally considered a good gift idea. Basically the idea of cutting or slicing things is does not promote good luck, or good karma. In fact, to the Chinese or in Latin America the gift of a knife as a gift would be interpreted as 'cutting off a friendship (or relationship).'"*posted by ericb at 10:09 AM on August 5, 2010 [4 favorites]
Conservatives Blame Loss In Prop 8 Case On Judge’s Homosexuality.posted by ericb at 11:41 AM on August 5, 2010
Pat Buchanan suggests Judge Walker struck down Proposition 8 because he is gay.
"Ironically, Walker was nominated to the bench by President Ronald Reagan and re-nominated and confirmed under President George H. W. Bush. Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) 'opposed his nomination because of his alleged "insensitivity" to gays and the poor.' The Democrats objected to Walker’s role in representing the U.S. Olympic Committee 'in its successful effort to prevent an athletic competition in San Francisco from being called the Gay Olympic Games' and for 'putting a lien on the home of a gay-games leader who was dying of AIDS.'"posted by ericb at 11:46 AM on August 5, 2010 [5 favorites]
"If this ruling is upheld, millions of Americans will face for the first time a legal system that is committed to the view that our deeply held moral views on sex and marriage are unacceptable in the public square, the fruit of bigotry that should be discredited, stigmatized and repressed. Parents will find that, almost Soviet-style, their own children will be re-educated using their own tax dollars to disrespect their parents' views and values."posted by ericb at 1:09 PM on August 5, 2010
"Well, this ruling is bad behavior - in fact, it’s very, very bad behavior - and we call on all members of the House of Representatives who respect the Constitution to launch impeachment proceedings against this judge."posted by ericb at 1:11 PM on August 5, 2010
Prop 8 Ruling.posted by ericb at 1:18 PM on August 5, 2010
Pro-Prop 8 case in Perry hinged on two witnesses tied to George 'Rentboy' Reckers.
"I try very hard to be a responsible citizen and as a gay man I try very hard to keep track of the marriages I have destroyed, and there really aren't that many. I may have some secret admirers out there and I may have wreaked more havoc than I realize, but they haven't called."posted by ericb at 2:27 PM on August 5, 2010 [7 favorites]
I think one important thing to realize in this whole thing is that Ted Olson and David Boies, both of them experienced lawyers who have appeared before the SCOTUS, seem to have taken it on as their pet project to work on this issue.
"Brown told U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker that his historic ruling that overturned Proposition 8 probably will be upheld by higher courts. He said his office last year opposed a pretrial request to block Proposition 8 only because the legal and factual issues had not then been explored. 'That has now occurred,' Brown's office said. 'And while there is still the potential for limited administrative burdens should future marriages of same-sex couples be later declared invalid, these potential burdens are outweighed by this court’s conclusion, based on the overwhelming evidence, that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.' Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is also expected to oppose a hold on the ruling."posted by ericb at 5:53 PM on August 6, 2010
“The Orthodox Jewish community should be ashamed of itself for trying to take away the civil rights of its fellow citizens,” said Denise Eger, rabbi of Congregation Kol Ami, West Hollywood’s gay and lesbian Reform synagogue. “If they don’t want to do the marriage in their shul, they don’t have to.”
Meanwhile, Orthodox Jewish leaders said they felt compelled to speak out in favor of Proposition 8 in light of the fact that less traditional corners of the Jewish world were vocally opposing it in the name of Judaism and Jewish values.
“On this particular issue, if the Orthodox community had not maintained a voice on Proposition 8, it would have been spoken that we agree or accept the public face of the Jewish community on this issue, ergo what the Reform and Conservative movements were saying,” said J.J. Rabinowich, who heads Agudath Israel of California, the West Coast branch of the fervently Orthodox advocacy group Agudath Israel of America.
"But the public will, like the law, is an evolutionary thing; there is little doubt that, despite the passage of Proposition 8 two years ago, voter sentiment in California has been steadily moving toward greater acceptance of same-sex marriage.posted by ericb at 2:32 PM on August 9, 2010 [2 favorites]
The position of this editorial page has likewise been evolutionary, having moved from support for civil unions and opposition to gay marriage some years ago, to support for same-sex marriage and opposition to Proposition 8 in 2008.
We have also expressed serious reservations about achieving this societal evolution by court directive rather than the democratic process of legislative action or a public vote. But we recognize that the courts are also part of the democratic process of checks and balances and have on many, many occasions served as an important protector of the rights of minority citizens."
Judge Walker is in fact not "openly" gay. Perkins surely knows that, as an obsessed proponent of Prop 8 following the trial day in and day out. Judge Walker has not ever confirmed to anyone in the media what sexual orientation he may be.I was trying to say the same thing, though I didn't do it as well. Good opinion piece. I agree.
Judge Walker has not ever confirmed to anyone in the media what sexual orientation he may be.It was my impression from general blog chatter that Judge Walker did nothing to hide the fact that he was gay, up to and including bringing male dates to events, but I am not in his social circle so I may be wrong.
None of the factors the court weighs in considering a motion to stay favors granting a stay. Accordingly, proponents’ motion for a stay is DENIED. Doc #705. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment forthwith. That judgment shall be STAYED until August 18,2010 at 5PM PDT at which time defendants and all persons under their control or supervision shall cease to apply or enforce Proposition 8.omg ♥
Accordingly, proponents’ motion for a stay is DENIED. Doc #705. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment forthwith. That judgment shall be STAYED until August 18, 2010 at 5 PM PDT at which time defendants and all persons under their control or supervision shall cease to apply or enforce Proposition 8.posted by norm at 12:44 PM on August 12, 2010
"The case now goes before a special 'motions panel' of three judges at the appeals court, the largest and busiest federal appeals court in the nation with jurisdiction over nine western states.posted by ericb at 1:34 PM on August 12, 2010
The panel consists of two judges appointed by Democrats and a third by a Republican.
President Ronald Reagan appointed Judge Edward Leavy to the appeals court in 1987. Leavy, who is semi-retired, has served as judge in the state and federal courts in Oregon since 1957.
President Bill Clinton nominated Judge Michael Daly Hawkins to the court in 1994 and Judge Sidney Thomas in 1995.
Hawkins, based in Phoenix, served as Arizona's U.S. Attorney under President Jimmy Carter and also worked as a special prosecutor for the Navajo Nation from 1985 to 1989.
Thomas, who keeps his chambers in Bozeman, Mont., made President Obama's short list to fill the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy that was filled last week by Elena Kagan.
A new three-judge panel will be chosen sometime next year to decide the appeal. Lawyers for both sides have been ordered to file their legal arguments by the end of the year." *
Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.That may well be the crux of it.
A federal appeals court today put off any same-sex marriages in California until at least next year.posted by scody at 4:04 PM on August 16, 2010
In a brief order, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to stay Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's order last week that would have barred the state from enforcing Proposition 8, a development that would have enabled same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses across the state immediately. Walker on Aug. 4 declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional, and then found there is no longer legal justification to deny same-sex couples the right to marry while his ruling is reviewed on appeal.
“The marriage equality community is bustling with both frustration and excitement, like a drunk girl at a party. As you know, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit today issued an order staying -- postponing or delaying -- the implementation of Judge Walker's August 4 order to give the Prop 8 proponents time to appeal.posted by ericb at 8:11 AM on August 17, 2010
The three judge panel specifically asked the parties to address the standing issue on appeal and while such specific instruction does happen, it is certainly not the default in most circuit courts of appeal. It means that this issue is front and center on the judges' radar. This panel -- while not necessarily the panel that will hear the merits of the appeal -- is curious as to how a party not covered or affected by an order could have the right to appeal such an order, i.e., having ‘standing’ to appeal. Certain legal experts see this focus as a victory for the advocates of marriage equality. If the Prop 8 proponents do not have standing to appeal, the case is virtually over and Judge Walker's opinion will bring a second dawn of marriage equality in California. That's great!
But, if that is where this case ends, marriage equality will extend no farther than California. The state would be added to the list of states granting gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, but the case's precedential weight would be limited. Judge Walker's decision would have no effect on Washington State and Oregon and the other states in the Ninth Circuit territory. However, if the Ninth Circuit accepted standing for the Prop 8 proponents, an appellate decision affirming Judge Walker's order could impact the entire Ninth Circuit. It would also weigh heavily on judges throughout the country as more persuasive. A district court decision, no matter how well-reasoned and air tight, is not as much of an influence to other federal courts addressing this issue than an appellate court decision.
Here are a few ways this can go (there are many others):
- Ninth Circuit denies standing to the Prop 8 proponents. Marriage equality for California!
- Ninth Circuit accepts standing, hears the merits on appeal. Affirms Judge Walker's opinion. Marriage equality for California and, perhaps, the entire Ninth Circuit territory.
- Ninth Circuit accepts standing, hears the merits on appeal. Vacates (overturns or sends back or says, ‘No way!’) Judge Walker's opinion, Prop 8 and its ban on same-sex marriage stands.”
« Older Undercover investigators posing as students intere... | "On September 11, 2001, t... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by klangklangston at 8:26 AM on August 4, 2010