Tag Archives: protect marriage

SCOTUS Takes on BOTH Prop 8 and Windsor DOMA Case – Reactions and Opinions From Across The Web

Featured, Gay News From Around The Globe, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

As we all know by now the Supreme Court issued orders granting hearings in the Prop 8 case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, and one Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) case, Windsor v. United States.

SCOTUSblog writes:

Prop. 8 is granted on the petition question — whether 14th Am. bars Calif. from defining marriage in traditional way. Plus an added question: Whether the backers of Prop.. 8 have standing in the case under Art. III.

In Windsor, the government petition (12-307) is the one granted. In addition to the petition question — whether Sec. 3 of DOMA violates equal protection under 5th Amendment, there are two other questions: does the fact that government agreed with the 2d CA decision deprive the Court of jurisdiction to hear and decide the case, and whether BLAG (House GOP leaders) has Art. III standing in this case.

Many expected SCOTUS to take up the Windsor v. United States DOMA case but many, myself included had hoped that they would pass on Prop 8 bringing to an end the 4 years of fighting over same-sex marriage in California and making it legal once again.

Is it a bad omen that SCOTUS took BOTH cases?  Or perhaps maybe a calculated move?

If SCOTUS did indeed pass on Prop 8 which would automatically have made  same-sex marriage legal in California once again and took the DOMA case it would have given the impression that the Supreme Court was leaning left on same sex marriage and would have opened up a huge can of worms with anti-gay right-wing republicans and groups until the June hearing.  Did SCOTUS take both cases to keep the drama to a minimum from both sides until the time it can announce BOTH cases at the same time to get it over with all at once?

Either way one thing is certain.  When the decisions come down in June will be HUGE one way or another and will impact both the lives and the meaning if what it means to be a LGBT American and our community should be ready to react appropriately regardless of the outcome.

He’s some reactions and spin from pro-LGBT and anti-LGBT organizations alike on SCOTUS’ decision to hear both cases.

National Organization For Marriage:

“We believe that it is significant that the Supreme Court has taken the Prop 8 case. We believe it is a strong signal that the Court will reverse the lower courts and uphold Proposition 8. That is the right outcome based on the law and based on the principle that voters hold the ultimate power over basic policy judgments and their decisions are entitled to respect. Had the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts’ decisions invalidating Proposition 8, it could simply have declined to grant certiorari in the case. It’s a strong signal that the justices are concerned with the rogue rulings that have come out of San Francisco at both the trial court and appellate levels. It’s worth noting that Judge Reinhart is the most overruled judge in America. I think this case will add to his record.” – John Eastman, chairman of NOM.

Lambda Legal:

This is an exciting moment in our journey toward equality. DOMA is a terrible law that forces our government to discriminate against loving same-sex couples, and it is time for it to go. It is clear that DOMA’s days are numbered. Every one of the cases that the Court was considering makes a clear and compelling case for striking down this outrageous and discriminatory law. As we have throughout this litigation, we will contribute support and file a friend-of-the-court brief. We look forward to working with the ACLU and other sister organizations in making this case before the Court. As for Hollingsworth v. Perry, while the Supreme Court’s decision to review the Ninth Circuit’s correct and carefully-worded ruling delays the restoration of equal access to marriage for same-sex couples in California, we believe the lower court rulings in California will stand.

Family Research Council:

President Tony Perkins made the following comments regarding the decision:

“Virtually nothing is more important to the future of our country than marriage and the family. This is why we are pleased that the Supreme Court has decided to examine lower court decisions striking down the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8. It was completely appropriate for Congress, using DOMA in 1996, to create uniformity in federal law and explicitly confirm that ‘marriage’ would be between one man and one woman for federal purposes – as it always had been. Since President Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law, 30 states have followed suit by incorporating the definition of marriage into their constitutions.

“Should the Supreme Court decide to overturn the marriage laws of 41 states, the ruling would become even more divisive than the Court’s infamous Roe v. Wade decision. Marriage, unlike abortion laws in the 1970s, has been incorporated into the state constitutions of 30 states. Voters in these states will not accept an activist court redefining our most fundamental social institution.

“However, we remain confident that in the end, the U.S. Supreme Court will recognize that DOMA is supported by numerous legitimate legislative purposes – all of which are consistent with our principles of federalism. The argument that the authors of our Constitution created or even implied a ‘right’ to redefine ‘marriage’ lies outside our constitutional law.

“Additionally, we believe that the people’s vote on Proposition 8 should be respected. Activist courts like the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit should not overturn their decision. We hope the Supreme Court will recognize the right of the people to uphold marriage as it has always been defined,”

Freedom To Marry:

“By agreeing to hear a case against the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, the Court can now move swiftly to affirm what 10 federal rulings have already said: DOMA’s ‘gay exception’ to how the federal government treats married couples violates the Constitution and must fall. When it comes to the whole federal safety net that accompanies marriage – access to Social Security survivorship, health coverage, family leave, fair tax treatment, family immigration, and over 1000 other protections and responsibilities — couples who are legally married in the states should be treated by the federal government as what they are: married.” “Additionally, gay and lesbian couples in California – and indeed, all over the country – now look to the Supreme Court to affirm that the Constitution does not permit states to strip something as important as the freedom to marry away from one group of Americans.”

Liberty Counsel:

Washington, DC — The Supreme Court announced that it will take up two marriage laws, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (U.S. v. Windsor) and California’s Proposition 8 (Hollingsworth v. Perry), a state marriage amendment. The High Court will decide both cases by the end of the term in June 2013.

If the DOMA case is dismissed because the Legislative Branch had no standing to continue the appeal, than that would mean the federal court of appeals decision would be vacated and only the lower district court decision in the Southern District would stand, meaning the impact of the decision would be limited to only the Bronx, Dutchess, New York City, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Sullivan, and Westchester. The decision would not affect the entire state of New York and certainly not the surrounding states in the circuit court of appeals.

If the Prop 8 case were dismissed on standing, that would mean the federal court of appeals decision would be vacated and only the lower district court decision in the Northern District would stand, meaning the impact of the decision would be limited to Alemeda, Contra Costa, Humboldt, Monterey, Napa, Santa Clara, San Francisco, San Mateo, Solano, and some other Northern counties. The decision would not affect the entire state of California, nor would it affect the other states within the circuit court of appeals.

“Redefining marriage to include same-sex unions would undermine marriage and the family and would have significant negative social consequences,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “The United States Supreme Court has previously indicated in Baker v. Nelson that the U.S. Constitution does not grant a right for same-sex couples to marry. Common sense and a quick read of the Constitution say there is no such right to same-sex marriage. Based on the questions which the Supreme Court will decide, these cases could either be blockbusters or duds. The Court could decide the central issue of same-sex marriage, but the Court could also kick the can down the road and save that question for another day.”

Human Rights Campaign:

“Today is a milestone day for equal justice under the law and for millions of loving couples who want to make a lifelong commitment through marriage. The passage of Proposition 8 caused heartbreak for so many Americans, but today’s announcement gives hope that we will see a landmark Supreme Court ruling for marriage this term. As the Court has ruled 14 times in the past, marriage is a fundamental right and I believe they will side with liberty, freedom and equality, moving us toward a more perfect union as they have done in the past. “Proposition 8 has been already been declared unconstitutional in Federal District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Now the Supreme Court has an opportunity to do the same and send a resounding message of hope to LGBT young people from coast to coast that they have the same dignity and same opportunities for the future as everyone else

Focus on the Family:

“The Supreme Court’s decision today to determine whether the Constitution allows state and federal government to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman is a welcome development. When the executive branch of the government is no longer willing to defend its own law, the final arbiter must be the highest court in the land. Today’s announcement sets in motion a process that may conclude with one of the most momentous decisions ever rendered by the United States Supreme Court. Will the Court affirm the basic design of the family that has stood throughout cultures worldwide for multiple millennia, or will it engage in a sweeping exercise of social re-engineering with profound ramifications for this and future generations? The justices and personnel involved deserve our prayers for wisdom and discernment.” – Jim Daly, president of Focus On The Family.

Protect Marriage:

“The day we’ve been waiting for is finally here. Today we scored a MAJOR victory for traditional marriage in the Supreme Court of the United States!! Just moments ago, the Supreme Court GRANTED our petition seeking the Court’s review of the Ninth Circuit’s erroneous decision striking down California’s Proposition 8. Thankfully, now we finally have a fighting chance at a fair hearing to defend the votes of over 7 million Californians who approved Prop 8 to restore traditional marriage. This is a great relief, after a long and difficult journey through the lower courts where the deck was stacked against us from the start.” – California-based hate group Protect Marriage, via press release.

Here is the SCOTUS order for anyone thats interetested (PDF). 

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Finds Proposition 8 UNCONSTITUTIONAL! But It Ain’t Over Yet.

Events, Featured, Gay News Domestic & U.S. Politics, , ,

Its taken many years and may years in court but FINALLY a decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution.

The ruling upholds a decision by retired Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who struck down the ballot measure in 2010 after holding an unprecedented trial on the nature of sexual orientation and the history of marriage.

But its probably not over.  ProtectMarriage, the backers of Proposition 8, can and will probably appeal todays decision to a larger panel of the 9th Circuit or go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Unfortunately the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the stay against performing same sex marriages will stay in place until the appeal process is through.

But it is a VICTORY.  But unfortunately its far from over yet kids.

CA Federal Court Judge Rules NOM and ProtectMarriage.com MUST Release Prop 8 Donor Names

Featured, Gay News Domestic & U.S. Politics, Gay News From Around The Globe, , , ,

Coming on the heels of Monday’s ruling by a federal district judge in Washington that the names and signatures of  the Referendum 71 petition that asked voters to approve or reject a domestic partnership law approved by lawmakers and signed by the state’s Democratic governor must be released after years of court battles.

U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr in Sacramento on Thursday ruled against that ProtectMarriage.com and the National Organization for Marriage, must also release the petition signatories the and the identities of campaign donors.

 California law requires the disclosure of the identity of anyone who contributes $100 or more to a campaign. ProtectMarriage.com said the $100 limit was too low,and that the donors would remain exposed to harassment “so long as these names are perpetually kept on the state’s website.”

PtotectMarriage.com also claimed it qualified for an exception to disclosure laws once granted by the U.S. Supreme Court to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Socialist Workers Party.

Judge England was skeptical throughout the hearing. The Socialist Workers Party involved relatively few people, he said, and belonging to the NAACP in the early 1950s “could cause you to be killed.” In contrast, he said, Proposition 8 proponents not only enjoyed the support of millions of people, but prevailed in the election.

The judge read from a batch of declarations in which people claimed yard signs were stolen, that they received harassing phone calls, or, in one case, that people protested outside someone’s business. “That’s the extent of what happened,” he said.

Mollie Lee, a San Francisco deputy city attorney, said La Rue presented no evidence of death threats or physical violence. More minor incidents, she said, are “not out of the ordinary in California politics.”

Judge England agreed.

Look for Brian Brown (shirts) of NOM’s whining press release to come shortly.

Protect Marriage Wants 9th Circut Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt Removed From Trial Because He’s A Liberal *GASP*

Uncategorized, , , , , , , ,

Running scared and because they know they have about as much chance as a snowball fight in hell of winning, Protect Marriage, the group defending Proposition 8 in next week’s hearing in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, has filed a motion, asking that Stephen Reinhardt, a judge whom conservative pundit Ed Whelan last week accused of being “the most aggressive liberal judicial activist in the nation,” recuse himself from the case because, well hes a liberal.

Soon to be named hate group, The National Orgaination for Marriage President Brian Brown writes:

“Judge Reinhardt’s wife, Ramona Ripston, has been involved in this case on numerous accounts, and what we’ve learned from Ed Whelan’s highly informative Bench Memo yesterday, posted on National Review Online (and updated here) is that there is no way Judge Reinhardt can rightfully remain a member of this hearing without making a mockery of the federal judiciary. We are demanding that Judge Reinhardt to step down immediately and call Californians to write an official complaint to the Ninth Circuit demanding that Judge Reinhardt be disqualified.”

The AP follows up about the actual filing of the papers:

In papers filed with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, lawyers for Proposition 8’s supporters said Judge Stephen Reinhardt’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” because his wife heads the Southern California chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

In that role, the judge’s wife, Ramona Ripston, has been an outspoken opponent of Proposition 8 and taken part in legal proceedings to overturn the voter-approved law, the lawyers said. They cited the friend of the court brief the ACLU filed on behalf of the plaintiff’s in the case pending before her husband as an example.

“So long as a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, recusal is required,” they wrote in a motion asking Reinhardt to disqualify himself. “The facts of this case would plainly lead a reasonable person to conclude that Judge Reinhardt’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Well Brian Blown then we should also remove the Mormon juge who’s on that 9th Circut panel and better yet Clarence Thomas should recluse himself when this case when it lands at the highest court in the land.  After all, his wife Virginia Thomas is a Tea Party activist, has her own organization that has funneled money into various political conservative campaigns and has herself come out against gay marriage. Here’s a quote:

In an August interview on Fox News Channel, Thomas said she agreed with host Neil Cavuto “that issues like California’s ban on gay marriage and Arizona’s tough illegal immigration law should be decided by people, not the courts.”

ProtectMarriage Goes INSANE: Argues That If Prop 8 Backers Are Not Allowed To Appeal Then Judge Vaugh Walkers Verdict Would Only Apply To TWO Couples, Not ALL Same-Sex Couples In California

Uncategorized, , , , , , , ,

In the latest bit of INSANITY from protectmarriage.com they are now arguing the INSANE notion that if  backers of Proposition 8 are not permitted to appeal Judge Walker’s ruling overturning the measure, the effect of that ruling must be limited to the two same-sex couples who brought the challenge, sponsors of Proposition 8 argued Friday.  Which they say means only the two couples could marry. Other same-sex couples in California would continue to be barred from marrying.

In written arguments before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the sponsors, called protectmarriage insisted they had legal authority to appeal last month’s ruling even though the gay couples sued the state, not the proponents.

Now  protectmarriage.com said the court need not even reach a decision on whether it can appeal and that the appeal can by lodged by Imperial County, which has been trying to intervene in the case against Proposition 8. Imperial County voted overwhelmingly for Proposition 8 and is being represented by another Christian group aligned with protectmarriage

They argue that if the 9th Circuit decides that neither the sponsors nor Imperial County have standing, Walker’s decision should affect only the couples who sued because the lawsuit was not brought on behalf of all gay couples in the state.and if the ruling were limited, only the two couples could marry. Other same-sex couples in California would continue to be barred from marrying.

A 9th Circuit panel is scheduled to hold a hearing on the arguments in December. Until then, the court has decided that Walker’s ruling should not be enforced. (They should also hold a mental competency hearing for ProtectMarriage while they are at it)

Protect Marriage Gloats About Ninth Circut Decision And Begs For Money!

Uncategorized, , , , , ,

From The Protect Marriage Press Release: (And yes, as always they beg for MORE MONEY!)

“Great news! The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just now granted our request to suspend Judge Walker’s ruling against Proposition 8! This legal victory upholds the votes of 7 million Californians while the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case is heard on appeal. If the Ninth Circuit had not granted our motion, then Judge Walker’s decision would have gone into effect on Wednesday, changing the definition of marriage in California despite the vote of the people less than two years ago. As we pointed out in our motion, Judge Walker’s decision totally ignores virtually all legal precedents, the well-recognized public interest served by fostering traditional marriage, and even common sense itself.

In addition to stopping Judge Walker from imposing same-sex marriage on California, the Court of Appeal also ordered that this case will be expedited. That means our opening legal briefs are due in just 30 days! So please help support our legal team and all their important work. With the Attorney General and Governor refusing to defend the people’s vote for Prop 8, the entire burden of defending Prop 8 falls up our legal defense team. We receive no government funding. We rely exclusively on the generous financial support of concerned citizens like you. Please make a special donation right now to help us keep up with the legal costs of defending Prop 8! Thank you for your prayers and support”

Remember your Bible Christomaniacs!

“Pride cometh before a fall” So keep on gloating there you assholes.

Protect Marriage’s Final Motion Argument To Appeal The Lifting Of The STAY In Prop 8? "Responsible Procreation" – STFU!

Uncategorized, , , , ,

Well Protect Marriages final mothin is in and its unbeliveably stupid.  According to Protect marriage the STAY on not performing anymore gay marriages should stay in place because the state’s job of promoting “responsible procreation” would be irrevocably harmed by gay marriage. 

Lets hear it for “responsible procreation.” Like Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston. Or Britney Spears, the Ocxtomom or the 40% rate of out-of-wedlock children born in California.

What a bunch of LOSERS.

Expect a ruling either later today or tomorrow at the latest!  (And if they win with that piece of crap there is something REALLY WRONG with the Ninth Circut.)

Protect Marriage Files 95 Page Emergency Motion For Stay To Prop 8 Overturn Pending Appeal – Read The Appeal Here

Uncategorized, , , ,

Well we knew it was coming. Even though California Govenor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown have no onterest in fighting Judge Vaugh Walkers reversal of Prop 8 or the lifting of the stay that now allows same sex marriage to resume on August 18th in California Protect Marriage has filed a 95 page “Emergency” motion for a new “Stay” to be put in plave which will put same sex marriage on hold until the 9th Circut hears the case.  (IF it hears the case)

Protect Marriage ‘s major 4 points are: 1. It’s always been done this way.  2. There is not enough data from Massachusetts to see if same-sex marriage works is a viable social construct. 3. Because CA voters said so.  4. The “Irreparable harm”  that will come to us if we marry then they win appeal and our marriages invalidated   (Oh look, the scumbags now care about us.)

It’s baically a 95 page tantrum of the same tired, full-of-shit ‘tradition of marriage’ ‘procreation’ ‘child needs mommy/daddy’ bullshit.  So much bullshit in fact that o pages 3, page 5 and again on page 36, they cite ‘common sense’ as evidence.

*You can read all 95 Pages of the “Emergency Stay” after the jump.  (Just CLICK “Read more….” below!)

Prop 8 Defense Cites Will & Grace and Brokeback Mountain To Prove Lack Of Discrimination Against Gays And Lesbians (Now THAT Is Seriously Demented)

Uncategorized, , , , ,

Incredible!

David H. Thompson, the defense attorney in Perry representing supporters of Prop 8, today cross-examined plaintiff witness Dr. George Chauncey, the Yale history professor about how not everybody discriminates against gays and lesbians.  Namely, that the journalistic and entertainment media.

Read the transcript from FireDogLake because I can’t evenm bring myself to post such GARBAGE here.

The overall insanity of that whole line of questiuoning is beyond me.  I suppose African Americans weren’t discriminated against before the 1965 Civil Rights Act because of Amos ‘n’ Andy on the radio and Bill Bojangles dancing with Shirley Temple in the movies, and Hattie McDaniel getting an Oscar.

I also guess Thompson he failed to watch all of “Brokeback Mountain” because the main character is murdered for being gay. “