Well it seems that Andrew Ambrosino Sullivan is at it gain helping to feed the fire of those who are against by by writing another column about Mozilla ex-CEO Brendan Eich (above) this time trying to compare Eich’s problem to those of LGBT workers in America who are discriminated against and has the sheer gall to bring up ENDA!
“Thank you for the hundreds and hundreds of emails about the Mozilla-Eich affair. My readers overwhelmingly disagree with me for a host of reasons. But I have to say that this time, the more I have mulled this over, the more convinced I am that my initial response to this is absolutely the right one. And not just the right one, but a vital one to defend at this juncture in the gay rights movement.
So let me concede all of the opposing arguments that have been deployed to defend the public shaming and resignation of Brendan Eich. To recap those points:This was not the “gay left” as such, but the “techie straight left” more broadly. Sure (I’ve been to San Francisco). He wasn’t fired; he resigned. Undisputed.Mozilla is not your usual company. Obviously not. Being CEO is different than being just a regular employee and requires another standard. Sure. It doesn’t matter because we’re all marching toward victory anyway. Well, probably. This was a function of market forces and the First Amendment. You won’t get me to disagree about that. [snip]
In California, if an employer had fired an employee for these reasons, he would be breaking the law:
1102. No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.
Now Eich was not in that precise position. He resigned as CEO under duress because of his political beliefs. The letter of the law was not broken. But what about the spirit of the law?
We either develop the ability to tolerate those with whom we deeply disagree, or liberal society is basically impossible. Civil conversation becomes culture war; arguments and reason cede to emotion and anger. And let me reiterate: this principle of toleration has recently been attacked by many more on the far right than on the far left. I’m appalled, for example, at how great gay teachers have been fired by Catholic schools, even though it is within the right of the schools to do so. It’s awful that individuals are fired for being gay with no legal recourse all over the country. But if we rightly feel this way about gays in the workplace, why do we not feel the same about our opponents? And on what grounds can we celebrate the resignation of someone for his off-workplace political beliefs? Payback? Revenge? Some liberal principles, in my view, are worth defending whether they are assailed by left or right.
After calls for his resignation and boycotts by the LGBT Community and its straight allies along with gay Mozilla staffers, and gay developers Mozilla chairwoman Mitchell Baker announced Eichs removal.
Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it. We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves. We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better. Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO. He’s made this decision for Mozilla and our community. Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.
What’s next for Mozilla’s leadership is still being discussed. We want to be open about where we are in deciding the future of the organization and will have more information next week. However, our mission will always be to make the Web more open so that humanity is stronger, more inclusive and more just: that’s what it means to protect the open Web. We will emerge from this with a renewed understanding and humility — our large, global, and diverse community is what makes Mozilla special, and what will help us fulfill our mission. We are stronger with you involved. Thank you for sticking with us.
Through all this Eich has never apologized or stated that he has changed his position on gay marriage.
The Family Research Council, in cahoots with the anti-gay Thomas More Society, have filed a Supreme Court brief against the overturn of Proposition 8. arguing that Proposition 8 is not intended to discriminate against gay people and is no way like Loving v Virgina
Anti-miscegenation statutes were intended to keep persons of different races separate. Marriage statutes, on the other hand, are intended to bring persons of the opposite sex together. Statutes that mandated segregation of the races with respect to marriage cannot be compared in any relevant sense to statutes that promote integration of the sexes
Unlike the history of the antimiscegenation statutes struck down in Loving, which stigmatized blacks as inferior to whites, “there is no evidence that laws reserving marriage toopposite-sex couples were enacted with an intent to discriminate against either men or women. Accordingly, such laws cannot be equated in a facile manner with anti-miscegenation laws.
Here’s all 48 pages of the hate brief from the FRC. It hits everything rotten talking point the FRC has ever uttered.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
“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.
GetEQUAL and other California organizations will be staging a protest outside the installation of new San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone on Thursday. Cordileone has a long track record of virulently anti-LGBT political activism
GetEQUAL Press Release:
On Thursday, October 4, Salvatore Cordileone — an outspoken anti-gay activist — will be installed as the head of the San Francisco Archdiocese. This is a slap in the face to the San Francisco LGBT population, but more importantly an affront to all equality-minded Catholics in the Bay Area. GetEQUAL — a national civil rights organization fighting for full equality for LGBT Americans — will protest his installation and to stand up for the dignity of ALLCalifornia families.
WHO: GetEQUAL and other allied organizations/individuals
WHAT: Archbishop Cordileone Installation Protest
WHEN: Thursday October 4th – 1:00PM to 4:00PM
WHERE: St. Mary’s Cathedral, 1111 Gough St., San Francisco, CA
Oakland Bishop Salvatore Cordileone was one of the major voices in the campaign to pass the discriminatory Proposition 8 in California. He is the head of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee for the Defense of Marriage, whose sole purpose is to “defend” marriage from inclusion of loving and committed gay couples. His past radical-right political partners have included the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and Focus on the Family.
“Despite a vast majority of American Catholics affirming the true social justice teachings of Jesus and of the church, Cordileone continues to use right-wing political action to climb the ranks of church hierarchy,” said Billy Bradford, a local organizer with GetEQUAL. “The harm caused to our community — especially to our youth — is irreparable. This man has blood on his hands, and his installation in one of the few communities fully welcoming of LGBT Americans cannot go unchallenged.”
The protest is open to the public and all members of the community are welcomed to join.
Another court ruling has been issued on Proposition 8, the Californian law voted for in 2008 that defined marriage between a man and woman. Judge James Ware issued that the case be closed. This makes those that were for having the case heard and have the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision that ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional more difficult. Earlier this year the Ninth Circuit of Appeals struck down the law voted in favor 52 % of California voters.
The decision, however, can be brought up to the Supreme Court when the reconvene in October. Some are reporting that this also means that in order for Judge Ware’s decision to go into affect, the Supreme Court must first rule on the case. Here’s an excerpt from today’s ruling:
On August 4, 2010, the Court issued an order in this case in which it directed the Clerk toenter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors and against Defendants andDefendant-Intervenors. (hereafter, “August 4 Order,” Docket Item No. 708 at 136.) On August 12,2010, the Court issued a further order in which it declined to stay the August 4 Order and directedthe Clerk to “enter judgment forthwith.” (See Docket Item No. 727 at 10-11.) On June 14, 2011,the Court issued an order denying a motion to vacate judgment brought by Defendant-Intervenors.
I admit, to me the jargon in today’s ruling has been a bit confusing with both sides unclear about what the ruling means for same sex couples wanting to marry. Buzzfeed did however offer an update to further clarify on the initial report:
“A stay of the case by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pending the Supreme Court’s determination of whether it takes the case means that a ‘mandate’ will not issue [sic] allowing Ware’s order today to go into effect. The order comes despite the fact that proponents of Proposition 8 have requested the Supreme Court to review the case because, Judge James Ware wrote today, all requests to stay the judgment in the case have been denied.”
So it appears that the movement for equality and the waiting game continues for same sex couples in California seeking marriage equality, with some like the American Foundation for Equal Rights tweeting
“Today’s court activity in the #Prop8 case is just housekeeping by the court, has nothing to do with judgement taking effect.”
And other LGBTQ organizations like GLAAD and HRC that haven’t made a formal comment on this late breaking news, it is difficult to determine a consensus on what the case means for gay men and women seeking marriage equality. Story developing….
Featuring an all-star cast including George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Martin Sheen, Jamie Lee Curtis, Jane Lynch, Kevin Bacon and others, “8” is a play written by Academy Award winning screenwriter Dustin Lance Black and directed by acclaimed actor and director Rob Reiner. It is a powerful account of the case filed by the American Federation for Equal Rights (AFER ) in the U.S. District Court in 2010 to overturn Proposition 8 a constitutional amendment that eliminated the rights of same-sex couples to marry in the state of California. Framed around the trial’s historic closing arguments in June 2010, 8 provides an intimate look what unfolded when the issue of same-sex marriage was on trial.
Video of last nights performance made available by American Foundation for Equal Rights — the organization behind the effort to overturn Prop 8 — the event was streamed live on YouTube last night And now you can watch the full program below.
The play itself starts at roughly at the 30 minute mark after a recap of news reports and speeches about the court case challenging Prop 8.
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.
Los Angeles City College “christian” student Jonathan Lopez won the right to sue Los Angeles City College for violating his First Amendment rights after Lopez claimed that his public speaking professor John Matteson stopped him in the middle of an Amti-Gay Marriage speech and according to the CHRISTOMANIACS at the Alliance Defense Fund, alleged that the professor called him a “fascist bastard” and told him to “ask God what your grade is.” and that Matteson told Lopez that he would make sure he’d be expelled from school. (Drama Queens?, Liars? Both?)
So inothers words Lopez got OWNED. And now, of course CHRISTOMANIACS out there are screaming that his case is yet another example of Christian (HATE) speech being stifled,
“Lopez, a self-described Christian, claimed a professor stopped him mid-speech, deeming his words sexual harassment under the Los Angeles Community College District’s code of conduct. He sued the district in February 2009 in Los Angeles federal court, claiming the code was so broad that it limited his right to free speech. U.S. Circuit Court Judge Sandra S. Ikuta wrote in the opinion handed down today that Lopez, “failed to make a clear showing that his intended speech on religious topics gave rise to a specific and credible threat of adverse action from college officials under the college’s sexual harassment policy.”