Prop 8 reversal movement fails

I can already imagine the headlines from the anti-equality folks: Supporters of Same Sex Marriage Can't Even Get Enough Signatures to Repeal Prop 8.

That's the simple version.  The real version is a little more complicated.  In fact, the major LGBT groups were not in favor of putting the issue on the ballot this fall, believing that waiting until 2012 was a better strategy for bringing marriage equality back to California.  They did not even participate in the signature drive.

That many LGBT groups opposed a fall referendum will no doubt be omitted in the reporting of this story.

New written arguments in gay marriage trial

The San José Mercury News is reporting that lawyers for the federal trial have submitted new written arguments to Judge Vaughn Walker (right) who will decide the case.  Walker had requested the new briefs prior to closing arguments. Opponents of same-sex marriage added a few new reasons to deny marriage rights to gay couples, claiming that gay marriage would cause irreparable harm to heterosexual marriages.  According to the newspaper, "The potential harms they cited included giving bisexuals a legal basis for pursuing group marriages and unmarried fathers an incentive to abandon their children."

I'm always intrigued that the anti-gay folks portray gay relationships as so attractive that they will upset the social order.  In this case, are hoards of unmarried fathers supposed to abandon their children to elope with their same-sex lovers?

Double standard in Prop 8 case

The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that the federal judge, Chief US District Judge Vaughn Walker, who will decide the challenge to Proposition 8. is gay.

According to the newspaper,  the judge, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush in 1989, has never hidden nor called attention to his orientation.

Will this influence Judge Walker's decision? One only has to study Walker's decision years ago when he ruled against organizers of the Gay Games to call the event  The Gay Olympics.  (God forbid the word gay should tarnish the Olympic brand.)

Some folks are calling for him to step down from the case, citing a conflict of interest.  If that's the case, the five Catholic judges should step down from the US Supreme Court on any ruling regarding same-sex marriage or abortion, since their religious leader, The Pope, insists that both are contrary to Roman Catholic doctrine.

Gee, that would leave four judges to decide these cases.  The point is, heterosexual, wealthy, white males have decided the lion's share (and then some) of the Supreme Court cases throughout history.  Why wasn't attention paid when the biases they brought to the court might have influenced their decisions?

A new law regarding gay marriage is pending in California

There is some interesting news in the San Francisco Chronicle.  Here's a summary and an opinion.

A bill is being pushed that would exempt clergy and churches from any legal consequences for denying same-sex marriages to gay couples.  What's interesting is that the major supporters of the  bill are supporters of same-sex marriage.

Politically and (in my opinion) constitutionally it makes sense.  Once a law like this is on the books, it makes it more difficult for anti-equality folks to claim that churches that reject same-sex marriage will be required to perform them.  (Are you listening, Maine?)  It also makes constitutional sense by supporting the notion of the separation of church and state.  The government shouldn't be allowed to tell religious groups what to believe.

Said the bill's author, state senator Mark Leno D-San Francisco (left), "We heard through the Prop. 8 debate great concern from certain clergy that their freedom of religion could be infringed upon and their tax-exempt status revoked. We want to clarify that by putting the constitutional guarantee of the First Amendment, freedom of religion, into statute."

Another benefit from the bill would be that it would highlight the difference between civil and religious marriage by putting the word "civil" in front of references to marriage.  Said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California (right). "There is confusion among many people whether a marriage license is a civil document or a religious document. It's a civil document, and this is putting that in the code so there is no confusion."

Although some religious groups that supported the ban of marriage though Proposition 8, I do wonder if the leaders of these groups would be ready to support same-sex civil marriage.  Said Prop 8 supporter Terry Barone (left), "That certainly would seem to add protections for a clergy member who, for whatever reason, might be hesitant to perform a marriage ceremony." 

What I find fascinating about the bill is that people are talking about gay marriage -- which is not allowed in California because of Prop 8 -- as if it were inevitable.  Why else would people support a move that protected clergy from performing same-sex marriage ceremonies in a state where same sex marriage was unconstitutional?

Prop 8 News

According to The Washington Post, "Cindy McCain, the wife of 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain and their daughter Meghan have posed for photos endorsing pro-gay marriage forces in California. Mrs. McCain appears with silver duct tape across her mouth and "NOH8" written on one cheek in a photo posted Wednesday to the Web site of NOH8, a gay rights group opposed to Proposition 8. The ballot measure passed by California voters in 2008 bans same-sex marriage."

Cindy McCain approached NOH8 and volunteered her services to the cause.  Of course, John McCain had to immediately issue a statement saying he didn't agree with his wife with the highly original words,
"Sen. McCain believes the sanctity of marriage is only defined as between one man and one woman."

The McCain's daughter, Meghan, had previously come out in support of same-sex marriage.  Said she of her mother's new activism, "I couldn't be more proud of my mother for posing for the NOH8 campaign. I think more Republicans need to start taking a stand for equality."

Meanwhile, the Prop 8 trial, now in its second week, began hearing from supporters of the ban on gay marriage.  In one exchange, Mr. (Bill) Tam, a leader in the Prop 8 movement, was asked if marriage between a mother and a father helps children.  Of course he said yes.  When asked if the marriage of a gay couple helps their children, he said no.  He also reiterated his claims that part of the gay agenda was to have sex with children, even suggesting that the age of consent had been lowered in Canada shortly after same-sex marriage was legal.  (In fact, the legal age in Canada is higher than it was before same sex marriage.)

On and on we go.

No Wonder They Don't Want to be Televised

The Canadian Press is reporting that one of the defendants in the Prop 8 trial who has asked to withdraw from the case (in part thinking that it would be televised, which, thanks to the US Supreme Court, it will not be), wrote a letter to church organizations saying that gay rights groups had a broader agenda than marriage.  According to this defendant, "On their agenda list is: legalize having sex with children."

Can this get any uglier?  Is he channeling Anita Bryant?

Sorry. Will & Grace is not Enough.

I've been reading a lot today about the Prop 8 trial.  Forgive me if I can't thank all the blogs that have helped me with this post.  I've read them all as well as a transcript (or at least live reports on twitter) of the proceedings.  It seems like the defendants of Prop 8 tried to use the day to prove that there is no discrimination against gay people in the US.  I would think that would be rather tough, seeing that you are defending discrimination against gay people at the trial, but hey, logic was never on the Prop 8 supporters' side.

So what is the evidence of this brave new safe and non-discriminatory world of today's LGBT folks?  In no particular order, the defense cited Will & Grace, Brokeback Mountain, and Philadelphia.   Now, not to be too critical here, but at least two of these endeavors -- Brokeback Mountain and Philadelphia -- struck a chord because they actually dealt with discrimination.   Even Will & Grace, on occasion, ventured into the political realm.  (Remember the episode where Jack and Will kiss on the Today Show?)

Could this trial get any more insane?  Next thing you know they'll be telling us to shut up about discrimination given that Cher and Liza both won Oscars.



Tom Hanks as an AIDS
patient in Philadelphia 

More Pressure on Obama Administration during Prop 8 Trial

Geoff Kors (left), Executive Director of Equality California, released a statement urging the Justice Department to issue an amicus brief supporting the elimination of Prop 8:

"The time has come for elected leaders to empower all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Once again, we call on the Obama administration to join Equality California and others in urging the federal courts to strike down this grossly unjust law. In doing so, we will bring our nation one step closer to realizing its promise of equality for all. Our country’s bedrock principles of  democracy and freedom are at stake."

The Administration's stance has become especially tricky since President Obama's words are being used  to support Proposition 8.  Unless the Justice Department comes out against Prop 8, the opponents of same-sex marriage will continue to use Candidate Obama's words opposing same-sex marriage to uphold discrimination in the California Constitution.

Now is the time, President Obama.   We need your help.

Follow Up on the Prop 8 Trial

It's not quite clear yet whether or not the US Supreme Court decision to temporarily bar video streaming from the courtroom is a major blow to same-sex marriage.

First, it was one judge's decision (Justice Kennedy, left) under whose jurisdiction Judge Walker's (Prop 8 judge) district exists.  Right now, the ruling simply means, "we haven't had enough time to consider what the defendants have presented to us." (The defendants -- Prop 8 supporters -- went to the Supreme Court to block cameras, saying they feared for their safety.)  It is still very possible that the Supreme Court could decide this week that cameras should be allowed.

If the Supreme Court does bar the cameras permanently, that is not good.  The hope is that with cameras, the defendants would be less likely to make unsubstantiated claims against LGBT people.  Logic is not on their side, so they have often turned to emotion.  It was hoped that in a televised court trial, the pro-gay marriage side would win a public relations victory.

Of course, it is also possible that a Supreme Court decision to permanently bar cameras would be just that and not a harbinger of how the Supreme Court would ultimately decide a same-sex marriage case.  What is worrisome (at least to me) is that Kennedy was the one who ruled to temporarily bar cameras.  With the departure of Sandra Day O'Connor, Kennedy is seen as the swing vote, a somewhat moderate voice in a conservative court.  If this is an indication of his feelings about same-sex marriage, it's over.  If it is merely an indication of his feelings about televising the trial, we could be in better shape.

Prop 8 Trial Begins Monday, January 11th

The gay couples law blog has done a wonderful job of putting together the basics about the upcoming Prop 8 trial.  I've used their post in creating my own "what you should know" list for the trial.  Thanks also to Pam's House Blend, who also published the post by the gay couples law blog.

1. The name of the case is officially  Perry v. Schwarzenegger.  Perry is the last name of Kristen Perry, who was denied a marriage license when she and her partner, Sandra Steir, applied.  Another gay couple, Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo, was also denied a license and has joined in the case.  The name "Perry" refers to all four plaintiffs.

2. The couples are challenging Prop 8, saying it violates the US Constitution.  That's why they have gone to a federal court.  Rulings about same-sex marriage have typically been at the state level.

3. Representing "Perry" are two famous judges who form an unlikely legal team.  Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson is a Republican and Atty David Boies is a Democrat.  The two argued on opposite sides in Bush v Gore,  which decided the 2000 presidential election.

Although the defendant in the case is Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, it is the Atty General of California who would usually defend the state.  The current Atty General, Jerry Brown, has decided not to defend the case because he sides with the plaintiffs and believes Prop 8 was, in fact, unconstitutional under federal law.  Therefore, a group of supporters of Prop 8 will be defending the referendum.  The main lawyer for the defendants is Charles Cooper.


4. The lawyers representing "Perry" will try to prove that the law the resulted after Prop 8's passage is unconstitutional because the US Constitution prohibits discriminatory laws without a compelling reason.  Therefore, "Perry" will try to convince the presiding judge that there is no such compelling reason to discriminate against gay couples when it comes to marriage.  The opposing side will try to prove the opposite: that the effects of gay marriage are detrimental to both heterosexual marriages as well as to society.  Expect gay parenting to be a major focus.

5. In all likelihood, the decision by the presiding judge, Judge Vaughn Walker, will not be the end of the case.  It's quite possible that the case could could reach the US Supreme Court.  A decision at that level -- perhaps years away -- could effect all states, not just California.

6. The trial will be televised with a delay.  It will also be seem in its entirety on youtube.

Cluelessness in the Prop 8 Trial

The trial to overturn Proposition 8 (Perry v. Schwarzennager) is set to begin on Monday.  So far, the most contentious pre-trial issue has been whether or not to televise the proceedings.  Those supporting Proposition 8 (who oppose same-sex marriage and must defend Prop 8 in court) have been very clear that they do not want the trial televised.  They have cited possible threats and harassments to defenders of the referendum.  According to a blog covering the Prop 8 trial (prop8legalcommentary.blogspot.com) a letter from supporters of Prop 8 to the court noted that a televised trial would "impinge on the privacy interests" of witnesses, particularly those "only tangentially related to the case." 

On Friday, the court rejected an emergency petition that cameras be kept from the courtroom.  Also on Friday, one of the defenders of Prop 8 asked to be excused from the trial.  Citing fears for his family’s safety as well as noting that “the case has been more time-consuming and more intrusive into his personal life than expected,” Hak-Shing William Tam no longer wishes to be part of the trial, according to the Associated Press.

I don’t mean to make light of feeling threatened, but it’s important to remember that portraying themselves as victims has been a public relations game from the start for those opposing same-sex marriage.  And as for the trial taking up too much of Hak-Shing’s time as well as being too intrusive in his personal life, I’m sort of speechless that he had the audacity to use that as an excuse.  His very opposition to same-ex marriage in California intruded into the most personal aspects of LGBT people’s lives.  And too much of a time commitment?  Ask a same-sex couple what it’s like to have to spend almost every waking hour defending your relationship to the public.  And if you're going to try to keep people from marrying -- a civil right -- you'd better be ready to give up as much privacy and time as gay people do to try to keep our marriages in tact and free from government interference.

What's happening with Prop 8 in 2010?

Although the California State Supreme Court ruled last spring that the results of Proposition 8 must stand, the work to override it continues, sometimes from the most unlikely sources. Attorneys Ted Olson, a Republican (left), and David Boies, a Democrat (right) argued opposite sides before the court in the Bush v. Gore election case.  Now they have joined forces in trying to convince the court that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional because it singles out a specific class of Americans for discrimination.  The federal trial will begin on January 11.

One odd turn of events in the trial is that the State of California will not defend Prop 8 in court.  California's Atty. General, Jerry Brown, has stated that he agrees with Olson and Boies and therefore can't argue the case.  As a result, the court has allowed organizers of the Prop 8 ballot initiative to defend the case.

Right now the sides are debating whether or not the trial should be televised.  The anti-Prop 8 people (those who favor same-sex marriage) want the trial on TV while those supporting Prop 8 (and therefore opposing same-sex marriage) have argued against it.  Their reason? They fear that they will be subject to gay harassment and even violence if seen on TV.  (I'll refrain from a snide comment about the enormous problem of gay on straight hate crimes here.)

The case will be heard by Judge Vaughn Walker in a San Francisco District Court.  It is expected that Judge Walker will rule that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, and that the case will be then sent to the 9th US Court of Appeals.  Many people believe that this court will agree with Judge Walker, thus sending the case to the US Supreme Court.

This is where some gay legal scholars disagree with Olson and Boies.  They fear that the US Supreme Court isn't ready -- especially in its present makeup -- to side with us.  Of course, the case is likely to take a few years to get to the US Supreme Court, and the makeup could change.

Stay tuned.  It promises to be a bumpy ride.

Dan Savage on the Jenny and Mark Sanford divorce...

I wouldn't consider myself Dan Savage's greatest fan.  I recognize his wit and talent, but his biting sarcasm doesn't always speak to me.  However, his column on Jenny Sanford is spot on:

Jenny Sanford Files For Divorce

Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:10 AM

What is there to say really? They tried to reconcile but weren't able to repair their relationship. Her husband did describe his mistress as his "soul mate" at a press conference and that's not a wound that heals, huh? So this was to be expected. I feel bad for the kids. As for the statement Jenny Sanford released...

“As so many of us know, the dissolution of any marriage is a sad and painful process. It is also a very personal and private one."

The dissolution of a marriage is a sad, painful, personal and private process—if you're the straight first lady of South Carolina. If you're just some nice lesbian couple living in Maine or California the dissolution of your marriage is a highly public process, complete with lying campaign ads and anti-gay demagoguery and bigots traipsing to the polls And these anti-gay bigots in Maine didn't look too sad on election night in Maine:

Let's respect Jenny Sanford's privacy where these deeply personal matters are concerned. Which is more than this socially conservative political wife—who now has political ambitions of her own—was ever willing to do for gays and lesbians.

What's Up with the Mormon Church?

This week the Mormon Church -- yes, the same church that spent millions of dollars depicting LGBT people in the most unflattering light during the Prop 8 debate -- endorsed a proposed law that would ban discrimination against LGBT people in Salt Lake City.  The council then approved the measure.

Yes, you might need to read that sentence again.  Light the fireworks.  Unpop the champagne.

Or should we?  Call me cynical, but I'm having a hard time believing that the church suddenly realized it wasn't okay to slam LGBT people.  Indeed, if you read the fine print of the church's statement, you'll see that the church finds the measure acceptable because it "does not do violence to the institution of marriage." Strange that I don't really see myself as doing violence as I sit here with two lazy basset hounds while my husband drinks tea.  I tend to think of violence as fear-mongering campaigns to break up families.

No matter.  The filmmakers who documented the Mormon Church's role in Prop 8 said that after seeing their film, Mitt Romney asked the church to "extend an olive branch to the gay community and to try to deflate the anticipated negative press" the film will bring upon its release.  Let's see.  Could this have anything to do with Romney's presidential ambitions in 2012?  Is he afraid that he may not want to be associated with a church that spent so much money on nixing gay marriage, but got bad PR afterwards?

Yet even if the motives of the church are calculated moves to restore its image, there are two pieces of good news in this story.  Most important is the fact that LGBT people will be legally protected from discrimination in Salt Lake City.  A second piece of good news is that our demonstrations and letters worked.  The church responded to them because they were doing damage to a church that relies heavily on recruitment and proselytizing.  Could it be that it was harder to reach people after the church's image had taken a beating?

So ultimately this is good news.  Even if it scares me that the mere nod of a religious group ensures a law's passage.  And even if no one has still revealed who the anonymous million-dollar donor was to the "yes on 1" campaign in Maine.  In that, too, we might find hope: at least the donor considered it bad PR to support such a cause.