CivLib

California Supremes May Announce Prop 8 Decision Tomorrow?

2009-03-04T13:35:00.000-08:00

A number of news outlets are reporting that an opinion has already been written for the Prop 8 cases. No one knows which justice wrote the opinion, but three other justices are reportedly ready to sign onto it. If none of the judges' minds is changed tomorrow, when the Court hears oral argument in the cases, it is possible (though unlikely) that the court could announce its decision that same day. For More, check out The L.A. Times Article.

In related news, an editorial by attorney general Jerry Brown was published in the Huffington Post yesterday, which explains why it is imperative that the Court overrule Prop 8.

Whatever happens, tomorrow will be a wild ride. If you have the stomach for it (and the time), the Court's arguments will be streamed live at www.calchannel.com beginning at 9:00 a.m. Pacific Time and are expected to last until at least noon. The site's servers are predicted to reach their maximum capacity during the arguments, so try to watch the them on local television if you live in California.

GLAD Challenges DOMA in Federal Court

2009-03-03T10:28:00.000-08:00

It sounds like the lawsuit has been brewing for a while, but this is exciting and unexpected news for me. Apparently Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) has filed a lawsuit challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court. The case is known as Gill v. Office of Personnel Management.

The DOMA is a federal law that has several provisions:

Section 2 allows each state in the Union to refuse to recognize, acknowledge, or give effect to a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

Section 3 defines marriage, for the purposes of federal law, as a union between one man and one woman. This essentially prohibits the federal government from recognizing, acknowledging, or giving effect to any same-sex marriage, even if the marriage was legally performed in a U.S. state, such as Massachusetts, Connecticut, or California. In other words, Section 3 denies married same-sex couples the federal benefits extended to married opposite-sex couples.

GLAD's suit challenges only Section 3. GLAD alleges that DOMA § 3 is constitutional based on its text, but that it is unconstitutional as it has been applied to the specific plaintiffs in this case. In short, the argument is: The federal government can define marriage any way it wants, but it must give the same benefits to all married couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

Some of the benefits GLAD mentions specifically, which are denied to same-sex married couples, are:

The ability of federal employees to obtain health care benefits for their spouses.
The ability to transfer federal employee retirement benefits to one's spouse after death.
The ability to transfer social security payments to one's spouse after death.
Certain tax benefits.
The ability to change the name on one's passport after marriage without going through additional court proceedings.

GLAD says that, since their clients have been denied these benefits, they are being denied equal protection, as required by the U.S. Constitution.

This lawsuit should have gay families across the country on the edge of their seats. Until now, most gay-rights organizations have been reluctant to file federal challenges to the DOMA, since the majority of Supreme Court Justices at the moment to appear to be anti-gay or indifferent to the plight of LGBT Americans.

For those readers who are a bit lawyerly, GLAD's brief can be found here.

Updates as they come!

Sources:
[Wikipedia]
[CruzLines]
[GLAD]

NOTE: This has been cross-posted to FamilyFairness.org, which I also contribute to.

Temporary Winter Hiatus

2008-12-13T23:52:00.000-08:00

Hey Folks,

I know the posts have been slim lately, but it's the end of the semester and finals are hitting this blogger hard. Additionally, I'm still coping with what could be termed a "Prop 8 induced mental breakdown."

In short, I've been dealing with a lot of stress lately, and blogging about this country's lack of civil liberties doesn't help that. However, CivLib is still very much alive, and posts about liberty-related topics will resume soon.

Be Well,

JRH

California Supremes Don't Stay Prop 8

2008-11-19T14:48:00.000-08:00

Today, the California Supreme Court rejected requests by The City of San Francisco and the ACLU for the Court to issue a stay which would temporarily prohibit the State of California from implementing Proposition 8. Proposition 8 will go into effect for now.

However, the court has accepted the cases, and has asked the parties to brief the following issues:

Is Proposition 8 invalid because it is a a constitutional revision rather than an amendment?
Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?
If Proposition 8 is constitutional, what effect, if any, does it have on the marriages of same-sex couples who were married before Proposition 8 was adopted?

The court didn't give much time for the parties to respond. The defendants in the cases, Mark Horton, Registrar of Vital Statistics, and Linette Scott, Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning of the California Department of Public Health, must file their responses on or before December 19. Both are represented by the state attorney general's office. After that, the plaintiffs have until January 5th to respond. Applications to file an amicus curiae brief (a brief by someone who is not a party to the suit) will be accepted until January 15th, and responses to amicus briefs will be accepted until January 21. We don't yet know when oral arguments will scheduled.

The court allowed the Official Proponents of Proposition 8 to intervene as parties to the case, but rejected a similar request by the Campaign for California Families.

Interestingly, Justice Moreno joined the court order, except that he says Proposition 8 should be stayed while case is heard. Hopefully, this means he's on our side.

Justice Kennard also joined the order, except she said that the court should not consider what effect Prop 8 will have on pre-Prop 8 same-sex marriages. She says that issue should be remanded for trial in a lower court. Since that issue will most likely require fact finding, she's probably right to take this position. Appellate courts do not normally try issues of fact.

So there it is folks: Prop 8 will go into effect for now, and we have to wait several excruciating months before we know whether it will be overturned. Hopefully the court makes this quick (and hopefully justice prevails).

UPDATE: Kip Esquire is saying that the court will hear the case sometime in March.

Source:
[California Appellate Courts Official Site]

Open Letter to Cinemark

2008-11-18T00:14:00.000-08:00

[Editor's Note: Wow, how many of these things am I going to post?]

To Whom it Concerns,

I am aware that Cinemark has a policy against discrimination that is based on sexual orientation, among other characteristics. I appreciate that, and applaud your commitment to equality. Please note that sexual orientation is not a "preference;" it is an immutable characteristic, and you insult the gay and lesbian community when you imply otherwise.

Your CEO, Alan Stock, contributed a large amount of money to the Proposition 8 campaign. Proposition 8 stripped fundamental legal protections from gay and lesbian Americans and their families. Since your CEO will benefit directly (and lucratively) from your ticket sales, I cannot, in good conscience, continue to patronize your business.

I am especially repulsed by the fact that your Mr. Stock will be receiving money from screenings of the movie "Milk," which expresses the ideals of equality, justice, and activism. I have taken those ideals to heart, and I will act against my aggressor, your CEO, by seeing the "Milk," and other movies, at a competitor's theater. Others have joined me in this commitment; see http://www.nomilkforcinemark.com for details.

Please note that there is still time to avert this boycott, since "Milk" does not open until December 5th. I recommend you take one or more of the following actions: (1) Fire Mr. Stock, (2) Convince Mr. Stock to issue a public apology, and convince him to make a donation to an LGBT rights group like the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) or a charity that benefits LGBT people, (3) Publicly apologize for Mr. Stock's behavior and make a donation to an LGBT rights group like the HRC or a charity that benefits gay and lesbian people.

I look forward to your response,

Jackson R. Howa-Morrow

An Open Letter to Time Magazine

2008-11-17T23:43:00.000-08:00

To the Editor:

I've had enough of Time Magazine. For two months in a row now, your magazine has printed articles that portray the gay community a shadowy underworld of hitmen and bullies. The article entitled "The Gay Mafia" puts an ominous spin on the story of a small group of wealthy gay Americans who coordinate their political donations in a completely legal manner so as to most effectively ensure that gay people will actually get equal rights in this country someday.

"What Happens if You're on Gay Rights' 'Enemies List'" puts a sensationalist headline on a story about the simple and nonviolent plan, formed by gay people and their friends in the wake of Proposition 8's passage, to boycott business who advocated stripping fundamental legal rights away from California same-sex couples and their families. There's nothing sinister about refusing to give money to the people who have worked to ensure that you remain second-class citizen.

This unfair demonizing of gay and lesbian Americans has got to stop, Time, and you won't see singe red cent from me until it does.

Sincerely,

Jackson Howa

An Open Letter to NPR

2008-11-17T15:25:00.000-08:00

Dear NPR,

I was disappointed to discover that no NPR program covered the November 15th gay rights rallies.

Despite the fact that the rallies were completely grass-roots, with no organization or assistance by national or local LGBT organizations, tens of thousands of people turned out in over 300 cities in the US, with some rallies appearing as far away as Australia.

These rallies were amazing and inspiring events. I can think of no other instance in history where so many people have taken to the streets, simultaneously across the country, to ask for justice. It is a shame that the media has given so little attention to such a huge and historic event.

Sincerely,

Jackson Howa-Morrow

Calif. Atty. Gen. Brown Responds to Prop 8 Cases

2008-11-17T14:22:00.000-08:00

California's Attorney General, Edmund "Jerry" Brown, has filed his answers to the three lawsuits challenging Proposition 8. The lawsuits all asked for the court to review the case immediately, and two asked for the court to stay implementation of Proposition 8 until the court has reviewed the cases. Brown's response in each case is nearly identical. In his responses, Brown agreed that the court should hear the cases immediately, but argued that the court should not issue a stay that would prevent the State from implementing Prop 8 in the meantime.

For a full press release, including copies of Brown's court filings, go here.

[Special thanks to Good As You, for the tipoff.]

National Coordinated Gay Rights Rally!

2008-11-13T00:37:00.000-08:00

JOIN THE IMPACT!

Please join me and many other members of the LGBTQA community to rally for equality in every major city (and some minor ones) in the US!

Information on the Portland Rally:

Location: PSU South Park Blocks
Time: 10:30 a.m. PST
Bring: Signage!

Rumor has it that there will be a speaker at noon.

For more information and national protest locations, go to: http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com.

A Letter to Californians on the True Danger of Proposition 8

2008-11-12T16:24:00.000-08:00

Dear Californians,

I hope you're praying that the California Supreme Court will overturn Proposition 8. No, I'm not just talking to the LGBT community and their friends, I mean everyone in California should be praying that the Supreme Court will overturn Proposition 8.

Let me explain. In In Re Marriage Cases, the Supreme Court stated that the freedom to marry the person of one's choice is a "fundamental right." "Fundamental rights" are those rights which receive the highest degree of Constitutional Protection. The Court also stated that gay people are a "suspect class," which means that they are so politically disenfranchised and so historically hated that the Court must overrule almost any law that singles people out based on that classification. Race, gender, and religion are also suspect classifications under the California Constitution. The Court concluded that, since the State of California could give no compelling reason to prohibit gay people from marrying, the Equal Protection clause of the California Constitution required the State to give gay people the same right to wed as everyone else.

Proposition 8 took that fundamental right to marry, a right which the California Constitution protects above almost all other rights, away from gay people, a group of people which the California Constitution protects above almost all others, by a simple majority vote. If the Court does not overturn Proposition 8, the nature of equal protection in California will be forever changed. If Proposition 8 stands, it will mean that any right can be taken away from any group of people by a simple majority vote.

Let me say that again: If Proposition 8 stands, a simple majority of voters can take any right away from any person. That means you.

If Proposition 8 stands, a simple majority of voters may approve killing undocumented immigrants on sight, a simple majority may deprive black people of the right to a trial when accused of a crime, a simple majority may exclude all Muslims or Arabs from the state, a simple majority may incarcerate anyone who preaches the Mormon religion, a simple majority may prohibit women from voting or holding public office. I trust that those few examples are sufficient to convey the gravity of my point. History has shown us that calls for these types of discriminatory laws are a very real danger; the framers of the California Constitution included the Equal Protection clause specifically to protect minority groups from that danger.

Before the election, many Californians said they were afraid that, if Proposition 8 did not pass, their freedom to practice their religion would be in danger, or that their freedom of speech might be stifled. The irony is that, because they passed Proposition 8, all of their freedoms are now in danger. A simple majority vote can now take away their right to free speech, their freedom to practice their religion, their right to a jury trial, their right to own property, and any other right they hold dear.

So, think carefully: is that the California you want to live in? I suspect it is not.

I also suspect that now you, like me, will be praying that the California Supreme Court overturns Proposition 8.

Sincerely,

Jackson Howa-Morrow
J.D. Candidate, Lewis & Clark Law School
Portland, Oregon

Same-Sex Marriages Start Today in Connecticut

2008-11-12T10:57:00.000-08:00

In spite of the massive losses in Arizona, Florida, California, and Arkansas this year, equality is still moving forward for same-sex couples. Pursuant to a court decision, Connecticut has begun issuing its first marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Source:
[PageOneQ]

Thee Suits Filed to Overturn Prop 8

2008-11-10T13:30:00.000-08:00

There have been three cases filed in California, which ask the California Supreme Court to overturn Prop 8. All three cases proceed on the same theory: Prop 8 is a revision of the constitution which eviscerates the Equal Protection Clause, rather than an amendment. Prop 8 did not follow the proper procedure for revising the constitution.

The cases filed are:

Strauss v. Horton, filed by the ACLU an various LGBT rights groups. The petitioners' brief can be found at http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/lgbt/ca_prop8_writpetition.pdf. You can sign uf for updates about this case at http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=566226&doc_no=S168047&search=party&start=1&query_partyLastNameOrOrg=horton.

City of San Francisco v. Horton, filed by several California cities, including San Francisco. If you are going to read only on a these briefs, I recommend reading this one: http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/ca/prop81106.pdf. You can sign up for updates on this case here: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=566339&doc_no=S168078&search=party&start=1&query_partyLastNameOrOrg=horton.

Tyler v. State of California, filed by attorney Gloria Allred for a same-sex couple. Case brief here: http://www.amglaw.com/CM/News/Supreme-Prop%208%20Petition.pdf. Case information and updates here: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=566296&doc_no=S168066&search=attorney&start=1&query_attyLastName=allred&query_attyFirstName=gloria&query_attyLawFirm=.

From my perspective, these briefs are very persuasive, and I certainly think that Prop 8 was an illegitimate revision of the California Constitution. Let's hope the Supreme Court agrees.

Mormons Attack and Beat Peaceful Protesters at LDS Temple

2008-11-09T23:42:00.000-08:00

I just saw this terrible video on the LA Times website. In response to a series of peaceful protests at the LDS temple in Los Angeles, several members of the LDS came to the protest and viciously attacked several of the peaceful protesters there.

For video, go here: http://www.latimes.com/video/?slug=la-me-protest7-2008nov07-vid

Thoughts on the Equal Rights

2008-11-09T21:36:00.000-08:00

Hi all, a friend of mine wrote a very intelligent and eloquent post about his thoughts on equal rights, discrimination, and the (il)legitimacy of voter approved discrimination. A very worthwhile read. I highly encourage you to take a look.

Money Quote:

The majority in this country does not get to decide what rights may be denied of the minority, yet through the well-documented course of American history, it happens time and time again.

How to File a Complaint Asking the IRS to Revoke the LDS Church's Tax-Exempt Status

2008-11-07T18:00:00.000-08:00

By making that passage of California’s Proposition 8 a substantial part of its activities this year, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has violated nonprofit law. Because it has broken the law, it should be stripped of its 501(c)(3) non-profit tax-exempt status. This law will not be enforced unless complaints are filed against the LDS Church for its illegal activities.

Please consider file a request with the IRS to take away the LDS Church’s tax-exempt status. Here’s what you need to do:

1. Download this pre-filled IRS complaint form, and add your personal information to it: http://tinyurl.com/irsfilled. If this URL is not working, download a blank IRS complaint form and fill it out. This form can be downloaded from: http://ftp.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f13909.pdf.

2. You will need to include documentation to show that the LDS Church has made lobbying for Proposition 8 a substantial part of its activities. Here are the documents you will need:

[UPDATE: You can download all of these as a single PDF file. Thank you, reader Jesus Christ.]

a. A copy of the letter from the LDS Church Presidency to LDS Bishops, which as read aloud in all California State LDS Churches. It instructs members to “do all you can to support [Proposition 8] by donating of your means and time.” Download and print the letter from here: http://wikileaks.org/leak/first-presidency-letter-california.pdf/.

b. A transcript of the confidential LDS Church satellite broadcast, which instructed members that they must support Proposition 8, set out a detailed “three-phase” Proposition 8 campaign plan, and which reiterated several lies about what would happen if Proposition 8 was not passed. Download and print the transcript here: https://secure.wikileaks.org/leak/lds-oct-8-prop-8-broadcast.pdf/.

c. A copy campaign planning document distributed by the church to LDS Church leaders. Download and print the document here: http://wikileaks.org/leak/lds-proposition8-notes-2008.pdf/. Please also print out a copy of the following WikiLeaks page, which explains the significance and veracity of the document: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/LDS_Church_Proposition_8_anti-gay_campaign_notes/.

d. A copy of this Daily Kos posting which includes scanned images that prove the LDS Church has been planning for the Proposition 8 campaign since at least 1997. Download and print the document here: http://documents.scribd.com/docs/27tmvasx7na3bksuq221.pdf.

e. Refer the IRS to this page, located on LDS.org, which includes links to various Proposition 8 campaign information, including a Proposition 8 propaganda video: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/same-sex-marriage-and-proposition-8/. This page was accessible starting 16 October 2008, and at least as late as 7 November 2008.

f. Include a copy of the ABC News Story about how the LDS Church threatened to excommunicate a member for speaking out against Proposition 8. A PDF copy of this story can be downloaded here: http://documents.scribd.com/docs/1b2kmdia2iq15eeftc52.pdf.

g. A copy of the Salt Lake Tribune news story which states that the LDS Church donated $2,078.97 of church funds to the Proposition 8 campaign. Download ind print a PDF copy of this story here: http://documents.scribd.com/docs/ifeqw2picvburmas3jw.pdf.

3. Once you have filled out the IRS complaint form and prepared your supporting documentation, transmit your complaint and supporting documents to the IRS in one of the following ways:

a. Email: Prepare your documents as PDF’s or web links, and send your complaint form with supporting documentation to eoclass@irs.gov. If sending your complaint as an email, you can simply copy and paste section 2 of these instructions into an email and attach your complaint form as PDF.

b. Fax your documents to (214) 413-5415.

c. Mail your documents to:

IRS EO Classification
Mail Code 4910DAL
1100 Commerce Street
Dallas TX 75242-1198

4. Once you have submitted your complaint, please consider signing these petitions to remove the LDS Church’s 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status:

a. http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/

b. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/review-the-501c3-status-of-the-church-of-latter-day-saints-the-mormons

----------
UPDATE: I just sent my complaint by email to the IRS. This was VERY EASY to do. I will post my the text of my letter below. Feel free to copy it:

Dear Sir or Madam,

I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) has violated the rules for tax-exempt organizations by excessively lobbying for California Proposition 8, and for participating in the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign. I have attached a completed Form 13909.

I am providing documentation by linking to web sites and PDF documents. If necessary, I can provide this information in alternative formats.

Documentation:

a. A copy of the letter from the LDS Church Presidency to LDS Bishops, which was read aloud in all California State LDS Churches. It instructs members to "do all you can to support [Proposition 8] by donating of your means and time." The letter is available here: http://wikileaks.org/leak/first-presidency-letter-california.pdf/.

b. A transcript of the confidential LDS Church satellite broadcast, which instructed members that they must support Proposition 8, set out a detailed "three-phase" Proposition 8 campaign plan, and reiterated several lies about what would happen if Proposition 8 was not passed. The transcript is available here: https://secure.wikileaks.org/leak/lds-oct-8-prop-8-broadcast.pdf/. Audio of the broadcast is available upon request through the WikiLeaks web site.

c. A campaign planning document distributed by the LDS Church to Church leaders. The document is available here: http://wikileaks.org/leak/lds-proposition8-notes-2008.pdf/. The following WikiLeaks page explains the significance and veracity of the document: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/LDS_Church_Proposition_8_anti-gay_campaign_notes/.

d. A Daily Kos posting which includes scanned images of LDS Church documents that prove the LDS Church has been planning for the Proposition 8 campaign since at least 1997. PDF version here: http://documents.scribd.com/docs/27tmvasx7na3bksuq221.pdf. Original posting here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/3/15369/3779/711/651188.

e. This page, located on LDS.org, includes links to various Proposition 8 campaign information, including a Proposition 8 propaganda video: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/same-sex-marriage-and-proposition-8/. This page was accessible starting 16 October 2008.

f. This ABC News Story about how the LDS Church threatened to excommunicate a member for speaking out against Proposition 8. A PDF copy of this story can be downloaded here: http://documents.scribd.com/docs/1b2kmdia2iq15eeftc52.pdf. Original news story here: http://www.abc4.com/mostpopular/story.aspx?content_id=FEEE2BE8-BD9C-4314-88BF-E2E60AE2BCA4.

g. The Salt Lake Tribune news story which states that the LDS Church donated at least $2,078.97 of church funds to the Proposition 8 campaign. Download a PDF copy of this story here: http://documents.scribd.com/docs/ifeqw2picvburmas3jw.pdf. Original news story here: http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10842051.

Thank you for your investigation of this matter. Please confirm reciept, if possible. Please contact me if any additional information is necessary.

Sincerely,

Jackson R. Howa-Morrow
[Contact information]

Solidarity Post

2008-11-06T13:55:00.000-08:00

A Touching Plea to Vote No on Prop 8

2008-11-04T00:49:00.000-08:00

Hey folks, I got this very heartfelt comment just moments ago, and I thought I would share it with everyone:

MY BEST FRIEND’S GAY.

To all the straight dudes like me out there:

It’s the day before the election.

By the end of tomorrow, my best friend will know whether or not he can be legally married in the state of California. And as the polls stand right now, it looks like he won’t be able to do that. And that bums me out, brother.

If you told me when I was growing up that my best friend would be gay I’d have laughed in your face, maybe even punched you in it. I grew up in a rural area of Maryland filled with mullets, acid wash jeans and the good ole boys that wore them both. Hell, I was one of ‘em… part of me still is. I went to Catholic school, a private university and didn’t know an openly gay person until I moved to Los Angeles.

I played “smear the queer”, called my friends “faggots” and if someone did something silly or stupid, I’d call him “gay”. I simply had no frame of reference. Perhaps if you are reading this, you don’t either and I can appeal to you in these final hours…

I know every single one of you (whether you are man enough to admit it or not) hopes to find your perfect partner… dare I say soulmate? Personally, I have visions of finding “love at first sight”, going through the first stages of love where I can’t get enough of this beautiful woman, falling madly in love with her, marrying and living happily ever after where we both die peacefully in our sleep holding hands.

Guess what? We aren’t the only ones that have those feelings. Gay men and women have the exact same dreams that we do, because that is what PEOPLE do… dream. We dream of what we want to be when we grow up, the kind of house we want to live in, where we are going to vacation and what our perfect relationship looks like. And just like all of us straight guys where we prefer blondes over brunettes over redheads, there are some people that prefer others of the same sex. That’s really all there is to it. Believe it or not, they aren’t doing it to spite you.

I know that some of you who oppose same sex marriage want to make this into a huge deal where the door will be open for people to marry rabbits and aliens and anything else you can imagine, but the simple fact of the matter is, that argument doesn’t work.

My gay best friend doesn’t want to marry a rabbit any more than I do. Or an alien for that matter. (Although I would have sex with that hot alien chick on the new Battlestar Gallactica.)

I am in the entertainment industry and since moving to L.A., I have met hundreds of gay guys and I have to tell you all a secret… “Shhhh… they are people EXACTLY like you and me except they happen to like other dudes.” I know that seems weird to you. It did to me too when I first moved out here, but since then I have observed them and taken notes and this is what I have found:

OBSERVATION OF THE GAYS:

1) They have feelings just like you and me. They experience love, hate, jealousy, disappointment and elation.
2) Some of them actually have more successful relationships than we do. Imagine that. Two people in a relationship that actually works. What would you give for that? I’ve looked up to the sky and offered God ANYTHING for a successful relationship. I’m still waiting and I envy ANYONE that can make that work.
3) Gays are PEOPLE. They are entitled to the same things all other people are: the right to vote, the right to free speech and should be afforded the right to marry one another. It’s simply a matter of equality.
4) Gays are generally clean. This has nothing to do with anything, but I wanted to share ALL of the data with you.

My best friend is an amazing singer and one late night, we were hanging out with a few friends and he sang, “Loch Lomond” (look it up). When he was finished, without even thinking about it, I said, “One day, I want you to sing that at my wedding.” He was honored.

And then I started thinking about what honor I could bestow upon him to reciprocate. And it hit me that I may never be able to do something like that for him if Prop 8 passes tomorrow.

I’ve seen him these last two weeks in the throws of a budding relationship and it has been a real education for me. I’m not used to being this tight with a buddy who also happens to be gay and I have to say there are still things that open my eyes.

He’s in that beautiful, romantic phase of a new relationship where they want to spend every moment together. I’ve never seen him so happy. So inspired. And that makes me happy. Although it is still hard for me to understand how he can be physically attracted to another guy (we’re loud, sweaty and not that smart), what I do understand and appreciate are the feelings. And it is absolutely amazing to witness.

I hope he falls madly in love with this guy, they move in together and if they so choose, are allowed to marry one another in the eyes of the law and all of their “fabulous” party guests. If that happens, I’m sure I’ll cry. (I’m a sucker for weddings).

And in the meantime, I’m going to remain positive and think about what I can do for him at his wedding. It’s only fair. As it looks between the two of them now, I better start taking guitar lessons tonight.

So from one bro to another, I’d like to ask this favor: Please vote No on Prop 8.

Even if you don’t want to do it for the gay guys because you don’t know them, do it for me… a straight dude.

Because I really can’t stand having to owe anyone anything!

Thank you for reading this.

NO ON 8!

By: Stirling Gardner

THANK YOU, STIRLING!

Connecticut Supremes Rule in Favor of Marriage Equality

2008-10-10T13:41:00.000-07:00

I'm still learning the details, but according to the commentators, this is one of the most strongly worded decisions for marriage equality we have seen. This is an amazing moment in American history. We now have 3 states who have rejected sex discrimination in marriage.

For the full decision go here: http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR289/289CR152.pdf

For a video of the plaintiffs reacting to the ruling, go here: http://www.courant.com/video/?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=3012541

The Governor of Connecticut says that, although she disagrees with the ruling, she considers the matter settled, and will not seek to repeal marriage equality. For more on that, go here: http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2008/10/rell-statement-on-gay-marriage.html

Bilerico is reporting that, not only did the court say that the constitution requires marriage equality, but has also made the sexual orientation a quasi-suspect class. That means laws that impose a greater burden on LGB people will have to be reviewed under a higher tandard of protection than other laws in Connecticut.

On the down side, Connecticut's Constitution can only be amended in a constitutional convention every twenty years. Guess when Connectiticut will next decide whether to hold a constitutional convention? That's right: This November. This could be bad for equality, expeccially if equal marriage will nto go into effect immediately, but we don't know anything for sure yet.

For more on those issues, see Bilerico's post here: http://www.bilerico.com/2008/10/connecticut_legalizes_same-sex_marriage.php

Update: Based on my reading of the majority opinion, it appears that marriage equality will go into effect immediatly, or at least as soon as the trial court (to which the case has been remanded) grants summary judgment for the plaintiffs (as the Supreme Court instructed it to).

A tragedy.

2008-10-04T13:27:00.000-07:00

Rest in Peace, Shaun Dykes.

Out of State Couples Can Marry in Mass.

2008-08-01T03:17:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick signed into law a bill repealing the discriminatory 1913 law which prevented Massachusetts from issuing marriage lisences to out-of-state couples who could not marry in their own state. The bill goes into effect immediately, so Massachusetts should see a bump to its economy as New York couples (and others) come seeing marriage.

Source:
[Gay.com]

14-y/o Lawrence King Killer to be Tried as Adult

2008-07-25T08:34:00.001-07:00

Although I found Lawrence King's murder to be a tragedy, I have expressed before that I do not wish to see Kings killer tried as an adult. Brandon McInerney, who shot King twice in the head, is a fourteen-year-old child. At this socially and emotionally confusing time, a child lacks the maturity and forethought that an adult would have. He has not been fully and properly socialized at this point.

McInerney should be punished harshly, I agree with that. However, by trying him as an adult we compound the tragedy of King's murder by holding a child to a standard of behavior he cannot fully understand. If McInerney were even a few years older, I would agree with the decision to try McInerney as an adult. Even a 16 year-old would probably have the emotionaly, social, and moral maturity I think is necessary to hold someone to the adult standard in a first-degree murder trial. But 14, in my opinion, is too young.

Source:
[Ventura County Star]

Happy Day!

2008-06-16T09:33:00.000-07:00

At 5:01 this evening, same-sex couples will be begin to legally wed in California. This is an exciting and historic day. California is the second state to permit same-sex marriages, following 4 years behind Massachusetts.

Conrats, Norweigian Couples!

2008-06-13T16:12:00.000-07:00

Wednesday, June 11, the Norwegian parliament voted to allow same-sex couples to marry and to have the same rights as opposite-sex couples. The legislation passed by an overwhelming 84-41 vote. I love to see this progress being made!

Source:
[Yahoo]

California Homophobes Make Fools of Themselves

2008-06-13T15:06:00.000-07:00

Two snippets out of California:

The Liberty Counsel, a Virginia-based evangelical group, has petitioned a California appellate court to delay equal marriage in California. The Liberty Counsel has asked the intermediate court to delay the implementation of the California Supreme Court's ruling that the state must begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples beginning at 5:01PM on June 16. Liberty Counsel asserts that, because the ruling conflicts with current law, the state legislature needs more time to implement the changes. This argument is, of course, absurd; the California legislature has already legalized marriage equality two times, but its efforts were thwarted by the governor's veto. There is no indication that Liberty Counsel's legal challenge will succeed. No information is available on why an organization called "Liberty Counsel" is opposing liberty and equality for all Americans.

[For more, see Gay.com.]

In other news, Californians are expected to vote on a constitutional amendment that would, if passed, ban same-sex marriage in that state. However, this proposed amendment might cause a legal mess that could have homophobes wishing they had just let things be. For instance, it's unclear what would happen to couples married between June 15 and the November election. Would they be forcibly divorced? Would their marriages remain intact, but new same-sex marriages be banned? Would all same-sex marriages be converted to domestic partnerships?

An even messier prospect, and one that California homophobes should fear, was pointed out in the Washington Post: what if the constitutional amendment inadvertently bans all marriage, gay or straight? It could happen, says constitutional scholar David Cruz. The California Supreme Court's ruling said that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples must be treated the same, and must be given the same options. The proposed amendment would not change that, it would only make same-sex marriages illegal. If gays and straights have to be treated the same, and same-sex marriage is illegal, the logical result is that no one would be allowed to get married.

So there you have it. Fundamentalist bigots are so dedicated to keeping loving couples from getting married that they are willing to risk abolishing marriage altogether.

[For more, see The Washington Post.]

UPDATE: Professor Cruz (mentioned above) has informed me that a more detailed explanation of how banning same-sex marriage in California might ban marriage for all can be found on his blog. I recommend taking a look.

Kucinich Refuses to Let Pelosi Bury His Impeachment Effort

2008-06-11T23:32:00.000-07:00

After introducing his articles of impeachment against President Bush, Rep. Kucinich reportedly promised not to let the Democratic leadership kill his impeachment resolution. Kucinich charges the Judiciary Committee with hold ing hearings on the resolution within 30 days, otherwise he promised to bring the bill up again. Next time, he said, "I won’t be the only one reading it."

Source:
[The Raw Story]