California Exiles' Revenge on Trump

Virginia has moved into the blue state category due to two principal factors: (i) it has an increasingly college educated population, and (ii) it has seen a large influx of residents from liberal states.  These phenomenon are especially evident in Northern Virginia and the rest of Virginia's urban crescent that stretches south through Richmond and then south east to Hampton Roads. As a piece in the New York Times notes, similar things are happening in other states that are trending blue, often driven by exiles from California who take their more liberal views and support for the environment with them to their new home states. Donald Trump constantly trashes California and its progressive policies, yet that states' former residents are transforming the political landscape in Nevada. Colorado and Arizona - and, in time, perhaps even Texas.  Here are column highlights:

President Trump clearly hates the most populous state in the country he governs. While trashing California with his gutter mouth, the president has used his office to physically trash the home to nearly one in eight Americans — seeking to make its air more polluted, its water less clean, its forests more vulnerable to catastrophic fires.

But now the Golden State is poised to strike back. By moving its presidential primary from June to March 3, California will finally exert a political influence commensurate to its size. Almost 500 delegates, a fourth of the number needed to win the Democratic nomination, are at stake.

Perhaps more consequential — or at least overlooked — is what’s happening among the vast diaspora of more than 7.3 million people who have left California since 2007. They appear to be changing the political makeup of the states they’ve moved to, perhaps enough to alter the Electoral College map in favor of Democrats.

With nearly 40 million people, California is still gaining population — barely. But stratospheric home prices and unbearable rental costs have created a reverse “Grapes of Wrath,” forcing those who are not rich to flee to states with much lower costs of living.

The question is: Are they bringing California values — fierce defense of the environment, tolerance of immigrants and a multiracial society, insistence on universal health care — with them? It could be just demographic churn. But if you look at the changing politics of Nevada, Colorado and Arizona, all fast-growing states packed with new arrivals from California, the answer is yes. Texas may not be far behind.

In Nevada, to which 500,000 Californians moved between 2008 and 2018, Democrats won the governor’s mansion and a second U.S. Senate seat in 2018. There used to be more Republicans, by registration. But Democrats now have a 70,000-voter advantage, and they prevailed there in the last three presidential races.

Colorado, another favorite landing spot for those who can no longer afford California, is now reliably blue. Democrats won majorities there by more than 100,000 votes in the last two presidential elections. The state is likely to flip a Senate seat, bouncing the inept Republican Cory Gardner for a popular former governor, John Hickenlooper.

Arizona could be the next to fall to Democrats. The state known for retirees and tax-averse whites is becoming more diverse and younger and is full of ex-Californians. Between 2001 and 2014, Arizona added about a quarter-million people from its neighboring state to the west.

[I]f the Dems were to win Arizona’s 11 Electoral College votes, as polls show they could, and lose Wisconsin’s 10, while getting back Pennsylvania and Michigan, that would be enough to remove the vile and corrupt man occupying the White House.

Texas, the top state for California exiles, will probably come up short for Democrats this year, though it’s in play. Democrats have a growing advantage in Dallas, Houston, Austin and San Antonio, all seeing heavy U-Haul traffic from California.

Polls in Texas show Trump failing to get above 48 percent in matchups with Democrats. And 45 percent of voters wanted to impeach and remove him from office.

Trump treats these fellow citizens as aliens. He’s going out of his way to gut the state’s clean air standards, to turn the Eden of its public lands over to industrial pillagers and to cast its immigrant strivers as criminals. He has done nothing — rebuffing the state’s plea for additional housing vouchers for the poor — to mitigate the homeless crisis. He’d prefer a dystopia on the Pacific, largely because he lost the Golden State by more than four million votes.

And yet Californians, those who still proudly call it home and those who left their hearts there, could be the force that sends him packing.

Hispanics Are Poised For Historic Voter Turnout

If Donald Trump goes down to defeat tomorrow - which I fervently hope will be the case - his undoing may track to Hispanics whom he has demonized and attacked from day one of his campaign. True, Hispanics have not been Trump's only target for slander and denigration - add blacks, women, gays, non-Christians and others to the list - but Hispanics have been the target of choice.  As a piece in the Washington Post reports, indications are that Hispanics will be turning out in record numbers to send Trump to defeat.  Hopefully others who believe in morality and decency will turn out as well in force.  Here are article highlights:

MIAMI — Five undocumented domestic workers, all named Maria, fanned out across Little Havana delivering a desperate, last-minute plea to Hispanic voters: We can’t vote, but you can. Vote early to ensure a President Trump does not deport us.

In Hialeah, a traditional stronghold for Cuban American Republicans, backers of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton drove a colorful, Colombian-style chiva party bus with bongo drums and rumba dancers handing out Cuban pastries and “Hispanics for Hillary” signs.

And in ritzy Coral Gables, Maria Ballaster, a 60-year-old Cuban American who has always voted Republican reflected on why she had just split her ballot — sticking with her party’s nominee for the U.S. Senate, Marco Rubio, while casting a vote for Clinton.
“I trust Rubio, but I don’t trust Mr. Crazy,” Ballaster said.

[T]here are early indications that Hispanics have mobilized for this election like no other in U.S. history. Activist groups and Clinton allies, motivated largely by a deepening fear of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, are deploying new voter outreach strategies and hoping to take advantage of growth in the Latino electorate.

In Nevada, thousands of voters lined up outside an early-voting site at a Latino market Friday night, prompting voting hours to be extended at the end of what has been a record-breaking early-voting surge in the state. Turnout was so high in Clark County, home to Las Vegas, that Democrats enter Tuesday with an advantage similar to the one they held there four years ago when President Obama won Nevada by seven points. 

Early voting is not necessarily an indication of final results, given that those who have turned out so far are highly motivated and that the election will be decided by the millions more who cast ballots Tuesday.

Nonetheless, the increase has taken place even in states such as Texas, where Democrats have not focused on galvanizing voters. The spike appears to be the result of the rising number of Hispanic voters and the increasingly aggressive efforts to organize what has long been considered a potent voting bloc whose numbers have never lived up to their potential. Adding to the fervor is widespread anger at Trump’s incendiary rhetoric about Hispanics and Mexico, suggesting that Clinton could outperform Obama’s 71 percent share of the Hispanic vote from 2012.

“Trump has built a wall, indeed,” said Fernand Amandi, a Democratic pollster who specializes in Latino voters. “And it is a new firewall for Democrats.”

In Florida, early-voting data suggests that Hispanics are emerging as a larger force in the state’s electorate — and that many Latinos are participating for the first time.

The Hispanic share of overall early voters is sharply higher this year, reaching about 15 percent from about 10 percent at this stage four years ago, according to an analysis by University of Florida political scientist Daniel A. Smith. Another examination of the numbers, by Democratic strategist Steve Schale, found that more than half of the Hispanics who have voted so far have either never voted before or voted only once previously.

Across Miami-Dade County, Hispanics seemed to be heavily favoring Clinton.

Marilyn Ralat-Albernas considered the stakes in the election so high for her Hispanic community that she took a month off work to volunteer for Clinton.

One of the most persuasive strategies for Clinton allies has been to send undocumented workers to knock on the doors of potential Hispanic voters to explain the stakes of the election.

The Decline and Fall of Bernie Sanders

I have been truly dismayed with the rise of Donald Trump and the complete hijacking of the Republican Party by those most motivated by hate, bigotry and a under current of greed.  Over the last month or so, I have likewise grown increasingly dismayed by Bernie Sanders and the worsening conduct of his followers.  In some ways, Sanders is trying to ride a wave of resentment akin to Donald Trump.  Worse yet, he is proving to be just as big of egomaniac as Trump.  He once boasted that he had never lost and election and the fact that he is losing to Hillary Clinton appears to be more than his psyche can handle.  He seems only too willing to trash the Democrat Party and throw the election to Trump simply to appease his damaged vanity.  What respect I once had for the man is gone and he needs to get out of the presidential contest.  A piece in Mother Jones echos my concerns.  Here are excerpts:

So tonight's Democratic primaries basically ended in a tie. There's really nothing of interest left anymore: Hillary Clinton will win the nomination, as we've all known she would for at least the past month.

The one thing I do keep wondering about is what happened to Bernie Sanders. Before this campaign, he was a gadfly, he was a critic of the system, and he was a man of strong principles. He still is, but he's also obviously very, very bitter. I wonder if all this was worth it for him? By all objective measures he did way better than anyone expected and had far more influence than anyone thought he would and he should feel good about that. Instead, he seems more angry and resentful with every passing day.

I know this happens all the time in presidential primaries. Everyone starts out promising to run high-minded campaigns, but the attacks always come sooner or later—and the targets inevitably believe the attacks are unfair and slanderous. As a result, the losers develop a deep personal disdain for their opponents.

That's what's happened this time, and I suppose there's nothing unusual about it. I don't even blame anyone in particular. Maybe Hillary's team played too rough. Maybe Bernie's team is too thin-skinned. I just don't know. But it's sort of painful to see a good person like Bernie turned into such a sullen and resentful man. And doubly painful to see him take his followers down that path too.

Usually these things fade with a bit of time. Politics is politics, after all. But for Bernie, it's always been more than politics. I wonder if he's ever going to get over this?

As for the behavior of Bernies' followers - which he has yet to adequately condemn - a piece here from the Nevada Democrat Party underscores that Sanders is by default condoning behavior akin to the mobs at Trump rallies.  It is ugly, disappointing, and speaks very badly of Sanders.

Trump Wins Nevada Caucuses By Wide Margin

The panic in the GOP establishment must now be moving to open hysteria as the new fuhrer of the party, Donald Trump, walks away from the Nevada caucuses with more than a 20% lead over his nearest Rival, Marco Rubio, a/k/a Marcobot. With 45.9% of the vote, the new fuhrer - who has again made statements condoning violence against protesters who oppose him - underscores the reality that the GOP of today is akin to a rabid dog.  Marcobot and Ted Cruz combined barely surpass Trumps support.  What is perhaps most frightening about those voting for Trump is that the man has yet to provide any real details on what his regime would do other than to offer sound bites and demagoguery.  The New York Times looks at Trumps victory and the loss of sanity in the GOP.  Here are highlights:

Donald J. Trump was declared the winner of the Nevada caucuses on Tuesday night, according to The Associated Press, gaining a third consecutive victory in an early-voting state and strengthening his position in the Republican presidential race before the wave of Super Tuesday elections on March 1.

Mr. Trump was seen as a favorite going into the contest, and his victory serves as a setback for his chief competitors, Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida, who must now try to break Mr. Trump’s winning streak in the larger states that vote in the coming weeks..

In early returns, Mr. Trump held a lead of about 20 percentage points over his nearest challenger, Mr. Rubio, with Mr. Cruz trailing in third place. Turnout in Nevada was reported to be high compared with previous caucuses. . . . He won over independent voters in New Hampshire and evangelicals in South Carolina, and prevailed in Nevada, where Mormon voters and rural activists wield influence.

Mr. Trump said in his victory speech that he expected to consolidate his grip on the Republican Party as more of his competitors left the race. He said he would compete hard in his rivals’ home states, and projected optimism that he could lock down the nomination quickly.

This latest triumph may only encourage Mr. Trump in the brash campaign style that has alienated many Republican officials and mainstream voters. In the two days leading up to the Nevada caucuses, Mr. Trump called Mr. Cruz a liar and threatened to deliver vicious attacks on Mr. Rubio as well.

At a rally in Las Vegas on Monday evening, Mr. Trump ridiculed a protester in his audience and told supporters that he would have liked to “punch him in the face.”

“We’re seeing a backlash in the United States that we’ve never seen before,” said Neville Cramer, 65, a Trump supporter from Las Vegas.

The results are likely to reinforce the sense among national Republican leaders that only direct confrontation can block Mr. Trump from claiming the party’s nomination, because none of the party’s most powerful voting blocs seems likely to thwart him on its own.  Mr. Trump’s success in Nevada is also likely to increase the pressure on his opponents to somehow join forces against a common enemy.

Mr. Cruz has intensified his hawkish comments on immigration to compete with Mr. Trump, and has argued that only a conservative running well to the right of Mr. Trump can challenge him effectively.

Mr. Rubio, on the other hand, has sought to unite Republican leaders behind his bid, casting himself as the only candidate capable both of defeating Mr. Trump and winning a difficult general election race. 

For more than 20 years the leadership of the Republican Party welcomed extremists and religious fanatics into the party by voting them onto local city and county committees.  Now, the party and nation are paying the price of such short sighted tactics.  The cancer has metastasized and short of killing the patient, I don't know how it can be defeated.  

GOP Wakes Up to Trump Nightmare

A piece in Politico looks at the growing angst in the GOP as one time party elites realize that they may be unable to kill the Frankenstein monster they created in the form of Donald Trump and the increasingly insane party base which is controlled by right wing Christian extremists and those who want to over throw the U.S. Constitution and embrace trump's fascist policies.  But for the threat posed to the nation, there is satisfaction of the GOP establishment finally reaping what it has sown over the last 20+ years.  Here are article excerpts:

Establishment Republicans are reckoning with something they thought would never happen: That it might soon be too late to stop Donald Trump.

With the controversial businessman the clear front-runner heading into Nevada and next week’s Super Tuesday contests, there’s an emerging consensus that the odds of dislodging him are growing longer by the day. Whispered fears that Trump could become the Republican nominee have given way to a din of resigned conventional wisdom – with top party officials and strategists openly wondering what the path to defeating him will be.

The biggest hurdle confronting the mogul’s four rivals is that they continue to divide support among themselves. In each of the three contests that have been held so for, the anti-Trump field has fractured, making it impossible for any single contender to surpass him. A similar dynamic could play out again in Nevada, with Trump failing to win a majority of support but still earning more than his opponents. 

While the field has winnowed somewhat in recent days, the compressed nature of this year’s Republican primary calendar means there is precious little time for the anti-Trump field to consolidate. Should Trump notch his third consecutive win on Tuesday, some foresee him steamrolling through Super Tuesday a week later, when a quarter of the party’s delegates are awarded. A batch of newly released polls show him with sizable leads in several of those states, including Massachusetts and Georgia.

“Either Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio would have a shot at the nomination, but I don’t see how they can stop Donald Trump while both of them are splitting votes,” said Al Cardenas, a former Florida Republican Party and American Conservative Union chairman who had supported Jeb Bush.

To some in the GOP leadership, Bush’s exit from the contest has reignited hopes that a fractured party establishment will eventually unite. Still, eating into Rubio’s vote share is John Kasich, a moderate Ohio governor who is charting a course through the Midwest – if he survives long enough to contest primaries like Michigan’s, to be held on March 8.

One senior party operative on Monday evening described “building irritation” with Kasich among GOP elders for staying in the race when has such a narrow path to the nomination – but said there was no consensus on the best way to force him out.

“Too many people don’t find Trump presidential and he reinforces that regularly. Now, our problem is we need to get the race down to two to three candidates to capitalize on it,” said Henry Barbour, a Republican National Committeeman from Mississippi who has been an outspoken voice in calling for his party to unite behind a single anti-Trump contender. “But there’s ample time.”

To dislodge Trump, though, Rubio must first defeat another rival: Cruz. People briefed on Rubio’s game plan say he’s planning to launch an all-out assault on the Texas senator, labeling him as a dishonest figure while appealing to evangelicals, a group that Cruz had been counting on – a strategy Rubio used with success in South Carolina. “Watch Rubio go nuclear on Cruz,” one source briefed on the plans said.

But if Cruz is vulnerable, so too is Rubio, who has yet to win a state and can point to few upcoming contests where he is the favorite. Cruz has campaigned aggressively across the South, which figures heavily in the delegate math and on Super Tuesday and March 15 in particular.

However the race unfolds, many are beginning to wonder if the Republican establishment has already been defeated at its own game. For all its planning and plotting, nothing has been able to halt Trump’s rise.

Federal Judge Strikes Down Alaska Marriage Ban

In a somewhat unusual move, a federal judge in Alaska released his ruling today striking down Alaska's ban on same sex marriage.  Given that Alaska is located within the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which struck down the laws in Nevada and Idaho last week, the defenders of anti-gay discrimination have nowhere to appeal the ruling since this week's 9th Circuit ruling is binding precedent for Alaska.  One can just imagine what batshitery will likely come from the lips of Sarah Palin, a/k/a the White Trash Cretin from Anchorage.   Alaska Dispatch News has details.  Here are excerpts:

A federal judge ruled Sunday that Alaska’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, paving the way for gay couples to begin marrying in the state for the first time.

“The court finds that Alaska’s ban on same-sex marriage and refusal to recognize same sex marriages lawfully entered in other states is unconstitutional as a deprivation of basic due process and equal protection principles under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,”  U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Burgess wrote in a order in the case Hamby v. Parnell, released Sunday.

The Hamby suit was filed in May by five same-sex couples. It challenged the state’s constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman, approved by voters in 1998.

The ruling comes less than a week after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled to overturn similar marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada. Same-sex marriage advocates said the 9th Circuit ruling would likely lead to the quick overturn of Alaska’s ban on gay marriage because the bans were similar and Alaska also falls under the jurisdiction of that court.

9th Circuit Strikes Down Marriage Bans - 5 More States to Join Marriage Equality Column

Yesterday and today have been devastating days for Christofascists and their sleazy political whores in the Republican Party.  Between the U.S. Supreme Court action yesterday which tacitly affirmed the rulings of the 4th, 7th and 10th Circuits and today's ruling of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals striking down same sex marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada, when all the dust settles the number of states where same sex marriage is legal will surge from 19 states to 35 states (including Alaska and Montana).  Should the 6th Circuit rule the same way, then the gay marriage states will number 38 - far more than those that had legalized interracial marriage prior to the ruling in Loving v. Virginia.  The 9th Circuit ruling can be read here. There obviously must be much wailing and gnashing of teeth in hate group headquarters (not that these folks will surrender and seek real jobs).  Metro Weekly looks at today's 9th Circuit ruling.  Here are highlights:

A federal appeals court struck down same-sex marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada Tuesday in what is the latest of a series of victories for marriage equality just this week.

In a 3-0 opinion authored by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found bans on same-sex marriage in Idaho and Nevada violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“To allow same-sex couples to adopt children and then to label their families as second-class because the adoptive parents are of the same sex is cruel as well as unconstitutional,” the ruling states. “Classifying some families, and especially their children, as of lesser value should be repugnant to all those in this nation who profess to believe in ‘family values.’ In any event, Idaho and Nevada’s asserted preference for opposite-sex parents does not, under heightened scrutiny, come close to justifying unequal treatment on the basis of sexual orientation.”

Monday’s decision by the Supreme Court also impacts states under the jurisdiction of the 4th Circuit, 7th Circuit and 10th Circuit Courts of Appeals, meaning same-sex marriage will likely soon be legalized in West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming. On Tuesday, Colorado’s attorney general ordered county clerks in the state to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. When the other states impact by the Supreme Court’s decision comply, 30 states, plus D.C., will allow same-sex couples to marry.

Should Tuesday’s ruling by the 9th Circuit be petitioned to be heard by the Supreme Court, it seems unlikely the justices would hear the case following Monday’s decision to reject cases striking down same-sex marriage bans in five states. As such, the 9th Circuit’s decision will likely impact other states in the circuit that ban same-sex marriage, including Arizona, Alaska and Montana, but not immediately.

“Today’s decision from the Ninth Circuit brings to 35 the number of freedom to marry states, and 64% of the American people now live in a state where gay people will soon share in the freedom to marry,” Evan Wolfson, founder and president of Freedom to Marry, said in a statement.

 When I came out 13 years ago, I never thought I would live to see this day.  In fact, when I came out, even consensual same sex sexual relations could land one with a felony conviction here in Virginia.  Thankfully, Lawrence v. Texas ended that constant worry and now my husband and I are fully legally married in Virginia.   Not to sound cruel, but I have zero sympathy for the Christofascists who have inflicted so much harm on so many for so long.  Hopefully, they will soon become a scorned and largely irrelevant minority.

Ninth Circuit Eviserates Marriage Equality Opponents

Judge Marsha Berzon

While on vacation I was largely out of the loop and writing few blog posts due to the horrifically bad satellite Internet available aboard the Norwegian Jade.  I spent several hundred dollars for it and it was a challenge to even be responsive to client and office e-mails.  Thus, some things I will write about over the next few days may be "old news," but topics I want to put in my two cents on.  One such story is the berating that the GOP/Christofascist opponents of marriage equality took during oral arguments at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last week.  It is wonderful, in my view, to see the defenders of religious based bigotry finally being openly ripped apart by appellate court judges.  Towleroad has a great run down portions of which are quoted below:

A soft-spoken attorney representing Idaho started his state's anti-marriage equality argument by suggesting that allowing gays to marry violates the "bonding right" of children that they will be raised by their biological mothers and fathers. It took Judge Marsha Berzon just 15 seconds to ask her first question: "What is that word you're using before 'right'"? Judge Berzon can hear just fine; it's just that she had never heard anyone make such a ridiculous claim before today. The rest of the hearing followed similarly.

[I]n a nearly two-hour long interrogation of attorneys from Idaho and Nevada that may not have been as bombastic as Judge Posner's treatment of attorneys from Wisconsin and Indiana in the Seventh Circuit, a hearing which resulted in a marvelous unanimous victory ("Go figure!"), but was every bit as damaging to the forces opposed to marriage equality.

It also brought marriage equality full circle. Judge Reinhardt was the judge that wrote the first decision from a federal appellate court on marriage equality, affirming District Judge Vaughn Walker's pioneering rejection of California's Prop 8. We all know how that case turned out.

And we know what's happened since: a Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor striking down the Defense of Marriage Act and a long streak of pro-marriage equality decisions from the lower federal courts, including several appellate courts.

The judges' questioning was direct and they expressed a similar, though less visible, frustration with the misdirection and misleading statements from the anti-equality attorneys as Judge Posner. The tone of the hearing suggested that marriage equality supporters are finally out of the closet, following a tidal wave of an emerging consensus of the legitimacy and morality of marriage freedom for all.

Judge Berzon asked the most direct questions, sifting through the muck of Idaho's nonsensical argument about children needing to be raised by their biological parents.

"But heterosexual men and women aren't going to enter into same-sex marriages. So, what's the issue?" she asked. Indeed. Idaho was trying to avoid the reality that what the state wants to do is not really create a situation where kids are raised by their biological moms and dads, but just ban gays from marrying. These are two very different and clearly unrelated things.

But the message of the man-woman marriage is that we need to create a stable bond that is in the best interests of the child, argued the Idaho attorney. Huh, Judge Berzon wondered. How is it, she asked, supportive of stable marriages and a benefit to children to have them raised outside of supportive same-sex marriages rather than inside supportive same-sex marriages?

After several agonizing stutters: The worst thing the state can do to undermine the message of stability is to create something new--namely, "genderless marriage."  With that, Judge Berzon had it. She called out Idaho on its argument that man-woman marriages provide the added benefit of complementary parenting styles and skills, an argument that is not only sexist and based on traditional notions that women nurture and men discipline, but also a completely unconstitutional basis for discrimination.

The greatest, and most revealing, line came during Idaho's rebuttal, in which Judge Berzon brought up the parallel of Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 case that outlawed bans on interracial marriage. As we all know, similar arguments were raised by Virginia: we just don't know what will happen, we worry for the children of mixed-race couples, those households will be unstable, the verdict is out on whether they are good parents, and the state has debated and made the decision, though the democratic process, to ban the prospect.

Judges are willing to call out the anti-equality side on their bald lies and misleading statements.

In the end, this was a rough day for those opposed to marriage equality. Three progressive judges, though more muted in their questioning than Judge Posner was at the Seventh Circuit, were no less skeptical of the homophobic, ahistorical, misleading, misdirected arguments against allowing gays to marry. The hearing was a testament to how far we have come since the last time marriage equality was before Judge Reinhardt. 

RNC Meeting Roiled By Fighting Over Gay Marriage and Abortion

The Republican Party continues to be plagued by the Frankenstein monster of its own creation: the Christofascists who the so-called GOP establishment stupidly allowed into the ranks of city and county committees looking at short term expediency rather than the metastasizing cancer that was being introduced to the party.  At the RNC's meeting in Memphis, a veritable cat fight broke out between the knuckle dragging, Bible thumping elements and the Nevada delegation which had removed gay marriage and abortion from the state party platform.  The Washington Times looks at the delicious mud slinging that ensued.  Here are some excerpts:

Gay marriage and abortion, divisive issues within the Republican party, have flared again at the RNC’s meeting here, with Nevada’s delegation firing back at criticism of its April decision to remove anti-abortion and anti-gay language from its state platform.

Angered by an email from Oklahoma Republican National Committee member Carolyn McLarty that questioned its loyalty to the national party, the Nevada delegation sent a stinging rebuke to the 168-member national committee.

“The removal of two social issues from our platform does not mean that ‘we’ as individual people are ‘for’ gay marriage or ‘for’ abortion,” the email said. “The removal of these planks recognizes the inappropriateness of the existence of these planks in our platform in the first place.”

“We disagree with Committeewoman McLarty where she said ‘They are symptoms of the infiltration of the Republican Party by those who really want to destroy it,’ ” it said.

The delegation also took issue with Mrs. McLarty, an evangelical Protestant and staunch opponent of abortion, calling its action an “attack on God and family.”

“The Nevada delegation said actions were far from ‘disgraceful’ or ‘insidious,’ and we find her judgment of our delegation wholly inappropriate.”

“The position of the Nevada Republican Party does not impact Oklahoma and neither the Committeewoman nor the RNC have any governance over the will of the Nevada delegation when it comes to the content of the Nevada state platform.”

“Nevada is home to many diverse people, including a very large LGBT population. The GOP is by definition a party of inclusion not exclusion. If we as a political party continue to exclude Americans that agree with our core principles of freedom and limited government, how can we expect to attract new candidates or continue to get quality Republican candidates elected?

The Nevada response argued that “Excluding an entire group of American citizens based solely on their sexual preference toward the same gender is not only divisive but in the 21st century it is unacceptable. “

The Nevada state GOP added: “Our goal as Republicans is to have less Government intrusion in our lives, and having our platform reflect that is commendable. Nevada is leading a charge to focus our party on core principles which are shared by a majority of Americans, including the new generation of voters that is looking to us for leadership on the issue of limited government and personal freedom. We as Republicans can choose to become more relevant to this generation of new voters or we can continue down a path of exclusion and continue to lose elections as a result.”

Logic and reason - and a desire to win elections - rather than a Spanish Inquisition mindset lie on the side of the Nevada delegation.  Logic and reason, of course, make the Nevada delegation's position anathema to the Christofascists who prefer ignorance and bigotry. 

Key Upcoming Cases in Pennsylvania Marrige Equality Fight

A reader recently asked about the status of the challenge to Pennsylvania's same sex marriage ban since this blog looks at the cases progressing in other states.  Based on the string of defeats suffered so far by states that have pandered to religious extremists and/or argued for mob majority rule, I suspect when the Pennsylvania ruling does come, it will follow the pattern we've seen in every other state at the U.S. District Court level save Nevada (which is almost guaranteed to be reversed by the 9th Circuit given its ruling in SmithKline in January).  But to answer the reader's question, the San Francisco Chronicle looks at the current status in Pennsylvania. Here are article highlights:

When U.S. District Judge Mary McLaughlin decides this year whether Pennsylvania must recognize same-sex marriages from other states, she'll do so from her perch above Independence Mall, where about 40 people staged an early gay rights protest in 1965.

For decades afterward, little changed on the gay marriage front. But the cultural and legal landscape has shifted rapidly since 2000, leaving Pennsylvania the last state in the region to ban gay marriage.
That could soon change as three high-profile lawsuits move through the courts.

In Philadelphia, McLaughlin is weighing the "marriage recognition" issue, which could reach the U.S. Supreme Court before the broader issue of marriage equality. Her case is set for oral arguments May 28.

"The laws have not caught up to where people actually are on this issue," said lead plaintiff Cara Palladino, 48, of Philadelphia, a Bryn Mawr University fundraiser who married Isabelle Barker, 42, in Massachusetts in 2005. "When you look around at all the challenges that we have, I think people are increasingly looking at gay marriage as ... a nonissue."

A Quinnipiac University poll last month showed that 57 percent of about 1,400 Pennsylvania voters surveyed approve of same-sex marriage, compared to 37 percent who are opposed.

Lawyers for Republican Gov. Tom Corbett believe the issue comes down to states' rights — and that neither Massachusetts, nor McLaughlin, should tell Pennsylvania how to define marriage.  "This court should ... leave to the individual state legislatures their traditional power, long recognized under the U.S. Constitution, to define the nature and character of the marital relationship within their boundaries," they wrote in a brief last month in the Palladino case.

It's not clear whether McLaughlin will rule right away. However, in June, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones is scheduled to hear a broader challenge to the state's same-sex marriage ban during a two-week trial.

The American Civil Liberties Union represents 25 plaintiffs, including same-sex couples, their children, and a woman who lost her same-sex spouse. They say they have been denied financial and legal benefits that others enjoy. The ACLU plans expert testimony on such subjects as child rearing and the history of marriage, to build a record for the expected appeals.

"We think (they) will demolish any conceivable argument against marriage equality the other side could present," said Witold "Vic" Walczak, legal director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania.

In a third key case pending in Commonwealth Court, Corbett's administration has asked a judge to void scores of marriage licenses issued to gay and lesbian couples last year by Democratic local officials in Montgomery County.   "Same-sex marriage is not deeply rooted in our nation's history ... (and) cannot be considered a fundamental right," attorneys for the state have argued in court papers.

Gov. Corbett is sadly on the wrong side of history and will likely be viewed by history - if not already - as a modern day version of George Wallace standing in the school house door blocking blacks from attending public schools with whites.  The tide of history in America is on the side of expanding equality despite GOP efforts to drag the nation back to the 1950's.

 

Ninth Circuit's Application of Heightened Scrutiny for Sexual Orientation Will Stand

It what could spell the death knell for many anti-gay laws in nine western states, the ruling in SmithKline Beechum Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories will not be appealed which means that the Ninth Circuit ruling applying heightened scrutiny to laws targeting gays will be the new applicable standard.  The case has already had a big impact in the form of the State of Nevada's decision not t o defend that state's anti-gay marriage amendment.   Hopefully, there will now be a domino effect throughout the rest of the Ninth Circuit states shown in the map above.   Indeed, any attorney general in those states who now argues against such amendments based on the rejected arguments used in Virginia and elsewhere at the District Court level would be technically guilty of an ethical violation.  This is a huge development.  Imagine same sex marriage coming to Idaho, Montana, Arizona and Alaska sooner rather than later. Here are some highlights from and HRC release:

In January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in a pharmaceutical contract dispute, *Abbott Laboratories v. SmithKline Beecham,* that it violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection to exclude someone from jury service because of his or her sexual orientation. In doing so, the court also concluded that discrimination based on sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny, a higher standard of judicial review that requires a stronger justification for laws and policies that treat gays and lesbians differently. Only days after the Ninth Circuit's decision, the Attorney General of Nevada ended the state's defense of its marriage ban in another case before that court, concluding that Nevada's justifications for excluding same-sex couples from marriage could not withstand that higher level of review.

"AbbVie's decision not to appeal this ruling may turn out to be a pivotal moment in the quest for marriage equality in every state in this country and greater constitutional protections for all LGBT Americans," said HRC President Chad Griffin. "We thank the company for standing on the right side of history." 

BuzzFeed has an article that looks at some of the implications.  Here are excerpts:

The major victory for LGBT advocates announced by the Human Rights Campaign actually played out in a dispute between two pharmaceutical companies, SmithKline Beecham and Abbott Laboratories, and involved whether gay people could be kept off a jury in a trial involving HIV drugs.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — whose decisions apply to all federal courts in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington — said no. In doing so, however, Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote a decision that could have wide-ranging and long-lasting effects on LGBT rights more broadly — from marriage to employment and beyond.

While most laws that create groups or classifications must merely show there is a rational basis, or a legitimate reason, for the law, laws subjected to heightened scrutiny — under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (and applied to the federal government through the 5th Amendment) — must show more. Some, like those that classify based on race, must show a compelling state interest for classifying people, while others, like those based on sex, must show an important state interest in doing so.

Even before the question of whether Abbott would seek further review of the January decision was resolved, the decision started to have ripple effects. On Feb. 10, Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto announced that she and her client, Gov. Brian Sandoval, would no longer be defending Nevada’s amendment banning same-sex couples from marrying on appeal in the 9th Circuit — in large part based on the fact that they did not believe their appeal would succeed if the amendment had to withstand heightened scrutiny.

Here in Virginia, the ruling in SmithKline played a role in Attorney General Mark Herring's decision not to defend Virginia's anti-gay Marshall-Newman Amendment.  With Bostic v. Rainey on appeal to the 4th Circuit, hopefully that Court of Appeal will be influenced by the 9th Circuit's ruling.

 

Recent Developments in Virginia's Gay Marriage Ban Lawsuits

UPDATE: Late yesterday, a more abbreviated Notice of Supplemental Authority was filed by the Office of the Attorney General in Harris v. Rainey.

With more lawsuits being filed challenging state bans on same sex marriage and the ruling in Kentucky yesterday that found that state's marriage ban to be unconstitutional, it is timely to look at where things stand in Virginia's two pending federal cases.  In Harris v. Rainey which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia - which was certified as a class action so as to cover ALL Virginia same sex couples - on Monday the parties filed a Status Report with the Court which asked that the Court proceed on the basis of the briefs filed to date and rule on the pending motion to strike down the Marshall-Newman Amendment without oral argument.  If the Court proceeds on this basis, a ruling could come at any time.  

Meanwhile, in Bostic v. Rainey which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, the parties are awaiting a ruling by Judge Wright Allen following oral arguments on February 4, 2014.  Nonetheless, yesterday the Office of the Attorney General filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority yesterday afternoon that calls to the Court's attention recent rulings and developments in other same sex marriage cases.  Here are excerpts from that filing:

Three recent legal developments are relevant to this Court’s consideration of the pending cross-motions for summary judgment.

First, the court in McGee v. Cole, No. 3:13-24068, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10864 (S.D. W. Va. Jan. 29, 2014), denied a motion to dismiss a constitutional challenge to the validity of West Virginia’s same-sex-marriage ban. Agreeing with the recent rulings of the federal district judges in Utah and Oklahoma, the court said: “Doctrinal developments since Baker . . . justify a finding that Baker is nonbinding. As noted by the Second Circuit in Windsor v. United States, “[e]ven if Baker might have had resonance . . . in 1971, it does not today.” Id. at *29 (quoting Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2012), aff’d, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013)).

Second, the Governor and Attorney General of Nevada, on February 10, 2014, requested leave from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to withdraw their appellate brief, stating that they could no longer defend the constitutionality of the State’s same-sex-marriage ban in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Windsor and the Ninth Circuit’s recent holding in SmithKline Beecham v. Abbott Laboratories, No. 11-17357, 2014 WL 211807 (9th Cir. Jan. 21, 2014). See Defendant-Appellee Governor of Nevada, Motion for Leave to Withdraw Brief at 4, Sevcik v. Sandoval, No. 12-17668 (9th Cir. Feb. 10, 2014) (“[I]n all candor it appears that Windsor, viewed through the SmithKline lens, is dispositive.”). A copy of Nevada’s motion is included as Attachment 1.

And today, the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky struck down Kentucky’s laws that had prohibited the State from recognizing same-sex marriages validly performed outside of Kentucky. Bourke v. Beshear, No. 3:13-CV-750-H (W.D. Ky. Feb. 12, 2014). A copy of the opinion is included as Attachment 2. The court noted that, because Kentucky’s prohibition could not survive rational basis review, “the result in this case is unaffected by the level of scrutiny applied.” Id. at 10. The opinion also echoes Defendant Rainey’s argument (Doc. 96-1 at 22) that the constitutional right at issue in this case is not a new one:

Usually, as here, the tradition behind the challenged law began at a time when most people did not fully appreciate, much less articulate, the individual rights in question. For years, many states had a tradition of segregation and even articulated reasons why it created a better, more stable society. Similarly, many states deprived women of their equal rights under the law, believing this to properly preserve our traditions. In time, even the most strident supporters of these views understood that they could not enforce their particular moral views to the detriment of another’s constitutional rights. Here as well, sometime in the not too distant future, the same understanding will come to pass.
* * *

[A]re courts creating new rights? Are judges changing the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment or our Constitution? Why is all this happening so suddenly?

The answer is that the right to equal protection of the laws is not new. History has already shown us that, while the Constitution itself does not change, our understanding of the meaning of its protections and structure evolves. If this were not so, many practices that we now abhor would still exist. Bourke, Mem. Op. at 14-15, 21.

 The court further noted that the result there was compelled by the Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor decisions:

In Romer, Lawrence, and finally, Windsor, the Supreme Court has moved interstitially, as Holmes said it should, establishing the framework of cases from which district judges now draw wisdom and inspiration. Each of these small steps has led to this place and this time, where the right of same-sex spouses to the state-conferred benefits of marriage is virtually compelled. Bourke, Mem. Op. at 22-23.

Interestingly enough, my February VEER Magazine column (available on news stands on February 15th) which argues why Mark Herring's actions are legal and proper comes to the same conclusion concerning the results required under  the Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor decisions.

Federal Court Stikes Down Kentucky Gay Marriage Ban, 9th Circuit Expedites Nevada Appeal

Things have been very busy on the same sex marriage front today.  First, a federal court struck down at least in part Kentucky' gay marriage ban.  Second, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals approved the state of Nevada's withdrawal of its defense of that state's same sex marriage ban in the wake of  the 9th Circuit ruling in SmithKline Beechum Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories, and set the case up for an expedited ruling.  What is interesting is that the Nevada case will now be defended solely by a non-governmental, Christian Right organization akin to the one that appealed the ruling in Hollingsworth v. Perry. concerning Proposition 8.  Thus, if the 9th Circuit rules that Nevada's same sex marriage ban, there may be no party with standing to appeal that ruling.  In respect to the Kentucky Ruling, here are highlights from (Note: the judge who made the ruling is a Republican nominee - the court's opinion is here) MetroWeekly:

A federal judge Wednesday struck down Kentucky’s ban on recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions in a ruling that labeled the ban as unconstitutional. 

“[T]he Court concludes that Kentucky’s denial of recognition for valid same-sex marriages violates the United States Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law, even under the most deferential standard of review. Accordingly, Kentucky’s statutes and constitutional amendment that mandate this denial are unconstitutional,” U.S. District Court Judge John G. Heyburn II wrote in a 23-page ruling.

Citing a number of gay rights cases that have come before the Supreme Court, including June’s decision in Windsor striking down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Heyburn wrote the nation’s highest court has established “the framework of cases from which district judges now draw wisdom and inspiration.”

Although the District Court’s decision does not strike down Kentucky’s same-sex marriage ban, it concurs with nine other state and federal court decisions striking down bans on recognition of legally married same-sex couples. Kentucky voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2004 defining marriage as between a man and a woman and prohibiting recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states.

“What this opinion does, however, is make real the promise of equal protection under the law. It will profoundly affect validly married same-sex couples’ experience of living in the Commonwealth and elevate their marriage to an equal status in the eyes of state law,” Heyburn wrote.

Heyburn was recommended to the federal bench by Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell and nominated by President George H. W. Bush in 1992.

With respect to today's developments in the Nevada marriage case, Here are details via Lambda Legal:
 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today granted Lambda Legal's request to expedite the hearing of Sevcik v. Sandoval, its lawsuit challenging Nevada's discriminatory marriage ban. The decision comes just two days after Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval sought leave to withdraw his brief defending the ban. The Ninth Circuit also granted Gov. Sandoval's request to withdraw his brief. Lambda Legal Senior Attorney Tara Borelli issued the following statement:

"The fact that the government defendants no longer are defending Nevada's exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage makes any delay in these loving and committed couples securing the relief they seek particularly intolerable. The wheels of justice are now on a much faster track."

Gov. Sandoval's request and the earlier decision by Carson City Clerk-Recorder Alan Glover to withdraw his brief were motivated by the Ninth Circuit's recent ruling in SmithKline Beecham v. Abbott Laboratories that discriminatory classifications based upon sexual orientation must receive heightened scrutiny and should be presumed unconstitutional. The heightened scrutiny standard is much tougher to meet and rendered the state of Nevada's arguments in its original brief defending the marriage ban "no longer tenable in the Ninth Circuit," as Nevada's Attorney General conceded in a statement released last week. The withdrawal of the two government defendants leaves only the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, which the U.S. District Court had allowed to intervene, defending the marriage ban.

In Sevcik v. Sandoval, Lambda Legal, joined by pro bono co-counsel from O'Melveny & Myers LLP and Snell & Wilmer LLP, represents eight same-sex couples challenging Nevada's law banning marriage for same-sex couples. The lawsuit argues that barring same-sex couples from marriage violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. A U.S.
District Court judge granted Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval's motion to dismiss the lawsuit in November 2012, and Lambda Legal appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit. The State submitted its brief supporting the marriage ban to the Ninth Circuit on the same day as the Court's ruling in SmithKline.

Overall, it appears to have been a good day for marriage equality supporters and a bad day for the Christofacist crowd.