Pennsylvania Supreme Court Strikes Down Pro-GOP Congressional Gerrymandering

7th Congressional District of Pennsylvania is a pretty egregious example of a partisan gerrymander

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court just dealt a blow to Republicans that the pro-GOP, "conservative justice of SCOTUS will be hard put to undo. Specifically, the Court struck down all of Pennsylvania's horrifically gerrymandered congressional districts as unconstitutional under the Pennsylvania Constitution for a variety of reasons.  For background, Article VII, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides as follows:

Townships and wards of cities or boroughs shall form or be divided into election districts of compact and contiguous territory and their boundaries fixed and changed in such manner as may be provided by law.

Even a cursory glance at a map of the now invalidated congressional  districts would show that they failed to comply with this principle and also raised serious equal protection and other issues.  Interestingly, Article II, Section 6 of the Virginia Constitution reads in relevant part as follows:  

Every electoral district shall be composed of contiguous and compact territory and shall be so constituted as to give, as nearly as is practicable, representation in proportion to the population of the district.

As was the case in Pennsylvania, a number of Virginia state election districts fail to meet this requirement (see the map below).  (Virginia's congressional districts were revised three years ago after some very struck down for racial gerrymandering.)  Should a similar challenge be brought in Virginia? In theory yes, but given the Virginia Supreme Courts long history of wrongly decided rulings - think Loving v. Virginia, Massive Resistance cases, etc. -  one cannot be certain that a ruling like that handed down in Pennsylvania.  But I digress.  A piece in New York Magazine looks at the landmark Pennsylvania ruling.  Here are article highlights:

All eyes have been on the U.S. Supreme Court to decide at some point this year whether state redistricting decisions could be so partisan as to violate voters’ constitutional rights, absent some showing of racial discrimination. In the past, purely partisan gerrymandering was considered kosher as a political decision that courts had no basis to challenge. That’s now under question, in part thanks to new methods for measuring the impact of redistricting on voting rights. But now, in a state whose Republican legislators have become legendary gerrymanderers, a state court acting on its state Constitution has suddenly overturned a congressional map and is demanding immediate compliance, upsetting GOP midterm plans:

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the state’s congressional map went so far to benefit Republicans that it violated the state constitution.

The Pennsylvania congressional map has been notorious since its first use, in 2012, when Republicans won (and have subsequently held) 13 of the state’s 18 House seats despite losing a majority of the popular vote. Republican legislative leaders made no bones about their skill in screwing over Democrats. That didn’t much matter until now, when the Pennsylvania Supremes have ruled that extreme partisan gerrymandering violated both equal protection and “free expression” provisions of the state Constitution. Because the decision was made on the basis of the state, not the U.S., Constitution, SCOTUS is very unlikely to intervene to save the bacon of Pennsylvania Republicans. If there is any federal recourse against the decision, it could involve the remedy the Pennsylvania court imposed. The judges gave state lawmakers only until February 9 to draw up a new map, with the governor having only until February 15 to submit it to the court, which will draw its own map if the state fails to make its deadline. The speedy timetable is intended to make it possible for the state to hold congressional primaries in May as is currently scheduled. It also reflects the fact that with today’s redistricting software, it really doesn’t take that long to redraw maps. But that’s still a tight window, and with a Republican legislature and a Democratic governor, an agreement could be difficult to reach.

Any map that complies with the ruling will likely cost the GOP one or more House seats at a time when they are already in danger of losing control of the chamber.

Less partisan lines could give Democrats a chance to win back as many as half a dozen seats that had been lost to them over the past decade. It could also give the party a major boost in its quest to take back the entire House of Representatives in November.

Gay Rights Icon Edith Windsor Dead At 88

Many of us believe that we cannot make a significant difference in history and in shaping the future.  Edith Windsor who died today at the age of 88 proved that this misconception is not necessarily true. One individual who possesses courage, an indomitable determination  and a willingness to put themselves on the line can change history and the future for many.  Edith Windsor was one such person.  Thanks to her determination the Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor was declared unconstitutional and  the stage was set for the ultimate striking down of same sex marriage bans in the 2015 Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.  I never had the privilege of meeting Edie Windsor (I have met Jim Obergefell), but will always see her as an iconic figure.  Blogger friends who did meet and get to know her have universally said that she was inspiring. A piece in the New York Times looks at her passing.  Here are excerpts:

Edith Windsor, the gay-rights activist whose landmark case led the Supreme Court to grant same-sex married couples federal recognition for the first time and rights to a host of federal benefits that until then only married heterosexuals had enjoyed, died on Tuesday in Manhattan. She was 88.

Four decades after the Stonewall Inn uprising fueled the fight for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights in America, Ms. Windsor, the widow of a woman with whom she had lived much of her life, became the lead plaintiff in what is widely regarded as the second most important Supreme Court ruling in the national battle over same-sex marriage rights.

The Windsor decision, handed down in 2013, was limited to 13 states and the District of Columbia. But in a more expansive ruling in 2015, in Obergefell v. Hodges and three related cases, the Supreme Court held that same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marry anywhere in the nation, with all the protections and privileges of heterosexual couples. Its historic significance was likened to that of Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, which decriminalized gay sex in the United States.

Ms. Windsor had originally gone to court simply to obtain a tax refund. But for thousands struggling for gender equality, the stakes went far beyond tax advantages available to married heterosexuals, including Social Security, health care and veterans’ benefits; protection in immigration and bankruptcy cases; and keeping a home after a spouse had died.

Like countless others, Ms. Windsor had been snared by the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which barred same-sex married couples from federal recognition as “spouses,” effectively excluding them from the many federal benefits available to married heterosexuals. (Those benefits numbered 1,138, according to a count by the Government Accountability Office, Congress’s fiscal watchdog agency.)

After living together for 40 years, Ms. Windsor and Thea Spyer, a psychologist, were legally married in Canada in 2007. Dr. Spyer died in 2009, and Ms. Windsor inherited her estate. But the Internal Revenue Service denied her the unlimited spousal exemption from federal estate taxes available to married heterosexuals, and she had to pay taxes of $363,053.

She sued, claiming that the law, by recognizing only marriages between a man and a woman, unconstitutionally singled out same-sex marriage partners for “differential treatment.”

Affirming two lower court rulings, the Supreme Court, in the United States v. Windsor, overturned the law in a 5-4 ruling. It cited the Fifth Amendment guarantee that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

By striking down the act’s definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman, the Supreme Court invalidated the entire law and for the first time granted same-sex marriage partners the recognition and benefits accorded married heterosexuals.

But there was a catch. The decision did not say if there was a constitutional right to same-sex unions, and it left in place laws in 37 states that banned such marriages. As a practical matter, that meant the benefits would not extend to couples in states that did not allow same-sex unions, but only to those in 13 states and the District of Columbia, all of which recognized them.

She became a national celebrity, a gay-rights matriarch, a grand marshal of New York City’s L.G.B.T. Pride March and a runner-up to Pope Francis for Time magazine’s person of the year in 2013.

On Tuesday, Mr. Obama said in a statement, “I had the privilege to speak with Edie a few days ago, and to tell her one more time what a difference she made to this country we love.”

“Because people like Edie stood up,” he added, “my administration stopped defending the so-called Defense of Marriage Act in the courts.” He said the day of the 2013 Supreme Court ruling was “a great day for America — a victory for human decency, equality, freedom and justice.”

In 1993, when New York City began a domestic partnership registry to extend housing, health insurance and other benefits to gays, lesbians and unmarried heterosexuals, Ms. Windsor and Dr. Spyer were among the first to sign up.

And marriage was still their hope in 2002, when Dr. Spyer had a heart attack, and in 2007, when doctors said she had only a year to live. With time running out, they traveled to Toronto with six friends and were married in a ceremony conducted by Canada’s first openly gay judge. It was later recognized as a valid marriage by New York State.

“Married is a magic word,” Ms. Windsor told a rally outside City Hall in New York a few days before Dr. Spyer, a quadriplegic, died on Feb. 5, 2009. “And it is magic throughout the world. It has to do with our dignity as human beings, to be who we are openly.”

Same-sex marriage became valid in New York State in 2011, too late for Ms. Windsor and Dr. Spyer. But Ms. Windsor’s 2013 Supreme Court victory was followed by an avalanche of lawsuits attacking same-sex marriage bans in jurisdictions where they remained. And on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court made same-sex marriage a constitutional guarantee all over the land.

 As one who has benefited immensely from Edith Windsor's courage and determination, I want to say "thank you."  I will always look up to her as a role model.  Sometimes standing up and say "no" to bigotry and discrimination - even when it is wrapped in a smoke screen of religion - is demanded from each of us.  May we all find courage such as hers to do the right think.  RIP Edith Windsor. 

Transgender Sister Of Inaugural Singer Wins Bathroom Ruling

Singer Jackie Evancho performed the national anthem at Der Trumpenführer's inauguration and ended up catching grief from anti-Trump forces and from much of the anti-LGBT Christofascist base of the Republican Party offended by her transgender sister.  The thanks she received from Trump was the withdrawal of transgender protections advanced by the Obama administration.  Now, as BuzzFeed reports, Evancho's sister and two co-plaintiffs have won a federal lawsuit against their public school district for its anti-transgender bathroom policies.  The ruling relied on equal protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution.  Here are highlights from BuzzFeed:

The [Juliet Evancho] transgender sister of a performer who sang at President Trump’s inauguration and two of her schoolmates must be given access to school restrooms that match their gender identity, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled on Monday, less than a week after the Trump administration withdrew a policy that said schools must provide that access to transgender students. 

US District Court Judge Mark R. Hornak issued a temporary injunction barring Pine-Richland School District from enforcing a policy that said transgender students could either use single-person bathrooms or facilities matching their birth sex. In issuing his opinion suspending that policy, Hornak ruled that the students would likely prevail on their claims that the rule denied their equal protection rights under the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. However, the court sidestepped a national debate about whether civil rights laws already ensure transgender students access to restrooms — a question scheduled to go before the Supreme Court in March. In doing so, Hornak did not address the question about whether the students would prevail on a claim the school district policy violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The court found, instead, that the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee provided relief for the students — and that they are likely to succeed on those claims.

The plaintiffs include three students at Pine-Richland High School, including Juliet Evancho, who is the sister of Jackie Evancho, who sang at Trump’s inauguration. The other plaintiffs are Elissa Ridenour and another student identified only as A.S. Hornak wrote in an order Monday, “The Plaintiffs appear to the Court to be young people seeking to do what young people try to do every day-go to school, obtain an education, and interact as equals with their peers. … [T]he Plaintiffs have shown a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the District’s enforcement of Resolution 2 as to their use of common school restrooms does not afford them equal protection of the law as guaranteed to them by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

How the DNC Did Religious Liberty Right

One thing that became clear from the two national party conventions is that Democrats understand the concept of religious freedom envisioned by the Founders while in contrast the Republican view is more like one would have found under the Puritans in early Massachusetts or the Spanish Inquisition. Under the Republican view, only one religion is acceptable - i.e., conservative/fundamentalist Christianity - and it and its adherents should enjoy special rights.  Both parties' views were on open display at their respective conventions.  A piece in Slate looks at how the DNC got the concept right. Here are highlights:

Khizr Khan, a Muslim immigrant whose son was killed while serving in Iraq, brought the Democratic National Convention to tears and raucous applause on Thursday when he held up his pocket Constitution and admonished Donald Trump: “Have you even read the United States Constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy.” Khan’s rebuke was, of course, a profoundly moving and very necessary rejoinder to Trump’s rampant Islamophobia. But that powerful moment, as well as Khan’s entire address, also revealed that after years of surrendering the issue to the GOP, Democrats have finally learned how to talk about and present a progressive vision of religious liberty.

Indeed, that very phrase—religious liberty—has become so freighted with discriminatory overtones that I hesitate to use it. The fight for “religious liberty” has come to dominate the Republican Party in recent years, through a series of campaigns that aim to promote prejudiced Christians’ freedom over everybody else’s. . . . We’ve even seen laws that, under the banner of religious freedom, give mental health counselors and medical doctors the right to refuse to treat gay and trans patients.

In a clever act of doublespeak, Republicans have branded these measures “religious liberty”—but, as a federal judge recently pointed out, they really amount of Christian supremacy. (Or, more accurately, conservative Christian supremacy.) This attempt to legally elevate certain Christian beliefs above all others flatly contradicts the spirit and letter of the First Amendment.

Khan’s address didn’t just throw this hypocrisy into stark relief; it demonstrated exactly how Democrats can seize true religious liberty as a winning issue for progressives. Consider Khan’s precise phrasing. “In this document,” he said, holding up his pocket Constitution, “look for the words liberty and equal protection of law.” Liberty and equality: Two constitutional guarantees that are intertwined and interdependent, each building on the other, each a critical component of freedom in a democracy. “Have you ever been to Arlington Cemetery?” Khan continued. “Go look at the graves of the brave patriots who died defending America. You will see all faiths, genders, and ethnicities.”

An entire cemetery of soldiers—Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists—who devoted their lives to protecting a country that dispenses justice evenhandedly, with preference for none and tolerance for all. Khan might as well have been paraphrasing U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves, who blocked Mississippi’s anti-LGBTQ “religious liberty” law on both Establishment Clause and Equal Protection grounds, holding that it violated both “the guarantee of religious neutrality and the promise of equal protection of the laws.” In America, Reeves explained, religious freedom does not, cannot mean limiting the freedom of those who don’t share your beliefs.

Muslims’ best hope for liberty lies in this preservation of equality—the continued insistence that the government can neither discriminate against certain religions (as Trump would) nor license certain religions to discriminate against others (as Mississippi would). That is the Constitution’s vision of liberty as well, and it is precisely how Democrats should explain their own conception of religious freedom.

Senators Warner and Kaine Join in Introduction of LGBT Non-Discrimination Bill

Despite the marriage equality Victory, LGBT Americans continue to face legalized discrimination in employment and other realms.  Indeed, in Virginia and 28 other states, gays can be fired at will and the only recourse is to launch an expensive federal lawsuit and EEOC complaint.  Now, a bill has been introduced in the United States Senate that would change this situation.  Sadly, even if it clears the Senate, the GOP controlled House of Representatives will likely kill the measure in slavish obedience to their Christofascist puppet masters.  NBC29.com looks at the bill's introduction.  Here are highlights:

News Release from the Offices of Senators Kaine and Warner: 
 ~ The Equality Act would outlaw discrimination in the workplace, financial markets, housing, public accommodations & more ~

U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) and Tim Kaine (D-VA) today joined 38 of their Senate colleagues and 158 House members to introduce historic, comprehensive federal legislation to ban discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans.

“We’ve made tremendous strides in the journey towards equality, but work still remains,” said Sen. Warner, the first Virginia Governor to ban discrimination in state employment based on sexual orientation. “The Equality Act helps move us closer to true equality of all of our LGBT friends and neighbors. Discrimination has no place in our nation’s laws.”

Despite major advances in equality for LGBT Americans, including nationwide marriage equality, in the majority of states, an LGBT couple could be married in the morning and risk being fired from their jobs or evicted from their apartment in the afternoon. In Virginia, it is currently legal to fire, not hire, deny service or evict someone on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Equality Act of 2015 would prohibit such discrimination nationwide by adding sex, sexual orientation and gender identity to other protected classes, such as race or religion, in existing federal civil rights laws. The bill would ban discrimination in a host of areas, including employment, housing, public accommodations, jury service, access to credit, and federal funding. The bill would also add protections against sex discrimination in parts of anti-discrimination laws where these protections had not been included previously, including in public accommodations and federal funding.

Elections make a difference and LGBT Virginians and their allies need to get out and vote against Republicans in November.

Supreme Court Strikes Down All Gay Marriage Bans

It is a very emotional day - in a 5-4 ruling, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing the opinion, the United States Supreme Court ruled today that the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.  It is a dream come true for same sex couples who until just 12 years ago had to fear felony prosecutions in 13 states (including Virginia) for same sex relations. It is also a nightmare come true for Christofascists who see their ability to inject their toxic and ignorance worshiping beliefs crumbling before their eyes.    As a bit of irony, its was on June 26, 2013, that the ruling in Lawrence v. Texas struck down the remaining sodomy statutes. Then, on June 26, 2013 the ruling in United States v. Windsor struck down the Federal Defense of Marriage Act as applicable to the federal government.  Here are some initial highlights from the ruling (see the opinion here):

The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex.

With the exception of the opinion here under review and one other,  . . . . the Courts of Appeals have held that excluding same-sex couples from marriage violates the Constitution.

Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 147–149 (1968). In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs.

The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.

[T]he Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12 (1967), which invalidated bans on interracial unions, a unanimous Court held marriage is “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” The Court reaffirmed that holding in Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374, 384 (1978), which held the right to marry was burdened by a law prohibiting fathers who were behind on child support from marrying. The Court again applied this principle in Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 95 (1987), which held the right to marry was abridged by regulations limiting the privilege of prison inmates to marry. Over time and in other contexts, the Court has reiterated that the right to marry is fundamental under the Due Process Clause.

[A]nalysis compels the conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry. The four principles and traditions to be discussed demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples.

A first premise of the Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause.

A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. . . . As this Court held in Lawrence, same-sex couples havethe same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association.

Under the laws of the several States, some of marriage’s protections for children and families are material. But marriage also confers more profound benefits. By giving recognition and legal structure to their parents’ relationship, marriage allows children “to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.” . . . As all parties agree, many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. And hundreds of thousands of children are presently being raised by such couples.

Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents,relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

[W]hile the States are in general free to vary the benefits they confer on all married couples, they have throughout our history made marriage the basis for an expanding list of governmental rights, benefits, and responsibilities. These aspects of marital status include: taxation; inheritance and property rights; rules of intestate succession; spousal privilege in the law of evidence; hospital access; medical decision making authority;adoption rights; the rights and benefits of survivors; birth and death certificates; professional ethics rules; campaign finance restrictions; workers’ compensation benefits; health insurance; and child custody, support, and visitation rules.

There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle. Yet by virtue of their exclusion from that institution, same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage. This harm results in more than just material burdens. Same-sex couples are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would deem intolerable in their own lives. As the State itself makes marriage all the more precious by the significance it attaches to it,exclusion from that status has the effect of teaching that gays and lesbians are unequal in important respects. It demeans gays and lesbians for the State to lock them out of a central institution of the Nation’s society. Same-sex couples, too, may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage and seek fulfillment in its highest meaning.

The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest.

The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources alone. They rise, too, from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era. Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises,and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes en- acted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied. Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their person hood to deny them this right. 

The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is derived, too, from that Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws.

The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.

More reflections will follow in subsequent posts - as will thoughts on the spittle flecked hysteria that will no doubt be sweeping through Christofascists circles.

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback Threatens to Defund State Judiciary

If one listens to the Republican Party and its Christofacist/Tea Party base, the constant blather is how they want to remain true to the Founding Fathers' constitutional plan while liberals would destroy the system.  Nothing could be further from the truth and it is the conservatives who want to destroy the system as they seek to implement their greed, fear and hate based agenda that would make a toxic form of Christianity the de facto, if not official, state religion.  Nowhere is this disingenuous batshitery and push toward anarchy worse than in Kansas where Sam Brownback - a man who I increasingly view as mentally ill - and the Republican controlled legislature are now attacking the state judiciary.  A piece in Slate looks at the troubling developments.  Here are highlights:

On Thursday, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback signed a bill that threatens the entire state's judiciary with destruction if it rules against a law he favors. Brownback has spent much of his tenure attempting to curb the state supreme court and consolidate power in the executive branch. Thursday's startling maneuver suggests the deeply conservative governor has no compunction about simply obliterating separation of powers when another branch of government gets in his way.

The Kansas trouble started in 2014, when the state supreme court ruled that the disparity between school funding in rich and poor districts violated the state constitution. The justices ordered the legislature to fix the problem. Soon after, the legislature passed an administrative law that stripped the supreme court of its authority to appoint local chief judges and set district court budgets. (Instead, district court judges—who are often quite conservative—were allowed to elect their own chief judge.)

Arriving shortly after the school funding ruling, this law was widely seen as a retaliation against the court—and a warning. In their first ruling, the justices stopped short of declaring that the school system as a whole was constitutionally underfunded. But the court acknowledged that it would one day answer that question. And if the justices mandate more school funding, the legislature will have to raise taxes, a step few legislators are eager to take.

Just in case the court didn't get the message, Brownback and the legislature have also threatened the justices with blatantly political reforms, like subjecting them to recall elections, splitting the court in two, lowering the retirement age, and introducing partisan elections. (Currently, a nominating commission creates a pool of candidates, and the governor selects from that bunch.)

Now the court has an opportunity to strike down the administrative law, which probably violates the state constitution. And that's where Brownback's insane new law comes in. The law declares that if the supreme court strikes down the administrative law, the entire state judiciary will lose its funding. Brownback and the legislature are essentially bullying the judiciary: Uphold our law or cease to exist. 

This scheme is rather bonkers. It's also par for the course for Kansas Republicans, who turned their state into a failed Tea Party experiment and are now terrified of paying the price. The state supreme court is simply pushing the legislature and the governor to uphold their basic constitutional duties. In response, the legislature and the governor are trying to destroy the court. That's not democracy.

As I continue to state, the Christofascists/Tea Party are a clear and present danger to constitutional government.  They are a cancer infecting America.

Former Military Officers File Briefs in Support Same-Sex Marriage

The upcoming Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of state same sex marriage bans has attracted a plethora of amicus - i.e., friend of the court - briefs on the issue, including a number filed by lunatic Christofascist organizations that go to great lengths trying to find arguments to provide a smoke screen for what is ultimately nothing but anti-gay animus that lies behind the bans.  Meanwhile, saner briefs are being filed by various groups that want the bans struck down, including many of the nations leading corporations.  Two others are noteworthy because they are filed by former military officers and officials that (i) make a strong equal protection argument, and (ii) because they say the bans are hurting the military's ability to recruit the best personnel.  A piece in the New York Times looks at these briefs.  Here are highlights:

The most influential friend-of-the-court brief in living memory was filed by a group of retired military officers in a 2003 affirmative action case.

The law firm that filed the brief, now called Sidley Austin, has filed a new one by former military officials in the same-sex marriage cases to be heard next week. Their message this time is that the patchwork of marriage laws around the country hurts military families and threatens national security.

Most workers can turn down transfers to states that do not recognize their marriages. Members of the military, who are more than twice as likely to relocate as their employed civilian counterparts, do not have that choice.

Forcing service members to move to places where their marriages will cease to be recognized creates a tension between service oaths and wedding vows that hurts recruitment, retention, morale and readiness, the brief said.

“Those willing to risk their lives for the security of their country should never be forced to risk losing the protections of marriage and the attendant rights of parenthood,” the brief said, “simply because their service obligations require them to move to states that refuse to recognize their marriages.”

A second friend-of-the-court brief, from groups that support gay members of the military and their families, said the current state of affairs put the military at a disadvantage in competing with the private sector in recruiting and retaining good people.

“No legally married couple would look fondly upon a move from a state where the couple’s marriage is recognized to a state where their marriage is annulled for state law purposes,” said the brief, filed by lawyers at Chadbourne & Parke.

The differing treatment of marriages also damages the core military principle, vital to morale, of equitable treatment of service members, the second brief said.

The interests of military personnel figured in the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision to strike down the part of the Defense of Marriage Act that barred the federal government from providing benefits to same-sex couples.

[T]he Obama administration has worked to ease the burdens on same-sex couples in the military. It allows them, for instance, to take leaves to get married in states that permit same-sex marriages.

Advertisement

But it has hit a roadblock, one that gay rights groups say the government created. The law granting veterans’ benefits determines whether a marriage is valid by considering “the law of the place where the parties resided at the time of the marriage.”

The Department of Veterans Affairs has interpreted those words to mean that couples who live in a state that does not allow same-sex marriage and get married in one that does are generally not entitled to benefits like disability compensation, loan guarantees and death benefits.

“It is perverse,” the Chadbourne & Parke brief said, “for the government to grant leave to enable a same-sex couple to travel to a state where they can legally marry, for the government to recognize that marriage as valid for however many more years the service member continues to serve, and then suddenly ignore that marriage as soon as the service member retires and obtains veteran’s status.”

A federal appeals court in Washington is considering a challenge to that interpretation, but the Supreme Court’s decision in the four same-sex marriage cases to be argued next week, among them Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-556, may make the challenge moot.

It is very much past time that religious based hate and bigotry be granted special rights under the civil laws.  The Court needs to strike down ALL state marriage bans. 

Based on States’ Records, Supreme Court Should Decide Marriage

In eight days the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the appeal from the 6th Circuit ruling that upheld animus inspired anti-gay marriage bans.  Fifteen attorneys general and their counterpart in the District of Columbia have filed an amicus brief arguing that the Court must strike down such bans and point to the abysmal failure of too many of the states in protecting the rights of minorities as why, despite the calls for "states' rights" - a euphemism for allowing discrimination - the Court must act to stop bigotry and grant equality under the law.  The Washington Post looks at the filing.  Here are highlights:

First by statute and then by amending the commonwealth’s constitution, Virginia forbade same-sex marriage, civil unions, adoptions by gay parents, and, just to be perfectly clear, the creation or recognition of any “union, partnership or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities or effects of marriage.”

Both states [Virginia and Maryland] now have liberal Democratic attorneys general. And as the Supreme Court considers whether the Constitution requires states to allow gay couples to marry, both lawyers are aggressively arguing that the history of their states show why the matter cannot be left to the democratic process.

Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh, elected last fall, released a report this month concluding that “the states have sometimes been poor custodians of the rights of minorities.” It surveyed the political experiences of jurisdictions with laws prohibiting and permitting gay marriages.

“It is clear that the deference traditionally accorded to states with respect to the institution of marriage is not proper when in so many states the democratic process leading to these bans has been compromised by animus, fear, prejudice, and hate,” the report said.

The Supreme Court on April 28 will consider whether the Constitution forbids states to limit marriage to a man and a woman and whether states are required to recognize same-sex marriages performed where they are legal.

Four federal appeals courts have answered those questions affirmatively. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld the restrictions in the four states for which it is responsible: Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.

Maryland has joined 15 states and the District of Columbia in an amicus brief asking the court to find the restrictions unconstitutional. But Frosh said the lawyers in his department wanted to do more to flesh out the arguments used in the brief.

“There hasn’t been a review of different state laws that clearly shows animus played a role in their passage,” Frosh said in an interview. “The lawyers in the office were passionate about it; they wanted to make a statement on marriage equality.”

In Virginia, opponents of same-sex marriage say the democratic process was hijacked. Attorney General Mark R. Herring has drawn widespread criticism and threats of impeachment since he announced in early 2014 that he believed Virginia’s restrictions were unconstitutional and that he would work to overturn them.

[Herring] said, Virginia has been on the wrong side of history in previous landmark Supreme Court cases: opposing desegregation in Brown v. Board of Education; defending its ban on interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia; trying to retain Virginia Military Institute’s exclusion of female cadets in United States v. Virginia.  “The arguments offered to defend those unjust laws are the same arguments offered by marriage equality opponents today,” Herring wrote.

[C]ouples are allowed to marry in Virginia only because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit struck down the commonwealth’s restrictions in 2014, and the Supreme Court declined to review it.
 

An adverse ruling would have consequences, Herring told the court. Since that decision in October through January of this year, he reported, 1,289 gay couples married, and “same-sex weddings account for between 6% and 8% of all marriages celebrated in Virginia.”

Religious based animus does not magically make a discriminatory law constitutional.  Let's hope five or more of the justices agree.

The importance of Loving v. Virginia

With the U.S. Supreme Court scheduled to hear oral arguments later this month in Obergefell v. Hodges, which many observers believe will result in a national ruling striking down same sex marriage bans, it is interesting that even a newspaper outlet in Kansas of all places is carrying an op-ed that supports marriage equality and makes the comparison between the issue before the Court and what lead to the ruling in Loving v. Virginia.  It is worth a read - I would venture should be required for every GOP member of Congress - because it looks at bigotry and how claimed religious belief continues to deprive citizens of equal rights.  Here are highlights from the Salina Journal:

With the Supreme Court about to take up the momentous issue of marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples in Obergefell v. Hodges, it’s noteworthy that 48 years ago, the court heard oral argument in Loving v. Virginia, which produced the court’s most important ruling vindicating the fundamental right to marry. Loving has figured prominently in lower court decisions upholding the right of same-sex couples to marry, and has been relied on in Obergefell by those urging the court to strike down state laws denying that right.

At issue in Loving was the constitutionality of the laws of Virginia and 15 other states that in 1967 still prohibited interracial couples from marrying. Many of those states are among the dozen or so that today deny same-sex couples the freedom to marry and that are unlikely to do otherwise, absent a ruling from the Supreme Court.

Loving arose after Virginia criminally prosecuted Richard and Mildred Loving, an interracial couple, for having violated state law by getting married.  They pleaded guilty, and the trial judge gave them the choice of spending a year in jail or being banished from the state for 25 years. Underscoring how Americans’ concept of fairness and equality has expanded over the course of our history, the judge also uttered words that most would view as abhorrent today:

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

Sounds familiar doesn't it?  The piece continues:

In Loving, the Supreme Court unanimously held that laws prohibiting interracial marriage were unconstitutional. The ruling had two independent bases in the 14th Amendment: that the laws were racially discriminatory, in violation of the equal-protection clause, and that they denied interracial couples the fundamental right to marry, impermissibly infringing on the liberty interest protected by the due-process clause. As the court explained, “(T)he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

On June 12, 2007, to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the court’s ruling in their case, Mildred issued a written statement detailing the history of their courageous battle, a statement that she ended with the following:

“Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the ‘wrong kind of person’ for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

“I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all.”

[W]hat a fitting tribute to Mildred and Richard Loving it would be for Obergefell to become this generation’s Loving.

The same religious extremists that condemned the Lovings - I suspect many still  oppose interracial marriage - today inflict the same bigotry and deprivation of civil rights on same sex couples.  The U.S. Supreme Court needs to end it once and for all.

DOJ Brief Urges Nationwide End To Same-Sex Marriage Bans

Conclusion of the DOJ brief

With all kinds of groups, individuals and corporations - e.g., the people's brief (which I have joined) and Mayors for Marriage brief and 379 corporations - filing amicus briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court urging that bans on same sex marriage be struck down nationwide, the Christofascists must be sweating bullets and directing their typical lies and hate towards a growing circle of "enemies of marriage."  The Obama administration now joins the list that has filed a brief with the Court urging the court to find a constitutional right to same sex marriage under the U. S. Constitution.  A piece in BuzzFeed looks at the filing (the full brief can be found here).  Here are excerpts:

The United States government on Friday urged the Supreme Court to strike down state bans on same-sex couples’ marriages across the country, concluding, “There is no adequate justification for such a discriminatory and injurious exercise of state power.”

The filing in the cases challenging bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee represented nearly the end of a long path for the Obama administration on the issue, which began with President Obama opposing marriage rights for same-sex couples and his administration defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

On Friday, the Justice Department — which stopped defending the constitutionality of DOMA in February 2011 — told the Supreme Court, “The marriage bans challenged in these cases impermissibly exclude lesbian and gay couples from the rights, responsibilities, and status of civil marriage. These facially discriminatory laws impose concrete harms on same-sex couples and send the inescapable message that same-sex couples and their children are second-class families, unworthy of the recognition and benefits that opposite-sex couples take for granted.”  . . . . “The bans cannot be reconciled with the fundamental constitutional guarantee of ‘equal protection of the laws.’”

Specifically, the administration noted, “The President and Attorney General have determined that classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny.” That decision, made when the administration shifted gears on DOMA in 2011, would — if adopted by the Supreme Court — mean that laws and governmental policies that classify people based on sexual orientation should be viewed by courts with additional skepticism.  

As the piece notes, the states’ briefs defending the bans are due March 27, supportive amicus briefs due by the next Friday, and the oral arguments in the case are set for April 28.  I can just imagine the batshitery that will be found in the anti-gay amicus briefs.  It will no doubt be religious extremism and insanity on display. 

Supreme Court to Take 6th Circuit Marriage Appeal

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal of the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which upheld the same sex marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee and tried to depict such bans as "a benign, even admirable, initiative by “people of good faith,” endowed with a “Burkean sense of caution,” to validate a “long-existing, widely held social norm” rather than animus inspired acts to permanently denigrate gays and lesbians.  Indeed, under the reasoning of the Sixth Circuit's ruling, slavery and bans on interracial marriage ought to still be valid.  A final ruling should be handed down by late June.  This action comes after the Court refused to take the appeal from the Fourth Circuit last October which had the effect of making gay marriage legal in Virginia and the other states in the Fourth Circuit. SCOTUS Blog has details on the Court's action.  Here are excerpts:

Taking on a historic constitutional challenge with wide cultural impact, the Supreme Court on Friday afternoon agreed to hear four new cases on same-sex marriage.   The Court said it would rule on the power of the states to ban same-sex marriages and to refuse to recognize such marriages performed in another state.  A total of two-and-a-half hours was allocated for the hearings, likely in the April sitting.  A final ruling is expected by early next summer, probably in late June.

The Court fashioned the specific questions it is prepared to answer, but they closely tracked the two core constitutional issues that have led to a lengthy string of lower-court rulings striking down state bans.  As of now, same-sex marriages are allowed in thirty-six states, with bans remaining in the other fourteen but all are under court challenge.

Although the Court said explicitly that it was limiting review to the two basic issues, along the way the Justices may have to consider what constitutional tests they are going to apply to state bans, and what weight to give to policies that states will claim to justify one or the other of the bans.
The Court told the lawyers for same-sex couples to file their written briefs on the merits by February 27, and the lawyers for the states to file by March 27.  Reply briefs by the couples’ lawyers are due on April 17.

The Court is scheduled to hold its final session of oral arguments from April 20 through 29, so the same-sex marriage cases will be scheduled during that time.  The order issued on Friday did not set that date; that will be done later.

The focus of the Court’s review will be a decision issued in early November by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  That decision, breaking ranks with most other courts, upheld bans on marriage or marriage-recognition in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.

While one never knows what the Supreme Court will do, it would seem unlikely for the Court to uphold state bans after allowing same sex marriage to extend to 36 states, with legalization in nearly half of those states coming from the Court's refusal to hear appeals where bans were struck down.  The outlier ruling of the Sixth Circuit has forced toe Supreme Court to have to act.

Locally, it has been amazing to see even formerly very conservative private clubs now accept married same sex couples as members.  The husband and I belong to such club and friends have recently joined a local conservative country club.