North Carolina GOP Bill Seeks to Ban Gay Marriage

Not content with the economic damage wrought to North Carolina's economy wrought by HB2 and now it's fake repeal, North Carolina Republicans are pushing a bill that would outlaw same sex marriage and without a doubt bring much more negative coverage - both nationally and internationally - to North Carolina.  Since the Republican Party has taken control of the state legislature, the state which was once know as being moderate and pro-business has become a veritable insane asylum.  Here are excerpts from The New Civil Rights Movement on this latest bastshitery:

22 months after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, North Carolina Republican lawmakers have filed a bill nullifying all marriages between people of the same-sex. The bill, which is unconstitutional, falsely invokes the 10th Amendment and claims the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over marriage. It also falsely claims the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the Christian Bible.

The "Uphold Historical Marriage Act," known as HB780, says, "the ruling of the United States Supreme Court not only exceeds the authority of the Court relative to the State of North Carolina and a vote of the People of the State on an issue pertaining solely to the State of North Carolina and the People of North Carolina but also exceeds the authority of the Court relative to the decree of Almighty God."

It then quotes Genesis 2:24, "a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

HB780 "declares that the Obergefell v. Hodges decision of the United States Supreme Court of 2015 is null and void in the State of North Carolina." It also declares that marriages "whether created by common law, contracted, or performed outside of North Carolina, between individuals of the same gender are not valid in North Carolina."  

The bill's primary sponsors are . . . . . . Rep. Larry Pittman, Rep. Michael Speciale, and Rep. Carl Ford.

Were the bill ever to become law, it would be declared unconstitutional, and the taxpayers in the State of North Carolina would have to pay court and attorneys fees, which easily could reach more than a million dollars.

If there is any good news in this, it is the fact that Virginia will likely gain more business from companies avoiding North Carolina - especially if Democrats win a clean sweep in November's state wide elections. 

Colorado Joints States Whose Gay Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

Yet another domino fell today when a Colorado state court judge ruled that Colorado's gay marriage ban is unconstitutional.   The state court ruling followed the ruling by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (the 10th Circuit encompasses Colorado) that upheld a U.S. District Court determination that Utah's gay marriage ban was unconstitutional under the United States Constitution.  Ultimately, all of the rulings track back to the decision in United States v. Windsor that struck down Section 3 of DOMA and concluded that anti-gay animus was the true motivation behind gay marriage bans.  Here are highlights from the Denver Post:

An Adams County District Court judge on Wednesday declared Colorado's ban on same-sex marriages unconstitutional, but he immediately stayed his ruling.

The ruling makes Colorado the latest in a string of 16 states that have seen their bans on same-sex marriages tossed out by state and federal judges.

The ruling came as another judge in Boulder County considered a request by Attorney General John Suthers to stop a county clerk from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. Last week, attorneys filed a federal lawsuit seeking to challenge Colorado's gay marriage ban.

Attorneys for 18 plaintiffs — nine couples — from Denver and Adams counties argued that the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.


Adams County District Court Judge C. Scott Crabtree issued his 49-page ruling Wednesday afternoon, saying he "heartily endorses" a recent ruling by a Denver-based federal appeals court in a similar case.

"The Court holds that the Marriage Bans violate plaintiffs' due process and equal protection guarantees under the Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution," Crabtree said in his ruling. 

"The existence of civil unions is further evidence of discrimination against same-sex couples and does not ameliorate the discriminatory effect of the Marriage Bans."

Crabtree also said: "If civil unions were truly the same as marriages, they would be called marriages and not civil unions. If they were the same, there would be no need for both of them."

The judge acknowledged that his court would not offer the final word on the subject. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently tossed out Utah's similar ban on gay marriage.

"The final chapter of this debate will undoubtedly have to be written either in Denver, Colorado or Washington, D.C.," the judge wrote. "While the striking down of laws banning same-sex marriages has been progressing at a rapid rate, it will take time for this issue to be finally resolved."


"I think what I find telling is that Judge Crabtree actually says that the justifications the state uses to deny same-sex couples marriage are just pre-text for discrimination," McHugh said. "I think that is an important ruling, that this isn't just about protecting marriage, this is about discrimination against same-sex couples."

During arguments last month, Suthers' office defended the state's ban on gay marriage, arguing that 15 state and federal judges who had struck down similar measures in other states were wrong.
But Crabtree mocked the state's argument that Colorado's ban on same-sex marriage protects the "nature of marriage" and the ability to produce children.

Gay Hater Bob Marshall Continues Quest to Impeach Mark Herring

I have noted that I increasingly believe that Christofascists suffer from a form of mental illness.  Need an example?  Look no farther than GOP Del. Bob Marshall (pictured above) who remains absolutely obsessed with inflicting legal harm on LGBT Virginians.  One has to wonder what bizarre aspect of Marshall's psyche drives him to such extreme lengths to harm those he doesn't even know. Marshall's newest target of this obsession is Virginia Attorney General who refused to defend Virginia's ban on gay marriage, which, like similar bans across the country was ruled to be unconstitutional.  Like too many Virginia Republicans, Marshall refuses to grasp the basic principal that the U.S. Constitution ALWAYS overrides state constitutions.  A piece in Think Progress looks at Marshall's spittle flecked diatribe sent out via e-mail arguing in support of his effort to impeach Mark Herring - and any judge who rules in favor of gay marriage.  The man is truly a mental case (as are the voters in his district who vote for this lunatic).  Here are article excerpts:

Virginia Del. Bob Marshall (R) is a longtime opponent of LGBT equality, and he’s now calling for the impeachment of Attorney General Mark Herring (D), primarily for his refusal to defend the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. Marshall filed the resolutions seeking an inquiry for Herring’s impeachment last week, but in a new email to supporters, he outlined his reasons for doing so. “Removing all standards against same sex or sodomy ‘marriage,’” he explained, is “to the detriment of children and the well-being of society.”

According to Marshall, “Mark Herring’s actions constitute a radical structural alteration in our representative form of government.” . . . Marshall also claims he “usurped legislative authority” by inviting undocumented immigrants (DREAMers) to pay in-state tuition rates at Virginia state school.

Marshall’s attacks include something that Herring did not actually even do. According to the email alert, Herring publicly announced that he is allowing same-sex couples to file joint tax returns, but Herring has made no such announcement.

In the email, Marshall also extended a threat to impeach judges who might overturn bans on same-sex marriage. Rulings based on the 14th Amendment’s equal protection “make no sense,” he argued, because when that Amendment was ratified, “sodomy was a felony in nearly every state.”

A long reputation of anti-gay comments precedes Marshall’s impeachment attempts. In 2012, he opposed the appointment of openly gay Judge Tracy Thorne-Begland because “sodomy is not a civil right.” In a 2011 letter attacking Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) for supporting marriage equality, Marshall compared homosexuality to pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, necrophilia, and bestiality. He believes that homosexuality is a “disordered behavior” and after the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” he tried to ban “active homosexuals” from joining the Virginia National Guard.

As of this morning, Marshall’s public petition to seeking to garner support for Herring’s impeachment has totaled 270 signatures, a large number of which are taking shots at Marshall, not Mark Herring.  Here are few of the "names" signed on the petition:

“FuckYou Bob.” 
"Fuck me in the ass bob Please"
"BobMarshalls ButtBoy"
"DisBar BobMarshall"
"Bob Yousukdik"
"Eat A Dick You Clown"
"Asshole of the Year"

You get the drift! :-) 

Gay-Rights and the Court: Have We Entered Uncharted Territory?

With numerous cases pending across America challenging same sex marriage bans and other discriminatory laws drafted to specifically target LGBT citizens, the legal landscape has changed dramatically from even a little more than 10 years ago when, prior to the ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, gays remained basically criminalized in 13 states.  Now, 17 states allow same sex marriage, but anti-gay bigotry and anti-gay laws remain plentiful in the majority of states, including here in Virginia.  The question of the moment is whether or not there may be a huge shift against anti-gay laws and state constitutional amendments about to occur.  MSNBC has a piece that looks at what a ruling out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit could portend if adopted by other courts - Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring cited the case in his brief in Bostic v. Rainey - and, hopefully, affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Here are excerpts:

[Ninth Circuit judge Stephen] Reinhardt is back in the headlines. This time, gay-rights advocates had better hope he’s caught the prevailing mood at the high court. That’s because his latest decision, issued Tuesday, may trigger Supreme Court review of the single most important legal issue for the gay-rights movement: Are laws that classify people based on sexual orientation subject to “heightened scrutiny”?

That may sound like an obscure question. But the answer will have a sweeping impact on laws nationwide. And it may single-handedly determine whether dozens of state laws forbidding same-sex marriage are constitutional.

Reinhardt’s ruling came in a case, GSK v. Abbott Laboratories, that on its face has little to do with gay rights. One company (GlaxoSmithKline) sued another (Abbott) in a contract dispute. But the dispute involved an HIV drug, and during jury selection, Abbott’s lawyers dismissed a potential juror who suggested he was gay.

The jury later rejected some of GlaxoSmithKline’s damage claims. On appeal, GlaxoSmithKline’s lawyers argued that they deserve a do-over because the trial was tainted by dismissal of the gay juror.

On Tuesday, a Ninth Circuit panel led by Reinhardt agreed – but it’s the way they agreed that’s important. Reinhardt wrote that government actions that treat people differently based on sexual orientation “are subject to heightened scrutiny,” like actions singling out racial minorities or women.   And he concluded that lawyers aren’t free to strike jurors just because they are gay. That differential treatment, he said, violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

That ruling is a bombshell. Here’s why: Legislatures usually are allowed to distinguish between groups when they make laws. . . . But when it comes to a few groups – most prominently, minorities and women – the rules are different. Because those groups historically lacked political power, courts are suspicious of laws singling them out, so they apply a stricter test: so-called “heightened scrutiny.” Laws singling out women, for instance, are constitutional only if the government can prove they’re necessary to advance “important governmental objectives.” That’s a much harder test to meet. In recent decades, the Supreme Court has used it to strike down laws drawing distinctions between men and women on everything from alimony to school admissions to worker’s compensation.

And that’s why Tuesday’s ruling is a watershed. Courts have long applied rational-basis scrutiny to laws that differentiate based on sexual orientation. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, has ducked the issue:   . . . . But Reinhardt has now called the high court’s bluff. In GSK, he studied Justice Kennedy’s Windsor opinion and concluded that it was applying heightened scrutiny, even though it didn’t say so. Therefore, he said, the law has changed: The Supreme Court now “requires that heightened scrutiny be applied” in sexual-orientation cases.

If he’s right, then laws that disadvantage homosexuals on a wide range of issues – inheritance, benefits, hospital-visitation rights – are in danger. So are state gay-marriage bans. A federal judge has predicted that a heightened-scrutiny test “would likely doom” every such ban.

The next big question, then, is whether the Supreme Court will take this case. That’s still up in the air and will be for months. But there are reasons to think it might: The court loves big-ticket cases. And Reinhardt’s decision creates a split among the federal appeals courts on what level of scrutiny applies. Such splits often lead to high-court review.

If GSK ends up in the Supreme Court, watch out. It has the potential to make last year’s DOMA decision look like small potatoes.

If justices are honest and can put aside the inappropriate deference too long given to religious based discrimination, the Supreme Court should affirm the 9th Circuit ruling.   And if it does, the Christofascists will have been dealt a huge defeat in their effort to stigmatize LGBT people and make us inferior under the law.  Keep your fingers crossed.

Los Angeles Times: Courts Will Further Gay Marriage Advances

Today's first post looked at where gay rights may go in 2014.  As noted, there is much to be done and anti-gay animus remains far too wide spread.  If one wants to see but one example, to demonstrate the level of anti-gay animus behind Virginia's Marshall-Newman Amendment, the amendment was added to the Virginia Constitution's Bill of Rights of citizens as if the backers wanted to underscore that Virginia gays were indeed less than full citizens.  But I digress.  Looking forward in terms of the advance of gay marriage, an editorial in the Los Angeles Times posits that the courts will lead in making further advances happen.  This seems plausible in states like Virginia where Republican - slavishly obeying the dictates of The Family Foundation, an anti-gay hate group - will continue to block the repeal of anti-gay laws and constitutional amendments.  Here are highlights from the editorial and its analysis:

Even by the standards of this extraordinary year for gay rights — during which more than half of the 18 states that now recognize same-sex marriages were added to the list and the Supreme Court struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act — the last couple of weeks have been remarkable. Within a few days, courts made gay marriage legal in New Mexico and Utah, and a ruling in Ohio forced some state recognition of such marriages.

But those recent court decisions have also fed the long-standing perception among conservatives that gay marriage has been pushed through by "activist judges" forcing their personal beliefs on an unwilling populace. In fact, most of the states where marriage is recognized got to this stage through votes, mainly by state legislatures but in a few cases by the people themselves through ballot measures. Of the 18 states, only seven, including California, legalized gay marriage through court decisions.

It is, of course, preferable for progressive marriage laws to reflect the will of the people. . . . But, in truth, the road to civil rights historically has involved a mix of approaches — popular opinion, lawmaking and court ruling — each affecting the others. The repeal of state laws against interracial marriage, for instance, followed this path, with a combination of judicial rulings and voluntary state repeals in the late 1940s and beyond until, in 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned such laws in the 16 states that still had them. Some of the state decisions to repeal discriminatory marriage laws took place when a majority of Americans still favored such restrictions. But increased recognition of these rights by both legislatures and courts led to increased public support by the early 1960s.
It has been the same with gay marriage so far. . . . .  As a growing number of states have sanctioned gay marriages, more Americans have had an opportunity to observe that they have no effect on traditional heterosexual marriage, which in turn leads to more acceptance and more laws passed. And societal recognition has an effect on judges, whose decisions have reflected that growing acceptance at the same time that they have been ahead of it.

Now, the fight for same-sex marriage is entering a new phase. The low-hanging fruit — states without strong laws banning gay marriage and with more progressive populations — is pretty much picked and the new battles will be in stiffly resistant territory. In 32 states, same-sex marriage is banned by a combination of laws and constitutional amendments, which means change is less likely to come via popular or legislative votes. Courts will play a bigger role.

The most recent case in point: Utah, viewed as a hot spot of antipathy toward same-sex marriage because it is home to the headquarters of the Mormon Church, which strongly opposes such marriages. The state so far has lost its efforts to halt a ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby that struck down Utah's marriage ban.

One thing, though, is certain. Despite anger toward these supposedly anti-democratic decisions, judicial rulings have a necessary role to play in the advancement of civil rights, even when public and legislative opinion isn't on the same side. Especially when it isn't.

Candidly, I think the analysis is on point and, hopefully, one or both of the gay marriage lawsuits in Virginia will lead to the striking down of the Marshall-Newman Amendment if some other case before the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't do so first.