Tuesday, August 03, 2010
Prop. 8 Ruling Coming Tomorrow
A number of sources are reporting that U.S. District Court Judge Vaughan Walker will issue a written opinion in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger tomorrow. The Court released this statement:*
"On August 4, 2010, the court will issue its written order containing findings of fact and conclusions of law following the court trial held in January and June of this year. The order will be e-filed in the court's Electronic Case Filing system, and will be immediately available thereafter through ECF and PACER. There will be no court proceeding associated with the publication of the order." The decision will be posted between 1pm and 3pm PDT.
*Obviously, there is no way to know how Walker will rule, but given the evidence entered and the case law and precedents cited by Ted Olson and David Boies, I cannot fathom how Walker can uphold Proposition 8. If he does uphold Prop 8, then the concepts of equal protection, separation of church and state, and freedom of religion will be truly dead in this nation. And frankly, I will be starting on a plan of how to emigrate once my mother is gone. I simply do not want to continue living in a country where I am treated as inferior garbage. As The Advocate notes, one legal scholar observed as follows:
*
Erwin Chemerinsky, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, School of Law, believes Walker will strike down Prop. 8 on grounds that it violates equal protection principles of the U.S. Constitution. Even if Chemerinsky is wrong, the case will likely head to the ninth circuit court of appeals, but that will "surely take more than a year," he says.
*
As we wait for the ruling, it's helpful to review exactly the arguments and evidence that was entered in Perry v.v Schwarzenegger. Here are highlights from David Boies' recent op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle:
*
One of the most invidious of the state-sponsored discriminations against gays and lesbians is the prohibition of gay and lesbian marriage. As the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held over more than a century, marriage is one of our most important personal relationships, and the freedom to marry the person of your choice is protected by constitutional guarantees of liberty, the right of association and due process.
*
Thus, in 1978 the court held unconstitutional a Wisconsin law preventing child-support scofflaws from remarrying. In 1987, the court unanimously struck down as unconstitutional a Missouri law preventing imprisoned felons from marrying. Legitimate state policies supported the Wisconsin and Missouri statutes. The Missouri law in particular was defended on the grounds that since imprisoned felons are unable to have any physical contact with their spouses, let alone live with them, such a marriage could not serve what was claimed to be the "traditional" purposes of marriage, including procreation. The court rejected those arguments, emphasizing in the Wisconsin case that "decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals" and in the Missouri case that marriages were constitutionally protected "expressions of emotional support and public commitment."
*
At the beginning of the trial in January, we said we would prove three propositions:
*
First, that marriage is a fundamental right - a proposition with which even the defendants agreed. This is important because we are not asking the courts to establish a new right, only to hold that an existing right cannot be denied based on sexual orientation.
*
Second, we proved that depriving gay and lesbian couples of the right to marry seriously harmed them - and seriously harmed the tens of thousands of California children they are raising - economically, socially and psychologically. We also demonstrated that when the state decrees that a gay or lesbian relationship is not worthy of being sanctified by marriage, it sends a dangerous signal to some people that they are second-class citizens to be disapproved and perhaps feared and that discrimination and even physical harassment could be justified. Although the defenders of Prop. 8 initially sought to argue that domestic partnerships are an adequate substitute to marriage, at trial even the defendants' own expert on cross-examination conceded, demonstrated by consistent expert and empirical evidence, that they are not.
*
Third, we said we would prove that the defendants' claim that permitting gay marriage would somehow undermine heterosexual marriage is entirely bogus. This is a matter of both common sense and experience. After all, what heterosexual couple do you know of who would decide not to get married because their gay neighbors can get married? Moreover, countries as Catholic as Argentina and Spain, as different as Sweden and South Africa and as near as Canada have embraced gay marriage without any noticeable effect - except the increase in human happiness and social stability that comes from permitting people to marry for love.
*
Unable to defend Prop. 8 on the merits, defendants argued that it is protected from constitutional challenge because it was passed by 52 percent of California voters. But if we were prepared to leave minority rights up to a majority vote, there would be no need for a constitution - and many state laws discriminating based on race, sex and religion would plague us all.
*
[H]istory is no justification for continued discrimination and, "Times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress."
*
Again, if Walker upholds Prop. 8, my faith in this nation - or at least what little is left of it - will be utterly dead. Religious based discrimination will be upheld as the law of the land and ALL religious minorities and others who do not live their lives in accordance with the perverted Christianist form of Christianity should be on notice that they could be the next group to be stripped of legal rights.
*
One of the most invidious of the state-sponsored discriminations against gays and lesbians is the prohibition of gay and lesbian marriage. As the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held over more than a century, marriage is one of our most important personal relationships, and the freedom to marry the person of your choice is protected by constitutional guarantees of liberty, the right of association and due process.
*
Thus, in 1978 the court held unconstitutional a Wisconsin law preventing child-support scofflaws from remarrying. In 1987, the court unanimously struck down as unconstitutional a Missouri law preventing imprisoned felons from marrying. Legitimate state policies supported the Wisconsin and Missouri statutes. The Missouri law in particular was defended on the grounds that since imprisoned felons are unable to have any physical contact with their spouses, let alone live with them, such a marriage could not serve what was claimed to be the "traditional" purposes of marriage, including procreation. The court rejected those arguments, emphasizing in the Wisconsin case that "decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals" and in the Missouri case that marriages were constitutionally protected "expressions of emotional support and public commitment."
*
At the beginning of the trial in January, we said we would prove three propositions:
*
First, that marriage is a fundamental right - a proposition with which even the defendants agreed. This is important because we are not asking the courts to establish a new right, only to hold that an existing right cannot be denied based on sexual orientation.
*
Second, we proved that depriving gay and lesbian couples of the right to marry seriously harmed them - and seriously harmed the tens of thousands of California children they are raising - economically, socially and psychologically. We also demonstrated that when the state decrees that a gay or lesbian relationship is not worthy of being sanctified by marriage, it sends a dangerous signal to some people that they are second-class citizens to be disapproved and perhaps feared and that discrimination and even physical harassment could be justified. Although the defenders of Prop. 8 initially sought to argue that domestic partnerships are an adequate substitute to marriage, at trial even the defendants' own expert on cross-examination conceded, demonstrated by consistent expert and empirical evidence, that they are not.
*
Third, we said we would prove that the defendants' claim that permitting gay marriage would somehow undermine heterosexual marriage is entirely bogus. This is a matter of both common sense and experience. After all, what heterosexual couple do you know of who would decide not to get married because their gay neighbors can get married? Moreover, countries as Catholic as Argentina and Spain, as different as Sweden and South Africa and as near as Canada have embraced gay marriage without any noticeable effect - except the increase in human happiness and social stability that comes from permitting people to marry for love.
*
Unable to defend Prop. 8 on the merits, defendants argued that it is protected from constitutional challenge because it was passed by 52 percent of California voters. But if we were prepared to leave minority rights up to a majority vote, there would be no need for a constitution - and many state laws discriminating based on race, sex and religion would plague us all.
*
[H]istory is no justification for continued discrimination and, "Times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress."
*
Again, if Walker upholds Prop. 8, my faith in this nation - or at least what little is left of it - will be utterly dead. Religious based discrimination will be upheld as the law of the land and ALL religious minorities and others who do not live their lives in accordance with the perverted Christianist form of Christianity should be on notice that they could be the next group to be stripped of legal rights.
Gays In Brazil Can Claim Partners on Tax Returns
In another example of the USA falling further behind other countries in the Western Hemisphere, pursuant to an attorney general ruling, same sex couples in Brazil will be able to claim partners as dependants as long as they meet the same requirements for heterosexual couples. True, it's not as good as the rights that same sex couples would have from marriage, but its a damn sight ahead of the USA which continues to enshrine religious discrimination in its laws - even as it falsely proclaims itself to be a beacon of freedom and religious liberty. O Globo has details on the ruling and how same sex couples can register their relationships for tax purposes. Oh, and also note Brazil's position of pension benefits and adoption. While the translation that follows is a bit rough, here are highlights on what's happening in Brazil:*
BRASILIA - Gay couples can declare their partner as a dependent of the Income Tax (IR), provided they meet the same requirements established by law for heterosexuals with stable, like living together for five years. The IRS may require the taxpayer to verify the information.
*
The ruling will be published Friday in the Official Gazette by an opinion of the Attorney General of the National Treasury. The document was approved by the minister, Guido Mantega. It is expected that Revenue will make public Friday where this type of declaration will be filed and accepted.
*
Brazil does not recognize the stable union between persons of the same sex, but the courts - and now the executive branch - have given to same sex relationships the same legal treatment given to heterosexual couples.
*
Last month, the Attorney General's Office acknowledged that stable homosexual unions gives the right to receive pension benefits for private sector workers.
*
The Superior Court of Justice in 2008, supported the inclusion of a same-sex partners in the health plan of the other partner. And in April this year, the Superior Court of Justice approved the adoption of a child by a homosexual couple.
CWFA - "Outlawing Gay Marriage Will Improve the Economy"
Is it my imagination, or are the Christianist whack jobs getting nuttier and nuttier? Today Tamara Scott, a spokeswoman for Concerned Women For America ("CWFA") - or more appropriately Concerned Bitches For American - made the insane claim that outlawing gay marriage would improve the U.S. economy. Yep, you read right. Gays seeking to marry are destroying the economy in Ms. Scott's untethered mind. Of course she has no objective facts or data to support the insane claim - because there is none. Instead, she launches into a rant about "fragmented families" but has nothing whatsoever to tie gay marriage to the demise of heterosexual marriages. Stripped of all the drivel, it is nothing more than an effort to inflict the Christianist "Biblical view" on all. Here are highlights from the Iowa Independent:*
There are taxpayer costs associated with the breakdown of the family, so overturning legalized same-sex marriage would go a long way to improve the nation’s sagging economy, according to Tamara Scott, one of several speakers at the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) rally at the state Capitol in Des Moines Sunday afternoon.
*
Scott, the state director for Concerned Women for America, told the crowd of more than 100 that part of the country’s current economic downturn was to blame on the social costs of the threatened traditional family unit through the legalization of gay marriage.
*
“It costs you, the taxpayer, as high as $280 billion a year for fragmented families, according to the Family Research Council,” Scott told the crowd, citing a study from the D.C.-based Christian political association from May 2009.
*
Scott’s statements are contradicted at least in part by a 2008 study by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, which estimated that same-sex weddings and related tourism would bring $160 million to the state of Iowa through 2011, and an extra $5.3 million per year in tax revenue.
*
The FRC’s studies have also been routinely criticized by media and academia for questionable methodology and politicized conclusions.
*
When asked about Scott’s assertion that upholding the “traditional family” unit translated to a more stable economy, Culver disagreed.
*
“Heterosexuals have not done a great job with marriage and the family,” she said, pointing to statistics that half of all marriages fail. “I think a strong middle class makes a strong economy. I think (NOM) is looking for some economic cover, rather than revealing that some in their group are simply anti-gay.”
*
Note that only 100 people showed up for NOM's circus and that the only data Ms. Scott could cite was trash cooked up by FRC. Once again, CWFA is short on facts and long on lies. Like most professional Christian organizations, CWFA and its members believe themselves to be exempt from the Commandment against lying and bearing false witness.
US Tax Dollars Paid For This: The War Against Sexual Minorities in Iraq Continues
Not to sound mean spirited, but I suspect the folks I just mentioned at FRC probably like what's happening in Iraq where gays and other "sinners" are being hunted down and killed. I on the other hand find it outrageous that U.S. taxpayers have ended up financing religious based murders and abuse by the Iraqi government and others. The outrages against LGBT people continue and sadly, the U.S. government and U.S. military do nothing about it. The ongoing events in Iraqi underscore that religious fundamentalism of every stripe is a danger to the peace and the civil rights of other citizens. I find it dumb founding in this day and age U.S. politicians continue to be so spineless and unwilling to call a spade a spade. Gay Middle East has details on the latest sad news from Iraq:*
You don’t even need to be gay or lesbian in Iraq to be in mortal danger from the Iraqi Police force. The latter have been mounting an aggressive campaign against anyone who is merely, by rumour, suspected to be gay or lesbian.
*
The Iraqi Lgbt network of activists inside Iraq have collected new and alarming reports of attacks on the LGBT communities during the month of July. Since June there have been consistent raids on Iraqi LGBT’s safe houses as well as harassment, abuse and assaults on gays, mostly by the Iraqi police. This trend seem to be intensifying now in frequency and brutality. It seems that Iraqi gays are systematically targeted and killed by the Iraqi police as well as suffering from increased homophobia, no doubt intensified by the authorities’ negative campaign.
*
On the 24th of July in the town of AL Zubair, near Basra, three bodies were found with their head severed and notes on their bodies saying there were murdered because they were gay.
*
Iraq remains the most dangerous place on the face of earth for sexual minorities where even a false accusation or rumours of being gay could lead to lethal and horrifying abuse.
*
Iraqi Lgbt and GayMiddleEast.com are calling for the world interfere to stop this genocide , the Iraqi government is responsible in the first place for not protecting its citizen, not investigating any of these incidents, not bringing criminals to justice and for not condemning these crimes.
FRC Jumps on Bradley Manning Story and Gay Bashes As Usual
Family Research Council seems to spend a good 75% or more of its efforts denigrating gays. At present it is shrieking in hysteria about the possible demise of the failed DADT policy, so it's no surprise that FRC's homophobes have picked up on the fact that alleged Wikileaks source Bradley Manning is supposedly gay. As always, FRC's reasoning is ass backwards and motivated by religious bigotry and zealotry - and, most importantly, the desire to shake loose more money from the sheeple would listen to FRC's bile. Note how in the material below we gays are described as "unstable." Given FRC's contempt for non-Christians, I suspect that the evidence that the U.S. military has killed Afghan women and children means absolutely nothing in FRC's distorted world. I'd even venture that in FRC's eyes, these people weren't really human anyway since they were not white (FRC head, Tony Perkins has a history of working with white supremacist groups) and were not Kool-Aid drinking Christianists. That's what it means to be an FRC style Christian.*
As for Manning being a reason to exclude gays, the correct argument is just the opposite. If anger over DADT was - and there is still no proof that it was - a motivation for Manning's alleged release of documents, getting rid of the religious based and discriminatory policy would ensure no such motivations could exist in the future. All said, FRC's mantra is "America right or wrong" and blame the gays 24/7. As I have said before, war crimes are war crimes and where prosecution is really needed is against those who committed the atrocities and now want them hidden from view. Prosecuting Chimperator Bush would be a good starting point. One could even say that morally, Manning did the right thing (if he actually released the documents) to expose the lies and civilian deaths. Sometimes a patriot has to oppose the wrongs committed by their own government. Something the Uber-Christians at FRC do not grasp. Here's a sampling of FRC's hysteria:
*
For the last several months, his [President Obama's] vision of turning the military into a sexual playground was within grasp. I say "was," because a shocking story of treason may force Congress to rethink the wisdom of revoking the 1993 law against homosexuality in the military.
*
In May, when U.S. authorities arrested Army Private Bradley Manning for leaking classified information to WikiLeaks.org, there were whispers that he was politically motivated. It turns out that Manning is an extreme homosexual activist, whose fury over the services' homosexual policy may have led him to publicize highly classified documents about the wars.
*
Manning's sedition may have given opponents of the repeal all the ammunition they need to kill the idea. Obviously, the Pentagon's "relaxed enforcement" of DADT is putting the entire United States military is at risk of losing thousands of lives and the war. "The revelations of Manning's openly pro-homosexual conduct suggest that a more liberal Department of Defense policy, in deference to the wishes of the Commander-in-Chief, had already been in effect and has now backfired in a big way,"
*
Manning's betrayal painfully confirms what groups like FRC have argued all along: the instability of the homosexual lifestyle is a detriment to military readiness. By foisting this agenda on our soldiers, the White House is not only jeopardizing the future of national security but compromising its present.
*
Notice how FRC is utterly silent when it comes to condemning lies put out by military leaders and the murder of civilians. FRC is another reason not to call one's self Christian.
*
For the last several months, his [President Obama's] vision of turning the military into a sexual playground was within grasp. I say "was," because a shocking story of treason may force Congress to rethink the wisdom of revoking the 1993 law against homosexuality in the military.
*
In May, when U.S. authorities arrested Army Private Bradley Manning for leaking classified information to WikiLeaks.org, there were whispers that he was politically motivated. It turns out that Manning is an extreme homosexual activist, whose fury over the services' homosexual policy may have led him to publicize highly classified documents about the wars.
*
Manning's sedition may have given opponents of the repeal all the ammunition they need to kill the idea. Obviously, the Pentagon's "relaxed enforcement" of DADT is putting the entire United States military is at risk of losing thousands of lives and the war. "The revelations of Manning's openly pro-homosexual conduct suggest that a more liberal Department of Defense policy, in deference to the wishes of the Commander-in-Chief, had already been in effect and has now backfired in a big way,"
*
Manning's betrayal painfully confirms what groups like FRC have argued all along: the instability of the homosexual lifestyle is a detriment to military readiness. By foisting this agenda on our soldiers, the White House is not only jeopardizing the future of national security but compromising its present.
*
Notice how FRC is utterly silent when it comes to condemning lies put out by military leaders and the murder of civilians. FRC is another reason not to call one's self Christian.
Tropical Storm Colin forms in the Atlantic
The caption above is just the type of headline one does NOT want to see - especially after the nightmare of flooding during last November's severe northeaster (see photo at right). The boyfriend and I are supposed to head to his dual family reunions towards the end of next week leaving a friend house sitting, minding the dog and watering the boyfriend's numerous potted plants in the yard. We will be keeping our fingers crossed. Here's the latest from the Virginian Pilot:*
Tropical Storm Colin has formed far out in the Atlantic and early forecasts put it on a track off the U.S. Atlantic seaboard rather than into the Gulf of Mexico, where BP is working to finally plug its blown-out oil well.
*
According to the forecast track, the storm is expected to be between Bermuda and the East Coast by Sunday morning, Evan Stewart, a meteorologist with WVEC-TV, said this morning.
*
The East Coast wouldn’t feel any effects from the storm until early next week, Stewart said.
*
I love living near the coast - but it does have its downside.
Family Research Council Outraged Over Amtrak Ads to Gay Traveler Market
I have written a number of times that marketing to the LGBT community makes good business sense if one is in business to make money. That approach is especially true in the travel market where during the ongoing recession LGBT travel expenditures increased even as all other market segments decreased. Given that reality, one would think that those who want quasi-government entities like Amtrak to market to population segments that can help the organization meet that goal. Indeed, such common sense might even reduce the need for taxpayer subsidies. In fact, one would think that this would make the anti-tax Christianists happy. But such is not the case. The Family Research Council ("FRC") - which misses no opportunity to denigrate and malign LGBT citizens - has its panties in a total knot over Amtrak's expenditure of $250,000 to encourage gays to use Amtrak. FRC bigot in chief, Tony Perkins is pictured above. Here is part of FRC's screed, I mean "action alert" to its members:*
If there was ever proof that the Obama Administration has gone off the rails, it's Amtrak. For the first time in the train service's history, Amtrak has decided to spend a quarter-million dollars recruiting homosexual passengers. As you may know, Amtrak isn't a private business. This is a government-run business, meaning that this $250,000 is taken directly from taxpayers' pockets. In a very real sense, this ad campaign is a federal endorsement of homosexual behavior -- one of the most serious public health threats in America.or call (202) 906-3000 to reach Amtrak headquarters in Washington, DC. Using taxpayer funds to promote this ad campaign is insulting to the millions of Americans who have deeply-held moral convictions against homosexuality.
*
Please contact senior officials at Amtrak and ask them to stop this campaign using your tax dollars!
*
We in the LGBT community need to counter this bullshit and contact the folks at Amtrak and thank them for(1) their common sense and (2) their willingness to reach out to all Americans. Contact information is here. You can also call 800-USA-RAIL (1-800-872-7245) or call (202) 906-3000 to reach Amtrak headquarters in Washington, DC..
Monday, August 02, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)