Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional in California!!!

Just this morning the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. This is a huge win for freedom to marry supporters in California and continues the growing momentum for the freedom to marry nationwide.

Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional...But the Fight is Not Over

I am sure most of you have heard the good news...

Today, Wednesday August 4th, 2010, a California Federal Judge overturned Proposition 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage, stating it was unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker stated that the proposition was unconstitutional under both the due-process and equal-protection clauses.

"Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result." "...moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings. Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8."

The judge concluded that "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples."


So what's next?
Despite the favorable ruling for gay and lesbian couples, Judge Walker has yet to decide as to whether his order to allow gay marriage should be suspended while proponents of the ban pursue their appeal. He ordered both sides to submit written arguments by Friday .

Once the appeal is ready, it will go first to the 9th Circuit, and then on to the U.S. Supreme Court, if the high court justices agree to review it.

Prop 8 Overturned in California!!!

It was just announced that Prop 8 was overturned in the California courts, the judge agreed that it was unconstitutional!

More info to come...

Details from Day 3 of California Prop. 8 trial

( Mercury News)
9:17 a.m.: Cross-examination of Yale professor
Day 3 of the Proposition 8 trial is rolling with the resumption of testimony from George Chauncey, a Yale history professor and plaintiffs expert on the history of discrimination. He is under cross-examination from David Thompson, a Proposition 8 lawyer who is trying to undercut the professor's testimony that gays and lesbians have been the target of unrelenting discrimination through history, including in modern times. Thompson has asked about television and movies on gays and gay issues, such as the TV show "Will & Grace" and the 1993 movie "Philadelphia." And he is asking Chauncey about presumed improvements in the political arena, with gains in gay rights through ordinances around the country and in the California legislature.

The trial day will be expert-intensive. The plaintiffs will later put on Edmund Egan, chief economist for San Francisco; Ilan Meyer, a mental health expert from Columbia University; and Letitia Peplau, a UCLA expert on the benefits of marriage.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide later today on the issue of broadcasting the trial on YouTube.

9:51 a.m.: Yale professor on hot seat during cross-examination
Yale Professor George Chauncey remains in the hot seat under cross-examination from Proposition 8 lawyer David Thompson. Thompson continues to pound on the theme that gays and lesbians no longer face widespread discrimination, and in fact are gaining in political power. Chauncey is not buying entirely in that argument. "The bottom line is that there has been a significant shift in public opinion toward acceptance of gay rights, correct?" Thompson asked.

"There has been a shift in public opinion and growing support for gay people, and gay people continue to encounter enormous hostility," Chauncey replied.

Interestingly, the Proposition 8 legal team is leaving much of the cross-examination of the plaintiffs experts to Thompson, a studious-looking lawyer in lead attorney Charles Cooper's law firm, Cooper & Kirk. Thompson, in fact, is managing partner in the firm and has no problem questioning academics from the Ivy League: He's a Harvard law grad himself. Thompson is no stranger to conservative legal fights, either. Among other cases, he aided in defending a legal challenge to California's Proposition 209, which banned public affirmative action programs.

10:06 a.m.: Former Miss California Carrie Prejean mentioned
The judge has taken his morning break, but not before the inevitable happened: mention of defrocked beauty queen Carrie Prejean, who drew controversy last year for opposing same-sex marriage. Proposition 8 lawyers played a clip of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom saying Prejean was being unfairly maligned for speaking her mind, planning to question Yale Professor George Chauncey about it. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, however, agreed with plaintiff lawyers that the line of questioning was irrelevant and spiked the idea of asking Chauncey about the Newsom comment.

Chauncey is close to winding up his stay on the stand.

11:27 a.m.: Yale professor winding down testimony
As Yale Professor George Chauncey winds down his testimony, plaintiff lawyers have decided to roll out some fresh artillery to try to undercut the Proposition 8 legal team's effort to argue that gays and lesbians face a diminishing threat of discrimination. Proposition 8 attorney David Thompson used that approach in cross-examining Chauncey, who now is back under questioning from plaintiffs attorney Therese Stewart.

To set up some questions for Chauncey, Stewart is playing video of a Dec. 1 deposition of William Tam, one of the leading Proposition 8 sponsors and one of the intervenors in defending the law in the federal court case. Tam just last week asked to be let out of the case as a defendant because of concerns he faces threats and harassment from same-sex marriage advocates, and Walker has yet to rule on that attempt.

Tam, in the deposition, describes his role in mobilizing rallies during the Proposition 8 campaign, often through churches, and spurring support for the measure in the Asian-American community.

11:35 a.m.: Letter from Prop. 8 backer likens same-sex marriage to legalizing sex with children
Therese Stewart, San Francisco's chief deputy city attorney, shows Yale Professor George Chauncey a letter authored by leading Proposition 8 backer William Tam during the campaign. Tam likens allowing same-sex marriage to efforts to legalize prostitution and legalizing sex with children. Stewart asked Chauncey if the letter "reflects a lower hostility level" toward gays and lesbians.

"This is consistent in tone with a much larger history of anti-gay rhetoric," Chauncey replied.

A reminder that the plaintiffs have Chauncey on the stand to establish a history of discrimination against gays. The legal importance is for plaintiffs to try to get gays and lesbians deemed a "protected class" that warrants greater protection under the federal constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has given that status based on race, religion and gender, but not for sexual orientation.

12:15 p.m.: UCLA professor to testify on positives of same-sex marriage
The Prop 8 trial is on lunch break until 1:40 p.m. Yale professor George Chauncey is done testifying after about a full day on the stand. Next up for the plaintiffs is Dr. Letitia Peplau, a UCLA professor being called to testify on the positive benefits of marriage for same-sex couples, and the impact on them of denying the right.

11:54 a.m.: Video of Prop. 8 supporter William Tam played in court
The plaintiffs continue to play the videotaped deposition of William Tam, one of the leaders of the Proposition 8 campaign, as Yale Professor George Chauncey remains on the stand (almost as an afterthought at this point). In the depo, Tam answers a variety of questions about why he opposed gay marriage, including what he perceived as a threat to children. He testified that children would opt to be gay if they know same-sex marriage is permitted. "Since it's in the air, then they think, why not?" Tam said in his deposition.

The plaintiffs are expected to call Tam as a witness in the trial Friday. A thrust of the lawsuit will be an attempt to persuade Walker that Proposition 8 was driven by animus against gays, and Proposition 8 supporters are certain to be grilled on that topic.

1:48 p.m.: Next witness is UCLA prof
The Prop 8 trial has resumed for the afternoon session. Letitia Peplau, a UCLA professor, is taking the stand for the plaintiffs as a social-psychology expert who is expected to testify to the benefits of marriage for same-sex couples.

Meanwhile, everyone is waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the issue of allowing the broadcast of the trial on the Web. The Supreme Court had stayed Judge Vaughn Walker's order allowing cameras until 1 p.m. today, but that time came and went. The nation's high court apparently moves on its own time.

2:25 P.M.: Supreme Court indefinitely blocks YouTube broadcasts
With a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to keep the Prop 8 trial dark on the Web, rejecting Judge Vaughn Walker's attempt to broadcast the proceedings on the federal court's Web site by using YouTube., as well as allowing it to be circulating for viewing at various federal courthouses around the West. The majority opinion said that Walker and officials with the 9th Circuit Judicial Conference, including Chief 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, did not follow proper procedures in changing federal court rules that would allow the broadast. The majority stressed that it was not "expressing any view on whether such trials should be broadcast." Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the four dissenters, decried the decision, saying there was no reason to interfere with the broadcast and that there would not be any harm in allowing the webcast.

Meanwhile, UCLA prof Letitia Peplau, a plaintiffs expert, is testifying on research she says shows that same-sex couples enjoy the same benefits from marriage as heterosexual couples. She also said he will offer an opinion that allowing gay marriage will have no impact on heterosexual marriage.

2:44 p.m.: UCLA prof says 2 percent of marriages would be same-sex
UCLA prof Letitia Peplau has completed her testimony under questioning from plaintiffs lawyers. By trial standards, her testimony moved pretty quickly as she told the judge her opinion that allowing same-sex marriage would not damage the institution, as Prop 8 supporters suggest. She noted that even if gay marriage is allowed, only about 2 percent of all marriages in the nation would be same-sex. "I think it would have no impact on the stability of heterosexual couples," Peplau testified.

Prop 8 attorney Nicole Moss is now cross-examining Peplau. It appears she will question whether there is sufficient evidence to back up Peplau's conclusions about same-sex couples and the importance of marriage to their relationships.

3:36 p.m.: Bizarre exchange of the day
As the Prop 8 trial gets close to the end of the day, bizarre-question exchange of the day just took place. Prop 8 lawyer Nicole Moss was trying to ask plaintiffs expert Letitia Peplau, a UCLA prof, whether gay couples could "accidentally" have children out of wedlock. "If your question is whether two lesbians can, accidentally, spontaneously, impregnate each other, not to my knowledge," she said, prompting laughter in the courtroom. "I would agree that same-sex couples do not have accidental pregnancies."

3:29 p.m.: A closer look at the Supreme Court ruling on broadcasting the trial
A closer look at the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling indefinitely barring any broadcast of the Prop 8 trial shows the difference between the majority and dissenters boiled down to two things. The majority (Justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy and Scalia) concluded that Chief Judge Vaughn Walker did not follow federal law in changing rules to allow cameras in his courtroom for the trial, in large part because they believe he didn't allow enough time for public comment on changes to local federal court rules. And the justices also determined that Prop 8 supporters demonstrated there could be harm to their fair trial rights because certain witnesses could be intimidated by broadcast exposure, reason to keep the stay in place.

The dissenters (Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Stevens) couldn't have disagreed more. They said Walker easily followed the rules, and rejected the idea Prop 8's defense would suffer any harm. They called the decision an unprecedented attempt to "micromanage" a district court's administration.

Same-sex marriage advocates can only hope the justices don't break down along the same party lines if the main issue reaches the high court.

Meanwhile, Letitia Peplau, the plaintiffs expert, is sparring with Prop 8 lawyer Nicole Moss under cross-examination, feuding over data about gay marriage in Belgium.

4:20 p.m.: Day 3 testimony ends
The third day of the Prop 8 trial is in the books. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker quickly commented on the Supreme Court's order banning broadcast of the trial, suggesting there are issues yet to be resolved as far as posting video of the trial on the federal court Web site. It seemed to be a reference to the fact that Walker's larger plan to webcast via YouTube was never approved by the 9th Circuit's chief judge before an appeal went to the Supreme Court on part of his order, which would have allowed simulcast of the trial to five other federal courthouses. But Walker made it clear he doesn't want the issue to sidetrack the trial.

Meanwhile, UCLA prof Letitia Peplau finished her testimony. Tomorrow's plaintiffs witnesses include Edmund Egan, San Francisco's chief economist, and Helen Zia, a lesbian woman who married before Prop 8 went into effect.

(Read Howard Mintz's recap of the day's proceedings in the Proposition 8 trial later today online on this Web site and in tomorrow's Mercury News, Contra Costa Times, Oakland Tribune, and other Bay Area News Group papers. Return to this Web site for live coverage of the Proposition 8 trial tomorrow and each and every day court is in session).

Prop 8 Plantiffs Fight for Right to Marry - Video

Federal Prop 8 trial plaintiffs Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo appeared on the Today show.

West Hollywood to Install Plaque Honoring Gay Marriages

A bronze marker engraved with a quote from Nelson Mandela will be placed at a park in West Hollywood where some of the first same-sex marriages in California were performed.

The City Council plans to unveil the rectangular plaque at its Sept. 8 meeting before permanently installing it at West Hollywood Park off North San Vicente Boulevard, a site which was full of pride June 17, 2008, when same-sex couples could legally marry for the first time in California.

“It happened on a single day but it went on for months,” said Jeffrey Prang, the West Hollywood councilman who thought of the plaque. “And it meant something much bigger than that.”

The plaque will bear one of the former South African president’s noteworthy remarks: “I am not truly free if I am taking away someone else’s freedom, just as surely as I am not free when my freedom is taken from me. The oppressed and the oppressor alike are robbed of their humanity.”

Read more at LA Times

January trial set for U.S. court challenge to California's gay-marriage ban

The San Jose Mercury new reports that a federal judge on Wednesday set a Jan. 11 trial date for the legal challenge to Proposition 8, setting the stage for the most exhaustive legal review of a state's ban on gay marriage in any court in the nation.

During a hearing in San Francisco, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ordered lawyers on both sides of the case to gear up quickly for the trial, which foes of California's same-sex marriage ban hope will be the first step in getting the legal fight over same-sex marriage to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Backed by former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson and prominent lawyer David Boies, two same-sex couples sued in federal court this past spring to overturn Proposition 8, approved by voters in fall 2008 to restore California's ban on gay marriage. The lawsuit maintains Proposition 8 violates the federal constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples by denying them the same right as straight coouples to marry, and it marks what is likely to be the first crucial legal test in the federal courts concerning the issue.

The California Supreme Court this past spring upheld Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage, but the justices left intact an estimated 18,000 gay marriages that took place last year before voters approved the measure by 52 percent to 48 percent. Those weddings took place after the state Supreme Court struck down the state's previous laws banning same-sex marriage.

Wednesday's hearing, Walker refused to allow a coalition of gay rights groups to directly join the lawsuit, concluding that the current plaintiffs can adequately mount a challenge to Proposition 8 on their own.

The plaintiffs had urged Walker to deny the groups' request, still upset that those organizations originally opposed taking the legal fight over gay marriage into the federal courts at this point. The groups include the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which have led the legal fight over gay marriage in state courts around the country but worry about how the conservative U.S. Supreme Court might rule on the issue.

Walker also rejected a bid by the conservative Campaign for California Families to join the case to defend Proposition 8, finding that Proposition 8 supporters can defend the law alone. California Attorney General Jerry Brown, who has argued the law is unconstitutional, is not defending the law, nor is Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has taken no position.

Walker took a swipe at Schwarzenegger's reserve at the conclusion of Wednesday's hearing, saying, "I must say, I'm surprised at the governor's position in this case. "... This is a matter of some importance to the people of the state."

The governor's lawyer declined to comment on the judge's remarks.

The judge did permit the city of San Francisco, which has led the legal fight over California's marriage laws, to join the case, and indicated the other groups can present their legal arguments through friend-of-the court briefs.

The January trial is likely to be the first step in a long process before the Proposition 8 challenge reaches the Supreme Court. Even after Walker decides the case, it is certain to be appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals next year, and that court could take months or longer to rule before the challenge can reach the high court.

Walker previously said he wanted a full trial to provide the appeals court with a complete record, including testimony related to the history of discrimination against gays and lesbians, the impact of denying marriage rights to same-sex couples and evidence related to whether Proposition 8 had a discriminatory intent.

Original article by Howard Mintz, San Jose Mercury News

The Gay Marriage Fight Continues with a Nationwide Kiss-In

By JENNIFER DOBNER,

SALT LAKE CITY – The Mormon church's vigorous, well-heeled support for Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California last year, has turned the Utah-based faith into a lightning rod for gay rights activism, including a nationwide "kiss-in" Saturday.

The event comes after gay couples here and in San Antonio and El Paso, Texas, were arrested, cited for trespassing or harassed by police for publicly kissing. In Utah, the July 9 trespassing incident occurred after a couple were observed by security guards on a downtown park-like plaza owned by the 13 million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The court case was dismissed, but the kiss sparked a community backlash and criticism of the church.

"I don't think that kiss would have turned out to be the kiss heard round the world if it were not for Proposition 8," said Ash Johnsdottir, organizer of the Salt Lake City Kiss-In.

Atali Staffler, a Brigham Young University graduate student from Geneva, Switzerland, said she joined the 200 or so people who filled a downtown amphitheater for the event because she has watched her gay father and many gay friends struggle to find their place.

The 31-year-old, who was raised Mormon but is not active in the church, said the church shouldn't be involved in Prop. 8.

"I encourage them to promote the values they believe in and to defend their religious principles in advertisements, but civil rights have nothing to do with religious principles," she said.

Twenty-two people, many of them strangers to one another, gathered under the scorching sun on Washington's National Mall to participate in the national smooch. They were gay and straight, couples and singles of all ages, with placards that read "Equal Opportunity Kisser" and "A Kiss is a Not a Crime."

"This is America. A kiss on the cheek is OK," said Ian Thomas, 26, of Leesburg, Va., who organized the Washington Kiss-In. "It's got to be OK. If not, we're in serious trouble."

About 50 people, mostly gay and lesbian couples, gathered at Piedmont Park in downtown Atlanta and kissed for about five minutes.

"You think that America is evolving into a gay-friendly nation," said Randal Smith, 42, "but what happened in Texas and Utah show us it's still a long way off."

National organizers say Saturday's broadly held gay rights demonstrations were not aimed specifically at the Mormon church. But observers say the church's heavy-handed intervention into California politics will linger and has left the faith's image tarnished.

"What I hear from my community and from straight progressive individuals is that they now see the church as a force for evil and as an enemy of fairness and equality," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights. Kendell grew up Mormon in Utah. "To have the church's very deep and noble history telescoped down into this very nasty little image is as painful for me as for any faithful Mormon."

Troy Williams, who is gay and grew up Mormon, said ending the tension between gays and the church requires mutual acceptance and understanding.

"For both sides to peaceably coexist, we're all going to have to engage in some very deep soul searching," said Williams, a Salt Lake City-area activist and host of a liberal radio talk show.

Church insiders say Prop. 8 has bred dissent among members and left families divided. Some members have quit or stopped attending services, while others have appealed to leadership to stay out of the same-sex marriage fight.

But church spokeswoman Kim Farah said Friday that Mormon support for traditional marriage has nothing to do with public relations.

"It's too easy for those whose agenda is to change societal standards to claim there are great difficulties inside the Church because of its decision to support traditional marriage," Kim Farah said. "In reality the Church has received enormous support for its defense of marriage."

Mormonism teaches that homosexual sex is considered a sin, but gays are welcome in church and can maintain church callings and membership if they remain celibate.

The church has actively fought marriage equality legislation across the U.S. since the early 1990s and joined other faiths in asking Congress for a marriage amendment to the Constitution in 2006.

Last year at the urging of church leaders, Mormons donated tens of millions of dollars to the "Yes on 8" campaign and were among the most vigorous volunteers. The institutional church gave nearly $190,000 to the campaign — contributions now being investigated by California's Fair Political Practices Commission.

After the vote, many gay rights advocates turned their anger toward the church in protests and marches outside temples that singled out Mormons as the key culprits in restricting the rights of gay couples.

That constituted a setback for the faith, argued Jan Shipps, a professor of religious history and a Mormon expert from Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.

Mormonism, Shipps said, has struggled with its image since its western New York founding in 1830 for a host of reasons, including polygamy.

Leading up to Salt Lake City's 2002 Olympic Winter Games, the faith worked hard to craft a modern, mainstream image, touting its unique American history, culture and worldwide humanitarian work to thousands of reporters.

"This really undercut the Mormon image that had been so carefully nurtured during the Olympics," Shipps said.

Church representatives don't discuss public relations strategies or challenges publicly, but at a semiannual conference in April, church President Thomas S. Monson seemed to be clearly feeling a post-Prop. 8 sting.

In an era of "shifting moral footings," Monson said, "those who attempt to safeguard those footings are often ridiculed, picketed and persecuted."

That argument doesn't wash for Linda Stay, whose ancestors were early Mormon converts. Stay said she was doubly transformed by Prop. 8. She and her husband, Steve, finally quit the church — along with 18 other family members and a few close friends — and became gay right activists.

The St. George woman's family, which includes two gay children, will play a central role in a documentary film, "8: The Mormon Proposition" currently in production. Stay's son, Tyler Barrick, married his boyfriend in San Francisco on June 17, 2008, the first day gay marriage was legal in California.

Miami-area filmmaker Reed Cowan said the Stays' story is a painful representative of many Latter-day Saint families, including his own, that needed to be told.

"It used to be that I could defend my church and my heritage, but what they did here, they crossed the line and they made it very hard to defend their actions," said Cowan, whose family has cut him off since he began work on the film.

With the gay rights fight far from over, some believe Prop. 8 could continue to frustrate the church's image for years to come, much like polygamy — the church's own one-time alternative form of marriage — and a policy on keeping black men out of the priesthood, issues that have lingered years after the practices were abandoned.

"The church is certainly going to survive and thrive, there's no question about that," said the National Center for Lesbian Rights' Kendell, who is raising three kids in California with her partner of 16 years. "The issue is, what will be its image in the average American mindset."

To see the church characterized, because of its own actions, as one in a group of anti-gay religions and as a religion that forces members to choose faith over family is "a tragedy of generational proportion," she said. "And it seems to me, that it was entirely unnecessary."

Associated Press writers Gillian Gaynair in Washington, D.C., and Peter Prengaman in Atlanta contributed to this report.

Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black

Sad News on the Marriage Equality Front

What most of us expected, and dreaded, came true today. In a 6-1 ruling, the California Supreme Court made the decision today to uphold Proposition 8, the initiative that took away the right to marry from same-sex couples in California

However, on a more positive note, the court did rule that the 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place last year after the court’s previous ruling that gays and lesbians could not be denied the right to marry each other, would remain valid.

Although the immediate impact of the decision is on the status of marriage for same-sex couples, the real question for the court was deciding what kinds of changes to the Constitution make it an amendment, requiring only a simple majority vote of the electorate, and what make it a revision, requiring a two-thirds majority in both houses of the Legislature and a simple majority vote of the people. By ruling that Prop 8 was truly an amendment, the court found the will of the majority (in California) is enough to strike down the rights of a minority because doing so does not change the fundamental nature of the governmental process.

However, LGBT activists believe that this interpretation of Proposition 8 takes away fundamental safeguards for all minority groups, showing another example of how the power of a majority over an underrepresented and historically oppressed minority can prove to be devastating.

So what happened to the words of our Constitution, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Do these words only apply to some? Are we really just second class citizens?

Well, the one thing I do know is that this is not the end of marriage equality in California. In 2010 there will be another initiative before California voters that will try again to overturn Prop 8. And with five states now allowing gay marriage, and more expected to join this year, it is only inevitable that same-sex marriage will become legal in California, it will just be a matter of time.

May 26, 2009: Prop 8 Decision Day

The California Supreme Court has just announced that on on Tuesday, May 26, they will release their decision on the fate of Proposition 8.

As the Courage Campaign put it, "The court will either uphold the Constitution, recognizing equal protection under the law, or uphold discrimination, taking away fundamental civil rights from a minority."

If you would like to hear the courts decision as soon as it is released releases it, the Courage Campaign is offering an email alert service that you can sign up for at:
www.couragecampaign.org/DecisionDay

And please remember, on Saturday May 30th, at 1:00pm, no matter what the court decides,
thousands of marriage equality supporters from across California will "Meet in the Middle for Equality" to celebrate or protest the Supreme Court's ruling at Fresno City Hall.

Nearly 100 organizations are mobilizing members for this amazing event in the heartland of California. "Equality Express" buses are leaving from several locations across the state. If you don't already have a spot reserved, think about car pooling with your friends to Fresno. For more information you can check out their web site at: www.meetinthemiddle4equality.com

Will New Hampshire & Maine be the next states to allow same-sex marriage?

The New Hampshire State Senate voted yesterday (13-11) in favor of House Bill 436, which would allow same-sex couples to marry under state law. The bill passed the House last month in a 186-179 vote. However, since the Senate voted on an amended version, the bill will have to return to the House before being passed. If the bill becomes law, New Hampshire will become the fifth state in the US to allow gay marriage.

“Just one month ago, there were only two states where same-sex couples could marry. Now, with this vote in New Hampshire, we are on the verge of having five states that recognize marriage equality for same-sex couples. It’s been quite a month, and we look forward to more states joining this group,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese in a press release yesterday.

And to add to the excitement, Maine may be #6 on the list of States that allow same-sex Marriage. Just today Maine's State Senate voted 20 - 15 in favor of LD 1020, the marriage equality bill, which will now move to the House of Representatives. Luckily the the Senate defeated an amendment that had proposed putting the question of marriage equality for same-sex couples before voters, at least Maine won't have to deal with an issue like California's Proposition 8.

Presently, only four states have recognized same-sex marriage legally: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont (effective September 1, 2009). However, with the possible addition of New Hampshire and Maine, perhaps that will be enough to persuade California 's Supreme Court to overturn Prop 8, which is expected to be decided on by June...I am crossing my fingers.

Portia De Rossi's Gay Marriage Apology

Portia De Rossi was a guest on "Jimmy Kimmel Live" the other night and brought with her a new PSA she made about gay marriage. If you haven't had a chance to check it out, it is definitly worth the minute and 21 seconds...

Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Prop. 8 Cases on Thursday

In a recent Press Release, The California Supreme Court announced that it will hear oral arguments on Thursday, March 5, 2009, on three cases challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8. (Strauss v. Horton, S168047; Tyler v. State of California, S168066; City and County of San Francisco v. Horton, S168078).

In the cases before the court, the court has issued an order listing the following three issues to be briefed and argued:

1. Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution?
   
2. Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?
   
3. If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?
   

The three cases were filed directly in the California Supreme Court on November 5, 2008, the day after the California voters’ approved Prop 8.

ACCESS TO ORAL ARGUMENTS
To increase public access to the court session, the Supreme Court has designated the California Channel, a public affairs cable network, to provide a live TV broadcast of the session and to serve as the "pool" channel. California Channel will provide a press pool outside the State Building to facilitate coverage of the oral argument by television and radio stations. For a list of cable companies that carry the network, see http://www.calchannel.com/carriage.htm.

Oral arguments also will be broadcast in an overflow viewing auditorium in the Milton Marks Conference Center, San Francisco. In addition, the Supreme Court has announced that all briefs in the Proposition 8 cases are now posted to a special section of the California Courts Web site at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/ .

Under the applicable court rules, the Supreme Court generally issues a decision, through a written opinion, within 90 days of oral argument. For more information on the cases, including the attorneys of record, please see the Supreme Court’s online Case Information System at http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search.cfm?dist=0.

"Don't Divorce my Family" Video

If you do nothing else today, please take a minute and watch this heart-wrenching video, it will be well worth your time...


"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

As I am sure you have all heard by now, Ken Starr, the prosecutor who led the campaign to impeach President Bill Clinton, has filed a legal brief on behalf of the "Yes on 8" campaign that would forcibly divorce the 18,000 same-sex couples married in California before the passage of Prop 8.

When Starr's legal brief went public in December, the Courage Campaign launched their "Don't Divorce my Family" campaign, asking their members to send in pictures with a simple message for Starr and the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund. This video was inspired by the heartfelt pictures and messages they received.

After watching the video, please take a moment and add your name to the Courage Campaign's letter asking the Supreme Court to invalidate Prop 8, reject Ken Starr's case, and allow loving, committed couples to marry.

And please share this video with friends and family, the more people see it, the more they will understand the pain caused by Prop 8 and their hateful legal proceedings.

http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/m2/4b660807/1bab1ab4/8afe3dd/40ba31e6/3816633232/VEsA/

California Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Prop 8 Legal Challenge

The California Supreme Court announced today that it will hear oral arguments on Thursday, March 5, 2009 in the Proposition 8 legal challenge.

On November 19, 2008, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear the legal challenges to Proposition 8 and set an expedited schedule. Briefing in the case was completed on January 21, 2009.

The California Supreme Court must issue its decisions within 90 days of oral argument.

On January 15, 2009, 43 friend-of-the-court briefs urging the Court to invalidate Prop 8 were filed, arguing that Proposition 8 drastically alters the equal protection guarantee in California ’s Constitution and that the rights of a minority cannot be eliminated by a simple majority vote.

The supporters represent the full gamut of California ’s and the nation’s civil rights organizations and legal scholars, as well as California legislators, local governments, bar associations, business interests, labor unions, and religious groups.

In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court held that laws that treat people differently based on their sexual orientation violate the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and that same-sex couples have the same fundamental right to marry as other Californians.

Proposition 8 eliminated this fundamental right only for same-sex couples. No other initiative has ever successfully changed the California Constitution to take away a right only from a targeted minority group. Proposition 8 passed by a bare majority of 52 percent on November 4.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU filed this challenge on November 5, representing Equality California, whose members include many same-sex couples who married between June 16 and November 4, 2008, and six same-sex couples who want to marry in California . The California Supreme Court has also agreed to hear two other challenges filed on the same day: one filed by the City and County of San Francisco (joined by Santa Clara County and the City of Los Angeles, and subsequently by Los Angeles County and other local governments); and another filed by a private attorney.

Serving as co-counsel on the case with NCLR, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU are the Law Office of David C. Codell, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

The case is Strauss et al. v. Horton et al. (#S168047). Click here for more information.


Source: Equality California

Same-Sex Marriage Foes Want Donors Anonymous

In a recent article put out by the Associated Press, it was announced that supporters of California's Proposition 8 are trying to have all records of their campaign donations blocked from public view.

Supporters stated that revealing their campaign donations has led to death threats and other forms of harassment against those who donated money to the gay marriage ban.

Prop 8 campaign donators announced their lawsuit on Thursday, just one day after it was filed in federal court in Sacramento. They have also requested that the secretary of state's office remove the donator's names already reported on their Web site.

The lawsuit also asks that the court prohibit the state from requiring Proposition 8 supporters to file final reports detailing donations made shortly before and after the election.

Now don't get me wrong, I do not condone harassment or threats of any kind, but with GLBT hate crimes up all over the US, maybe it isn't so awful for the prop 8 supporters to feel a little fear and perhaps get a tiny glimpse of what it is like for some of the GLBT community everyday...just a thought.

Prop. 8 sponsors seek to nullify 18K gay marriages

By Lisa Leff
Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- The sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative that outlawed gay unions.

The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief arguing that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions. The document reveals for the first time that opponents of same-sex marriage will fight in court to undo those unions that already exist.

"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," reads the brief co-written by Kenneth Starr, dean of Pepperdine University's law school and the former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton.

The campaign submitted the document in response to three lawsuits seeking to invalidate Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment adopted last month that overruled the court's decision in May that had legalized gay marriage in the nation's most populous state.

Both Attorney General Jerry Brown, whose office is scheduled to submit its own brief to the court Friday, and gay rights groups maintain that the gay marriage ban may not be applied retroactively.

The Supreme Court could hear arguments in the litigation as soon as March. The measure's backers announced Friday that Starr, a former federal judge and U.S. solicitor general, had signed on as their lead counsel and would argue the cases.

Proposition 8's supporters assert that the Supreme Court lacks the authority or historical precedent to throw out the amendment.

"For this court to rule otherwise would be to tear asunder a lavish body of jurisprudence," the court papers state. "That body of decisional law commands judges - as servants of the people - to bow to the will of those whom they serve - even if the substantive result of what people have wrought in constitution-amending is deemed unenlightened."

The cases are Strauss v. Horton, S168047; City and County of San Francisco v. Horton, S168078; and Tyler v. State of California, S168066.

Wednesday, Dec. 10th, A Day Without Gays

On Wedneday, December 10 — International Human Rights Day — gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders, and their allies are encouraged to turn off their computers, shut down their businesses, and call in "gay" for work. Participants are also asked to refrain from making purchases or spending money in any way, so as not to contribute to the economy.

In the wake of Prop 8 passing and the subsequent worldwide protests, "A Day Without Gays" is designed as a national day of protest to show our friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers that they can deny us our rights, but we can deny them our labor and hit back where it hurts, the economy.

Organizers of this action are asking people to not only sit out of work, school, etc but to get involved with your local GLBT organization, or to protest against marriage inequality.

However, some gay-rights activists are concerned that skipping work and not spending money is a bad idea given the sad state of the economy.

What will you be doing tomorrow???

An Apology for Prop 8?

This is an actual billboard in San Diego from Mission Gathering Church and it reads:
"Mission Gathering Christian Church is sorry for the narrow-minded, judgmental, deceptive, manipulative actions of those who took away the rights and equality of so many in the name of God."

The Mission Gathering church was founded by a group of young adults who say they wanted "to embody God's grace to the emerging/postmodern culture they were a part of." It's affiliated with The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) which has approximately 723,000 members throughout North America and is the denomination Ronald Reagan was baptized in.

San Diego has been arguably the epicenter of the Prop 8. protest movement, with over 25,000 people marching in the streets in last week's "Day of Impact Protest"– the largest group anywhere.