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.

Equality California Prop 8 Update

In a recent email from Equality California it was announced that U.S. District Court Judge James Ware ruled that former U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker did not have to recuse himself from the federal case against Proposition 8 just because he is gay.

If Judge Ware had decided that Judge Walker should have removed himself from hearing the case because of his sexual orientation, Judge Walker’s ruling in 2010 that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional could have been overturned. It also would have set a dangerous precedent for many judges in the US. Female judges could have been barred from hearing cases that affect women. African American, Latino and Asian American judges could have been barred from hearing cases that affect their own ethnicity and so on. This ruling reaches beyond the LGBT community and is a cause for celebration for all Americans who believe in equality.

So now it is up to the California Supreme Court, which will hear arguments in the case against Prop. 8 in September of this year. Then the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will consider the findings of the California Supreme Court and make its own ruling on Prop. 8, probably in the beginning of 2012.

As more information and details become available, I will be sure to post more updates. You can also stay caught up on prop 8 by following Equality California on Facebook and Twitter.

The Stay Has Been Lifted!!!!

Judge Walker has lifted the stay on Prop 8 and as of Wednesday, August 18th at 5pm, Same Sex marriages will once again be allowed in California!!!!!!

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.

Argentine Congress Considers Same-Sex Marriage

The Associated Press just reported that Argentina may ready to become Latin America's first nation to legalize gay marriage.

Gay and lesbian activists think so — and they have a growing number of supporters in Congress, which opened debate Thursday on whether to change dozens of laws that define marriage as a union between a "man and woman."

"We can't expect social equality if the state is legitimizing inequality," said Maria Rachid, president of Argentina's Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Federation. "We now have the social and political context necessary to change the law."

It remains to be seen whether they have enough votes to overcome opposition from religious groups. The Roman Catholic Church remains a driving force in Argentina, where presidents were required to be both married and Catholic until a 1994 reform.

Some Catholic and evangelical Christian groups have accused the government of trying to subvert the natural order of life, promote perversions and destroy the family as an institution.

"This should not be understood as the denial of anyone's rights," said Archbishop Jose Maria Arancedo of Santa Fe, who took a gentler tone in a recent radio address. "It's possible both to be progressive and to defend the family, founded on the institution of marriage."

Argentina's capital established its gay-friendly reputation in 2002 by becoming the first Latin American city to legalize same-sex civil unions. Four other Argentine cities later did the same, and such unions also now are recognized in Mexico City and some Mexican and Brazilian states. Uruguay alone has legalized civil unions nationwide.

Canada is the only nation in the Americas where gay marriage is now legal; in the Spanish-speaking world, only Spain has taken this additional step.

The capital's civil unions law was initially celebrated as a huge victory for gay and lesbian rights, but such partnerships don't confer many rights exclusive to married couples, such as the right to adopt children in the name of both parents, to enable a partner to gain citizenship and to inherit wealth or be included in insurance policies.

"A civil union is a link that grants certain rights, but not those available to a married couple, which only a national law can grant," the bills' co-sponsor, Rep. Vilma Ibarra, told The Associated Press. "This is the first round in a long process, but it is already a success to have it out there."

Rep. Julian Martin Obiglio is among lawmakers who would rather expand the rights that apply to civil unions than alter the definition of marriage.

"I don't think the term should be the same for a union between a man and a woman and two people of the same sex," Obiglio told The AP.

Rachid said more than 20 lawmakers have signed on as supporters of same-sex marriage, and they believe they have enough votes in committee for a full vote in the lower house. It would then go to the Senate.

Rachid and her partner, Claudia Castro, were among the first same-sex couples in Buenos Aires to form a civil union — and the first to test Argentine law by applying for a marriage license in 2007. Their suit over the denial is pending at the Supreme Court.

"The opinion of religious leaders who dictate how other people should lead their lives should apply only to those who share their creed, and not to the rest of society," Rachid said during an interview with Castro in the Buenos Aires apartment they share with their dog, Lola.

"We don't need a law to define us as a couple — we've already been a couple for more than 10 years," Castro added. "We just want to have equal rights."

If the law passes, they plan to be first in line for a marriage license.

Spread the word to help repeal DOMA

Although we are thrilled about our victories allowing tens of thousands of same-sex couples across the US to finally be able to join in marriage, we are far from true marriage equality.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law enacted in 1996, prevents the federal government from recognizing any same-sex marriage.

Spread the word to help repeal DOMA

Just click the link below to send a message urging Congress and the president to advance legislation to repeal this backwards law.
http://www.RepealDOMAnow.org

This hurtful and discriminatory law is denying millions of Americans the full federal rights of marriage including Social Security survivors' benefits, equal treatment under U.S. immigration laws, the right to take family and medical leave to care for a spouse, and much more.

There's no time to lose! Legislation to repeal DOMA is closer than ever to being introduced.
Now is the time to let Congress and President Obama know that DOMA must go. Please join me in sending a message urging them to push forward legislation to repeal DOMA.
http://www.RepealDOMAnow.org

Once you've sent your message to Washington, please help get the ball rolling by forwarding this message to your friends and family and asking them to join you.
Thanks for your help!

Ben and Jerry's Show Their Support for Gay Marriage

In celebration of the beginning of Gay marriage in Vermont, Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream are celebrating by renaming of one of their most popular ice cream flavors, “Chubby Hubby” to “Hubby Hubby.”

In partnership with Freedom to Marry, Ben & Jerry’s hopes to raise awareness of the importance of marriage equality and, to show their support, they will serve “Hubby Hubby” sundaes in Vermont Scoop Shops throughout the month of September.

Ben & Jerry’s has a long history of commitment to social justice, including gay rights. Its partnership with Freedom to Marry, a national leader in the movement for marriage equality, aims to raise awareness of the importance of marriage equality and to encourage other states to follow the blazing trails of Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Maine. Freedom to Marry promotes the national conversation about why marriage equality matters and brings together partner organizations into a larger whole – a shared civil rights campaign.

“At the core of Ben & Jerry’s values, we believe that social justice can and should be something that every human being is entitled to,” said Walt Freese, Chief Executive Officer of Ben & Jerry’s. “From the very beginning of our 30 year history, we have supported equal rights for all people. The legalization of marriage for gay and lesbian couples in Vermont is certainly a step in the right direction and something worth celebrating with peace, love and plenty of ice cream.”

To kick off the celebration, Ben & Jerry’s and Freedom to Marry will be publicly supporting the first marriages of gay and lesbian couples in Vermont and raising awareness for marriage equality and how to take action by driving consumers to freedomtomarry.org. By logging onto the site, people can show their support, sign a Marriage Resolution Petition, have conversations about why marriage matters and learn more about how they can support the cause.

“It’s not polite to talk with your mouth full, but the most important thing that all us ice cream lovers can do to support the freedom to marry is speak with the people we know about why marriage matters and the need to end marriage discrimination in every state”,” said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry. “Thanks to Ben & Jerry’s, starting those needed conversations has never been sweeter – and thanks to Freedom to Marry, we all now have a great excuse to eat more ice cream.”

For more information on why marriage equality matters and to take action in your state, please log on to freedtomarry.org. To find your local Ben & Jerry’s Scoop Shop or learn more about Ben & Jerry’s social mission, log onto www.Facebook.com/benjerry. Also, don’t forget to visit us on http://www.benjerry.com/.

About Ben & Jerry’s

Ben & Jerry’s produces a wide variety of super-premium ice cream and ice cream novelties, using high-quality ingredients including milk and cream from family farmers who do not treat their cows with the synthetic hormone rBGH. The company states its position on rBGH on its labels. Ben and Jerry’s products are distributed nationwide and in selected foreign countries in supermarkets, grocery stores, convenience stores, franchise Ben & Jerry’s Scoop Shops, restaurants and other venues. Ben & Jerry’s, a Vermont corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Unilever, operates its business on a three-part Mission Statement emphasizing product quality, economic reward and a commitment to the community. Contributions made via the employee led Ben & Jerry’s Foundation in 2008 totaled over $1.9 million. Additionally, the company makes significant product donations to community groups and nonprofits both in Vermont and across the nation. The purpose of Ben & Jerry’s philanthropy is to support the founding values of the company: economic and social justice, environmental restoration and peace through understanding, and to support our Vermont communities. For the full scoop on all Ben & Jerry’s Scoop Shop locations and fabulous flavors, visit http://www.benjerry.com/.

About Freedom to Marry

Freedom to Marry is the gay and non-gay partnership working to win marriage equality nationwide. Launched in 2003, Freedom to Marry is headed by Evan Wolfson, nationally recognized as a central "architect of the marriage equality movement." Freedom to Marry guides and focuses this social justice movement on a nationwide level, serving as a strategy and support center for national, state, and local partners, a catalyst that drives and shapes the national debate on marriage equality, and an alliance-builder fostering support from non-gay allies.

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.

Obama Still Committed to Gay Rights

With the growing discontent from so many gay rights activists, President Obama met with hundreds of members of the LGBT community on Monday for a East Room reception marking the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots in New York, considered the beginning of the modern gay rights movement.

The criticism stems from unfulfilled campaign promises, such as those that would repeal laws barring gays from serving openly in the military and proclaiming marriage to be a union between a man and a woman. Not to mention the more recent legal brief submitted by Obama's Justice Department that defended the 1996 federal marriage law which blocks recognition of gay marriages outside of the six states that perform them.

Obama addressed the group stating, "I know that many in this room don't believe that progress has come fast enough, and I understand that." It's not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African-Americans who were petitioning for equal rights a half century ago."

Recommitting to his election campaign pledge, Mr Obama stated, "I'll say it again. I believe 'don't ask, don't tell' doesn't contribute to our national security. In fact, I believe preventing patriotic Americans from serving their country weakens our national security." He also stated that he has asked Pentagon officials to begin planning for how to end "don't ask, don't tell," but 77 House members have already asked him to eliminate the policy faster. Likewise, there's been little movement on overturning DOMA, even though Obama says he wants it repealed.

"I've called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act to help end discrimination against same-sex couples in this country," Obama said. "Now, I want to add we have a duty to uphold existing law, but I believe we must do so in a way that does not exacerbate old divides. And fulfilling this duty in upholding the law in no way lessens my commitment to reversing this law."

But that's not likely to happen right away. Obama and Congress are devoting most of their energy to passing a healthcare overhaul and a sweeping new energy policy. With such a busy agenda, White House and congressional leaders have been reluctant to overload the political machinery in Washington by pushing through more controversial legislation.

Obama is hoping LGBT supporters will be patient, but for how long?

“I want you to know that I expect and hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I've made, but by the promises that my administration keeps. … We've been in office six months now. I suspect that by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration,” he said.

Marriage or Civil Union, What's in a Name?

What's in a name? "that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet..."- William Shakespeare

The dictionary defines Marriage as the state of being united to a person in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.

The dictionary defines a Civil Union as the legal status that ensures to same-sex couples specified rights and responsibilities of married couples.

I often wonder if it is “the principle” that keeps us from getting what we really want, especially when it comes to same-sex marriage. Would it really be so terrible to have a Civil Union instead of a marriage, especially if it came with all the same legal benefits?

I realize that Marriage is more than just a word for many gay and Lesbian couples, it is the implied belief that with Marriage comes acceptance, not just from our family, but also from our church and society as a whole.

But do we really believe that by allowing Gay couples to marry that society’s negative beliefs about homosexuality will magically disappear? Perhaps it is a start, but so much more will need to be done before that idea comes to fruition, and at what cost? We have all heard the stories about partner's who are kept from each other during medical crisis, and benefits that are denied to gay and lesbian couples due to their unmarried status. Wouldn't it be better to have the legal rights and protection NOW, and worry about the name later?

Don't get me wrong, I would have loved if Proposition 8 was overturned and for California, as well as all states, to have recognized same-sex marriage. But the reality is, we have a long struggle in front of us, so why not change the rules a bit? If legally a Marriage is between a man and a women (at least in most states), then by changing the name from Marriage to Civil Union, do we not eliminate that entire argument?

When it comes down to it, you can call the joining of same-sex partners whatever you want, because in the end, it is truly about two people celebrating love, having a legally recognized commitment and having all the same rights and protections that are afforded to hetero-sexual couples.

Does Schwarzenegger Supports Gay marriage?

Ap news reports that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said on Tuesday that it's only a matter of time before gay marriage is recognized in California.

In a statement, Schwarzenegger did not directly address whether he agrees or disagrees with the California Supreme Court decision upholding last year's Proposition 8. Instead, he said he believes voters or the courts will one day legalize same-sex marriages.

He also applauded the court's decision to allow the 18,000 gay weddings that took place between June and November, the period when such marriages were legal.

"While I believe that one day either the people or courts will recognize gay marriage, as governor of California I will uphold the decision of the California Supreme Court," he said. "Regarding the 18,000 marriages that took place prior to Proposition 8's passage, the court made the right decision in keeping them intact."

Schwarzenegger also encouraged those who are rallying in response to the court's decision to do so peacefully.

The governor did not take questions from reporters during a morning appearance before a group advocating for small-business owners.

Howard Stern: We Must Make Gay Marriage Acceptable

It may be surprising for some to hear that Howard Stern is a supporter of Gay Marriage, as well as gay rights in general. I have never been much of a Howard Stern fan, but I have to admit, it is nice to know that he is on our side when it comes to this issue. This video is from a radio broadcast last Wednesday, April 29th. If you don't want to watch the video, the conversation is typed out below.



Howard: I was talking to someone recently and they said, 'Oh you have so many gay guests lately, the show is getting too gay.'

OK -- first of all, we don't have that many gay guests. And my feeling about gay people is that we have a responsibility not only to make gay marriage acceptable and to make gays feel as accepted as heterosexuals, but that we have to hold gay people above all others.

Robin: What the hell does that mean?

Howard: In other words, gay people are downtrodden. They're beaten and abused for their sexuality. And it goes across race – it's in the white community and the black community. Gay people are the bastards of the world. And in order for things to change – because anyone of you could have gay children, gay relatives or gay friends –

Robin: And in some countries, you can be put to death for being gay.

Howard: Yes. You know, it reminds [me] almost of the Jews in Europe. In Poland, Warsaw was one of the great cities of Europe. They had Jews and the Jews were very important to the culture of Poland, and elevated the society. And then when the Nazis came and cleaned them out, Poland became what is today – nothing. It's really…not much.

Now, gay people in our society are responsible for some of the most creative arts, and creative science – and not just the Arts, because I don't want this to sound like a cliché. What I'm saying is that they're contributors, they are people who want to thrive and they're artistic and they're free thinkers.

So I think we have a responsibility to make [gays] acceptable. We have to get past all this bullshit, so that some gay kid going to high school doesn’t get the shit beat out of him just because he's gay. And like, what is this hang up with gay marriage, you know? Who cares?!

I mean, we aired a clip yesterday where this guy was carrying on – he's petitioning, and he's devoting his whole life to making sure that gay marriage doesn't happen in his state. And I'm thinking, 'Geez, this man must have the most empty fucking life.' It's just such bullshit.

If you want to believe in God, that's great. But don’t buy into these religions that were created by man that have all these cockamamie rules that were created by some uptight douche bag.

Artie Lange: And God created gay people, so I don’t know what these religious nuts are even talking about. Look, you can become a Nazi and you could be mad at them for doing that. But you're not born a Nazi. Every type of person was created by God, so you love them and accept them. Some people think it’s a choice, being gay, but I really don’t think so. I mean, why would you choose to be downtrodden?

Robin: Why would you choose to get the shit kicked out of you?

Howard: Right.

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.

Nations that recognize same-sex marriage, partnerships or unions

Nations that recognize same-sex marriage include:

Belgium
The second nation to legalize same-sex marriage in 2003.

Canada
In June of 2005, the Canadian Parliament enacted a law allowing legal marriage for same-sex couples.

Netherlands
The Netherlands is the first country to grant gay marriage in 2001.

Spain
On June 29, 2005, Spain became the fourth nation to allow gay marriage.

South Africa
The fifth nation to recognize gay marriage in 2005.


US states that recognize gay marriage:

California
In May of 2008, California's Supreme Court ruled that banning same-sex marriage in the state was discriminatory. However, Proposition 8, a voter initiative was passed, effectively striking down the court ruling. Although the legality of Prop 8 is being decided right now, at the moment, marriage in California is defined as between one man and one woman.

Connecticut
In a 4 to 3 decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage, making it the third state to allow legal gay marriage.

Massachusetts
On May 17, 2004, Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage. The State of Massachusetts also issues licenses to gay couples from New Mexico and Rhode Island since neither state explicitly prohibits same-sex marriage.

New Jersey*
New Jersey is the third U.S. state to offer same-sex civil unions behind Vermont and Connecticut. The new same-sex civil unions law, which went into affect on February 19, 2007, grants gay and lesbian couples the same rights as marriage. *(Although same-sex unions in New Jersey are classified as civil unions, couples are granted the same rights as married heterosexual couples.)

New York
Based on a May 29, 2008 directive, New York only recognizes gay marriages from couples legally married outside of the state.


Nations that allow same-sex partnerships or unions:

Brazil
Only the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul allows same-sex civil unions. (June 2006).

Croatia
Civil partnerships for same-sex couples have been allowed since 2003.

Denmark
Legal civil partnerships have been allowed since 1989.

Finland
Has offered registered partnership benefits since September 2001.

France
Pacte Civil de Solidarité” (PACS), or “Civil Solidarity Pacts,” were instituted in France on November 9, 1999.

Germany
Gay couples can register as "Life Partnerships," granting lesser financial and pension benefits than marriage.

Hungary
Gay couples have been protected under common-law marriages since 1995, buy they are not eligible for legal marriage.

Iceland
Since 1996, gay & lesbian couples have been protected under registered partnerships.

Luxembourg
Civil partnership legislation, which is similar to France's PACS, were introduced in Luxembourg in 2004.

Mexico
Same sex civil unions were legalized in Mexico City in November 2006 and in the state of Coahuila on January of 2007, essentially making civil unions legal in all of Mexico (by law, each Mexican state must recognize the laws granted to individuals of the other states).

New Zealand
New Zealand enacted legislation recognizing same-sex civil unions in December of 2004.

Norway
Since 1996, gay & Lesbian couples have been protected under registered partnerships.

Portugal
Same-sex partners have the same rights as opposite-sex partners in common law marriage.

Sweden
Since 1995, Swedish same-sex couples have been able to register under domestic partnership laws.

Switzerland
Same-sex couples are given limited legal benefits with civil recognition.

United Kingdom
Domestic partners can register under the Civil Partnership Act. This legislation took affect in December 5, 2005 giving registered same-sex couples the same rights, privileges and responsibilities of married heterosexual couples. The Civil Partnership Act applies across all of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

US States that allow same-sex partnerships or unions:

Connecticut
Although Connecticut defines marriage as between a man and woman, in April 2005, it became the second U.S. state to grant same-sex civil unions.

New Hampshire
New Hampshire was the 4th state behind Vermont, New Jersey and Connecticut to offer civil unions. In January 2008, same-sex partners were allowed to register for civil unions.

Oregon
Under Oregon's new domestic partnership law gay and lesbian couples are eligible for all the state-wide rights and benefits of marriage.

Vermont
In 2000, Vermont became the first U.S. state to offer same-sex civil unions.

Washington
On April 21, 2007, Washington's domestic partnership bill was signed into law giving gay and lesbian couples many of the benefits of marriage.

Sources:
Lambda Legal
Glaad.org
about.com

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.

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.

Vermont legislator plans push for gay marriage

AP news announced last week that a state legislator plans to introduce a bill to allow gay marriage in Vermont.

State Sen. John Campbell, a Democrat, says he will sponsor the bill in the legislative session beginning in January. He acknowledges it is unlikely to gain ground unless Gov. Jim Douglas signals support.

The Republican governor said Thursday that the civil union law is sufficient but wouldn't say whether he would veto a gay-marriage bill.

Only Massachusetts and Connecticut allow gay marriage. California voters recently overturned a ruling allowing the practice there.

Several other states sanction domestic partnerships or civil unions. Vermont became the first state to do so, in 2000.