Oral arguments ‘promising’ in Prop 8 case

Judges grill attorneys from both sides on issue of standing, merits of federal case challenging California’s same-sex marriage ban

Lisa Keen |  Keen News Service

SAN FRANCISCO — Famed attorney Ted Olson told a 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Monday, Dec. 6 that the reason proponents of Proposition 8 have put forth to justify their ban on same-sex marriage is “nonsense.”

That reason, said Olson, reading from a page in the brief filed by attorneys for the Yes on 8 coalition, was that same-sex marriage “will make children prematurely preoccupied with issues of sexuality.”

“If believed,” said Olson, “that would justify the banning of comic books, television, video games, and even conversations between children.”

And it isn’t exactly the reason Yes on 8 proffered during their successful 2008 campaign to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Back then, the primary reason, noted Olson, was “protecting children” from the notion that marriage between same-sex couples was OK.

So, what should the court consider as the reason behind denying same-sex couples the right to marry, asked Judge Michael Hawkins.

“Should we look just at the record in the district court?” he asked, or should we “imagine whether there is any conceivable rational basis” to ban gays from marriage?

Olson urged the court not to use its own imagination but to look at the reasons proffered by the Yes on 8 proponents and determine whether they “make sense” and whether they are “motivated by fear” or a dislike of gay people.

“Protecting our children,” said Olson, “is not a rational basis. It’s based on the idea there’s something wrong with” gay people.

Both Olson and his legal counterpart, Charles Cooper, argued with greater passion and animation during Monday’s argument before the federal appeals court than they had in January and June before U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker. It was Walker’s ruling in August — that California’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution — that brought them to the appeals court in San Francisco on Monday. Unlike at the district court trial, where the U.S. Supreme Court barred any television or web broadcast, the appeals proceedings were carried live on national television by CSPAN and several California stations. Demonstrators crowded outside the federal building in San Francisco under the watchful eye of federal protection service officers. And interested observers and journalists packed the courtroom and watched broadcasts all over the country.

The three judges on the appeallate panel vigorously challenged each side’s arguments on both matters before the court — Yes on 8 and Imperial County’s legal qualification (standing) to appeal, and the validity of Walker’s declaration that Proposition 8 violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Judge N. Randy Smith, an alum of the Mormon-owned Brigham Young University, leveled hard questions at Cooper over Yes on 8’s claim to have legal standing to press the appeal. Then he pitched equally hard questions to Olson’s comrade David Boies, about the “problem” created for the court by the fact that neither the governor nor attorney general appealed the district court decision themselves. Even though neither has the power to veto an initiative, said Smith, they both nullified the initiative by not appealing it.

Boies tried to make the point that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown made their decisions not to appeal after Judge Walker declared the initiative to be unconstitutional.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, widely perceived to be a staunch liberal, seemed to agree with Smith, saying the governor and attorney general’s refusal to appeal the district court decision “does not seem to be consistent” with the state’s initiative system. And should the court find that Yes on 8 and Imperial County both lack the legal qualifications to appeal, the judges said, the appeals court has no cause to rule on the merits of the dispute.

Boies argued that the concern about what the governor and attorney general did was a “different issue” than standing. And on the issue of standing, said Boies, Yes on 8 and Imperial County have no standing to bring the appeal, simply because they can’t meet the standard of demonstrating a real injury from the district court’s decision.

It was not an easy sell. Hawkins expressed frustration that the court might not be able to render a decision on the merits “so it’s clear, in California, who has the right to marry and who doesn’t.”

Yes on 8 attorney Charles Cooper had argued that, because the California Supreme Court had, in an earlier, related court proceeding given Yes on 8 the right to intervene in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case to defend Proposition 8, it intended to convey standing, too. By the end of the first hour of the proceeding — which was devoted to standing — the panel seemed inclined to ask the California Supreme Court to certify whether it intended Yes on 8 to have standing.

The panel seemed equally uncomfortable with the effort by a deputy clerk of Imperial County, Isabella Vargas, to seek standing to appeal Walker’s decision. The judges, particularly Hawkins, pointedly and repeatedly asked why Imperial County’s deputy clerk was seeking the status, and no explanation was given as to why the county clerk did not.

Robert Tyler, an attorney with a religious advocacy legal firm representing Vargas and Imperial County pro bono, evaded the answer to that question both in and out of the courtroom. At a press conference following arguments, he claimed the answer was a matter of attorney-client privilege.

The three judges were equally tough in questions about the merits of Judge Walker’s decision. As Cooper attempted to read from his prepared statement, Judge Hawkins interrupted almost immediately to ask him whether voters have the right to re-institute segregation in public schools.

“No,” said Cooper.

“Why not?” asked Hawkins.

“Because it would be inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution,” said Cooper.

“As interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court,” interjected Hawkins.

“Yes,” conceded Cooper.

But in 1870, the U.S. Supreme Court probably wouldn’t have interpreted the constitution to forbid segregation? asked Hawkins.

Cooper conceded that was probably true.

“Well, how is this different?” asked Hawkins.

Judge Smith challenged Cooper using the Loving v. Virginia ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that said states couldn’t prohibit interracial marriage. He did so by noting that Cooper was arguing that the Supreme Court had already ruled on the right of states to proscribe same-sex marriage in Baker v. Nelson. The high court, in 1972, dismissed the appeal of a gay couple who had sought a marriage license in Minnesota. Dismissing an appeal has more significance than simply refusing to hear an appeal. But, in dismissing the Baker appeal, the high court explained it was doing so because there was no “substantial federal question” presented by the case. There is dispute within legal circles as to whether that dismissal means anything today. But Cooper, and others, have tried to make a case that the Baker action is precedent, and that it governs attempts by other states to ban same-sex marriages.

If Baker was precedent, said Smith, then why couldn’t states ban interracial marriage, too?

Cooper had to concede the right of states to decide who can marry is “not an absolute right” and that their right to do so “is limited by the restrictions of the U.S. Constitution.”

When Cooper tried to argue that society has a rational interest in the creation of children and in promoting responsible procreation to ensure that children are adequately cared for, Judge Reinhardt suggested that might be a “good argument for prohibiting divorce.”

Judge Smith jumped in to challenge Cooper on this point, too. He noted that California domestic partnership laws provide same-sex couples with all the same benefits and rights to marriage, including those involving child-rearing. What is the rational reason for denying same-sex couples the designation of the word marriage, he wondered.

Judge Hawkins challenged Cooper to explain how California’s same-sex marriage ban is different from Colorado’s Amendment 2, which said no law could prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Supreme Court struck down Amendment 2 in Romer v. Evans, saying the only reason for the law was animus against gay people and that laws may not be justified by mere animus.

Cooper argued that Amendment 2 had been a “sweeping” denial of protections to gay people, in banking, employment, housing, commercial transactions, and many other areas of life. Proposition 8, he said, is focused just on marriage. And, in marriage, said Cooper, society had an interest to protect unrelated to animus against gay people, and that interest is promoting responsible procreation.

Therese Stewart, the openly gay chief deputy city attorney for San Francisco, tackled that argument head-on, by noting that same-sex couples “do procreate — not in same way [as heterosexual couples], but they do procreate.”

Gay legal activists seemed pleased with how the arguments went Monday.

Evan Wolfson, head of the national Freedom to Marriage Project, said that, overall, he thinks “it looks promising, both on standing and on the merits.”

Shannon Minter, senior counsel for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, agreed, saying he was especially encouraged that “at least two of the judges seemed highly critical of Charles Cooper’s claim on behalf of the proponents that Prop 8 could be justified based on arguments relating to procreation.” And Ted Olson, he said, “was particularly eloquent and urged the Court to reach the broad question of whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry.”

Jenny Pizer, head of Lambda Legal Defense’s Marriage Project, said she wouldn’t be surprised if the panel’s eventual ruling includes “multiple decisions” on how they reached the same outcome “with different reasonings.”

“And if they conclude Prop 8 is invalid while disagreeing about the details of why,” said Pizer, “that may be just fine.”

The panel is expected to render its decision on both the standing issue and the constitutionality of Proposition 8 within a few months. Boies speculated during a post-argument press conference that the earliest the panel would likely render a decision is early next year and the earliest the case might be heard by the Supreme Court — during its almost inevitable appeal — would be 2012.

© 2010 by Keen News Service. All rights reserved.

—  John Wright

Judges that will hear Prop 8 case called ‘a very good panel’ for gay marriage supporters

Backers of anti-gay California initiative say development means case even more likely to be decided by Supreme Court

LISA LEFF | Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO — Two judges appointed by Democratic presidents and one named by a Republican will decide if a San Francisco trial judge improperly struck down California’s same-sex marriage ban, a federal appeals court announced Monday, Nov. 29.

Judges Michael Hawkins, Stephen Reinhardt and N. Randy Smith of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals were randomly assigned the landmark case from the court’s pool of 27 active judges.

The panel is scheduled to hear arguments next week over the constitutionality of the voter-approved ban, known as Proposition 8.

Reinhardt, a 79-year-old Los Angeles resident, was appointed by President Jimmy Carter in 1980 and is regarded as one of the 9th Circuit’s most liberal jurists. Hawkins, a 65-year-old Arizonan, was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1994.

Smith, 61, was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2007 and keeps his chambers in his native Idaho.

Proposition 8′s sponsors are appealing Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s August ruling that overturned the 2008 law as a violation of gay and lesbian Californians’ civil rights. They argue that Walker ignored a U.S. Supreme Court precedent from 1973 that held the U.S. Constitution does not recognize marriage rights for gays.

Observers predicted the panel’s makeup makes it less likely Walker would be reversed.

“Anyone who follows the 9th Circuit closely would say that this a very good panel for the Prop 8 opponents and a very bad panel for its defenders,” said Arthur Hellman, a University of Pittsburgh School of Law professor who is an expert on the court. “I expect a 2-1 decision, with Reinhardt and Hawkins outvoting Smith.”

Proposition 8′s supporters had the same interpretation, and reiterated their plan to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary.

“Judge Reinhardt’s inclusion on the 9th Circuit panel adds more weight to what the Prop 8 Legal Defense team has said since this case was filed in federal court: We fully expect that it will ultimately be decided by the highest court in the land,” the California Family Council, which was part of the coalition of religious and conservative groups that backed the 2008 measure, said in a statement.

When they meet in San Francisco on Dec. 6, one of the issues the judges will consider is whether the ban’s backers had the authority to bring the appeal after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown decided not to challenge the lower court ruling.

Officials from conservative Imperial County have asked the 9th Circuit to allow them to represent the state’s interests if the panel decides that Proposition 8′s sponsors lack standing.

—  John Wright

Ban on Sharia law in Okla. ruled unconstitutional

Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange

A federal judge stopped short of declaring Oklahoma voters a bunch of dumbasses, but she did rule that their attempt to outlaw Sharia law is unconstitutional, according to the Daily Oklahoman.

U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange issued a 15-page ruling throwing out the state constitutional amendment. On Nov. 2, Oklahoma voters approved the amendment that would have prohibited state courts from considering or using Sharia law despite the fact that state courts had never used – nor had plans to use — Sharia law. The constitutional amendment passed with more than 70 percent of the vote.

Sharia is Islamic law based on the Quran and the teachings of Muhammed. It includes the Ten Commandments — so the amendment effectively made the Ten Commandments illegal in Oklahoma.

Miles-LaGrange wrote in her opinion, “This order addresses issues that go to the very foundation of our country, our Constitution, and particularly, the Bill of Rights.”

Supporters of the law said it was a defense against such practices as marital rape. However, state laws already make such practices  illegal.

Muneer Awad, the head of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, filed suit against the amendment claiming it violated his freedom of religion.

The judge ruled that he had standing in the case and that he would have suffered injury to his First Amendment rights. Awad lives in Oklahoma, is a Muslim and “the amendment conveys an official government message of disapproval and hostility toward his religious beliefs, that sends a clear message he is an outsider, not a full member of the political community, thereby chilling his access to the government and forcing him to curtail his political and religious activities.”

Republican State Rep. Rex Duncan was the author of the amendment. He said it wasn’t intended to attack Muslims but rather was a “pre-emptive strike.”

Aren’t pre-emptive strikes usually attacks?

And wasn’t the only terrorist attack that has taken place in Oklahoma — the Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrah Federal Building — carried out by a couple of Christian guys?

—  David Taffet

Is Greg Abbott going to sit idly by while a federal court throws out Texas’ gay marriage ban?

Greg Abbott

Ten states have submitted a brief opposing same-sex marriage to the federal appeals court that will decide whether California’s Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution, The Associated Press reports. But guess what? Texas isn’t one of them.

Anti-gay Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who’s fought to prevent Texas courts from recognizing same-sex marriage even for the limited purpose of divorce, has failed to get involved in a case that could ultimately result in the state’s marriage ban being thrown out:

Former Utah Sen. Scott McCoy, the first openly gay state senator, said Saturday he is not surprised Utah signed on to the opposition brief. If the California ruling against Proposition 8 is upheld, it would follow that Utah’s Amendment 3, which defines marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman, is unconstitutional, he said.

Abbott’s failure to get involved is even more surprising given that the brief filed Friday specifically argues that states, and not federal courts, should determine whether to allow same-sex marriage. As you may know, Abbott is all about states’ rights and protecting us from Washington and the evil federal government. So what gives?

We’ve contacted spokesman Jerry Strickland to find out why the Texas AG’s office has chosen to sit this one out, but thus far no response. Stay tuned.

—  John Wright

Prop 8 backers slam trial judge in urging appeal

Marriage ban sponsors call Vaughn Walker’s consideration of evidence ‘egregiously selective and one-sided,’ accuse him of ‘willful’ disregard

LISA LEFF  |  Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO — Backers of California’s same-sex marriage ban urged a federal appeals court to overturn the trial judge who struck down Proposition 8 by arguing late Friday, Sept. 17 that his consideration of evidence was “egregiously selective and one-sided.”

In written arguments to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, lawyers for the ban’s sponsors alleged that Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker “quite willfully” disregarded a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court precedent and other relevant information when he decided the voter-approved measure was an unconstitutional violation of gay Californians’ civil rights.

“The district court based its findings almost exclusively on an uncritical acceptance of the evidence submitted by Plaintiffs’ experts, and simply ignored virtually everything — judicial authority, the works of eminent scholars past and present in all relevant academic fields, extensive historical and documentary evidence — that ran counter to its conclusions,” they wrote in their 134-page opening brief.

Lawyers for the two couples who successfully sued in Walker’s court are due to file their responses next month. A three-judge 9th Circuit panel has scheduled oral arguments in the case for the first week in December and put Walker’s order requiring the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on hold until it renders its own decision.

The court papers filed Friday contained unbridled criticism of Walker’s handling of the first federal trial to examine if the U.S. Constitution prevents states from limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

The appealing attorneys, who called two witnesses compared to 18 for the plaintiffs, asked the 9th Circuit to ignore the trial testimony on which Walker laboriously based his opinion, calling it “unreliable and ultimately irrelevant” to whether Proposition 8 passes constitutional muster.

“Having blinded itself to the genuine animating purpose of marriage, the district court was obliged to offer a different rationale for the institution, presumably one that is entirely indifferent to the gender of the spouses,” they wrote.

They also characterized as defamatory the judge’s conclusion that “moral disapproval” of gay men and lesbians was the main reason voters passed Proposition 8 in November 2008.

“The district court decision is an attack on the many judges and lawmakers and millions of Americans who rightly and reasonably understand that marriage is the unique union of a man and a woman,” said Alliance Defense Fund attorney Brian Raum, who is part of the legal team fighting to uphold Proposition 8. “The Hollywood-funded opposition wants to impose — through a San Francisco court — an agenda that America has repeatedly rejected.”

American Foundation for Equal Rights President Chad Griffin, whose organization organized and funded the lawsuit that led to Walker’s ruling, said he remains confident that it would be upheld in the 9th Circuit and ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The fact remains that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, as was proven conclusively and unequivocally through a full federal trial,” Griffin said. “There is no getting around the fact that the court’s decision was based on our nation’s most fundamental principles, and that the Constitution does not permit unequal treatment under the law.”

The 1972 case the Proposition 8 lawyers cited in their brief involved a gay couple who sought the right to marry in Minnesota and were rebuffed by that state’s highest court and ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear their appeal.

Before declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional last month, Walker rejected arguments that he was bound by the 38-year-old case, determining that the high court’s rulings in subsequent gay rights cases were more relevant to his deliberations.

They also cited as evidence that Walker had exceeded the bounds of his authority in a 1982 decision in which the 9th Circuit ruled that a gay U.S. citizen who had obtained a marriage license in Colorado was not eligible to sponsor his foreign-born same-sex partner for immigration purposes.

The pro-Proposition 8 legal team devoted part of their filing to trying to persuade the 9th Circuit that they should be allowed to defend the ballot measure since California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown have refused to appeal the lower court ruling.

Doubts have been raised about whether the coalition of religious and conservative groups that qualified Proposition 8 for the ballot and campaigned for its passage have authority to do so because its members are not responsible for enforcing marriage laws.

Under federal court rules, appealing parties have to demonstrate they have suffered a direct, concrete and individualized harm. The same-sex marriage ban’s sponsors meet those requirements, their lawyers argued Friday, because the California Supreme Court allowed them to defend Proposition 8 in an ultimately unsuccessful effort to get the measure overturned last year and Walker allowed them to defend it again in his court.

Lawyers for a Southern California county whose residents voted overwhelming for Proposition 8 also were due to submit briefs before midnight arguing why they also should be allowed to appeal. The Imperial County Board of Supervisors and the county clerk have maintained they have the legal right to challenge Walker’s ruling even if the ban’s sponsors don’t because counties issue marriage licenses.

If the 9th Circuit dismisses the appeal after deciding that neither the county nor the measure’s proponents have legal standing, Walker’s ruling would become final unless the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to take up the case.

If the high court refuses to intervene, gay couples would be able to marry in California again. An estimated 18,000 couples were married in California before Proposition passed.

—  John Wright

Getting beyond mosques and book burning to find some common ground

Each religion sees a face of God, despite the human diversity of rites and practices they each practice

The Rev. Petra Weldes | Special Contributor

LIGHTING THE WAY FOR PEACE | Carla Bolta of New York holds a candle during a peace rally in support of the proposed mosque near Ground Zero on Friday, Sept. 10, in New York. (Jin Lee/Associated Press)There is a deep and essential unity underlying our apparent differences; it is our shared humanity. And underneath the outer human diversity of spiritual rites and practices is the shining reality that each religion sees a face of God, and teaches fundamentally the Oneness of God and a deep love for all of creation.

Consequently, we must learn to respect all paths to God for what they add to the richness of our spiritual understanding and how each faith succors a people for whom that faith is their way to God.

We know that, as Albert Einstein said, we cannot solve a problem with the same consciousness that created it. Fear and hatred will never transform fear and hatred, nor will it create a peaceful world.

As the media frenzy around the controversy over a proposed mosque (actually a community center) within blocks of Ground Zero has continued to grow, and verbal and physical attacks against Islamic people take place, it seems that many Americans have forgotten some basic tenets of, not only the U.S. Constitution, but also of civility and common decency.

While appreciating the raw feelings surrounding the site, which has rightly become sacred ground in the nine years since the fall of the World Trade Center towers, to deny rights to groups who had nothing to do with the tragedy is simply mindless fear and hatred.

Sept. 11 was not an act of Islam. It was an act of terrorists who distort the precepts of that religion. Surely we recognize that all spiritual traditions have their zealots, fanatics, and people who misuse and misinterpret their faith for their own gain.

We must begin to recognize and support the full expression of religious freedom, realizing that all paths to God, when rightly practiced, promote love, peace and respect for others. Consequently, it’s important to honor the dignity of all the world’s sacred literature including the Bible, Torah, Qur’an, Avesta, Pahlavi, Sutras, Vedas and more.

We must begin to see that these texts all contain a portion of humanity’s spiritual truth, and therefore deserve to be treated with the same care with which we would treat our own.

Ernest Holmes, in the New Thought text “The Science of Mind” once said, “Find me one person who is for something and against nothing, who is redeemed enough not to condemn others out of the burden of his soul, and I will find another savior, another Jesus, and an exalted human being.”

In that same spirit, let us stand together for the One Divine Presence that moves through all humanity, and respect the dignity of every person’s right to the full expression of religious freedom, rites, practices and ritual.

Let us support the respect and dignity inherent in the law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, and the law of a Higher Power known by many names. Let us envision a world beyond what we now know; a world free of war, homelessness, hunger, poverty, disenfranchisement and terror — a world of peace, freedom, justice, caring, compassion and unity.

The bigger issue, then, is not the proximity of one piece of sacred ground to another or the comparative sacredness of one text versus another. The issue is finding common ground to create a peaceful, tolerant world that works for everyone.

The Rev. Petra Weldes is senior minister of the Center for Spiritual Living in Dallas, online at CSLDallas.org.

This article appeared in the Dallas Voice print edition September 17, 2010.

—  Michael Stephens

Appeals court grants stay of Prop 8 ruling

LISA KEEN  |  Keen News Service

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issued an order Monday granting Yes on 8’s request for a stay of Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. The appeals court panel also ordered, without being asked, that Yes on 8’s appeal of Walker’s ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger be addressed by the court on an expedited basis.

The panel said it would hear arguments on appeal during the week of Dec. 6, as well as arguments concerning whether Yes on 8 has legal standing to press the appeal.

The two-page order is a disappointment to many same-sex couples in California who were hoping that they would be able to obtain marriage licenses as soon as Judge Walker’s stay expired — at 5 p.m. Pacific time on Wednesday.

“We are very gratified that the Ninth Circuit has recognized the importance and pressing nature of this case and the need to resolve it as quickly as possible by issuing this extremely expedited briefing schedule,” said Ted Olson, one of the lead attorneys for plaintiffs challenging Proposition 8.

Olson, one of the most prominent conservative attorneys in the country, launched the high-profile challenge of California’s voter-approved constitutional ban on same-sex marriage with liberal attorney icon David Boies. Walker, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for Northern California (San Francisco), heard three weeks of testimony by the plaintiffs and Proposition 8 supporters in January.

In a dramatic 136-page ruling on Aug. 4, Walker declared the same-sex marriage ban in the state constitution violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process. Walker agreed to stay — or delay enforcement — of his decision until Aug. 18, giving the 9th Circuit time to decide whether to grant a more extended appeal.

Evan Wolfson, who was a lead attorney on the first same-sex marriage case — in Hawaii in 1996 — called the 9th Circuit panel’s decision to continue Walker’s stay “disappointing.”

“But there are many twists in the road to justice,” said Wolfson, “and we are encouraged by the court’s setting a fast pace for the appeal, revealing that the judges understand how important a quick end to the exclusion from marriage is to gay couples, their loved ones, and all Americans who believe in equality under the law.”

The 9th Circuit panel includes two Clinton appointees — Judges Sidney Thomas and Michael Hawkins — and one Reagan appointee, Edward Leavey.

The panel set Sept. 17 as the date Yes on 8’s initial argument brief is due.

The response brief from the Ted Olson-David Boies legal team challenging Proposition 8 is due Oct. 18. And Yes on 8 may reply to plaintiffs’ brief by Nov. 1.

Monday’s order means the same-sex marriage ban will stay intact at least until December, when the 9th Circuit will hear arguments on both the issue of Yes on 8’s standing to appeal and, perhaps, on the merits of Walker’s decision.

Meanwhile, on the East Coast, where U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro ruled — in two separate cases — July 9 that the ban on federal benefits to same-sex couples is unconstitutional, the clock is still ticking down the 60 days the U.S. Department of Justice has to appeal the decisions to the 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

© 2010 by Keen News Service. All rights reserved.

—  John Wright

Why haven’t these anti-gay Texas leaders said anything about Wednesday’s Prop 8 ruling?

Wednesday’s ruling in the Prop 8 case represents a potential threat to Gov. Rick Perry’s baby, 2005′s Prop 2. So why hasn’t he said anything to defend it?

Perry v. Schwarzenegger could eventually result in Texas’ same-sex marriage bans being struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. So you’d expect politicians here to be lining up to sound off about Wednesday’s watershed ruling from U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker that declared California’s Prop 8 unconstitutional. Or not.

So far, we’ve seen only two statements from Texas politicians — both in support of the ruling. Linda Chavez-Thompson, the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor, posted a message on Twitter on Wednesday afternoon.

“So glad to hear Prop 8 was overturned today,” Chavez-Thompson wrote. “It was discrimination at its worst. I will keep fighting for equality for all Texans.”

And Democratic State Rep. Garnet Coleman of Houston said this via-email:

“I’ve always supported marriage equality for all Americans and believe that the U.S. Constitution supports it as well. When Texas passed its constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions in 2005, I filed a constitutional amendment to let voters repeal the discriminatory amendment. I’m glad to see that our country continues to move forward. Every year, the public’s opinion on marriage equality is more supportive. The law should prohibit discrimination, not sanction it.”

Republican Gov. Rick Perry, who championed Texas’ marriage amendment, hasn’t said a word about the Prop 8 ruling other than perhaps to his wife, though he did post a statement on his website Thursday ranting about a spending bill in Congress (since when did Washington become more of a threat than the homosexuals?).

Likewise, we haven’t heard anything from Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott, who’s fighting to protect Texas from gay divorce; or Republican Ag Commish Todd Staples, who co-authored Texas’ marriage amendment and filed a brief opposing gay divorce; or Republican Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who’s apparently more concerned about drama classes at Tarleton State University.

In fairness, we also haven’t seen statements from the likes of openly gay Houston Mayor Annise Parker, Democratic gubernatorial nominee Bill White or any of the other statewide challengers.

In the end, it appears that with a key election a few months away, most would rather simply avoid this issue altogether, which is rather telling if you ask us.

Anyhow, now that we’ve had a chance to sift through our Inboxes, we’ve posted some of the other local reactions we’ve received below.

Cece Cox, executive director, Resource Center Dallas:

“Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling in the Perry vs. Schwarzenegger case — striking down California’s Proposition 8 as a violation of both the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment — will be remembered for its pivotal role in our march towards equality.

“In plain and direct language, Judge Walker said that “plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right…many of the purported interests identified by proponents [of Proposition 8] are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples…moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians.

“But, it’s important to remember that Judge Walker’s ruling is not the last word in this fight. Forty-five states, including Texas, deny marriage to our community. The case now likely moves to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and may end up at the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Much work needs to be done. Until our relationships and families are legally recognized in all states, we are second-class citizens. Continue to have conversations with your families, friends, and co-workers about why marriage equality is important. The tide of public opinion is gradually changing in our favor, and what seemed a dream a generation ago is one major step closer to fruition.”

The Rev. Jo Hudson, senior pastor, Cathedral of Hope:

“Today [Wednesday], Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker declared the California state law that defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman unconstitutional. I applaud this ruling and believe that Judge Walker has issued a just and fair ruling that pleases God. The journey to full marriage equality for all Americans is still before us. But I have faith that the God who created each of us and called it good is with us in this journey and will see it through. As the world’s largest predominantly lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender congregation, we stand with the 18,000 same-sex couples who have already been married in California and with the hundreds that have been married here at the Cathedral of Hope in our 40 years of ministry. We also stand with every gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender person who has courageously made covenant with someone they love despite the laws in our nation. This is a day of celebration and joy and we have seen the realm of God come closer to the earth and for that I give God thanks.”

Equality Texas Executive Director Dennis Coleman:

“As we stand in solidarity with Californians, we must remember that our work is far from over. The laws in Texas are not similar to California. Existing law here allows for systematic discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Texans every single day. There is much work to be done legislatively to change the laws in Texas. And in order to change the laws, we must elect public officials who will support equal treatment under the law for every Texan.”

—  John Wright

Rachel Maddow on Prop 8 ruling and witnesses’ ties to George ‘Rentboy’ Rekers

Rachel Maddow was obviously overjoyed by Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling, issued Wednesday, saying that California’s Prop 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

—  admin

Tennessee DMV refuses to give woman a driver’s license with new last name after her legal same-sex marriage in D.C.

The full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution says that each state has to respect the “public acts, records and judicial proceedings” of the other states in this country. Traditionally, that has been understood to include legally contracted marriages. But, of course, Congress in 1996 passed the Defense of Marriage Act — or DOMA — which says the federal government will not recognize legal same-sex marriages and which allows individual states to refuse to  recognize legal same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.

So, we get situations like this, documented by WUSA9.com in in Washington, D.C.:

Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) has challenged that portion of DOMA that prohibits federal recognition of legal same-sex marriages, and a decision is pending in a Massachusetts court in that case. And of course, a decision is also pending in a California federal court in the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the California constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

There are other arguments for giving federal recognition to same-sex marriages and for requiring all states to recognize a legally contracted same-sex marriage from any state. Some arguments are based on the Constitution’s equal protection clause; some involve separation of church and state. And of course, there’s the basic idea of fairness — you know, that whole “liberty and justice for all” thing?

Who knows how it’s all going to wind up. But I am pretty sure it is going to take a U.S. Supreme Court ruling to settle it one way or another. And even that might not be the final word. One thing I do know, until it is settled, we’re going to keep hearing stories like Traci Turpin’s. And that is not fair.

—  admin