The most important part of the Prop 8 decision may be the dissent

Liz Newcomb raises an interesting point about the dissent in the Prop 8 decision reached today.

The decision today was a 2-1 decision. As anticipated, Judges Reinhardt (Carter-appointed and very liberal) and Hawkins (Clinton-appointed) went our way. Judge Smith did not. Smith is a George W. Bush appointee who was chairman of Idaho's Republican party before winding up on the 9th Circuit. Smith was by far the most conservative member of the panel. So it is not all that surprising that he was not with us.

However, the inability to bring Smith on board is concerning for me. To understand why, one has to understand that the court issued a narrow ruling that was limited to the peculiar circumstances of California. I welcomed this, because I belong squarely in the camp that thinks that asking the Supremes to make same-sex marriage the law for the entire country at this juncture is a bridge too far. The narrower position that the court took is stronger. The court essentially said that regardless of whether same-sex couples have a due process right to marriage across the board, the situation in California is unconstitutional, because that right was granted and then taken away without good reason.

After watching the hearing, I thought there was a chance Smith might get on board with a narrow ruling and I hoped he would. A unanimous ruling with the support of such a conservative justice would have shown that the issue has the potential to transcend the nasty ideological divide on the court.

But the two more liberal justices didn't persuade him.

In other words, we hope this isn't a bellwether of how the Supreme Court may split when the case finally gets there, if it gets there. Read the rest of this post...

Appeals court: Prop 8 UNCONSTITUTIONAL - full text of the decision

Here's the decision.  This decision, if affirmed by the Supreme Court, could strike down state anti-gay ballot initiatives, and even anti-gay legislation at the local and federal level. Read the rest of this post...

Mormons launch $6m ad campaign to make people like them

The Mormons are reportedly spending $6 million on an "I'm a Mormon" ad campaign to convince Americans that they're really nice people.

The thing is, really nice people don't try to steal the souls of dead Holocaust victims, and then lie about it, for years, after they get caught.

Nor do they secretly baptize President Obama's deceased mother into their faith, right before the election, without his knowledge or permission, and then not to tell him.

You know another thing nice people don't do?  They don't use their billions to politically gay-bash year after year after year.

The Mormons are quite possibly the biggest funder of anti-gay bigotry in America today. The group running the campaign to pass Prop 8 in California, which successfully ripped away the right to wed from gay couples in that state, reports that half of their total donations came from Mormons, and 80% to 90% of their early volunteers were Mormons.  From Wikipedia:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,[52][53][54] whose members are commonly known as Mormons, also publicly supported the proposition. The First Presidency of the church announced its support for Proposition 8 in a letter intended to be read in every congregation in California. In this letter, church members were encouraged to "do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time."[52] Local church leaders set organizational and monetary goals for their membership—sometimes quite specific—to fulfill this call.[55][56] The response of church members to their leadership's appeals to donate money and volunteer time was very supportive,[57] such that Latter-day Saints provided a significant source for financial donations in support of the proposition, both inside and outside the State of California.[58] About 45% of out-of-state contributions to ProtectMarriage.com came from Utah, over three times more than any other state.[59] ProtectMarriage, the official proponents of Proposition 8, estimate that about half the donations they received came from Mormon sources, and that "eighty to ninety percent" of the early volunteers going door-to-door were LDS.[60] The The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints produced and broadcast to its congregations a program describing the support of the Proposition, and describing the timeline it proposes for what it describes as grassroots efforts to support the Proposition.[61]

The Mormons were responsible for the passage of Prop 8. Don't believe me, believe the NYT in an article entitled "Mormons Tipped Scale in Ban on Gay Marriage."

In the end, Protect Marriage estimates, as much as half of the nearly $40 million raised on behalf of the measure was contributed by Mormons.

$20 million buys a lot of hate.

More about just how involved the Mormons were in passing Prop 8:

On September 17 and 18, Rosemary Winters of the Salt Lake Tribune called attention to www.Mormonsfor8.com, a website dedicated to tracking Mormon contributions to the pro-Prop 8 website www.ProtectMarriage.com — listed on the LDS Church’s website to facilitate its members’ participation.

“If we could identify every Mormon, I think that probably 85 to 90 percent of the donors would be Mormon,” said website proprietor Nadine Hansen, a 61-year-old, semi-retired lawyer (and non-practicing Mormon) from Cedar City, Utah. (In a subsequent story, Hansen told the AP’s Eric Gorski that she had used campaign records, “tips from site visitors and church members,” and search engines to track down LDS donors.)

On September 20, Mark Schoofs of the Wall Street Journal reported that, in an August conference call, church leaders solicited $25,000 donations from 40 to 60 California Mormons, an amount likely based on their tithing receipts. LDS officials maintained a separate post-office box to handle members’ donations, which were tallied and sent to the campaign.

Of course, this wasn't the Mormons' first time at the gay-bashing ball. They've been doing it for a few decades now, that we know. They reportedly spent over a million dollars fighting the civil rights of gays in Alaska and Hawaii during the 1990s. They also fought our civil rights in Nebraska and Nevada.  And Prop 8 wasn't their first foray into California gay-bashing either.

"I'm a Mormon."

Yeah, and I'm a Mormon victim.

Someone ought to run that ad.  Oh wait, they already did:

Read the rest of this post...

Prop. 8 lawyers want decision overturned because Judge Walker has a boyfriend

The lawyers for California's Prop. 8, who lost in federal court last summer when Judge Vaughn Walker ruled the measure was found unconstitutional, have waged an ongoing effort to thwart the rights of same-sex couples. In the real world, we know the American people are increasingly supportive of marriage equality -- and opponents are in the minority. The trendline is moving in the right direction.

As the American people have become more supportive, the homophobes have become increasingly desperate. Now, they've crossed over to absurdity.

Yesterday, the pro-Prop. 8 side's lawyer, Charles Cooper, filed a motion to overturn last summer's ruling because, get this, Judge Walker has a boyfriend. It's not that Judge Walker's boyfriend is an advocate or was working on the case or was somehow involved in the case. No. Their motion is based on the simple fact that Judge Walker is in a same-sex relationship.

We have more at AMERICAblog Gay. But, the best words to describe this latest effort are desperate and absurd. Read the rest of this post...

Ninth Circuit grants stay of Judge Walker's Prop. 8decision.

The decision was released a short time ago. No marriages in California, for now, anyway. The Ninth Circuit will hear the case in early December.

More at AMERICAblog Gay. Read the rest of this post...

Do the Prop 8 Proponents Have Standing to Appeal?

Note from Joe: With so much discussion about the legal issues relating to Prop. 8, we're quite honored to have Prof. Cruz write this post for us. He's a Professor of Law at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law and is widely regarded an expert on constitutional law and sex, gender, and sexual orientation law. He also writes regularly at his own blog, Cruz Lines.
____________

On Thursday, August 12, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Walker issued his decision  to deny an indefinite stay (here) of his ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional (here).  The $64,000 question now on many people’s minds is, will there be an appeal?  Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown have stated that the government defendants will not appeal.  The official Prop 8 proponents, who intervened in the trial court to defend the measure, have already filed a lengthy “emergency motion” (here) with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

But the plaintiffs and Judge Walker have questioned whether the proponents even have the legal entitlement – “standing” – to appeal Walker’s ruling.  Although the answer is not clear, there is a strong argument that the proponents do not.   And if the Ninth Circuit and possibly the Supreme Court agree, then Judge Walker’s decision on the merits holding Proposition 8 unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement will stand, restoring the freedom to marry to same-sex couples in California.

The question of the proponents’ standing to appeal, or lack thereof, is a complicated one, but it’s grounded in some basic constitutional principles.  Article III of the Constitution limits the federal courts to hearing “cases” or “controversies.”  For some years now the Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that parties asking federal courts to act must have “standing.”  One constitutional requirement for standing is that the party suffer an injury sufficient to give him, her, it, or them an appropriate stake in the dispute.  This injury must be “concrete and particularized,” and it cannot be a mere “generalized grievance.”  It is not enough that people object to the government not following what they believe the law to be; the Supreme Court uses standing doctrine to limit the number of people who have the right to take up the time of the federal judiciary.  As part of this gatekeeping, the Court has said that the federal courts are not to be treated as "a vehicle for the vindication of the value interests of concerned bystanders."  So, parties need to be injured in some way more than just passionately disapproving of what the government is doing if they’re going to be able to have the federal courts pass on their complaints.

These requirements of injury and standing apply in appeals and not just at trial.  So, in a case called Diamond v. Charles in 1986, the Supreme Court rejected an attempt by a pro-life doctor to appeal a decision enjoining parts of Illinois’s abortion-restricting law.  The state government was a defendant at trial, lost, and opted not to appeal.  Pro-life physician Eugene Diamond had intervened as a defendant at trial, and he tried to appeal.  When the case came before the Supreme Court, the Court dismissed his appeal.  The Court held that Diamond did not show that he had personally suffered or been imminently threatened with an adequate injury.  “The presence of a disagreement, however sharp and acrimonious it may be,” the Court ruled, “is insufficient by itself to meet Art. III's requirements.”

The Prop 8 proponents are in the same position.  They intervened at trial to defend the measure they’d qualified for the California ballot because of their value interests in supporting mixed-sex only civil marriage and their sharp disagreement with the plaintiffs about Prop 8’s constitutionality or unconstitutionality, and because the governmental defendants refused to argue that Prop 8 was constitutional.  As in Diamond, the state was the original defendant, it lost, and it has chosen not to appeal; and now the proponents are trying to appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

In addition, in 1997 the Supreme Court decided Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, a case dealing with ballot initiative proponents who wanted to defend their measure in the federal courts.  Because the Court held that subsequent developments made the suit challenging Arizona’s English-only initiative moot, it did not need to rule definitively on whether ballot proponents satisfy constitutional standing requirements.  But, in light of established standards for constitutional “injury,” the Supreme Court expressed “grave doubts” that the proponents would have standing in federal court.

Prop 8’s proponents therefore need some way to get around the force of the Diamond decision and the thoughtful dicta in Arizonans for Official English.  The basic gist of their argument is that, since California court decisions allow official ballot proponents to defend their measures in court, that should be enough special stake in challenges to ballot initiatives to satisfy the Constitution’s “case or controversy” requirement and thereby give them standing in federal court.  (The proponents’ standing or lack thereof didn’t really matter in the trial court because state defendants were present, and it was the state’s law that the plaintiff challenged; they therefore had a case or controversy.  The participation of the Prop 8 proponents at trial was like icing on the Article III cake, but we still need cake for the Ninth Circuit to have an appeal.)

The proponents are trying to rely on decisions allowing legislatures standing to defend their statutes as well as other dicta from Arizonans for Official English.  In Karcher v. May in 1987, the Supreme Court rejected an attempt by former New Jersey legislative leaders to appeal a decision enjoining a state law.  Like here, in Karcher the Attorney General and named governmental defendants refused to defend the law.  So the New Jersey legislature, represented by its then-officers, had intervened to defend the law and lost.  But the legislature refused to appeal, and the Supreme Court held that the officers who by then were former officers did not have standing themselves to appeal.  Arizonans for Official English characterized Karcher as “recogniz[ing] that state legislators have standing to contest a decision holding a state statute unconstitutional if state law authorizes legislators to represent the State’s interests.”

The Prop 8 proponents are arguing that they are like representatives of a state legislature, and that state law (here, California court decisions allowing ballot proponents to defend their measures) should suffice to satisfy constitutional standing requirements.  They argue that this state authorization to defend distinguishes them from the Arizona ballot proponents before the Supreme Court in Arizonans for Official English.

But Arizonans for Official English rejected the relevance of Karcher on the ground that the ballot proponents there “[we]re not elected representatives.”  The same is true of the Prop 8 proponents here.   Although Arizonans for Official English further noted that those proponents lacked state law authorization, the Supreme Court did not hold there or even say that this would be sufficient for constitutional standing.  At most the dictum there suggests that such authorization would be necessary.

This is where the uncertainty comes in.  Will the Ninth Circuit and/or Supreme Court rule that when a state authorizes ballot initiative proponents to defend successfully passed measures in state courts, that gives them enough stake in federal court suits challenging those measures to satisfy constitutional standing requirements?  Should they say that?

Arguably not.  In some of the cases relied upon by the proponents in their appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the state or federal legislatures had acted by majority vote to authorize particular parties to represent the entire legislature.  This afforded a significant limitation on the circumstances in which federal courthouse doors would be thrown open to people who merely disapproved of the way laws were being interpreted or enforced (or not enforced).  Moreover, in other cases relied on by the proponents, like U.S. v. Lovett decided by the Supreme Court in 1946 or Cheng Fan Kwok v. INS decided in 1968, the legislatures actually appeared simply as amicus curiae (“friends of the court”), not actual Article III parties; appellate jurisdiction over those cases was proper because the regular governmental defendants were in the case (even though they may have agreed with the plaintiffs there about aspects of the statutes’ unconstitutionality).  Granted, the Supreme Court’s 1983 decision in INS v. Chadha did allow Congress’s actual intervention as a defendant when the INS did not defend a challenged statute.  But the Court took pains to argue that the dispute there counted as a constitutional “case or controversy” wholly aside from Congress’s participation.

The Prop 8 proponents’ final argument for why they should be able to file an appeal in the Ninth Circuit claims that Judge Walker erred in denying Imperial County and related defendants to intervene in the suit, and that Imperial County would have Article III standing if that ruling were reversed.  It is not clear that Imperial County would have standing were it a party; Walker opined that it would not, and his reasoning seems sensible.

Regardless of the answer to Article III standing question for Imperial County, though, the fact remains that it is not a party.  And Judge Walker’s order denying intervention does not appear to be wrong.  Although Judge Walker did not rely on the tardiness of Imperial County’s motion to intervene, timeliness of a motion to intervene is a legal requirement for a non-party to join a case (whether intervention “as of right” or “permissive” intervention).  The plaintiffs made persuasive arguments that there was no objective justification for Imperial County to have waited as long as it did to move to intervene.  Judge Walker thought that the parties were not prejudiced by this tardiness and there was no evidence of bad faith, but it is not clear that those factors make Imperial County’s motion timely.

Moreover, Walker convincingly concluded that California law does not give local governments like counties interests separate from those of the state.  His analysis of the other elements of the legal test for intervention rights also seems right.  (The Prop 8 proponents’ motion to the Ninth Circuit makes too much of one poorly worded sentence where Walker wrote that “Imperial County’s ministerial duties surrounding marriage are not affected by the constitutionality of Proposition 8.”  But Walker’s opinion makes clear that he meant that the ministerial nature of the duties would not be affected whether or not Prop 8 were upheld or invalidated, and that he fully appreciated that the ministerial duty would be to issue marriage licenses as directed by the State Registrar, who will act based upon the outcome of the litigation challenging Prop 8.)

None of this means that it is impossible for the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court to identify new constitutional standing rules that would empower official ballot proponents like the Prop 8 proponents here, or that those courts could not reject Judge Walker’s eminently reasonable understanding of California law regarding issuance of marriage licenses and somehow find Imperial County to have both a right to intervene and Article III standing to pursue an appeal.  But if existing law is the touchstone, the plaintiff same-sex couples have the advantage here and the Prop 8 proponents should be held not to have standing to appeal in the absence of the state defendants’ deciding to do so themselves.

Cross-posted posted at AMERICAblog Gay. Read the rest of this post...

UPDATE -- BREAKING from CA: Judge Walker has lifted the stay -- but he extended it til Aug. 18

Judge Walker just lifted the stay on his Prop. 8 decision. Marriages are now legal in California again -- and will start soon. Couples have been lining up in San Francisco and West Hollywood.

UPDATE: Looks like marriages won't begin now:

That judgment shall be STAYED until August 18, 2010 at 5 PM PDT at which time defendants and all persons under their control or supervision shall cease to apply or enforce Proposition 8.

The delay provides an opportunity for the Prop. 8 supporters to seek a stay from the Ninth Circuit. Unclear if that will happen. Absent a stay from that body, marriages can begin on August 18, 2010 at 5:00 PM PDT.

Here's the Judge's order:
Final Stay Order Read the rest of this post...

When David Boies destroyed Tony Perkins on 'Face the Nation'

I watched the debate between Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council and Prop. 8 lawyer David Boies live this morning on "Face the Nation." It was great t.v. I posted it AMERICAblog Gay, too.

Boies didn't let Perkins get away with spewing falsehoods and lies. After Perkins spewed the usual right-wing anti-gay rhetoric, Boies let him have it:

"In a court of law you've got to come in and you've got to support those opinions, you've got to stand up under oath and cross-examination," Boies said. "And what we saw at trial is that it's very easy for the people who want to deprive gay and lesbian citizens of the right to vote [sic] to make all sorts of statements and campaign literature, or in debates where they can't be cross-examined.

"But when they come into court and they have to support those opinions and they have to defend those opinions under oath and cross-examination, those opinions just melt away. And that's what happened here. There simply wasn't any evidence, there weren't any of those studies. There weren't any empirical studies. That's just made up. That's junk science. It's easy to say that on television. But a witness stand is a lonely place to lie. And when you come into court you can't do that.

"That's what we proved: We put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost," Boies said.

Seriously, anyone who is going to debate any of the right-wing homophobes should watch this interview and learn from Boies.
Read the rest of this post...

Plaintiffs, Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown ask Walker to end the stay of Prop. 8 decision

There was a lot of legal activity late yesterday in the Prop. 8 case. Several parties, including the plaintiffs, the Governor of California and the state's Attorney General asked Judge Walker to end the stay on the decision.

From Karen Ocamb, who has the background on the plaintiffs action:

The legal team of David Boies and Ted Olson (pictured here with American Foundation for Equal Rights’ Chad Griffin) filed their motion asking Judge Walker to lift his stay on allowing Prop 8 to be struck down as unconstitutional.

And, via the San Francisco Chronicle, Arnold wants the same thing:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called today for the immediate restoration of same-sex marriage in California, urging the federal judge who overturned Proposition 8 to impose his ruling while the case moves through the higher courts.

Allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry "is consistent with California's long history of treating all people and their relationships with equal dignity and respect," said a legal brief written on behalf of Schwarzenegger.

Earlier this week, several people reminded me on Twitter that Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed marriage legislation -- twice. He wouldn't defend the case either, even though he's a named plaintiff. Seems like he's really trying to redeem himself -- or something.

Also, the Attorney General of California (and Democratic candidate for Governor) Jerry Brown:

Attorney General Jerry Brown, who is running for governor, also filed arguments Friday against extending a stay of Walker's ruling. Referring to the ban on same-sex marriage, Brown's filing stated that "the public interest weighs against its continued enforcement."

If Judge Walker lifts the stay, marriages can begin. But, the other side will appeal that decision to the Circuit Court.

One thing is clear: this became an issue in the races for Governor and Attorney General of California.

Here's the motion from the plaintiffs. It's actually a good read, which can't often be said for legal documents:
Prop. 8 Plaintiffs Opp to Motion for Stay Read the rest of this post...

Mixner: 'If there was anyone that should sit down and read this opinion it would be this son of an interracial couple'

For any who might not know, David Mixner is an old friend of Bill Clinton who stood up Clinton, and even got himself arrested outside the White House, over DADT. David has put a lot on the line for the movement, and as he noted the other day, he never did get that invite to Chelsea's wedding (point being: David sacrificed a friendship with one of the most powerful men in the world for our rights).

David is a powerful speaker, and writer. If you ever get the chance to see him speak in person, do. Here's what David has to say about the Prop 8 decision and our current president:

After the Proposition 8 historic decision came down on Wednesday, my email box was flooded with people from every walk of life issuing press releases praising the victory. The Republican Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger couldn't be more excited for the LGBT community in our victory. Justice and equality was having a good day and everyone was basking in it.

Well, not quite everyone. Our President, our fierce advocate, continued with a game of giving us begrudgingly congratulations in a tepid unemotional and uninspired statement while sending his minions out to make sure the entire country knew that he was against marriage equality. If there was anyone that should sit down and read this opinion it would be this son of an interracial couple who had to go to Supreme Court to obtain marriage equality.

Unfortunately, he didn't even mention the court case in his two line statement. However, David Axelrod found plenty of time to go on national television to make sure the country knew that Obama was against marriage equality. Then there was the cowardly "nameless source" who said the President would only deal with those actions at the federal level such as benefits and things.

This game has to stop. The President is either with us or against us. If he is neutral, so be it but then stop hurting us by saying over and over how marriage equality is between a man and a women.

Read the rest of this post...

Married three times, Newt doesn't like the Prop. 8 decision

It would be hysterical if it weren't so hypocritical. I posted his statement here. And, mocked it there, too. Newt thinks marriage should be the union of one man and three consecutive women. Read the rest of this post...

Reactions to the historic Prop. 8 decision (updated)

First, the most important reaction we won't hear is from President Obama. That has to change. Please sign our open letter to President Obama asking him to come out in support of full marriage equality. It's time.

[UPDATE, via Kerry Eleveld, the White House did put out a statement:

“The President has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans.”

Note to White House: Obama can truly promote LGBT equality by supporting marriage and by ending the defense of DOMA and DADT in courts.

NOTE FROM JOHN: Wow, really? Did the White House just say that they agreed with the federal court's reasoning that "no rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license." Really? I doubt it. I think the White House just tried to have its cake and eat it too - sound supportive, but not dare embrace the decision itself. But now that they've weighed in, and tried to make it look like they're on our side in this case - they are such great self-proclaimed champions of LGBT equality, they'd have you remember - it's time for the White House to answer the question, do they agree with the ruling or not? Maybe you should sign our open letter to the President and ask him.]

And, it's a big day so we're cross-posting on both sites.

We're getting a ton of statements via email. Here's a sampling. We'll keep adding to it. Also, the decision has been stayed until August 6th, via Lisa Keen.

Ted Olson:

"We came to court to seek for Kris, Sandy, Paul and Jeff the same right to marry that all other Americans enjoy, and to ensure that they receive equal protection under the law as guaranteed to every American by the Constitution. Through its decision today, the court has acted in the best traditions of a legal system established to uphold the Constitution and the principles of equality upon which this nation was founded. On no less than 14 occasions, the Supreme Court has held that marriage is a fundamental right. This decision recognizes that Proposition 8 denied the plaintiffs, and tens-of-thousands of other Californians, that fundamental constitutional right and treated them unequally."

David Boies:

“The Supreme Court has long held that marriage is a fundamental right. Equal protection under the law is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, and this ruling affirms that universal right of every American. Depriving the fundamental right to marry causes grievous harm to millions of Americans and their children.”

Governor Schwarzenegger, who is the defendant in the case, but didn't defend it. (Meaning we need to make sure that Jerry Brown is elected Governor. GOPer Meg Whitman supported Prop. 8):

"For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves. At the same time, it provides an opportunity for all Californians to consider our history of leading the way to the future, and our growing reputation of treating all people and their relationships with equal respect and dignity.

"Today's decision is by no means California's first milestone, nor our last, on America's road to equality and freedom for all people.'

Congressman Paul Hodes (also a candidate for Senate in New Hampshire):

The U.S. District Court of Northern California's decision to strike down Proposition 8 is a huge win in our ongoing fight for equality.

There is much work still to be done, and many more battles to face – but the march toward universal marriage equality continues. It's time that the Defense of Marriage Act was repealed once and for all. When I get to the US Senate, I will lead the charge to repeal DOMA and ensure equal rights and protections for every citizen in this country.

I am thrilled with today’s ruling, and more determined than ever to repeal DOMA and help achieve universal marriage equality for all Americans.

Activist Charlene Strong:

“Today’s ruling is very good news. LGBT rights are not special rights. These are human rights. Anyone who says otherwise, that all citizens are not entitled full equality in our country is speaking from their own personal bias and nothing more. This has nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with who you love.... I am an American and I am proud of that. I am not fighting for my rights alone -- I am standing up and fighting for every gay and lesbian couple who pay their taxes, contribute to society and who want the same protections every other American is afforded if and when they choose to marry."

Rick Jacobs from the Courage Campaign:

"This ruling is an historic milestone for millions of loving families, for all who have fought to realize the dream of equality under the law, and for our nation as a whole. While today concludes the first step in a legal process that could take up to two years, Judge Walker's ruling is a landmark victory in America's centuries long war against discrimination, and the result of months of extraordinary work by the American Foundation for Equal Rights, Attorneys David Boies and Ted Olson, and courageous plaintiffs Kris Perry, Sandy Stier, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo."

Former White House Chief of Staff, now President of the Center for American Progress (CAP) John Podesta:

"Judge Walker’s decision reaffirms the Constitution’s command that all Americans must receive ‘equal protection of the laws.’ Prop 8 is incompatible with our Constitution and a long line of precedent rejecting laws that single out a certain class of Americans for disfavored legal status. Today’s decision does nothing more than restore the Constitution’s promise to millions of American couples. Because Constitutional precedent so clearly rejects Prop 8, I have every confidence that this decision will be upheld on appeal."

Evan Wolfson, Freedom to Marry:

"Today's federal ruling strikes down a cruel and unfair constitutional amendment that should never have become law and affirms that the freedom to marry belongs to every American. As the first court to strike down race restrictions on marriage said in 1948, "the essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage with the person of one's choice." There is no gay exception in the Constitution to personal choice and the right to marry, and there is no good reason to continue excluding same-sex couples from marriage.

Judge Walker's decision will be appealed and litigation will continue, but what we witnessed in the clear light of his courtroom cannot be erased.

Judy Shepard:

After Matt came out to me, he once asked me if I thought gay couples would ever be allowed to get married. I told him I didn't think it would happen in my lifetime, but it probably would in his. It's so sad, and ironic, that it turned out the other way. But this case warms my heart, to think that his dream is still coming true.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (who, though straight, is the best LGBT member of Congress):

“Today’s court ruling on Proposition 8 is a powerful declaration for those of us who believe in equal protection for all Americans. This affirmation of marriage equality in our nation’s most populous state shows, once again, that laws preventing same-sex couples from marrying serve no legitimate purpose, and that efforts to deprive gay men and lesbians of fundamental rights and to single them out for discrimination are anathema to our constitutional system. As Judge Walker recognized, like opposite-sex couples, ‘same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners . . . . love [does] not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex.’ I join Californians in celebrating this victory, and urge passage of my legislation, the Respect for Marriage Act, in order to provide all legally married Americans and their families the full measure of protections and obligations of federal law.”

DNC Chair Tim Kaine:

I applaud the U.S. District Court’s ruling today striking down Proposition 8 in California. The Democratic Party opposes attempts to discriminatorily limit rights granted to Americans, and Proposition 8 was just such an attempt. Discrimination against same-sex couples should not be added to constitutions – which are documents meant fundamentally to protect citizens against discrimination. As a former civil rights attorney, it pleases me to see this principle upheld and to see America take another step in the march towards greater equality.

Statements from the Task Force is here. HRC's is here. Read the rest of this post...

BREAKING: Prop. 8 is unconstitutional

(Please sign our open letter to President Obama asking him to come out in support of full marriage equality.)

A victory for equality today.

More details as they unfold. We'll be updating regularly at AMERICAblog Gay and here.

We know one thing for sure: We're heading to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.

UPDATE: Here's Judge Walker's conclusion:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Read the rest of this post...

A personal take on the Prop 8 lawsuit taking place in California today

From Liz Newcomb, our new writer over on AMERICAblog Gay:

When my wife Lynne and I were deciding whether to get married here in California, Prop 8 loomed in our consciousness. Lynne thought Prop 8 would fail and wanted to hold off on our wedding until spring when we could properly plan it. I was not so confident, and wanted to make sure we married before the election. I thought that if Prop 8 did pass, there was a very slim chance that our marriage might be grandfathered in.

So I persuaded Lynne to do a small ceremony with a handful of people to make it official, and then a larger one with friends and family in the spring. I’m not sure if she agreed with my prudence, was just humoring me, or liked the idea of having two weddings. But that is what we did. We married in September ’08 on a backpacking trip in the Sierra Nevada mountains. Then we had another, much larger wedding in March ’09 in Topanga Canyon near Malibu....

The current situation in California is unique. The Supreme Court reiterated post-Prop 8 in Strauss v. Horton that same-sex couples are entitled to enjoy all the rights the state can confer that opposite-sex couples enjoy, except for the right to call their unions marriages, and except for the exception to the exception, that same-sex couples who were married during the window would still be permitted to be married. To describe the situation is to highlight the absurdity of it.

Read the rest of this post...

Movement under way in California to ban divorce

This is good. Read the rest of this post...

Mormon anti-gay activists, who have their own recent history of racism, now say they're just like southern blacks during the civil rights movement

Which might be true, if southern blacks believed that God gave black people dark skin to punish them for being evil. Otherwise, not so much.

It's so hard to be a bigot in America these days. Read the rest of this post...

Married GOP Prop 8 supporter who accidentally bragged on open mic about numerous adulterous affairs - JUST RESIGNED

UPDATE: He's gone.

His name is Michael Duvall, and he's in charge of the ethics committee. He also sounds like he's a fan of unprotected sex.

The Courage Campaign (via press release) wants a criminal investigation:

After California Assemblyman Michael Duvall (R-Orange County) was caught making obscene boasts about sex with married lobbyists on a live microphone in committee meeting, the 700,000-member Courage Campaign called on Attorney General Jerry Brown to investigate.

"This isn't just a sex scandal, it's a corruption scandal," said Rick Jacobs, Courage Campaign founder and chair.

"A vice-chairman of the Committee on Utilities and Commerce was literally in bed with Sempra Energy's lobbyist. Assemblyman Duvall's 'sex for votes' affairs have cheated Californians out of honest government. We call on the attorney general to investigate Mr. Duvall to see if he can be prosecuted for selling his votes."

Read the rest of this post...

Ted Olson/David Boies Prop. 8 case has a trial date: January 11, 2010

The trial date in the federal case against California's Prop. 8 has been set for January 11, 2010. Also, the federal judge precluded advocacy groups from intervening.

This is the case brought by superstar lawyers David Boies and Ted Olson working with the American Foundation for Equal Rights. Olson, who served as George W. Bush's Solicitor General, is profiled in today's NY Times. Some of Olson's right wing friends aren't happy that he's taken this case, but he doesn't seem to mind at all. Read the rest of this post...

When Republicans are better than Democrats on gay rights, the Democratic Party had better take notice

Governor Schwarzenegger in California has just announced that he won't be defending Prop 8, the anti-gay measure that repealed same-sex marriages in that state, in federal court. Compare that profile in courage to our own White House, with the loyal assistance of formerly gay Congressman Barney Frank, who together now claim that elected officials who oppose anti-gay legislation in court are no better than lawless Republicans, and that the only way to be better than the Republicans is to out-anti-gay them.

All snark aside, it's a sad day in America, and a dangerous day for the Democratic party, when Republicans are better than Democrats - and straight people are better than gay people - on defending gay civil rights. But kudos to Arnold. Sometimes it takes an immigrant to show us what an real American is. Read the rest of this post...

A reader weighs in on Obama, the Tiller murder and Prop 8

Jim from California writes in about the murder of pro-choice doctor George Tiller:

Obama's push for understanding and for a mushy centrism is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, the extremists on the right. Prop 8 succeeded in part because of his "leadership" which empowers bigots. It's, "Hey, if Obama can be against gay marriage and be OK as a Democrat and a black man, then so can I." Or, "If Obama can oppose abortion, then that is a pretty legitimate point of view." As we have discussed before here and elsewhere, relating to the media, there just are NOT two legitimate sides to every social issue. Obama needs to choose and to lead. He is the President for God's sake and he must use the bully pulpit to bully, to lead on significant social issues not to cop out. Neutrality supports the status quo and is thus the right wing position.

Read the rest of this post...