Instead of citing the actual ruling, Focus lawyer Bruce Hausknecht parroted ProtectMarriage.org’s hasty rationale for a stay. Hausknecht is most interested in the stay request’s reference to Adams v. Howerton, a 1982 immigration case involving a same-sex couple that was based not upon federal family law, but upon a 1952 immigration law’s definition of foreign spouse.
Seeing a flimsy opportunity for profit, Focus breathlessly concludes:
Apparently, the 9th Circuit has already decided as a matter of law that there is a “rational basis” for a duly-enacted law that favors heterosexual marriage over homosexual marriage.
In short, Hausknecht parrots a false precedent from a sister political organization’s distortion of an unrelated field of law, and presents the antiquated distortion of history as if it were accepted case law.
Hausknecht then insinuates that Judge Vaughn Walker has recklessly ignored immigration rulings that Focus incompetently claims are “binding” upon U.S. citizens — and that may well be found unconstitutional, as U.S. society has become less bigoted against citizen women, blacks, religious minorities, and legal immigrants since 1952.
Focus on the Family clearly wishes it were still 1952, when all people were equal — but only if they were white, male, Christian, and of European descent. Maybe if they close their eyes, open their wallets, pray in “tongues,” and shout such irrational pseudo-legal babble loud enough, then a miracle will happen, their wallets will fill up, and it will be 1952 when they open their eyes.
As lawyer David Boies points out to CBS News, Perry vs. Schwarzenegger dealt a serious blow to the junk science of the ex-gay movement.
Challenged to produce empirical evidence of the inferiority and changeability of homosexual orientation, the Christian Right defenders of Proposition 8 failed — because their “science” doesn’t exist.
August 4, 2010, is a historic day in this latter day civil rights battle. Bear in mind, of course, that this is long from over, but Judge Walker’s ruling is fairly extensive, finding Prop. 8 unconstitutional both on equal protection and due process grounds. Also, Walker applied both the strict scrutiny standard and rational basis and found the proponents’ arguments wanting. I’ll post more when I’ve had a chance both to read it for myself and bounce it off my lawyer friends, but for now, courtesy of Jeremy, here is the ruling.
UPDATE: WOW, and immediately the sad, threatened little trolls come out! Well, welcome. We’ll never try to take away your rights. My commenters will make you look stupid, though.
UPDATE II: Will post more Detailed Analysissoon, but for now, here’s Choire Sicha on what will happen when this goes to the Ninth Circuit:
This means it is off to the fun-loving Ninth Circuit, where they will literally laugh in the faces of the anti-gay-marriage folks! And possibly write a decision in the form of a sissy bounce video or something.
OMG, I can’t wait!
UPDATE III: God, I’m totally Greenwalding this post with updates. Joe Jervis points out that the commenters at Free Republic are already advocating the murder of gays. Nice.
UPDATE IV: Governor Schwarzenegger Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Ruling
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today issued the following statement after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker issued a ruling invalidating Proposition 8:
“Judge Walker had the great responsibility of deciding whether Proposition 8 violates the Constitution of the United States. He heard in-depth arguments from both sides on fundamental questions of due process, equal protection and freedom from discrimination. There are strong feelings on both sides of this issue, and I am glad that all viewpoints were respected throughout the proceedings. We should also recognize that there will continue to be different points of view in the wake of this decision.
“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.’
UPDATE V: The National Organization for Marriage Responds:
Dear Marriage Supporter,
Moments ago, in a burst of unprecedented judicial arrogance, Judge Walker struck down California’s Prop 8:
This is a ruling that not only ignores the clear, legally-enacted will of the people of California, but jeopardizes the marriage laws of 45 states and threatens to strip millions of Americans of our core civil right to vote for marriage. We will fight back! Details to follow . . . .
Brian S. Brown
UPDATE VI: President Obama’s 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.”
UPDATE VII: Wingnut reactions to the ruling, by the way, are in a separate post, so go there if you’re interested.
Among other disclosures: The Liberty Counsel, which has offered to help Rekers sue his critics, used Rekers’ fraudulent antigay testimony in proceedings to ban marriage for gay people in California.
AP writer Lisa Leff reports on Mayor Jerry Sanders’ testimony in the Prop 8 trial in the mayor’s hometown newspaper, The San Diego Union-Tribune:
The mayor of San Diego testified Tuesday that his views on same-sex marriage evolved after he learned one of his daughters was a lesbian.
Mayor Jerry Sanders took the witness stand on behalf of two same-sex couples suing to overturn Proposition 8, California’s voter-approved gay marriage ban.
“I had been prejudiced,” he said. “I was saying one group of people did not deserve the same respect, did not deserve the same symbolism of marriage, and I was saying their marriages were less important than those of heterosexuals.”
During Sanders’ testimony this morning, the video of the Republican mayor’s reversal of his position on marriage equality was played.
During an emotion-laden press conference in 2007, Sanders revealed that several members of his staff and his daughter, Lisa, are gay. Said the Mayor, “In the end, I could not look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships ‚Äî their very lives ‚Äî were any less meaningful than the marriage that I share with my wife, Rana.”
When San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera asked Sanders why he was so emotional in the video, Sanders replied, “I felt I came very close to making a bad decision. I came very close to showing the prejudice I obviously had toward my daughter to my staff and to the people of San Diego.”
“If government tolerates discrimination against anyone it is very easy for citizens to do the same thing,” said Sanders.
Pro-Prop 8 attorney Brian Raum seemed intent on convincing Sanders that his earlier position in support of civil unions was not a hostile one and didn’t communicate hatred toward the LGBT community ‚Äî the crux of the trial.
Sanders replied, “I feel like my thoughts were grounded in prejudice, but I don’t feel like I communicated hatred.”
In March 2009, during the city’ Eve of Justice rally the night before the California Supreme Court began considering Proposition 8, Mayor Saunders announced the engagement of his daughter, Lisa Sanders, to her partner, Meaghan Yaple. They were married by a justice of the peace in Vermont last December.
If you’re an anti-gay pastor watcher like me, you’re well aware that San Diego area radical clerics Miles McPherson and Jim Garlow relish both the spotlight and the media attention that comes hand-in-hand with being two of California’s better known anti-LGBT advocates.
When he’s not mentoring young Christians like former beauty queen turned soft-porn celebrity Carrie Prejean, Pastor McPherson of San Diego’s Rock Church is happy to take the stage to preach against LGBT rights, as he did in November 2008 at TheCall ‚Äî an anti-marriage-equality extravaganza held at Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego shortly before the 2008 election. McPherson, according to Jeremy Hooper, writing at the Good As You blog, claimed “he and his followers are not ‘freaks’ who hate gays. They are really exterminators called upon to rid the world of satanic roaches.” (Read More)
Since the Supreme Court has effectively censored video coverage of the Proposition 8 marriage trial, at least until Wednesday, Truth Wins Out supports the efforts of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, Fed Court Junkie, and others to broadcast the trial live via Twitter.
You may visit AFER’s direct feed here. Go here for Fed Court Junkie or read it below. (Read More)
Today, the big federal marriage case in California, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, begins. In a San Francisco courtroom, ideological opposites David Boies (liberal) and Ted Olson (conservative) will team up to overturn the insidious Proposition 8. So far, they have made a persuasive case in the media, pointing out that:
a) Same-sex marriage does not harm heterosexual marriages.
b) The procreation argument does not hold up and allowing people to marry the same sex does not limit population. People marry for a variety of reasons, not necessarily to create an extended family. It is interesting that our opponents never bring into the procreation argument hetero older married couples or younger married couples who are unable to have or choose not to have children. Why do they not have the same problem with those marriages as they do with GLBT marriages.
c) The current prohibition is discriminatory, fueled by animus and exacts harm on LGBT individuals and their families.
d) The only argument that supporters of Proposition really have is that such discrimination is part of our tradition. Boies and Olson have articulated in eloquent fashion that just because a tradition has gone on for a long time does not make it right or just. They point to discrimination against Jews, interracial couples and women – all of which had gone on (and continues to) for centuries. As I have pointed out in the past, there is a difference between “traditional values” and “valueless traditions.”
To win Proposition 8, our opponents resorted to fear tactics and outright lies using despicable, negative attack ads. Without this fear-mongering tool to trick the masses, our foes are realizing they may not do well in court. They understand that they have no rational arguments and that they are intellectually bankrupt.
To make up for this coherency deficit, Proposition 8 supporters are claiming “bias” because the trial is opening in San Francisco. Interestingly, these whiners had no problem claiming home field advantage when the our marriages were put up for a vote in ultra-conservative states. One might call having places like Arkansas, Kentucky and Alabama changing their state constitutions to prohibit gay couples from marrying a gratuitous and cowardly act of bullying by a majority. So, I really don’t want to hear about the trial being held in San Francisco. Wing nuts must realize that they can’t always have all the advantages.
Social conservatives are also regurgitating the lie that because the trial will be filmed and made available on the Internet, it may cause potential harm to witnesses.
“To top it all off, Judge Walker has determined that this case will be the first in the Ninth Circuit to allow cameras in the courtroom, with the proceedings posted on YouTube” writes Edwin Meese III in today’s New York Times. “This will expose supporters of Proposition 8 who appear in the courtroom to the type of vandalism, harassment and bullying attacks already used by some of those who oppose the proposition.”
Of course, this is hogwash. Perhaps, Meese confused the “plight” of these witnesses with another Times story today discussing the opening of Scott Roeder’s trial – the religious zealot who murdered Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller in his church. However, opponents of Proposition 8 have never displayed the violence committed by religious extremists, as much as the Prop 8 supporters try to make it appear to be true. (Even today there is a “debate” over whether killing Tiller was morally justified)
In reality, all that was ever hurt were the feelings of Prop 8 supporters who were rightfully confronted by their neighbors who asked: “Why did you vote to take away my rights? Why did you leave our children in limbo without married parents?”
The truth is, Proposition 8 supporters do not want this trial televised because deep down they are ashamed by their own bigotry. They are allergic to the TV lights, because it will expose their inner-darkness. I really don’t blame them for not wanting their views exposed to a national audience. Not only will it look like they formed their discriminatory ideas with their heads in their posterior, but they will look quite awful for posterity. They realize, on some level, that history will not judge them well. Their grandchildren will regard them with great embarrassment and shame.
I wish Boies and Olson much luck and Truth Wins Out thanks them for the strong case they have made so far. They have undeniably shown that LGBT equality is not a liberal or conservative issue – but an American one. This trial is about the values of our nation, who we are and will we live up to our creed of liberty and justice for all people.
When I was 11 years old and entering Middle School my family moved from Miami to Alief, a suburb of Houston. Only days before my first Christmas in Texas, a large high school student wearing cowboy boots and chewing tobacco confronted me.
“You a Jew?” he angrily inquired. “How could you people not believe in Jesus after you murdered him? Did you know it’s Jesus’ birthday? If Jesus Christ ain’t the son of God, who the hell is?”
This is the type of pressure often faced by non-Christians in conservative school districts. There can sometimes be an enormous amount of coercion to conform to the majority view, particualrly around Christmas, when the “Jesus is the reason for the season” crowd, wants to let non-Christians know they are an alien species in a “Christian Nation. While I am certain things have improved since I was 11, in 1981, there are still pockets of bigotry and religious intolerance in America.
As recognition that religious majorities often make religious minorities feel left out, as well as to follow that pesky “separation of church and state” rule that keeps our country free, we don’t use public schools to shove religion down the throats of pupils. Not only would doing so be illegal, but it is also rude and obnoxious behavior – violating the spirit of Christmas.
Unfortunately, not everyone is smart enough to understand the wisdom of ensuring that our public schools are not turned into private fundamentalist church services. A terribly misguided substitute teacher in Redding, Calif., Merry Hyatt, is sponsoring a ballot initiative that would require all public schools in California to give children the opportunity to sing or listen to religious Christmas carols.
“For years and years, maybe one person has been able to ruin it for an entire school,” Hyatt said. “It’s not right. I think it’s the majority’s turn.”
Hyatt is mindlessly promoting a myopic and shortsighted idea designed to make non-Christians uncomfortable in the hope they will convert to Christianity in order to feel accepted and fit in. Portraying religious minorities as the Grinch who stole Christmas is also exploitative, because students are a captive audience who would have no choice but to endure unwanted proselytizing – sometimes at the hands of older, larger tobacco spitting students in cowboy boots.
Of course, the unspoken subtext is that such bullying is precisely what people like Hyatt are truly after. They want consequences to be paid for anyone who is not a fundamentalist or for GLBT students, who would also face increased persecution in a more religious public school atmosphere, given that faiths practiced in conservative areas are largely anti-gay.
People like Hyatt worship mob rule as long as they are in the majority, where they can force their sectarian views onto others. I’m not sure how tolerant people of her ilk would be if, for example, a majority Muslim public school in Dearborn, Michigan, forced Christians to celebrate Ramadan. Or, a majority Catholic public school made a picture of the Pope mandatory in classrooms. How about a majority Jewish school jettisoning Christmas songs in favor of Hanukkah ditties? What about a New Age Winter celebration in liberal public schools at the expense of Christmas altogether?
“It’s sad and it’s wrong to have a Christmas party and not mention Jesus,” said Hyatt. “It’s his birthday.”
The undeniable fact is, Hyatt can sing religious songs at any moment of her choosing, when she is off the clock. She can attend church every day of the week if she wants to. So, clearly, this is not about religious freedom, nor is it about Hyatt being denied her ability to practice her faith.
No, this is about her not being content to practice her faith privately, and having a predatory desire to inflict her beliefs on others without their consent. This is about her wanting to use public money to peddle her religious ideas on public property – which is paid for by all of us.
Prior to her stint as a substitute teacher, Hyatt taught at a Christian school for a year. This, of course, was the proper venue for her cloying need to indoctrinate children and hammer home her narrow worldview. Instead, she wants to obliterate parents’ rights, by subjecting children to religious dogma and a conservative worldview that violates the beliefs of many mothers and fathers.
Under her proposed measure, students who don’t want to participate, or whose parents don’t want them to participate, could be excused.
“They can have a holiday party in the other room,” she said. “Or if they don’t want a party, they can have social studies or some other learning experience.”
Yes, of course they could, and be heckled and treated like heathen freaks by their peers…just the way intolerant zealots like Hyatt want it to be.
Instead of citing the actual ruling, Focus lawyer Bruce Hausknecht parroted ProtectMarriage.org’s hasty rationale for a stay. Hausknecht is most interested in the stay request’s reference to Adams v. Howerton, a 1982 immigration case involving a same-sex couple that was based not upon federal family law, but upon a 1952 immigration law’s definition of foreign spouse.
Hyatt is mindlessly promoting a myopic and shortsighted idea designed to make non-Christians uncomfortable in the hope they will convert to Christianity in order to feel accepted and fit in. Portraying religious minorities as the Grinch who stole Christmas is also exploitative, because students are a captive audience who would have no choice but to endure unwanted proselytizing – sometimes at the hands of older, larger tobacco spitting students in cowboy boots.
