Great news! Proposition 8 was again ruled unconstitutional today by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California. This is great news for LGBT people, couples, and families across the country; these discriminatory, malicious, bigoted, mean-spirited, un-American laws are one step closer to being permanently consigned to the dustbin of history. Onward!

It comes from Lyle Denniston at the SCOTUSblog.  The whole thing is an interesting read, but I wanted to highlight this:

If there was a surprise, it was that the one judge on the three-judge panel known as a conservative, Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith, found a possibly fatal flaw in logic in support of the ban. What is rational, Judge Smith asked, about a state giving gay and lesbian couples complete equality in the legal rights and benefits that married couples have, including the right to raise children, but then to deny them marriage itself. The state’s voters, he said, had just opted to omit a single word, “marriage,” and how is that rational? He seemed skeptical of the response by Charles Cooper, Proposition 8 lawyer, that “it is a word that is essentially the institution; you cannot separate the two.”

But, however Judge Smith might vote on the constitutionality of the ban, if the panel gets to that, it seemed clear that his two colleagues, Circuit Judges Stephen R. Reinhardt and Michael Daly Hawkins would nullify the ban, provided they could do so without having to write a sweeping opinion that established a national constitutional right of gay marriage. At most, they seemed inclined only to rule that California had first allowed a right to same-sex marriage, then took it away by singling out gays and lesbians for the loss of an existing right — a targeted exclusion that could only have resulted from bias.

Read it all.

My personal favorite moment, on a lighter note, was when Ted Olson told the judges that, if the Prop 8 proponents’ argument that gay couples should be denied equality in order to protect children from being exposed to sexuality too early, we would also have to constitutionally ban comic books, television and children having conversations with other children.

[h/t Andrew Sullivan]

Misogyny is entrenched in both the Protestant and Catholic forms of conservative Christian faith. Indeed, the Catholic Church remains a fully misogynistic force, committed to the inferiority of women the world over. The conservative branches of the Presbyterian church trust women so little that they’re often not even allowed to teach Sunday School without their husbands present. Part of the reason conservative Christians are so fervently opposed to marriage equality is that, even though women gained equal status in marriage years ago, for the law to unequivocally state that the genders of two people making a marriage contract are irrelevant makes it all the more difficult for them to propagate in their own homes and communities that women are best served when they’re subservient. The current state of this country’s financial affairs is also doing its part in making their lives difficult, but that’s another story.

If you’ve ever been to a conservative church, you might have heard a long-drawn out sermon about how Paul’s words in the Bible about women’s subservience are actually the BEST thing for a woman, because they ALSO specify that the husband is to look after her needs above all else. It might not even sound evil, until you realize that they’re simply putting a new coat of paint on the idea that The Man Is In Control, Period, End of Story.

And what happens when women don’t know their place? Well, they just might end up using their silly emotion-based “reasoning” to weaken their otherwise studly, steadfast, righteous penis-having husbands, that’s what!

I bring this all up because the National Organization for Marriage, the front group for the officially misogynistic Catholic Church, has suddenly come up with a new reason why Ted Olson supports marriage equality: Why, it was that liberal bitch wife of his!

How did Mr. Federalist Society decide it’s okay to use the U.S. Constitution to require gay marriage? The New York Times is reporting that his new young Democrat wife may be a key reason.

The NOM writer then links to a piece from Ed Whelan at the National Review, wherein he quotes an article from The New York Times:

“Lady could not have been more supportive of this,” Mr. Olson said in an interview shortly before Vaughn R. Walker, chief judge of the United States District Court hearing the case, ruled on Aug. 4 that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. “And she’s certainly influenced my views — her ideas, her approach, her feelings.”

When Mr. Olson teamed with Mr. Boise in 2009, much of the politerati was shocked to hear that the conservative stalwart was working alongside his former rival in Bush v. Gore, to defend the right of gays to marry. In fact, supporters of Proposition 8 had themselves tentatively approached Mr. Olson about arguing their side of the case.

But his wife said that anyone who knows him well — not to mention anyone who knows her at all — understands that for Mr. Olson and his fierce libertarian streak, gay marriage was an issue “of right and wrong, justice and injustice, and discrimination is something that offends at any time.”

“He would have never been able to take the other side,” she said, before adding with a laugh, “He wouldn’t have had a wife after that!”

She continued: “After eight years of knowing Ted, I thought this is something I can jump into with two feet, really sink my teeth into, and we can do this together.”

Whelan ends by essentially saying, “No comment.”

Whether Ted Olson’s wife has indeed influenced his views is immaterial. The significant thing here is the sneering tone that NOM and Ed Whelan take toward the concept of a woman influencing her husband’s views. Do the Olsons not know that the Haver of Woman Parts is supposed to shut her mouth and let her husband navigate all things involving thinking, morals and principles? Do they not know that if she is allowed to talk enough, she could unleash a disaster of epic proportions on the country? Although these principles might work in special cases in certain families where the female spouse is clearly insane — perhaps if Maggie Gallagher’s husband took a more dominant role in their household, for instance — they are, across the board, asinine principles, implying as they so clearly do that women should be seen and clearly not heard.

Always remember, when you watch anti-gay folks arguing, to look for the signs of their continuing support for the repression of women.  They are always there, lurking just slightly under the surface.  One of the most common examples, and it happens every election cycle, is when conservative Republican men sneer resentfully about the fact that women, across the board, lean far more Democratic than men do.  This reinforces their (hilariously stupid) belief that conservative men are the most mature members of society, and that the rest of us need their holy guidance.

Thanks, but we’ll pass.

[h/t Kyle]

Ted Olson is a bit of a superstar in the gay rights world right now, and quite rightly.  It’s useful to remember two things, though:

1.  Ted Olson is a conservative, in every way.

2.  Ted Olson’s wife, Barbara, was killed on 9/11.

That being said, here are his spot-on thoughts on the planned Muslim community center in Lower Manhattan:

[h/t Joe.My.God]

From Think Progress:

David Boies on Face the Nation

Weekly Column

If there is one term the gay and lesbian movement should consider banishing it is “movable middle”, which refers to fence sitting heterosexuals who can be persuaded to support equality. This phrase is a misnomer, because it implies that people must leave the mainstream and join a “wing” if they conclude that anti-gay discrimination is unjust.

The concept of a “movable middle” on gay rights is just as absurd as offering a similar designation for those who are enlightened and have overcome racism or Anti-Semitism. This fictitious category is really just shorthand for people who haven’t thought through LGBT equality or do not see how it impacts their lives.

So, what we are really talking about is a large group of individuals, of all political stripes, who are not conscious of the harm their silence is causing innocent people. Thus, the key to success becomes transforming the apathetic into the energetic by imparting a deeper understanding and connection to this issue. And this is happening more every day.

For instance, ultraconservative icon, Grover Norquist, joined the Board of the Republican gay organization GOProud. He did so in spite of strenuous objections from Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council (FRC) which declared that Norquist, “seems prepared to compromise a unified conservative movement in order to appease a tiny minority of the overall population.”

As more people across the political spectrum come to see homophobia as a moral evil, groups such as FRC will be increasingly marginalized. Even as FRC penned its bitter screed against Norquist, another conservative icon, Ted Olson, was delivering his brilliant closing argument in court to overturn Proposition 8, which prohibits marriage equality in California. It must have stuck in the FRC’ craw when Olson told a group of law students that the marriage case, “is the most compelling, emotionally moving, important case that I have been involved in my entire life.”

Unfortunately, social changes, from increasing LGBT acceptance, to the election of Barack Obama, have inflamed America’ extremists. Each day, the nation’ fanatics seem to be sinking to new depths, and these zealots are driving the GOP further to the fringe.

For example, while we’ve always known our opponents are an oleaginous bunch, they went overboard when they accused Obama of “extorting” money from BP, after he got the company to commit $20 billion to help people whose lives had been upended by the mess. While it wasn’t surprising that oil company shills in Congress condemned the President, it was peculiar that a fanatical mega-church in Fort Lauderdale claimed in that BP’ compensation amounted to a socialistic power grab.

“We’re moving into uncharted and troubled waters as the president assumes power over private industry not granted under the Constitution or our laws,” said Dr. Jerry Newcombe, host and co-producer of the new documentary from Coral Ridge Ministries, Socialism: A Clear and Present Danger. “His harsh diktat sounds more like Hugo Chavez than Thomas Jefferson.”

When the oil spill was first reported, Texas Gov. Rick Perry called it an example of, “acts of God that cannot be prevented.”

Given this medieval mindset, it was no surprise that Louisiana designated Sunday as a day of prayer to end the spill. “Thus far efforts made by mortals to try to solve the crisis have been to no avail. It is clearly time for a miracle for us,” read a state resolution.

God wasn’t amused. The oil is still flowing into the Gulf and God fried an Ohio mega-church idol known as Touchdown Jesus with a lightening bolt.

Such radicalism, of course, extends to old-fashioned homophobia. In addressing a crowd in Iowa, the National Organization for Marriage’ Maggie Gallagher said, “We’re here, we’re not queer, get used to it.” Embarrassed that her bigotry was recorded on video, she tried to pass off her reprehensible remark as a joke.

In a spasm of anti-gay zealotry, Texas Republicans rolled out a new platform that supports legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to gay couples as well as for an official to perform a marriage ceremony for same-sex partners. The deranged document includes statements such as, “We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family.” The platform also calls on the state to outlaw all “sexually-oriented businesses” — including strip joints and “all pornography”.

While the term “moveable middle” may not be an accurate description of potential gay rights supporters, it is fair to say that there is a “move to madness” by our foes. Deep down they know they are slowly losing their grip on power, which is causing many to lose their grasp of reality.

Pass this woman a box of tissue, please, for we do not want her staining our linens with her salty bigot tears:

This week, the Proposition 8 trial draws to a close.

This is the trial that never should have been, by a judge who has systematically telegraphed his sympathy for one side.

Boo hoo. Sorry about our whole “American system,” Maggie, but this is a civil rights battle, and they’re usually ultimately decided in the courts. As for the judge’s sympathy, it seems more like he’s systematically telegraphed his sympathy for factual analysis, and as the anti-gay side has been so pathetic that the creme de la creme expert witnesses brought in by the defense ended up helping the plaintiffs, it’s very obvious who has the facts on their side.

Did I mention that Maggie Gallagher’s piece is titled “The Core Civil Right to Vote For Marriage”? That’s rich. In Maggie’s world, giving the unwashed masses the right to vote to take away other peoples’ rights is, in itself, a civil right. A lot of white supremacists probably would agree vis a vis the Civil Rights Act, etc.

When I entered this debate in 2003, gay marriage advocates scoffed at the idea that a federal constitutional amendment was necessary. Now gay marriage advocates applaud as Ted Olson tells the world that our marriage laws are grounded only in hatred and bigotry, that they are akin to racism. Ted Olson’s team actually read Catholic and Baptist doctrine into the court record, to persuade the judge that to be a Christian is to be a bigot.

Oh, Gallagher, stop pretending that your extremist Catholic beliefs are in any way representative of Christendom, and stop co-opting the Baptists, who all think you’re a godless Mary-worshipping heathen.

I hope not. But that is the heart of the case against Prop 8: Gay marriage advocates believe there isn’t any difference between two men in a sexual union and a husband and wife, and those of us who see this difference are blinded by hatred and prejudice. They delegitimize opponents, brand us as haters, and then try to strip us of our rights.

*Taking a moment to breathe in, breathe out, breathe in, breathe out, think of nice things, Zen, calm, love*

WHAT F***ING RIGHTS HAVE GAY PEOPLE EVER TRIED TO TAKE AWAY FROM YOU, MAGGIE?!

*Breathing exercises did not work*

She is such a dishonest woman. It’s incredible.

For these Americans, gay marriage does not merely expand marriage to more people, it abolishes the historic core conception of marriage and replaces it with a new government-mandated genderless marriage. Gay marriage means that our maleness and femaleness does not matter, our capacity to create new life is irrelevant to the public project of marriage.

Said she whose son was born out of wedlock, and whose husband has never been seen at her side in this fight. I’m conjecturing here, but I almost wonder if Maggie has an awful, loveless marriage, and instead of trying to fix it through normal processes (or leave him), she’s taking it out on gay couples, hopelessly trying to bolster her own marriage by fighting for “traditional marriage” in the public square. It’s like she’s trying to atone for her own perceived failures in life by ruining everyone else’s life.

Anyway, for the rest of the piece, she blubbers on about this one time she was at a bar in Oakland and a lady was mean to her and told her she wasn’t welcome in the Bay Area, due to her filthy bigotry. Maggie, of course, pulls the “Who’s the real hater now!” card in response to this. Of course, the real hater is still Maggie Gallagher, because it doesn’t matter how “nice” she is to people, she’s still wasting her sad, pathetic life trying to break loving families apart, and it doesn’t matter how unkind the woman in the bar was to her, because the woman in the bar is standing up for principles, love, and for the equality of all human beings.

Then Maggie closes:

Ted Olson will talk in court this week like a civilized man. But Ted Olson, as much as any one man, is responsible for the idea that there is no real debate to be had about gay marriage, that all the legitimacy, all the arguments, all the good will and good reasons are on his side. He will be asking this judge to disrespect the views of his fellow Americans, to brand them ignorant, irrational and bigoted, and to take away our right to vote for marriage. And he will be bathed in applause for doing so.

Blubber blubber blubber. Some Americans ARE ignorant, irrational and bigoted. What of it?

Anyway, Maggie’s probably going to get more and more hysterical in the coming months and years, as the fight for full equality moves further into the courts, where it belonged in the first place, and away from the whims of the majority. As we’ve seen in the past, when it’s a matter of scaremongering and lying to ignorant people, the anti-gay side has a playbook that works well with older voters and the clinically insane. But when it’s a court of law, where facts are of the utmost importance, the anti-gay folks don’t know what the hell they’re doing, because they’re trying to defend something completely indefensible.

(h/t Kyle)

Yesterday, the Supreme Court broke America. That may be a little bit hyperbolic, but not by much. If you’re a bit confused about the repercussions of this decision that came down yesterday, this decision that all of your lawyer friends (except those who somehow managed to pass the bar, yet can’t communicate beyond GOP talking points), liberal and conservative, are extremely concerned about, here’s a quick primer. In Citizens United v. FEC (PDF), the Supreme Court struck down over sixty years of precedent and ruled that the government may not regulate spending by corporations in elections. The rules were there for a reason: Because of the deep coffers of, say, Exxon-Mobil or Goldman Sachs, allowing them to spend freely to influence elections very easily overpowers our own rights as citizens. The CEO of Exxon-Mobil was never prohibited from contributing, just like any other citizen. But now the Supreme Court has essentially said that Exxon-Mobil, itself, is a citizen, and entitled to all of the same rights that you and I enjoy in electing our leaders and representatives. Let that sink in for a minute. A little more detail:

(Read More)

In the big Prop 8 trial in California, President Barack Obama’s position against marriage equality is directly harming our community and being thrown in our faces.

Our opponents are saying, “Mr. Obama is not a bigot and he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. So, how can the proponents of Prop 8 be bigots if they share the same views as the President?”

Well, actually he is a politician who believes in getting elected.

During his run for Illinois state Senate in 1996, Barack Obama stated his unequivocal support for marriage equality, according to an exclusive story in the Jan. 14, 2009 Windy City Times newspaper:

President-elect Obama’s answer to a 1996 Outlines newspaper question on marriage was: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” There was no use of the phrase “civil unions”.

It seems the Windy City Times showed that Obama is a pol with his finger in the wind on this issue.

LGBT groups, including Truth Wins Out, want Obama to take a stand on the Prop 8 trial. Equality California said Friday that it has collected 91,000 signatures on a petition urging the president to file a brief supporting a challenge to the measure. The White House has not responded. (typical)

Mr. Obama, it is time to get off the sidelines. It is time to stand up and do what it right. We are not holding our breath. But, for once, will you please surprise us? The right wing hates you anyway. They think you are a communist and some even hold the view that you are an illegal alien or the anti-Christ.

You will never win over these crazy, irrational people. Never. Ever.

Please, stop trying to do so. If a person hates LGBT people, they are likely not voting for you anyway. Don’t you get it?

As the Tea Party gains prominence, it almost assures that your 2012 Republican opponent (maybe Sarah Palin or Sen. Jim DeMint) will overwhelmingly win the fringe vote. So, why not do what is moral and just, by rallying the people who actually care about your presidency and support you?

We are waiting, Mr. President, and so far we are pained by your silence. Your words are being used as a justification for our oppression. Only you can change this.

Here’s a round-up of reactions to and accounts of the first day of the historic federal trial against Proposition 8:

Karen Ocamb at LGBT POV wrote a great piece on the news that really didn’t get reported, including some of her own observations about the general mood of the proceedings. Her entire blog is actually a great resource.

Ted Olson’s fantastic opening comments are here.

Teddy Partridge and David Dayen are committing all kinds of journalism with their live-blogs and reporting at FireDogLake.

Choire Sicha at The Awl points us to a hilarious exchange between Judge Walker and Charles Cooper, the lead attorney for the opposition, from one of Teddy Partridge’s liveblogs, one that went like this:

“Judge Walker: If the President’ parents had been in Virginia when he was born, their marriage would have been unlawful. Doesn’t that show a tremendous change in the institution of marriage?”

“Cooper: Racial restrictions were never a feature of the institution of marriage. [Laughter in our courtroom.]

Wow. Choire goes so far as to say that, based on that exchange alone, Cooper “is going to get his ass handed to him.” We’re crossing our fingers! The actions of the opposition (going insane over the proceedings being recorded, witnesses dropping like flies, losing it over the discovery process, etc.) lead me to believe that we’re about to see just how unprepared our opponents really are, in attempting to defend their indefensible positions in grown-up court. It’s one thing to use lies and insinuations to scare people, but being under oath and being asked to prove your assertions, is a different animal.

Also, from what I can see, the testimonials from the plaintiffs, i.e. the actual couples involved, were quite powerful. It would be amazing to see them on, AHEM!, YouTube.

ACG at Submitted to a Candid World brings some interesting legal perspective to bear:

What makes the suit even more unique is that the state of California is a defendant in name only. California refused to defend Prop8′ validity, and the attorney general filed an amicus brief… for the plaintiffs. The suit’ only real defendants are intervenors, private citizens with a glancing bystander’ interest in the litigation, from an organization calling itself “Protect Marriage.” They’re fighting tooth and nail, to the point of tossing out television cameras forcefully(query why they think that little bit necessary), to preserve their right to be free, apparently, from squeamishness about other peoples’ relationships. The intervenors have no real stake in the outcome of the case. If they win, they get nothing but a sense of satisfaction. If they lose, they may, one day, shiver to see two men, hand-in-hand and wearing wedding bands.

Elsewhere in his piece, we find that he’s a bit queasy about the idea of taking this case all the way to the Supreme Court. I agree and, yet, I disagree. But that’s just me, being of two minds again.

If you’d like to read what the anti-gay “thinkers” have to say to this, Maggie Gallagher is holding court in the bathtub with K-Lo, occasionally spittling out a few words at The Corner at National Review Online.

And that’s all I’ve got for now. If you want to follow today’s proceedings in real time, here are the key people tweeting the trial:

Dan Levine, a reporter for legal news publication The Recorder can be followed @FedcourtJunkie. Also NCLR’ Ilona Turner @ilona, The Advocate @TheAdvocateMag, American Foundation for Equal Rights,@AmerEqualRights , and the ACLU of Northern California @ACLU_NorCal are all live tweeting. The Courage Campaign is also tweeting the trial at @CourageCampaign.

Seacrest out.