i have a blog with a lot of varying themes http://ladylamia.wordpress.com but i wanted something that was strictly for my activism and feminism, so here you are!
the views and opinions expressed in these blogs are my personal views and opinions, they are not the official positions of the national organization for women (NOW), planned parenthood, or any other organization that i am or have been affiliated with.
follow me on twitter @femmefeminist
Link with 3 notes
Senator Tom Duane's Moving Speech for Marriage Equality →
If you missed it last night, check out the video of highlights from openly gay Senator Tom Duane’s speech about marriage equality.
“most of all i want to thank my family, and i want to thank louis. you know, he was there when my brother died, my mother and my father. i was there when his brother died, when his mother and father died and i loved his parents. my whole family loves louis and i love louis’ family, and our nieces and nephews know us only as a couple. and we are like married to them, but of course we’re not, not yet. but the exact same love, the same commitment…
marriage says that we are a family. louis and i are a family, and marriage strengthens all families. it’s going to strengthen my family and all new york families…
Photo with 5 notes
New yorkers take to the streets to celebrate gay marriage vote.
Great photo gallery over on gawker, check it out!
Link with 3 notes
Double Dose of DOMA Challenges →
The Defense of Marriage Act is due for a two-pronged attack on Tuesday, as two separate organizations and sets of lawyers, representing different plaintiffs, plan to file lawsuits in federal court challenging the federal definition of marriage…
Axelrod: Obama does not support same sex marriage
Via: Gay America Blog
“The president opposed Proposition 8 at the time. He felt that it was divisive. He felt that it was mean-spirited, and he opposed it at the time. So we reiterated that position yesterday. The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control. He’s supports civil unions, and that’s been his position throughout. So nothing has changed.”
Link with 8 notes
Prop8 Decision Day FAQ →
Via: MetroWeekly
Here are the eight basics (with only a little cheating) on what’s going to happen and what to look for when it does happen. This is a primer related to the lawsuit and the legal decision; I will leave for other times and other posts any political or “movement” implications or consequences.
1. What, who, when & where?
U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, held the trial in January and June of this year in the federal courthouse in San Francisco. He will not be announcing his decision from the bench. The decision will simply appear online between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. PDT (4 p.m. and 6 p.m. EDT) today. A limited number of paper copies also will be made available at various California federal courthouses.
2. Why is this happening?
Chad Griffin, a politico with Hollywood ties, convinced some heavy hitters — including Oscar-nominated director Rob Reiner and Oscar-winning Milk screenwriter Dustin Lance Black — that more needed to happen in the wake of the passage of Proposition 8 than Equality California and the trio of legal groups — the ACLU, Lambda Legal and NCLR — were willing to do to fight the state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. The group — which became the American Foundation for Equal Rights — recruited Ted Olson, a conservative, and David Boies, a liberal, to serve as the lead lawyers in a federal court challenge to the amendment. After a trial that lasted three weeks in January and concluded with closing arguments in June, the decision is set for today.
3. What is going to happen later today?
Today, regardless of the decision, not much — in terms of actual change — will likely happen. Because both sides have made clear — and Judge Walker has acknowledged — that they plan to appeal should they lose on Wednesday, it is likely that a temporary stay would be granted, which would halt the enforcement of the ruling until an appeal can be heard by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. AFER’s spokesman confirmed to Metro Weekly that the Proposition 8 proponents, who intervened in the case to oppose the plaintiffs, have filed a conditional motion to stay the trial court decision pending the outcome of the appeal.
4. What could the judge decide?
Judge Walker has been asked to rule on whether the U.S. Constitution prohibits the enactment of California’s Proposition 8. Although Walker could decide that the amendment is constitutional, the questions he asked at the closing arguments lead me to believe that is unlikely. If that’s correct, then it is the scope of Judge Walker’s legal conclusions that will be the key element to watch tomorrow. The other key area to watch will be the specificity of the findings of fact.
5. The findings of fact?
Court decisions, whether aided by juries or, like here, handled without a jury, involve two types of decisions. One type are findings of fact; the other are conclusions of law. On appeal, the conclusions of law are considered de novo, or considered anew — without deference to the decision below. The judge or jury who makes the findings of fact, however, is given deference because factual determinations are aided by the direct benefit of the judge or jury at trial. On appeal, Judge Walker’s findings of fact will only be disturbed if the appellate court finds any to be clearly erroneous.
As such, it will be important to see what points Judge Walker advances — regardless of the legal conclusions — in the findings of fact because they are far more likely to “stick” all the way up to and including at the U.S. Supreme Court, should it accept the case eventually.
6. The scope of the ruling?
There are two main claims made by the plaintiffs in the case: (A) Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution as an impermissible classification based on sexual orientation (or sex) and (B) Proposition 8 violates the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution as an impermissible restriction on the fundamental right of marriage. In each there are subsets and secondary questions, the resolution of which are important both in California and, if upheld on the same basis on appeal, elsewhere.
A. Under equal protection, the scrutiny of classifications based on sexual orientation
One of the first issues for the judge to decide is what level of scrutiny applies to classifications — such as Proposition 8 — based on sexual orientation. The plaintiffs argued that a heightened scrutiny should apply; the proponents argued that rational basis would suffice. If Judge Walker decides that heightened scrutiny should apply, then it would be more difficult to uphold Proposition 8 as constitutional because it would have to be proven to serve an important governmental objective and be substantially related to that objective. If a rational basis would suffice, then the amendment merely needs to be found to be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
The discussion at trial about the political powerlessness of gays and lesbians, the history of discrimination and the immutability of sexual orientation all are factual considerations that will go into Judge Walker’s conclusion about the level of scrutiny under which the case will be considered.
Regardless of the decision, however, the plaintiffs argued that Proposition 8 should be struck down. The plaintiffs argue that there was not even a rational basis that supports Proposition 8.
B. Under due process, the definition of “marriage,” in terms of its status as a fundamental right
The U.S. Supreme Court has found marriage to be a fundamental right previously, and the parties in this case aren’t asking Judge Walker to change that. They do, however, differ on their view of what the definition of “marriage” is. As has played out in ballot campaigns, the proponents argue that the very definition of marriage means only a man and a woman. As Olson put the plaintiffs’ argument at the closing, it “isn’t changing the institution of marriage. It is correcting a restriction based upon sex and sexual orientation.” In many ways, the way marriage is defined here almost inevitably leads to one result or the other.
If Judge Walker concludes it is expanding the definition, then he is unlikely to decide that “same-sex marriages” are a fundamental right. If, however, he concludes that Proposition 8 restricts who can marry, then he is likely to decide that “marriage” is a fundamental right from which same-sex couples cannot be excluded.
7. What impact will the specific circumstances in California relating to the passage of Proposition 8 have on the case?
The California Supreme Court had held in early 2008 that same-sex couples could not be discriminated against under the state’s marriage laws. This decision led to 18,000 same-sex marriages — and the passage of Proposition 8 in November 2008. These specific facts (along with literature related to the Proposition 8 campaign), the plaintiffs argue, make California a nearly unique or unique situation when it comes to proving that the passage of the amendment is based on animus — or hatred. If so, the plaintiffs argue, then this case is similar to Romer v. Evans, in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that animus alone could not be a legitimate basis for passing a law that prohibited the ability of Colorado cities and other political subdivisions from passing sexual orientation nondiscrimination ordinances. This is the primary basis under which I would expect to see the law struck down if it is struck down under rational basis.
8. What about the Defense of Marriage Act?
Finally, any mention of the federal law, although not technically at issue in the case, is sure to raise eyebrows all across the country. Judge Walker asked about DOMA in written questions to the parties before the closing arguments, asking whether he could strike down Proposition 8 and not address DOMA. Although the parties did not ask for him to address DOMA, it obviously will be noteworthy should he decide to do so.
Prop 8: The Parent Trap →
very interesting. looks like those tv ads made an impact.
The Prop 8 Report, released Tuesday by the LGBT Mentoring Project in Los Angeles, analyzes daily polling commissioned by the No On 8 campaign in the final six weeks of the campaign, when a close contest began to turn in favor of antigay forces led by the Yes on 8 campaign. With a focus on TV advertisements, the predominant way the campaigns reached voters, the report concludes that parents with children under 18 living at home played a potentially decisive role in the passage of Prop 8, constituting more than three-quarters of nearly 700,000 voters, most of them white Democrats, who switched sides in the most heated days of the campaign and voted to oppose same-sex marriage. Given that Prop 8 passed by 52% to 48%, or a margin of nearly 600,000 votes, parents and like-minded voters could have swung the contest at the last minute, the report suggests.
emphasis added by me.
Court Deals Blow to DOMA →
In a major victory for marriage equality advocates, a federal judge in Boston ruled on Thursday in two separate cases that a critical portion of the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.
Protect marriage from Larry King →
if you are anything like me, you are getting to the point where you’re so used to hypocrisy when it comes to marriage equality that it seems redundant calling it out. luckily, not everyone is as jaded as i am :) the 2010 CA Marriage Protection Act, which is a response to CA’s Prop 8, seeks to ban divorce in the state of california. the reasoning is a bit humorous, but sound: if you respect marriage so much, if you want to protect marriage - protect it from divorce not lgbt people.
this piece on their website talks about how media personality Larry King, 76, is getting divorced for the 8th time, after information surfaced that he has been having a sexual relationship with is wife’s younger sister. whatever you want to say about lgbt marriage equality, it’s kind of hard to deny that heterosexuals haven’t been doing much in the last fifty or so years to respect marriage.
