Friday, January 29, 2010

Nepal Constitution will Guarantee Equal Rights to LGBTs

Equal rights for all, right? Like what the U.S. Constitution should provide, but doesn't:

"In less than five months Nepal will have a new constitution that will be the first in Asia to guarantee equal rights to sexual minorities. And once that happens, Tripti and Darshana, a lesbian couple, can formally wed. The couple in their 20s was thrown out of Nepal Army nearly three years ago due to their sexual orientation—albeit ‘disciplinary ground’ was cited as the reason for their removal. It is such kind of discrimination against lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgendered and inter-sexed (LGBTI) that the Himalayan nation’s new constitution seeks to prevent."


Said MP Sunil Pant: “Rights for LGBTIs have been well drafted in the new constitution. They will ensure non-discrimination and separate citizenship IDs for third-gendered people."

Nepal will stage gay weddings on the slopes of Mt. Everest: "The company will offer elephant-back bridal processions, Everest base camp ceremonies and weddings in remote Tibetan enclaves in the Himalayan republic."

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Prop 8 trial judge has history with gay rights activists

The appointment of Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Richard Walker to the bench was held up for two years during the late 1980s in part because he had angered gay rights activists.

Now, he is presiding over the most important gay civil rights case in a generation.

Like a lot of powerful people, Walker is a profile in fragments, a figure sketched from rare interviews, his work product and his colleagues’ carefully chosen anecdotes.

“Vaughn is a very creative thinker,” said former San Francisco County Superior Court Judge James Warren, who has known Walker since they worked together at Pillsbury Madison & Sutro during the mid-1970s. “He has no problem disagreeing with you and coming up with his own ideas.”

In 2003, for example, Walker sentenced a mailbox thief to write apology letters to his victims and to spend a day outside a post office wearing a sandwich board reading, “I stole mail. This is my punishment?”

Friends said he loves traveling to exotic places – most recently Patagonia – and turns photos from his trips into wickedly funny Christmas cards.

Because Walker is presiding over the trial to determine if California’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution, the 65-year-old Republican jurist – private by nature and circumspect by profession – is not speaking for himself.

The anecdotes from friends and colleagues are the tea leaves from which observers try to divine how Walker is leaning in the first federal trial to examine a state ban on same-sex marriage. The proceedings resume Tuesday.

Lawyers for the sponsors of California’s voter-enacted Proposition 8 complained last week that they had detected bias in the judge’s pretrial rulings. Conservative commentators accused him of promoting “a show trial in a kangaroo court” before the U.S. Supreme Court put the kibosh on Walker’s plan to broadcast the trial.

Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said looking for clues in the judge’s background or actions thus far in the case is probably fruitless. Cohn remembers how Walker surprised the San Francisco civil liberties group by ruling several times in recent years against the Republican administration and lawyers from his old blue chip law firm in cases arising from the warrantless wiretapping program.

“If you are going to try to make assumptions based on how he’s ruled in the past or the firm that he came from, you will be wrong,” Cohn said. “He is his own guy.”


Walker, 65, was born in Watseka, Ill., a speck of a county seat 92 miles south of Chicago. After graduating from the University of Michigan, he spent a year at the University of California, Berkeley on a fellowship for future college teachers. He wound up attending Stanford law school, earning his degree in 1970.

It was at Stanford during the Vietnam War protests, Walker has said in published interviews, that he became a committed Republican. He spent two years clerking for a federal judge appointed by President Richard Nixon before moving to San Francisco to start his 18-year career at Pillsbury, where he represented the National Rifle Association in a successful effort to overturn a local law prohibiting residents from owning pistols.

Walker first was nominated to a federal judgeship in the waning days of Ronald Reagan’s presidency and then again in the early days of President George H.W. Bush. He was finally confirmed by the Senate in 1989.

Gay leaders lobbied against Walker because he helped the U.S. Olympic Committee sue a gay ex-Olympian who had created an athletic competition called the Gay Olympics. Walker aggressively pursued legal fees in the Olympics case, attaching a $97,000 lien to the home of founder Tom Waddell, who was dying of AIDS.

“A lawyer acting in a professional way must divorce himself from personal views,” Walker told The New York Times in 1988.

Former U.S. Distrit Judge Fern Smith, who worked with Walker in the Northern District of California, said the episode demonstrates his commanding internal compass.

“He seems to be relatively willing to let the chips fall where they may,” Smith said. “He is not afraid to express his opinions, even if he knows there might be substantial push-back.”

During his time as a federal judge, Walker has ruled in at least two cases involving gay rights issues. In one, he dismissed a lawsuit by two Oakland city employees who alleged their free speech rights were violated when managers removed a bulletin board flier for a religious group that promoted “natural family, marriage and family values.”

The city had “significant interests in restricting discriminatory speech about homosexuals. . . .(and has) a duty under state law to prevent workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” Walker wrote in his 2005 ruling.

In the other case, Walker in 1999 rejected arguments from the parents of a San Leandro boy who claimed their religious rights were violated by pro-gay comments their son’s teacher had made in the classroom.

Walker has now been a judge longer than a lawyer. Tall and fit, with silver hair and Van Dyke beard, he is said to be a stickler for details and decorum, a hard worker whose eyes twinkle mischievously when he gets a laugh. But he does not hesitate to register his consternation with crossed arms or a furrowed brow.

“He does not suffer fools lightly,” said Edward Burg, a Los Angeles litigator who sued the city of Half Moon Bay in a property dispute with a developer to whom Walker awarded $36.8 million in damages, almost bankrupting the beach town.

His qualities were in evidence last week as lawyers in the gay marriage case questioned academic experts on subjects ranging from same-sex parenting to whether monogamy in marriage was a relatively recent goal.

As a Harvard historian was explaining how the public’s shoulder shrug over President Bill Clinton’s infidelities marked a shift “toward the idea that spouses themselves are best-equipped to decide what is acceptable behavior within marriage,” the judge cut her off.

“I don’t know that we need to go into Bill and Hillary Clinton in any great depth,” he quipped.

Payback for Nonagenarian Prop. 8 Donor?

After donating $26,000 to pass Prop. 8, a 96-year-old Oakland man may be facing the consequences of his contribution.

The reappointment of Lorenzo Hoopes to the board that oversees Oakland's historic Paramount Theatre has been put on hold by Oakland mayor Ron Dellums, reports the San Francisco Chronicle. The paper indicates that this is a sign that Hoopes's 30-year tenure on the board is most likely over.

"A lot of us don't think that he represents our thinking in Oakland," city council president Jane Brunner told the Chronicle.

Hoopes is a former Mormon temple president.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Kurt Gets a BF, Harris to Guest on Glee

Entertainment Weekly’s Michael Ausiello has the scoop on what’s coming next on Glee, including a boyfriend for Kurt and guest turns by Neil Patrick Harris and Jennifer Lopez.

Ausiello learned of the reported guest turn by Harris from the actor at this weekend’s Golden Globes. The out actor is reportedly set to appear in an episode to be directed by Joss Whedon during May sweeps.

Glee creator Ryan Murphy is said to be creating a role especially for Harris.

An executive producer for the show also revealed that Lopez is in negotiations to guest-star as a singing cafeteria worker.

"Lopez wants to do the show, so I’m going to meet with her. In the past couple of months, a lot of people are coming out saying they love the show. ... But I don’t want to stunt-cast too much, because I think the [musical] numbers are already so extravagant.”

But the biggest news to come from Ausiello is that Kurt (Chris Colfer) will be getting a boyfriend this season.

“We just announced we’re doing a nationwide search for the season 2 cast, and [a boyfriend for Kurt is] one of the three roles that we’re adding. And we’re going to make them a power couple. We’re not going to do the whole hiding-in-the-shadows thing. We’re going to make them popular, and out and proud and glamorous. Like prom king and king. We’re doing the opposite of what’s been done.”

Glee took home the Golden Globe for Best Comedy Series.

Calif. Universities Can Reject Christian Courses

A federal appeals court ruled last week that the University of California system can refuse to accept courses taught at Christian high schools as valid credit.

The University of California refused to certify courses on subjects like creationism, spurring a lawsuit from the Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murrieta, Calif., and the Association of Christian Schools International.

"The district court correctly determined that UC's rejections of the Calvary courses were reasonable and did not constitute viewpoint discrimination," the ninth U.S. circuit court of appeals ruled. "UC's policy and its individual course decisions are not based on religion, but on whether a high school course is college preparatory."

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Will the Anglicans Go For This 'Give the Gays Their Pension Benefits' Thing?

On the docket for next month's big 'ole General Synod meeting for the Church of England is whether the same-sex spouses of gay clergy should be afforded the same financial benefits (like surviving spouse pensions) as married straight clergy. All the more amusing because these same-sex spouses, allowed in the church only since 2004, are banned from having sex with their partners.

As a stipulating in letting gay clergy enter into marriage-like arrangements, the Church began allowing them to enter into civil unions, on the condition they remain celibate. Thus far, some 200 clergy are said to have taken the Church up on the offer.

But this whole "give 'em pension benefits" thing is, of course, rankling the conservative ranks. And those concerned about the bottom line, reports The Telegraph.

Surviving spouses are entitled to pension benefits based on the entire
length of service of the cleric, but surviving civil partners are currently only
eligible for benefits based on the length of service since 2004.

Church commissioners fear that extending the law to provide homosexual
clergy with equal benefits could cripple the pensions scheme, which Shaun
Farrell, chief executive of the Church's Pensions Board, has already admitted
has a "huge great hole" in it. The Rev Jonathan Clark, a trustee of Inclusive
Church, a liberal group, said that the General Synod should back the motion
regardless of the cost. "Given that it is legitimate for clergy to be in civil
partnerships, we should treat them in the same way as people who are married to
each other," he said. "Making provision for civil partners is not the Church
making a big change to its moral or ethical teaching."

Traditionalists argued, however, that the move could trigger a new
round of fighting over the role of homosexual clergy in the Anglican
Communion.The Rev Rod Thomas, chair of Reform, the evangelical group, said that
the debate must be viewed in the context of the ongoing dispute, which was
recently reignited by the election of the first lesbian bishop. "This proposal
will be seen as a further loosening of the Church's position on gay
partnerships," he said. "Given the current divisions in the Anglican Communion,
the Church of England should avoid doing anything that's likely to exacerbate
these difficulties."

Cindy McCain Poses for NOH8



The NOH8 Campaign on Wednesday announced that Cindy McCain, the wife of former Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, has posed to demonstrate her support of marriage equality. NOH8’s Adam Bouska has photographed thousands of subjects since California passed Proposition 8 in 2008. All of the subjects are photographed with duct tape over their mouths to symbolize that their voices aren’t being heard on the subject of marriage equality.

Writes the NOH8 blog: “In the year since we’ve started the NOH8 Campaign, we’ve been surprised at some of the different individuals who have approached us showing their support. Few, though, have surprised us more than Cindy McCain — the wife of Senator John McCain and mother to vocal marriage equality advocate Meghan McCain. The McCains are one of the most well-known Republican families in recent history, and for Mrs. McCain to have reached out to us to offer her support truly means a lot. Although we had worked with Meghan McCain before and we were aware of her own position, we’d never really thought the cause might be something her mother could get behind.”

Friday, January 22, 2010

Candidate Wants to Reverse Trans ID Rights

A candidate for Michigan secretary of state said that he would ensure that transgender people would not be able to change state-issued identification to correlate with their gender.

Paul Scott, a Republican state senator, said in a letter announcing his candidacy that he would reverse a policy that was started in 2005 to allow transgender people to change their gender on legal documents.

"I will make it a priority to ensure transgender individuals will not be allowed to change the sex on their driver's license in any circumstance," he wrote.

Transgender Michigan and the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan pushed for the policy to allow transgender people to change their gender on state identification cards, according to The Grand Rapids Press.

Marriage Ban Moving Forward in Indiana

A constitutional ban on gay marriage in Indiana is one step closer to fruition, after a state senate committee voted 6-4 to bring it to a full senate hearing. Republican Carlin Yoder introduced a resolution to the Senate Judiciary Committee that "only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana."

McCain Vs. McCain

Sen. John McCain, who faces reelection in Arizona this year, has issued a statement saying that he doesn't agree with his wife's newfound support for marriage equality.

John McCain's office said in a statement that the Arizona senator respects the views of members of his family but remains opposed to gay marriage. "Sen. McCain believes the sanctity of marriage is only defined as between one man and one woman," the statement said. John McCain backed an Arizona ballot measure passed by voters in 2008 that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. The NOH8 Web site praised Cindy McCain's willingness to publicly endorse a cause that is unpopular within the Republican Party. "The McCains are one of the most well-known Republican families in recent history, and for Mrs. McCain to have reached out to us to offer her support truly means a lot."

Is This the Smoking Gun That Exposes the LDS Church Trying to Hide Its Involvement in Prop 8?

At today's Perry trial, it appears there is one that links the Mormon Church to the fight to pass Prop 8. As if you thought it was just a fairytale made up by radical homosexual activists.

"Emails and letters sent back and forth between the Prop 8 campaign and Catholic, LDS, and Evangelical churches" were at the center of a debate today between Judge Walker and the attorneys for both sides, over which could be admitted as evidence. But whether they make it into the case or not, the letters are becoming public evidence, thanks to the Courage Campaign highlighting them — including one from LDS that read: "With respect to Prop. 8 campaign, key talking points will come from campaign, but cautious, strategic, not to take the lead so as to provide plausible deniability or respectable distance so as not to show that church is directly involved."

We love phrases like "plausible deniability," especially when used in documents that show there is no plausible deniability available.

The documents also reveal how involved the Mormon Church was in going door-to-door; some 20,000 volunteers targeted very zip code in California. Interesting, because thus far LDS has only acknowledged some $20k in donated legal services, and just $2k donated to the "Yes On 8" campaign directly.

If the documents are entered into evidence, it means attorneys will be able to use them in front of the Supreme Court, which is where Perry is inevitably headed. And right there, in front of the justices, will be evidence that the campaign was indeed rooted in religious-based discrimination, not some noble attempt to protect families.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Wednesday Recap: Federal Prop. 8 Trial

Do gays and lesbians have sufficient power to protect themselves in the American political system? The debate in the federal Prop. 8 trial heated up on Wednesday.

Heated Wednesday testimony in the federal Proposition 8 trial hinged on a question fundamental to the case, one that Prop. 8 proponents and marriage equality advocates bitterly disagree: Do gays and lesbians have sufficient power to protect themselves in the American political system?

Gary M. Segura, a Stanford University political science professor and expert witness for the plaintiffs in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, testified extensively that despite recent gains that include the election of openly gay politicians like Houston mayor Annise Parker and gay-positive rhetoric from President Barack Obama, gays and lesbians lack a critical mass of meaningful political allies — in part because they are still a minority despised by many Americans and are attacked by some local and national lawmakers who find it politically advantageous to do so.

Moreover, gays face relentless ballot initiatives aimed at revoking hard-won rights, measures often supported by religious institutions colluding to keep marriage equality off the table, as was the case in California, Segura testified.

During cross-examination, defense attorneys read off a litany of incremental gains for gays over the past decade, attempting to illustrate the power gays wield both as politicians and political donors. Segura countered all such points with stark realities. Cities like Houston that have elected openly gay mayors continue to have laws banning benefits for same-sex spouses (Parker, who was elected in December, cannot get benefits for her partner through the city because a voter blocked such benefits through a referendum). Antigay ballot initiatives and state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage have proliferated across the country in recent years, as have hate crimes committed because of the victim's real or perceived sexual orientation.

What pro-gay laws that have been passed “are attempts to redress discrimination,” Segura said. “The purpose is to ameliorate a disadvantage; a wrong that exists. While it’s good to have [these laws], it’s difficult to conclude that’s a measure of political power.”

A true LGBT ally, Segura said, is someone who expends political capital for gays, even when it is not politically expedient to do so. Few politicians mentioned in Wednesday’s proceedings appeared to fit his description.

Over the repeated and vehement objections of Prop. 8 proponents, plaintiffs’ attorney Theodore Boutrous showed several internal communication documents to the court from the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The exhibits showed the religious groups’ extensive financial and organizational support for the ballot measure, passed by a slim majority of California voters in 2008. U.S. district judge Vaughn Walker overruled the defendants’ objections, which centered on their desire to keep the names of certain individuals involved in the Prop. 8 campaign confidential. “This is a political campaign that was out in the open,” Walker told defense attorney David Thompson. “The people who advocate on either side, in particular in the litigation that follows, inevitably subject themselves to disclosure of the kind that is contained in [these documents].”

The documents included e-mails form LDS officials who advocated that the church not take a public lead in the campaign but lay the groundwork for fund-raising and an extensive field campaign — one that reportedly included 20,000 door-to-door volunteers and an organizational point person for every zip code in California. “Have you ever ... seen this kind of structure deployed [by religious groups] to eliminate fundamental constitutional state rights of a minority group?” Boutrous asked Segura.

“This is new in my experience,” Segura replied. The cooperation between Catholic and Mormon churches in the campaign, he continued, “suggests that opposition to homosexuality has been a boost for a ecumenical movement. It’s something churches can agree on.”

The court also headr testimony from Ryan Kendall, a gay man from Colorado Springs, Colo., who was subjected to “reversal” therapy by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality for more than a year as a teenager. “At NARTH, I was being told that I had to reject who I was at the most fundamental level because [it] was dirty and bad.” Regarding the efficacy of “conversion” therapy, Kendall said “I was just as gay [afterward] as when I started.”

Segura’s testimony continues Thursday. The plaintiffs expect to rest their case Friday.

Hawaii bishop blasts homosexual civil union proposal January 20, 2010

Bishop Larry Silva of Honolulu has urged Catholics to inform legislators of their opposition to a bill that would create homosexual civil unions.

“The truth is that God made complementary sexes, that he gave the power of procreation to be used responsibly by a man and woman, and he wants both father and mother, when possible, to contribute to the healthy nurturing of children,” Bishop Silva noted. “This special role of man and woman has been recognized for millennia by societies as marriage, the stable, committed relationship of man and woman giving themselves to each other totally and bearing the fruit of that love in the procreation and education of children. This is a truth that goes beyond religions, because it is built into the very nature of our human being. It is a reality that has been safeguarded by the laws of societies in virtually all cultures of the world.”

He continued:
In many places throughout our country and the world, and now here in Hawaii, some are attempting to distort this natural relationship by claiming the right of persons of the same sex to marry. They point out that it is discriminatory to allow opposite-sex couples to marry but to disallow the same for same-sex couples. And they are correct! It is discriminatory, making distinctions between one and another. But not all discrimination is unjust. Some is quite justified because it is based on reality and truth. While every person, no matter his or her sexual orientation, is worthy of dignity and respect and has certain inalienable rights given by the Creator, there is no right for people of the same sex to call their unions marriage. (“Civil unions” is simply a euphemism for same-sex marriage.)

WATCH: DEPOSITION VIDEOS OF PROP 8 WITNESSES WHO WITHDREW

The American Foundation for Equal Rights has posted two deposition videos of witnesses, Paul Nathanson, Ph.D. and Katherine Young, Ph.D., who were withdrawn by the Prop 8 supporters out of concern that the trial was to be videotaped, and they would be putting them in some sort of danger. However, given the testimony in the depositions they were more likely worried about what the danger to their own case.

Nathanson and Young both state that equal marriage would increase family stability, improve the lives of children, and that gay men and lesbians have faced a long history of discrimination including violence. They also acknowledge broad scientific and professional consensus in favor of equal marriage.

The backers of Prop. 8 told the court this week that they were dropping four witnesses from their witness list, leaving only two. They claimed this was due to a reluctance to testify because of cameras in the courtroom. The trial, however, is not being broadcast. We have now seen three depositions of the withdrawn experts, which would form the basis for their cross-examinations, that resulted in the experts making admissions that disagreed with the backers of Prop. 8’s case, which is what actually led to the last-minute witness list reduction.





Obama Inexcusable on Gay Rights

San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom has built his career on being outspoken — and now, in a new interview with The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd, he’s taking President Obama to task for his position on same-sex marriage.

“I want him to succeed,” Newsom said in the interview. “But I am very upset by what he’s not done in terms of rights of gays and lesbians. I understand it tactically in a campaign, but at this point I don’t know. There is some belief that he actually doesn’t believe in same-sex marriage. But it’s fundamentally inexcusable for a member of the Democratic Party to stand on the principle that separate is now equal, but only on the basis of sexual orientation. We’ve always fought for the rights of minorities and against the whims of majorities.”

Newsom also talks about being “pilloried” by the Democratic Party after he took a stand in San Francisco and allowed gay and lesbian couples to be married. He says it marked the beginning of the end of his career and that he is now thinking of retreating into the background and becoming a wine clerk.

3 weeks after gay marriage law, NH takes up repeal

Three weeks after the state legalized gay marriage, opponents are asking a House committee to repeal the law and let voters amend the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

The House Judiciary Committee was holding hearings Wednesday on the two measures, which many observers expect the House to reject when they are brought to the floor in the next few weeks.

Opponents know their chances of success are slim, but they are looking to the November election in hopes Republicans will regain control of the Statehouse and succeed then in repealing the law.

Right now, Democrats are firmly in charge and appear eager to dispose of controversial measures early in the session to avoid lingering debate in an election year. Gay marriage opponents know that and are focusing on a bigger prize: voter sympathy.

In recent weeks, opponents began a grass-roots effort to challenge the law indirectly by suggesting New Hampshire’s 400 House members and 24 senators aren’t representative of the people’s wishes. They point out that in the 31 states where voters have had a say, gay marriage has been rejected.

They plan to raise the issue at town meetings this spring in hopes of passing nonbinding resolutions that will pressure lawmakers to present them with an amendment that defines marriage. They also hope their effort will help elect anti-gay marriage candidates in November.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Tuesday Recap: Federal Prop. 8 Trial

A battle over statistics dominated Tuesday’s testimony in the federal Proposition 8 trial, with attorneys sparring over the economic costs faced by California gay couples and their families as well as the effect of same-sex marriage on existing marriage and divorce rates.

M.V. Lee Badgett, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and author of When Gay People Get Married: What Happens When Societies Legalize Same-Sex Marriage, testified that Prop. 8 resulted in substantial economic losses for California. She explained that the disadvantages California same-sex couples bear post-Prop. 8 include additional health insurance costs if their employers do not extend benefits to unmarried partners, which can amount to thousands of dollars per couple each year.

Even those who are registered domestic partners in the state, Badgett asserted, are denied “the social validation that would give rise to the full effect of the other possible benefits that they would experience if they were allowed to marry.”

When California gay couples were given the choice between domestic partnerships and marriage in 2008, they overwhelmingly chose the latter, Badgett said. “The difference is that marriage is an institution that is recognized by many other people,” she said, whereas “‘domestic partnership’ has a much more clinical, business sound to it.”

Badgett also detailed how the many similarities between same-sex and opposite-sex couples far outweigh their differences: Ultimately, both seek similar qualities in their partners.

“Like birds of a feather?” Judge Vaughn Walker asked.

“That would succinctly sum it up,” Badgett replied.

In a lengthy and exhaustive cross-examination, lead defendant-intervener attorney Charles Cooper attacked Badgett’s and her colleagues’ methodology in their studies of California gay couples, his questioning occasionally so circuitous as to momentarily exasperate a usually calm Judge Walker.

Central to Badgett’s research — and subsequent testimony — is the concept that the stability of opposite-sex marriages has been unaffected by marriage rights recently bestowed on same-sex couples. Cooper pounced on that assertion and launched into data from the Netherlands, which showed a gradual decrease in marriage rates and an increase in children raised by unmarried parents since the country legalized same-sex marriage in 2001. Badgett countered that larger secular trends could be at play. The correlation, she said, was anything but causal.
Indeed, plaintiffs’ attorney David Boies countered with data illuminating a different story — namely that marriage rates for opposite-sex couples in the Netherlands have been on the decline since 1970, 31 years before gay couples were permitted to marry.

Moreover, divorce rates in Massachusetts have declined faster than the national average since gay couples were permitted to marry in the state in 2004.

Cooper also attempted to portray Badgett as a blatant marriage activist and a biased researcher, at one point mentioning her inclusion on The Advocate's list of“Our Best and Brightest Activists” in 1999 (Badgett said she didn’t lobby to be a part of the feature).

Prior to Badgett’s testimony, San Diego mayor Jerry Sanders spoke about his change of heart on the issue of marriage equality, largely the result of his daughter Lisa's coming-out to the family in 2003.

Sanders, who currently is serving a second term as mayor of California’s second-largest city, reversed his views on gay marriage in 2007. Though he had previously supported civil unions as a “fair alternative” and believed he could not have an impact on state marriage law, Sanders ultimately endorsed a brief filed by the city in support of marriage equality and announced that support during an emotional press conference that became a YouTube sensation.
The mayor was equally emotional in his testimony before the court on Tuesday, his voice breaking when relating his experience. Upon hearing from his daughter that she was gay, Sanders said, he “felt overwhelming love. I realized how difficult it was for her. I realized how difficult it was to tell her parents.”

During cross-examination, defense attorney Brian Raum asked him whether Californians who oppose marriage rights for same-sex couples necessarily do so out of hatred for gays and lesbians (whether Prop. 8 was motivated by animus on the part of its supporters may be a key determinant of whether the ballot measure violates the U.S. Constitution).

“My thoughts were grounded in prejudice,” Sanders replied. “I didn’t feel hatred. ... But the lack of animus against gay relationships doesn’t mean it’s not grounded in prejudice.”

Sanders’s endorsement of marriage rights hasn’t come without consequence, with fellow Republicans threatening to withdraw support and endorsements for his candidacy, he said. Marriage equality, Sanders continued, “Is not first and foremost in [Republicans’] minds. The national and local platforms have said that marriage is between a man and a woman.”

Speaking about his run for reelection in 2008, Sanders said his stance “didn’t cause [him] to lose it, but it didn’t make it easy.”

Following her father’s testimony, Lisa Sanders told The Advocate, “For my father to be here standing up for my rights is amazing. I am very proud he is my father, and proud of what he’s done.”

Plaintiffs are expected to complete their witness testimony by Friday, though one witness who was to testify Tuesday about his experience in “ex-gay” reparative therapy has yet to take the stand.

Keith Olbermann's Quick Comment about Haiti, Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh

San Diego mayor says gay marriage views ‘evolved’

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.”

The trial, in its sixth day, is the first in a federal court to examine whether denying gays and lesbians the right to wed violates their constitutional rights.

Sanders recounted his last-minute decision in 2008 to sign a City Council resolution backing efforts to legalize same-sex marriage. The decision contradicted a campaign promise and his public pledge to veto the resolution.

Sanders was shown a videotape of the news conference where he broke down in tears while announcing his reasons for changing his mind.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who questioned Sanders on direct examination, asked why Sanders was so emotional on the video.

“I felt I came very close to making a bad decision,” Sanders said. “I came very close to showing the prejudice I obviously had toward my daughter to my staff and to the people of San Diego.”

Sanders, a Republican, now believes it’s in the interest of government to support same-sex marriage. A former police chief, he cited examples of hate crimes against gays and of police officers being afraid to acknowledge they are gay.

“If government tolerates discrimination against anyone it is very easy for citizens to do the same thing,” he said.

Brian Raum, a lawyer for Proposition 8 sponsors, intensely cross-examined the mayor about his past support for civil unions as an alternative to marriage.

“You didn’t think that was a hostile position to the gay and lesbian community,” Raum said. “You don’t believe that you communicated hatred to the gay and lesbian community, did you?”

“I feel like my thoughts were grounded in prejudice, but I don’t feel like I communicated hatred,” Sanders said.

Throughout the trial backers of the ban have tried to show the ballot measure was not motivated by deep-seated bias toward gays. Such “animus” would make it more difficult for the measure to pass constitutional muster.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Antigay Group Buys Super Bowl Ad

The antigay group Focus on the Family will air a TV ad during the Super Bowl on Feb. 7, the Denver Post reports. The 30-second spot, which features University of Florida quarterback and 2007 Heisman Trophy-winner Tim Tebow and his mother, is supposed to be “life- and family-affirming,” a group spokesman said.

Was YouTube Ruling an Omen?

The U.S. Supreme Court last week cast its first vote in the case challenging the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which bans marriage equality in the state. In a 5-4 ruling, the justices blocked broadcast of the court proceedings on YouTube, saying that the opponents of gay marriage and their witness would face “harassment as a result of public discourse of their support” of Prop. 8. The marriage ban defenders, the justices found “have shown that irreparable harm will likely result” if the proceedings were made public on video.

Since it’s widely believed that Perry v. Schwarzenegger, regardless the outcome of the current case in San Francisco federal court, might wind its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Los Angeles Times asked court watchers if they think this 5-4 YouTube decision suggests how the justices might rule on Prop. 8 itself.

The Times reported that legal experts on the right and left gleaned three things from the high court’s intervention:1. The justices are following this case closely. They typically rule on appeals after cases are decided. It is rare for them to intervene on a pending trial.2. The court’s conservatives do not trust U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, who is presiding over the Prop. 8 trial and had ordered the YouTube broadcasts of the proceedings. This, the Times reported, suggests Walker’s eventual ruling on Prop. 8 may be viewed with some skepticism.3. The majority of the justices has a distinct sympathy for the foes of marriage equality.

“The worst-case scenario is a 9th Circuit ruling in favor of [marriage equality],” said Vikram Amar, a law professor at University of California at Davis and a former court clerk. “That will force the Supreme Court’s hand, and it will lead to a bad precedent. I don’t see the five justices [who voted against the YouTube broadcast] to affirm that. There may not be two or three even.”

And even though marriage equality is the law of the land in Iowa and parts of New England, Amar said, “I don’t see Anthony Kennedy viewing that as the national norm.”

Federal Prop 8 Trial Reenactment to Be Posted on YouTube

Although the Supreme Court has blocked broadcast of the federal challenge to Prop 8, and Judge Vaughn Walker has scrapped his pursuit of having the actual trial posted on YouTube, independent filmmaker John Ireland will soon give folks a window into what went on in court.

He's producing his own version, a reenactment of the testimony, and the first installment is set to appear on YouTube today:
"Ireland said he's basing his storytelling on the accounts of bloggers present at the trial that started last Monday in a San Francisco courtroom. 'I don't think you have to be gay or lesbian to see that there is a tremendous human story being told but so few people are actually hearing it,' Ireland said. After casting the trial's main characters, filming began over the weekend. Opening day of the trial is 'in the can' and likely to debut on YouTube on Tuesday, with daily updates starting on Wednesday, the Los Angeles-based filmmaker said. 'We've been in a fast and furious process of auditioning yesterday, confirming and booking last night, late into the night, and this morning at 9:30 we were all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed and started filming,' he said."

Prof says Prop 8 adds to gay health woes

A Columbia University social scientist says California’s voter-enacted ban on same-sex marriages contributed to the social stigma that makes gay men and lesbians more susceptible to depression, suicide and substance abuse.

Testifying in the federal trial to decide if Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution, Ilan Meyer said the measure sent a message of “You are not welcome here” to gay people by erecting a barrier to a “desirable and respected” institution.

“People in our society have goals that are cherished by all people, that are part of the social convention,” Meyer said. “We are all raised to think there are certain things we want to achieve in life, and this Proposition 8 says if you are gay or lesbian, you cannot achieve this particular goal.”

The trial, the first in a federal court to examine the constitutionality of state gay marriage bans, is scheduled to resume Friday with testimony from Michael Lamb, a Cambridge University psychologist who will discuss gay and lesbian parenting and the benefits to children of allowing same-sex couples to marry.

During Thursday’s session, Howard Nielson Jr., a lawyer for the measure’s sponsors, mounted an exhaustive cross-examination, using Meyer’s own research showing that black and Latino gays had fewer mental health problems than white gays to try to undercut the professor’s assertion. Meyer had hypothesized in his study that black and Latino gays would have more mental health issues because of their dual minority identities.

Nielson also challenged Meyer on his statement that California’s domestic partnership law, which grants same-sex couples the same legal benefits and responsibilities as married spouses, was itself a source of stigma and emotional distress. Equality California, the state’s largest gay rights group, sponsored the 2003 law.

“Do you believe Equality California would sponsor legislation that would stigmatize (gay) individuals,” Nielson asked.

“No, but that doesn’t change my answer,” Meyer said. “Having a second type of an institution that is clearly not the one that is designed for most people clearly is stigmatizing.”

Earlier Thursday, an economist for the city of San Francisco testified that preventing gays from getting married costs the city millions of dollars a year in lost revenue and increased services.

Economist says gay marriage ban costs

A state ban on gay marriage is costing the city of San Francisco millions of dollars a year in lost revenue and increased services, an economist testified Thursday in a lawsuit aimed at overturning the prohibition.

Chief city economist Edmund Egan said married people accumulate more wealth and have more to spend on property and consumer goods, which bolsters tax revenue.

He also said the city must spend more on health care for uninsured workers because same-sex couples are not always covered under their partner’s employee health care plans.

“It’s clear to me that Proposition 8 has a negative material impact on the city of San Francisco,” he said. “These are impacts that are hard to quantify, but over the long term they can be powerful.”

Egan testified during the fourth day of a federal trial on a lawsuit challenging Proposition 8, the ballot measure approved by statewide voters in 2008.

The city was allowed to join the suit to demonstrate that governments bear some of the costs of the ban.

Egan said San Francisco has seen higher mental health costs because of discrimination against gays and now spends $2.5 million a year on specialized services for them.

“I believe that the prohibition of marriage of same-sex couples is a form of discrimination, and it’s reasonable to assume that if that prohibition were removed there would be over time a lessening of the discrimination those individuals see in their daily lives,” he said.

Egan acknowledged he could not quantify many of the potential revenue and savings benefits San Francisco would realize if same-sex couples could marry. The most solid estimate he cited was $2.6 million the city was losing in hotel and sales tax revenue every year from weddings that can’t take place.

He based the figure on the 5,100 marriage licenses San Francisco issued to same-sex couples during a five-month period in 2008 when gay marriage was legal, as well as on wedding industry data on how much couples spend on average when they tie the knot.

“Certainly San Francisco experienced an uptake in weddings (in 2008), and I can conclude with that the economic activity associated with weddings increased as well,” he said.

In addition, if same-sex couples were recognized by the federal government and could file joint income tax returns, they would realize tax savings that could be spend locally, Egan said.

Is Hawaii Poised for Civil Unions?

Gay rights advocates in Hawaii say the state legislature is prepared to pass a civil unions bill when it reconvenes on Wednesday.

Monday, January 18, 2010

Prop. 8 Trial First Week Roundup

Ten witnesses, including Kris Perry, Sandy Stier, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo and five eminent experts, clearly and convincingly demonstrated critical points in the federal trial on the unconstitutionality of Prop. 8 during its opening week:

  • Marriage is vitally important in American society;
  • By denying gay men and lesbians the right to marry, Proposition 8 causes grievous harm to the plaintiffs and other gay men and lesbians throughout California, and adds yet another chapter to the long history of discrimination they have suffered;
  • Proposition 8 perpetrates irreparable, immeasurable and discriminatory harm for no good reason.

    DISCRIMINATORY MOTIVATIONS OF PROP. 8
    The court also viewed video footage from the deposition of William Tam. Tam is one of the five Official Proponents of Prop. 8, and as such was personally responsible for putting it on the ballot and for intervening in this case to take over the defense of the initiative.

    The video footage of his deposition included statements from Tam such as this one, from a pro-Prop. 8 email he wrote: “They lose no time in pushing the gay agenda — after legalizing same-sex marriage, they want to legalize prostitution. What will be next? On their agenda list is: legalize having sex with children.”

    Please see http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/press-releases/discriminatory-motivations-of-prop-8-exposed-in-court-today/for additional quotes and details.

    DEFENDANTS DROP WITNESSES
    The backers of Prop. 8 told the court this week that they were dropping four witnesses from their witness list, leaving only two. They claimed this was due to a reluctance to testify because of cameras in the courtroom. The trial, however, is not being broadcast. Attorneys for the plaintiffs note that their depositions of the withdrawn experts, which would form the basis for their cross-examinations, resulted in the experts making admissions that disagreed with the backers of Prop. 8’s case, which is what actually led to the last-minute witness list reduction.

    Plaintiffs’ attorneys this week introduced video of the deposition of Loren Marks of Louisiana State University, who had been expected to testify for the defendants that the ideal family structure is for children to be raised by two married “biological” parents, which Marks said meant the genetic parents.

    Marks admitted that he only read parts of the studies he relied upon in making his conclusion. It was then pointed out that those studies actually defined “biological” parents in a way that included adoptive parents — not just genetic parents. Marks then stated that the word “biological” should be deleted from the report he prepared for this case, and also admitted he considered no research on gay and lesbian parents, effectively revealing his research as fatally flawed.

    OPENING STATEMENT BY OLSON
    The trial began with an emotional and compelling opening statement by Theodore Olson, who with David Boies is leading the legal team assembled by the American Foundation for Equal Rights to litigate Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Olson and Boies notably faced off in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case that decided the presidency.

    “This case is about marriage and equality,” Olson said. “Plaintiffs are being denied both the right to marry, and the right to equality under the law. The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly described the right to marriage as ‘one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men;’ a ‘basic civil right;’ a component of the constitutional rights to liberty, privacy, association, and intimate choice; an expression of emotional support and public commitment; the exercise of spiritual unity; and a fulfillment of one’s self.”

    Olson’s full opening statement can be found here: http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/press-releases/text-of-ted-olsons-opening-statement-in-prop-8-trial-as-prepared-2/

    POWERFUL PLAINTIFF TESTIMONY
    The court then heard powerful testimony from plaintiffs Zarrillo, Katami, Perry and Stier, who comprise two couples who want to get married but cannot because of Prop. 8.
    Boies conducted the direct examination of Zarrillo and Katami.

    “The word ‘marriage’ has a special meaning. …If it wasn’t so important, we wouldn’t be here today,” said Zarrillo. “I want to be able to share the joy and the happiness that my parents felt, my brother felt, my friends, my co-workers, my neighbors, of having the opportunity to be married. It’s the logical next step for us.”

    Zarrillo continued, “When someone is married, and whether it’s an introduction with a stranger, whether it’s someone noticing my ring, or something of that nature, it says to them these individuals are serious; these individuals are committed to one another; they have taken that step to be involved in a relationship that one hopes lasts the rest of their life.”
    “When you find someone who is not only your best friend but your best advocate and supporter in life, it’s a natural next step for me to want to be married to that person,” said Katami. “I can safely say that if I were married to Jeff, I know that the struggle that we have validating ourselves to other people would be diminished and potentially eradicated.”

    Katami continued, “I just want to get married…it’s as simple as that. I love someone. I want to get married. My state is supposed to protect me. It’s not supposed to discriminate against me.”

    Olson conducted the direct examination of Perry and Stier.

    “I want to marry Sandy. I want to have a stable and secure relationship with her that then we can include our children in,” Perry said. “And I want the discrimination we are feeling with Proposition 8 to end and for a more positive, joyful part of our lives to be begin.”
    Perry and Stier have four children.

    “Certainly nothing about domestic partnership as an institution — not even an institution, but as a legal agreement — indicates the love and commitment that are inherent in marriage, and it doesn’t have anything to do for us with the nature of our relationship and the type of enduring relationship we want it to be. It’s just a legal document,” Stier said.

    “I’m just trying to get the rights that the Constitution already says I have,” she added.
    The plaintiffs’ testimony was followed by testimony from eminent experts who demonstrated the history and harm of discrimination, the importance of marriage to individuals, and the fact that allowing people to marry harms no one, and in fact would create benefits.

    EMINENT EXPERTS TESTIFY

    **Nancy F. Cott, Ph.D, the Jonathan Trumbull Professor of American History at Harvard University, testified on the history of marriage.

    Dr. Cott challenged statements made by attorney Charles Cooper during his opening statement that procreation is the “central and … defining purpose of marriage.” Cooper represents the backers of Prop. 8.

    “I would certainly agree it is one of the purposes, but certainly not the central or the defining purpose,” Dr. Cott said. “It’s a surprise to many people to learn that George Washington, who is often called the father of our country, was sterile.”

    **George Chauncey, Ph.D, a professor at Yale University, testified about the history of discrimination experienced by gays and lesbians in the United States. Dr. Chauncey testified that the 2008 campaign to pass Prop. 8 played on stereotypes used historically to portray “homosexuals as perverts who prey on young children, [who] entice straight people into sick behavior.”

    After viewing several pro-Prop. 8 television ads and videos, Dr. Chauncey said the language and images suggesting the ballot initiative was needed to “protect children” were reminiscent of efforts to “demonize” gay men and lesbians ranging from police raids to efforts to remove gay and lesbian teachers from public schools.

    “You have a pretty strong echo of this idea that simple exposure to gay people and their relationships is somehow going to lead a whole generation of young kids to become gay,” Dr. Chauncey said. “The underlying message here is something about the undesirability of homosexuals, that we don’t want our children to become this way.”

    **Dr. Letitia Peplau, a Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles, testified that there is no evidence to suggest that marriage equality would harm others.
    “It is very hard for me to imagine you would have a happily married couple who would say, ‘Gertrude, we have been married for 30 years, but I think we have to throw in the towel because Adam and Stewart down the block got married,” Dr. Peplau said.

    **Edmund Egan, Ph.D. Chief Economist for the City and County of San Francisco, testified that Proposition 8 is a drain on government budgets, and that legalizing same-sex marriage would generate significant revenues and increase personal wealth, and would also reduce the burden on government services from people without health insurance and other benefits.
    “It’s clear to me that Proposition 8 has a negative material impact,” Dr. Egan said.

    **Ilan H. Meyer, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Clinical Sociomedical Sciences at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, testified about the stigma and prejudice gay and lesbians individuals face in society, saying that they are meant to feel they are “not equal, not respected by my state, my country, my fellow citizens.”

    Dr. Meyer said that domestic partnership is not an adequate substitute for marriage, and said he doubted that society places any value on domestic partnership. “I don’t know if it has any social meaning,” Dr. Meyer said. “I think it is clear that young children do not aspire to become domestic partners. But they may desire to become married.”

    **Dr. Michael Lamb, a Professor and Head of the Department of Social and Developmental Psychology at Cambridge University told the court, “We have a substantial body of evidence documenting that a child being raised by same-sex parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents,” Lamb testified.

    Dr. Lamb also testified (referring to children of gay and lesbian parents) that: “For a significant number of these children, their adjustment would be promoted were their parents able to get married.”

    HELEN ZIA
    **Helen Zia was the last witness of the week. She is an Asian American author and a lesbian. She testified about her experiences with discrimination, the effects of being denied the right to marry and the importance of being able to be married in 2008.

    “My mother, an immigrant from China, she really doesn’t get what ’partner’ is,” Zia said. “Marriage made it very clear that I was family, that we were family, and I was where I belonged.”

    CROSS EXAMINATION
    Attorneys defending Prop. 8 cross-examined plaintiff witnesses extensively, sometimes lasting several hours, yet accomplished very little. The witnesses were not shaken from their conclusions, their credentials stand, and very few items were actually allowed into evidence. Against eminent researchers, the cross examining attorneys cited Carrie Prejean, “Will and Grace” and studies from 1954.

Top Democrat Opposes DADT Repeal

Rep. Ike Skelton, one of the top Congressional Democrats on military policy said Friday that he would oppose the repeal of the ban on openly gay service members.

Skelton said on the C-SPAN show, Newsmakers, which will air Sunday, that he is "personally not for changing the law," according to The Hill newspaper. He added that changing the law would create a "disruption" amidst the wars in Afghanistan in Iraq.

Skelton, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, was a pivotal player in the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy being enacted in 1993. When President Bill Clinton wanted to completely lift the ban on gays openly serving in the military, Skelton staunchly opposed it. From the opposition came the compromised, "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

As reported earlier, Senate Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan said that he is working to schedule hearings on "don't ask, don't tell."

New Voice of America Broadcast on Uganda 'Kill the Gays' Bill




Here's a piece on the Uganda "kill the gays" bill broadcast today on Voice of America. It features some footage of an anti-gay protest in Kampala (above), and interviews with the bill's main sponsor MP David Bahati (below, right) and VP for Political Affairs of the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance in D.C., Rick Rosendall.

Friday, January 15, 2010

Prop 8 day 4: Prof says Prop 8 adds to gay health woes

A Columbia University social scientist says California’s voter-enacted ban on same-sex marriages contributed to the social stigma that makes gay men and lesbians more susceptible to depression, suicide and substance abuse.

Testifying in the federal trial to decide if Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution, Ilan Meyer said the measure sent a message of “You are not welcome here” to gay people by erecting a barrier to a “desirable and respected” institution.

“People in our society have goals that are cherished by all people, that are part of the social convention,” Meyer said. “We are all raised to think there are certain things we want to achieve in life, and this Proposition 8 says if you are gay or lesbian, you cannot achieve this particular goal.”

The trial, the first in a federal court to examine the constitutionality of state gay marriage bans, is scheduled to resume Friday with testimony from Michael Lamb, a Cambridge University psychologist who will discuss gay and lesbian parenting and the benefits to children of allowing same-sex couples to marry.

During Thursday’s session, Howard Nielson Jr., a lawyer for the measure’s sponsors, mounted an exhaustive cross-examination, using Meyer’s own research showing that black and Latino gays had fewer mental health problems than white gays to try to undercut the professor’s assertion. Meyer had hypothesized in his study that black and Latino gays would have more mental health issues because of their dual minority identities.

Nielson also challenged Meyer on his statement that California’s domestic partnership law, which grants same-sex couples the same legal benefits and responsibilities as married spouses, was itself a source of stigma and emotional distress. Equality California, the state’s largest gay rights group, sponsored the 2003 law.

“Do you believe Equality California would sponsor legislation that would stigmatize (gay) individuals,” Nielson asked.

“No, but that doesn’t change my answer,” Meyer said. “Having a second type of an institution that is clearly not the one that is designed for most people clearly is stigmatizing.”

Earlier Thursday, an economist for the city of San Francisco testified that preventing gays from getting married costs the city millions of dollars a year in lost revenue and increased services.

Haitian Ambassador Responds to Pat Robertson

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy



On Rachel Maddow's show, Haitian Ambassador Raymond Joseph responded to Pat Robertson's despicable remarks that the earthquake in Haiti was a result of the island nation's "pact with the devil."

Military lawyers say wait to end Don’t Ask

Lawyers for the nation’s top military officer are recommending holding off on an internal Pentagon effort that could lead to the repeal of the ban on openly gay military service. The delay could push a decision by Congress to the middle of the next presidential election.

Other advisers at the Pentagon, however, argue that lifting the ban would not cause unmanageable problems or divisions among the uniformed military, according to two U.S. officials. They discussed internal conversations about the ban on condition of anonymity.

“Now is not the time,” the in-house legal counsel for Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote recently in a memorandum obtained by The Associated Press. “The importance of winning the wars we are in, along with the stress on the force, our body of knowledge and the number of unknowns, demand that we act with deliberation.”

Mullen received the conflicting advice this month about whether to move quickly to lift the 1993 ban, and it is not clear what he will recommend to President Barack Obama. Although allowing gays to serve openly in the military was one of Obama’s campaign promises, the issue was put on a back burner during his first year in office. Some liberal supporters and several congressional Democrats are pushing for action.

Mullen and other Pentagon leaders have quietly begun a new push to build consensus for the timing of a repeal that Mullen and others assume will come eventually. Strong opposition to swift repeal remains among top uniformed military leaders.

Capt. John Kirby, a spokesman for Mullen, would not discuss the legal advice and said there has been no decision among the Joint Chiefs about what to do or when. He would not characterize Mullen’s own views.

“They continue to have a dialogue about the policy and the law,” keeping in mind Obama’s “strategic intent” to lift the ban, Kirby said.

Mullen was unable to get the full backing of other senior uniformed leaders during an unusual meeting of the top officers from each branch of the military last week, U.S. officials said. He is expected to hold a follow-up session within days.

Joint Chiefs legal advisers recommended delaying the start of the repeal process into 2011, with the Pentagon sending a proposed replacement law to Congress by late summer of that year. That would be after the White House says it will begin bringing troops home from Afghanistan, and a few months before all U.S. forces are due to leave Iraq.

Congress would follow with debate lasting six months to a year, the legal advisers wrote, meaning repeal would be unlikely until 2012. The memo does not spell it out, but that is a presidential election year when Obama will presumably run for a second term. The calendar calculates that the Iraq war would be over and the Afghanistan war smaller before the ban is lifted.

Mullen and other military leaders cautioned last year that repeal of the law must be done carefully so as not to disrupt military cohesion in wartime. Last April, Defense Secretary Robert Gates indicated the process could take years – if it ever happens.

At the time, Gates noted that it took five years for the U.S. military to racially integrate during the Truman administration.

“If we do it, it’s imperative that we do it right and very carefully,” Gates said then.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he wants to begin work this year on repealing the ban. He said he expects testimony from Mullen and Gates, although no date has been set.

Two officials said a hearing could be held in late January or early February, but that does not mean Congress would truly begin work on a new law that would allow openly gay service. Levin has asked Gates to request that the RAND Corp. think tank update its 1993 study on gays in the military before he goes ahead. That outside study would be expected to take several months.

Several other Democrats say they want to lift the ban on gays in the military. But party leaders have yet to press the issue, as Congress remains consumed with debate on the Afghanistan war and closing Guantanamo Bay prison, along with pressing domestic issues like unemployment and health care.

Not every Democrat wants to change the law. Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said in an interview Wednesday that he agrees with Mullen’s legal counsel.

“It’s not a good idea to change the law right now,” he said.

Today’s trial: Economist says gay marriage ban costs

A state ban on gay marriage is costing the city of San Francisco millions of dollars a year in lost revenue and increased services, an economist testified Thursday in a lawsuit aimed at overturning the prohibition.

Chief city economist Edmund Egan said married people accumulate more wealth and have more to spend on property and consumer goods, which bolsters tax revenue.

He also said the city must spend more on health care for uninsured workers because same-sex couples are not always covered under their partner’s employee health care plans.

“It’s clear to me that Proposition 8 has a negative material impact on the city of San Francisco,” he said. “These are impacts that are hard to quantify, but over the long term they can be powerful.”

Egan testified during the fourth day of a federal trial on a lawsuit challenging Proposition 8, the ballot measure approved by statewide voters in 2008.

The city was allowed to join the suit to demonstrate that governments bear some of the costs of the ban.

Egan said San Francisco has seen higher mental health costs because of discrimination against gays and now spends $2.5 million a year on specialized services for them.

“I believe that the prohibition of marriage of same-sex couples is a form of discrimination, and it’s reasonable to assume that if that prohibition were removed there would be over time a lessening of the discrimination those individuals see in their daily lives,” he said.

Egan acknowledged he could not quantify many of the potential revenue and savings benefits San Francisco would realize if same-sex couples could marry. The most solid estimate he cited was $2.6 million the city was losing in hotel and sales tax revenue every year from weddings that can’t take place.

He based the figure on the 5,100 marriage licenses San Francisco issued to same-sex couples during a five-month period in 2008 when gay marriage was legal, as well as on wedding industry data on how much couples spend on average when they tie the knot.

“Certainly San Francisco experienced an uptake in weddings (in 2008), and I can conclude with that the economic activity associated with weddings increased as well,” he said.

In addition, if same-sex couples were recognized by the federal government and could file joint income tax returns, they would realize tax savings that could be spend locally, Egan said.

Foes Lose Ballot Initiative Battle in D.C.

A Washington, D.C., judge ruled in favor of the city's Board of Elections and Ethics, which said it would not allow a ballot initiative on same-sex marriage.

The case was brought forth by a group of religious conservatives and 39 Congress members looking to reverse the D.C. city council's vote to legalize gay marriage in December.

The board's ruling that the initiative would violate the D.C. Human Rights Act was valid, Judge Judith Macaluso wrote in a decision released Thursday. Under D.C. law, ballot initiatives cannot authorize discrimination. The antigay petitioners argued that the district's 1979 human rights protections were, however, invalid.

“D.C. has the right to govern itself and make its own laws without the interference of thirty-nine Republican members of Congress, more interested in scoring cheap political points than in the everyday lives of D.C. residents," Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese said in a statement. "As D.C. law justifiably recognizes, no initiative should be permitted to strip away any individual’s civil rights. It is heartening that two different judges upheld the anti-discrimination protections wisely enacted by the Council more than 30 years ago."

Prop 8 Doc Sold Out at Sundance

Screenings for a film chronicling the Mormon Church's role in Prop. 8, California's gay marriage ban, have sold out at the upcoming Sundance Film Festival.

8: The Mormon Proposition was the first documentary to completely sell out in this year's slate of films, according to The Herald Journal newspaper in Utah.

Director Reed Cowan's 80-minute documentary will have its world premiere January 24 at the festival.

“We plan on opening up a dialogue during the festival and hope that dialogue will continue on a national level for years to come,” Cowan told The Herald Journal. “The film is important and premiering in Utah makes it even more important. ... Bringing an examination of the wrongdoing to the scene of the crimes, so to speak, is historic.”

Thursday, January 14, 2010

DC gay marriage law may take effect March 2

Gay couples will likely be able to apply March 2 for marriage licenses in the nation’s capital.

That’s the day the city projects a bill it passed legalizing same-sex marriage will go into effect.

The district’s City Council passed a bill last month. But the bill, which has been signed by the mayor, didn’t go into effect immediately. Congress oversees the district’s laws, and the bill must pass a period of 30-day review by Congress.

The City Council determined the bill’s projected effective date by looking at Congress’ calendar, but the date could change if Congress adjusts its schedule.

But couples won’t be able to marry March 2. The district has a waiting period, so three full business days must pass after an application before a license is issued.

Pat Robertson Calls Quake 'blessing in Disguise'



TV Evangelist Pat Robertson made some unusual observations about the Haiti earthquake on his CBN newscast Wednesday, calling the quake a possible blessing and saying the Haitian people are cursed.

High Court: No Cameras in Prop. 8 Case

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that cameras will not be allowed in the courtroom for the high-profile federal case challenging California's same-sex marriage ban.

The court was split 5-4 on Wednesday, with conservative justices in the majority, according to the Associated Press.

"We resolve that question without expressing any view on whether such trials should be broadcast," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, and justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Anthony Kennedy. "We instead determine that the broadcast in this case should be stayed because it appears the courts below did not follow the appropriate procedures set forth in federal law before changing their rules to allow such broadcasting. Courts enforce the requirement of procedural regularity on others, and must follow those requirements themselves."

Former Clinton adviser and attorney Richard Socarides expressed his disappointment to Advocate.com shortly after the decision.

"The ruling means the public will be denied a wide angle-first hand experience of what's happening inside probably the most important trial of our lifetime,"he said. "Disappointing, but nothing that will impact the ultimate result, one we sincerely hope brings justice."

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at University of California, Irvine, also expressed concern.

"It's discouraging that the court split so clearly along ideological lines," he said. "Hope is that this doesn’t forecast where the court is likely to go in the long term."

The federal Prop. 8 challenge is currently in front of the U.S. district court in San Francisco. Judge Vaughn Walker, who is presiding over the case, proposed last week that recordings of the trial be posted online, while live streams be broadcast to other federal courthouses.

Prop 8 trial, Day 3: Referendum supporter’s deposition takes center stage

Attorneys challenging Proposition 8 introduced the videotaped deposition of one of the referendum’s supporters in which he talked about fears the "gay agenda" would follow up any success at obtaining marriage for gays and lesbians with efforts to legalize prostitution and pedophilia.

Hak-Shing William Tam, one of the leaders of ProtectMarriage.com, successfully petitioned the court last June to make him one of five defendant-intervenors in the case. He then unsuccessfully asked the court last week to remove him from the case, saying he feared harassment as long as his name was linked to Prop 8. Tam maintained he wanted "peace to carry on my ministry and I don’t want to be tied down indefinitely with this case."

During cross-examination of Yale historian George Chauncey, videotaped portions of Tam’s Dec. 1 deposition were shown. Tam said he had learned about a "gay agenda" devised by a group of activists established in a 1972 meeting Chicago from the Internet. The minister also stressed he found out gays were more likely to have sexually transmitted diseases.

Tam also discussed in the deposition rallies he had helped organize, radio and television appearances he had made, and articles he had written to support Prop 8.

San Francisco-based minister added his Asian American friends were upset about the portrayal of marriage for same-sex couples as a civil rights issue.

"We think that civil rights is about skin color, like me being Asian, and I cannot change it," Tam said in his deposition. "My concern is if homosexuals portray themselves as another minority, than sexual preference can become another minority. Now there’s an option for children to pick their marriage. My daughter told me that her classmates chose to become lesbians and experiment with it after they noticed that they think same sex is a cool thing. Once same-sex marriage is in the air, they think, ’Why not?’"

When Tam applied to be part of the lawsuit, he claimed he had played a significant role in the campaign. Members of ProtectMarriage.com did not refute this claim at the time, but they were swift to distance themselves from Tam in court today.

"His role in campaigning for Prop 8 was next to nothing," Andrew Pugno, one of the attorneys defending Prop 8, said during the noon break.

Pugno said he thought Prop 8 supporters had done a good job of portraying social progress that made marriage for same-sex couples unnecessary.

"I think there were some key admissions today," Pugno said. "I think it was shown today there has been a real transformation in American society. The people of California are very tolerant and accepting, but they draw the line at marriage."

Chauncey testified that Tam’s deposition and the Prop 8 campaign videos portrayed a consistent message that same-sex relationships are considered inferior, and that gays and lesbians pose a threat to families.

Chauncey concluded in his 2004 book on the marriage debate with the argument marriage for gays and lesbians would soon become a reality. He said on Wednesday, however, the passage of Prop 8 and other legislative and voter initiatives over the past five years have left him less optimistic.

First Gay Marriage Hailed in China

Media in China on Wednesday hailed what was believed to be the first public instance of a same-sex wedding in the world’s most populous country.

Zeng Anquan, 45, and Pan Wenjie, 27, married in a ceremony attended by 200 friends in the southwestern city of Chengdu on January 3, according to Agence France-Presse.

Laws in China, where homosexuality was officially considered a mental illness until recently, do not recognize same-sex marriages.

According to AFP, the English-language China Daily featured a front-page photograph and story about the men, in coverage that marks significant progress.