Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Fight Back NY opens State Senator Ruben Diaz's Closet


Fight Back NY has posted the results of its request for information on New York state senator and gay marriage foe, Ruben Diaz, Sr. What did they turn up? See below.

"10 Truths About Ruben"

1.Ruben Diaz was investigated by the FBI
2.He was arrested for possession of heroin and marijuana
3.Ruben Diaz was only member of the New York Senate to vote against the ethics reform bill
4.He was the only Democrat in the New York Senate to vote to shut down the state government
5.Ruben Diaz refused to meet with his own constituents
6.He compared the use of stem cells for medical research to the Nazis using “the ashes of the Jews to make bars of soap.”
7.Ruben Diaz appropriated monies totaling $250,000 to an organization he founded, the Christian Community Benevolent Association
8.He also appropriated monies totaling $1,120,000 to the Hispanic Federation, of which the Christian Community Benevolent Association is a part (see #7)
9.Ruben Diaz defended former Sen. Hiram Monserrate, who was expelled from the Senate due to a conviction for misdemeanor assault against his girlfriend
10.Ruben Diaz and three other Democrats refused to support the Majority Leader, only to change their minds after he "offered them perks and committee chairmanships."

Fight Back NY wants people to know that Ruben Diaz, Sr. is bad for all New Yorkers.

The summer's most important news story?


"Since 1950, the study found, the oceans have lost 40 percent of their phytoplankton. As these organisms account for the production of half the earth’s organic matter, this is not good. It’s like finding out that there’s half as much money in all the earth’s banks as we thought there was."

Monday, August 30, 2010

OMD - If You Want It

Nearly 6 of 10 in Rhode Island Support Marriage Equality

A new poll out of Rhode Island shows that 59% of voters support marriage equality:

"The poll, with a sample size of 500 registered voters and a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points, found overall support for same-sex marriage in Rhode Island had grown 10 points since 2008 while opposition dropped 6 points. The increase among those who identified themselves as Roman Catholic was higher, at 12 points. When asked, “Do you favor or oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally?” 59 percent of respondents were in favor and 31 percent were opposed. In 2008, 49 percent were in favor and 37 percent opposed. Answer choices were: Strongly favor, somewhat favor, strongly oppose, somewhat oppose, don’t know or no answer. When pollsters clarified the question pertained to civil marriages and that church and state would remain separate, 66 percent said they would favor legalizing same-sex marriage, with 28 percent saying they opposed it. Among those who identified themselves as Catholics, 63 percent said they would favor it, 32 percent said they oppose it."

Marriage equality bills have stalled in the legislature every year since 1997, the Providence Journal reports. Additionally, the measure is vehemently opposed by outgoing Governor Donald Carcieri, a NOM supporter who has even crossed state lines to speak out against same-sex marriage.

Protein that destroys HIV discovered


Loyola University researchers have identified the key components of a protein called TRIM5a that destroys HIV in rhesus monkeys.

The finding could lead to new TRIM5a-based treatments that would knock out HIV in humans, said senior researcher Edward M. Campbell, PhD, of Loyola University Health System.

Campbell and colleagues report their findings in an article featured on the cover of the Sept. 15, 2010 issue of the journal Virology, now available online.

In 2004, other researchers reported that TRIM5a protects rhesus monkeys from HIV. The TRIM5a protein first latches on to a HIV virus, then other TRIM5a proteins gang up and destroy the virus.

Humans also have TRIM5a, but while the human version of TRIM5a protects against some viruses, it does not protect against HIV.

Researchers hope to turn TRIM5a into an effective therapeutic agent. But first they need to identify the components in TRIM5a that enable the protein to destroy viruses. “Scientists have been trying to develop antiviral therapies for only about 75 years,” Campbell said. “Evolution has been playing this game for millions of years, and it has identified a point of intervention that we still know very little about.”

TRIM5a consists of nearly 500 amino acid subunits. Loyola researchers have identified six 6 individual amino acids, located in a previously little-studied region of the TRIM5a protein, that are critical in the ability of the protein to inhibit viral infection. When these amino acids were altered in human cells, TRIM5a lost its ability to block HIV-1 infection.

Trial set for minister who performed gay weddings

A retired Presbyterian minister is facing a church trial for performing weddings of gay couples during the brief period when same-sex marriage was legal in California.

The Rev. Jane Spahr has been accused of publicly, intentionally and repeatedly violating church doctrine when she presided at the weddings of 16 couples between June and November of 2008.

Eleven of the couples are expected to testify as witnesses at the trial scheduled to start Tuesday at the Presbytery of the Redwoods in Napa.

It’s the second time the 67-year-old Spahr has faced sanctions from the Presbyterian Church (USA).

A regional church court convicted her in 2007 for marrying two lesbian couples. But the church’s top court later acquitted her, saying the ceremonies were not real marriages.

Friday, August 27, 2010

'Ex-Gay' Group Exodus International Desperate for Cash?

Alan Chambers, president of 'ex-gay' group Exodus International, which promises its followers the bogus deal of "freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ," has asked its followers to pray for the group, because they have no cash:

"Dear friends, please pray for us at Exodus. We have experienced an unexpectedly low giving season this summer coupled with much higher expenses (insurance, utilities, etc). Sadly, we have had to let several staff go. Your prayers are appreciated. For those who are also having to endure this unfriendly economy, our prayers are with you!"

The Price of a Gallon of Gas

Gay Couple Files Suit, Demanding Marriage in Wyoming

David Shupe-Roderick and Ryan W. Dupree of Cheyenne, Wyoming have filed suit, challenging the state's law defining marriage as between a man and a woman after being refused a marriage license, the AP reports:

"They're asking U.S. District Judge Alan B. Johnson to stop the state from enforcing any laws that block gays and lesbians from access to civil marriage. Wyoming Attorney General Bruce Salzburg declined comment Tuesday, saying he hadn't reviewed the lawsuit yet. Shupe-Roderick and Dupree are acting as their own attorneys in the case."

The suit was filed on August 13, according to Wyoming court records.

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

California Senate Reverses Gay "Cure" Law

Roy Ashburn The California state senate passed measures Monday to reverse an archaic law that requires the state mental health agency to research “cures” for homosexuality, and to call on President Barack Obama and Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

According to the Associated Press, Sen. Roy Ashburn, who came out this year after a drunk driving incident involving a gay bar, carried the bill to reverse the gay “cure” law, which the assembly already approved. It passed on a 36-0 vote with no debate.

“The law passed in 1950 classifies gays as sexual deviants,” reported the AP. “It requires the Department of Mental Health to research the causes and potential cures for homosexuality.”

The senate also approved a resolution already passed in the assembly calling on the president and federal lawmakers to repeal the discriminatory DOMA. The vote was 22-12, according to the AP.

Meg Whitman Is Paying Bloggers $15,000 a Month to Say Nice Things About Her

"It’s standard operating procedure" for right-wing bloggers to get paid by Republicans to offer favorable coverage, says a GOP "campaign operative." What about blogs who challenge Democrats to grow a pair? Because if that were the case we'd be rolling in it.

The Daily Caller quotes one "GOP blogger-for-hire" who says "at least half the [Republican-friendly bloggers that are out there ... are getting remuneration in some way beyond ad sales." Well that sounds scandalous! And how widespread is this problem?

In California, where former eBay executive Meg Whitman beat businessman Steve Poizner in a bitterly fought primary battle in the campaign for governor, it sometimes seemed as if there was a bidding war for bloggers. One pro-Poizner blogger, Aaron Park, was discovered to be a paid consultant to the Poizner campaign while writing for Red County, a conservative blog about California politics. Red County founder Chip Hanlon threw Park off the site upon discovering his affiliation, which had not been disclosed.

Poizner’s campaign was shocked to learn of the arrangement, apparently coordinated by an off-the-reservation consultant. For Park, though, it was business as usual. In November 2009, for instance, he approached the campaign of another California office-seeker — Chuck DeVore, who was then running for Senate — with an offer to blog for money. “I can be retained at a quite reasonable rate or for ‘projects,’” Park wrote in an e-mail to campaign officials. In an interview, Park defended himself by claiming, “nobody has any doubt which candidates I’m supporting,” and noting that his blog specifies which candidates he “endorses.”

But while Red County’s Hanlon expressed outrage at Park’s pay-for-blogging scheme, questions arose about his own editorial independence when it emerged that Red County itself had been taking money from the Whitman campaign. In December of 2009, Red County received $20,000 from the Meg Whitman campaign, which has sent the site $15,000 a month since then. The money is ostensibly for advertising, yet by conventional measures the numbers don’t add up. According to Quantcast, Red County reaches around 125,000 unique viewers per month. Two new media industry experts confirmed that, given such a readership, Whitman’s ad purchase is “ridiculously” expensive, surpassing the going market rate for such ads by 1,000 percent or more.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Whitman: I'd Defend Prop. 8


California Republican gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman on Friday told the Sacramento Bee that, if elected, she would defend Proposition 8, which prohibits marriage equality in the state, by appealing a federal judge’s ruling that declared the proposition unconstitutional.

Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Prop. 8 on August 4, but his ruling is now under the consideration of the ninth circuit court of appeals, which has scheduled oral arguments in the case for early December.

At a San Diego press conference on Friday, the Bee asked Whitman, the former CEO of eBay, if she—unlike current California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and her opponent for governor, attorney general Jerry Brown—would defend the law.

“The issue right now, as I understand is ‘Will Proposition 8 have the appropriate support to actually make an appeal to the circuit court of appeals?’” Whitman answered. “And I think the governor, the attorney general today has to defend the constitution and has to enable the judicial process to go along and has to enable an appeal to go through. So if I was governor, I would give that ruling standing to be able to appeal to the circuit court.”

Although the ninth circuit is scheduled to hear the appeal in December, any decision by that court is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, “so Whitman would have plenty of time to intervene if she wins and takes office in January,” the Bee reported.

It's also unclear, however, if the ninth circuit will rule that the Prop. 8 supporters who defended the ballot measure have standing to appeal the lower court decision in the case. A three-judge panel that extended a stay in the case — effectively blocking marriages for same-sex couples in Calif. pending appeal —ordered Prop. 8 proponents to justify their standing to defend Prop. 8 in briefs to be submitted to the appeals court.

Today Shuts Out Gay Couples


Four couples have advanced to the finals and will compete in the Today Show’s Modern Love wedding competition — but none of them are gay.

Despite pressure last month from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation to allow gay couples to compete, no gay or lesbian couples advanced to the top four. On Monday, Today cohost Ann Curry announced producers had received "hundreds of videos and applications.”

Originally, producers of the show prevented same-sex couples from entering because the state of New York does not have marriage equality. After meeting with GLAAD, producers opened the contest to gay and lesbian couples.

“GLAAD, along with thousands of community members and allies called on the Today Show to provide the same opportunities to celebrate our relationships,” GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios said in a statement. “NBC and the Today Show listened, opening the Modern Day Wedding Contest to same-sex couples. While it is disappointing that there are no same-sex couples among the finalists this year, we know that as our community continues to be vocal and submit stories of our love and commitment, future contests will truly be ‘modern.’ Media have a responsibility to include LGBT people, and we will keep urging NBC and its news and entertainment programs to showcase the diversity of our community.”

Monday, August 23, 2010

Judge Delivers Split Ruling in NOM Maine Donor Disclosure Case

A U.S. District Court has ruled in the Maine case seeking disclosure of the names of donors to the successful effort by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) to repeal the state's marriage equality law:

"Saying a state law requiring that the names of donors be disclosed within a certain time frame is 'unconstitutionally vague,' U.S. District Judge D. Brock Hornby nevertheless said the request by the state Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices that the National Organization for Marriage disclose names of donors who gave money to defeat a gay marriage law in Maine is not a burden on NOM’s freedom of speech. But Hornby took shots at some of Maine’s campaign finance disclosure rules. The judge said rules requiring 24-hour disclosure of independent expenditures over $250 — not just before an election, but whenever they occur — 'has not been justified ... is impermissably burdensome and cannot be enforced.'"

It's unclear from the article what happens next.

Activists Make 'Bigot Special' Target Store Announcement

Germany considering income tax equality for gay couples

Germany's justice minister says she is considering changes to income tax laws to iron out disadvantages for gay couples

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Coulter Dropped From Conservative Event

Organizers of a conservative conference have dropped Ann Coulter as its keynote speaker after she agreed to headline GOProud's Homocon because the gay conservative group promotes marriage equality and ending "don't ask, don't tell."

Joseph Farah, editor and CEO of right-wing news site World Net Daily, which is sponsoring the Taking America Back National Conference, said Wednesday the decision was tough because they like Coulter.

"Ultimately, as a matter of principle, it would not make sense for us to have Ann speak to a conference about 'taking America back' when she clearly does not recognize that the ideals to be espoused there simply do not include the radical and the very 'unconservative' agenda represented by GOProud," he said. "The drift of the conservative movement to a brand of materialistic libertarianism is one of the main reasons we planned this conference from the beginning."

Coulter, whose weekly column appears on World Net Daily, told Farah that just because she speaks to a group does not mean she endorses their views.

"I'm sure I agree with GOProud more than I do with at least half of my college audiences," she told WND. "But in any event, giving a speech is not an endorsement of every position held by the people I'm speaking to. I was going to speak for you guys, I think you're nuts on the birther thing (though I like you otherwise!)."

Dr. Laura To END Radio Show After N-Word Rant


Dr. Laura Schlessinger announced Tuesday night that she would end her radio show following her N-word rant last week.

"My contract is up for my radio show at the end of the year and I've made the decision not to do radio anymore," she told Larry King. "The reason is I want to regain my First Amendment rights. I want to be able to say what's on my mind and in my heart and what I think is helpful and useful without somebody getting angry, some special interest group deciding this is the time to silence a voice of dissent and attack affiliates, attack sponsors. I'm sort of done with that."

Dr. Laura emphasized that she is "not retiring" but rather just ending her radio show.

"I'm not retiring, I'm not quitting, I feel energized actually," she said. "Stronger and freer to say the things that I believe need to be said for people in this country."

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Ninth Circuit blocks new Calif. weddings for now

Same-sex couples planning to wed in California this week were dealt a blow Monday when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stayed a lower court ruling overturning Proposition 8. The ruling means the state's ban on gay and lesbian couples marrying remains in effect, at least until the court rules on an appeal of Judge Vaughn Walker's landmark decision to overturn the marriage ban. The court also put the case on a fast track and informed proponents of the ban that they must explain why they have legal standing to appeal. A Ninth Circuit panel will take up the case beginning the week of Dec. 6

Mexico's high court OKs adoption by gays

After its decision earlier this month to uphold a Mexico City law granting marriage rights to gay couples, Mexico's Supreme Court voted Monday to also back the city's law allowing gays and lesbians to adopt children.

LA River Rafting With George Wolfe

View more news videos at: http://www.nbclosangeles.com/video.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Dangerous Liaisons

Antigay Americans are losing the culture war, so they’re exporting their hatred to Uganda, Zimbabwe, and Nigeria — where their fervor is so welcome it threatens to sweep the entire continent.

Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni Death sentences in Nigeria. Prison terms in Malawi. Violent, homophobic rhetoric spewed by dictators in Zimbabwe and Gambia. Perhaps nowhere on earth are gays persecuted more than in Africa — ground zero for a culture war waged by U.S. religious and political leaders. Through the lens of the missionary hotbed that is Uganda, Jeff Sharlet, author of C Street: The Fundamentalist Threat to American Democracy, reports on the deadly consequences of evangelicals’ antigay exports.

Texas Oil Companies Funding Campaign to Overturn CA Climate Law


A few years ago, the state of California passed a landmark bill designed to reign in carbon pollution to 1990 levels by 2020, and Governor Schwarzenegger signed it into law. Now, the trailblazing law is beginning to take effect -- but wouldn't you know it? The fossil fuel industry and conservative politicians who ally themselves with it are attempting to shut it down. In particular, a number of Texas-based oil companies have begun funneling millions of dollars into misleading campaigns designed to overturn California's law.

Proposition 23 is the Big Oil-backed prop that would overturn CA's climate law. Fueld by the Tea Party ideology popular in conservative circles, the GOP's top candidates for Senator and Governor have been publicly calling to overturn the law as well -- predictably, they're attempting to label it a jobs killer. Thankfully, California voters aren't buying the nonsense: Two out of three continue to support the climate law despite the opportunistic smear campaign from the GOP.

Which is where the oil companies come in -- perhaps disheartened by the positive polling, companies like Valero, Tesoro, and others, have begun pouring money into a campaign designed to convince the public that transitioning to cleaner energies and stimulating the development and deployment of renewable technologies will somehow kill jobs. In fact, that's precisely what the oil companies are calling their public front group designed to take down the climate law: The California Jobs Initiative. I don't know how much more disingenuous you can get.

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Judge Walker: I Doubt Prop 8 Ruling Can Be Appealed


The federal judge who overturned California's same-sex marriage ban has more bad news for the measure's sponsors: he not only is unwilling to keep gay couples from marrying beyond next Wednesday, he doubts the ban's backers have the right to challenge his ruling.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker on Thursday rejected a request to delay his decision striking down Proposition 8 from taking effect until high courts can take up an appeal lodged by its supporters. One of the reasons, the judge said, is he's not sure the proponents have the authority to appeal since they would not be affected by or responsible for implementing his ruling.

By contrast, same-sex couples are being denied their constitutional rights every day they are prohibited from marrying, Walker said.

The ban's backers "point to harm resulting from a 'cloud of uncertainty' surrounding the validity of marriages performed after judgment is entered but before proponents' appeal is resolved," he said. "Proponents have not, however, argued that any of them seek to wed a same-sex spouse."

Walker gave opponents of same-sex marriage until Aug. 18 at 5 p.m. to get a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on whether gay marriages should start before the court considers their broader appeal. Their lawyers filed an request asking the 9th Circuit to intervene and block the weddings on an emergency basis late Thursday.

They argued the appeals court should grant a stay of Walker's order requiring state officials to cease enforcing Proposition 8 "to avoid the confusion and irreparable injury that would flow from the creation of a class of purported same-sex marriages."

Depending on how the 9th Circuit rules, same-sex couples could begin tying the knot in California as early as next week or be put off while the appeal works its way through the court and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court as well.

California voters passed Proposition 8 as a state constitutional amendment in November 2008, five months after the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions and an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples already had married.

In refusing to suspend his ruling for more than a few days, Walker agreed with the lawyers who sued to strike down the ban that it's unclear if Proposition 8's sponsors have legal standing to appeal.

Marriage to Resume August 18

Federal judge Vaughn R. Walker put marriage for same-sex couples on hold for at least another six days, extending a temporary stay until August 18 and allowing Proposition 8 supporters time to appeal his ruling.

As of Thursday evening, that's already happened. Attorneys defending Prop. 8 filed an emergency appeal to the U.S. court of appeals for the ninth circuit, claiming that "by enacting ... Proposition 8 in 2008, the people of California have declared clearly and consistently that the public interest lies with preserving the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman."

Prop. 8 proponents argued that in his decision Judge Walker "ignored virtually everything — judicial authority, the works of eminent scholars past and present in all relevant academic fields, extensive documentary and historical evidence, and even simple common sense."

Depending on how the ninth circuit rules on the appeal, marriages could resume on Wednesday or be put off indefinitely, though legal observers expect the stay to be lifted.

But in recent days a hot-button legal question has also emerged: Do Prop. 8 supporters, who defended the ballot measure after state officials declined to do so, have standing to appeal the case, one that many expected would end up before the U.S. Supreme Court?

"Judge Walker’s order clearly sets out his view that the proponents of Prop. 8 do not have standing to appeal without a state defendant, so no doubt that issue will be a very interesting one to watch," National Center for Lesbian Rights executive director Kate Kendell told The Advocate.

In his 11-page order on the stay — one nearly as anticipated on Twitter on Thursday as the actual decision in the case last week — Walker rejected both the likelihood that Prop. 8 supporters would succeed upon appeal and the argument that allowing same-sex couples to marry would result in "irreparable injury" for the state because it would result in a "cloud of uncertainty."

Attorneys who defended Prop. 8 in court after state officials declined to do so had failed to identify any legitimate reason why they themselves would be harmed should California resume granting marriage licenses to gay couples, Walker wrote. On the other hand, a stay of the decision "would force California to continue to violate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and would demonstrably harm plaintiffs and other gays and lesbians in California," he wrote.

Thursday, August 12, 2010

Walker Extends Temporary Stay in Prop. 8 Case

Judge Vaughn R. Walker on Thursday denied anti-marriage equality forces' attempts to halt marriages for same-sex couples pending appeal, but extended a temporary stay to August 18, allowing Prop. 8 supporters time to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Some city clerks in California had already given notice that they would be performing ceremonies if the stay was immediately lifted.

Though he put a temporary stay on his judgment last week, Walker wrote in his opinion in the case that "California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result[.]"

"Moreover," Walker wrote, "California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings."

Walker ruled last week that the 2008 ballot measure violated both equal protection and due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license," Walker wrote in a decision deemed by many legal observers to be both straightforward and breathtaking in its scope.

Prop. 8 proponents have appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Farmers Insurance Yanks Clear Channel Ads

Farmer's Insurance is pulling advertising from Clear Channel Radio's national network after a host in Pittsburgh made disparaging remarks about gay people.

Jim Quinn, cohost of The War Room With Quinn & Rose, said July 28, “Pedophilia is far more rampant among the gay community than it is among the straight community.”

At the urging of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, almost 2,000 people wrote complaints to Clear Channel, one of the largest radio networks in the United States, which airs the show. In addition to the letter-writing campaign, GLAAD reached out to advertisers, asking them to consider pulling their radio spots from the company's stations.

Farmers’ assistant vice president for media and public relations, North America, Jerry Davies, confirmed the ad pull and thanked GLAAD for making the company aware of Quinn’s defamatory attacks against LGBT people, according to a statement.

Mexico Gay Marriage: Supreme Court Orders All Mexican States To Recognize Weddings Performed In Mexico City

Mexico's Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that all 31 states must recognize same-sex marriages performed in the capital, though its decision does not force those states to begin marrying gay couples in their territory.

In a 9-2 decision, the tribunal cited an article of the constitution requiring states to recognize legal contracts drawn up elsewhere.

It did not specify what degree of recognition must be granted to same-sex couples.

Mexico City's same-sex marriage law, enacted in March, extends to wedded gay couples the right to adopt children, to jointly apply for bank loans, to inherit wealth and to be covered by their spouses' insurance policies. Some of those may end up applying only in the capital.

The Supreme Court ruled last week that same-sex weddings are constitutional – though it is holding separate discussions this week on the adoption clause.

Costa Rica: No Vote on Gays' Civil Unions

Costa Rica's Constitutional Court, the nation's top court, voted 5-2 to block a referendum that would've allowed voters to have a say on civil unions for gays. How come? Because it would've allowed a majority to vote on the rights of a minority.

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Judge Napolitano Predicts: Supreme Court Will Approve Gay Marriage!

Margaret Hoover Warns GOP Not to Be on the Wrong Side of History with Regard to Gay Marriage


Margaret Hoover, the conservative great-grandaughter of President Herbert Hoover who spoke out in support of marriage equality in January, pens another op-ed for FOX News in the wake of the Prop 8 decision, warning her "fellow conservatives" to let up on the attacks against Judge Walker and rethink their opposition to marriage equality.

Writes Hoover, in part:

Now, with a decision handed down that social conservatives despise, a judge whose sterling reputation as a conservative for twenty years on the federal bench is under attack.

On this page the day of the verdict, an article by a law professor from Notre Dame posited through conjecture that Judge Vaughn Walker’s rumored homosexuality caused him to decide the trial before hearing it.

Other conservatives howl that one judge is unjustly invalidating the will of seven million Californians and that gay rights should come to the populace through the ballot box, not the courts.

We conservatives have a well-founded narrative about judges and the courts. It is true that the federal bench is populated with liberals who view their role not as interpreting the law as it is written, but as policy makers empowered to sculpt social outcomes with which they agree.

The irony of this case is that Judge Walker is not a liberal activist judge but one whose career has proven him to be a tempered judge, true to the Reagan-Bush conservative jurisprudence that he was nominated to represent on the bench.

Conservatives cannot deny that our Founders intended the judiciary as an equal and independent branch of government purposed to ensure the protection of every citizen’s rights.

The Supreme Court has previously ruled that the right to marry is a fundamental constitutional right.

When an unpopular minority is denied the right to marry, it is indeed the role of the courts to protect the rights of that minority, especially when a majority would deny them. This is why Judge Walker’s opinion reads, “That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

Google-Verizon Pact: It Gets Worse

So Google and Verizon went public today with their "policy framework" -- better known as the pact to end the Internet as we know it.

News of this deal broke this week, sparking a public outcry that's seen hundreds of thousands of Internet users calling on Google to live up to its "Don't Be Evil" pledge.

But cut through the platitudes the two companies (Googizon, anyone?) offered on a press call, and you'll find this deal is even worse than advertised.

The proposal is one massive loophole that sets the stage for the corporate takeover of the Internet.

Real Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers can't discriminate between different kinds of online content and applications. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies. It's what makes sure the next Google, out there in a garage somewhere, has just as good a chance as any giant corporate behemoth to find its audience and thrive online.

What Google and Verizon are proposing is fake Net Neutrality. Here are the basics of what the two companies are proposing:

1. Under their proposal, there would be no Net Neutrality on wireless networks -- meaning anything goes, from blocking websites and applications to pay-for-priority treatment.

2. Their proposed standard for "non-discrimination" on wired networks is so weak that actions like Comcast's widely denounced blocking of BitTorrent would be allowed.

3. The deal would let ISPs like Verizon -- instead of Internet users like you -- decide which applications deserve the best quality of service. That's not the way the Internet has ever worked, and it threatens to close the door on tomorrow's innovative applications. (If RealPlayer had been favored a few years ago, would we ever have gotten YouTube?)

4. The deal would allow ISPs to effectively split the Internet into "two pipes" -- one of which would be reserved for "managed services," a pay-for-play platform for content and applications. This is the proverbial toll road on the information superhighway, a fast lane reserved for the select few, while the rest of us are stuck on the cyber-equivalent of a winding dirt road.

5. The pact proposes to turn the Federal Communications Commission into a toothless watchdog, left fruitlessly chasing consumer complaints but unable to make rules of its own. Instead, it would leave it up to unaccountable (and almost surely industry-controlled) third parties to decide what the rules should be.

If there's a silver lining in this whole fiasco it's that, last I checked anyway, it wasn't up to Google and Verizon to write the rules. That's why we have Congress and the FCC.

Certainly by now we should have learned -- from AIG, Massey Energy, BP, you name it -- what happens when we let big companies regulate themselves or hope they'll do the right thing.

We need the FCC -- with the backing of Congress and President Obama -- to step and do the hard work of governing. That means restoring the FCC's authority to protect Internet users and safeguarding real Net Neutrality once and for all.

Such a move might not be popular on Wall Street or even in certain corners of Silicon Valley, but it's the kind of leadership the public needs right now.

American Bar Association Backs Marriage Equality

The American Bar Association on Tuesday unequivocally backed civil marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples.

In a resolution adopted less than one week after a federal judge in San Francisco struck down California's Proposition 8 as unconstitutional, the group acknowledges that same-sex couples "are only seeking to participate in an equal basis in a foundational institution of our civil life," former ABA president Tommy Wells told the organization's house of delegates. "They simply want to share in the legal blessings that we give to married couples. It can only strengthen marriage.”

Text of the ABA resolution is as follows:

"RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges state, territorial, and tribal governments to eliminate all of their legal barriers to civil marriage between two persons of the same sex who are otherwise eligible to marry."

Registrars Prepare for Marriage Rush

An answer on whether gay marriage can commence in California is expected any day now, and some municipalities have already started to prepare.

West Hollywood, with its numerous gay residents and politicians, will be ready to officiate same-sex marriage licenses should Judge Vaughn Walker not issue a stay of his decision that overturned Proposition 8. West Hollywood city clerk Tom West tells The Advocate that on Tuesday staffers from the Los Angeles County registrar-recorder's office will travel to West Hollywood to deputize the city's council members so that they can officiate same-sex marriages.

Should same-sex marriages get the green light from Walker, gay couples in West Hollywood would have to get their paperwork at the county courthouse in nearby Beverly Hills — it's counties, not cities, that manage marriage licenses in California.

"We're hoping we might be able to open a satellite office [in West Hollywood] like we did last time [same-sex marriage was legal in California]," West says.

State of California Calls on Federal Government to Grant Tax Equity to Same-Sex Couples

The State of California officially endorsed a resolution supporting greater tax equity for married same-sex couples and registered domestic partners. The Tax Equity Resolution, AJR 29, was approved by the California Assembly with a procedural concurrence vote that included bipartisan support. Authored by Assemblymember Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) and sponsored by Equality California, the resolution urges the IRS to change its policy that now requires many same-sex couples who are in different tax brackets to pay unfairly high taxes because the federal government fails to recognize how California applies its community property laws.

“All legally recognized couples deserve to be taxed fairly and appropriately, regardless of their sexual orientation,” said Mario Guerrero, Equality California’s government affairs director. “We thank lawmakers for urging the federal government to end its disproportionate and unjust taxation of same-sex registered domestic partners and married same-sex couples.”

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently issued a new policy that requires California's same-sex couples registered as domestic partners to combine their incomes and report half on their individual tax returns. However, this policy is not binding. AJR 29 requests the IRS to ensure that California’s registered domestic partners and same-sex spouses receive the same treatment. Specifically, it asks the IRS to issue a binding ruling for all of California’s same-sex couples.

“I commend the IRS for affirming that domestic partners have the same community property rights as heterosexual spouses. Now it needs to ensure that same-sex married couples can enjoy the same protections from unfairly high taxes. I urge the IRS to respect California law and honor the rights of all of California’s same sex couples,” said Feuer.

The joint resolution seeks tax equity for California resident same-sex couples who have community property arising from their status as registered domestic partners or married couples.

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Prop 8 Proponents May Not Have Power to Appeal Judge's Ruling

As the nation awaits Judge Vaughn Walker's decision on the stay he placed on his ruling striking down Proposition 8, developments since that stay was placed, such as the filing Friday of briefs by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown, suggest that the state continues to have little interest in defending the discriminatory Prop 8 measure in the courts.

Could this mean the case stops here? Perhaps.

Jon Davidson explains to LGBT POV:

While many legal analysts thought that Judge Walker was likely to grant the stay pending appeal, Friday’s filings have dramatically changed the likelihood of that.

The standards for when a stay or a trial court’s order pending appeal are well-settled. In order to be entitled to such a stay, the party seeking the stay has to make a “strong showing” that the party is likely to succeed on the merits of the appeal and also has to show that that party will be irreparably injured if there is no stay. In addition, courts consider whether the issuance of a stay will substantially injure other parties and where the public interest lies.

Normally, it is the party ordered to do or not do something that seeks a stay. This is an unusual situation, however, because the parties whom Judge Walker ordered not to enforce Proposition 8 have asked him not to stay his order while the appeal proceeds.

This seems to suggest that Walker will lift the stay, and same-sex couples will be allowed to begin marrying. And several legal experts are suggesting that without a government interest in defending Proposition 8 in an appeal, the proponents of Prop 8 no longer have the power to appeal the case.

Davidson continues:

So far, the government-defendants in the case have not appealed. Given what they have said in their oppositions to the stay request, it seems likely that they will not. If that happens, there will be a legal question of whether, when those who are ordered to do something don’t appeal, someone not ordered to do anything has any right to appeal. To understand this, one has to appreciate a few things about federal courts.

Federal courts can only hear cases where there is what’s called a “case or controversy.” They can’t issue advisory opinions about issues just because parties may have an abstract dispute with one another. Rather, in order to be able to pursue an appeal, a party has the burden of showing that it has “a direct stake in the outcome” and has been injured by the ruling in a concrete manner that is particularized to that party and different from citizens at large who may not like the judge’s ruling.

New York Law School Professor Arthur Leonard seems to agree:

So where does this leave us? A strong indication from the Supreme Court that initiative proponents whose efforts result in the enactment of laws or constitutional amendments generally do not have standing to participate as parties in subsequent litigation concerning their constitutionality, and are even less likely to be found to have standing to appeal an adverse ruling on constitutionality if the state, itself, decides not to appeal. Although the Supreme Court refrained from actually ruling on the question in the Arizona case, it certainly signaled a disposition against finding standing in such a situation.

Whether the 9th Circuit will construe things that way when it is called to rule on the Proponents' appeal of Judge Walker's decision is uncertain, as is the question whether the Supreme Court would extend its reasoning in the Arizona English case to cover this situation. But it is certainly a plausible argument that a decision by the governor and attorney general may mean that the case stops here.

On the one hand, that would be fortunate for those who want to marry in California. On the other hand, it means that Judge Walker's decision remains merely a trial court ruling and order, with no precedential authority beyond the state of California. For those who think that Walker's very persuasive decision can survive appellate review, this may seem like a lost opportunity to achieve a regional (9th Circuit) or nationwide precedent that could then be used to attack similar amendments in more than 30 states.

So what happens if the case simply stops here, and never makes it to the Supreme Court?

Leonard: "Whether the 9th Circuit will construe things that way when it is called to rule on the Proponents' appeal of Judge Walker's decision is uncertain, as is the question whether the Supreme Court would extend its reasoning in the Arizona English case to cover this situation. But it is certainly a plausible argument that a decision by the governor and attorney general may mean that the case stops here. On the one hand, that would be fortunate for those who want to marry in California. On the other hand, it means that Judge Walker's decision remains merely a trial court ruling and order, with no precedential authority beyond the state of California. For those who think that Walker's very persuasive decision can survive appellate review, this may seem like a lost opportunity to achieve a regional (9th Circuit) or nationwide precedent that could then be used to attack similar amendments in more than 30 states."

It's important to note that this is all conjecture at this point.

Mexican Cardinal Calls Gay Marriage 'Evil', 'Inherently Immoral'

Cardinal Norberto Rivera slammed the Mexican Supreme Court's 8-2 ruling that Mexico City's marriage equality law is constitutional, the AP reports:

"The Roman Catholic archbishop said it was wrong to go against Christian doctrine that recognizes only marriages between a man and a woman. 'The church cannot fail to call evil evil,' Rivera said in a statement...The Federal District is the only part of Mexico that allows gay marriages. The city government said last week that since 320 same-sex couples had married since March, 173 of them male and 147 female. Rivera said homosexuals have suffered abuses from the broader society, but argued that allowing same-sex marriages is not the way to try to atone for such injustices. He called same-sex unions 'inherently immoral,' saying they 'distort the nature of marriage raised by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament.'"

Target stock sinks after boycott:

"Shares in the Minneapolis-based discount retailer have declined 3.5 percent since the morning of July 27, when Target Chief Executive Gregg Steinhafel first defended the donation, prompting critics to call for a consumer boycott. Its shares were off 1.5 percent Tuesday, closing at $50.98...Target spokeswoman Jenn Glass said Tuesday that the shifting stock price reflects 'too many factors that we can't attribute it to just one thing.'"

MLK’s Niece Speaks at NOM Rally

Alveda King, a niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., spoke at a rally for the antigay National Organization for Marriage and said marriage equality would lead to “extinction” and called it “genocide.”

King, who heads King for America, addressed a rally Saturday in Atlanta whose attendees were outnumbered by counterprotesters, according to theGeorgia Voice.

“King also spoke of her family’s commitment to strong marriages, including her uncle and ‘his lovely wife,’” reported the Voice. “She did not mention that Coretta Scott King, Martin Luther King Jr.’s wife, spoke out in favor of gay marriage on several occasions and was a speaker at Atlanta’s Gay Pride festival in 1996.”

Quinn Wants Senate Marriage Commitment

New York City council speaker Christine Quinn said she wants to hear New York state senate majority leader John Sampson commit to bring the marriage equality bill to the floor for another vote as quickly as possible.

Quinn, who is gay, appeared on the Capitol Tonightprogram about state politics Friday, when she was asked her thoughts on the Democratic senate leader’s refusal to commit to a vote timeline. Sampson, who leads an imperiled 32-30 majority in the senate, came under fire from the Stonewall Democratic Club this weekend for his support of antigay incumbent Democrats and his hesitancy about the marriage equality bill.

The speaker said, “As a member of the LGBT community in New York, I want to hear that it’s going, that the bill is going to the floor and that it’s going to happen as soon as possible. And I understand why Senator Sampson might not want to say that, I really do, from the perspective of being as a legislative leader myself. But I want to hear that, and I also think that in this case it would be strategically helpful to the overall efforts to move the bill forward, which I know Senator Sampson wants to do.”

Schwarzenegger Files Motion To Immediately Resume Gay Marriages

In an extraordinary court filing, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked Friday that gay marriages be allowed to resume immediately in California after a federal ruling that the state's voter-approved ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.

The Republican governor filed his brief with U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker before a Friday deadline to submit arguments on whether to continue a stay of Walker's decision against Proposition 8.

"The Administration believes the public interest is best served by permitting the Court's judgment to go into effect, thereby restoring the right of same-sex couples to marry in California," wrote Kenneth C. Mennemeier, an attorney representing Schwarzenegger, in the brief. "Doing so is consistent with California's long history of treating all people and their relationships with equal dignity and respect."

Ted Olson Interview With Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace

Queen Latifah's French Holiday Getaway With Jeanette Jenkins


Queen Latifah and 'girlfriend'-trainer Jeanette Jenkins enjoy some time on the French seaside aboard a yacht with Alicia Keys and new husband Swizz Beatz.

Monday, August 9, 2010

Boies: Supreme Court Will Take Prop. 8

David Boies says it’s a “dead certainty” the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the issue of marriage equality if a federal appeals court sustains the trial court's Wednesday decision overturning California's Prop. 8.

Boies — who led the plaintiffs' legal team alongside Ted Olson — made the prediction while speaking in an hourlong appearance San Francisco's Commonwealth Club. He declined to predict the case’s chances before the Supreme Court.

He predicted the ninth U.S. circuit court of appeals would rule on the case later this year and the Supreme Court would follow in 2011.

Supreme 'Double Rainbow': Two Marriage Equality Rulings Head Toward High Court


With U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's decision to overturn California's ban on same-sex marriages, we now have two landmark marriage equality cases wending their way forward through the legal process, with the Supreme Court looming as their potential final destination.

The first is the aforementioned Prop 8 decision. The second is last month's ruling by U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro, who ruled that the federal ban on same-sex marriage, more commonly known as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), was unconstitutional. Taken at first blush, this combination of midsummer rulings seem to represent a wave of support for same-sex marriage. But on closer inspection, it would seem that not all marriage equality cases are created equal.

In deciding Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Judge Walker seemed to anticipate that his decision had a date with the Supreme Court, and so he went out of his way to set the stage for the occasion. Over at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick contends that Walker more or less hardwired his ruling directly to the legal amygdala of the very Supreme Court Justice who would represent the swing vote in the case.

On the other hand, we have Judge Tauro's DOMA decision heading in the same direction. If Judge Walker's ruling anticipated a future showdown, Tauro's decision borrowed heavily from the zeitgeist. As Andrew Koppelman points out over at the Los Angeles Times, Tauro's "ruling relied on two arguments." One was that DOMA violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. But the other argument was that the "the law interfered with the rights of states guaranteed in the 10th Amendment." The latter stance is the more problematic.

As anyone who's been following the political undercurrent knows, the past two years have witnessed the rise of a phenomennon known as Tentherism. Commonly enunciated by the denizens of the Tea Party movement, Tenthers hold to an extreme interpretation of the Tenth Amendment in the belief that the Federal government have such a limited authority to rule over the states "that virtually everything the federal government does is unconstitutional." Like, say, the Federal highway system.

Californigaytion

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Californigaytion
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorTea Party

How Heterosexuals Need to Take Back Marriage: Fake Homosexuality

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
How to Ruin Same-Sex Marriages
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes2010 ElectionFox News

Sunday, August 8, 2010

Maggie Gallagher: 'Biased Judge' Was The Only One Who Thought the Defense Didn't Make a Case

Mexico Supreme Court: Mexico City's Gay Marriage Law Can Stay


In a 8-2 ruling, Mexico's Supreme Court ruled Mexico City's six-month-old same-sex marriage law, passed in December, is just fine, as it doesn't violate the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution offers no definition for "family," so state prosecutors alleging it will harm the family don't have any ground to stand on. That means the hundreds of couple who began marrying in March can keep their certificates.

Friday, August 6, 2010

Prop 8 Attorney Ted Olson Victory Speech!!!

Chad Griffin, AFER Board President, Speaks on Prop 8 Victory

Target Apologizes for Donation to Anti-Gay PAC MN Forward

Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel has apologized to employees for Target's donation to anti-gay PAC MN Forward, which funds ads for anti-gay gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, the AP reports:

"Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel wrote employees to say the discount retailer was "genuinely sorry" over the way a $150,000 contribution to MN Forward donation played out. Steinhafel said Target would set up a review process for future political donations. MN Forward is running TV ads supporting Republican Tom Emmer, an outspoken conservative opposed to same-sex marriage and other gay-rights initiatives that have come before Minnesota's Legislature."

Wrote Steinhafel: "While I firmly believe that a business climate conducive to growth is critical to our future, I realize our decision affected many of you in a way I did not anticipate, and for that I am genuinely sorry. The diversity of our team is an important aspect of our unique culture and our success as a company, and we did not mean to disappoint you, our team or our valued guests."

The Human Rights Campaign recently took out a full page ad in the Minnesota Star-Tribune calling on Target to "make it right" for their donations to the anti-gay PAC.

Dr. Drew: Prop 8 Tramples on Basic Civil Rights

I am certainly by no means a legal scholar. Nor do I have any special understanding of American History. I am an American citizen with a deep appreciation of the brilliantly balanced system our founding fathers created.

There was a reason they set up our system as a republic and not a direct democracy. The Jacksonian Revolution started us in a direction whereby direct appeal to the people and direct democracy gained a distinct priority in our value system.

But never did the founding generations expect that we might see the advent of a system where a simple appeal to a majority could result in any whim the majority might decide to assert.

A main concern of the founding fathers was to create a system that was sufficiently balanced and thoughtful so as to buffer against one group exerting its will upon another. This to them, was nothing other than mob rule. While we retain a distinct preference for the gloss of a direct democracy the fact is we are not and thankfully so.

Throughout history democracies have inevitably fractured and failed. Even the Greeks felt that a democracy was impossible in populations greater than 100,000 members. Not only are we so much larger but more heterogeneous making this even more treacherous.

Alexis De Toqueville, a Frenchman who came to America in the opening decades of the nineteenth century to study Democracy in America, in his objective assessment remained very concerned that our system had a potential to allow for something he called the Tyranny of the Majority. That is to say he was concerned that merely by being a majority one group could exert its will upon another, even restrict its civil liberties and rights.

Unfortunately, the referendum system in the State of California has become the mechanism for actualizing precisely this tyranny. The California Supreme Court determined that the argument against same sex marriage was untenable.

The opinion, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, cited the Court's 1948 decision in Perez v. Sharp where the state's interracial marriage ban was held unconstitutional. It found that "equal respect and dignity" of marriage is a "basic civil right" that cannot be withheld from same-sex couples, that sexual orientation is a protected class like race and gender, and that any classification or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the California State Constitution (source: Wikipedia).

In other words it was the concerted opinion of the judicial authority that the logic used against interracial marriage was the same as that, which was being used against same sex marriages. In spite of this very clear understanding of the law and the logic of prejudice, the response rendered by the referendum system with the passage of Proposition 8 was: “too bad”.

Now my point here is not to get into whether or not gay marriage is good, right or should even be included in the definition of what we consider marriage. My concern is that the referendum system in California can rescind the civil rights of a minority group, independent of the operation of other governmental authority.

Abraham Lincoln famously argued in his debates with Stephen Douglas that there are certain things that the majority simply cannot decide. We simply could not allow for a majority to decide that it is acceptable to enslave another population of humans no matter how substantial that majority.

He famously quipped that “squatter sovereignty’s” right to determine whether or not a state should be free or slave was based on an argument that was thinner that the soup made from the shadow of a pigeon that was starved to death! And so are the arguments flying about today to justify and legitimate Prop 8 and the Referendum system from which it was unleashed.

I ask my fellow citizens to give this careful thought. The protection against the tyranny of the majority has been an important consideration throughout the history of our government and we have quietly allowed, out of our own ignorance and apathy, a very important threshold to be crossed. A majority has restricted the basic civil rights of a minority. Beware, it may be your rights next to be trampled merely because there are enough people who think it should be so.

Fiorina Opposed to Prop. 8 Ruling

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Carly Fiorina disagrees with a federal judge’s ruling that overturned the same-sex marriage ban in California, the state she seeks to represent.

According to the Associated Press, “Fiorina says California voters spoke clearly against same-sex unions when a majority approved Proposition 8 in 2008.”

Fiorina, a former Hewlett Packard CEO, will face U.S. senator Barbara Boxer in the general election. Boxer, a Democrat, supports marriage equality and the ruling Wednesday from U.S. district judge Vaughn Walker, reports the AP.

Reactions to Ruling Striking Down Proposition 8 in California

Reactions on Judge Vaughn Walker's decision ruling Proposition 8 unconstitutional.

BISHOP HARRY JACKSON, anti-gay religious leader:

“This is a travesty of justice. The majority of Californians — and two-thirds of black voters in California -- have just had their core civil right to vote for marriage stripped from them by an openly gay federal judge who has misread history and the Constitution to impose his San Francisco views on the American people. The implicit comparison Judge Walker made between racism and marriage is particularly offensive to me and to all of us who remember the reality of Jim Crow. It is not bigotry, it is biology that discriminates between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples. To make a marriage requires a husband and a wife, because these unions are necessary to make new life and connect children to their mother and father. Judge Walker’s slur will not stand the test of time and history, we demand that Congress and the Supreme Court act to protect all Americans’ right to vote for marriage.”

NEWT GINGRICH, married three times:

"Judge Walker's ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they've affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy."

REP. JERROLD NADLER (D-NY):

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

EVAN WOLFSON, Freedom to Marry:

"Today's federal ruling strikes down a cruel and unfair constitutional amendment that should never have become law and affirms that the freedom to marry belongs to every American. As the first court to strike down race restrictions on marriage said in 1948, 'the essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage with the person of one's choice.' There is no gay exception in the Constitution to personal choice and the right to marry, and there is no good reason to continue excluding same-sex couples from marriage. Judge Walker's decision will be appealed and litigation will continue, but what we witnessed in the clear light of his courtroom cannot be erased."

CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA, anti-gay group:

"Judge Walker’s decision goes far beyond homosexual ‘marriage’ to strike at the heart of our representative democracy. Judge Walker has declared, in effect, that his opinion is supreme and ‘We the People’ are no longer free to govern ourselves. The ruling should be appealed and overturned immediately. Marriage is not a political toy. It is too important to treat as a means for already powerful people to gain preferred status or acceptance. Marriage between one man and one woman undergirds a stable society and cannot be replaced by any other living arrangement. Citizens of California voted to uphold marriage because they understood the sacred nature of marriage and that homosexual activists use same-sex ‘marriage’ as a political juggernaut to indoctrinate young children in schools to reject their parent’s values and to harass, sue and punish people who disagree. CWA stands in prayer for our nation as we continue to defend marriage as the holy union God created between one man and one woman.”

JOHN PODESTA, Center for American Progress:

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

FOCUS ON THE FAMILY, anti-gay group:

"Judge Walker’s ruling raises a shocking notion that a single federal judge can nullify the votes of more than 7 million California voters, binding Supreme Court precedent, and several millennia-worth of evidence that children need both a mom and a dad. “During these legal proceedings, the millions of California residents who supported Prop 8 have been wrongfully accused of being bigots and haters. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather, they are concerned citizens, moms and dads who simply wanted to restore to California the long-standing understanding that marriage is between one woman and one man – a common-sense position that was taken away by the actions of another out-of-control state court in May 2008. “Fortunately for them, who make up the majority of Californians, this disturbing decision is not the last word."

RICK JACOBS, Courage Campaign:

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

FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL, anti-gay group:

"This lawsuit, should it be upheld on appeal and in the Supreme Court, would become the 'Roe v. Wade' of same-sex 'marriage,' overturning the marriage laws of 45 states. As with abortion, the Supreme Court's involvement would only make the issue more volatile. It's time for the far Left to stop insisting that judges redefine our most fundamental social institution and using liberal courts to obtain a political goal they cannot obtain at the ballot box. "Marriage is recognized as a public institution, rather than a purely private one, because of its role in bringing together men and women for the reproduction of the human race and keeping them together to raise the children produced by their union. The fact that homosexuals prefer not to enter into marriages as historically defined does not give them a right to change the definition of what a 'marriage' is."

CHARLENE STRONG, Activist:

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

The WHITE HOUSE, for BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States:

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

BRIAN BROWN, National Organization for Marriage (NOM), anti-gay group:

"Big surprise! We expected nothing different from Judge Vaughn Walker, after the biased way he conducted this trial. With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman. This ruling, if allowed to stand, threatens not only Prop 8 in California but the laws in 45 other states that define marriage as one man and one woman. Never in the history of America has a federal judge ruled that there is a federal constitutional right to same sex marriage. The reason for this is simple – there isn’t!"

MAGGIE GALLAGHER, former President (NOM):

"The ‘trial’ in San Francisco in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case is a unique, and disturbing, episode in American jurisprudence. Here we have an openly gay (according to the San Francisco Chronicle) federal judge substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution. We call on the Supreme Court and Congress to protect the people’s right to vote for marriage."

ROSS LEVI, Executive Director Empire State Pride Agenda:

"We are emboldened by the recent victory on marriage equality in California and in the federal justice system. Proposition 8 was a cruel and unconstitutional attack on LGBT families, and we are very pleased that the court has understood the need for all loving, committed couples to have the protections they need to care for each other and their children. But we know that this struggle is far closer to home. Our movement is not only about lawyers in a far away courtroom; it’s about everyday New Yorkers who support the freedom to marry and are willing to fight until we achieve it. The victory in California provides continued momentum here in New York that will allow the Pride Agenda and our community to continue pushing equality and justice on all fronts and with every tool at our disposal. That includes an intense focus on the upcoming 2010 New York elections that will determine for the next few years how quickly we can accomplish progress in the New York State government on issues like marriage equality and basic nondiscrimination protections for transgender people. The LGBT community and our allies will be making our voices heard loudly through this election season."

DAVID PATERSON, Governor of New York:

"I was pleased and gratified to learn today of Chief Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling on California's Proposition 8 in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. This ruling affirms that the denial of the right to marry a partner of one's choosing, whether of the same or a different sex, is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. I congratulate attorneys David Boies and Theodore Olson for their courage in taking on this case, and their diligence in seeing it through. I know that there is a long road ahead in the legal proceedings, but whatever the outcome I believe that the bedrock American principle of equal protection under the law must mean equal rights for gay and lesbians, and that such equal rights must include the fundamental right to marry. Today's decision is one important step in a long struggle, and that struggle must continue until equality is achieved. Whether it be through the courts or via the political process, I know in my heart that those rights will one day be vindicated, in New York State and throughout our nation."

MICHAEL KEEGAN, President of People For the American Way:

“This is a historic day for California, and for our country. Proposition 8 took away the freedom of committed couples to make what is one of the most important decisions in any person’s life—to make a lifelong promise of caring, responsibility, love, and protection for another individual. Now, like the thousands of other California couples who have been barred from marrying who they choose, Kris Perry and Sandy Stier can have security of knowing they can receive legal protections for their family, visit each other’s hospital rooms when they are ill, and provide for each other in old age. They now have the freedom to make that lifelong commitment to each other. This decision is an important step in the right direction, but there’s a lot of work left to do. We will continue to work toward making America a place where all couples can enjoy the freedom and security of marriage.”

MICHAEL MITCHELL, Executive Director Stonewall Democrats:

“Religion-based bigotry should never outweigh constitutionally-based guarantees of equal protection, especially when thousands of California families are at risk. Judge Walker unequivocally affirmed that the freedom to marry is a fundamental right protected under the Constitution and that it includes lesbian and gay couples. It’s a great day for same-sex couples, and it’s a great day for all Americans who value equality under the law. As the case inevitably finds its way to the US Supreme Court, I am reminded of the 2000 campaign when it was commonly held that the two candidates, Al Gore and George W. Bush, were virtually indistinguishable. Imagine what a different world we’d be living in if this case were going to ultimately land in the laps of a Court that was headed by a Gore appointee instead of Chief Justice John Roberts. Elections matter, whether it’s the razor thin elections that resulted in two terms for George W. Bush, the election that gave us the spiteful Prop. 8, or the one this November that could hand over Congress to Republican control. Republicans will certainly turn back every gain that LGBT Americans have seen under the Obama Administration.”

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of California:

"Judge Walker had the great responsibility of deciding whether Proposition 8 violates the Constitution of the United States. He heard in-depth arguments from both sides on fundamental questions of due process, equal protection and freedom from discrimination. There are strong feelings on both sides of this issue, and I am glad that all viewpoints were respected throughout the proceedings. We should also recognize that there will continue to be different points of view in the wake of this decision. For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves. At the same time, it provides an opportunity for all Californians to consider our history of leading the way to the future, and our growing reputation of treating all people and their relationships with equal respect and dignity. Today's decision is by no means California's first milestone, nor our last, on America's road to equality and freedom for all people."

CAROLYN JENISON: Executive Director, One Iowa:

"Today’s decision is a victory for all Americans who believe in fundamental fairness. This is the first step toward remedying the pain done by California’s Proposition 8 and recognizing gay and lesbian couples who simply want to marry the person they love. As we celebrate with Californians, we recognize the work is far from over. In order to make equality a reality for all Americans, we must continue to have conversations with our friends and families about the importance of marriage for same-sex couples."

CYNDI LAUPER:

"Gay and lesbian couples have long struggled for acceptance and the ability to marry the person they love and want to build a family with. Today's landmark ruling declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional is a testament to the fundamentals on which this great country was built and validates that the discrimination gay couples face must come to an end. We as a society should be embracing these couples and helping them make the lifelong commitment to each other that many of us straight people take for granted each and every day. This decision is a major step in the right direction towards equality. On behalf of the True Colors Fund and the Give a Damn Campaign, I want to commend and thank Chad Griffin and the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the legal team headed by Ted Olson and David Boies, and the plaintiffs in the case, Kris Perry & Sandy Stier and Paul Katami & Jeff Zarrillo, for their leadership and courage in standing up for equality and fairness."

JUDY SHEPARD: mother of Matthew Shepard:

“These plaintiffs are law-abiding, family-oriented, tax-paying citizens whose privacy was invaded, and whose dignity was affronted, by a misguided and unconstitutional law. Their victory at trial shows that our courts still play a vital role in safeguarding the rights of minorities from majorities who misunderstand them. But more importantly, it proves the power of personal stories. Equal marriage rights are ultimately about people’s families, and during the trial, their personal need for legal recognition of their relationships came through loud and clear. After Matt came out to me, he once asked me if I thought gay couples would ever be allowed to get married. I told him I didn’t think it would happen in my lifetime, but it probably would in his. It’s so sad, and ironic, that it turned out the other way. But this case warms my heart, to think that his dream is still coming true.”

REP. TAMMY BALDWIN (D-WI):

“We live in a democracy wherein majority rule is checked and balanced by the guarantee of inalienable minority rights. This case, as it wends its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, presents jurists with fundamental questions about minority rights and majority rule. I believe Judge Walker got it right, declaring that denial of marriage rights and protections to gay and lesbian citizens violates the Constitution even if it reflects the will of the majority of Californians;”

REA CAREY, Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force:

“This ruling marks a victory for loving, committed couples who want nothing more than the same rights and security as other families. From the start, this has been about basic fairness. Today we celebrate the affirmation of this fundamental principle; tomorrow, we are back out there sharing our personal stories and having conversations with Californians and people all across the country about why this matters and who we are. The tide is turning nationwide in favor of marriage equality, but our work is far from over. Today’s ruling is just a beginning step in what will likely be a long process, yet we are confident that fairness will prevail. Our conversations are breaking down barriers and helping to transform our country.”

KATHLEEN RICE, New York Attorney General Candidate:

“Nothing is more fundamentally American than equal treatment under the law, and Judge Walker’s decision today recognizes that equality should not be subject to popular referendum. As a longtime advocate for marriage equality, I am hopeful that this discriminatory and wrongheaded attack on the civil rights of LGBT people in California will no longer stand in the way of full civil marriage equality. Even without Prop. 8, the federal Defense of Marriage Act continues to deny states the ability to offer married same-sex couples the full rights and responsibilities of civil marriage. That’s wrong, and as the first attorney general candidate in New York to commit to suing the federal government over DOMA, I will continue to partner with marriage advocates across the state to bring true equality to all LGBT New Yorkers.”

THOMAS DINAPOLI, New York State Comptroller:

“California’s Federal District Court made the right decision this afternoon by declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional. The ban on gay marriage was unfair and amounted to legalized discrimination. Same-sex couples everywhere should be afforded the same opportunity to form meaningful and lasting unions as everyone else. In September, 2007, I directed the New York State and Local Retirement System to recognize same-sex marriages wherever they are performed. This policy guarantees that all surviving spouses have access to certain retirement benefits, including accidental death benefits awarded in certain situations and a cost-of-living adjustment to monthly pension payments.”