DOWNLOADS: (209)

PLAYS: (2875)

Embed

Former RNC chairman Michael Steele was on MSNBC's "NOW with Alex Wagner" this morning and used the Ron Paul "states' rights defense" to attack gay marriage during a debate on the Prop 8 ruling with Don Choi. But when he was asked by John Heilemann how he would feel if a state passed a law saying he couldn't marry a white woman, he went into an incoherent and belligerent rant about his skin color making bigotry against gays different from racism against blacks, and used the typical conservative tactic of feigned outrage at even being asked the question. Huh? See, he didn't appreciate being asked THAT question when trying to justified HIS flawed position. Hey, Michael, racism and bigotry hurt.

Choi: Michael, I really get lost in some of your vocabulary, all I know is that when I fell in love it was worth fighting for and you can put all this vocabulary and talking about this state and that state, but bottom line is what translates in my book is that you don't think I have the deserve to be married in every state of America.

Heilemann: Michael, I'm curious about if you think it would be okay in modern America where it there would be in some states in America where black men could not marry women? If local states said that was unacceptable.

Steele: First off let's just be very clear about a couple of things.

Heilemann: Just answer the question.

Continue reading »

SAN FRANCISCO -- Lawyers for gay couples, California Gov. Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed legal motions Friday telling a federal judge that allowing same-sex marriages to resume immediately in the state was the right thing to do.

The motions came two days after U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker struck down California's voter-approved gay marriage ban as unconstitutional.

In his 136-page decision, Walker said gay marriages should begin immediately. But later Wednesday, he agreed to suspend weddings until he could consider the legal arguments he ordered to be filed by Friday.

Opponents of same-sex marriage said they want Proposition 8 to stay in effect until their appeal of Walker's ruling is decided by higher courts.

They argued in court papers filed earlier this week that resuming gay marriage now would cause legal chaos if the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or U.S. Supreme Court eventually reverse Walker's ruling.

The 9th Circuit received their appeal of Walker's decision on Wednesday, hours after the judge ruled that Proposition 8 violates the civil rights of gay Californians.

On Friday, Schwarzenegger and Brown were the first to urge an immediate resumption of gay marriage, which was legal in the state for more than four months before voters amended the California Constitution to outlaw it in November 2008.

The legal team of David Boies and Ted Olson, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of two gay couples that led to Walker's ruling, also submitted a motion in conjunction with the city of San Francisco, another plaintiff.

DOWNLOADS: 733

PLAYS: 491

Embed

The Supreme Court of the United States struck a blow against civil liberties and transparency by not one, but two decisions protecting the privacy of those who don't believe in Equal Protection under the 14th Amendment. Ironic, non?

The Supreme Court on Friday intervened for the second time this week in a question of whether those who oppose expanding gay rights face threats and harassment by public disclosure of their views.

The court agreed to decide whether it was unconstitutional for the state of Washington to make public the names of 138,500 voters who signed a petition for a referendum on whether to overturn a state "everything-but-marriage" law. The statute expanded rights for those who entered into domestic partnerships, both homosexual and heterosexual.

The group that championed the referendum said rival organizations planned to make the petitioners' names available on the Internet and subject them to "threats, harassment and reprisals." Those groups denied such intentions, and the state said its public-records law required disclosure of the names as part of the transparency that comes with democratic participation.[..]

But the petition-signers' names have not been disclosed. The Supreme Court blocked the release in October while considering whether the case presented a significant question about political speech. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said Washington's public-records law did not violate constitutional protections.[..]

The court earlier this week ruled 5 to 4 that a federal judge presiding over a trial in San Francisco contesting California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage may not transmit video of the proceedings to other courthouses. Proponents of Proposition 8 asked the court to act, warning of "harassment, economic reprisal, threat and even physical violence" against witnesses in the case if the video were widely distributed.

The conservative Christian group that started the petition drive in Washington is represented by James Bopp Jr., who has frequently challenged campaign finance laws before the Supreme Court. He told the justices in court papers the issue of whether confidentiality should be protected "is arising with great frequency across the country, as changes in technology have made it possible for individuals and groups seeking to prevent public debate from occurring to obtain the names and contact information of petition signers and post that information online to encourage harassment and intimidation."

Harassment and intimidation? You mean, like tying a homophobe to a fence post and beating him to death? Oh wait, it didn't happen that way, did it? It's not people who believe in equal protection that are advocating violence, you cowards, it's your group.

Continue reading »

Well, maybe not:

The Supreme Court Monday blocked a broadcast of the trial on California's same-sex marriage ban, at least for the first few days.

The federal trial was scheduled to begin Monday in San Francisco. It will consider whether the Proposition 8 gay marriage ban approved by California voters in November 2008 is legal.

The high court on Monday said it will not allow video of the trial to be posted on YouTube.com, even with a delay, until the justices have more time to consider the issue.

It said that Monday's order will be in place at least until Wednesday.

Opponents of the broadcast said they fear witness testimony might be affected if cameras are present. Justice Stephen Breyer said he would have allowed cameras while the court considers the matter.

The San Francisco proceeding is the first federal trial to determine if the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from outlawing same-sex marriage.

The proceedings, which are expected to last two to three weeks, involve a challenge to Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban approved by California voters in November 2008.

Regardless of the outcome, the case is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it ultimately could become a landmark that determines if gay Americans have the right to marry.

The decision sided with proponents of Prop. 8, who claimed that their witnesses would feel a "chilling effect" on their testimony. With all due respect to the Supreme Court, if you feel the presence of cameras in the courtroom for a delayed broadcast on YouTube chills your testimony against gay marriage, maybe that should tell you something about the strength of your argument.

One other important point: California's Attorney General, Jerry Brown, would normally be the one defending the state of California, and therefore, in this case for the continuation of Prop. 8. However, Brown--who is considering another run for Governor--has consistently and repeatedly said that he felt Prop. 8 should be repealed, and refused to represent the State in trial.

** corrected to reflect the decision came from the federal Supreme Court, not the California Supreme Court.

Yeah, it's a Hollywood mixed with Scientology story, which I normally avoid like the plague, but director Paul Haggis's very public and damning resignation from the Church of Scientology because he couldn't reconcile his belief in the fundamental unfairness of banning gay marriage and his church's support for it is definitely worth a read:

In what may prove to be an earth-shaking rupture for the organization, Oscar-winning writer and director Paul Haggis has broken publicly with the Church of Scientology, the Hollywood-centric religion that has recently come under renewed scrutiny for its political positions.

In a scathing letter to the church's celebrity contact, Tommy Davis, Haggis accused the church of hypocrisy and lies, especially regarding its decision to support the anti-gay-marriage proposition on the California ballot last year, Proposition 8.

"I told you I could not, in good conscience, be a member of an organization where gay-bashing was tolerated," Haggis wrote, referring to support for Prop. 8 in the church's San Diego branch. "You promised action. Ten months passed. No action was forthcoming."

He added: "The church's refusal to denounce the actions of these bigots, hypocrites and homophobes is cowardly. I can think of no other word. Silence is consent, Tommy. I refuse to consent."

The church has officially denied that it supported Proposition 8, however, Haggis felt that the denial was weak at best, and not the only troubling thing about Scientology:

He accused Davis of lying in a CNN interview about church policy regarding the requirement that members distance themselves from any family members who oppose Scientology.

"I saw you deny the church's policy of disconnection," he said. "I was shocked. We all know this policy exists."

Haggis said his own wife "was ordered" to break relations with her parents because of the policy, "because of something absolutely trivial they supposedly did 25 years ago when they resigned from the church. ... For a year and a half, despite her protestations, my wife did not speak to her parents, and they had limited access to their grandchild. It was a terrible time.

"To see you lie so easily, I am afraid I had to ask myself: What else are you lying about?" Haggis wrote.

Haggis's letter is available here. In it, Haggis acknowledges that the hardball tactics the Church of Scientology employs to smear those who have left the fold will be used on him as well. The Church of Scientology isn't having the best of weeks, either. They were convicted in France of fraud and the country just stopped short of banning the church altogether.

DOWNLOADS: (991)

PLAYS: (1418)

Embed

A lot of people saw this coming:

SAN FRANCISCO -- California voters legally outlawed same-sex marriage when they approved Proposition 8 in November, but the constitutional amendment did not dissolve the unions of 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who wed before the measure took effect, the state Supreme Court ruled today.

The 6-1 decision was issued by the same court that declared a year ago that a state law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman violated the right to choose one's spouse and discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation.

Prop. 8 undid that ruling. The author of last year's 4-3 decision, Chief Justice Ronald George, said today that the voters were within their rights to approve a constitutional amendment redefining marriage to include only male-female couples.

Justice Carlos Moreno, in a lone dissent, said a majority should not be allowed to deprive a minority of fundamental rights by passing an initiative.

The justices ruled unanimously that Prop. 8 was not retroactive and that gay and lesbian couples who relied on the court's May 2008 ruling to get married before the Nov. 4 election will remain legally wed.

Prop. 8, which declared that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, passed with a 52 percent majority after an intense and expensive campaign. Sponsors, mainly affiliated with Christian conservative groups, raised nearly $40 million for the measure and opponents more than $45 million - combined, a record for a ballot measure on a social issue anywhere in the nation.

And here's the important part:

The ruling, the court's third major decision on same-sex marriage in five years, may be the last word from the state's legal system on the issue. But the matter is far from settled in the political arena. Gay-rights advocates, anticipating the decision, have discussed putting another constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2010 or 2012 to try to repeal Prop. 8.

Indeed. The Courage Campaign has a petition for you to sign calling for the repeal of Prop 8. I think we can count on it being on the next major ballot.

)

Award-winning composer Marc Shaiman put together Jack Black and a star-studded cast for "Prop 8: The Musical".

Join the Impact is still organizing protests and other events to call attention to the inequality of Proposition 8 in California (and lest you non-Californians think this doesn't impact you, think again. California is the guinea pig for similar legislation through out the country).