CA Prop 8 & DOMA

[Michael Scally MD]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

Re: DOMA

Statement of the Attorney General on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act
Statement of the Attorney General on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act

WASHINGTON – The Attorney General made the following statement today about the Department’s course of action in two lawsuits, Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States, challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for federal purposes as only between a man and a woman:

In the two years since this Administration took office, the Department of Justice has defended Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act on several occasions in federal court. Each of those cases evaluating Section 3 was considered in jurisdictions in which binding circuit court precedents hold that laws singling out people based on sexual orientation, as DOMA does, are constitutional if there is a rational basis for their enactment. While the President opposes DOMA and believes it should be repealed, the Department has defended it in court because we were able to advance reasonable arguments under that rational basis standard.

Section 3 of DOMA has now been challenged in the Second Circuit, however, which has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated. In these cases, the Administration faces for the first time the question of whether laws regarding sexual orientation are subject to the more permissive standard of review or whether a more rigorous standard, under which laws targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination are viewed with suspicion by the courts, should apply.

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit. We will, however, remain parties to the cases and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation. I have informed Members of Congress of this decision, so Members who wish to defend the statute may pursue that option. The Department will also work closely with the courts to ensure that Congress has a full and fair opportunity to participate in pending litigation.

Furthermore, pursuant to the President ’ s instructions, and upon further notification to Congress, I will instruct Department attorneys to advise courts in other pending DOMA litigation of the President's and my conclusions that a heightened standard should apply, that Section 3 is unconstitutional under that standard and that the Department will cease defense of Section 3.

The Department has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense. At the same time, the Department in the past has declined to defend statutes despite the availability of professionally responsible arguments, in part because – as here – the Department does not consider every such argument to be a “reasonable” one. Moreover, the Department has declined to defend a statute in cases, like this one, where the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional.

Much of the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed DOMA. The Supreme Court has ruled that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct are unconstitutional. Congress has repealed the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Several lower courts have ruled DOMA itself to be unconstitutional. Section 3 of DOMA will continue to remain in effect unless Congress repeals it or there is a final judicial finding that strikes it down, and the President has informed me that the Executive Branch will continue to enforce the law. But while both the wisdom and the legality of Section 3 of DOMA will continue to be the subject of both extensive litigation and public debate, this Administration will no longer assert its constitutionality in court.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

UPDATE 1:35 p.m.
U.S. says DOMA ban invalid (UPDATED) : SCOTUSblog

The government’s switch in position led swiftly on Wednesday to a plea by same-sex couples in California for the Ninth Circuit Court to clear the way, immediately, for them to marry under a federal judge’s ruling striking down the ban against their marriage under the state’s Proposition 8. The Circuit Court had stayed the judge’s ruling while it weighed an appeal. In asking that the stay be lifted, the same-sex couples’ lawyers cited the Holder letter (discussed below), as well as the delay of up to a year that now faces the courts’ ruling on Proposition 8 as a result of a review of a procedural issue by the California Supreme Court. The motion to lift the stay can be read here - http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-co.../Prop.-8-lift-stay-request-9th-CA-2-23-11.pdf The same-sex couples also have asked the California Supreme Court to move up the hearing on that issue to May instead of September; the motion to shorten the schedule in that proceeding is here - http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-co....-8-motion-to-shorten-time-CA-SCt-2-23-11.pdf

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

Justification asked for DOMA plan
A federal judge orders the U.S. government to explain its plan to enforce the federal ban on benefits for legally married same-sex couples even while taking the position that the ban is unconstitutional.
Justification asked for DOMA plan : SCOTUSblog

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

Marauding Gay Hordes Drag Thousands Of Helpless Citizens From Marriages After Obama Drops Defense Of Marriage Act
Marauding Gay Hordes Drag Thousands Of Helpless Citizens From Marriages After Obama Drops Defense Of Marriage Act | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

FEBRUARY 25, 2011 | ISSUE 47•08

WASHINGTON—Reports continue to pour in from around the nation today of helpless Americans being forcibly taken from their marital unions after President Obama dropped the Defense of Marriage Act earlier this week, leaving the institution completely vulnerable to roving bands of homosexuals. "It was just awful—they smashed through our living room window, one of them said 'I've had my eye on you, Roger,' and then they dragged my husband off kicking and screaming," said Cleveland-area homemaker Rita Ellington, one of the latest victims whose defenseless marriage was overrun by the hordes of battle-ready gays that had been clambering at the gates of matrimony since the DOMA went into effect in 1996. "Oh dear God, why did they remove the protection provided by this vital piece of legislation? My children! What will I tell my children?" A video communique was sent to the media late yesterday from what appears to be the as-yet unidentified leader of the gay marauders, who, adorned in terrifying warpaint, announced "Richard Dickson of Ames, Iowa. We're coming for you next. Put on something nice."

LMAO

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

Also see: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/mike-huc...itutionality-to-a-skeptical-judge-napolitano/

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

No speed-up on Prop. 8
No speed-up on Prop. 8 : SCOTUSblog

California’s Supreme Court refuses to speed up its review of a key issue bearing on the constitutional challenge to the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

The California Supreme Court has refused to move up the timing of its review of a key issue on gay marriage rights in the state, leaving intact a prior schedule that will run at least through next fall before a ruling could emerge. Gay couples challenging the state’s Proposition 8 ban on marriage for same-sex couples on Wednesday sent a copy of the state court’s order to the Ninth Circuit Court, where they already have made a plea to allow such couples to get married now.

While the Circuit Court has held a hearing on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 under the federal Constitution, the three-judge panel has asked the state Supreme Court to give it legal advice on whether anyone in California can defend that ballot measure in court since state officials have refused to do so. The Circuit Court said it needs an answer to that question before it can decide whether anyone has a right to carry on the case for Proposition 8 in federal court — that is, the “standing” issue.

While same-sex couples are eager to have the issue resolved quickly, the state Supreme Court had set a briefing schedule that would lead to an oral argument in early Sepember, but not before. That would suggest there would be no decision there until later in the fall, if then. Because of that stretched-out schedule, the opponents of Proposition 8 asked the state court to shorten the schedule so that oral argument would be heard on May 23. Without saying why, the state court on Tuesday denied that request. On Wednesday, the gay couples’ lawyers passed that order on to the Circuit Court as a “courtesy.”

The aim of doing so, it appeared, was to bolster the couples’ plea for the Circuit Court to end an existing stay of District Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s decision last August, striking down Proposition 8 under the U.S. Constitution. Because of that stay, no same-sex couple in California can obtain a marriage license in the state to pursue the right that Judge Walker concluded that they have. The state of California supports the plea to lift that stay.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

Gomes he wrote a wonderful op-ed for the New York Times in 1992 - http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/19920817-gomes-re-read-your-bible.pdf - where he wrote that “hatred of homosexuals has become the last respectable prejudice of the century.” He discussed the hypocrisy of Christians who cherry-pick parts of the Bible to rail against gays, while ignoring other salient passages. http://www.alan.com/2011/03/01/rip-peter-j-gomes-1942-2011/.

Christians opposed to political and social equality for homosexuals nearly always appeal to the moral injunctions of the Bible, claiming that Scripture, is very clear on the matter and citing verses that support their opinion. They accuse others of perverting and distorting texts contrary to their “clear” meaning. They do not, however, necessarily see quite as clear a meaning to biblical passages on economic conduct, the burdens of wealth and the sin of greed.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

House will defend DOMA
House will defend DOMA : SCOTUSblog

House Speaker John Boehner announces that the House will have its own lawyers go to court to defend the constitutionality of the 1996 federal law banning federal benefits to same-sex couples legally married under their own state’s laws. The Obama Administration has abandoned the defense.

House Speaker John Boehner said on Friday that the House of Representatives will send its own lawyers to federal courts to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act — the defense that the Obama Administration no longer will provide. The Act is the 1996 law that bans all federal benefits based on marriage to same-sex couples who are legally married under their own state’s laws. Boehner’s announcement is here.

The House has an advisory group, bipartisan in makeup, to consider when the chamber will take legal action outside of the legislative process. Boehner said he would convene that group “for the purpose of initiating action by the House to defend this law of the United States, which was enacted by a bipartisan vote in Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton.” The courts should settle that issue, not the President “unilaterally,” the Speaker said.

When the Obama Administration announced last month that the President and the Attorney General had concluded that the Act’s ban on benefits is unconstitutional, officials said they would not oppose efforts by members of Congress to go into court to take up the defense. The law’s constitutionality is under challenge now in three federal courts of appeals — the First, Ninth and Federal Circuits — and in federal trial courts in four states — California, Connecticut, New York and Oklahoma.

The House’s five-member legal advisory group is composed of the Speaker, party majority and minority leaders, and party majority and minority “whips” — that is, deputy party leaders. At the direction of that group, the House’s non-partisan general counsel acts as the chamber’s attorney.

 

[zkt]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

Why dont the Democrates have balls?

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

Gomes he wrote a wonderful op-ed for the New York Times in 1992 - http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/19920817-gomes-re-read-your-bible.pdf - where he wrote that “hatred of homosexuals has become the last respectable prejudice of the century.” He discussed the hypocrisy of Christians who cherry-pick parts of the Bible to rail against gays, while ignoring other salient passages. http://www.alan.com/2011/03/01/rip-peter-j-gomes-1942-2011/.

Op-Classic, 1992: Homophobia and the Bible
Op-Classic, 1992 - Homophobia and the Bible - NYTimes.com


Homophobic? Re-Read Your Bible

August 17, 1992
By PETER J. GOMES

Peter J. Gomes, an American Baptist minister, is professor of Christian morals at Harvard.

CAMBRIDGE, Mass.

Opposition to gays' civil rights has become one of the most visible symbols of American civic conflict this year, and religion has become the weapon of choice. The army of the discontented, eager for clear villains and simple solutions and ready for a crusade in which political self-interest and social anxiety can be cloaked in morality, has found hatred of homosexuality to be the last respectable prejudice of the century.

Ballot initiatives in Oregon and Maine would deny homosexuals the protection of civil rights laws. The Pentagon has steadfastly refused to allow gays into the armed forces. Vice President Dan Quayle is crusading for "traditional family values." And Pat Buchanan, who is scheduled to speak at the Republican National Convention this evening, regards homosexuality as a litmus test of moral purity.

Nothing has illuminated this crusade more effectively than a work of fiction, "The Drowning of Stephan Jones," by Bette Greene. Preparing for her novel, Ms. Greene interviewed more than 400 young men incarcerated for gay-bashing, and scrutinized their case studies. In an interview published in The Boston Globe this spring, she said she found that the gay-bashers generally saw nothing wrong in what they did, and, more often than not, said their religious leaders and traditions sanctioned their behavior. One convicted teen-age gay-basher told her that the pastor of his church had said, "Homosexuals represent the devil, Satan," and that the Rev. Jerry Falwell had echoed that charge.

Christians opposed to political and social equality for homosexuals nearly always appeal to the moral injunctions of the Bible, claiming that Scripture is very clear on the matter and citing verses that support their opinion. They accuse others of perverting and distorting texts contrary to their "clear" meaning. They do not, however, necessarily see quite as clear a meaning in biblical passages on economic conduct, the burdens of wealth and the sin of greed.

Nine biblical citations are customarily invoked as relating to homosexuality. Four (Deuteronomy 23:17, I Kings 14:24, I Kings 22:46 and II Kings 23:7) simply forbid prostitution, by men and women.

Two others (Leviticus 18:19-23 and Leviticus 20:10-16) are part of what biblical scholars call the Holiness Code. The code explicitly bans homosexual acts. But it also prohibits eating raw meat, planting two different kinds of seed in the same field and wearing garments with two different kinds of yarn. Tattoos, adultery and sexual intercourse during a woman's menstrual period are similarly outlawed.

There is no mention of homosexuality in the four Gospels of the New Testament. The moral teachings of Jesus are not concerned with the subject.

Three references from St. Paul are frequently cited (Romans 1:26-2:1, I Corinthians 6:9-11 and I Timothy 1:10). But St. Paul was concerned with homosexuality only because in Greco-Roman culture it represented a secular sensuality that was contrary to his Jewish-Christian spiritual idealism. He was against lust and sensuality in anyone, including heterosexuals. To say that homosexuality is bad because homosexuals are tempted to do morally doubtful things is to say that heterosexuality is bad because heterosexuals are likewise tempted. For St. Paul, anyone who puts his or her interest ahead of God's is condemned, a verdict that falls equally upon everyone.

And lest we forget Sodom and Gomorrah, recall that the story is not about sexual perversion and homosexual practice. It is about inhospitality, according to Luke 10:10-13, and failure to care for the poor, according to Ezekiel 16:49-50: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy." To suggest that Sodom and Gomorrah is about homosexual sex is an analysis of about as much worth as suggesting that the story of Jonah and the whale is a treatise on fishing.

Part of the problem is a question of interpretation. Fundamentalists and literalists, the storm troopers of the religious right, are terrified that Scripture, "wrongly interpreted," may separate them from their values. That fear stems from their own recognition that their "values" are not derived from Scripture, as they publicly claim.

Indeed, it is through the lens of their own prejudices and personal values that they "read" Scripture and cloak their own views in its authority. We all interpret Scripture: Make no mistake. And no one truly is a literalist, despite the pious temptation. The questions are, By what principle of interpretation do we proceed, and by what means do we reconcile "what it meant then" to "what it means now?"

These matters are far too important to be left to scholars and seminarians alone. Our ability to judge ourselves and others rests on our ability to interpret Scripture intelligently. The right use of the Bible, an exercise as old as the church itself, means that we confront our prejudices rather than merely confirm them.

For Christians, the principle by which Scripture is read is nothing less than an appreciation of the work and will of God as revealed in that of Jesus. To recover a liberating and inclusive Christ is to be freed from the semantic bondage that makes us curators of a dead culture rather than creatures of a new creation.

Religious fundamentalism is dangerous because it cannot accept ambiguity and diversity and is therefore inherently intolerant. Such intolerance, in the name of virtue, is ruthless and uses political power to destroy what it cannot convert.

It is dangerous, especially in America, because it is anti-democratic and is suspicious of "the other," in whatever form that "other" might appear. To maintain itself, fundamentalism must always define "the other" as deviant.

But the chief reason that fundamentalism is dangerous is that, at the hands of the Rev. Pat Robertson, the Rev. Jerry Falwell and hundreds of lesser-known but equally worrisome clerics, preachers and pundits, it uses Scripture and the Christian practice to encourage ordinarily good people to act upon their fears rather than their virtues.

Fortunately, those who speak for the religious right do not speak for all American Christians, and the Bible is not theirs alone to interpret. The same Bible that the advocates of slavery used to protect their wicked self-interests is the Bible that inspired slaves to revolt and their liberators to action.

The same Bible that the predecessors of Mr. Falwell and Mr. Robertson used to keep white churches white is the source of the inspiration of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the social reformation of the 1960's.

The same Bible that anti-feminists use to keep women silent in the churches is the Bible that preaches liberation to captives and says that in Christ there is neither male nor female, slave nor free.

And the same Bible that on the basis of an archaic social code of ancient Israel and a tortured reading of Paul is used to condemn all homosexuals and homosexual behavior includes metaphors of redemption, renewal, inclusion and love -- principles that invite homosexuals to accept their freedom and responsibility in Christ and demands that their fellow Christians accept them as well.

The political piety of the fundamentalist religious right must not be exercised at the expense of our precious freedoms. And in this summer of our discontent, one of the most precious freedoms for which we must all fight is freedom from this last prejudice.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

New support for Prop. 8 marriage ban
New support for Prop. 8 marriage ban : SCOTUSblog

The backers of California’s Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriages in the state urge an appeals court to continue to block any such nuptials.

The supporters of California’s Proposition 8 — the ban on same-sex marriages in the state – argued Monday - http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-co.../Prop.-8-oppsn-to-lift-stay-motion-3-7-11.pdf - that a temporary postponement of any right to wed should remain in effect while the constitutional controversy goes on. The backers also contended that, if they ultimately lose in that dispute, the result actually should be that no gay couples could marry in the state because the dispute would then be beyond the courts’ reach.

This was the Prop. 8 supporters’ reply to a recent plea by same-sex couples in the state that the Ninth Circuit Court should now clear the way for such couples to get married right away. The couples, claiming changed circumstances, asked the Circuit Court to lift a temporary stay that has blocked a federal judge’s August decision striking down Proposition 8.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s ruling against Proposition 8 has been delayed while the Circuit Court reviews it. But the appeal process, which had been moving rapidly, has now slowed down while the Circuit Court awaits legal advice from the California Supreme Court on a potentially decisive question of state law. Until the state court acts, the Circuit Court has said, it will do nothing with the appeal — and the state court is not expected to act finally until this September, at the very earliest.

The fact that everything is on hold in the Circuit Court, however, did not deter the opponents of Proposition 8 from asking the three-judge panel to end the delay so that same-sex couples could marry. One of the reasons they cited was that the Obama Administration has provided new support for the argument that treating gay couples differently in their marriage rights is unconstitutional. Another reason they claimed was the delay due to the California Supreme Court proceeding — a proceeding that could have a heavy bearing on whether anybody has a right to defend Proposition 8?s constitutionality, taking the place of state officials, who refuse to do so.

Strenuously resisting the gay couples’ plea, the ballot measure’s supporters said Monday that there have been no genuine changes in circumstances that would warrant immediate clearance for gay marriages. Having failed to persuade the Circuit Court that Judge Walker’s ruling should go into effect, the Proposition 8 backers said, the same-sex couples are simply trying to relitigate that question.

Moreover, their reply added, if the Ninth Circuit were ultimately to rule that the backers of Proposition 8 had no right to appeal Judge Walker’s ruling, that would have the opposite effect than gay couples now expect. If no one has standing to appeal Judge Walker’s decision, the reply brief said, the effect would not be to put that decision into effect, thus allowing gay marriages to occur.

Rather, the brief said, the Circuit Court would have no choice but to wipe out the Walker decision entirely, on the theory that he had no jurisdiction to issue such a sweeping ruling against Proposition 8?s enforcement. Judge Walker “almost certainly exceeded” his authority, the Proposition’s supporters contended, because he did not confine his ruling simply to the specific gay couples who had sued, but struck down the measure entirely.

Thus, the Walker decision, at the very most, would reach only a few couples, and other same-sex partners who want to marry would not have gained the opportunity to do so, the brief said.

As to the couples’ argument that circumstances have changed since the Circuit Court temporarily blocked the Walker decision, the ballot measures’ supporters disputed every aspect of that contention. The change of constitutional views by the Obama Administraion has only to do with a federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act, and thus has no impact on whether states must recognize gay marriages, the brief said.

Moreover, the state law review process now going on in the California Supreme Court — as a prelude to any ruling by the Ninth Circuit on the pending appeal on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 — is causing no more delay in getting that ultimate issue resolved than the time the gay couples took to pursue their challenge in federal court. Their complaint about delays in the entire case now “rings hollow,” the brief said.

Moreover, it would show disrespect to the state Supreme Court, the brief asserted, for the Circuit Court to now lift its stay and “precipitously suspend” operation of Proposition 8?s ban, the brief said, adding: ”Federal courts…should exercise their discretionary power with proper regard for the rightful independence of state governments…”

Besides resisting the notion that gay marriages should be allowed to go forward now, the backers of Proposition 8 also notified the Ninth Circuit on Monday that they support the plea by the county clerk of Imperial County, California, that he should be allowed to enter the case to defend the constitutionality of Proposition 8. The Circuit Court has already refused to let Imperial County into the case, but the County has a new clerk who is trying to change that.

If it should turn out that the state court, and the Ninth Circuit, ultimately were to rule that the backers of Proposition 8 themselves do not have a right to appeal Judge Walker’s decision against the measure, a decision to let Imperial County mount a defense would keep the case going. The filing supporting Imperial County’s plea to intervene can be found here. On the other hand, the challengers to Proposition 8, as well as the city and county of San Francisco, opposed Imperial County’s plea to enter the case. The couples’ filing is here, and the San Francisco document is here.

The Circuit Court has given no indication when it might rule on the plea to let gay marriages now occur.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

A split decision on DOMA
A federal judge refuses to order the federal government to provide health insurance for the same-sex spouse of a court employee, but invites a constitutional challenge to the government’s denial of that benefit.
A split decision on DOMA : SCOTUSblog

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

Prop. 8 marriage ban holds — for now
A Ninth Circuit Court panel refuses to set aside a temporary order that blocks same-sex couples from marrying in California. A federal judge’s ruling striking down Proposition 8 remains on hold.
Prop. 8 marriage ban holds — for now : SCOTUSblog

 

[zkt]

Gay USA: March 29-April 4, 2011

Did you catch this on Fox?


Gay USA: March 29-April 4, 2011 | Free Speech TV

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

Arkansas Supreme Court Strikes Down Ban On Gay Adoptions
Arkansas Supreme Court Strikes Down Ban On Gay Adoptions

WASHINGTON -- Arkansas' high court struck has struck down the state's law barring same-sex couples from adopting on Thursday. In an opinion published without dissent, the court argued that the law violated individuals' right to privacy. Supporters of the law are expected to fight the ruling.

Arkansas voters approved Act 1 as a ballot measure in 2008. It prohibits unmarried couples who live together from adopting children, in effect shutting out gay and lesbian couples, who are not allowed to marry in the state.

"Act 1 directly and substantially burdens the privacy rights of 'opposite-sex and same-sex individuals' who engage in private, consensual sexual conduct in the bedroom by foreclosing their eligibility to foster or adopt children, should they choose to cohabit with their sexual partner," concluded the court in the ruling embedded below. "The pressure on such couples to live apart, should they wish to foster or adopt children, is clearly significant."

It also argued that Sheila Cole, one of the plaintiffs in the case, was faced with a "pernicious choice" when she tried to adopt her granddaughter, who was placed in foster care because Cole was unable to adopt her. (The child was eventually placed in Cole's home.)

"[Cole] can either give up her fundamental right to sexual intimacy in her home free from investigation by the State into her sexual practices in order to adopt or foster or forego the privilege of having children by adoption or fostering," the court added. "We hold that the burden inflicted on her is direct and substantial."

LGBT and civil rights organizations immediately hailed the decision.

"The Arkansas Supreme Court has removed a discriminatory barrier for loving gay and lesbian couples who, child welfare experts agree, are equally able parents," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. "Too many children are in need of a loving home and the court has rightfully put their interests ahead of discrimination."

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) brought the case on behalf of a group of same-sex couples. Rita Sklar, executive director of the ACLU of Arkansas, called the ruling a "relief for the over 1,600 children in the state of Arkansas who need a permanent family."

"This ban wouldn’t even allow a relative -- gay or straight -- to foster or adopt a child with whom they had a close relationship, so long as that relative was unmarried and living with a partner," she said. "The court clearly saw that this ban violated the constitutional rights of our clients and thousands of other Arkansans."

The Family Council Action Committee (FCAC), which was defending the law, expressed disappointment with the State Supreme Court ruling. President Jerry Cox called the decision a "classic example of judicial tyranny."

"We have said all along that Act One was about child welfare, and fifty-seven percent of the voters in 2008 agreed," he said in a statement. "They declared that the State of Arkansas has an obligation to adoptive and foster children to ensure that they are placed in the best possible homes. The Arkansas Supreme Court has chosen to run roughshod over the people’s will and refused to uphold a good law that protected the children in the state’s care."

This high court's decision is unlikely to stop the FCAC. Cox said that "all available options are still on the table," specifically naming the possibility of bringing the gay adoption ban back as a state constitutional amendment or exploring the possibility of passing a law through the legislature.

Mississippi and Utah are now the only two states with an explicit ban on unmarried, co-habitating couples adopting. Other states have implicit bans that don't necessarily outlaw gay adoption but make it very difficult in practice. One such state is Virginia, where Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) is currently considering whether to derail a proposal, recommended by his Democratic predecessor, that would amend state regulations to allow same-sex couples to adopt.

As the Washington Post explains, "Currently, only married couple and single men and women -- regardless of sexual orientation -- can adopt in Virginia." The new proposal would "force state-licensed private and church-run agencies to allow unmarried couples -- heterosexual or homosexual -- to adopt children."

Gov. McDonnell must make his recommendation to the State Board of Social Services by April 16.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

Prop. 8 judge challenged anew
The judge who presided over the Proposition 8 trial on same-sex marriage in California is accused of defying a Supreme Court order against any public broadcast of videotapes of that trial.
Prop. 8 judge challenged anew : SCOTUSblog

Accusing the federal judge who tried the constitutional case against California’s ban on same-sex marriage of defying a Supreme Court order not to allow public broadcasting of videotape of that trial, the backers of the Proposition 8 ban asked the Ninth Circuit Court on Wednesday to order the now-retired jurist to turn in all copies he has of those recordings, and to order him not to make any further disclosure. The sharply-worded motion (found here - http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-co.../Prop.-8-motion-for-record-return-4-13-11.pdf) also asked that the lawyers for the couples who brought the case be required to hand over any copies they have.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

DOMA defense in turmoil
DOMA defense in turmoil - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

The House of Representatives’ courtroom defense of the Defense of Marriage Act suffered a serious jolt Monday after the law firm the House hired to argue the law’s constitutionality in up to a dozen pending court challenges abruptly withdrew — and the former solicitor general heading up the defense resigned from the firm to stay on the case.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

Prop. 8: Plea to throw out ruling
Backers of the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage urge a federal judge to throw out the decision striking down that measure, arguing that the trial judge wrongly failed to disclose his own long-term gay relationship, and thus was not impartial.
Prop. 8: Plea to throw out ruling : SCOTUSblog

Arguing that the judge who struck down California’s ban on same-sex marriage was not impartial, because of his failure to disclose his own long-term gay relationship, the sponsors of Proposition 8 asked a federal judge in San Francisco on Monday to throw out all parts of the ruling and any earlier orders in the famous case. The motion to vacate the ruling by now-retired U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker can be read here.

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Prop.-8-vacate-motion-4-25-11.pdf

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

Prop. 8: Videotape issue passed to judge
The NInth Circuit refuses to decide a dispute on public access to the videotape of the Proposition 8 trial on same-sex marriage, instead referring it to a District judge.
Prop. 8: Videotape issue passed to judge : SCOTUSblog

The Ninth Circuit Court declined on Wednesday to rule on public access to the videotape recording of the federal trial on the constitutionality of California’s ban on same-sex marriage, deciding that the issue should go first to a federal District judge in San Francisco. The proponents of that ban, known as Proposition 8, had asked the Circuit Court to permanently seal the videotape, so that it would not be publicly broadcast anywhere. But the challengers to the ban countered with a plea to have the full recording opened to the public. A media coalition also asked for access to the video.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

Prop. 8: Gay judge’s fairness defended
Officials of the state of California and of San Francisco urge a judge to reject a plea to throw out another judge’s ruling striking down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. The plea, officials contend, is a disguised effort to keep gay judges out of cases involving gay rights.
Prop. 8: Gay judge’s fairness defended : SCOTUSblog

Officials of the state of California and of San Francisco on Thursday came to the defense of the federal judge who struck down the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage, arguing that the ban’s supporters are trying to keep judges who are gay from ruling on cases involving gay sexual identity or gay rights. in briefs (here and here) filed with a federal District judge in San Francisco, the officials argued against overturning the decision last August to nullify Proposition 8.