I was hoping to report that marriage equality was resuming in California, but the opposition was able to file an appeal with the Ninth Circuit.
Also, there was the report about the last combat unit leaving Iraq on August 18 and I had to comment on that as a Veteran.
Hey, remember, I wear different hats.
On to what took place in California earlier this month.
In case you haven’t been paying attention, a recap of what took place.
On August 4, 2010, Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled (story) that California’s Proposition 8 violated the citizenship and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment thus making the law unconstitutional.
Eight days later Judge Walker issued another ruling. This time it was a stay giving the opposition a chance to file an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. If the Ninth Circuit did not intervene before August 18, 2010 5PM (PDT), then marriage equality could resume without any interference.
The opposition was able to file an appeal (and I was right, the opposition was going to appeal this and we must stand united) before the August 18, 2010 5PM (PDT) deadline.
Don’t get discouraged.
The opposition does not have a leg to stand on.
Why?
I highly suggest you read Judge Walker’s 138 page ruling. Even though I am not a law school student (and some people have suggested that I do go to law school) it is good reading. I am currently making notes and planning on a later rant on the topic as we get closer to the Ninth Circuit ruling on the case to highlight some key points in Walker’s ruling.
The ruling highlights that Prop 8 grossly violated the 14th Amendment and poked holes in several Pro-Prop 8 arguments. For instance, when asked if same-sex marriage permitted the state’s interest in marriage being a function for procreation, defense counsel replied that the question was “not the legally relevant question.” However when pressed for an answer…
“Your honor, my answer is: I don’t know. I don’t know.”
That’s your defense?
I tried that when I was 14, and it didn’t stand then.
The ruling cites two witnesses who were discredited in Judge Walker’s ruling.
First, I am going to mention Hak-Shing William Tam. He spent time and effort involved in the “Yes on 8” campaign such as working with Protect Marriage to put Prop 8 on the ballot and the secretary for the America Return to God Prayer Movement, which operates the website 1man1woman.net. The website makes such claims that “homosexuals are twelve times likely to molest children and if marriage is expanded to same-sex couples, then it will cause states one-by-one to fall into Satan’s hands.” (DISCLAIMER: I am not making this up. This is DIRECTLY from the ruling, Page 22.)
Tam identified the National Association for Research and Therapy (NARTH) as the source of information because he believes in what they say. He also cited the internet as the source of information connecting same-sex marriage to polygamy and incest.
Don’t believe me? Watch the re-enactment of Tam’s testimony during the Prop 8 Trial. These re-enactments are directly from the transcripts. (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3)
The second witness is David Blankenhorn. He is the founder of the non-partisan think tank The Institute for American Values which was established in 1987 as a way to focus on the issues of marriage, family, and child well-being (Page 38 of ruling).
Blankenhorn testified that his definition of marriage is “either a socially approved sexual relationship between a man and women for the purpose of bearing and raising children who are biologically related to both spouses or a private relationship between two consenting adults.” (Page 13) He even AGREES with one of the plaintiffs’ witnesses, Nancy Cott, that California would benefit if the state resumed issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Blankenhorn noted that marriage would be positive for same-sex couples and their children because it would reduce discrimination against the LGBT community and would be “a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion.” (Page 14) Then at the top of Page 15, he completely CONTRADICTS himself saying that California should not recognize same-sex marriage because it would result in marriage being weakened as an institution.
These two witnesses have a common bond.
George Alan Rekers
Does that name ring a bell?
Anyone affiliated with this guy SHOULD lose any credibility they have remaining.
In fact, David Blankenhorn penned a correction letter to the New York Times admitting that HE did read a piece to the court penned by Mr. Rekers.
The plaintiffs’ witness list had SO much more credibility than Tam and Blankenhorn. Even the plaintiffs named at the top of the case were more credible than Tam and Blankenhorn.
Do you want to know why the plaintiffs, Jeffrey Zarrillo and Paul Katami along with Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, are involved in this case? Read Page 12, 25, 26, and 27. It highlights some points that Keith Olbermann made in his Special Comment regarding Prop 8 back in November 2008 and a point I made in a previous blog entry commemorating my entries for Pride Month.
Judge Walker agreed that Prop 8 did violate the plaintiffs’ rights to Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment. That was the basis in his Conclusions of Law (beginning Page 109). In his ruling, Judge Walker made these statements that are supported through various arguments made by those representing Perry et al:
“The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.”
“The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household. Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage. Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents.” –Page 113
About the race restriction, I have stated this reasoning before. Do I need to tell the story again about a baby born to a white woman and a black man in Hawaii on August 4, 1961?
The changing of gender roles: I’d like to display the artwork on my mantel.
And on the requirements of marriages, by Prop 8 supporter’s logic my grandparents should no longer be married because they have not produced any children since 1978, or childless heterosexual marriages shall be voided because they are not full filling their duty to procreate.
“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.’ West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, (1943).” –Page 116
That is why they are called RIGHTS. Whether you like it or not, they are not put up to a popularity contest. Certain people are not pleased with the building of a Muslim Culture center in Lower Manhattan but per the First Amendment, they have the right to practice their religion without any government intervention. Everyone in the United States is endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Where have I heard that before?
This is the basis of the ruling:
“The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ Equal protection is ‘a pledge of the protection of equal laws’ Yick Wo v Hopkins (1886).” –Page 117
I posted this to Facebook on August 4 at 11:39 PM. I like this argument:
“Proponents’ argument that tradition prefers opposite-sex couples to same-sex couples equates to the notion that opposite-sex relationships are simply better than same-sex relationships. Tradition alone cannot legitimate this purported interest. Plaintiffs presented evidence showing conclusively that the state has no interest in preferring opposite-sex couples to same-sex couples or in preferring heterosexuality to homosexuality. Moreover, the state cannot have an interest in disadvantaging an unpopular minority group simply because the group is unpopular.”
“The evidence shows that the state advances nothing when it adheres to the tradition of excluding same-sex couples from marriage. Proponents’ asserted state interests in tradition are nothing more than tautologies and do not amount to rational bases for Proposition 8.” –Page 124-25
And this was featured on The Rachel Maddow Show. Good as well:
“Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples. (‘[L]aws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected.’). Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” –Page 135
Judge Walker’s Conclusion:
“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.” –Page 135
My unwashed masses, after reading the ruling, THIS is the playbook for marriage equality. Our team is centered on David Boies, a liberal, and Theodore Olsen, a conservative. They were at odds against each other in Bush v. Gore (2000). This case and the way they are arguing is the chance for our generation’s version of Loving v. Virginia (1967) (oh, it was cited in the ruling) for our LGBT Brothers and Sisters.
CONCLUSION TO RALLY THE PEOPLE
Now I know many of my LGBT Brothers and Sisters were looking at flights to California on August 18 and were willing to wait in line until 5PM PT. Then they were disappointed to hear that the opposition was able to get their appeal before the deadline. Now I was disappointed in the appeal being filed, but I believe that this will set us up for something greater.
Who would like to hear a Sea Story?
It’s rated PG.
We were expected to return from deployment on July 13, 2005. During the part of deployment we were in the Gulf (not Mexico, Persian), there were rumors circulating around that we were going to be extended. I remember being in the Bat Cave (RP-05 Office) on a June day when the Admiral for the Battle Group came over the announcing system and told us we were staying in the Gulf for another 2-1/2 weeks. We all groaned… but instantly got over it. Besides, I was with a crew that was seasoned with deployment extensions. Any complaining and you were “politely” told to shut up.
We returned from deployment on July 31, 2005. Despite being in the Gulf for another two weeks, it did not change the fact that coming back was an outstanding feeling and accomplishment. In fact, it made it that much better because coming back was important and having to endure an extra two weeks out at sea was really not that big of deal when looking back on it.
I understand that the LGBT Community has been waiting for an event like this for at a minimum for 40 years. I still stand in solidarity with them, and believe me I am in this fight for the long haul. It is important to me because I have people that I care about and this issue matters to them. I could be selfish and do absolutely nothing.
However (comma) I recognize that I am part of something bigger than myself and I want to be a part of that. I could pay lip service, but I choose to partake in this endeavor along with the endeavor to end “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” because I feel like I am speaking for those who are not taking the time to speak for their issues. During this endeavor I have encountered people that feel the same way as I do, and we are all working on trying to make this world a better experience in each of our own way. Some take to the streets. Me, I do it through political involvement and my writings.
Sometimes I feel down and want to give up. But I think about the people who have been involved in this since before I got more active. I know some people who have been involved BEFORE Stonewall and have faced massive setbacks and overcame those obstacles. If they can keep going, then hell, I can keep going too.
And also every morning when I look in the mirror, I see myself. And in myself, I see the eyes of those I care about who happen to be LGBT. I ask myself, “Have I done enough” and “What more can I do?” I do not want to have to answer to the people I care about that I did not give my best effort for them.
Like my Sea Story, if you have to wait a little longer for something that is very important to you and you have invested time and resources into that cause, and then it happens despite delays… it makes it all that much more glorious because you had to fight to earn it.
Believe me; I am looking forward to when this case reaches the Supreme Court and the successful outcome it will produce. It may be several months, but we will get there together.
No comments:
Post a Comment