Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage

[Dos Equis]

The Constitution and the principles laid out in it (specifically the 14 Amendment containing the equal protection clause) trumps “the will of the majority of people.”  Remember, democracy is specifically designed to protect against “the tyranny of the majority.”  That phrase goes all the way back to the days of Thomas Jefferson. 

In what court decision have they applied the 14th Amendment to homosexual marriage?   

[MCWAY]

In what court decision have they applied the 14th Amendment to homosexual marriage?   

That would be NONE!!!!

Again, see "Baker v. Nelson". A gay couple tried that in Minnesota about 5 years after "Loving v. Virginia". The state court ruled that banning same-sex marriage does not run afoul of the 14th amendment (or any other, for that matter).

When the couple tried to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, their case was dismissed on its merits and for "want of a substantial federal question". That basically means that the federal Court sided with the Minnesota court, and as such, the ruling was binding on all lower courts.

In short, states have the right to define marriage as a 1M-1W union, as California and 29 other states have done. The voters in CA are merely doing what they have every privilege and right to do in this matter.

What's really ironic is that the lawsuits now being filed by gay couples, trying to get Prop. 8 nullified, BETRAY the very arguments that BayGBM and others are trying to make.

They claim that gay "marriage" is a "civil right" and thus immune from the will of the majority. But, the suits being filed now are looking for a technicality to go in their favor. The issue is no longer whether the people have the right to vote for (or against) Prop. 8, but whether it's a simple majority of the electorate vs. a super majority of the electorate (and the Legislature, which gay activists know that Prop. 8 doesn't have).

[Straw Man]

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2008/11/17/daily20.html

Jerry Brown asks Supreme Court to review Prop. 8
Sacramento Business Journal


California Attorney General Jerry Brown on Monday filed a brief with the California Supreme Court asking it to review and resolve the legal challenges surrounding Proposition 8.

The proposition, which was passed by voters Nov. 4 with a 52.2 percent to 47.8 percent margin, eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry. Opponents of the gay marriage ban have filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the measure.

Brown on Monday urged the Supreme Court to review the measure to “ensure uniformity of decision, finality and certainty for the citizens of California.” He said he would prefer an expedited resolution to a temporary stay on the measure to avoid confusion.

Brown said in a news release that same-sex marriages performed between June 17 and Nov. 4 are valid will continue to be recognized by the state.

“The constitutionality of the change created by Proposition 8 impacts whether same-sex marriages may issue in California and whether same-sex marriages from other states will be recognized here,” he wrote in a set of briefs filed with the court. “There is significant public interest in prompt resolution of the legality of Proposition 8. The Court can provide certainty and finality in this matter.”

[Dos Equis]

That would be NONE!!!!

Again, see "Baker v. Nelson". A gay couple tried that in Minnesota about 5 years after "Loving v. Virginia". The state court ruled that banning same-sex marriage does not run afoul of the 14th amendment (or any other, for that matter).

When the couple tried to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, their case was dismissed on its merits and for "want of a substantial federal question". That basically means that the federal Court sided with the Minnesota court, and as such, the ruling was binding on all lower courts.

In short, states have the right to define marriage as a 1M-1W union, as California and 29 other states have done. The voters in CA are merely doing what they have every privilege and right to do in this matter.

What's really ironic is that the lawsuits now being filed by gay couples, trying to get Prop. 8 nullified, BETRAY the very arguments that BayGBM and others are trying to make.

They claim that gay "marriage" is a "civil right" and thus immune from the will of the majority. But, the suits being filed now are looking for a technicality to go in their favor. The issue is no longer whether the people have the right to vote for (or against) Prop. 8, but whether it's a simple majority of the electorate vs. a super majority of the electorate (and the Legislature, which gay activists know that Prop. 8 doesn't have).

Thanks.  That's what I thought.  Didn't know this had already been addressed by the supreme court.  There is going to be a showdown soon when someone from Mass, CT, or CA tries to have their marriage recognized in a state that bans homosexual marriage.  I don't think anyone has challenged The Defense of Marriage Act?

[MCWAY]

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2008/11/17/daily20.html

Jerry Brown asks Supreme Court to review Prop. 8
Sacramento Business Journal


California Attorney General Jerry Brown on Monday filed a brief with the California Supreme Court asking it to review and resolve the legal challenges surrounding Proposition 8.

The proposition, which was passed by voters Nov. 4 with a 52.2 percent to 47.8 percent margin, eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry. Opponents of the gay marriage ban have filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the measure.

Brown on Monday urged the Supreme Court to review the measure to “ensure uniformity of decision, finality and certainty for the citizens of California.” He said he would prefer an expedited resolution to a temporary stay on the measure to avoid confusion.

Brown said in a news release that same-sex marriages performed between June 17 and Nov. 4 are valid will continue to be recognized by the state.

“The constitutionality of the change created by Proposition 8 impacts whether same-sex marriages may issue in California and whether same-sex marriages from other states will be recognized here,” he wrote in a set of briefs filed with the court. “There is significant public interest in prompt resolution of the legality of Proposition 8. The Court can provide certainty and finality in this matter.”

That seems to match with this report:

Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown urges high court to let Prop. 8 take effect

His office, which has the responsibility of defending the initiative, also asks justices to review the lawsuits against the measure 'to provide certainty and finality.'

By Maura Dolan


Reporting from San Francisco -- As more lawsuits against Proposition 8 landed before the California Supreme Court, Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown and the anti-gay-marriage campaign urged the court Monday to review the suits but allow the measure to remain in effect during that review.

Brown, whose office defends state laws, said in papers filed with the court that the lawsuits against the anti-gay-marriage initiative raised issues of statewide importance that should be addressed by the state's highest court "to provide certainty and finality."

But Brown's office also said the court should refrain from granting a preliminary order to put the measure on hold pending a court ruling.

If same-sex couples were permitted to marry now -- and the court eventually upheld Proposition 8 -- those couples would be "left uncertain as to the ultimate legal standing of their marriages," Brown's office said.

In a footnote, the attorney general stressed that nothing in the state's response to the lawsuits should be construed to suggest that the state "questions the validity of any same-sex marriage" that occurred before Nov. 5, when Proposition 8 became law.

The campaign behind Proposition 8 also urged the court to review the legal dispute and rule quickly.

Proposition 8 backers want to intervene in the litigation because they said Brown cannot be trusted to defend the measure.

"We feel confident that the law is on our side, and the court will make a correct decision," said Frank Schubert, campaign manager for Proposition 8……

Liberty Counsel, which has fought same-sex marriage, also filed papers with the California Supreme Court on Monday and urged the court to dismiss the lawsuits without review. The Christian legal group said the court should protect the democratic process.

"The people of California have spoken by affirming traditional marriage," said Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel.

"It is time to move on. Fourteen words that reaffirm the historic and common sense definition of marriage are not a radical revision to the Constitution."

Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen said he was not surprised that Brown's office urged the California Supreme Court to review the petitions, even though Brown's office is supposed to defend ballot initiatives that pass.

Because Brown defined the legal dispute as a "statewide concern," Uelmen said, "it makes sense to bypass the lower courts and just go ahead and hear them."

Shannon Price Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which filed one of the Proposition 8 lawsuits, said he was pleased that Brown recognized the importance of the case and "was so strongly supporting review."

The court has yet to respond to the lawsuits. It could dismiss them or grant review. If it reviews them, the courtit probably would ask for more written arguments and set a date for a hearing.

"We are not confident the attorney general will vigorously defend Proposition 8 in light of his strong opposition to the measure."

Opponents of Proposition 8 argue that it was a sweeping constitutional revision, which can only be put on the ballot by the Legislature, instead of a more limited constitutional amendment, as supporters contend.

A wide array of groups and local governments have urged the state high court in six lawsuits -- two more were filed Monday -- to overturn the measure. The lawsuits contend that Proposition 8 illegally revised the state Constitution by altering fundamental constitutional principles.

The latest anti-Proposition 8 lawsuit was filed by the California Council on Churches, the Episcopal Bishop of California, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ, the Progressive Jewish Alliance and the Unitarian Universalist Assn. of Congregations.

The California Supreme Court voted 4 to 3 on May 15 to overturn a state ban on same-sex marriage, but Christian groups gathered enough signatures to place Proposition 8 on the Nov. 4 ballot. It passed with about 52% of the vote.

Liberty Counsel, which has fought same-sex marriage, also filed papers with the California Supreme Court on Monday and urged the court to dismiss the lawsuits without review. The Christian legal group said the court should protect the democratic process.

"The people of California have spoken by affirming traditional marriage," said Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel.

"It is time to move on. Fourteen words that reaffirm the historic and common sense definition of marriage are not a radical revision to the Constitution."


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-gaymarriage18-2008nov18,0,7313761.story

[MCWAY]

Thanks.  That's what I thought.  Didn't know this had already been addressed by the supreme court.  There is going to be a showdown soon when someone from Mass, CT, or CA tries to have their marriage recognized in a state that bans homosexual marriage.  I don't think anyone has challenged The Defense of Marriage Act?

As I said earlier, Beach Bum, they’re arguing that Prop. 8 is a revision of the CA constitution and, as a result, it would require a 2/3 vote by the Legislature BEFORE it gets to the people. They know that there ain’t enough lawmakers there to put Prop. 8 on the ballot. But, if there were, that would STILL mean that Prop. 8 is a measure for which people can vote.

That COMPLETELY CLASHES with their whole spiel about gay “marriage” being a civil right, immune to the will of the majority.


As for DOMA challenges, some have tried; I think that happened once in Florida. But a lower court there squashed it.

[Tre]

Thanks.  That's what I thought.  Didn't know this had already been addressed by the supreme court.  There is going to be a showdown soon when someone from Mass, CT, or CA tries to have their marriage recognized in a state that bans homosexual marriage.  I don't think anyone has challenged The Defense of Marriage Act?

That's on the agenda, but is not an immediate fight.

[Tre]

What's going to happen, however, when two men walk in to purchase a marriage license and one of them identifies himself as a woman?

[timfogarty]

What's going to happen, however, when two men walk in to purchase a marriage license and one of them identifies himself as a woman?

that would be perjury.  why do you keep bringing that up? 

however there was a case in Texas I believe where a post-op m-f married another woman.  the state granted the license based on the gender listed on the birth certificates.

[Tre]

that would be perjury.  why do you keep bringing that up? 

How is it perjury if a person self-identifies as that gender? 

[Straw Man]

[w8tlftr]

Wanda Sykes says she's 'proud to be gay'
(11-15) 17:59 PST LAS VEGAS, (AP) --

Comedian Wanda Sykes says the passage of a same-sex marriage ban in California has led to her be more outspoken about being gay.

"You know, I don't really talk about my sexual orientation. I didn't feel like I had to. I was just living my life, not necessarily in the closet, but I was living my life," Sykes told a crowd at a gay rights rally in Las Vegas on Saturday. "Everybody that knows me personally they know I'm gay. But that's the way people should be able to live their lives."

Sykes, who is known for her feisty and blunt style, said the passage of California's Proposition 8 made her feel like she was "attacked."

"Now, I gotta get in their face," she said. "I'm proud to be a woman. I'm proud to be a black woman, and I'm proud to be gay."

Sykes' appearance at the Las Vegas rally was a surprise to organizers. She was in town performing at the Planet Hollywood Resort & Casino.

That's funny. Sykes rhymes with dykes.

[gcb]

Marriage isn't a religious institution it's a civil union since to get married you don't have to go to church, so why should religious values enter into it?

[MCWAY]

Marriage isn't a religious institution it's a civil union since to get married you don't have to go to church, so why should religious values enter into it?

Because people vote on policy, based on their philosophical and/or religious beliefs, which they have every right to do, as it relates to the issue of marriage.

[MCWAY]

Calif. Supreme Court takes up Prop 8 case, but lets it remain in effect during interim


SAN FRANCISCO (BP)--The California Supreme Court agreed Nov. 19 to consider the constitutionality of Proposition 8, but -- in a win for supporters -- allowed the amendment, which prohibits "gay marriage," to remain in effect during the interim.

In recent days both sides had urged the court to take up the matter in an expedited manner and not to allow the case to wind its way through lower courts, where it could take years to finalize.

Opponents of Prop 8 also had urged the high court to issue a stay and allow same-sex couples to "marry" while the case is being considered. The court, though, declined to do that, which possibly could be an indication it believes Prop 8 opponents are likely to lose. The two-page directive by the court said only one of the justices, Carlos R. Moreno -- who voted with the 4-3 majority in May to allow "gay marriage" -- would have issued a stay.

Oral arguments will take place early next year.

Opponents of Prop 8 filed a similar lawsuit during the summer in an attempt to keep the proposal off the ballot, but the court turned away the suit and allowed Prop 8 to go before voters. Conservatives hope the court's early action is an indication of how it will rule next year.

The court in its Nov. 19 directive listed three questions it wants lawyers to address:

-- Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution?

-- Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?

-- If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

At issue is a lawsuit filed by Prop 8 opponents, including the city of San Francisco, the ACLU and homosexual activist groups, asserting that Prop 8 amounted to a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the state constitution. Revisions -- in essence, drastic changes -- must first go through the legislature before going to voters. Prop 8, which passed 52-48 percent, was placed on the ballot via citizen signatures and did not go through the legislature. It went into effect the day after it passed.

In legal briefs filed Nov. 17, Andrew P. Pugno, the lead attorney representing ProtectMarriage.com -- the campaign behind Prop 8 -- argued that given the "constitutional and social significance" of Prop 8, the issue "should be resolved as soon as possible" and "should ultimately be decided by this Court." Sending the case to lower courts, he said, would only result in uncertainty and delay and would be damaging to the "interests of justice and the political system itself."

Pugno urged the court to uphold Prop 8, arguing that declaring it invalid "would be unprecedented and would constitute a serious encroachment on the people's sovereign right to amend the Constitution and set basic public policy through the initiative process." If the court follows its own precedent regarding citizen-backed constitutional amendments, Pugno said, it will allow Prop 8 to stand. The "power to amend" the state constitution is "broad and deep and by nature populist," Pugno said, and "has often been used to make significant changes," even "to override judicial interpretations of the Constitution with which the people disagree."

"Petitioners' arguments that Proposition 8 constitutes a revision to the Constitution are highly abstract and find no support in California case law or in the judiciary's long tradition of respectful deference to initiative amendments," the legal briefs stated. "Other courts addressing similar revision/amendment arguments under closely analogous constitutional provisions have rejected them. … Proposition 8 is simple, narrow, and targeted to a single issue. It restores the definition of marriage to what it was and always had been prior to May 15, 2008 -- nothing more."

Pugno also noted that three California Supreme Court justices -- as well as two state appeals court justices -- had refused to legalize "gay marriage." Because of that, he said, the case's outcome "was by no means self-evident."

"The effect of Proposition 8 is limited to reinstating the status quo that existed before the Marriage Cases decision took effect on June 16, 2008," he wrote. "[Prop 8 opponents'] arguments would most likely have been summarily rejected if Proposition 8 had been enacted before the Marriage Cases decision, and they should be rejected now for the same reasons. The revision/amendment analysis does not turn on the fortuity of timing."

Equality California, a group in California that backs "gay marriage," issued a statement after the court's Nov. 19 action, saying Prop 8 should be overturned.

"If permitted to stand, Proposition 8 would be the first time an initiative has successfully been used to change the California Constitution to take way an existing right only for a particular group," the statement read. "Such a change would defeat the very purpose of a constitution and fundamentally alter the role of the courts in protecting minority rights."

Ron Prentice, chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, sent an e-mail to supporters Nov. 19, saying the campaign was urging the court to hear the case "to avoid years of costly litigation."

He also said that even if his side prevails in court, the political battle is not over.

"Because we fully expect to prevail in court, we expect that, at some point, we will need to defeat a ballot proposal by advocates of same-sex marriage," Prentice wrote. "Our opponents have threatened such a proposal as early as 2010. We are already beginning the planning process to lay the groundwork to defeat a future proposed initiative that would legalize gay marriage. … We are fully confident that the California Supreme Court will uphold Proposition 8, even if some members of the Court disagree with the issue."


http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=29373

[Dos Equis]

Kenneth Starr to defend gay marriage ban before state Supreme Court
3:07 PM, December 19, 2008


Kenneth W. Starr, the former U.S. Solicitor General who led the inquiry into President Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica L. Lewinsky, will argue the case in favor of upholding a ban on gay marriage before the California Supreme Court.

Starr was today named lead counsel for the official proponents of Proposition 8. This afternoon, the group filed court briefs defending the legality of the proposition, which was approved by 52% of California voters last month throwing into question thousands of marriages performed during the five months the practice was legal in the state.

The briefs are in response to a spate of legal challenges filed by gay rights advocates, including the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Opponents of the proposition argued that it amounted to a constitutional revision instead of a more limited amendment.

A revision of the state constitution can only go before voters after a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a constitutional convention. Proposition 8 was put on the ballot after a signature drive. The case poses a series of provocative legal challenges.

The first among them is that California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, who opposed Proposition 8 but is legally bound to defend the state’s laws, must now weigh in on the challenge. Brown has in recent days been called upon to declare it a revision. In the past, he has said he plans to “defend the proposition as enacted by the people of California.”

But he has also said he believes that the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages performed between June and November should remain valid.

Because it did not trust Brown to mount a staunch defense of the proposition, the group Protect Marriage intervened in the case and filed its own brief. It argues that the same-sex marriages are no longer valid. Brown’s briefs are due later today.

The court could hear oral arguments as soon as March.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/12/kenneth-w-starr.html

[BayGBM]

Federal judge rules denial of health coverage to same-sex spouse unconstitutional
February 5, 2009

A federal judge has deemed unconstitutional the government’s denial of healthcare coverage and other benefits to the same-sex spouse of a Los Angeles public defender, calling into question the validity of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt said the federal government’s refusal to grant spousal benefits to Tony Sears, the husband of deputy federal public defender Brad Levenson, amounted to unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.

“Because there is no rational basis for denying benefits to the same-sex spouses of [Federal Public Defender] employees while granting them to the opposite-sex spouses of FPD employees, I conclude that the application of [federal statutes] so as to reach that result is unconstitutional,” Reinhardt wrote in an order to the U.S. Courts administration to submit Levenson’s benefits election form. The ruling was issued Monday and published Wednesday.

“The denial of federal benefits to same-sex spouses cannot be justified simply by a distaste for or disapproval of same-sex marriage or a desire to deprive same-sex spouses of benefits available to other spouses in order to discourage them from exercising a legal right afforded them by a state,” Reinhardt wrote.

Neither Reinhardt’s ruling nor one in a similar case involving a 9th Circuit employee issued by appeals court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski establishes precedent that would have to be followed by courts hearing other challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act or the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act, which seek to deny federal benefits to same-sex spouses.

Reinhardt and Kozinski handled the respective complaints from Levenson and from 9th Circuit staff lawyer Karen Golinski in their capacity as dispute resolution officials within the federal judiciary, whose employees are prohibited from suing in federal court. Other federal employees denied benefits for same-sex spouses could sue under Title VII and other anti-discrimination statutes.

With same-sex marriage legal or recognized in only a handful of states and on hold in California since the passage of Proposition 8 in November, the number of cases similar to Levenson’s is probably small. Reinhardt said he didn’t know whether similar appeals had been raised by federal employees elsewhere in the judicial system. Still, legal scholars see Reinhardt’s reading of the Defense of Marriage Act as a bellwether on the constitutionality of that law and potentially others that seek to discourage or discriminate against homosexual partnerships.

“I think that this is a very important case in terms of the application of the Constitution to sexual orientation discrimination, especially with regard to partners,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC  Irvine law school.

While noting that Reinhardt’s ruling doesn’t directly affect the issue of gay marriage, Chemerinsky said he considered it “a key case toward creating a constitutional right for benefits for same-sex partners.”

Levenson, who married Sears on July 12 during last year’s five-month window when gay marriage was legal in California, applied for spousal benefits three days later but was denied by the 9th Circuit Executive Office on grounds that the Defense of Marriage Act and the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act prohibit extending benefits to same-sex spouses.

Levenson appealed to the 9th Circuit’s Standing Committee on Federal Public Defenders, which Reinhardt chairs, with the argument that his office’s dispute resolution plan expressly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed by the Republican-controlled Congress 13 years ago and signed into law by President Clinton. The act identified three objectives: defending and nurturing the institution of traditional, heterosexual marriage; defending traditional notions of morality; and preserving scarce government resources.

In his 15-page ruling, Reinhardt debunked the first two objectives, stating that “gay people will not be encouraged to enter into marriages with members of the opposite sex by the government’s denial of benefits to same-sex spouses.” On the cost-saving objective, Reinhardt deemed the potential savings from discriminating against gays “insignificant” and “founded upon a prohibited or arbitrary ground.”

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/02/gay-marriage.html

[War-Horse]

Federal judge rules denial of health coverage to same-sex spouse unconstitutional
February 5, 2009

A federal judge has deemed unconstitutional the government’s denial of healthcare coverage and other benefits to the same-sex spouse of a Los Angeles public defender, calling into question the validity of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt said the federal government’s refusal to grant spousal benefits to Tony Sears, the husband of deputy federal public defender Brad Levenson, amounted to unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.

“Because there is no rational basis for denying benefits to the same-sex spouses of [Federal Public Defender] employees while granting them to the opposite-sex spouses of FPD employees, I conclude that the application of [federal statutes] so as to reach that result is unconstitutional,” Reinhardt wrote in an order to the U.S. Courts administration to submit Levenson’s benefits election form. The ruling was issued Monday and published Wednesday.

“The denial of federal benefits to same-sex spouses cannot be justified simply by a distaste for or disapproval of same-sex marriage or a desire to deprive same-sex spouses of benefits available to other spouses in order to discourage them from exercising a legal right afforded them by a state,” Reinhardt wrote.

Neither Reinhardt’s ruling nor one in a similar case involving a 9th Circuit employee issued by appeals court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski establishes precedent that would have to be followed by courts hearing other challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act or the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act, which seek to deny federal benefits to same-sex spouses.

Reinhardt and Kozinski handled the respective complaints from Levenson and from 9th Circuit staff lawyer Karen Golinski in their capacity as dispute resolution officials within the federal judiciary, whose employees are prohibited from suing in federal court. Other federal employees denied benefits for same-sex spouses could sue under Title VII and other anti-discrimination statutes.

With same-sex marriage legal or recognized in only a handful of states and on hold in California since the passage of Proposition 8 in November, the number of cases similar to Levenson’s is probably small. Reinhardt said he didn’t know whether similar appeals had been raised by federal employees elsewhere in the judicial system. Still, legal scholars see Reinhardt’s reading of the Defense of Marriage Act as a bellwether on the constitutionality of that law and potentially others that seek to discourage or discriminate against homosexual partnerships.

“I think that this is a very important case in terms of the application of the Constitution to sexual orientation discrimination, especially with regard to partners,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC  Irvine law school.

While noting that Reinhardt’s ruling doesn’t directly affect the issue of gay marriage, Chemerinsky said he considered it “a key case toward creating a constitutional right for benefits for same-sex partners.”

Levenson, who married Sears on July 12 during last year’s five-month window when gay marriage was legal in California, applied for spousal benefits three days later but was denied by the 9th Circuit Executive Office on grounds that the Defense of Marriage Act and the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act prohibit extending benefits to same-sex spouses.

Levenson appealed to the 9th Circuit’s Standing Committee on Federal Public Defenders, which Reinhardt chairs, with the argument that his office’s dispute resolution plan expressly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed by the Republican-controlled Congress 13 years ago and signed into law by President Clinton. The act identified three objectives: defending and nurturing the institution of traditional, heterosexual marriage; defending traditional notions of morality; and preserving scarce government resources.

In his 15-page ruling, Reinhardt debunked the first two objectives, stating that “gay people will not be encouraged to enter into marriages with members of the opposite sex by the government’s denial of benefits to same-sex spouses.” On the cost-saving objective, Reinhardt deemed the potential savings from discriminating against gays “insignificant” and “founded upon a prohibited or arbitrary ground.”

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/02/gay-marriage.html

This is really long.  Do you have the cliff notes?     Are the Gays winning? 

[BayGBM]

This is really long.  Do you have the cliff notes?     Are the Gays winning? 

That is typical length for a newspaper article.  Read a book lately?  They are even longer?

[MCWAY]

Federal judge rules denial of health coverage to same-sex spouse unconstitutional
February 5, 2009

A federal judge has deemed unconstitutional the government’s denial of healthcare coverage and other benefits to the same-sex spouse of a Los Angeles public defender, calling into question the validity of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt said the federal government’s refusal to grant spousal benefits to Tony Sears, the husband of deputy federal public defender Brad Levenson, amounted to unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.

“Because there is no rational basis for denying benefits to the same-sex spouses of [Federal Public Defender] employees while granting them to the opposite-sex spouses of FPD employees, I conclude that the application of [federal statutes] so as to reach that result is unconstitutional,” Reinhardt wrote in an order to the U.S. Courts administration to submit Levenson’s benefits election form. The ruling was issued Monday and published Wednesday.

“The denial of federal benefits to same-sex spouses cannot be justified simply by a distaste for or disapproval of same-sex marriage or a desire to deprive same-sex spouses of benefits available to other spouses in order to discourage them from exercising a legal right afforded them by a state,” Reinhardt wrote.

Neither Reinhardt’s ruling nor one in a similar case involving a 9th Circuit employee issued by appeals court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski establishes precedent that would have to be followed by courts hearing other challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act or the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act, which seek to deny federal benefits to same-sex spouses.

Reinhardt and Kozinski handled the respective complaints from Levenson and from 9th Circuit staff lawyer Karen Golinski in their capacity as dispute resolution officials within the federal judiciary, whose employees are prohibited from suing in federal court. Other federal employees denied benefits for same-sex spouses could sue under Title VII and other anti-discrimination statutes.

With same-sex marriage legal or recognized in only a handful of states and on hold in California since the passage of Proposition 8 in November, the number of cases similar to Levenson’s is probably small. Reinhardt said he didn’t know whether similar appeals had been raised by federal employees elsewhere in the judicial system. Still, legal scholars see Reinhardt’s reading of the Defense of Marriage Act as a bellwether on the constitutionality of that law and potentially others that seek to discourage or discriminate against homosexual partnerships.

“I think that this is a very important case in terms of the application of the Constitution to sexual orientation discrimination, especially with regard to partners,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC  Irvine law school.

While noting that Reinhardt’s ruling doesn’t directly affect the issue of gay marriage, Chemerinsky said he considered it “a key case toward creating a constitutional right for benefits for same-sex partners.”

Levenson, who married Sears on July 12 during last year’s five-month window when gay marriage was legal in California, applied for spousal benefits three days later but was denied by the 9th Circuit Executive Office on grounds that the Defense of Marriage Act and the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act prohibit extending benefits to same-sex spouses.

Levenson appealed to the 9th Circuit’s Standing Committee on Federal Public Defenders, which Reinhardt chairs, with the argument that his office’s dispute resolution plan expressly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed by the Republican-controlled Congress 13 years ago and signed into law by President Clinton. The act identified three objectives: defending and nurturing the institution of traditional, heterosexual marriage; defending traditional notions of morality; and preserving scarce government resources.

In his 15-page ruling, Reinhardt debunked the first two objectives, stating that “gay people will not be encouraged to enter into marriages with members of the opposite sex by the government’s denial of benefits to same-sex spouses.” On the cost-saving objective, Reinhardt deemed the potential savings from discriminating against gays “insignificant” and “founded upon a prohibited or arbitrary ground.”

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/02/gay-marriage.html

AHHHH!!! The 9th Circus....ahem....Circui t Court, only the one that's had MORE DECISIONS REVERSED (by far) than any other court in the country, is looking to add to its collection.

[War-Horse]

That is typical length for a newspaper article.  Read a book lately?  They are even longer?

I guess im not that interested.     Yes or No  Are the gays winning??

[BayGBM]

I guess im not that interested.     Yes or No  Are the gays winning??

You're not that interested... remember?  Or are you... 

[BayGBM]

Iowa court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional
By AMY LORENTZEN, Associated Press Writer
Friday, April 3, 2009

Des Moines, Iowa (AP) --

The Iowa Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling Friday finding that the state's same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples, making Iowa the third state where gay marriage is legal.

In its decision, the court upheld a 2007 district court judge's ruling that the law violates the state constitution. It strikes the language from Iowa code limiting marriage to only between a man a woman.

"The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa constitution must be declared void even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion," said a summary of the ruling issued by the court.

The ruling set off celebration among the state's gay-marriage proponents.

"Iowa is about justice, and that's what happened here today," said Laura Fefchak, who was hosting a verdict party in the Des Moines suburb of Urbandale with partner of 13 years, Nancy Robinson.

Robinson added: "To tell the truth, I didn't think I'd see this day."

Richard Socarides, an attorney and former senior adviser on gay rights to President Clinton, said the ruling carries extra significance coming from Iowa.

"It's a big win because, coming from Iowa, it represents the mainstreaming of gay marriage. And it shows that despite attempts stop gay marriage through right wing ballot initiatives, like in California, the courts will continue to support the case for equal rights for gays," he said.

Court rules dictate that the decision will take about 21 days to be considered final, and a request for a rehearing could be filed within that period. That means it will be at least several weeks before gay and lesbian couples can seek marriage licenses.

But Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said the county attorney's office will not ask for a rehearing, meaning the court's decision should take effect after that three-week period.

"Our Supreme Court has decided it, and they make the decision as to what the law is and we follow Supreme Court decisions," Sarcone said. "This is not a personal thing. We have an obligation to the law to defend the recorder, and that's what we do."

The case had been working its way through Iowa's court system since 2005 when Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, filed a lawsuit on behalf of six gay and lesbian Iowa couples who were denied marriage licenses. Some of their children are also listed as plaintiffs.

The suit named then-Polk County recorder and registrar Timothy Brien.

The state Supreme Court's ruling upheld an August 2007 decision by Polk County District Court Judge Robert Hanson, who found that a state law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman violates the state's constitutional rights of equal protection.

The Polk County attorney's office, arguing on behalf of Brien, claimed that Hanson's ruling violates the separation of powers and said the issue should be left to the Legislature.

Lambda Legal scheduled a news conference for early Friday to comment on the ruling. A request for comment from the Polk County attorney's office wasn't immediately returned.

Around the nation, only Massachusetts and Connecticut permit same-sex marriage. California, which briefly allowed gay marriage before a voter initiative in November repealed it, allows domestic partnerships.

New Jersey, New Hampshire and Vermont also offer civil unions, which provide many of the same rights that come with marriage. New York recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, and legislators there and in New Jersey are weighing whether to offer marriage. A bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Vermont has cleared the Legislature but may be vetoed by the governor.

The ruling in Iowa's same-sex marriage case came more quickly than many observers had anticipated, with some speculating after oral arguments that it could take a year or more for a decision.

[MCWAY]

Iowa court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional
By AMY LORENTZEN, Associated Press Writer
Friday, April 3, 2009

Des Moines, Iowa (AP) --

The Iowa Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling Friday finding that the state's same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples, making Iowa the third state where gay marriage is legal.

In its decision, the court upheld a 2007 district court judge's ruling that the law violates the state constitution. It strikes the language from Iowa code limiting marriage to only between a man a woman.

"The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa constitution must be declared void even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion," said a summary of the ruling issued by the court.

The ruling set off celebration among the state's gay-marriage proponents.

"Iowa is about justice, and that's what happened here today," said Laura Fefchak, who was hosting a verdict party in the Des Moines suburb of Urbandale with partner of 13 years, Nancy Robinson.

Robinson added: "To tell the truth, I didn't think I'd see this day."

Richard Socarides, an attorney and former senior adviser on gay rights to President Clinton, said the ruling carries extra significance coming from Iowa.

"It's a big win because, coming from Iowa, it represents the mainstreaming of gay marriage. And it shows that despite attempts stop gay marriage through right wing ballot initiatives, like in California, the courts will continue to support the case for equal rights for gays," he said.

Court rules dictate that the decision will take about 21 days to be considered final, and a request for a rehearing could be filed within that period. That means it will be at least several weeks before gay and lesbian couples can seek marriage licenses.

But Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said the county attorney's office will not ask for a rehearing, meaning the court's decision should take effect after that three-week period.

"Our Supreme Court has decided it, and they make the decision as to what the law is and we follow Supreme Court decisions," Sarcone said. "This is not a personal thing. We have an obligation to the law to defend the recorder, and that's what we do."

The case had been working its way through Iowa's court system since 2005 when Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, filed a lawsuit on behalf of six gay and lesbian Iowa couples who were denied marriage licenses. Some of their children are also listed as plaintiffs.

The suit named then-Polk County recorder and registrar Timothy Brien.

The state Supreme Court's ruling upheld an August 2007 decision by Polk County District Court Judge Robert Hanson, who found that a state law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman violates the state's constitutional rights of equal protection.

The Polk County attorney's office, arguing on behalf of Brien, claimed that Hanson's ruling violates the separation of powers and said the issue should be left to the Legislature.

Lambda Legal scheduled a news conference for early Friday to comment on the ruling. A request for comment from the Polk County attorney's office wasn't immediately returned.

Around the nation, only Massachusetts and Connecticut permit same-sex marriage. California, which briefly allowed gay marriage before a voter initiative in November repealed it, allows domestic partnerships.

New Jersey, New Hampshire and Vermont also offer civil unions, which provide many of the same rights that come with marriage. New York recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, and legislators there and in New Jersey are weighing whether to offer marriage. A bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Vermont has cleared the Legislature but may be vetoed by the governor.

The ruling in Iowa's same-sex marriage case came more quickly than many observers had anticipated, with some speculating after oral arguments that it could take a year or more for a decision.

I'd hardly call yet another court-ordered edict, regard gay "marriage" a mainstreaming of the issue.

It appears that the pattern is much the same. Where gay "marriage" supporters have their success is in liberal/Democrat-controlled governments in which there's political red tape to get an amendment to the people for their vote.

If they want to see, if this ruling "repsents the mainstreaming" of gay "marriage", take it to the ballot and let the people have their say on the matter.

Now, if history repeats itself, this ruling in Iowa becomes a wake-up call to those states who still foolishly think that their marriage laws are enough to stop their states’ courts from imposing gay “marriage” within their borders.

So, at least three states should come up with marriage amendments and pass them, clearly defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

[Deicide]

I'd hardly call yet another court-ordered edict, regard gay "marriage" a mainstreaming of the issue.

It appears that the pattern is much the same. Where gay "marriage" supporters have their success is in liberal/Democrat-controlled governments in which there's political red tape to get an amendment to the people for their vote.

If they want to see, if this ruling "repsents the mainstreaming" of gay "marriage", take it to the ballot and let the people have their say on the matter.

Who cares what other people want to do with their lives!? Why do you care?