Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 126
December 8, 2010
Christine O'Donnell: unemployment benefits deal a 'tragedy'...like Pearl Harbor, Elizabeth Edwards
Look at the stupid - and how it burns like the white-hot fire of the sun in the form of failed Republican U.S. Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell. (The Hill via TPM):
Christine O'Donnell on Tuesday compared the "tragedy" of extending unemployment benefits to Pearl Harbor and the death of Elizabeth Edwards."Today marks a lot of tragedy," O'Donnell, who lost her recent bid for a Delaware Senate seat despite strong backing from the Tea Party, said Tuesday night during an appearance in Virginia.
"Tragedy comes in threes," O'Donnell said. "Pearl Harbor, Elizabeth Edwards's passing and Barack Obama's announcement of extending the tax cuts, which is good, but also extending the unemployment benefits."
BREAKING: Possible Senate DADT Repeal Vote TODAY
UPDATED:Clip of Harry Reid from this morning, discussing his intentions to bring up the NDAA tonight.
That's what Americablog's Joe Sudbay broke late last night, with the Advocate's Kerry Eleveld confirming.
I just spoke with Joe briefly, who has this breaking story of Senator Mark Pryor now giving his support to repeal. Pryor has long on the record stating he could not support repeal. THIS IS BIG.
On many previous occasions, I have said that I would oppose repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell until I had heard from our servicemen and women regarding this policy. I have now carefully reviewed all of the findings, reports, and testimony from our armed forces on this matter and I accept the Pentagon's recommendations to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I also accept the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs' commitment that this policy can be implemented in a manner that does not harm our military's readiness, recruitment, or retention. We have the strongest military in the world and we will continue to do so by ensuring our troops have the resources necessary to carry out their missions. Therefore, I support the 2011 Defense Authorization Act that passed the Senate Armed Services Committee and will support procedural measures to bring it to a vote this year.
PHONE CALLS TODAY COULD BE CRITICAL- so here is a 'call to action' list of phone numbers:
This is a list of key Senators. Please call them if you are one of their constituents. Please feel free to share this event with others who are willing to step up and do their part. Call your senator and thank them if they support repeal.--Harry Reid (D-NV); (202) 224-3542
--Carl Levin (D-MI); (202) 224-6221
--Susan Collins (R-ME); (202) 224-2523
--Olympia Snowe (R-ME); (202) 224-5344
--Mark Pryor (D-Ark.); (202) 224-2353
--Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark); (202) 224-4843
--Richard Lugar (R-IN); (202) 224-4814
--Judd Gregg (R-NH); (202) 224-3324
--Scott Brown (R-MA) (202) 224-4543
--George Voinovich (R-OH); (202) 224-3353
--Kit Bond (R-MO); (202) 224-5721
--Lisa Murkowski (R-AK); (202) 224-6665
--The Senate Switch Board (202) 224-3121
This is a breaking story and will be updated...
We may well have Susan Collins on our side:
Collins spokesman Kevin Kelley emails me (The Plum Line):Senator Collins has maintained that the Senate should be focused on taxes and the economy (especially since the tax provisions expire on January 1) and obviously we need to pass a bill funding the government before Friday.These are top priorities and there is limited time.
However, she believes there is time to consider other issues as well, and she has made it clear that if the Majority Leader brings the Defense Authorization bill to the floor, for example, and allows sufficient debate and amendments, she would vote to proceed to the bill.
Asked for further clarification, Kelley confirmed that this could happen even if the Bush tax cuts have not yet been extended. Collins, you will recall, has long said she will support repeal of DADT if Harry Reid allows an extended and open debate and amendment process. If Reid goes through with this, Collins could very well buck McConnell and vote for repeal.
Mike Huckabee defends anti-gay hate groups
crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
Former Arkansas governor and possible 2012 Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee came to the defense of the Family Research Council recently during an interview with the Walton Sun.
He was responding to the fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center had named FRC and other religious right groups as anti-gay hate groups.
Huckabee was also astounded when the Southern Poverty Law Center labeled Family Research Council as a hate group, because they oppose same sex marriage.
“So does 60 percent of America,” Huckabee said. “Does that mean that that 60 percent of America is a hate group?”
Huckabee is seriously displaying his ignorance here. The Southern Poverty Law Center did not designate FRC as an anti-gay hate group because its opposition to gay marriage. According to SPLC:
Even as some well-known anti-gay groups like Focus on the Family moderate their views, a hard core of smaller groups, most of them religiously motivated, have continued to pump out demonizing propaganda aimed at homosexuals and other sexual minorities. These groups’ influence reaches far beyond what their size would suggest, because the “facts” they disseminate about homosexuality are often amplified by certain politicians, other groups and even news organizations. Of the 18 groups profiled below, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) will be listing 13 next year as hate groups (eight were previously listed), reflecting further research into their views; those are each marked with an asterisk. Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling. Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups.
Huckabee is doing what he has done many times in the past when it comes to the lgbt community - attempting to shift the argument so that the lgbt community looks like the aggressors and folks like him look like the "innocent Christians persecuted for their faith."
But Huckabee is peddling lies and before he defends FRC, he should explain the following photo:
The man with Huckabee in this picture is Brian Camenker of Mass Resistance, an anti-gay organization in Massachusetts which was also named as an anti-gay hate group by SPLC. And this picture was taken during a religious right conference last year.
Mass Resistance has a long history of demonizing the lgbt community and even stooping to coordinating phony moral panics, including:
Manufacturing a phony panic about "schools teaching children about homosexuality,"
Claiming in 2005 on Comedy Central's Daily Show that if given time, he would be able to connect gay marriage in Massachusetts to the "reduction" of the quality of life in the state, a spike in homelessness rates, or and a lowering the quality of the air in the state, or
Making a claim in 2006 that "gays were trying to get legislation passed to allow sex with animals" in Massachusetts.
Continuing a vindictive campaign of misinformation against the transgendered community (whom the organization refers to as "men in dresses) .
The organization was also key in manufacturing inaccurate claims about Obama appointee Kevin Jennings in an attempt to get him dismissed. The watchdog site Media Matters published a list of the lies Camenker and Mass Resistance spread about Jennings.
Camenker has even bragged that Huckabee is aware of his group:
When told Brian was from MassResistance, Gov. Huckabee said, "I know. I get your emails."
Seems to me that Huckabee defends anti-gay hate groups like the Family Research Council not because they are innocent victims of a supposed "radical homosexual conspiracy," but because his views probably align closely with theirs.
Hat tip to People for the American Way
December 7, 2010
Jewish Community Provides Strong Faith-Based Response to LGBTQ Bullying
Last month Congregation Beit Simchat Torah, Keshet and Nehirim joined together to launch the "Strength Through Community" project, a Jewish response to LGBTQ youth in crisis. The project brings together the many ways these Jewish organizations have begun to respond to the bullying faced by many LGBTQ teens.
"The energy in the Jewish community around this issue is inspiring - rabbis giving sermons, queer Jews sharing their stories for the fist time, synagogues posting GLBT Safe Zone stickers - and a clear rebuke to the idea that the religious community does not support GLBT members," said Bonnie Rosenbaum, Deputy Director of Communications and Planning at Keshet.
At the project's center is an online video campaign highlighting stories by members and leaders of Jewish organizations to provide messages of support grounded in faith. The messages are guided by principles developed with the support of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and have received over 9,000 views since their launch.
The project is also promoting "Do Not Stand Idly By", a Jewish community pledge launched by Keshet stating that bullying of our LGBTQ youth will not be tolerated. Over 9,200 individuals and organizations have already signed the pledge.
Do Not Stand Idly By: A Jewish Community Pledge to Save Lives
As members of a tradition that sees each person as created in the divine image, we respond with anguish and outrage at the spate of suicides brought on by homophobic bullying and intolerance. We hereby commit to ending homophobic bullying or harassment of any kind in our synagogues, schools, organizations, and communities. As a signatory, I pledge to speak out when I witness anyone being demeaned for their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. I commit myself to do whatever I can to ensure that each and every person in my community is treated with dignity and respect.
Related:
* Happy Hannukah from Heschel GSA!
* Shattering the silence surrounding anti-LGBTQ violence
* Orthodox Jewish Rabbi Steven Burg says "There's no place for bullying in God's world"
From the websites of participating organizations:
Congregation Beit Simchat Torah is one of the oldest and largest faith based LGBTQ action and community organizations in the country. Serving as New York's synagogue for the LGBTQ Jewish community, and with an active social justice and educational program, CBST is a renowned leader of progressive religion and LGBTQ Jewish issues.
Keshet is a national grassroots organization dedicated to creating full inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Jews in Jewish life. We offer resources, training, and technical assistance for creating change in Jewish communities nationwide.
Nehirim ("Lights") is the leading national provider of programs for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) Jews, partners, and allies. Our retreats and other programs transform lives, and inspire GLBT Jews to be agents for change in their home communities. Nehirim is an independent, nonprofit, and nondenominational organization which celebrates the gifts of Judaism and sexual & gender diversity.
Breaking: Elizabeth Edwards Has Passed Away
Local press in Chapel Hill, North Carolina is reporting that Elizabeth Edwards has passed away. From WRAL's Elizabeth Edwards dies:
Chapel Hill, N.C. - Elizabeth Edwards, the political wife whose public battle with breast cancer, coping with marital infidelity and continued advocacy for the downtrodden raised her profile above that of her husband, died Tuesday. She was 61.Edwards died at her Chapel Hill home, where family and friends had gathered in recent days after doctors informed her that her cancer had spread and recommended that she not undergo further treatment.
~~~~~
Related:
* Elizabeth Edwards is gravely ill; further treatment for cancer 'unproductive'
Study: positive family attitudes have major health and well-being implications for LGBT kids
For the first time, researchers have established a clear link between accepting family attitudes and behaviors towards their lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) children and significantly decreased risk and better overall health in adulthood. The study shows that specific parental and caregiver behaviors -- such as advocating for their children when they are mistreated because of their LGBT identity or supporting their gender expression -- protect against depression, substance abuse, suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts in early adulthood. In addition, LGBT youth with highly accepting families have significantly higher levels of self-esteem and social support in young adulthood. This may seem obvious to we LGBT folk, but as we know it is not necessarily obvious to parents, friends and other family members. For example, watch members of a California family describe their individual paths to understanding these truths in this amazing video.
Major research findings include:
* Family accepting behaviors towards LGBT youth during adolescence protect against suicide, depression and substance abuse.
* LGBT young adults who reported high levels of family acceptance during adolescence had significantly higher levels of self-esteem, social support and general health, compared to peers with low levels of family acceptance.
* LGBT young adults who reported low levels of family acceptance during adolescence were over three times more likely to have suicidal thoughts and to report suicide attempts, compared to those with high levels of family acceptance.
* High religious involvement in families was strongly associated with low acceptance of LGBT children.
Results of the research are being translated into practical tools for parents by the study's author Dr. Caitlin Ryan and her team at the Family Acceptance Project in collaboration with Child and Adolescent Services at the University of California, San Francisco, with funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. They use a behavioral approach to help ethnically and religiously diverse families decrease rejection and increase support for their LGBT children to reduce risk for suicide, depression, substance abuse, and HIV, to promote well-being and to prevent homelessness and placement in custodial care. This approach helps communities and providers to engage diverse families as allies in decreasing their LGBT children's risk and increasing their well-being while respecting the family's deeply held values. This work is being conducted in English, Spanish and Chinese with families from all ethnic backgrounds, including immigrant and very low income families, and those whose children are out-of-home in foster care and juvenile justice facilities.
The study is published in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, a journal of the International Society of Psychiatric-Mental Health Nurses, in a peer-reviewed article titled "Family Acceptance in Adolescence and the Health of LGBT Young Adults."
Bam Bam Barber cites hoary report to justify DADT - to keep 'moral perverts' out of military
The topic came up in the Liberty Counsel's "Faith and Freedom Radio" program today as Mat Staver and Matt Barber discussed the issue and cited a report from the 1950s claiming that gays were "moral perverts" and therefore a national security risk:Surf over to RWW to see how Mat Staver continues bleating out lies with his above statement.
Staver: According to news reports, Manning decided to turn traitor after a fight with his boyfriend, which somehow motivated him to send hundreds of thousands of confidential documents to WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange, who's alleged also by some to be gay.
But at any rate, if you go back and look at this, go back to the reports of the 1950s when a series of Senate committee reports concluded that "moral perverts are bad national security risks because of the susceptibility to blackmail" and that homosexuals are "vulnerable to interrogation by a skilled questioner" due to emotional instability or moral weakness.
And that comes from The Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, October 1, 2001. So this is not some ancient document, but it looks back at what happened in the 1950s with regards to why homosexuality was automatic excluder for someone in a national security position.
Barber: This shows specifically why, this highlights why we have the policy in place that seeks to keep sexual deviancy out of the ranks of the armed services.
More religious right attacks on SPLC fail to yield results
crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
The attack on the Southern Poverty Law Center by religious right groups continue and like the others, the new attacks are not only pitiful, but give ammunition to the idea that the SPLC was correct in branding these organizations as anti-gay hate groups..
This time, the attacks are coming from Peter LaBarbera, head of the group Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (surnamed Porno Pete by members of the lgbt community for his "penchant" of going to subcultural leather events, taking pictures, and describing in intimate details all of the "interesting" encounters he saw there between gay men while ignoring the heterosexuals attending said events) and Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute.
Conveniently, both groups have been profiled as anti-gay hate organizations by SPLC for their attempts to smear the lgbt community through junk science or outright lies.
LaBarbera said the following:
The leftist SPLC is now slandering conservative, Christian and Tea Party groups by mislabeling them as “hate groups” on a par with genuine, fringe hate groups like the KKK. American taxpayers should insist that the federal government have no role in legitimizing the SPLC, which has politicized “hate” and turned it into a fund-raising business to demonize conservatives – including mainstream pro-family groups that oppose homosexual activism.
LaBarbera's whining about being unfairly smeared for supposedly simply standing against homosexuality is rather ironic. Days before, he published the following picture on his site.
The man in this doctored photo, for those who don't know, is openly gay Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA). LaBarbera put this awful thing on his page to illustrate a ridiculous phony panic he made earlier about gay TSA agents getting their "thrills" by feeling up men.
Seems to me that there is no difference between this picture and a photo of a black man with a toothy grin biting into a huge slab of watermelon.
For all of LaBarbera's posturing about being "persecuted due to his supposed Christian beliefs, it's things like this picture which more than makes the case for SPLC.
Higgins (Illinois Family Institute) took it upon herself to attempt to debunk SPLC's list of anti-gay myths in a piece below LaBarbera's whining. However, she doesn't seem to be familiar the rules of debunking claims, especially the first rule that if you debunking a claim, you simply must address the claim.
You read that right. She doesn't even try to debunk SPLC's anti-gay myths more than she offers a weak explanation as to why there is nothing wrong believing these myths.
For example:
SPLC - MYTH # 1
Homosexuals molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals.
According to the American Psychological Association, “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.” Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation’s leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.
Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because “he often finds adults of either sex repulsive” and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may “regress” to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.
Higgins - The SPLC thinks that the belief that same sex parents harm children constitutes hatred. The first problem is that Schlatter and Steinback fail to define harm. If one believes that homosexuality is morally flawed, then a household centered on a morally flawed relationship cannot be beneficial.
It is entirely possible that a brother and sister in an incestuous relationship or that polyamorist parents could raise children, providing for their physical needs, comforting them, and teaching them their ABCs. But most of society believes that such relationships would harm children because they would teach children that incest or polyamory are morally permissible. Would Schlatter and Steinback include organizations on their “hate groups” list that propagate the belief that incestuous parents or poly-parents harm children?
As I pointed out in an earlier post, in its profiles and list of anti-gay myths, SPLC cited many sources including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, The Child Molestation and Research Institute, the Child Welfare League of America, the National Organization of Male Sexual Victimization, Nicholas Eberstadt, of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, The Palm Center, and Richard J. Wolitski, an expert on minority status and public health issues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
For her supposed debunking, Higgins cited only one source (and it was the distortion of the 1997 Oxford study which supposedly said that gay men have a short life span. In an absolute bizarre move on her part, Higgins refutes her own point that gay men have a short life span by also citing the 2001 complaint of these researchers that religious right groups were distorting their work).
Higgins's entire argument seems to be "yes we say all of those awful things about lgbts . . . but . . . but . . . "
At the end of the piece, LaBarbera and Higgins tries to shift the argument by providing links to article that supposedly demonize SPLC.
But I didn't bother to read those links. After seeing the depths of duplicity LaBarbera and Higgins sunk to in order to defend their own organizations, I have a problem with believing anything they say.
You see that's the problem of being caught in a lie. People have a problem with believing anything that you say.
And it's a much deserved denouement for LaBarbera, Higgins and the rest involved in anti-gay groups.
Take Two On The Prep Work I'm Doing To Get A Passport Under New State Department Rules
Apparently, I've got it wrong on passports for transgender people. Geez, I was wrong...what a surprise there!
Seriously, my friend Abby, who in the brick-and-mortar world is an attorney, left this comment in the Pam's House Blend thread for the The Prep Work I'm Doing To Get A Passport Under New State Department Rules diary.
Her comment:
I think you are misreading the State Department's new gender change policy. The policy states:
A full validity U.S. passport will be issued reflecting a new gender upon presentation of the following: A signed original statement, on office letterhead, from the attending medical physician (internist, endocrinologist, gynecologist, urologist or psychiatrist) * * * stating the applicant has had appropriate clinical treatment for gender transition to the new gender ....(Section b(1) and b(1)(g), P. 2, emphasis added). In contrast, a "limited validity," i.e., two-year, passport is issued when the physician is only able to state that "the applicant is in the process of gender transition to the new gender ...." (Section b(2)(b), P. 3, emphasis added). In other words, the two-year passport is for those who have not yet completed "the appropriate clinical treatment" necessary to obtain a full validity, i.e., standard 10-year, passport. (Of course, it's important to note that it is between the trans person and her/his physician to determine what treatment is appropriate for her/him to transition, without interference or restriction by the State Department.)
I believe this is how NCTE, which worked closely with the State Department in developing this new policy, interprets it. NCTE's recommended language for the physician's statement recognizes this distinction, with the more limited language to be used by those applying only for the two-year passport.
See NCTE, Understanding the New Passport Gender Change Policy, June 2010, p. 2. NCTE's explanation also states, "If you are just beginning transition and need to travel abroad, you can obtain a two-year provisional passport." (p. 1)
Obviously, you're way beyond the beginning stage of transition and should have no trouble in obtaining a full validity passport showing your correct gender.
And on my Facebook page for the Pam's House Blend article I wrote, there was this note from Mara Keisling, the executive director of the National Center For Transgender Equality:
I think there is some confusion about the difference between requirements for full ten year passports and provisional two year passports. Neither type requires "genital surgery." Ten year passports require a letter saying you have had "appropriate clinical treatment for gender transition." Technically, the provisional passport is for people who have not completed the aforesaid treatment. However, it is our interpretation that if you and your Dr. believe you have had appropriate treatment for you, even if that does not yet or ever include genital surgery, you qualify for a full ten year passport. I cannot imagine a specific circumstance in which a transperson should apply for a provisional passport.
Egads, I got this wrong. I was in part working off the Time Magazine's take on the new passport policy:
For decades, the State Department had required that transgender individuals, who identify with a gender other than their physical sex, have "sexual reassignment surgery" - a term that doesn't have a clear definition in the medical community - before they were permitted to change their passport listing. Now a note from their physician stating that they have undergone clinical treatment for a "gender transition" will net them a new passport valid for two years. (Regular passports are good for 10.)
Okay, I have to get a new letter written with the phrase "appropriate clinical treatment for gender transition" in it. Emailed my doc already, and I'll have my new letter in January. Since it'll probably take at least that long for my official birth certificate copy to arrive in the mail, getting a new letter won't be much of a delay, but it has been another hoop to jump through. To quote a phrase I used often in the military: "Life is hard, then I whine." 
So thank you, Abby and Mara -- Getting my new passport under the new rules has been quite a learning experience. But, even though this is a difficult slog to get a new passport with a gender identifier that matches my gender identity, I'm quite aware that for many trans people in the United States, a passport may be the only path to getting an identification document with a gender identifier that matches one's gender identity.
~~~~~
Related:
* The Prep Work I'm Doing To Get A Passport Under New State Department Rules
* BREAKING Blend exclusive: State Department issues gender change policy for passport applications
* Foreign Affairs Manual Requirements For Passport Change Of Gender
December 6, 2010
NCLR: Frequently Asked Questions About Marriage for Same-Sex Couples in California
The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) has a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page for Californians. This was updated on December 6, 2010. The FAQ is posted in full.
The Appeal - What's Happening Now and What We Can Expect
On August 4, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker issued a decision in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger concluding that Proposition 8, the California constitutional amendment barring same-sex couples from marrying, violates the United States Constitution. Judge Walker wrote a 136-page decision that analyzed all the evidence submitted in the three-week trial. 
He ruled that Prop 8 violates the federal constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection. The group that put Prop 8 on the ballot, known as the Prop 8 "proponents," has appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard oral argument in the case on December 6, 2010.
1. My partner and I want to get married in California. Now that Judge Walker has ruled that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, when/where/how can we do that?
Same-sex couples in California cannot yet marry because the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals "stayed" Judge Walker's ruling while the appeal is pending. That means that same-sex couples will not be able to get married in California until the appeals court has finished reviewing the case.Same-sex couples can currently get married in five states in the U.S.: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Vermont, as well as Washington, D.C. A number of other countries also allow same-sex couples to marry, including Canada.
Same-sex couples in California can also register as domestic partners, a status that provides most of the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage under state law.
[More below the fold.]
2. How long will the Ninth Circuit take to issue a decision?
The Ninth Circuit is not required to issue its decision within any particular time frame after oral argument, but when an appeal is expedited, the court tends to issue decisions more quickly. It will probably issue a decision within a few weeks or months.Once the Ninth Circuit rules, the losing side can ask the United States Supreme Court to hear the case. The Supreme Court can choose whether to take the case or to let the Ninth Circuit's decision stand.
If the Supreme Court takes the case, it could take anywhere from a few months to a year to issue a decision. If the Supreme Court were to get the case sometime in 2011, the soonest we could expect a decision would probably be the spring of 2012.
3. Why is the appeal being heard by a three-judge panel at the Ninth Circuit? Will the whole Ninth Circuit ever hear the case?
It is typical for appeals to the Ninth Circuit to be heard by three-judge panels. That is the normal process. The three judges are randomly selected in each case.After the three-judge panel rules, the losing party can request that a bigger panel of 11 judges review that decision. That is called "rehearing en banc." All the active judges on the Ninth Circuit would then vote on that request, and rehearing en banc would only be granted if a majority of the Ninth Circuit judges approve it.
4. I've heard that there is a question about whether the Prop 8 proponents have "standing" to appeal Judge Walker's decision. What does that mean and when will that question be decided?
"Standing" means whether a particular person or group has a legal right to appeal a court ruling. As a general rule, in order to have standing to appeal a decision, you must be able to show that you are harmed by it. In the Prop 8 case, Judge Walker said that the Prop 8 proponents may not have standing to appeal because they were not able to show that they would be personally harmed in any way if same-sex couples are permitted to marry.The Ninth Circuit judges devoted half of the time at the December 6 oral argument to the issue of standing. If the panel decides that neither the Proponents of Prop 8 nor the County of Imperial, which unsuccessfully tried to intervene in the case, has standing to appeal, it will dismiss the appeal. In that event, Judge Walker's ruling will stand and the State of California will be prohibited from enforcing Prop 8 anywhere in the state.
5. If the Ninth Circuit decides that the Prop 8 supporters don't have standing to bring an appeal, would they be able to appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court? Or does the case stop there?
If the Ninth Circuit rules that the Prop 8 proponents don't have standing to bring an appeal, the proponents could ask the Supreme Court to review that decision. The Supreme Court could choose to hear that appeal or to let the Ninth Circuit's decision stand.
The Effect the Ruling Will Have on Marriage Laws Across the Country
6. I live in a state other than California. Does Judge Walker's decision mean that same-sex couples can now get married in every state? If not, would that be the result of a decision from the Ninth Circuit, or the Supreme Court?
Judge Walker's decision is just about California, but other courts could apply his language and logic to other discriminatory marriage laws across the country.The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over all the states in the Ninth Circuit, which include Alaska, Washington, Montana, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, and Hawaii. If the Ninth Circuit decides that Prop 8 violates the federal constitution, it could issue a broad ruling that that applies to all of the states in the Ninth Circuit or it could issue a narrower ruling that only applies to California.
Similarly, if the Supreme Court decides that Prop 8 violates the federal constitution, it could strike down all state marriage bans across the country or it could focus only on Prop 8.
7. If Prop 8 is eventually struck down for good by the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court, and a same-sex couple gets married in California, will that marriage be recognized in other states or by the federal government?
A victory in the Prop 8 case will not automatically require other states or the federal government to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples who marry in California. Right now, at least seven states and the District of Columbia recognize marriages between same-sex couples. Those states include the five states that permit same-sex couples to marry: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Vermont, as well as Washington, D.C. In addition, New York and Maryland do not permit same-sex couples to marry within their borders, but they recognize marriages from other places. Unfortunately, many other states deny recognition to marriages between same-sex couples.The federal government currently doesn't recognize any marriages between same-sex couples due to the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Legal challenges to DOMA, brought by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and the ACLU, are underway in Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York. In the Massachusetts case, a federal district court ruled in July 2010 that the part of DOMA prohibiting the federal government from recognizing valid marriages of same-sex couples is unconstitutional. That decision has been stayed (i.e., put on hold) pending an appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
8. If the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court ultimately rules that Prop 8 is constitutional, what will that mean for the fight for marriage equality in California? Will it be over for good?
The fight for marriage equality in California will still go on, even if Judge Walker's decision is overturned on appeal. Prop 8 can always be repealed by another ballot initiative - and in fact, efforts in support of a repeal measure are currently underway. Contact Equality California to find out how you can get involved: www.EQCA.org.
9. What will be the effect on other states if the Supreme Court rules that Prop 8 is constitutional? Will that mean that same-sex couples can no longer marry in states like Massachusetts?
Prop 8 is blatantly unconstitutional, and the United States Supreme Court should affirm Judge Walker's decision striking it down. But even if the Supreme Court reverses Judge Walker's decision and says that Prop 8 is valid, that would not take away equal marriage rights for same-sex couples in any states where it's currently legal. State courts would still be free to strike down marriage bans under their state constitutions, just like the state supreme courts in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa have already done. And state legislatures (and Congress) would still be free to repeal marriage bans.
Current Marriage and Domestic Partnership Rights in California
10. My partner and I are registered as domestic partners with the state of California, but we want to get married as soon as it's allowed. Will we need to dissolve our domestic partnership in order to marry?
You do not need to dissolve your domestic partnership in order to marry your domestic partner. Under California law, an individual can be married and in a registered domestic partnership at the same time, as long as it's with the same person. As a practical matter, it is a good idea to do both to get the maximum legal protection.
11. We got married in California between June 16, 2008 and November 5, 2008. Is our marriage still recognized in California?
Yes. In 2009, in the case of Strauss v. Horton, the California Supreme Court held that it would be unconstitutional to take away the marriages of same-sex couples who married in California before Prop 8 passed. If you married in California during that period, your marriage is completely valid and entitled to full recognition and respect.
12. If my partner and I got married in another state or country before Prop 8 passed, does California recognize our marriage? Should we remarry in California when we can?
California fully recognizes the marriages of same-sex couples who married outside of California before Prop 8 passed (Nov. 5, 2008). If you married in another state or country before Nov. 5, 2008, you are entitled to full recognition as married under California law. There is no need to remarry in California.For more details about the current rights of same-sex couples who get married outside of California, please see www.NCLRights.org/SB54FAQ.
13. If my partner and I got married in another state or country after Prop 8 passed, will California recognize our marriage? Should we remarry in California when we can?
Same-sex couples who marry outside California after November 5th, 2008 currently have all of the rights, benefits, and responsibilities of marriage under California law except for the name "marriage." That means the state of California will treat you as married, but it cannot officially recognize your marriage as a marriage.If Judge Walker's decision is upheld on appeal, same-sex couples who are already married will not need to remarry in California. Marriages between same-sex couples from other states or countries will be recognized as valid marriages in California, no matter when the couple got married.
For more details about the current rights of same-sex couples who get married outside of California, please see www.NCLRights.org/SB54FAQ
Winning Marriage Equality Across the Country
14. How can we help in the fight to win marriage equality in every state?
The only way we can ultimately win marriage equality across the entire country is to build public support for full inclusion and acceptance of our relationships and families. That will give legislators and courts the confidence they need to do the right thing and repeal or strike down discriminatory marriage laws. Polls show that around half of the public supports marriage equality, but we need to make that number higher. All of us can help make that happen by talking to everyone we know about why marriage equality is important to us.To find out other ways you can get involved with the marriage equality fight in your state, contact your local LGBT-rights organization. You can find a listing of the statewide groups at www.EqualityFederation.org/template.aspx?id=502. For information about how to get involved in California, contact Equality California at www.EQCA.org.
For more information about your legal rights and how to protect your family, you can contact NCLR's helpline anytime at www.NCLRights.org/GetHelp or call 415.392.6257 or toll-free 1.800.528.6257.
.
Pam Spaulding's Blog
- Pam Spaulding's profile
- 1 follower
