Thursday, November 17, 2011
Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Prop 8 proponents allowing them standing in the Prop 8 case. So its back to the Ninth Circuit for a speedy ruling.
So, basically some random ass prejudice website can be the voice of the people without being elected into office. Keep in mind though, Judge Vaughn Walker originally granted a stay so they could defend their law. I believe this is why the Supreme Court allowed them standing.
However, this ruling isn't just in the proponents favor, it is in the plaintiffs' favor as well. If you watched the original arguments in the Ninth Circuit before the three judge panel, you would have seen the proponents of Prop 8 fail to state their case. Hence why they tried to have District Judge Vaughn Walker's original ruling that stated Prop 8 as unconstitutional vacated. This was one of many appeals to come through out the case. They tried and they failed when Judge James Ware denied their motion to vacate the original ruling in (then) Perry vs. Schwarzenegger.
So now, we wait on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Being that the proponents of Prop 8 failed to present any credible evidence to justify the discriminatory anti-gay marriage laws, the Ninth Circuit decision can set a huge precedent. The original District court decision has greatly impacted Americans. Now and since the original ruling, seven national polls show majority of Americans support gay marriage, and that support continues to grow with the advancement of the Prop 8 case.
Keep in mind this is going back to the Ninth Circuit, it isn't over yet. This has the potential to amplify the reach to the ultimate goal. The Ninth Circuit is the nation's largest appellate court, it consists of the entire west coast and stretches as far east as Montana and Arizona. This is a very essential and critical step towards bringing this case before the U.S. Supreme Court and reach the ultimate goal:
FULL FEDERAL MARRIAGE EQUALITY!
That's NATION WIDE ladies and gentlemen.
If you are confused as to how our loss is also a victory please read my post explaining this whole process: Should U.S. Supreme Court Allow Prop H8 Proponents Standing?
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
As we sit and wait for the Supreme Court to rule on the standing of the Prop 8 proponents, the fight goes on. The plaintiffs in Perry v. Brown have filed a brief defending and encouraging the rights of the people to view the tapes from the original Prop 8 trial.
The video was released by Judge James Ware, Judge Vaughn Walker's successor, when the sealing of the recordings were in question by the proponents of Prop 8 and of course the proponents of Prop 8 appealed Judge Ware's ruling. I'm seeing a pattern here, the proponents of Prop 8 appeal anything that doesn't go there way, which has been every ruling so far. Can't wait to see the look on their faces when they run out of stuff to appeal and lose. Let's not forget the question still remains... Do the proponents of Prop 8 have the right to appeal Judge Vaughn Walker's original ruling of Prop 8 being unconstitutional, and in direct violation of due process and equal protection? The answer to this will be revealed on or by Dec. 6th, 2011.
Plaintiffs explained in their brief, "Proponents have provided no justification--compelling or otherwise--for continued concealment of the trial recording, which truly and accurately depicts the events that took place in the district court in full public view. The First Amendment and settled common law principles guarantee the public the right to watch the trial video in this case and to evaluate the evidence, arguments, and outcomes for itself."
"The brief is urging the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to affirm the district courts decision granting plaintiffs' motion to unseal the digital recording of the trial." - Windy City Media Group
So more of a waiting game, more of a pushing match. When will these proponents give up, I'm guessing never. Mainly because we all know that hate is taught and hate also festers inside someone until they explode of it... Proponents of Prop 8 are just at the point of their hate seeping out of them, I'm waiting for them to erupt. It will be comical.
Well truth is this blog has been global for quite sometime, here are some of the countries that have been following marriage equality....
- United States
- United Kingdom
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D) won a 10-8 party-line vote for passage through the Senate Judiciary Committee taking her Respect for Marriage Act bill to repeal DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) one step closer to victory in what she refers to as the "big march". The bill is now to face opposing Republicans who have said that DOMA "is not about discrimation against anyone."
WAIT A MINUTE TIME OUT: you mean defining a word and using that to withhold the rights from a group of tax paying American's for no other reason than feeling heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality based on YOUR religious beliefs as a fundamentalist Christian, all while denying that other denominations of Christianity such as Presbyterian, don't believe in discriminating against LGBT community isn't discrimination? PLEASE THEN TELL ME HOW YOU FUNDAMENTALIST AND BIGOTS DEFINE DISCRIMINATION? LETS NOT FORGET THAT WE THE PEOPLE also ENACTED SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
Back to the repeal...
Early this year President Obama and the Justice Department declared DOMA as unconstitutional and they will not defend. Obama later going to an HRC dinner where he encouraged all American's to fight DOMA and Discrimination against LGBT and all others. See
for that video.
In case you are not on the up-and-up. DOMA or Defense of Marriage Act is a law created in 1996 that defines Marriage as between one man and one woman (because that's what the bible says, yet the bible also says that to remarry, ones spouse or ex spouse must die and then you may remarry... their next available sibling only. Oh and lets not forget Separation of Church and State). This definition excludes LGBT people from the rights to marry as well as other federal benefits that include Immigration, Social Security, Tax, and 1100+ rights/federal preferences associated with marriage.
Reading an article by Carolyn Lochhead, Chronical Washington Bureau
@www.SFGate.com, Feinstein was quoted saying...
"Some bills go fast, some go slow," Feinstein said of her repeal measure. "What's important to me is the march." Feinstein said she expects the Supreme Court to weigh in as well. Her bill, the Respect for Marriage Act, offers a parallel legislative effort."Whether it comes up this year, next year, the year after, the year after that, we are ready," Feinstein said.
As part of the Americans for Marriage Equality campaign, the Human Rights Campaign has been executing a multi-pronged strategy to win a successful committee vote on the RMA including lobbying members and working with our allies to prepare for attacks against the bill. In addition to the letter, HRC today delivered 135,000 petition signatures to Senate offices showing the groundswell of public support for repeal of DOMA. 51 percent of voters oppose DOMA while only 34 percent favor it, according to a March 2011 poll by HRC and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research.
So what do I think?
I think that when DOMA was enacted (1996), it was done in ignorance. Gay wasn't an openly talked about subject then, the way it is now. Since so many have been educated away from the stereotypes that intolerance poisons our society with, the acceptance of Gay marriage has grown to Majority of The People, that's right the majority of AMERICANS are in favor of Gay marriage. (See previous blog postings for that information).
I also find it interesting when the idea of repealing DOMA was brought forth. Both President Clinton (who enacted the bill) and its Author both said that it has done nothing and will continue to do nothing for this country (I'm paraphrasing that, basically they are in favor of the repeal).
I also think that a group of LGBT American's should sue the government for not abiding by separation of Church and State, using DOMA as proof. Because if they want to bring the dictionary into what marriage is defined as, its not just between a man and a woman. So where did they get their definition. Also for those whose religion is not what this law was found on, how is the non-separation of church and state not effecting their Constitutional Right (1st Amendment) to freedom of religion. What if a religion believes gay marriage is okay? You're going to step on their toes as well.
Look, this country is ran by those close-minded, intolerant son's of bitches who would rather avoid bruising their ego than allowing LGBT community the same rights as everyone else. Wait, our country isn't doing so well financially is it? Isn't it run by these "all knowing" fundamentalist Republican's (not all Republican's the fundamentalist ones). I also find it hilarious that Fundamentalists believe that they should be the only American's entitled to the 1st Amendment rights ensured by our Constitution.