In a closely-watched case involving last year's Washington State ballot initiative to overturn domestic partnerships, the Supreme Court is considering whether or not the names of those who signed the petition to put the measure on the ballot should be kept secret. This is considered by many to be a test case for future LGBT rights cases that are likely to find their way to this court, including the federal challenge to California's Proposition 8.
If Wednesday's opening session in the case of Doe vs. Reed is any indicator, it doesn't look good for the anti-gays. Conservatives fighting to keep the over 138,000 names secret contend that revealing those names would open up those people to the risk of harassment. One of the court's most conservative jurists, Antonin Scalia said, "running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage."
On Top reports: In an amicus brief filed with the court, four gay rights groups – GLAD, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force – argued that opponents were feigning victimization.
“Petitioners seek, through their feint of victimization, to take away one of the few defenses that lesbian and gay individuals have to defend against hostile initiatives: the use of public records to stop the fraudulent qualification of such measures in the first place, and to lobby, through personal advocacy, the people who legislate using such measures,” the groups wrote.
“The Court should decline the invitation to scrap these protections based on a poorly-supported and largely fictitious tale that those who seek to deprive lesbian and gay Americans of rights are the ones being victimized.”
Chief Justice Roberts, appointed by George W. Bush, has decided not to hear a challenge to DC's Marriage Equality Law. All I can say is "Wow!"
From AP:
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to block the District of Columbia's gay marriage law, freeing the city to issue its first marriage licenses to same-sex couples the following day.
Opponents of gay marriage in the nation's capital had asked Chief Justice John Roberts to stop the city from issuing the licenses on Wednesday while they appealed. They argued that D.C. voters should have been allowed to vote on the issue. Local courts have rejected the opponents' arguments.
"It has been the practice of the court to defer to the decisions of the courts of the District of Columbia on matters of exclusively local concern," said Roberts, writing for the court.
He also pointed out that Congress could have voted to stop the city government from putting the law into effect and didn't.
Opponents have also asked city courts to allow a voter referendum on gay marriage, and they "will have the right to challenge any adverse decision ... in this court at the appropriate time," Roberts said.
The Stand4MarriageDC Coalition, which tried to get a vote on the issue, said Tuesday it was disappointed in the court's ruling. It said it would continue to work for this effort among voters who believe in traditional marriage.
The city has said Wednesday probably will be the first day same-sex couples can apply for marriage licenses. Couples still will have to wait three full business days for their licenses before exchanging vows.
Same-sex marriages are also legal in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut and Vermont.
On a personal note, Paul and I haven't discussed it yet, but before I can get gay married in DC I apparently have to go back to Puerto Rico to get a new birth certificate. MSNBC reported yesterday that they passed a law there that takes effect July 1st that nullifies all birth certificates prior to that date due to a huge amount of identity fraud involving illegal immigration from Latin America. Or we could get gay married before July 1st, then honeymoon in Puerto Rico while I try to get this worked out. Or I could do nothing and become an unmarried unperson. Would that mean I wouldn't have to pay taxes?
Why does this effect me? My sister Jane and I were both born in Fajardo, PR when my Dad was stationed in there with the Coast Guard in the late 50's.
Opening arguments and testimony began Monday morning in federal court in San Francisco in the challenge to overturn California's Proposition 8 on the basis that it violates the US Constitution's guarantee to equal protection. Due to a US Supreme Court challenge by the pro-H8 side to Judge Walker's decision to record and post the proceedings on YouTube, no video is yet available. Justice Kennedy is expected to render his decision in the matter on Wednesday.
The pro-H8 side argues that witnesses may feel intimidated if their faces are shown to the world during testimony. Personally, I think it's a simple case of cowardice the knowledge that they have a weak case. If you can't stand proudly and publicly for what you believe in, maybe it's because deep down, you know your beliefs are wrong and their validity can't stand up to public scrutiny.
So, dear readers, pending tomorrow's decision, we have to depend on the hard work and dedication of our LGBT bloggers, who are on the scene in the courthouse and typing their little fingers off to keep us informed with the latest testimony. The best coverage that I've found is coming from FireDogLake.com's Teddy Partridge. Reading through the transcript yesterday, it felt like homosexuality itself was on trial.
In his opening statements, Ted Olson, representing the anti-H8 side said, "This case is about marriage and equality. Plaintiffs are being denied the right to marry, described by SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the U.S.) as one of the most vital personal rights pursuant to the right to the pursuit of happiness, intimate choice, expression of emotional support, the exercise of spiritual unity, the highest expression of self. It is the most important right in our society."
Following is part of the exchange between Olson and Judge Walker that took place in during Olson's opening statements:
Olson: Marriage promotes economic, mental, physical strength. It is the building block of our society.
Olson: Prop 8 ended this dream for thousands of California citizens, even though the SCOCA had defined marriage as a fundamental right, then voters slammed the door.
Olson: The plaintiffs are two LOVING COUPLES in deeply committed, longstanding, intimate relationships.
Walker: Are the plaintiffs not registered domestic partners?
Olson: We will present them and they will tell you.
Walker: What disability do they operate under b/c they can’t marry? Are these differences of a legal nature? Is this a product of state action or of society?
Olson: What the state has done is sanctioned and labelled a formal relationship called domestic partnership which has nothing to do with love. The other relationship, marriage, is now reserved for opposite sex couples. CA has put people into categories.
Walker: Does Prop 8 classify people?
Olson: Yes, it does. There are now FOUR categories of Californians, and that matters a great deal.
Olson: Domestic partnerships are lesser and not the same as marriage.Witnesses recounted the every day discrimination they felt in being told by the state that they are less than heterosexuals.
Olson pointed out, "only opposite-sex couples over 62 years old can enter into domestic partnerships in CA."
Olson went on to outline how the state now categorizes marriage into four classes, including those who married during the window of opportunity between the Ca. Supreme Court's ruling in favor of same-sex marriage and the overturning of that ruling by popular vote: "opposite-sex, including the incarcerated. Two: those 18,000 who married during the window but cannot remarry if widowed. Three: people married elsewhere who until 1/1/10 had marriages not recognized by the state. Fourth, the people we represent, who cannot now marry."
I'll be brining the laptop to work today and will post updates as I am able.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vhJyJhF_lnH3-QO3dz_Ef3rOZQUBcABggdnarWCS2nfkBQBGNZhvFSmzJy_vTkr5W9w5FgwhkDegFjfLJFYGJSgGKqFneyObBUB-njgk_GYsES2ke-BdpsC-51xAxDuDk2eFlBk2DDdWrBKEyWVxk9=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sF1tcW3UXqPUY8q82pkbNRxlTDxOc0pOY3m6PRdoQB4IyliLLCV6dnRgaQVUed1ZRRmuz86i4PBpXbbXfzIGYjsYRaDw_UrGRhK9XiEDK5nmRzxc6IN8ZrCpUGlVGAH6LU_YjGx9Rtvf5wY8ri3BI=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sgHeYLpyFKz0fsFCPzQ1zelwD3QqQmDqFH-Zaqc3JEeeZ1ss53vrzbAxm1kekOM4Ar9BnHkOIe5lmZ_ePGOuoAXnpnR4-GtOKbmxSwntFmXhKrrbHFsx-pVPgIDvpBckXRonVpuTmEa1pf3R7PN-Z0=s0-d)