Groundbreaking gay marriage trial starts in Calif
By The Associated Press
01.11.2010 9:23am EST
(San Francisco) The first federal trial to determine if the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from outlawing same-sex marriage gets under way Monday, and the two gay couples on whose behalf the case was brought will be among the first witnesses.
The proceedings, which are expected to last two to three weeks, involve a challenge to Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban approved by California voters in November 2008.
Regardless of the outcome, the case is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it ultimately could become a landmark that determines if gay Americans have the right to marry.


http://www.365gay.com/news/groundbreaking-gay-marriage-trial-starts-in-calif/

The proceedings were available on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/USDCCAND
But it appears to have been removed, at least for the moment. Watch this space...

_________________
Madness takes it's toll - Please have correct change.

It's exciting but scary. If we lose, we'll be screwed for decades, potentially. The opening statement by the prosecution was excellent.

_________________
Lightning Jukebox <-- my music blog

By prosecution, do you mean pro or against Prop 8?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but methinks the defendants are the against Prop 8 people...

^^

This is not a criminal case, but rather a civil/constitutional one, and as such there is no prosecution.
Rather, it is Plaintiff (ie: those who are complaining that Proposition 8 is wrong) vs Defendant (ie: those who claim the standing law of Proposition 8 must be allowed to remain ie: defended).

Thus: The Plaintiffs are the same-sex couples bringing the case against Prop 8: Perry, Stier, Katami & Zarillo.

The Defendant is a little more unexpected. Normally (or at least under the UK or Australian systems), this would be the State of California. For some odd reason I can’t quite fathom though, in this instance the defendants are Governor Swarzenegger & Attorney-General Brown.

The article tries to explain why this is, but is actually quite mystifying:
“The sponsors of Proposition 8, which passed with 52 percent of the vote, won permission to defend the law in court after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney-General Jerry Brown refused to. The attorney-general and the governor are defendants in the case because of their positions in state government.”

There would seem to be something very odd about a choice of defendants that have refused to defend, rather than the law's sponsors. Maybe someone with a good understanding of US/Californian constitutional law can explain it to me?
I'd be fascinated.

_________________
Madness takes it's toll - Please have correct change.

Buckle in kids and get ready for yet another soul-destroying ride on this all-too-familiar merry-go-round:

Opponents begin campaign to repeal gay marriage in New Hampshire
By Staff Writer, PinkNews.co.uk • January 20, 2010 - 15:46

New Hampshire legalised gay marriage on January 1st

Three weeks after New Hampshire gay marriage law came into force, opponents are fighting to get it repealed.
The House Judiciary committee is holding hearings on two Republican-sponsored measures today.
One would repeal both gay marriage and the state's 2007 civil unions law, while the other calls for a state-wide referendum on a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to one man and one woman.
Although five US states currently allow gay marriage, the right has never been granted by voters and this is something opponents hope to capitalise on.
Republican Representative David Bates is leading the campaign to get a voter referendum on the issue
He told the Associated Press that petitions are being circulated in towns which hold meetings this spring to persuade local councils to pass non-binding resolutions in favour of lawmakers drawing up an amendment to restrict marriage to heterosexuals.
Although opponents know it is unlikely the Democratic-controlled state will repeal gay marriage this year, they are hoping Republicans will win control of the Statehouse this November.
Thirty-one states have voter-led constitutional bans on gay marriage.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/01/20/opponents-begin-campaign-to-repeal-gay-marriage-in-new-hampshire/

_________________
Madness takes it's toll - Please have correct change.

Disgusting but no surprise.

And to think, in today's Prop 8 trial, the lawyer for the defense tried again-and-again to show that we have politcal power. The witness for the plaintiff handed him his hat.

He tried to make that connection that we have a few allies in govt and a few elected officials are openly gay. The plaintiff's witness pointed out that, actually, only 0.002% of local officeholders are gay and only 1% of legislators. Only 6 in history have ever served openly in congress and two of those were closeted when first elected.

Witness for the plaintiff also pointed out that no other group has had as much legislation passed against them and no other group has lost such a high percentage when put to public vote. He also pointed out that in 1990, there were no states with anti-gay laws; now, there are 35 states with laws against us. How can we be that powerful if 70% of the states in the country have laws directly restricting our rights?

And the haters claim we're powerful? And they need to be protected from us?

Gimme a fuckin' break!

_________________
Lightning Jukebox <-- my music blog

Hey, at least they got Tam to go up as a witness...

Given that he's an organizer of the thing and has been shown to have lied so many times throughout (as well as the rest of ProtectMarriage.com) I really can't imagine anyone with at least half a brain taking these people seriously.

Boies seriously grilled the guy. I only wish we had Youtube coverage to be able to actually see it. Then again, people like HIM are the reason Prop8 doesn't want the case to be televised.

The defense today essentially tried to show that we do not actually exist. Lesbian, gay and bisexual are too vague in meaning to definitively define us. Some people identify as gay but have straight sex, some identify as straight but have gay sex, some people identify as straight then bisexual then gay, etc., etc., etc. It would appear that they will try to argue that, since sexual orientation can, in some cases, be difficult to determine exactly, sexual orientation should not be a "suspect class," as it is not 100% immutable.

Of course, the same is true of race but, you know, like, that makes it necessary to think and, well, that hurts.

They actually quoted some book that said, "Given measurement problems, one could seriously doubt that sexual orientation is a serious concept at all."

_________________
Lightning Jukebox <-- my music blog

I don’t claim to understand what’s going on here – both houses vote to pass the bill & then postpone it indefinitely? Like, WTF?


Hawaii postpones civil unions bill indefinitely
Karen Ocamb Los Angeles, Marriage Movement 2010-01-29

Hawaii – one of LGBT LA’s favorite get-aways – is looking less beautiful after Friday’s vote in the Hawaii House to postpone indefinitely the civil unions bill for same sex and heterosexual couples.
Last year the bill passed the House by a vote of 33-to 17. One week ago, the Senate passed the bill 18-7.
Tony Wagner has a post up at HRCBackstory and here’s the joint press release from Equality Hawaii and the Human Rights Campaign:
HONOLULU – Equality Hawaii, the state’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, and the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBT civil rights organization, today denounced the Hawaii State House for failing to take up and pass HB 444 SD1, the state Civil Unions bill.
The bill would have provided that the equal rights and responsibilities of married couples in Hawaii are afforded to thousands of non-married couples in the state. The House voted by voice vote to postpone the bill indefinitely, effectively killing the bill for the session.


More:
http://www.lgbtpov.com/2010/01/hawaii-postpones-civil-unions-bill-indefinitely/

_________________
Madness takes it's toll - Please have correct change.

House members scared to show support for LGBT citizens for fear of not getting re-elected.

Standard politics: staying in office is more important than actually working for one's constituents

_________________
Lightning Jukebox <-- my music blog

But they've already shown their support! This is what I don't understand

_________________
Madness takes it's toll - Please have correct change.

I guess they decided doing it again wasn't worth the risk. It's especially disgusting that the decision was made in a closed-door session with no names recorded of who was for and who against. Cowardly and pathetic.

_________________
Lightning Jukebox <-- my music blog

I don't know why I'm disappointed when political parties that have consistently disappointed me do so again. Oh well.
Meanwhile the link to Australian gay-rights activist Rodney Croome makes for interesting reading for those with a more in-depth interest in Australian politics.


The Australian Senate debated marriage equality today, with an unexpected vote on the issue. The bad news is the marriage equality bill was defeated 45 / 5. Both Major Parties did not allow a conscience vote on the bill. For more info on today's debate visit http://www.rodneycroome.id.au/weblog.php

<post edit: Apparently 26 Senators were mysteriously absent from the debate, at least some presumably because they weren't allowed a conscience vote. In other words, although the bill would still have been defeated, the "real" vote count is potentially 45/31>

_________________
Madness takes it's toll - Please have correct change.

45/5? That's despicable!

_________________
Lightning Jukebox <-- my music blog

Actually, I'd call it "Unsurprising".
The truly despicable thing is that neither of the major parties would allow a conscience vote.
And it's particuarly despicable at this precise time: Australia is facing an impending Federal election and no politician in their right mind would "cross the floor" to vote against party lines when such an action would almost certainly cost them party pre-selection, thereby ensuring an almost certain loss of their seat in the Senate before the election has even happened.

In other words, both major parties in effect blackmailed their own members.

_________________
Madness takes it's toll - Please have correct change.

_________________
All your bass are belong to us!

Gay Marriage Is Legal in U.S. Capital
By IAN URBINA
Published: March 3, 2010

WASHINGTON — It was cold and drizzling outside the City Courthouse just after 6 a.m. on Wednesday, but no one seemed to mind among the same-sex couples waiting for the chance to apply for a marriage license.
“This is a dream come true,” said Sinjoyla Townsend, 41, as she smiled ear to ear and held up her ticket indicating she was first in line with her partner of 12 years, Angelisa Young, 47. “We wanted it so bad.”
Gay rights advocates hailed the day as a milestone for equal rights and a symbolic victory as same-sex marriage became legal in the nation’s capital.
Washington is now the sixth place in the nation where same-sex marriages can take place. Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont also issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Despite failing in court, opponents of the law vowed to fight another day.
The law survived Congressional attempts to block it, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.on Tuesday rejected a request from opponents of same-sex marriage to have the United States Supreme Court delay it.

More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/us/04marriage.html?hpw

_________________
Madness takes it's toll - Please have correct change.

That was an interesting one. Since Congress has control over the laws of city, it might've been shot down by them. I'm very glad only a few legislators tried to kill it.

_________________
Lightning Jukebox <-- my music blog

_________________
Madness takes it's toll - Please have correct change.

I was going to say something about strange kinds of "tobacco", but this is Hawaii we're talking about...Not Jamaica!

Reading the article though, it looks like Linda Lingle has really been placed on the spot with this one. If I understand it correctly, she alone now has the say on whether civil unions will become lawful or not...And with a lot of pressure on both sides, she's probably finding herself in a typical Damned if ye do, damned if ye don't situation.

Of course, I'm hoping that she goes for allowing civil unions in the state...And we should hopefully know the outcome for sure by the 22nd June, which is the deadline for her to submit her "Bills for disapproval" list. If the move in question doesn't appear on that list, then it'll pretty much be marked for approval and become law.

That said though, I'm curious as to why they havn't made a referendum of it. From what I understand, politically sensitive matters (Like the idea of Britain joining the Euro) normally get passed over for Joe Public's decision - Especially as it washes the politicians hands of any discontent over the final decision.

_________________
News: Currently online from public PCs only thanks to my ISP being an ass and refusing to fix my burst Internet connection. It will take me a long time to see and reply to posts and PMs. :-)

DieselDragon.co.uk - My own catacomb o' random crap. Find me elsewhere! :-)

This is a rights issue, though. Putting the rights of minority groups up for popular vote is antithetical to one of the founding principles of our nation: the minority must be protected from the tyranny of the majority.

Hear hear!!!

_________________
Madness takes it's toll - Please have correct change.

Good point there MTP, good point. Ye just reminded me of a similar discussion (Either further up this thread, or somwhere else in this sub-forum) that we had a while ago about why putting things like this to ballot would be a bad idea.

I have to point out that I didn't exactly forget about that previous discussion, but it was buried deep in the clutter at the back of my mind somewhere before thy reply caused it to be dug out. I really must remember to defrag this scrambled brain of mine at some point...

_________________
News: Currently online from public PCs only thanks to my ISP being an ass and refusing to fix my burst Internet connection. It will take me a long time to see and reply to posts and PMs. :-)

DieselDragon.co.uk - My own catacomb o' random crap. Find me elsewhere! :-)

Make sure you have a good backup first, in case it blows up and you need to reinstall.

If it blows up, someone else will have to reinstall, technically.

Aside from that, defragging shouldn't cause a kernel panic, y'know?