Misblog

Originally Published June 17, 2008; Last Updated August 16, 2010; Last Republished August 16, 2010:

Late into the evening just married same-sex couples emerged onto San Francisco City Hall steps to cheering crowds, a self-styled trumpeter playing notes from "Here Comes the Bride", and a live KGO Radio broadcast.

As with all just married couples they were all smiles and laughter.

Just Married Same-Sex Couple

Looking at this obviously elated couple I wondered what's all the fuss about—it's no different than opposite-sex marriages or couples.

Steps of SF City Hall Where Just Married Couples Are Emerging

If you doubt this check out the same-sex divorce statistics in a decade; If you think our species will go extinct check out our birth and death statistics over the next decade; while your at it check out the world population, too.

If you think "God" will kill you, opposite-sex marriages and couples, others, or same-sex marriages and couples you'll be able to think the same thing in a decade, if you're single—just kidding, your God isn't that petty! My God,...maybe!

YouTube:

• UPDATED 05/26/2009 California Supreme Court bows to the People, but existing same-sex marriages stand:

  Proponents will likely view this as an outreach and education opportunity on the need to provide same-sex marriages equal protection under the law.

  Many times tactical defeat leads directly to a strategic victory—much has changed since November 2008.

Web:

• UPDATED 08/13/2010 SFGate, Walker's ruling on Prop. 8 stay is the right one.

  "The unions can begin but not for another six days, giving opponents time to seek a marriage-blocking appeal."--SFGate--

  The ruling reflects a "balance of deference" for the appellate court on a controversial issue.

  There is no reason for the Ninth Circuit to stay the lower court's courageous ruling pending its the two year trek through our appellate courts².

  After two years of enabling all our “adult” citizens and residents to marry those they choose, all but a relative handful of the flat-earth-faithful will wonder what all the fuss was about.

  The flat-earth-faithful have so many other items to convince themselves (and others) that America is going to hell in a hand basket (or just going to hell) they’ll hardly miss same-sex marriages.

  • UPDATED 08/16/2010 Scribd, Ninth Circuit Stay of Walker's Ruling on Prop. 8. A ninth circuit panel (judges Leavy, Hawkins, and Thomas) has stayed the lower court's order pending consideration of an expedited appeal.

• UPDATED 08/04/2010 SFGate, Judge [Vaughn Walker] strikes down Prop. 8 ban on same-sex marriage. Click on link to download Findings and Order or individual items of Evidence used in the Findings and Order.

  It seems useful to remind our religions that they can still define their marriages as they see fit—just not by denying others the freedom to define their marriage as they see fit¹.

  It seems truly bizarre that "religious marriages" are dependent on how others choose to define their marriage rather than how they define their own marriages? But then religion is nothing if not bizarre.

  Here's how the opinion states it:

  "...Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians.

  ...Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."--Perry v Schwarzenegger--

• UPDATED 08/20/2009 Reuters, Judge sets Jan 2010 federal gay marriage trial.

• UPDATED 08/17/2009 UPI, U.S. brief defends DOMA, but urges repeal. (read or download the reply brief at Scribd)

  The Department of Justice (DOJ) in its role of defending acts of Congress has filed a brief defending the unfortunate Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

  Fortunately, DOJ simultaneously makes clear that it thinks that DOMA should be repealed by Congress. DOJ's bifurcated and nuanced approach enables it to simultaneously satisfy its constitutional obligation while retaining its constitutional autonomy.

  "With respect to the merits, this Administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal. Consistent with the rule of law, however, the Department of Justice has long followed the practice of defending federal statutes as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of their constitutionality, even if the Department disagrees with a particular statute as a policy matter, as it does here."--Smelt v U.S.--(read or download at Scribd)--

• UPDATED 07/09/2009 UPI, Massachusetts sues over marriage act. All 50 states' attorney generals should join the Massachusetts lawsuit.
• UPDATED 05/27/2009 Reuters, Bush v. Gore lawyers take on gay marriage ban
• UPDATED 05/26/2009 SFGate, Court upholds Prop. 8 but lets marriages stand

• UPDATED 03/05/2009 Reuters, Gay marriage backers grilled by California judges

  • California Channel, Proposition 8 Cases. Watch the California Supreme Court oral arguments from Thursday, March 5, 2009. Three cases challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8 (Ban on Same Sex Marriage), a statewide ballot initiative that was passed by a majority of California voters in November 2008.
  • California Supreme Court, Proposition 8 Cases

• UPDATED 03/05/2009 SF Mayor Takes Gay Marriage Fight To Court

  This morning at 9am local time, gay marriage is back before the California Supreme Court after Proposition 8 temporarily popped the celebratory balloons and clouded its previous ruling.

  If you were standing on the San Francisco City Hall steps with your back to the door and looked up and slightly turned your head to the left you would be looking at the windows of California's Supreme Court.

  If you looked straight ahead you'd see media satellite trucks, police presence, and people galore.

-----notes-----

1. The court's findings remind us that:

"19. Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage."

"21. California, like every other state, has never required that individuals entering a marriage be willing or able to procreate."

"33. Eliminating gender and race restrictions in marriage has not deprived the institution of marriage of its vitality."

2. The putative appellants were granted intervenor status in the district court in the absence of a state defendant, which declined involvement in the case.

However intervenor status does not necessarily or automatically confer standing to appeal. Particularly, if as in this case the appellants do not articulate a tangible harm suffered (which is not to say the appellate court will not sua sponte articulate a harm) and the state (which has standing) urges the district court not stay his its ruling (effectively implying the state is not harmed).

So the putative appellant-intervenor in this case has a dual burden of showing their harm and why the state is incorrect to think it isn't harmed (i.e the state declined to defend or appeal). And that’s just to get into the appellate court to tell them why the district court errored...

A counter argument might go something like:

When the putative appellant-intervenor is the only party in interest because the state declines to defend, then the intervenor has standing to appeal an adverse ruling, even when the non-defending defendant does not appeal (because the non-defending defendant agrees with the adverse ruling).