08/08/19: Married 11 Years Today!

Although we have been boyfriends since 1991 and living together since 1994, domestic partners since 1999, and civilly united (in Vermont) since 2000, we were only married in California on August 8, 2008 (Roger Federer's 27th birthday!) before Proposition 8 passed and after the California Supreme Court legalized marriage equality in the Golden State with the In Re Marriage Cases decision and upheld my marriage (and 18,000 others!) in Strauss v. Horton.

The above pictures were taken on our latest vacation in Valencia, Spain in July 2019.

Happy anniversary, hubby!

08/08/18: My 10th Wedding Anniversary Is Today!

Today is 08/08/18, the tenth anniversary of my wedding day on 08/08/08. Here are some rare pictures of MadProfessah with The Other Half, taken on our recent trip to Reykyavik (Iceland) and Paris (France) in summer 2018. (See my Instagram feed for more images from our trip, and lots of pictures of my the outfit I wear every day!)

Coincidentally, August 8 is a famous tennis birthdate: (Roger Federer is 37 and Felix Auger-Aliassime is 18)

#EqualityDay: Today is Anniversary of Obergefell, Hollingsworth and Windsor

Today is June 26, which some people are calling #EqualityDay, since it is the anniversary of numerous landmark Supreme Court decisions that have expanded equal rights for LGBT citizens. The most recent are 2015's Obergefell v. Hodges, which resulted in the dissolution of all the remaining state-based prohibitions on marriage equality, and 2013's U.S. v. Windsor which struck down the section of the so-called federal Defense of Marriage Act that had barred the U.S. government from recognizing legally married same-sex couples and 2013's Hollingsworth v. Perry which invalidated California's Proposition 8, restoring marriage equality to the nation's largest state. Amazingly, June 26, 2003 was the day that Lawrence v. Texas was announced which struck down the last remaining state laws criminalizing consensual homosexual relations between adults. June 26 is a important day in the history of LGBT equality!

The Williams Institute has analyzed the impact of these decisions and these results can be summarized as:

• As of June 2017, nearly 1.1 million LGBT people in the United States are married to someone of the same sex, implying that more than 547,000 same-sex couples are married nationwide. 
• Since Obergefell, at least 157,000 same-sex couples married. 
• Since Windsor, at least 317,000 same-sex couples married.
• 10.2% of LGBT adults are married to someone of the same sex (Source: Gallup)

Gallup also notes that the latest data indicates that 4.3% of U.S. adults identify as LGBT and that even today in 2017, a larger percentage (13.1%) of LGBT people are married to someone of the opposite-sex. More men (11.4%) than women (9.3%) are married to a same-sex spouse.

Happy LGBT #EqualityDay!

GODLESS WEDNESDAY: Mormons Trying To Influence Ballot Measures in Western States (AZ,CO,CA,NV)

The Mormon Church notoriously (and somewhat disastrously) got involved with a California ballot measure in 2008 called Proposition 8 that purported to amend the United States California Constitution to ban same-sex marriage that was eventually struck down in a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision on June 26, 2013. has decided that it didn't learn its lesson 8 years ago and is getting involved in opposing a series of ballot measures involving social issues in various West Coast states.

The Deseret News reports:

The LDS Church's First Presidency is asking the faith's members in four western states to oppose bills that would legalize doctor-assisted suicide and recreational marijuana use.
Church President Thomas S. Monson and his counselors sent a letter Wednesday to Mormons in Colorado, where Proposition 106 would legalize physician-assisted suicide. 

"We urge church members to let their voices be heard in opposition to measures that would legalize physician-assisted suicide," said the letter signed by President Monson, President Henry B. Eyring and President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, who make up the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

They sent a similar letter Wednesday to Mormons in Arizona, California and Nevada about marijuana legislation.
"We urge church members to let their voices be heard in opposition to the legalization of recreational marijuana use," the letter said.

The Mormon Church does not get involved in political issues very often (which is one reason their involvement in the Proposition 8 fight over same-sex marriage was so striking) so it is noteworthy that they are urging their adherents in California, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada to follow the Church's leadership instead of voting their conscience in these particular matters. It's also interesting that the LDS Church did not weigh in on Proposition 62 (abolish death penalty) and Proposition 66 (maintain death penalty) in California.

QUEER QUOTE: Anti-Trans Initiative Fails To Quality For CA 2016 Ballot

Good news! Previously we had reported that some haters had been circulating petitions in California to try to literally regulate the access to urination facilities of transgender people with their so-called "Privacy for All" act.

Today comes news that this ballot measure has failed to qualify for the 2016 ballot! The Washngton Blade reports

A social conservative group seeking to place an anti-transgender initiative on the 2016 California ballot announced Monday it failed to collect enough signatures by the deadline to make it happen. 

The initiative, dubbed the “Personal Privacy Protection Act,” sought to prohibit transgender people from using restrooms in government buildings consistent with their gender identity and would have allowed businesses to do the same. 

The anti-trans coalition, known as Privacy for All, needed to submit 365,880 signatures by Monday to qualify the measure for the ballot. Nowhere in the organization’s statement does it say how many signatures it did collect. 

The coalition is supported by the Sacramento-based Pacific Justice Institute and other groups in California that passed Proposition 8 to ban same-sex marriage in the state.

Today's Queer Quote is from Kris Hayashi, the executive director of the Transgender Law Center:

"This initiative was a poorly veiled attack on transgender people that sought to undermine that freedom and single out for harassment anyone who doesn’t meet stereotypes of what it looks like to be male or female. Today Californians have made clear these types of discriminatory attacks on transgender people and our families, communities, and neighborhoods have no place in our state."

This is the same group that was behind Proposition 8 and also tried to repeal the Student Success and Opportunity Act (AB 1266) which makes it clear that students can participate in all student activities regardless of their gender identity or gender expression. Because they have lost so dramatically on the question of marriage equality, these heterosexual supremacists have taken to targeting the most vulnerable group in the LGBT coalition: the transgender community.

Hat/tip to Joe My God

Gaytterdämmerung II: SCOTUS Hears Oral Arguments In Obergefell v Hodges

Source

Today is the day that many people have been waiting for. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments about two questions that will decide whether same-sex couples will be able to get married in every state in the nation, and secondly, whether when they are married in a jurisdiction that allows it, will other jurisdictions be forced to recognize those marriages. If it seems like we just recently had a significant case from the Supreme Court on same-sex marriage,we did, but it was two years ago. I was actually in DC at the time so I went by the Court to witness the spectacle of wheat happens before a major case.

In those cases, Proposition 8 ended up being held to remain invalidated (Hollingsworth v. Perry) and the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was struck down (United States v. Windsor).

Today's case was Obergefell v Hodges and you should read the always excellent SCOTUS blog for complete coverage and a plain-english explanation of what happened. Apparently, no one is very sure of what the final decision will be. That really, can be considered something of a win for the heterosexual supremacists because they have spent the last 18 months or so losing literally dozens of cases before federal judges who have been striking down bans on same-sex marriage using the United States Constitution and the reasoning contained in Windsor.

If the Court does decide that there is NOT a fundamental right to marry for same-sex couples *and* that states do not have to be forced to recognize marriages from one state that could not be performed in their state, then the Washington Post has a good map and explanation of what the state of play could be.

Only 11 states have enacted marriage equality through "majoritarian democratic" processes so far, so it would mean that there would be battles going on in 39 different states to change the law. This would potentially include California, where Proposition 8 is not the law of the land due to a District Court decision that would no longer be valid if the Supreme Court issues a ruling that changes the legal landscape. You can bet that heterosexual supremacists would start litigating to have Proposition 8 re-instated and LGBT activists would rush to collect signatures to have a 2016 vote on the question.

The 21 states whose marriage laws have been struck down by lower federal courts and where couples have been getting married legally would suddenly have their marriages thrown into limbo (although it is more likely than not those marriages would be deemed valid, but it might take another Supreme Court case to resolve that issue).

Let's hope the Justices do the right thing and realize that there is no harm to opposite-sex couples when same-sex couples are allowed to marry.

Hat/tip to Scotus Blog and Joe.My.God

Marriage Equality Cases Will Be Decided By US Supreme Court This Term!

Great news! The United States Supreme Court agreed to hear (granted certioari) in a number of consolidated cases from all four states in the Sixth Circuit that could lead to a ruling striking down all state-based laws that prohibit same-sex couples from getting married and states from recognizing those marriages. Two years ago on June 26, 2013 the Court ruled that the Congress could not enact a law to prohibit recognition by legally married same-sex couples for federal purposes.

There are currently 36 states (and the District of Columbia) with marriage equality, so the ruling by the Supreme Court would likely strike down the bans in the 14 remaining states.

The specific question the Supreme Court will ask parties to address in briefs and oral arguments are:

 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state? 

It is likely there will be oral arguments in April (90 minutes on Question 1, 60 minutes on Question 2) and a final decision issued in the case(s) by June 2015.

Woo hoo!

Hat/tip to Chris Geidner!

Frank Schubert's Lesbian Sister Running For Sacramento County DA

Interesting political news out of Sacramento today. Frank Schubert is well-known to readers of this blog as the mastermind behind California's ban on same-sex marriage, Proposition 8, and many other ballot campaigns against marriage equality. It has been well-known for quite awhile that Schubert has a lesbian sister, but now Anne Marie Schubert is running for District Attorney of Sacramento County, as a openly gay Republican. During the Proposition 8 battle back in 2008 it was not known that Schubert existed and many people feel like if she had come out publicly at the time then it may have had an impact on the election.

Most openly gay candidates get the support of the LGBT community, but when you're the sister of the LGBT community's public enemy number one that is unlikely.

The Sacramento Bee's Marcus Breton reports

Schubert isn’t running as a gay candidate but as a champion for public safety. She doesn’t hide her orientation but doesn’t think it should define her, either. 

“Don’t vote for me because I’m gay or not gay. Vote for me because I’m the most qualified for the job,” she said. 

That Schubert is open but not an advocate for anything but the principles of her profession partly describes why Sacramento’s gay community is glaringly outside her varied tent of supporters. 

Ultimately, DAs are best judged by their record of achieving justice. 

But Schubert’s ascension and her disconnect with politically active segments of Sacramento’s gay community would have been unimaginable a few years ago. 

It was only eight years ago that West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon “came out” to his constituents after virtually hiding who he was his entire political career.

I think that the main reason Ms. Schubert is not going to be endorsed by the LGBT community in Sacramento County is not that she's a republican but that she is not really friendly to or supportive of the LGBT community.

California Progress Report discussed the dilemma in Sacramento's LGBT community:

Public records show both Schuberts are registered as Republicans, while the candidate's two opponents, Maggy Krell and Todd Leras, are registered Democrats. 

Ms. Schubert's oldest brother, Frank, made millions of dollars stripping away equal marriage rights of homosexuals at the ballot box in California and Maine in 2008. Because of the familial connection to the fight against marriage equality, Ms. Schubert's run for District Attorney has proven to be divisive among the region's LGBT advocacy community. 

"I don't hold Anne Marie accountable for the actions of her brother," Darrick Lawson, the past president of Sacramento's Rainbow Chamber of Commerce whose group surprised many with its recent endorsement of Schubert's leading opponent, Krell. "I hold her accountable for her own actions, and more importantly, her own inactions. 

"I believe there is one Californian in 2008 who was uniquely qualified to make a difference during the Prop 8 campaign, and that was Anne Marie Schubert. If she had stood on the Capitol steps with her partner and their two children, the debate would have changed immediately," Lawson claimed. 

While Frank Schubert designed a successful campaign that promoted the idea that children would somehow be damaged or diminished to be knowledgable of same-sex unions, his sister and now candidate for District Attorney worked and lived in Sacramento with her Domestic Partner, Julie Greenberg, raising two young children the approximate age of the young boy, Joey Wirthlin, politically exploited by her brother to get California voters to strip away the right of their gay fellow citizens to marry.

What do you all think?

What

I
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/03/16/6240784/marcos-breton-why-gays-oppose.html#storylink=cpy

Legal Bills Of Proposition 8 Federal Case Exceeded $6.4 Million

The Washington Blade reports that according to tax records, the federal lawsuit to eliminate California's Proposition 8 resulted in some $6.4 million going to the high-powered law firms of Ted Olson and David Boies. Olson and Boies were the unlikely due behind the Perry v. Schwarzenegger lawsuit in May 2009 that eventually became the successful Hollingsworth v. Perry win at the United States Supreme Court in June 2013.

The lawsuit was sponsored by the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) which was created by Chad Griffin at the time the suit was filed. According to the same records, AFER has raised nearly $15 million dollars since its inception and March 31, 2013.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights between 2009 and 2013 paid more than $6.4 million to two law firms that successfully argued against California’s Proposition 8.

Tax filings indicate former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson’s law firm – Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP – received $1,691,714 from AFER for “legal and ancillary legal expenses”between April 23, 2009, and March 31, 2010. The organization paid the law firm $958,655between April 1, 2010, and March 31, 2011, and another $2,758,352 between April 1, 2011, through March 31, 2012.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP received $537,939 from AFER between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2013. The organization also paid David Boies’ law firm – Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP – $468,089 for “legal and ancillary legal expenses” between April 1, 2010, through March 31, 2011.

Some  have questioned why such prominent lawyers did not work on this seminal civil rights lawsuit pro bono, which has generally been the custom in other movements. Others point out that the $15 million raised (and presumably spent) by AFER is much less than a ballot measure campaign to overturn Proposition 8 would have cost. And you may remember in 2009 there were very many people (vocally opposed by  a coalition of groups that included yours truly) who wanted to go to the ballot as soon as possible. Also, no LGBT legal minds thought that a federal challenge to Proposition 8 would succeed and were strongly opposed to the Olson-Boies lawsuit at the time.

Another reason why this is useful information is that AFER is now involved in another federal lawsuit, Bostic v. Rainey, in which they are suing to have Virginia's ban on same-sex marriages invalidated. On Valentine's Day, a federal judge struck down that ban and put a stay on her decision pending a resolution on appeal to the 4th Circuit or above. Lambda Legal and the ACLU have successfully petitioned to intervene in that case, which was opposed by AFER.

There is currently a race to see which federal lawsuit will get to the Supreme Court. Even though a dozen U.S. district courts have struck down marriage bans, no U.S. circuit courts have (yet). Oral argument in the Utah case (Kitchen v. Hebert) before the 10th Circuit and in the Nevada case (Sevcik v Sandoval) in the 9th Circuit are scheduled for April. It will be interesting to see if AFER's profile or reputation will be negatively impacted by these revelations despite their winning track record on restoring marriage to California on a timeline faster than the LGBT establishment expected.

Federal Judge Strikes Down Michigan Ban On Marriage Equality!

By now it has become routine, but today yet another federal judge, this time in Michigan, struck down a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, saying that it violates the United States Constitution. Victory in Michigan was especially sweet for LGBT advocates because the judge actually insisted that a trial of the facts occur, the first time this has happened since openly gay judge Vaughn Walker insisted on a trial of the facts in the 2009 federal lawsuit against California's Proposition 8.

Michigan's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, a federal judge said Friday as he struck down a law that was widely embraced by voters a decade ago — the latest in a recent series of decisions overturning similar laws across the country.

U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman announced his ruling after a rare two-week trial that mostly focused on the impact of same-sex parenting on children.

There was no indication that the judge was suspending his decision. Attorney General Bill Schuette said he was immediately filing a request with a federal appeals court to suspend Friedman's decision and prevent same-sex couples from immediately marrying. The decision was released shortly after 5 p.m., when most county clerk offices in Michigan were closed. Clerks issue marriage licenses.

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia issue licenses for same-sex marriage. Since December, bans on gay marriage have been overturned in Texas, Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia, but appeals have put those cases on hold.

Two Detroit-area nurses, Jayne Rowse and April DeBoer, want to get married, but the original purpose of their 2012 lawsuit was to overturn Michigan's ban on joint adoptions by same-sex couples.

The case is DeBoer v. Snyder. Freedom To Marry released the following press statement:

“The discriminatory ban is untrue to Michigan’s – and America’s – values, and the judge was right to strike it down. It’s time that all committed couples in Michigan be treated with respect and dignity under the law, fully able to share in the freedom to marry and the responsibilities and protections marriage brings. Today’s win comes after a full trial -- complete with prosecutors and defendants, witness cross-examinations, and testimony from family experts on the well-being of children -- which showed that opponents have nothing more than the same bogus claims they have recycled for decades. They were simply unable to provide a single legitimate reason why committed same-sex couples should be excluded from marriage. Michigan, like all of America, is ready for the freedom to marry.” 

Michigan’s DeBoer v. Snyder is only the third full trial on the freedom to marry in history, following trials in Hawaii and California. Wolfson served as co-counsel in Hawaii’s Baehr v. Miike, the first-ever trial on the freedom to marry and the first case in the world to win a ruling in favor of the freedom to marry. 

54% of Michigan residents support the freedom to marry, according to a 2014 Michigan State University poll.

Wow!

POLL ANALYSIS: Support For Marriage Equality Is Accelerating!

Andrew Flores of the Williams Institute has a piece of the Monkey cage blog that analyzes the latest polls on marriage equality and makes a compelling argument that support for marriage equality is increasing at an increasing rate. (For you Calculus fans, we say that the graph of public support for marriage equality is "concave up"). The key point he makes is that since the Supreme Court issued its two marriage equality decisions (United States v. Windsor striking down the Defense of Marriage Act and Hollingsworth v. Perry effectively nullifying California's Proposition 8) in June 2013 (a date I like to call Gaytterdämmerung) popular support for marriage equality has ratcheted upwards at an accelerating pace.

The graphs below compare  the polling trends using a linear model or a polynomial model. It turns out that a polynomial model fits the polling data pre-Windsor and post-Windsor better than the linear model does for either time period..

This is a direct refutation of the idea that Kevin Drum posited recently that popular opinion on marriage equality has evolved about as rapidly as it did on interracial marriage. It also challenges an idea that Nate Silver promoted awhile back that the shift was due to opponents dying off and being replaced by a younger cohort which is overwhelmingly in support of marriage equality, leading him to predict an increase in support of roughly .5 percentage points per year in national polls.

Having a good estimate of the rate of increase in support for marriage equality is important, because as Flores says:

This has important implications for where public opinion is headed. If the stable linear trend were the right one, then by 2016 just over 56 percent of the public would be expected to support same-sex marriage. However, the accelerated trend predicts that support for same-sex marriage will be about 5 points higher by 2016. It is appropriate to infer that opinions are trending positively and changing exponentially as time goes on.

Regardless how you slice it, this is "good for the gays"!

(However, as a mathematician I truly wish that he hadn't used the word "exponentially" in that last sentence. There's a huge difference between polynomial growth and exponential growth. I think he meant the former when he said the latter. Regardless, it is still a good piece that I encourage you to read in full!)

POLL: Virginia Voters Oppose 2006 Same-Sex Marriage Ban

A new poll indicates that Virginia's ban on marriage equality, enacted by voters in 2006, would not survive if voters could vote again on the measure in next month's election. 56 percent of Virginia voters say they oppose the state's same-sex marriage ban while 36 percent say they favor it.

Although voters will not be able to vote to impact marriage equality any time soon, there are two pending marriage lawsuits in federal court in Virginia, one that includes the participation of the very high profile duo of Ted Olson and David Boies who successfully sued to have  California's voter-approved same-sex marriage ban invalidated in federal court.

AFER Joins Federal Marriage Lawsuit In Virginia

AFER, the American Foundation for Equal Rights, is the organization behind the ultimately successful federal lawsuit against Proposition 8 in California in May 2009 which led to the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Hollingsworth v Perry on June 26, 2013. It should be noted that at the time AFER filed its federal lawsuit against Proposition 8, the traditional LGBT legal organizations issued a joint statement declaring the action to be "wrong."

AFER is announcing today that it is joining another federal lawsuit to win marriage equality, and they are doing it in the Commonwealth of Virginia. There's a current lawsuit already filed in Virginia to win marriage equality there called Bostic v. Rainey and the superlawyer team of David Boies and Ted Olson.

From the press release:

Washington, DC – The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), the sole sponsor of the landmark federal constitutional challenge that eliminated California’s Proposition 8 and restored marriage equality in the nation's most populous state, will announce that it has joined the federal legal challenge to Virginia’s ban on marriage for gay and lesbian couples, Bostic v. Rainey.  The case, filed in U.S. District Court for Virginia's Eastern District on behalf of two couples, calls the Virginia Marriage Amendment, which prohibits gay and lesbian couples from marrying, unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, violates Due Process and singles out gays and lesbians for a disfavored legal status, thereby creating a category of “second-class citizens.”

The Bostic case once again joins the bipartisan legal team of Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, who successfully defeated California’s Proposition 8 in Federal Court, to continue the fight for marriage equality.

Virginia has an interesting resonance on the issue of marriage equality because it is the location of the landmark lawsuit Loving v Virginia which the Supreme Court used to strike down all state laws banning interracial marriage and re-affirmed the principle that the right to marry is a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution.

Virginia is a purple state (Republican controlled on the state level, but has voted twice for Barack Obama for President) and has no statewide protections for LGBT individuals at the state level. If a federal lawsuit against a state marriage amendment can succeed in Virginia then the thirty-five other states which have amendments and bans against same-sex marriage are likely susceptible to lawsuits.

Chris Geidner notes that the Virginia marriage amendment was passed in November 2006 by voters 57 percent to 43 percent and gives the text:

“That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.”

Note that this measure not only bans same-sex marriage but it also bans recognition of domestic partnerships as well. Most of the state bans on marriage (20) include similar language.

Coalition Launched To Fight Indiana Marriage Equality Ban

A bipartisan coalition of individuals and organizations called Freedom Indiana was launched this week to defeat a proposed state constitutional amendment (or min-DOMA) to prohibit marriage equality in the Hoosier state. The Republican-controlled legislature has passed the measure once and needs to do so again in order to get the discriminatory amendment on the November 2014 statewide ballot.

From the press release:

Freedom Indiana campaign to oppose marriage amendment

Bipartisan statewide organization to support the integrity of the Indiana Constitution, promote liberty and fairness for all Hoosiers 

INDIANAPOLIS -- A coalition of Indiana businesses and groups today announced the formation of Freedom Indiana, a bipartisan statewide organization that opposes the amendment that would permanently alter the Indiana Constitution to define marriage and could potentially affect hundreds of rights under current Indiana law. 

Marriage already is strictly defined as between a man and woman under Indiana law.

Freedom Indiana will immediately undertake a grassroots campaign focused on the 2014 legislative session, where Indiana lawmakers can choose either to table or vote down the amendment or send it to voters for a statewide referendum next November. Freedom Indiana is committed to protecting the Indiana Constitution by defeating the amendment should it appear on the ballot.

Coalition partners include Eli Lilly and Company, Cummins, Indiana Equality Action, Freedom to Marry, Gill Action, American Unity Fund, American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and Human Rights Campaign.

“The goals of Freedom Indiana are aligned with Lilly’s long-held position that HJR6 is bad for business and bad for our state,” said Robert Smith, director of corporate responsibility for Eli Lilly and Company. “As a global biopharmaceutical company that must retain and attract the very best talent in the world, embedding this proposed amendment into Indiana’s constitution will produce difficult and unnecessary challenges. We’re happy to partner with Cummins and several other important organizations to address our common goal of keeping Indiana a welcoming state for everyone.”

"Cummins has a long history of commitment to diversity and treating all people with dignity and respect," stated Marya Rose, Chief Administrative Officer for Cummins.  "We feel strongly that this amendment, which is unnecessary given Indiana law today, will enshrine inequality into the Indiana Constitution and negatively impact the thousands of Cummins employees who live and work in Indiana as well as harm our efforts to retain and attract the best talent here. Diversity is a core company value at Cummins and we are pleased to join the other partners of Freedom Indiana to ensure that we treat all people in Indiana with dignity and respect."

A study earlier this year by students at the IU Maurer School of Law found a significant number of rights and obligations related to marriage that could be permanently denied under the proposed amendment.

"We will make sure lawmakers and voters know that we shouldn't be tinkering with the Indiana Constitution to deny freedoms to certain individuals," said Indiana Equality Action president Chris Paulsen. "We're Hoosiers, and our core values include liberty and fairness. This amendment runs counter to both and may also create a litany of unintended legal consequences."

Freedom Indiana is run by an independent board of directors headed by Indiana Equality Action executive director Rick Sutton. The coalition includes Indiana businesses, community, civil rights and faith leaders, advocates for fairness, former and current lawmakers and Hoosiers who believe we must take a strong stand for freedom if we want our state and its residents to prosper.

The Indiana Freedom campaign is managed by veteran political operative Megan Robertson, who has worked for the Indiana Republican Party, Marion County Republican Party and on two GOP presidential campaigns. She managed Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard's successful 2011 campaign.

“Indiana has always been a welcoming community known for our ‘Hoosier Hospitality’,” Robertson said.  “This amendment directly contradicts the reputation that has helped us recruit jobs and economic investment for our state.  The Freedom Indiana campaign brings together those who have an interest in preserving our freedoms and moving our state forward regardless of political affiliation.”

The campaign currently is headquartered in Indianapolis with plans to establish regional headquarters in the coming months. 

Freedom Indiana is a bipartisan statewide organization that champions liberty for all Hoosiers. The organization is opposed to an amendment that would permanently alter the Indiana Constitution to define marriage and could potentially affect hundreds of rights related to marriage under current Indiana law. Freedom Indiana launched in August 2013.

If the good guys can stop an anti-gay marriage amendment in Indiana that would probably mean the demise of the anti-gay marriage movement and would signal that all future action in this area would most likely be positive, which would be somewhat of a surprise and perhaps increase momentum towards the day when marriage equality is a nationwide reality.

California Supreme Court Denies Attempt To Revive Prop. 8

As expected, the California Supreme Court has denied requests from heterosexual supremacists to revive Proposition 8 and halt civil marriages by same-sex couples in the Golden state. In a terse order issued on Wednesday afternoon, the Court ended any last remaining legal challenge to marriage equality in California.

The Los Angeles Times explains why marriage equality is here to stay in California:

A federal judge in San Francisco declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional in 2010, and state officials refused to appeal. ProtectMarriage did appeal, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that initiative sponsors have no right to defend their measures in federal court. The decision left in place the ruling by retired Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker.

In its challenge before the state’s highest court,  ProtectMarriage argued that a single judge lacked the authority to overturn a state constitutional amendment.  The group also contended that Walker’s injunction applied to two counties at most and that state officials had overstepped their authority by ordering county clerks throughout California to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

State officials countered that the challenge was a veiled attempt to persuade a state court to interfere with a federal judge’s order in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Same-sex couples began marrying in California in late June after a federal appeals court lifted a hold on Walker’s injunction. ProtectMarriage went back to the U.S. Supreme Court the following day, arguing the appeals court acted prematurely because the high court’s decision was not even final. The Supreme Court refused to intervene.

Then the group went to the state Supreme Court, asking the justices to halt the marriages immediately while considering the legal arguments. The seven-member court unanimously rejected the request for a “stay” or hold.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris issued a statement reacting to the news of Proposition 8's demise:

“Once again, equality and freedom triumph in California. The California Supreme Court has denied the Proposition 8 proponents’ latest attempt to deny same-sex couples their constitutional right to marry. I applaud the Court’s decision and my office will continue to defend the civil rights of all Californians.”

Hat/tip to Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed.

08/08/08: Today is my 5th Wedding Anniversary

On the plane back from Barbados to Miami on May 30, 2013

Five years ago marriage equality was in effect in California and I got married to my Other Half on August 8, 2008. So, today is my 5th wedding anniversary and is the first time since then that other same-sex couples can also get legally married in California, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Hollingsworth. Generally, this is the only day of the year I post pictures of The Other Half. There are previous pictures for our 4th anniversary, our 2nd anniversary, and our 1st anniversary.

According to About.com, the traditional wedding anniversary gift for the 5th anniversary is wood, while the modern 5th anniversary gift is silverware.

Happy 5th anniversary, husband!

San Diego County Clerk Files Suit To Revive Prop 8

The heterosexual supremacists are taking the return of marriage equality to California pretty badly. The Proponents of Proposition 8 have been rebuffed by the U.S. Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court so far.

Now it is a county clerk from San Diego County named Ernest Dronenburg (the level of government which actually is responsible for the issuance of marriage licenses in California) filing a petition before the California Supreme Court asking the Court to issue an immediate stay to prevent him (and all county clerks) from continuing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

As I said before, there is some truth to what the heterosexual supremacists say about the state of marriage equality in California right now. The text of Proposition 8 is still contained in the California Constitution. But it is also true that two couples filed a federal lawsuit and won an injunction against the enforcement of Proposition 8 in Alameda and Los Angeles Counties by the Attorney General and the Governor. This federal injunction is now in force.

Attorney General Kamala Harris (love her!) issued a statement in response to the San Diego County Clerk's lawsuit:

"The filing offers no new arguments that could deny same-sex couples their constitutionally protected civil rights. The federal injunction is still in effect, and it requires all 58 counties to perform same-sex marriages. No exceptions."

At some point the California Supreme Court is going to have to make a definitive decision on the merits on what legal effect Proposition 8 has now that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that no one who supports Proposition8 has standing to appeal its loss in federal court, or the people of California need to vote to remove the discriminatory language from the sate's founding document in an election. There happens to be two statewide general election next year, in June 2014 and November 2014. I say, go for it!

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Cal. Sup. Ct. Denies Order To Revive Prop 8, But...

Whoa, nelly! On Monday, the California Supreme Court denied another desperate attempt by the heterosexual supremacists at ProtectMarriage.com (a.k.a. the proponents of Proposition 8 who lost at the United States Supreme Court three weeks ago) to stop county clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. That was expected.

However, what was somewhat unexpected was that the state Supreme Court also agreed to hear the merits of the case Hollingsworth v. O'Connell filed by marriage equality opponents last Friday that Proposition 8 is still the law of the land for the 56 counties in California that they claim were not covered by Judge Vaughn Walker's injunction against it.

They are expediting their consideration of the case with opposing briefs (from the good guys, California Attorney General Kamala Harris and Governor Jerry Brown) due on Monday July 22 and then reply briefs from the homophobes on Thursday August 1.

SCOTUSblog summarizes the state of play:

Some uncertainty hangs over gay and lesbian marriage rights in the nation’s largest state nearly three weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court had appeared to clear the way for those couples to wed, with its decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry.  A series of legal maneuvers by the “Proposition 8″ supporters has put the issue back before the state’s highest court, which has given signs that it intends to act speedily.

At this point, the seven-judge tribunal that sits in San Francisco has sharply conflicting arguments before it: a claim by state officials that marriage equality is now fully established throughout California’s fifty-eight counties and that the state court will only get into conflict with the federal courts and put county clerks at legal risk if it acts now to stop such marriages, and a rival claim by “Proposition 8″ backers that the right to marry is in effect in, at most, two counties, and that the state court has the authority and a legal duty to order the continued enforcement of that ban in the other fifty-six counties.

There is also a direct conflict over what the two sides say the state court should do at this point: state officials have said it should refuse to get involved at all, and should deny immediately all of the claims of the ban’s supporters, while the “Proposition 8″ legal team has said that the court should act now to put everything on hold until it can rule finally on the legal status of the ban under California law.

State officials are relying on their interpretation of a ruling in August 2010 by a federal district judge in San Francisco, striking down “Proposition 8″ under the federal Constitution.  There is nothing left that the California Supreme Court can do, they assert.  The ballot measure’s defenders are relying on a provision in the state constitution that says that state officials must continue to enforce state law until a definitive court ruling invalidates it.  That, they said, has not yet been done completely under the terms of the state constitution.

So, basically the CASC denied the emergency motion but is still considering the separate question of whether (or which counties) Proposition 8 is in effect.

Stay tuned!

#FAIL: CA Heterosexual Supremacists Claim Prop 8 Is Not Dead

Wow! How invested in your own bizarro view of the world warped by rampant homophobia that you refuse to acknowledge reality? I guess the heterosexual supremacists over at ProtectMarriage.com are going to let us know. Two weeks ago their last-ditch attempt to (again) stop same-sex couples from getting married in California was summarily aborted by the United States Supreme Court, so they have decided to return to the California Supreme Court, a place they have won twice before, to try to claim that Proposition 8 is not dead.

They have filed a claim called Hollingsworth v. O'Connell before the California Supreme Court making the (frankly ludicrous) argument that the federal injunction currently in effect against Proposition 8 only applies to the two counties in which the original plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit are from, namely Los Angeles County and San Francisco.

Moments ago, we filed a new petition in the California Supreme Court against all of California’s 58 county clerks, and state officials, seeking to restore the enforcement of Proposition 8, the state’s constitutional amendment limiting marriage to a man and a woman.  The undeniable fact is, the man-woman definition of marriage, as passed by a majority the voters, is still a valid part of our state constitution. 

Yet county clerks statewide are lawlessly defying that law by issuing gender-neutral marriage licenses. We are asking California’s Supreme Court to restore the rule of law and the public’s confidence in the integrity of the initiative process. 

The action we filed today contends that at least 56 of the 58 county clerks must continue to follow Proposition 8 because they were not parties to the recent federal lawsuit against Prop 8, and that the state’s governor and attorney general have no legal authority to order local county clerks to disregard the state constitution.

Amusingly, AFER, the organization behind the Proposition 8 federal lawsuit, has not even bothered to dignify ProtectMarriage.com's claim with a response.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera was not so kind, and gently explained the basics of the law and reality to the fuzzy thinking homophobes:

This motion is a desperate obstruction tactic used in the vain hope of pursuing an unconstitutional agenda. The opponents of the freedom to marry have chosen to ignore the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, and the well-settled California marriage case of Lockyer v. San Francisco, which they themselves celebrated at the time. Their motion has essentially no chance to succeed. The most basic concepts of American law tell us that a state court cannot and will not overrule the federal judiciary. The citizens of California are left wondering when these people will realize that, having lost the moral struggle years and years ago, they have now lost the legal struggle as well. Marriage equality is now the law in the State of California, and will remain so from this point onward. Together we will soon see the day when it is the law all across America.

I've emphasized the key sentence in the middle of the quote. The homophobes won before the California Supreme Court in 2009 in Strauss v. Horton when the state's highest court ruled that Proposition 8 did not violate the state constitution. But in Perry v. Brown, the homophobes lost in federal court and the United States Supreme Court ruled in Hollingsworth v. Perry that they have no right to appeal that ruling. Ergo, Proposition 8 is dead.

Actually, what is even more ironic is that the case of Lockyer v. San Francisco which the homophobes won is now coming back to bite them on the butt. Then the state Supreme Court ruled that state officials and not local county officials have the sole right to determine who can or can not get married in response to Mayor Gavin Newsom's wilful defiance of state law way back in 2004. This resulted in the annulment of thousands of same-sex couples' marriages who had been married at the time between February 12 and March 11 in San Francisco. But that same principle is now what prevents ProtectMarriage.com from claiming that 56 of 58 counties can enforce Proposition 8 while 2 of them do not. (Actually the make the even more nonsensical argument that all 58 counties have to enforce Proposition 8 because it is still present in the California Constitution, but I digress.) The responsible state officials Attorney General Kamala Harris and  Governor Jerry Brown have recognized that a federal court is stopping them from enforcing Proposition 8 and thus same-sex couples can get married.

That being said, to end the debate completely again, the Legislature should pass a state constitutional amendment removing Proposition 8 from the state Constitution and re-affirming marriage equality so that the people can have their voice heard again on this question in November 2014.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

LOOK: Gaytterdämmerung In Cartoon Form

This is a fun cartoon depiction of the recent advances in LGBT equality thanks to the recent Supreme Court rulings in the Gaytterdämmerung cases of United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry.

Check out the rest of the Sunday Funnies at I Should Be Laughing.