Archives – October, 2011

What the taxpayers’ $1.5 million is paying for with the defense of DOMA

By Adam Bink

Nonsense arguments like this. From The Huffington Post:

In an Oct. 14 motion filed with the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, attorneys representing the House make the case that gay people “are far from politically powerless” and can’t say they face “discrimination [that] is unlikely to be soon rectified by legislative means” — unlike other groups of people who are discriminated against.

“The very significant gains made by homosexual-rights groups both in legislative terms and in popular opinion — and the phenomenal speed at which those victories have come — demonstrate that they have ample ability to attract the favorable attention of lawmakers,” reads the 36-page brief filed by Bancroft PLLC, the firm hired by House Republican leaders to defend the constitutionality of DOMA.

The document ticks off political victories by the gay rights community over the past few years, including Senate confirmation of the first openly gay male federal judge, New York’s legalizing gay marriage and, of course, repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” It also cites a recent Gallup poll that found more than two-thirds of Americans would vote for a “well-qualified gay candidate for president” if he or she were put up by their party.

“Accordingly, gays and lesbians cannot be labeled ‘politically powerless’ without draining that phrase of all meaning,” the lawyers argue. “Where a group is not lacking in political power, it cannot claim the ‘extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process’ provided by heightened scrutiny.”

In other words, their defense of DOMA is that discrimination against gay people is legally okay because it probably will be rectified in time by Congress.

Gay people also haven’t been discriminated against for very long, so they can’t say they have a history of discrimination, the lawyers say. The label of “homosexual” was “not even recognized in the United States until the late nineteenth century,” they argue, citing a 2004 interview with the author of a book on gay marriage who said most anti-gay discrimination was “put in place between the 1920s and 1950s, and most [was] dismantled between the 1960s and the 1990s.”

The House legal team also says that gay people can’t consider their sexuality an “immutable” trait, like race or gender, and can’t argue that DOMA violates their fundamental rights because it doesn’t keep anyone from building a family with his or her same-sex partner. The lawyers also challenge the idea that gay people raise well-adjusted children and say that DOMA is justified because it “promotes responsible procreation.”

“There is nothing intrusive in the least about DOMA,” the lawyers conclude. “It is simply a definitional statute that defines, for federal law purposes, ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse.’”

(For legal wonks: Boehner’s attorneys are trying to prove that gay people are not a “discrete and insular minority.” That was the language the courts first used when announcing in the late 1930s that they would hold to the fire laws that discriminate against certain minorities under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.)

42 Comments October 21, 2011

Prop 8: Judge rules against NOM, ProtectMarriage.com in campaign finance case

By Adam Bink

From the AP:

Supporters of the 2008 ballot measure that outlawed same-sex marriage in California have lost a lawsuit that sought to block their past and future campaign finance records from public view.

A federal judge in Sacramento on Thursday ruled against ProtectMarriage.com and the National Organization for Marriage, saying the two groups failed to prove they should be exempted from the state’s campaign disclosure laws.

Mollie Lee, a lawyer in the San Francisco City Attorney’s office, says U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr. ruled from the bench after a brief hearing and plans to issue a written opinion later.

The two groups, which sponsored and helped finance the gay marriage ban known as Proposition 8, filed the lawsuit in January 2009, claiming their donors were harassed after their names appeared on the Secretary of State’s web site.

 

35 Comments October 20, 2011

Observing Spirit Day

By Adam Bink

Which, I found out, was started one year ago on Oct. 20th to honor the memory of those who were killed or have taken their own lives due to bullying because of being LGBT.

GLAAD has a number of little things to do online to honor Spirit Day and their memory, as reported by San Diego Gay & Lesbian News here. And a number of folks in the comments have noted how Spirit Day is being marked elsewhere. And hey, even Sen. Patty Murray and her staff are observing Spirit Day.

Is anyone else observing Spirit Day?

22 Comments October 20, 2011

DOMA: Sen. Levin to co-sponsor Respect for Marriage Act

DOMA-Count-29
By Adam Bink

Sen. Levin’s office let us know today that the Senator intends to co-sponsor the Respect for Marriage Act to repeal DOMA. This comes in advance of next month’s Judiciary Committee markup of the bill and brings the total number of Senators in support to 31.

Good on Sen. Levin. Now will Sen. Stabenow stand up for her gay and lesbian constituents and join him?

25 Comments October 20, 2011

Prop 8 trial: 9th Circuit allows non-party media coalition permission to intervene in effort to release Prop 8 tapes

By Adam Bink

Thanks to folks in the comments and AFER tweeting, this just came across:

The coalition supports releasing the tapes.

30 Comments October 19, 2011

Next page Previous page