Text

Where is ‘Perry v. Brown’ (Prop 8 Trial) at Now?

If you’re following the trial of California’s Proposition 8 (“Eliminates the Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry”) which was enacted via referendum in 2008, heres the summary of what’s happened in the 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals:

  1. Tried at District Level Ruled Unconstitutional under the 14th Amendement (May 2009-August 4th, 2010)
  2. Appealed Tried by 9th Circuit Panel of 3 Judges Upheld District Court’s ruling 2-1, ruling narrowed only to California’s specific case. (February 7, 2012)
  3. Appealed to En Banc Court of the 9th Circuit Judges Appeal denied by 9th Circuit (June 5, 2012)
  4. Appeal for certiorari (Review) by Supreme Court of the United States - PENDING, to be accepted or denied later this fall

-Ian
Text

27 Senators left to pass the RFMA (DOMA-Repeal); Currently posessing 33

Senators (33) currently co-sponsoring S. 598, the Respect for Marriage Act [Source: Library of Congress]:

Sen. Akaka (D-HI)
Sen. Bennet (D-CO)
Sen. Bingaman (D-NM)
Sen. Blumenthal (D-CT)
Sen. Boxer (D-CA)
Sen. Brown (D-OH)
Sen. Cantwell (D-WA)
Sen. Cardin (D-MD)
Sen. Coons (D-DE)
Sen. Durbin (D-IL)
Sen. Feinstein (D-CA)
Sen. Franken (D-MN)
Sen. Gillibrand (D-NY)
Sen. Harkin (D-IA)
Sen. Inouye (D-HI)
Sen. Kerry (D-MA)
Sen. Klobuchar (D-MN)
Sen. Kohl (D-WI)
Sen. Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Sen. Leahy (D-VT)
Sen. Levin (D-MI)
Sen. Merkley (D-OR)
Sen. Menendez (D-NJ)
Sen. Mikulski (D-MD)
Sen. Murray (D-WA)
Sen. Reed (D-RI)
Sen. Sanders (D-VT)
Sen. Schumer (D-NY)
Sen. Shaheen (D-NH)
Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO)
Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM)
Sen. Whitehouse (D-RI)
Sen. Wyden (D-OR)

(Source: prop8trialtracker.com)

Link

ambassadorofchristjesus:

News gathered from the Family Resources Council at frc.org


THE ACTUAL FACTS

The Family Research Council (FRC) bills itself as “the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power,” but its real specialty is defaming gays and lesbians. The FRC often makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science. The intention is to denigrate LGBT people in its battles against same-sex marriage, hate crimes laws, anti-bullying programs and the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

To make the case that the LGBT community is a threat to American society, FRC employs a number of “policy experts” whose “research” has allowed FRC to be extremely active politically in shaping public debate. Its research fellows and leaders often testify before Congress and appear in the mainstream media. It also works at the grassroots level, conducting outreach to pastors in an effort to “transform the culture.”

(Southern Poverty Law Center on The Family Research Council)

Link

By Scottie Thomaston (Taken From Prop8TrialTracker)


"Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) has written an interesting take down of the arguments BLAG is trying to make in defense of the Defense of Marriage Act in court. GLAD is fighting against DOMA in Gill v OPM, which was recently argued at the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and inPederson v. OPM. We covered the arguments in Gill extensively here, but you can find a summary atThe Huffington Post.

GLAD argues that DOMA is unconstitutional violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection implicit in the Fifth Amendment. DOMA treats same-sex married couples differently from opposite-sex married couples with no legitimate basis. One of the arguments BLAG has been fond of using in support of DOMA is that the issue shouldn’t be “constitutionalized”, meaning it should remain a legislative issue rather than one the courts should take on. But it is up to the courts to determine when laws comport with the Constitution’s guarantees: “Telling people to go back to the people that discriminated against them rather than to the courts could be the answer to every constitutional violation, but in our system of checks and balances, courts must say when laws are invalid.

DOMA is legally mandated discrimination against gay people and same-sex couples that is causing harm now. In addition to denying federal marital legal protections and obligations to married same-sex couples, DOMA is de jure discrimination that injures all gay and lesbian people by inviting disrespect by states and private parties.”

Arguing that Congress can indeed define its own terms for federal law (and that any suggestion otherwise is a red herring) GLAD says the issue is that courts must ask “what legitimate and independent federal interest is rationally served by denying respect only to marriages of same-sex couples” and “why… sexual orientation [is] relevant to the federal government given that marital benefits and burdens are allocated based on marital status and nothing more” because restrictive definitions that affect equal protection of the laws need good reasons behind them.

Taking on the claim that “for so long” marriage was between a man and a woman, they note that tradition is not a legitimate basis alone for a law. This matches what the Supreme Court said in cases like and Loving v. Virginia. ‘Tradition’ has historically been used to keep marginalized groups from obtaining the rights and protections guaranteed by the constitution. The government needs a legitimate basis for the law aside from tradition and unrelated to animus against the class of people being targeted with the law. GLAD says: “Rational basis review requires that a classification must bear a rational relationship to an independent and legitimate legislative end. The means (the classification) and ends (the goal) must be separate and distinct to ensure classifications are not drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by a law.

Many of the (invented) justifications for DOMA repeat what DOMA does but not a reason for doing it, or doing it only for married gay people. DOMA’s discrimination is re-labeled as uniformity or consistency, for example, or saving money or administrative ease, but only with respect to gay people’s marriages. Take uniformity: treating all gay people uniformly as unmarried doesn’t explain why only married gay people, among all married people, are treated as unmarried. Doing so also creates disuniformity within the class of married persons. Take the public fisc: Congress could save moneydenying the validity of marriages of redheads, too. But rational review requires a principled basis for recognizing the marriages of some but not others. The same analysis holds.

Other justifications (pause while states debate, act cautiously, maintain the status quo) are only a means to an end but not an end in themselves. Sometimes the government can hold back while some other problem is addressed, but more people marrying exercising their right to marry is neither a problem, nor anything new. DOMA is not cautious – it is a complete ban and unlimited in time. And it upended the status quo at the federal level of deferring to state marital status determinations.

Lastly, the family law justifications about “responsible procreation” and “optimal parenting” don’t rationally relate to DOMA at all. DOMA provides nothing to encourage heterosexuals to marry or have children in a marriage. It only harms same-sex couples who are already married and any children they may have.”

And one important thing about DOMA is the fact that the federal government has always recognized state marriage law even when it disagreed. There was no “DOMA” to protect marriage against interracial married couples. And the federal government has recognized marriages between younger people as well. This makes DOMA distinct from immigration law, according to GLAD, because: “Immigration laws, like many other laws, accept the state’s marital status determination, and then apply additional eligibility criteria. If a person is validly married in a state, but cannot also show that the marriage was bona fide (i.e., not entered into for purposes of securing immigration benefits), then the person is denied immigration benefits.”

The federal government and BLAG who is defending the law need a justification that is not animus based, not tied to tradition, is related to the purpose of the law and explains why similarly situated people should be treated differently in this particular instance. But given the four justifications for DOMA in the Congressional Record: “advanc[ing] the government’s interest in defending and nurturing the institution of traditional, heterosexual marriage”, “advanc[ing] the government’s interest in defending traditional notions of morality”, “advances the government’s interest in protecting state sovereignty and democratic self-governance”, and “advances the government’s interest in preserving scarce government resources”, that task seems quite difficult.

-Ian

Link

qbliss:

The nation’s most famous/infamous “ex-gay” researcher today renounced his best known study, work that is heavily cited by anti-gay and [Conservative] hate groups.

Way for him to gain back some of his humanity!

-Ian

(Source: benppollack)

Link
Link

hopeydopey526:

lannabug120:

U.S. immigration officials will not approve an immigrant petition filed by a U.S. citizen for a same-sex spouse…thanks to DOMA, or the defense of marriage act. Immigrating to the US to be with your loved one is pretty impossible. The only options for visas are: the H-1B, L-1, the O-1, P-1, and the E-1/2.

Not one of these visa’s are for spouses, or proposed couples. There are roughly 20 countries that offer the following visas for same-sex binational couples. They include: Spouse & Civil Partner, Fiance & Proposed Civil Partner, and Unmarried Same-Sex Partners.

These are the visa’s that we need. I am a US citizen with a same-sex fiance who is from the UK. We just want to be able to live together permanently. All I’m asking for, are my basic human rights. Help end this discrimination.

Come on Tumblr, these numbers are sad. Help us raise them? You don’t even have to be a US citizen to sign.

if you want to greatly help couples like me and my girlfriend, please take the time to just reblog and sign this. it won’t take more than a few minutes.

Sign this petition and these other petitions! It only takes a few seconds, I promise!

-Ian

(via jof)

Link

DOMA (Defense of marriage Act) keeps the Federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. Thus, many benefits and rights are withheld from same-sex couples.

-Ian

Text

Resources on Biblical Homosexuality

Taken from my info. section

OLD TESTAMENT:

http://www.mlp.org/resources/packet/deciphering.pdf

NEW TESTAMENT:

http://www.twopaths.com/faq_homosexuality.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm

MY PERSONAL RESPONSES TO Q’S ABOUT CHRISTIANITY AND HOMOSEXUALITY:

http://gaychristian.tumblr.com/post/5344817401/relevant-questions
~
http://gaychristian.tumblr.com/post/4729866648/hey-this-is-in-reply-to-your-question-of-what-i-thought
~
http://gaychristian.tumblr.com/post/4643284004/hey-so-im-also-a-christian-a-girl-straight-and
~
http://gaychristian.tumblr.com/post/4642860119/hey-im-not-gonna-post-scriptures-on-here-that-blatantly (mostly about premarital sex and what not)
~
http://gaychristian.tumblr.com/post/4616963320/i-use-to-be-gay-submission(supposed “Ex-Gay”)
~
http://gaychristian.tumblr.com/post/4599944409/countering-anti-homosexuality
~
http://gaychristian.tumblr.com/post/4434625660/hey-ian-im-sorry-i-havent-gotten-back-to-you-yet
~
http://gaychristian.tumblr.com/post/4092459977/me-vs-ex-gay-via-facebook

Link

Czech(get it?) out this sweet blog by a Christian same-sex couple =)

-Ian