LGBT POV

The conservative Pacific Justice Institute filed a petition with the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento on Monday to try to force the state – Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown – to defend Prop 8 on appeal in federal court, the AP reports.

The state, as government-defendants in the Perry v Schwarzenegger case, has until Sept. 11 to file an appeal of Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling striking down Prop 8 as unconstitutional last Aug. 4. Both Schwarzenegger and Brown said they will not appeal. Protect Marriage, the defendant-interveners, appealed but there is a question about whether they have standing as private citizens in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 9th Circuit will hear arguments on that issue during the week of Dec. 6.

In a blog on their website, PJI posits failure to uphold Prop 8 as a “constitutional crisis:”

“California is teetering on the precipice of a constitutional crisis. Former bodybuilder, turned Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, along with former Governor, turned Attorney General, Jerry Brown, are putting their shoulders down to push California’s voters over the cliff. With them, the state’s republican form of government will fall.”

Lambda Legal’s Legal Director Jon Davidson makes an excellent point about “judicial activism:”

“This latest, desperate move by antigay forces recognizes that, without an appeal by Gov. Schwarzenegger or Attorney General Jerry Brown, the Perry case may be over and Prop. 8 a relic of the past.  It’s ironic that groups that regularly attack the judiciary are now asking judges to second guess the highest members of the state’s executive branch who correctly have decided that Prop. 8 so clearly violates the U.S. Constitution that it cannot in good faith be defended.  Those officials swore to uphold the federal Constitution which, under our federal system of government, overrides state law.”

Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors issued this statement in response to the PJI action:

“This is an outrageous attempt to try and force elected officials who have sworn to uphold the United States Constitution to defend a law that the Federal Court has found to be unconstitutional. It demonstrates their acknowledgement that the proponents of Proposition 8 lack standing to appeal, that the case should be dismissed and loving same-sex couples should be allowed to exercise their constitutional right to marry.”

Right Wing Watch reminds us how PJI President Brad Dacus at a Protect Marriage/Yes on 8 rally on Oct. 28, 2008 said “failure to pass Prop 8 in California would be akin to failing to stop Hitler.”

Courage Campaign Founder and Chairman Rick Jacobs said this:

“With California laying off teachers, police and firefighters amidst an unprecedented budget crisis, it is the height of hypocrisy for so called ‘conservatives’ to demand that California taxpayers foot the bill to defend a discriminatory law that has already been declared unconstitutional in federal court. This frivolous action shows just how out of touch and desperate those who seek to limit the freedoms of loving American families have become.”

Tony Perkins, head of the antigay Family Research Council, is “saddened” by the news about former GOP heavy weight Ken Mehlman coming out as gay, according to an email to supporters he sent during a break from his vacation.  Perkins (pictured) says that Mehlman has “chosen” to identify himself as gay. I guess Perkins didn’t read Mehlman’s interview with The Atlantic or skipped that part where it took Mehlman 43 years to “choose” that identity.

But there are so many other interesting tid-bits in Perkins’ email. Please click inside to read Perkins’ email and the questions that arise from it.

Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic blog broke the story: “Ken Mehlman, President Bush’s campaign manager in 2004 and a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, has told family and associates that he is gay.”

Ken who, you might ask if you’re new to LGBT politics? Well, as Ambinder explains, “Mehlman is the most powerful Republican in history to identify as gay.” He was head of the Republican National Committee in 2007 and George W. Bush’s campaign manager in 2004. He is considered incredibly smart on messaging and has a donor and politico address book that is the envy of political consultants everywhere. He was also intensely despised as a closeted gay man who was using those brains on behalf of antigay politicians.

UPDATE: The Advocate just posted an interview with Mehlman in which he explained why he didn’t fight against the GOP’s antigay policies: ”I wasn’t in the place I am today where I’m comfortable with this part of my life, it was really hard and it was particularly hard because there was really nobody who knew this about me and so there was no one I could even talk to about it.”

Please click inside for more, including comments from American Foundation for Equal Rights’ Chad Griffin, Log Cabin Republican Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper and (UPDATE) Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors.

I’ve been a little surprise at the burst of attention over the “news” that Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman and attorney general candidate Steve Cooley would defend Prop 8 in the federal trial, if elected and given the opportunity.

Maybe it’s just a California thing – but LGBTs here have been discussing this since before the primaries.  In fact, it was a key point during the April 25 Equality California Political Action Committee Forum with all the Democratic candidates for attorney general.  

In this post, I look at who’s saying what about defending Prop 8 and get some guidance from Lambda Legal’s Jon Davidson. Here’s an example of some of Davidson’s insight: “If they get elected, Whitman and/or Cooley might also seek to file an amicus brief after their election or after they are sworn in, which would be after the oral argument.  They would need to seek permission to file late.  There is no way of knowing whether the Ninth Circuit judges hearing the case would grant such a request to file late.” (emphasis mine)

I don’t know about you – but I am emotionally drained over Prop 8. The past two weeks, in particular, have been an incredible emotional roller coaster.  But it ain’t over yet. Arturo Sernas is calling for an “emergency demonstration” Thursday night at 6:00pm at the corner of Santa Monica Blvd and San Vicente Blvd in West Hollywood in response to the stay granted by the 9th Circuit to the Prop 8 proponents.

“To illustrate their strength and unity, LGBT activists will hold emergency actions in Los Angeles (http://tiny.cc/5jvxo) as part of a broader coordinated effort throughout California in response to the extended stay. These actions serve as a reminder that the LGBT community will continue to fight until FULL FEDERAL EQUALITY has been achieved.

Two days ago, in what can only be described as the latest juncture in a judicial roller coaster ride, a Federal Appeals Court has granted a stay of decision for Perrry v. Schwarzenegger, the case that challenges the constitutionality of Proposition 8.  Last week, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Prop 8 was in fact unconstitutional, but same-sex marriages could not resume in California due to a temporary one-week stay that was extended by the former Court.

Today, Wednesday August 18th would have been the first day same-sex couple should have been able to marry in California. Although the first temporary stay would have expired at 5pm, Los Angeles County and other County offices were more than willing to stay open to accommodate those already patiently waiting for marriage licenses.

With Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown unwilling to defend Prop 8 AND in full support of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples now, it is only reactionary Right wing groups that are pressing for appeals. The time has come to mobilize the strength and numbers of the LGBT rights movement and its allies.”

Mike Tidmus posted on his blog an open letter calling for couples to ask for marriage licenses at offices in San Diego County.

After raising expectations and preparing for marriage equality to be restored to California on Wednesday, the Prop 8 emotional roller coaster just plummeted – again. The 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Prop 8 proponents a stay – which means all those hearts will have to be placed on hold.

The 9^th Circuit wants a hearing calendared during the week of December 6, 2010, at The James R. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco, California. The court says: “The opening brief is now due September 17, 2010. The answering brief is due October 18, 2010. The reply brief is due November 1, 2010. In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. See Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997). IT IS SO ORDERED.”

According to Brian Devine at Prop 8 Trial Tracker:

“the Court wants this case to be resolved quickly. Appellants’ opening brief is due in just a month and the hearing will happen on December 6th. This is lightning quick for a Federal Court of Appeals, and it’s a very good sign. The Court understands that this case is important, and it doesn’t want it to linger.

Third, the Court specifically orders the Prop 8 proponents to show why this case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. Here’s a discussion of the standing issue. This is very good news for us. It shows that the Court has serious doubts about whether the Appellants have standing. Even better, the Court is expressing an opinion that its inclination is that the case should be dismissed. That being said, the panel that issued this Order (the motions panel) is not the same panel that will hear that case on the merits. The merits panel will be selected shortly before December 6th and we don’t know the three judges who will be on the merits panel. But this is a very good sign that the appeal could be dismissed on the ground of standing alone.”

Lambda Legal’s Jon Davidson says that we don’t know why the 9^th Circuit granted the stay pending the appeal. He suggested that one reason may be that the court might have wanted to avoid having an appeal go up to the US Supreme Court either to Justice Anthony Kennedy or the full court before they hear the merits of the motion for the stay. Davidson told me:

“I understand that people are really, really disappointed. [The court could have assessed that] it’s better to not have the question go up to Supreme Court right now. It’s easier to grant a stay. Unfortunately, people don’t take quite as seriously the harm [to same sex couples] in the delay. But this effects all of us because it s a statement about our worth.”

Davidson suggested that if same sex couples need legal protection in the interim, they might consider registering as domestic partners – which provides protections without the word marriage and knowing that it subjects them to second class status.

Here’s a statement from Evan Wolfson, Executive Director of Freedom to Marry, on the Ninth Circuit’s ruling granting a stay in Perry v. Schwarzenegger:

“Today’s 9th Circuit order expediting appeal of Chief Judge Walker’s persuasive decision striking down Prop 8 and maintaining a stay during the appellate review, is a disappointing delay for many Californians who hoped to celebrate the freedom to marry and full inclusion in society as soon as possible.  But there are many twists in the road to justice, and we are encouraged by the court’s setting a fast pace for the appeal, revealing that the judges understand how important a quick end to the exclusion from marriage is to gay couples, their loved ones, and all Americans who believe in equality under the law.  While the lawyers make the case for the freedom to marry in the courts of law, we have more months in which to make our case in the court of public opinion.  The evidence at trial overwhelmingly confirmed that there is no good reason for withholding the freedom to marry from committed couples, and the Governor, the Attorney General, a majority of Californians, and a majority of Americans agree with Judge Walker that the freedom to marry helps families, while hurting no one.  Prop 8 should never have been on the ballot and we look forward to seeing its stain removed from the law books, as we push forward on other fronts across the country.”

Speaker Pérez Statement on Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Proposition 8 Stay Decision

SACRAMENTO – California Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles), the state’s first openly gay legislative leader, issued the following statement after today’s decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to grant a stay of Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional:

“Today’s ruling by the Ninth Circuit panel is consistent with the fact that groundbreaking decisions are often stayed pending appeal. The fact that the Court is expediting the hearing schedule only underscores the point Judge Walker made in his ruling: LGBT Californians have suffered, and are suffering, from having our constitutional right to equal protection and due process violated every moment Prop 8 remains in effect. This ruling is a reflection on established legal convention, and in no way diminishes the powerful and eloquent statement in defense of our constitutional rights Judge Walker made in his ruling.”

Equality California issued this statement:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit just announced that they are keeping the stay in place of Judge Walker’s historic decision striking down Proposition 8.

This means that, regrettably, same-sex couples will have wait longer to get married and are still being denied their fundamental right to do so.

This is not the end – far from it. The appeals process still needs to play out, and the court is expediting the process. The case is expected to be heard in December.

We need to work together to do what it takes to ensure a favorable outcome. Here’s what you can do:

1. Email the Governor and Attorney General and urge them to stand strong against the attacks they are receiving from anti-LGBT groups.
2. Make a donation to elect a governor and attorney general who will refuse to defend Prop. 8 in court.
3. Volunteer in your area. We are building on the majority support we have, which is so critical to winning marriage back, either in the court or at the ballot box.

I am extremely disappointed that couples will have to wait even longer to get married. It’s unfair and unfortunate. But I am confident that we will restore the right to marry once and for all.

In solidarity,

Geoff Kors

Executive Director

Equality California PAC

The Prop. 8 Plaintiffs issued this press release:

“Today the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit set a highly expedited schedule for briefing and argument of proponents’ appeal from the district court’s August 4, 2010 decision striking down California’s Proposition 8 as an unconstitutional violation of the rights of gay and lesbian citizens to due process and equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment, and it granted proponents’ request to stay the judgment of the district court’s order while the appeal is decided.  This means that although Californians who were denied equality by Proposition 8 cannot marry immediately, the Ninth Circuit, like the district court, will move swiftly to address and decide the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims on their merits.

Today’s order can be found here:  http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/legal-filings/9th-circuit-ruling-on-motion-for-stay-pending-appeal/

“We are very gratified that the Ninth Circuit has recognized the importance and pressing nature of this case and the need to resolve it as quickly as possible by issuing this extremely expedited briefing schedule.  As Chief Judge Walker found, Proposition 8 harms gay and lesbian citizens each day it remains on the books.   We look forward to moving to the next stage of this case,” said Attorney Theodore B. Olson.

“Today’s order from the Ninth Circuit for an expedited hearing schedule ensures that we will triumph over Prop. 8 as quickly as possible.

This case is about fundamental constitutional rights and we at the American Foundation for Equal Rights, our Plaintiffs and our attorneys are ready to take this case all the way through the appeals court and to the United States Supreme Court,” said Chad Griffin, Board President, American Foundation for Equal Rights.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights and plaintiffs Kris Perry, Sandy Stier, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo challenged Proposition 8 in federal court for violating the U.S. Constitution. After a three-week trial (including the testimony of 17 plaintiffs’ witnesses, among them the foremost experts on the relevant issues, and thousands of pages of documents and a wealth of other evidence) the Court ruled last Wednesday, August 4, that Proposition 8 violated the rights to equal protection under the law and due process that the U.S. Constitution guarantees to every American.

Please see the comprehensive, 136-page decision here: http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/legal-filings/district-court-decision/

A summary of the trial is available here: http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/press-releases/perry-v-schwarzenegger-trial-summary/

Video evidence and other court filings are available here: http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/our-work/legal-filings/

This from Tobias Barrington Wolff, Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School:

“AFER’s optimistic assessment is not just spin.  The Ninth Circuit’s expedited briefing schedule is significant.  Also highly significant (though AFER does not mention it in their release) is the Ninth Circuit’s instruction to the parties to focus particular attention on the question of whether the appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to the proponents’ lack of independent standing.

A victory in this appeal on the jurisdiction / standing issue would be phenomenal.  Although the principles established in Judge Walker’s ruling would only result in the striking down of Proposition 8, rather than the establishment of marriage equality nationwide, dismissal of the appeal would eliminate the risk associated with bringing these claims before the Supreme Court of the United States — the most conservative Court that we have had in the last fifty years, in many respects — and Judge Walker’s devastating analysis of the factual record and the utter lack of evidence supporting any reason for excluding same-sex couples from marriage would remain on the books and be available for us to cite in all our future efforts at litigation and legislative reform.

It is frustrating that California couples will need to wait yet longer to have their rights vindicated, but this order holds much promise for the successful elimination of Proposition 8 once and for all.”

REACTION FROM ROBIN TYLER AND DIANE OLSON:

“WE ARE STUNNED AND VERY  UPSET THAT THE 9 TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS GRANTED A STAY–Original plaintiffs in Prop 8 and marriage case

“We don’t care what the legal excuse is that the court gave, “said Diane Olson when she heard of the courts ruling a few minutes ago.

“I am tired of putting on a ‘happy face’ every time our feelings get decimated by the Court System.  To be blunt, this ruling stinks, says Diane Olson.  Robin adds” last week we stood in a West Hollywood park waiting for Judge Walkers decision. Although Judge Walker said the marriages weren’t stayed, the fact that he delayed the marriages for 6 days, felt like a stay to us.  But we clung to the hope that this week, same sex marriages would begin.  We are tired of our emotions being batted around like ping pong balls.  Gays and lesbians are human beings, and there is not one legal reason to delay same sex marriages in California.  Marriage is a civil right.  Martin Luther King said “justice delayed, is justice denied”. He also said “Wait means Never.”

Once again, our hopes have been dashed.”

AND THEN THERE’S THE PROP 8 PROPONENTS:

Appeals Court Ruling Halts Same-sex Marriages!

Dear Supporter of Prop 8:

Great news! The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just now granted our request to suspend Judge Walker’s ruling against Proposition 8!  This legal victory upholds the votes of 7 million Californians while the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case is heard on appeal.

If the Ninth Circuit had not granted our motion, then Judge Walker’s decision would have gone into effect on Wednesday, changing the definition of marriage in California despite the vote of the people less than two years ago.

As we pointed out in our motion, Judge Walker’s decision totally ignores virtually all legal precedents, the well-recognized public interest served by fostering traditional marriage, and even common sense itself.

In addition to stopping Judge Walker from imposing same-sex marriage on California, the Court of Appeal also ordered that this case will be expedited.  That means our opening legal briefs are due in just 30 days!

So please help support our legal team and all their important work. With the Attorney General and Governor refusing to defend the people’s vote for Prop 8, the entire burden of defending Prop 8 falls up our legal defense team.

We receive no government funding.  We rely exclusively on the generous financial support of concerned citizens like you.  Please make a special donation right now to help us keep up with the legal costs of defending Prop 8!

Thank you for your prayers and support!

Andy Pugno

General Counsel, Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund

Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk (RR/CC) Dean Logan (pictured) just announced that his office will extend business hours at its Norwalk Headquarters, “to accommodate federal court orders to cease enforcement of Proposition 8, permitting same-sex couples to obtain a marriage license as of August 18 at 5:00 PM; the effective date of the Court’s order lifting the stay of execution on the court decision declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional.”

This from the county press release:

The RR/CC Headquarters in Norwalk, located at 12400 Imperial Highway in the City of Norwalk will remain open from 5:00 PM to 8:00 PM for the purpose of issuing Marriage Licenses and to offer Civil Marriage ceremonies.  All other services will close at 5:00 PM and resume at 8:00 AM the following day.   RR/CC District offices, located throughout the County, will begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Thursday, August 19, 2010 during regular business hours (8:00 AM – 5:00 PM).

To accommodate the anticipated increase in requests for civil marriage ceremonies, the RR/CC will expand the availability of ceremonies it offers at its various locations.   Starting August 19^th through August 27^th couples with a Marriage License may request a civil marriage ceremony without an appointment, on a first-come, first-served basis during regular business hours at all RR/CC locations.     After August 27^th civil marriage ceremonies will be offered by appointment only. No appointment is necessary to obtain a marriage license.

The public is encouraged to review the attached for more information about how to obtain a marriage license and specific details on locations and hours of operation.  For convenience, couples are also encouraged to complete the marriage license application online at www.lamarriage.lacounty.gov.  However, applications for same-sex couples cannot be accepted before 5:00 PM on August 18.

Marriage license fees are $90 for a public license and $85 for a confidential license; civil marriage ceremonies are offered for a $25 fee.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Visit www.lavote.net

At the Equality California gala Saturday night, EQCA Executive Director Geoff Kors called political strategist Chad Griffin, board president of the American Foundation for Equal Rights,  a “hero” for bringing the historic successful federal constitutional challenge to Prop 8. On Aug. 4, District Court Judge Vaughn Walker declared Prop 8 unconstitutional but he subsequently imposed a six-day stay on his ruling – until Wednesday, Aug. 18 – to provide Prop 8 proponents time to file an appeal.  Walker’s decision to permanently enjoin enforcement of Prop 8 – and then grant a temporary stay created an incredible emotional roller-coaster Friday leaving many same sex couples who planned to marry in the lurch.

The Protect Marriage/Defendant-Interveners appeal is due Monday.

In his ruling, Judge Walker said he did not think the Prop 8 proponents had “standing” to bring an appeal in the 9^th Circuit, a position with which the plaintiffs’  attorneys agreed in their motion opposing an emergency stay filed Friday.

Attorney General Jerry Brown, an official government-defendant in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case, also filed a motion on Friday opposing a stay – the effect of which would prohibit same sex marriages from being legal in California while the lawsuit winds through the court system, presumably on its way to the US Supreme Court.  Brown’s filing reads in part:

“To the extent the decision of the Attorney General not to file an appeal has bearing on this Court’s decision of whether to grant a stay, however, the Attorney General will not be appealing the district court’s Order permanently enjoining the enforcement of Proposition 8.

For the foregoing reasons, the Attorney General respectfully requests that Appellant-Intervenors’ request for a stay pending appeal be denied.”

Over the weekend, a number of smart people discussed the appeals process, which Lambda Legal’s Jon Davidson laid out in great detail for LGBT POV last week. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine School of Law, wrote an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times which read in part:

“As Walker explained Thursday, the defenders of Proposition 8 are not likely to prevail because they lack standing; also, it is impossible to see what “irreparable injury” will occur if there is not a stay of the injunction and same-sex couples are allowed to marry pending resolution of the appeal.

The result of all this is likely to be that gays and lesbians will be able to marry beginning Wednesday, when Walker’s temporary stay expires. There then will be consideration of the case, over the next couple of years, by the 9th Circuit and ultimately by the Supreme Court.”

And the incomparable New York Times Frank Rich wrote in a Saturday column that weaves together the death of AIDS “angel” Judith Dunnington Peabody and the work of plaintiffs’ attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies:

“Make no mistake about it: The Proposition 8 trial, Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision and the subsequent reaction to it (as much a non-reaction as anything else) constitute a high point in America’s history-long struggle to live up to its democratic ideals.”

A reminder: when and if the stay is lifted, same sex couples can apply for a license online. Here’s an advisory to help you.

Rabbi Denise Eger said Judge Walker was playing the “have-it-both-ways” biblical King Solomon in his decision on Protect Marriage’s motion to stay his ruling halting enforcement of Prop 8 – both permanently lifting the stay and re-imposing a stay for another six days.

In his decision last week, Walker wrote that “Proposition 8 harms the people of California,” and that “[n]one of the factors the court weighs in considering a motion to stay favors granting a stay. Accordingly, proponents’ motion for a stay is DENIED.”

No wonder Freedom to Marry’s Evan Wolfson and others thought the stay was lifted. For 10 pages of his 11-page ruling, Judge Vaughn Walker talks about how the proponents of Prop 8 failed to satisfy any of the legal imperatives to warrant a stay.

So why did Walker throw in this temporary, six day, limited stay to give the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals the opportunity to consider all aspects of the issue?  These aspects include whether or not the defendant-interveners have standing to bring an appeal, since the 9th Circuit has stricter standards for “standing” than does the lower court. Walker already got called on the carpet by the US Supreme Court when he wanted to broadcast the Perry v Schwarzenegger trial: the high court said he over-stepped his bounds. So now he doesn’t want to anger the 9th Circuit or further annoy the nine Supremes?.

Intellectually, I get it. Temporary stay. No big deal. Unless, of course, it does turn out to be a big deal.

[This is Part Two of a series about yesteday's Federal Prop 8 stay ruling.  You can read Part one here.]

Waiting for Judge Walker to rule was excruciating. Some of us hadn’t slept and others, like me, had been up since 6:00am to clear the deck and make sure nothing interfered with covering “the Summer of Love, Part 2,” as West Hollywood Mayor Pro Tem John Duran put it. He was being interviewed constantly – even as he checked his Blackberry – and he was good at it. Robin Tyler and Diane Olson were also interviewed a lot, telling straight reporters how their marriage of over two years – along with the other 18,000 legal same sex marriages – hadn’t brought down civilization just yet.

When news finally came out about the stay being lifted – everyone rejoiced. The excitement was soon deflated with additional news indicated Judge Walker imposed a six-day waiting period. Jeff Zarrillo and Paul Katami, plaintiffs in the Perry lawsuit, joined the news conference in West Hollywood.

‘

West Hollywood City Clerk Tom West says West Hollywood City Councilmembers are gathering at City Hall awaiting the decision by Judge Walker about whether to lift his stay on his Prop 8 ruling. If he does – they will start performing marriages at the small Kings Road Park – 1000 Kings Road (pictured), just south of Santa Monica Boulevard near City Hall. They will perform marriages on a first-come, first-serve basis since trying to schedule ceremonies is just too confusing right now.

However – couples must FIRST get their marriage licenses – which can be done quicker by applying for a marriage license online through the LA County Registrar’s office - and then going to the Beverly Hills Courthouse office to pick up the license. That’s at 9355 Burton Way in Beverly Hills,  90210. Their hours are 8:30-3:00pm Monday-Friday.  The court can also marry couples – but that requires an appointment.

So many of us are so excited at the prospect of having Judge Walker lift the stay of his ruling on Prop 8 and having the right for same sex couple to marry again in California. That decision will come down between 9:00am and noon today.

But we must not forget that the LGBT community often experiences a spike in hate crimes around times of great visibility – especially when something good goes our way.

This is no idle statistic or scary sign at a National Organization for Marriage rally. This is real. This morning I received a comment on a story I posted on July 19 about the 17 people murdered and 18 injured at an apparently gay-organized birthday party in the Mexican city of Torreon.

The poster simply identified as “kf” but the comment address was killfaggots@hmamail.com. It said:

“kf @ 2010-08-11 22:48

Hurrah, I hope the mexican mafia soon invades West Hollywood. Right now they are in Hemet attacking the Police station there. Mexican Mafia Mexican Mafia Mexican Mafia Mexican Mafia Mexican Mafia Mexican Mafia Mexican Mafia Mexican Mafia Mexican Mafia Mexican Mafia Mexican Mafia Mexican Mafia Mexican Mafia Mexican Mafia Mexican Mafia Mexican Mafia Mexican Mafia Mexican Mafia Mexican Mafia Mexican Mafia”

Now clearly this “kill faggots” person is loony – perhaps a follower of “Reverend” Fred Phelps. But nonetheless, the comment is a stark reminder that we must still be alert and vigilant even as we hopefully celebrate the return of marriage equality in California because some people really do want us dead.

THIS JUST IN:

The court will enter its order on the motion to stay judgment pending appeal (docket number 705) in Perry v Schwarzenegger, C09-2292, between 9 am and noon on Thursday, August 12 PDT

West Hollywood Mayor Pro Tem John Duran – pictured here marrying a same sex couple on June 17, 2008 – says he is ready to start officiating again. “As soon as the federal judge lifts the stay, Weho is ready for the sequel ‘Summer of Love II.’  We will marry as many happy couples as we can until another judge tells us we can’t.  Like drops of water becoming a mighty torrent…..”

West Hollywood City Clerk Tom West says the five city councilmembers have been deputized but because of work schedules, it is imperative that couples call his office to schedule an appointment: 323-848-6409.

Dean Logan, the Registrar-Recorder/ County Clerk for Los Angeles County, is prepared to “take immediate action to implement the court’s orders if the stay is lifted and judgment is entered.” That means county offices will issue marriage licenses to same sex couples as soon as they as the judge’s ruling is clear.

For local residents, West suggests applying for a marriage license online through the LA County Registrar’s office - and then going to the Beverly Hills Courthouse office to pick up the license. That’s at 9355 Burton Way in Beverly Hills,  90210. Their hours are 8:30-3:00pm Monday-Friday.  The court can also marry couples – but that, too, requires an appointment.

As Lambda Legal’s Jon Davidson noted, there is some confusion over the appeals process. There may only be a small window of opportunity for same sex couples to marry if Judge Walker lifts the stay on his affirmative ruling before the defendant-interveners appeal to the 9^th Circuit to impose a stay and stop or prohibit marriages while Walker’s ruling is appealed – if the defendant-interveners have standing to make the appeal.

Judge Walker could issue his decision at any time.

Researcher David Fleischer worked on his massive study of what happened with the passage of Prop 8 and what lessons can be learned – tonight from 7:00 – 9:00pm at The Village @ the LA Gay & Lesbian Center, 1125 N. McCadden Pl. LA 90038.

The subtitle for Fleischer’s Prop 8 Report is “What Defeat in California Can Teach US about Winning Future Ballot Measures on Same Sex Marriage” – a subject that will surely be raised again even as the LGBT community celebrates the victory in federal court as Judge Vaughn Walker ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional. The case still has to go through the appeals process and may reach the U.S. Supreme Court. Equality California Marriage Director Marc Solomon told me after the ruling that there may still be a need to repeal Prop 8 and that 2012 is the only logical time in which to do that.  So discussion of Fleischer’s points is timely.

I confess that I have not had the time to read the entire report so I’m going to learn more about it, too. Here’s the link to Fleischer’s op-ed in the LA Times to give you a synopsis.

Here’s an excerpt:

“After the election, a misleading finding from exit polls led many to blame African Americans for the loss. But in our new analysis, it appears that African Americans’ views were relatively stable. True, a majority of African Americans opposed same-sex marriage, but that was true at the beginning and at the end of the campaign; few changed their minds in the closing weeks.

The shift, it turns out, was greatest among parents with children under 18 living at home, many of them white Democrats.

The numbers are staggering. In the last six weeks, when both sides saturated the airwaves with television ads, more than 687,000 voters changed their minds and decided to oppose same-sex marriage. More than 500,000 of those, the data suggest, were parents with children under 18 living at home. Because the proposition passed by 600,000 votes, this shift alone more than handed victory to proponents.”

See you there.

Most of us were so swept up in anticipation of, then excitement over District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling last Wednesday, Aug. 4,  affirming the constitutional right of same sex couple to marry that we didn’t notice that court also posted videos and documents presented as part of the Prop 8 trial. All of this material – including the actual courtroom testimony (transcripts of which are available on the American Foundation for Equal Rights website – is now part of the record going before the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeal.

Among the videos, is the edited (35:31) deposition of William Tam, the Executive Director of the San Francisco-based Traditional Family Coalition and a Protect Marriage spokesperson in the Asian community. Tam was the Protect Marriage witness who wanted out of the case because he said he feared for the safety of himself and his family.

Tam’s fear of retaliation by Prop 8 opponents was also referenced by the US Supreme Court on to block broadcasting of the trial (here and here) something LGBT POV’s Mark Hefflinger expanded upon in his thorough piece looking at how the Prop 8 proponents use “victimization” as a PR weapon.

During the Tam deposition, conducted in San Francisco the morning of Dec. 1, 2009 by Ethan Dettmer, a partner of Ted Olson’s law firm, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Tam admitted that he had spoken several times in public venues as well as conducted media interviews at the behest of Protect Marriage. On this edited tape, the he does not mention being afraid at any of public appearances, nor does he express fear about being a witness at trial.

This tape was played in court on Jan. 13, after which AFER issued a statement on the Supreme Court’s decision not to allow cameras in the court in which they discuss Tam’s deposition and release the letter Tam wrote which clearly shows animus toward gays (example: “If we lose, this will very likely happen……1. Same-Sex marriage will be a permanent law in California. One by one, other states would fall into Satan’s hand….”).

Additionally – the juxtaposition between what Dettmer reads into the record about Tam’s references to Satan and the way he was clearly coached to reply to expected question is just extraordinary.

The most striking portion of the deposition, which was shown at trial, is Tam acknowledging the aforementioned  letter he had written urging a vote for Prop 8 in which he says that same sex marriage will lead to legal prostitution and legal sex with children:

“This is put forth by the SF city government, which is under the rule of homosexuals. They lose no time in pushing the gay agenda – after legalizing same sex marriage they want to legalize prostitution. What will be next? On their agenda list is: legalizing having sex with children.”

Please click inside to read more from the transcript of Tam’s deposition:

Prop 8 Trial Fallout: How Gays Are Politically Bought and Sold

By David Link

Two prominent articles Sunday – one from the New York Times and one in Politico – get right to the core of the problem that minorities face in a democracy.  In the NY Times, Lou Cannon offers an interesting view  of how Perry v. Schwarzenegger could play out in the gubernatorial race in California. At Politico, Maggie Haberman reports on how the national GOP is avoiding gay marriage as it focuses on the economy as its primary theme.  In trying to attract independent voters, gay marriage and other social issues might be a distraction. Larry Sabato, from the University of Virginia sums it up: “”I don’t think that moderates and independents get very excited about this.”

What neither article discusses – or even mentions – is the question of whether gay marriage is a good thing or a bad thing; whether the constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment of the law should apply to same-sex couples or not; whether heterosexual marriage will be affected by same-sex marriage; or any other of those nit-picky little issues that gays keep harping on.

For writers whose focus is politics, that’s not too surprising.  But that is exactly what the equal protection clause exists to address.

Please click inside to read the rest of David Link’s essay.

‘

Jon Davidson, Legal Director for Lambda Legal, appeared on KNBC’s NewsConference with Conan Nolan Sunday to discuss Judge Walker’s Prop 8 ruling last Wednesday.  See the video below.

I asked Davidson if he could please explain the confusion about Judge Walker’s stay of his ruling and the process by which an appeal is granted and decided. Part of his explanation included this very interesting conclusion that if the plaintiffs and the city/county of San Francisco “raise an additional argument about why the proponents cannot show they are likely to succeed on appeal:  there ultimately may be no appeal.”

Davidson (pictured here at the May 5, 2008 rally in WeHo celebrating the California Supreme Court’s ruling that same sex couples were denied their constitutional right to marry) also responded to Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins’ reference on ‘Face the Nation’ about a possible new federal constitutional marriage amendment and whether or not the introduction of such an amendment might influence the justices hearing a possible appeal.

UPDATE: ON TUESDAY THE COUNTY OF IMPERIAL VALLEY, WHICH DAVIDSON MENTIONS IN HIS EXPLANATION, APPEALED TO THE 9TH CIRCUIT ASKING TO BE RECOGNIZED AS A DEFENDANT IN THE CASE. HERE’S DAVIDSON’S NOTE:

“Notice of Appeal means that Imperial County is seeking to appeal Judge Walker’s order denying them intervention.  Judge Walker ruled that they had no right to intervene because they would not harmed by an order striking down Prop 8 (unlike San Francisco which showed that it was being harmed financially by same-sex couples being precluded from marrying) and because local officials have only a ministerial duty to comply with state law, whatever it is.  He also denied them intervention because as subdivisions of the state, counties have no right to join a case in which state defendants are already parties.  They are trying to appeal out of fear the proponents lack standing to appeal, but Walker already held, in denying Imperial County intervention, that the County has no standing to appeal, so this should not help.”

Please click inside to read the Q & A with Jon Davidson.

Here’s Jon Davidson on KNBC’s NewsConference from Sunday morning:

View more news videos at: http://www.nbclosangeles.com/video.

Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace notes on his blog that  that his Fox News Sunday guest Ted Olson said

“that while he is not “taking anything for granted,” he is “reasonably” confident that the Supreme Court will agree that any ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.

Olson, known for his aversion to judicial activism, disagrees with claims that what Judge Vaughn Walker did in ruling Prop 8 unconstitutional was just that, an activist judge overruling the will of 7 million Californians.

“We do not put the Bill of Rights to a vote,” Olson said, “This is what judges are expected to do. It is not judicial activism. It is judicial responsibility in its classic sense.”

‘
MUST WATCH. CLEAREST JUXTAPOSITION BETWEEN TRUTH AND LIES I’VE EVER SEEN! Also – please note that Tony Perkins alludes to legislation being introduced when Congress is called back this week – which presumably means the radical right will re-introduce a federal constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage.