January 26, 2010
Hawaii Senate Says "'Ae" to Civil Unions (That Means Yes)
A veto-proof majority of the Hawaii State Senate voted 18-7 Friday to approve civil unions. The bill would allow same-sex and opposite sex couples to enter into the unions, which would provide the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. The Assembly, which approved civil unions in the last session, would have to approve measure again before it could be submitted to the governor, a Republican who has not indicated whether she would veto the bill. The last vote in the Assembly was one shy of a veto-proof majority, due to the absence of a pro-civil union Democrat (Honolulu Advertiser).
The Prosecution Rests
Perry v. Schwarzenegger resumed this morning in San Francisco, with the prosecution resting its case. Over two weeks of testimony, the prosecution attempted to prove that Prop. 8 was driven by irrational prejudice against gays and lesbians. Their case included nine days of exhaustive testimony on the historical and political marginalization of gays and lesbians. The defense begins its case today and began calling witnesses to the stand in order to argue that gays and lesbians are not a politically powerless group entitled to the strict scrutiny of the courts (Los Angeles Times).
Margaret Talbot, who has been providing excellent coverage for the New Yorker, notes that the defense only intends to call two witnesses to the stand, whereas the prosecution questioned nearly a dozen. Apparently, some of the pro-Prop. 8 side's arguments sound like something you would be more likely to hear in a Queer Theory seminar.
January 25, 2010
Family Values
One of the groups that gets forgotten in the debate about marriage equality is the children of same-sex couples. According to a study by UCLA, in 2008 approximately 116,000 same-sex couples in the U.S. were raising approximately 250,000 children under 18. When their parents' relationships do not receive the same legal recognition as their friends' straight parents, the children also become the victims of discrimination. Some of these children are making their voices heard in the legal and legislative battles taking place over same-sex marriage (New York Times).
Newsom on Newsom
Check out Maureen Dowd's column in the New York Times on Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco. Newsom received a lot of attention in 2004 when he decided to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Early in his tenure as mayor, Newsom was considered a political rising star. More recently, however, his plans to run for governor of California crumbled in the face of weak fundraising. Did Newsom's political career die because he stood up for principle?
Cindy McCain Hearts the Gays
Cindy McCain, the wife of Senator John McCain, is taking a stand for marriage equality. McCain, along with her daughter Meghan, has posed for NOH8, a campaign opposing Proposition 8 (Washington Post). Senator McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, does not share his wife and daughter's views on marriage equality. He remains opposed to same-sex marriage.
Interestingly, the timing of Cindy McCain's participation in NOH8 could complicate Perry v. Schwarzenegger, now underway in federal court in California. As Margaret Talbot notes in her coverage of the Prop. 8 trial in the New Yorker, one of the plaintiffs key arguments rests on the premise that LGBT people are a politically vulnerable group deserving of the strict scrutiny of the court. Having a high-profile political supporter could undermine that argument.
January 19, 2010
MENY Thanks
Check out this article by MENY district community organizer Michael Boyajian about the upcoming thank-you party for MENY DCO's and his thoughts on the progress of the marriage equality movement over the last year (Via The Huffington Post).
January 14, 2010
Monserrate Declared Unfit to Serve
A State Senate committee has concluded that Hiram Monserrate (D-Queens) is unfit to serve and recommended a vote to expel him from the Senate (New York Times). Monserrate was convicted of misdemeanor assault against his girlfriend last year, although he was acquitted of the more serious felony charge. Monserrate has refused to resign if the Senate votes to expel him.
Monserrate voted against the marriage equality bill in December after previously indicating that he would support the bill.
No Video of Prop. 8 Trial After All
In a disappointing move for supporters of marriage equality, the Supreme Court has voted 5-4 to ban video coverage of the Prop. 8 trial, which began Monday (San Jose Mercury). Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker had originally ordered that the proceedings be made available YouTube. The Supreme Court has traditionally forbidden the presence of video cameras in federal courts. Supporters of Prop. 8 argued that televising or otherwise providing video of the proceedings would expose people testifying on their behalf to harassment. Wouldn't the same concerns apply to our side?
Today is Day Four of the trial. Prop. 8 Trial Tracker is live-blogging from the courthouse, and the San Jose Mercury is providing live coverage.
The San Francisco Chronicle, in its coverage of the third day of the trial, discusses one of the central points at issue, which is whether Prop. 8 was rooted in prejudice against a historically persecuted group. If the plaintiffs can demonstrate that it was rooted in such prejudice, they can more easily prove that the amendment violates the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.
Newsweek's The Gaggle notes that supporters of Prop. 8 appear to be outnumbered inside and around the courtroom.
Finally, an editorial in the Los Angeles Times shows the absurdity of the pro-Prop. 8 side's argument that marriage must be limited to one man and one woman because it is inextricably linked to procreation. Time to sign those divorce papers, Grandma and Poppy!
January 12, 2010
"It Is Unconstitutional"
Yesterday was the first day of arguments in the Proposition 8 trial in federal court in California. The San Francisco Chronicle sums up yesterday's proceedings. Each side made their opening statements, and the plaintiffs provided testimony.
Prop 8 Trial Tracker is live-blogging the trial. It's invigorating to read some of the exchanges taking place. For instance, when asked why this issue was a matter for the federal courts and not the political process, Ted Olson, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, replied: "That’s why we have courts, to protect those who are discriminated against, when their children can’t go to school because of their skin color. We would not need a constitution if we left everything to the political process. We’d just let the majority prevail and that’s a good thing about democracy, but it’s not so good if you are different, new. It causes gays and lesbians unrelenting pain. We have the courts to take our worthy, upstanding citizens who are being hurt to be protected by the courts. That’s why we are here today.” A remarkable statement from one of the pillars of the modern conservative legal movement.
Olson's opening argument deserves to be read in full (h/t, Andrew Sullivan):
This case is about marriage and equality. Plaintiffs are being denied both the right to marry, and the right to equality under the law.
The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly described the right to marriage as “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men;” a “basic civil right;” a component of the constitutional rights to liberty, privacy, association, and intimate choice; an expression of emotional support and public commitment; the exercise of spiritual unity; and a fulfillment of one’s self.
In short, in the words of the highest court in the land, marriage is “the most important relation in life,” and “of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
As the witnesses in this case will elaborate, marriage is central to life in America. It promotes mental, physical and emotional health and the economic strength and stability of those who enter into a marital union. It is the building block of family, neighborhood and community. The California Supreme Court has declared that the right to marry is of “central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society.”
Proposition 8 ended the dream of marriage, the most important relation in life, for the plaintiffs and hundreds of thousands of Californians.
___________________________________
In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court concluded that under this State’s Constitution, the right to marry a person of one’s choice extended to all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation, and was available equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples.
In November of 2008, the voters of California responded to that decision with Proposition 8, amending the State’s Constitution and, on the basis of sexual orientation and sex, slammed the door to marriage to gay and lesbian citizens.
The plaintiffs are two loving couples, American citizens, entitled to equality and due process
under our Constitution. They are in deeply committed, intimate, and longstanding relationships. They want to marry the person they love; to enter into that “most important relation in life”; to share their dreams with their partners; and to confer the many benefits of marriage on their families.
But Proposition 8 singled out gay men and lesbians as a class, swept away their right to marry, pronounced them unequal, and declared their relationships inferior and less-deserving of respect and dignity.
In the words of the California Supreme Court, eliminating the right of individuals to marry a same-sex partner relegated those individuals to “second class” citizenship, and told them, their families and their neighbors that their love and desire for a sanctioned marital partnership was not worthy of recognition.
During this trial, Plaintiffs and leading experts in the fields of history, psychology, economics and political science will prove three fundamental points:
First – Marriage is vitally important in American society.
Second – By denying gay men and lesbians the right to marry, Proposition 8 works a grievous harm on the plaintiffs and other gay men and lesbians throughout California, and adds yet another chapter to the long history of discrimination they have suffered.
Third – Proposition 8 perpetrates this irreparable, immeasurable, discriminatory harm for no good reason.
I
MARRIAGE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT RELATION IN LIFE
Plaintiffs will present evidence from leading experts, representing some of the finest academic institutions in this country and the world, who will reinforce what the highest courts of California and the United States have already repeatedly said about the importance of marriage in society and the significant benefits that marriage confers on couples, their families, and the community. Proponents cannot dispute these basic facts.
While marriage has been a revered and important institution throughout the history of this country and this State, it has also evolved to shed irrational, unwarranted, and discriminatory restrictions and limitations that reflected the biases, prejudices or stereotypes of the past. Marriage laws that disadvantaged women or people of disfavored race or ethnicity have been eliminated. These changes have come from legislatures and the courts. Far from harming the institution of marriage, the elimination of discriminatory restrictions on marriage has strengthened the institution, its vitality, and its importance in American society today.
II
PROPOSITION 8 HARMS GAY AND LESBIAN INDIVIDUALS, THEIR CHILDREN AND THEIR COMMUNITIES
Proposition 8 had a simple, straightforward, and devastating purpose: to withdraw from gay and lesbian people like the Plaintiffs their previously recognized constitutional right to marry. The official title of the ballot measure said it all: “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.”
Proponents of Proposition 8 have insisted that the persons they would foreclose from the institution of marriage have suffered no harm because they have been given the opportunity to form something called a “domestic partnership.” That is a cruel fiction.
Plaintiffs will describe the harm that they suffer every day because they are prevented from marrying. And they will describe how demeaning and insulting it can be to be told that they remain free to marry—as long, that is, that they marry someone of the opposite sex instead of the person they love, the companion of their choice.
And the evidence will demonstrate that relegating gay men and lesbians to “domestic partnerships” is to inflict upon them badges of inferiority that forever stigmatize their loving relationships as different, separate, unequal, and less worthy—something akin to a commercial venture, not a loving union. Indeed, the proponents of Proposition 8 acknowledge that domestic partnerships are not the same as traditional marriage. Proponents proudly proclaim that, under Proposition 8, the “unique and highly favorable imprimatur” of marriage is reserved to “opposite-sex unions.”
This government-sponsored societal stigmatization causes grave psychological and physical harms to gay men and lesbians and their families. It increases the likelihood that they will experience discrimination and harassment; it causes immeasurable harm.
Sadly, Proposition 8 is only the most recent chapter in our nation’s long and painful history of discrimination and prejudice against gay and lesbian individuals. They have been classified as degenerates, targeted by police, harassed in the workplace, censored, demonized, fired from government jobs, excluded from our armed forces, arrested for their private sexual conduct, and repeatedly stripped of their fundamental rights by popular vote. Although progress has occurred, the roots of discrimination run deep and its impacts spread wide.
III
PROPOSITION 8 HARMS GAY AND LESBIAN INDIVIDUALS FOR NO GOOD REASON
Proposition 8 singles out gay and lesbian individuals alone for exclusion from the institution of marriage. In California, even convicted murderers and child abusers enjoy the freedom to marry. As the evidence clearly establishes, this discrimination has been placed in California’s Constitution even though its victims are, and always have been, fully contributing members of our society. And it excludes gay men and lesbians from the institution of marriage even though the characteristic for which they are targeted—their sexual orientation—like race, sex, and ethnicity, is a fundamental aspect of their identity that they did not choose for themselves and, as the California Supreme Court has found, is highly resistant to change.
The State of California has offered no justification for its decision to eliminate the fundamental right to marry for a segment of its citizens. And its chief legal officer, the Attorney General, admits that none exists. And the evidence will show that each of the rationalizations for Proposition 8 invented by its Proponents is wholly without merit.
“Procreation” cannot be a justification inasmuch as Proposition 8 permits marriage by persons who are unable or have no intention of producing children. Indeed, the institution of civil marriage in this country has never been tied to the procreative capacity of those seeking to marry.
Proposition 8 has no rational relation to the parenting of children because same-sex couples and opposite sex couples are equally permitted to have and raise children in California. The evidence in this case will demonstrate that gay and lesbian individuals are every bit as capable of being loving, caring and effective parents as heterosexuals. The quality of a parent is not measured by gender but the content of the heart.
And, as for protecting “traditional marriage,” our opponents “don’t know” how permitting gay and lesbian couples to marry would harm the marriages of opposite-sex couples. Needless to say, guesswork and speculation is not an adequate justification for discrimination. In fact, the evidence will demonstrate affirmatively that permitting loving, deeply committed, couples like the plaintiffs to marry has no impact whatsoever upon the marital relationships of others.
When voters in California were urged to enact Proposition 8, they were encouraged to believe that unless Proposition 8 were enacted, anti-gay religious institutions would be closed, gay activists would overwhelm the will of the heterosexual majority, and that children would be taught that it was “acceptable” for gay men and lesbians to marry. Parents were urged to “protect our children” from that presumably pernicious viewpoint.
At the end of the day, whatever the motives of its Proponents, Proposition 8 enacted an utterly irrational regime to govern entitlement to the fundamental right to marry, consisting now of at least four separate and distinct classes of citizens: (1) heterosexuals, including convicted criminals, substance abusers and sex offenders, who are permitted to marry; (2) 18,000 same-sex couples married between June and November of 2008, who are allowed to remain married but may not remarry if they divorce or are widowed; (3) thousands of same-sex couples who were married in certain other states prior to November of 2008, whose marriages are now valid and recognized in California; and, finally (4) all other same-sex couples in California who, like the Plaintiffs, are prohibited from marrying by Proposition 8.
There is no rational justification for this unique pattern of discrimination. Proposition 8, and the irrational pattern of California’s regulation of marriage which it promulgates, advances no legitimate state interest. All it does is label gay and lesbian persons as different, inferior, unequal, and disfavored. And it brands their relationships as not the same, and less-approved than those enjoyed by opposite sex couples. It stigmatizes gays and lesbians, classifies them as outcasts, and causes needless pain, isolation and humiliation.
It is unconstitutional.
Prop 8 Trial Tracker is live-blogging the trial. It's invigorating to read some of the exchanges taking place. For instance, when asked why this issue was a matter for the federal courts and not the political process, Ted Olson, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, replied: "That’s why we have courts, to protect those who are discriminated against, when their children can’t go to school because of their skin color. We would not need a constitution if we left everything to the political process. We’d just let the majority prevail and that’s a good thing about democracy, but it’s not so good if you are different, new. It causes gays and lesbians unrelenting pain. We have the courts to take our worthy, upstanding citizens who are being hurt to be protected by the courts. That’s why we are here today.” A remarkable statement from one of the pillars of the modern conservative legal movement.
Olson's opening argument deserves to be read in full (h/t, Andrew Sullivan):
This case is about marriage and equality. Plaintiffs are being denied both the right to marry, and the right to equality under the law.
The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly described the right to marriage as “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men;” a “basic civil right;” a component of the constitutional rights to liberty, privacy, association, and intimate choice; an expression of emotional support and public commitment; the exercise of spiritual unity; and a fulfillment of one’s self.
In short, in the words of the highest court in the land, marriage is “the most important relation in life,” and “of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
As the witnesses in this case will elaborate, marriage is central to life in America. It promotes mental, physical and emotional health and the economic strength and stability of those who enter into a marital union. It is the building block of family, neighborhood and community. The California Supreme Court has declared that the right to marry is of “central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society.”
Proposition 8 ended the dream of marriage, the most important relation in life, for the plaintiffs and hundreds of thousands of Californians.
___________________________________
In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court concluded that under this State’s Constitution, the right to marry a person of one’s choice extended to all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation, and was available equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples.
In November of 2008, the voters of California responded to that decision with Proposition 8, amending the State’s Constitution and, on the basis of sexual orientation and sex, slammed the door to marriage to gay and lesbian citizens.
The plaintiffs are two loving couples, American citizens, entitled to equality and due process
under our Constitution. They are in deeply committed, intimate, and longstanding relationships. They want to marry the person they love; to enter into that “most important relation in life”; to share their dreams with their partners; and to confer the many benefits of marriage on their families.
But Proposition 8 singled out gay men and lesbians as a class, swept away their right to marry, pronounced them unequal, and declared their relationships inferior and less-deserving of respect and dignity.
In the words of the California Supreme Court, eliminating the right of individuals to marry a same-sex partner relegated those individuals to “second class” citizenship, and told them, their families and their neighbors that their love and desire for a sanctioned marital partnership was not worthy of recognition.
During this trial, Plaintiffs and leading experts in the fields of history, psychology, economics and political science will prove three fundamental points:
First – Marriage is vitally important in American society.
Second – By denying gay men and lesbians the right to marry, Proposition 8 works a grievous harm on the plaintiffs and other gay men and lesbians throughout California, and adds yet another chapter to the long history of discrimination they have suffered.
Third – Proposition 8 perpetrates this irreparable, immeasurable, discriminatory harm for no good reason.
I
MARRIAGE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT RELATION IN LIFE
Plaintiffs will present evidence from leading experts, representing some of the finest academic institutions in this country and the world, who will reinforce what the highest courts of California and the United States have already repeatedly said about the importance of marriage in society and the significant benefits that marriage confers on couples, their families, and the community. Proponents cannot dispute these basic facts.
While marriage has been a revered and important institution throughout the history of this country and this State, it has also evolved to shed irrational, unwarranted, and discriminatory restrictions and limitations that reflected the biases, prejudices or stereotypes of the past. Marriage laws that disadvantaged women or people of disfavored race or ethnicity have been eliminated. These changes have come from legislatures and the courts. Far from harming the institution of marriage, the elimination of discriminatory restrictions on marriage has strengthened the institution, its vitality, and its importance in American society today.
II
PROPOSITION 8 HARMS GAY AND LESBIAN INDIVIDUALS, THEIR CHILDREN AND THEIR COMMUNITIES
Proposition 8 had a simple, straightforward, and devastating purpose: to withdraw from gay and lesbian people like the Plaintiffs their previously recognized constitutional right to marry. The official title of the ballot measure said it all: “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.”
Proponents of Proposition 8 have insisted that the persons they would foreclose from the institution of marriage have suffered no harm because they have been given the opportunity to form something called a “domestic partnership.” That is a cruel fiction.
Plaintiffs will describe the harm that they suffer every day because they are prevented from marrying. And they will describe how demeaning and insulting it can be to be told that they remain free to marry—as long, that is, that they marry someone of the opposite sex instead of the person they love, the companion of their choice.
And the evidence will demonstrate that relegating gay men and lesbians to “domestic partnerships” is to inflict upon them badges of inferiority that forever stigmatize their loving relationships as different, separate, unequal, and less worthy—something akin to a commercial venture, not a loving union. Indeed, the proponents of Proposition 8 acknowledge that domestic partnerships are not the same as traditional marriage. Proponents proudly proclaim that, under Proposition 8, the “unique and highly favorable imprimatur” of marriage is reserved to “opposite-sex unions.”
This government-sponsored societal stigmatization causes grave psychological and physical harms to gay men and lesbians and their families. It increases the likelihood that they will experience discrimination and harassment; it causes immeasurable harm.
Sadly, Proposition 8 is only the most recent chapter in our nation’s long and painful history of discrimination and prejudice against gay and lesbian individuals. They have been classified as degenerates, targeted by police, harassed in the workplace, censored, demonized, fired from government jobs, excluded from our armed forces, arrested for their private sexual conduct, and repeatedly stripped of their fundamental rights by popular vote. Although progress has occurred, the roots of discrimination run deep and its impacts spread wide.
III
PROPOSITION 8 HARMS GAY AND LESBIAN INDIVIDUALS FOR NO GOOD REASON
Proposition 8 singles out gay and lesbian individuals alone for exclusion from the institution of marriage. In California, even convicted murderers and child abusers enjoy the freedom to marry. As the evidence clearly establishes, this discrimination has been placed in California’s Constitution even though its victims are, and always have been, fully contributing members of our society. And it excludes gay men and lesbians from the institution of marriage even though the characteristic for which they are targeted—their sexual orientation—like race, sex, and ethnicity, is a fundamental aspect of their identity that they did not choose for themselves and, as the California Supreme Court has found, is highly resistant to change.
The State of California has offered no justification for its decision to eliminate the fundamental right to marry for a segment of its citizens. And its chief legal officer, the Attorney General, admits that none exists. And the evidence will show that each of the rationalizations for Proposition 8 invented by its Proponents is wholly without merit.
“Procreation” cannot be a justification inasmuch as Proposition 8 permits marriage by persons who are unable or have no intention of producing children. Indeed, the institution of civil marriage in this country has never been tied to the procreative capacity of those seeking to marry.
Proposition 8 has no rational relation to the parenting of children because same-sex couples and opposite sex couples are equally permitted to have and raise children in California. The evidence in this case will demonstrate that gay and lesbian individuals are every bit as capable of being loving, caring and effective parents as heterosexuals. The quality of a parent is not measured by gender but the content of the heart.
And, as for protecting “traditional marriage,” our opponents “don’t know” how permitting gay and lesbian couples to marry would harm the marriages of opposite-sex couples. Needless to say, guesswork and speculation is not an adequate justification for discrimination. In fact, the evidence will demonstrate affirmatively that permitting loving, deeply committed, couples like the plaintiffs to marry has no impact whatsoever upon the marital relationships of others.
When voters in California were urged to enact Proposition 8, they were encouraged to believe that unless Proposition 8 were enacted, anti-gay religious institutions would be closed, gay activists would overwhelm the will of the heterosexual majority, and that children would be taught that it was “acceptable” for gay men and lesbians to marry. Parents were urged to “protect our children” from that presumably pernicious viewpoint.
At the end of the day, whatever the motives of its Proponents, Proposition 8 enacted an utterly irrational regime to govern entitlement to the fundamental right to marry, consisting now of at least four separate and distinct classes of citizens: (1) heterosexuals, including convicted criminals, substance abusers and sex offenders, who are permitted to marry; (2) 18,000 same-sex couples married between June and November of 2008, who are allowed to remain married but may not remarry if they divorce or are widowed; (3) thousands of same-sex couples who were married in certain other states prior to November of 2008, whose marriages are now valid and recognized in California; and, finally (4) all other same-sex couples in California who, like the Plaintiffs, are prohibited from marrying by Proposition 8.
There is no rational justification for this unique pattern of discrimination. Proposition 8, and the irrational pattern of California’s regulation of marriage which it promulgates, advances no legitimate state interest. All it does is label gay and lesbian persons as different, inferior, unequal, and disfavored. And it brands their relationships as not the same, and less-approved than those enjoyed by opposite sex couples. It stigmatizes gays and lesbians, classifies them as outcasts, and causes needless pain, isolation and humiliation.
It is unconstitutional.
January 11, 2010
Day One of Prop 8 Trial
Perry v. Schwarzenegger is underway in federal court in San Francisco. The plaintiff seek to establish that California's Propostion 8, which limits marriage to one man and one woman, is unconstitutional. In his opening argument for the plaintiffs, Theodore Olson said that Proposition 8 sent a message to LGBT people that their relationships were "not worthy of recognition" (SFGate). The Los Angeles Times has more coverage.
Andrew Sullivan has more on Ted Olson and the conservative argument for same-sex marriage.
California Lawyer has an in-depth article on the genesis of the lawsuit.
Andrew Sullivan has more on Ted Olson and the conservative argument for same-sex marriage.
California Lawyer has an in-depth article on the genesis of the lawsuit.
Taping of Prop 8 Trial Blocked
The AP is reporting that the Supreme Court has blocked the decision to allow video of the Prop 8 trial to be posted on YouTube.com until they can weigh the issue further. Monday's order will be in effect at least until Wednesday. Opponents of the broadcast have expressed concern that the presence of cameras would interfere with witness testimony. The justices announced their decision less than two hours before the scheduled start of the trial (SF Gate).
Onorato Out in 2010
The Daily News reports that State Senator George Onorato, a Queens Democrat, has announced that he will not seek reelection in 2010. Onorato, who voted against the marriage equality bill in December, is the oldest Democratic member of the Senate at the age of 82. Assemblyman Michael Gianaris, 39, a supporter of marriage equality, is expected to run to succeed him. This morning, Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, a Queens Democratic leader, issued an e-mail to supporters, published in the New York Observer, announcing that he would not be a candidate for Onorato's seat and endorsing Gianaris. Frei-Pearson singled out Gianaris's support for marriage equality in his endorsement: "[Assemblymember Gianaris] has assured me that, as our Senator, he will continue to be a strong supporter of government reform and marriage equality."
January 07, 2010
Televise It!, Ctd.
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that Judge Vaughn Walker, who is presiding over the Proposition 8 trial set to begin on January 11, has ordered video coverage of the trial, despite the objections of Prop 8's supporters (h/t SLOG). The video will be posted on YouTube "as soon as possible," though not televised. Walker's order is subject to approval by the chief justice of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The comment period is open until Friday. Sign the petition to keep the video of the proceedings public.
January 06, 2010
Televise It!
We know you care about marriage equality. We know you want to watch the Prop 8 case unfold on TV. So SIGN THE PETITION.
From Credo:
U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker -- who will be overseeing a federal court challenge to Prop 8 starting this Monday (January 11) -- is considering whether or not to open the court room to TV cameras.
U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker -- who will be overseeing a federal court challenge to Prop 8 starting this Monday (January 11) -- is considering whether or not to open the court room to TV cameras.
The court just announced that it is seeking public comment on the proposal to televise the trial -- and that all comments must be submitted to the court by a Friday deadline.
Not surprisingly, supporters of Prop 8 -- which took away the right of same-sex couples to marry in California -- do not want the trial to be televised.
We have just this one chance to make our voices heard -- thousands of Americans calling for equality, transparency and accountability. That's why we're teaming up with the Courage Campaign to collect as many signatures as possible asking Judge Walker to televise the case. We need your signature now:
SIGNATURE DEADLINE IS FRIDAY 9 a.m. Pacific Time / Noon Eastern Time
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
