Proposition 8...High court denies appeal! Governor not required to litigate!

I'm staying out of this one folks!

California's highest court refused to force the Governor and the State Attorney Generals office to lodge an appeal on a same-sex marriage issue that is currently pending before the courts.

The State's Supreme Court was asked by a conservative group backing Prop 8 to issue a finding that State representatives were required to take up the cause of a ban on same-sex marriage which was voted into law by ballot initiative with a nod from the voters in California by a majority.

To the frustration of some, the Justices didn't back their refusal to hear the matter with any explanation.

In response to the critics, Jerry Brown's staff in the State Attorney Generals Office noted that their office has the right to choose which cases to challenge or defend.

In this instant case, Jerry Brown publicly took the position that he would not back Prop 8 because it was unconstitutional, in his estimation.

The Governor's office was in accord when fielded questions Wednesday.

"The Governor, like any litigant has complete discretion over his own litigation strategy, including whether or  not to appeal an order," Andrew Stroud, counsel for Governor Schwarzenegger, wrote in response.

"Here, the Governor exercised his discretion and decided not to appeal," he concluded, with little more ado.

After the Nation's first trial court on the issue, a Federal District Court Judge in San Francisco ruled on August 4th (2010) Prop 8 discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation and gender and violated the right of equality of marriage to same-sex couples.

At that time, Judge Vaughn Walker questioned the legal standing of a party in the action to file an appeal of his order with the higher court.

With that in mind, the Judge stayed his ruling to allow a  Prop 8 Supporter - Project Marriage - the opportunity to approach State Officials for backing on the issue in the appeals arena.

The refusal of both the Governor and the State Attorney General to step into the fray means that their chances of overturning the ruling on appeal (when it is heard by the 9th Circuit in the near future) are iffy.

In fact, legal eagles are speculating that the appeals court may throw out the Prop 8 proceedings on procedural grounds without ever deciding the constitutionality of the initiative.

In that event, the Justice may be pleased they weren't forced to handle that hot potato!

News at 11!

http://www.thetattler.biz/

Proposition 8...court flip-flops! 9th Circuit to hear appeal on gay marriage ban!

 

"Stays" and being misunderstood at the altar!

There they go again!

In response to a petition to "stay" gay marriages (in California) pending a review by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals - Justices in the higher court with appropriate jurisdiction have put an indefinite "hold" on the ruling of Judge Vaughn Walker who "lifted the ban" last week.

Confused yet?

In a nutshell, no gay man or woman will be able to trot down the aisle with City Hall's blessing, until all the appeals have been exhausted, or one of the parties has tossed the towel into the ring disgusted.

The decision - issued by a three-judge panel at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (on occasion nine- member panels may be petitioned to preside over appellate court proceedings) - effectively sets aside Walker's prior ruling which would have allowed same-sex marriages to continue at the stroke of midnight on August 18th (2010).

In a  precise two-page order granting the stay, the Justices noted their intention to expedite the proceedings, which will focus on Proposition 8 and Judge Walker's findings.

In what amounts to a break in normal scheduling, the Justices have announced through a court-house spokesperson, that the controversial case will be heard the week of Dec. 6th (2010).

To avoid any possible hint of impropriety - or scandal - a second panel (consisting of three Justices) will be installed to preside over the legal proceedings.

"We are very gratified that the 9th Circuit has recognized the importance and the pressing nature of this case by issuing this extremely expedited briefing schedule," beamed Ted Boutrous, who is a member of the plaintiffs' legal team.

To catch up on all the proceedings to date, follow the links below.

Post: 08/13/10

http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2010/08/proposition-8us-judge-stays-ban-on-gay.html

Post: 08/05/10

http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2010/08/proposition-8judge-overurns-ban-on-gay.html

Currently, same-sex couples can legally tie-the-knot in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.

Stay posted!

9th Circuit Justice got caught with Porno on laptop!

(Alex Kozinski)

http://www.julianayrs.com/

Proposition 8...Judge overturns ban on gay marriage! Well-thought out legal argument...

In a landmark ruling on the issue of same-sex marriage, Federal Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 yesterday, on the grounds that the California ballot initiative was essentially unconstitutional in nature.

In his 136-page ruling, which sent shock waves around the country - and in the sacred environs of the legal system far-and-wide - Walker argued that the State had no legitimate interest in treating gay and lesbian couples differently than their heterosexual counterparts.

Standing alone, "Moral disapproval' -  he wrote in his well-thought-out opinion - was not sufficient cause to uphold Proposition 8.

Previous court decisions have established that marriage is a fundamental right that cannot be denied to people without a compelling rationale in support, Walker asserted in so many words.

Proposition 8 violated that right and discriminated on the basis of both sex and sexual orientation in violation of the equal protection clause, he found.

Unlike like other court rulings on the issue of gay marriage that have relied on State Constitutions, Walker's ruling is the first to fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts.

Hence, the much-anticipated ruling is expected to worm its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the interim, Judge Walker stayed his ruling until at least Friday - at which point other pressing legal issues ("unfinished business") - might be addressed in respect to the gay marriage ban.

18,000 California couples were married when same-sex unions were legally allowed prior to the ban imposed by Proposition 8 and a voter majority in 2008.

The court may be inclined to make a determination at this time if California same-sex marriages may  commence once again now that Proposition 8 has been overturned or remain on hold pending potential appeals.

Judge Walker held extensive hearings - in January of this year - to determine if there was any reasonable basis for excluding gays and lesbians from tying the knot in an official capacity at City Hall alongside their heterosexual neighbours.

During the course of the proceedings, witnesses - who would have preferred to have remained anonymous to avoid retaliation from members of the community-at-large - tearfully asserted that the notion that children of opposite-sex couples fared better - mind, body, and soul - (according to opponents of same-sex marriage)  were unsubstantiated, unfounded, and simply not true.

That argument appeared to resonate with the court, since Walker found that testimony by Proposition 8 supporters, failed to support that theory.

"The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples," Walker wrote.

Andy Pugo, an attorney in support of Prop 8, lamented Walker's findings and noted to all within earshot that the Federal District Court decision amounted to "an invalidation of the votes of 7 million Californians", "violated binding legal precedent", and "short-circuited the democratic process".

Pugo also hissed that it was "disturbing that the trial court, in order to strike down Prop. 8, has literally accused the majority of California voters of having ill will and discriminatory intent when casting their votes for Prop. 8."

Hogwash!

When common folks went  to the polls to vote on Prop 8, they were not keen to the legal issues that Pugo - a trained lawyer - argued came back to haunt them unjustly.

I expect their votes were passionate ones, triggered by their upbringing, religious beliefs, ignorance, and so-forth-and-so-on.

Some no doubt relied on a biblical passage that cautioned that homosexuality was an abomination in the eyes of God.

But, what evidence is there that those were - indeed - the words of the God?

Others joked - "God created "Adam and Eve" not "Adam and Steve" - when they took the position that marriage was reserved exclusively for heterosexuals on the grounds of pro-creation.

How many straight couples are "shacked up" around the State right now without any intention of having children?

And, how many individuals are in constant pursuit of sex, without the thought of marriage or bearing children in mind?

Andy Pugno, nonetheless, has taken the position that the Walker ruling will be overturned on appeal.

In retrospect, it appears that Walker - a male of gay persuasion - handled the legal proceedings wisely.

The lengthy, thorough trial proceedings - for instance - may prove to have been prudent under the circumstances.

Legal experts have underscored in the wake of the ruling - that higher courts generally defer to trial judges' rulings on factual questions that stem from a trial - although they still could determine that he was wrong on his interpretation of  the law.

Barry McDonald, a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University, said Walker's findings that homosexuality is a biological status instead of a voluntary choice, that children don't suffer harm when raised by same-sex couples, and that Proposition 8 was based primarily on irrational fear of homosexuality "are going to make it more difficult for appellate courts to overturn this court's ruling."

Nonetheless, there was an outcry in some quarters.

Edward E. (Ned) Dolejsi, the Executive Director of the California Catholic Conference, said he believed the judge's ruling was both legally and morally wrong.

"All public law and public policy is developed from some moral perspective, the morality that society judges is important," he protested.

"To say that society shouldn't base its laws on moral views is "hard to even comprehend," he whined.

Since Walker's ruling based on established law is sound, that leaves the issue of morality.

Only God can pass judgment on that!

Amen!

http://www.julianayrs.com

Proposition 8...News alert! Minutes ago Judge Vaughn Walker struck down the ban on gay marriage in California!

Just minutes ago - as tweeters watched (and participated) breathlessly on the twitter web site - it was announced that U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker issued a ruling that the Proposition 8 initiative approved by California Voters (2008) was unconstitutional.

Consequently, the ban on same-sex marriage has been overturned, in the State of California.

Background

http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2010/08/prop-8us-district-court-to-rule-today.html

News at 11!

http://www.julianayrs.com

Elena Kagan...Supreme Court nominee gay? Elitist Ivy League candidate...

Elena not a lipstick lesbo, fer sure!

Some say she is an elitist - running with an ivory tower posse of Ivy League academics - with no actual hands-on experience.

Others argue that her lack of Judicial experience (she’s never been a bench-warmer or presided over any legal proceeding in that capacity) - may be a plus.

“Kagan will maintain an open mind,” her supporters vigorously argue.

The other side of that coin?

When the confirmation hearings commence, Kagan will have a bit of wiggle room, which hard-line opponents do not hanker up to.

For example, because there is no paper trail to track, lawmakers will have to rely on her responses at the hearings to determine how she will act on various issues that may come before the high court in the future.

Here’s the catch, though.

When probed by lawmakers, some worry Kagan may beg off on the grounds that she doesn’t know how she’ll vote - and likewise - would prefer not to comment this way or that for obvious reasons.

Because her rulings in the U.S Supreme Court would impact the country for decades to come, understandably, a handful of politicians are wringing their hands in dismay.

More importantly, critics have noted on record - that because a case may come before her on a specific issue she may be asked about at the hearings - she would be within her rights to remain close-lipped.

Which comes to the issue of her sexuality and private life.

Yesterday morning - when I reached for a paper - I spied a headline which noted  that Kagan was Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court Justice vacancy.

I did a double-take.

For a moment, my eyes must have played tricks on me, because I thought the headline read:

“Elena Kagan cross-dresser.”

I double-checked and re-read the screaming caption.

In fact, the daily was reporting that Kagan was a “crossover” nominee.

What this meant, of course, was that the perky little career woman - affectionately referred to as "Shorty" - appealed to both Democrats and Republicans alike.

But, the subject of her sexuality remained on my mind.

In fact, a short while later - when I was cruising the Internet - I spotted at least one link for a story on Kagan with the following title:

Kagan a lesbian!

Golly, why would anyone think that?

Let’s see now.

Kagain is almost fifty years of age, wears manly-style suits, is unmarried, and has a demeanor that is largely husky in nature.

Does she have a close female friend luring in the shadows?

What does it matter?

Whether or not she is gay, is relevant to the proceedings, for one very good reason.

Do I have to remind folks that closing arguments for the "Gay Marriage" issue will be heard in June in San Francisco Federal District Court - and that it is wholly possible - that the case may eventually end up at the Supreme Court in the next year or so?

If Ms. Kagan maneuvers her way onto the bench, what will her position be on the issue of same-sex marriage, then?

More importantly, If she is gay, would she have to recuse herself?

If not, could she render an opinion on the issue, without bias?

News at 11!

http://www.thetattler.biz

San Francisco...gay hate protest downtown! God hates America...

Gay hate strikes romantic climbs of San Francisco!

Just yesterday, the Federal court case regarding same-sex marriage winded down.

The Judge presiding over the case intends to review all the legal briefs, testimony, and documentary evidence in the next couple of weeks - prior to closing arguments - slated for March (2010) at the downtown Courthouse.

On the heels of this phase of the legal proceedings,  a nasty posse of anti-gay protesters sparked up a lot of anger (and controversy) this morning,  when they waved inflammatory signs and taunted passers-by (and motorists innocently driving by on Market Street).

One sign read:  God hates America.

I scrambled off the streetcar I was riding on and dashed to the center meridian to capture the hateful demonstration on HD Video.

Gay Hate Protest
(captured on HD Video January 28th/2010/San Francisco)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1zU-5U87G0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-FZgmY4T64
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GggSK0D0Wlo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLaeiJ0BF4s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErHoOWlwSxI

Many tourists were shocked to witness the shameful conduct of this rag-tag group of gay-bashers.

"I can't believe this is happening in San Francisco," one Europeana traveller lamented.

In retrospect, it appears that Prop 8 supporters have rustled up a lot of hatred toward gays (in addition to the fears they are spreading about the potential dangers of gay marriage).

Charges, for example, that allowing same-sex marriage would lead to the sodomization of young boys (and a desire by some to marry their pets) are outrageous (for starters).

These individuals are supposed to actually be God's children?

Poster gal for same-sex marriage!

http://www.julianayrs.com

Proposition 8...trial begins amidst fears of favoritism! YouTube broadcast "stayed"...

Judge's impartiality in question?

 

Yesterday, the Federal trial began on matters before the Court pertaining to the isssue of same-sex marriage.

At the heart of the legal proceeding rests Prop 8 - a voter-approved measure - that holds that a bond through the act of marriage is a holy union reserved exclusively for a man and woman.

The issue was hotly-contested in lower and upper State courts - and in the process - nearly tore the California apart politically and socially (and otherwise).

When gay activists lost the their last battle in the State Supreme Court arena, two lesbian couples proceeded to file a lawsuit in Federal Court, in a bold-faced effort to overturn Prop 8 on the gounds of discrimination.

In sum, they argued in their briefs that the ballot initiative revoked the marital rights of one disfavored group of California residents and - thus - was unconstitutional.

Not true, argued their strident opponents, who put forth their legal notion that anti-gay bias was "off point" since the State already legalized same-sex domestic partnerships.

The basic underlying arguments sounded reasonable; unfortunately, they tended to splinter off and get shriller and shriller.

For example, opponents to the gay right to marry insisted that extending the privilege to same-sex couples would redefine marriage, weaken biological parents' connection with their children (!), tell men they don't have any significant place in the family life (!), and force many religious Americans into choosing between being a believer and a good citizen.

What a load of hogwash!

If you ask me, both sides are a little hysterical at this juncture.

But, the judge presiding over the case - Chief  U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker - is a bit of a wild card, too (if you read are inclined to read between the lines).

For example, Prop 8 supporters have lamented that the Judge's rulings to date in the preliminary phase of the trial,  have tended to favor the gay lifestyle advocates.

Couple those allegations with Walker's decision to go forward with a non-jury trial - and its easy to fathom why all parties to the proceedings (and fascinated curiosity-seekers on the sidelines) - are all keyed up with emotion.

The bench-warmer's  decision to broadcast the proceedings on YouTube didn't sit well with me.

On one hand, ensuring that the proceedings are transparent is of the utmost importance, but my concern is that the whole proceeding will be trivialized in the process.

The integrity of the court may be at stake.

Fortunately, as I was putting the final touches on this post, news came over the wire that the U.S. Supreme Court "stayed" the Judge's ruling to allow the trial to be broadcast on the pop culture site until Wednesday (and until such time as the Justices have the opportunity to review briefs and make a final determination).

The only way to view the proceedings currently is by dropping into Judge Walker's courtroom on the 17th floor of the Federal Courthouse where thirty-six seats daily await lucky individuals who manage to  maneuver their way into the proceedings.

Another one-hundred-and-fifty seats are available in an overflow courtroom on the 19th floor where the trial is being broadcast on close-circuit television.

However, I gave the Judge a thumbs up when he explained the reasoning behind a trial process he intends to follow to the "t".

"A trial is needed because critical facts are in dispute - for example, the extent of discrimination against gays and lesbians, the possible effects on same-sex marriage on opposite-sex couples, and the intent of Prop 8."

Legal analysts argue that the intent of the measure may be the decisive issue.

Attorneys for Prop 8 proponents underscored in their legal brief that the traditional defintion of marriage does not reflect any animus against gays and lesbians.

"It simply reflects that the institution of marriage is, and always has been concerned with promoting and regulating naturally procreative relationships between men and women to provide for the nurture and upbringing of the next generation," he added.

If I wanted to be Devil's advocate  - I might argue on that premise - that gay couples who have naturally-born offspring (with a former spouse, let's say) or adopted children be allowed to marry for the same beneficial reasons.

If barred from doing so, under the circumstances, wouldn't that be discrimination?

In addition to this issue, the court intends to also probe the history and meaning of marriage, the adequacy of domestic parnership as a substitute, and the social political status of gays and lesbians in the community-at-large.

Say, whatever happened to the transgenders?

The searing glare of the spotlight has been on gays and lesbians primarily.

Are they out of the loop, I wonder.

The Prop 8 supporters, in the final analysis, are expecting the worst-case scenario.

For this reason, a rep from Protective Marriage, chided the naysayers.

"Forunately, the last word will come from the nine Justices in the highest court of the land," he smugly noted for the record.

Maybe he needed to do a bit of legal research before opening his yap.

After all, in 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws against same-sex sodomy.

As far as legal eagles are concerned, any hint at what action the Justices may take on the issue of same-sex marriages, is blowing in the wind.

Today?

Day two of the controversial trial will shortly be underway at the Federal Courthouse.

See 'ya there!

Poster gals for same-sex marriage!

http://www.julianayrs.com

Gay Marriage...Archbishop Rowan Williams says Gay Unions OK to God!

When the whole issue of "gay marriage" hit the fan weeks ago (after a bill passed approving the "unions" in California) I noted in a post on the heels of the brouhaha - that based on my own familiarity with the scriptures - a relationship with a same-sex partner was not wrong in the eyes of God.

In newly-disclosed correspondence, it has been revealed that the Archbishop of Canterbury - Rowan Williams - penned his thoughts on the controversial subject.

In sum, he asserted that the Bible doesn't forbid sax-sex relationships when there is a commitment similar to those in traditional marriages.

In the news report - the English journalists outlined all the Archbishop's views - based on communications he wrote between the years 2000-2001 to an associate, Deborah Pitt.

Ms. Pitt is an Evangelical who asked the Archbishop for his opinion on the issues.

The newspaper quoted Williams verbatim,

"I concluded that an active sexual relationship between two people of the same sex might therefore reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage, if and only if it had about it the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness."

In my own post weeks ago, I noted it was essential the relationship be nurturing, loving - and most of all - monogamous.

In the final analysis, for those in doubt, I urge prayer for guidance on the subject.

God may answer in mysterious ways!