Today's 9th Circuit Court Decision on CA Prop 8.

Here is the full court decision upholding the original decision that ruled  California's  Proposition 8, (the ban of same sex marriage) to be unconstitutional

Ninth Circuit Prop. 8 decision

So what does this mean exactly?  Is same sex marriage now legal (again...) in  California?   Well, no.  Or more accurately , not yet.   There is still a Stay of the ruling in place  pending an appeal by  the proponents of Prop 8.  That means same sex marriages  cannot yet  resume in California.   This decision also, only applies to  Proposition 8 in California, and has no effect on laws in any other state or on any federal laws  (i.e. the Defense of Marriage Act).

So yes,  today's court ruling is  good news. But  nothing has actually changed  yet as a result of it.

There is a lot to take in when you read the actual text of the  2-1 court ruling but  here is  a passage that stands out:

"Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted."

So just  to be clear,   the 9th Circuit Appeals Court today ruled that Prop 8 served no other purpose than to discriminate against Gays and Lesbians. This is significant,  in so much that it highlights the weakness of the one dissenting opinion in the 2-1 ruling.   The voice of dissent belongs to Judge N. Randy Smith.  Smith is a former head of the Idaho Republican Party, and was the lone vote in favor to uphold Prop 8.

Smith,  in his dissenting opinion could only raise the completely unrelated issue of parenting. Suggesting that if Gays and Lesbians can get married,  it somehow would mean fewer children would have Parents.. uh... huh?   How does that work exactly? (Smith didn't offer any explanation.)   It is also interesting to note that  Smith is also a Mormon.

Why is that relevant?  The opponents of Marriage Equality claimed that  the original 2009 ruling by   Judge Vaughn R. Walker  was invalid because Walker was Gay.   It is interesting to note  the plaintiffs in this case made no such similar  accusations against Smith, even though  The  Mormon Church was the single largest backer of Proposition 8.

So what happens next? That's a good question. The proponents of Prop 8 will undoubtedly appeal, so  they could go one of two ways. They could make a motion for rehearing in front of the broader Ninth Circuit (11 judges). If a majority of the circuit judges agree to rehear the case, the case would stay at this appellate level and go through  same process all over again in front of a larger panel. Or the Proponents could skip that step and decide to appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the meantime we can all enjoy the reaction on the  WingNut Bigoted Right as the American Taliban has pretty much lost their minds over today's ruling.  Shrieking hysterically about  "Activist Judges".  Everyone's favorite white supremacist nutcase,  Tony Perkins.  Head of the ridiculously  mis-named hate group  the "Family Research Council" pretty much soiled his adult diaper riding the  Waaaa-mbulance with rage after today's decision.

"This ruling substitutes judicial tyranny for the will of the people, who in the majority of states have amended their constitutions, as California did, to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman. However, we remain confident that in the end, the Supreme Court will reject the absurd argument that the authors of our Constitution created or even implied a 'right' to homosexual 'marriage,' and will instead uphold the right of the people to govern themselves.   


Yeah, because we have always allowed people to vote on the civil rights of other Americans.... right?




If the United States Supreme Court were to uphold the original Walker ruling, then like in the case of  Lawrence v. Texas,  suddenly ALL bans on same sex marriage across the United States would be unconstitutional.   This would also overturn the Defence of Marriage Act. (DOMA).  The  federal law banning recognition of same sex marriages.

That my friends,  is the endgame.    So while today's ruling is nice,  it is still only one more step on a very long road.  Albeit, a step in the right direction.

Remembering Matthew Shepard.

Wednesday October 7th, 1998 was a fairly ordinary day in Chicago. I was working for a small consulting firm in the near West suburb of Oak Park, and had spent the day in a series of fairly productive meetings. So I felt pretty good when I got home from work. I was puttering around my apartment making dinner when I picked up the remote control for the TV and turned on CNN. The lead story was a brutal attack of a young man in Laramie Wyoming named Matthew Shepard. Shepard, age 21, had been beaten into a coma and left tied to fence along a rural highway outside the city. The news report noted that the victim was a young gay man and was not expected to survive.

I remember walking down into “boystown” (the north Halstead area of Chicago, and the center of the city’s Gay community). There were lots of people standing around outside the bars, and restaurants along Halsted Street, talking about what had happened in Wyoming. A makeshift memorial had been set up on the corner of Halsted and Roscoe.

I walked into the 7-11 there on the corner and bought a small votive candle, lit it and placed it with the growing number of candles, handwritten notes and flowers that were being placed around a picture of Matthew that someone had printed off the internet. I stayed for a little while talking to people who were gathered there. Some people were angry, others sad, but we all knew that something in our own community had changed as a result of what had happened,  hundreds of miles away in field outside Laramie.

In 1998 I had just moved to Chicago after being overseas in South Korea. I was in the middle of my own “coming out” process,  and was gathering up my courage to have “the talk” with my parents when I went home for Thanksgiving in a few weeks time. I will admit the news of Matthew Shepard’s brutal murder shook me up. Suddenly the decisions I was making to live openly and honestly as who I was, had potentially fatal consequences.

On an intellectual level you always knew that there were “gay bashers” out there. People who were so conflicted about their own sexuality that they felt the way to “cure” themselves was to attack others for what they feared most about themselves. Yet now those hypothetical risks, were not so hypothetical.  What's more, those cosequences now  had a face, and a name.

As I walked home, my thoughts turned to Matthew Shepard’s parents. What must they be thinking and feeling? Had they known Matt was gay? Did it really matter? Years later I would have the great honor of meeting Judy Shepard,  and hear her tell her own powerful story .

Thirteen years later, I marvel at how my own life has changed. I am married to an amazing man, we have incredible friends and loving families who remind us every day,  that the world is not as bleak and dark a place as it seemed,  on that October night in 1998.

Yet I am still saddened and angry that there are many people in America who honestly feel that Matthew Shepard got what “he had coming to him”. That demonizing , discriminating against, and even murdering Gays and Lesbians is somehow “doing God’s work”.

People with a vested interest in keeping LGBT people as the one group it is still safe to hate. People who seek to profit, personally, politically and even economically from fomenting deadly hatred and fear of others. Bigots whose actions and beliefs are the farthest thing from being Christian, yet claim to have a monopoly on what they claim God thinks and who they claim "God hates".

I really don’t have a point to make here, other than to say it’s important to remember Matthew and so many others like him who have died as a result of hatred and bigotry. If you want to get involved, here are a few great places to start...

The Matthew Shepard Foundation: http://www.matthewshepard.org/

The Trevor Project: http://www.thetrevorproject.org/

The Ben Cohen Stand Up Foundation: http://www.standupfoundation.com/

The We Give a Damn Campaign: http://www.wegiveadamn.org/


Thanks,

Dave

My 2010 Mid Terms "Enthusiasm Gap"

As some of you  have  remarked in emails and text messages,   it has been about two weeks since I have posted anything new  on here  and  yeah..  I really don't have a  good excuse.  Or maybe I do...  Lately  it has been hard  to  write about  the current  state of politics and culture in the United States without  wanting to scream obscenities  and throw things  at the television.  

There is  a wonderful  Ivor Novello  song  from  the soundtrack to  the movie  "Gosford Park".  The title is  "The Land of Might Have Been..."    As we approach  the  2010 mid-term  elections  I find  that title  resonates all too well with how I feel.  



The common  consensus  among the  political  punditry says the  Republicans and the corporate created and funded  Tea Bagger monstrosity  it has  spawned,   will  at the  very least gain control of House or Representatives if not  also the  Senate.  Though, most  projections have the  Democratic Party holding on to the Senate by a narrow  margin.

The fact is,  in 2010,  the face, voice and  mind of the  Republican Party is made up of  people who are  racist, xenophobic   anti-constitutional  nut jobs.  Reality  and fact  play  no role  whatsoever  in  their  world view.   When pressed  to  explain  why they  "feel"  the way they feel.  Or when asked to explain  their  fox generated talking points in  greater  detail,  you get  this...



It has been  popular  to  make  comparisons to the  "Republican  Revolution" of  1994, when  Newt Gingrich lead  the GOP to a  midterm trouncing  of  Bill Clinton and  the  Democrats with their  "Contract  With America".  ( It is interesting to note that  none of the  items  in  that  1994  "contract" were  ever  actually enacted by that  GOP controlled Congress.)    Still  it is worth  examining  what  the  GOP  is promising that they will do  THIS time  if they  win  back  control of congress.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The very idea  that  there is a role for  Government in the welfare of the  American People is  what  the  Republican Party is  running  AGAINST.   The  idea  that   insurance companies  can deny you health insurance  for  a pre-existing condition,   regardless of what  that  condition might be, is what the  Republican party is running FOR.  The idea  that  if you  lose your job and  are unemployed  it is  your fault, is what  the  Republican Party is running FOR.



 The idea that  oil companies  are the real VICTIMS  if  they are  made to pay for the damages  their own negligence  has caused , this is what  the  GOP  in 2010  stands for.



Then on top of all of that  we have  Barack Obama and  the  Democrats.  Citizens of the  Land of Might Have Been.   

We might have had  real  health care reform and a Public Option for  Health Insurance.  But instead we got  mild tinkering   with  insurance coverage  that  while  a good  first  step, will  benefit  insurance companies  more  than  it will help  the  broader problems with Health Care in America.

Now  we have a GOP that is seriously running ON the premise,  that  for a insurance company to NOT be able to deny you coverage or  just drop you for a  pre-existing condition, THAT is  the real crisis that has to be fixed.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

We  might have had  real  financial reform in the wake of the  abuses and excesses of  Wall Street. But instead we got  mild  tinkering  with  with  Credit Card  rules and  the same players who took our financial sector the  brink of  collapse  have been allowed to stay right were they are doing the same things.

We might have had  real  advancement  of  civil rights  for all our citizens , including  LGBT Americans.  With  an inclusive  Employment Non Discrimination Act,  repeal of  The Defense of  Marriage Act  and the ending  of  the military's  ridiculous  "Don't Ask,  Don't Tell" policy of   forcing  patriotic and skilled  American Service Personnel  out of the  military simply because they are Gay or Lesbian.   But instead we got  speeches,  nice  inspirational  speeches  that  were meant to provide cover for  political  cowardice.



So after spending  two years trying desperately  to  woo non-existent  Republican support for an agenda  that  an  overwhelming majority of Americans  elected him and his party to enact.  President Obama seems to  finally  be grasping the  political  reality he and  the Democrats are now facing.   If the  Republican Party gains  control of Congress,  President Obama and  the  Democrats will  spend  the next  two years  trying  to  defend  the  meager accomplishments  of the last two years from  repeal, and doing little else.   In a recent speech in Ohio,  the President  finally  seemed willing to  take  the GOP on.



So  I can't help feeling  like  the last  two years  have been such a wasted  opportunity.   Barack Obama ran  with such passion, energy and vision  but  has  governed with such timidity,  as to make me  wonder if  Candidate Obama and  President Obama  are even the same man.

I  understand  the argument  that   if  the Democratic base  doesn't  get  over our  "enthusiasm gap"   all of these dire predictions  of  the damage a GOP controlled Congress would do, will come true.  And I also understand , and have  even made the argument,  that  cowardly Democrats are still better than any of the current  crop of Republicans.  

Yet  the truth is,  I am having  a hard time  getting  energized  about a choice between  apathy and evil.

If  the Democrats  lose  control of Congress  Barack Obama  will  spend  the next  two years  with even less to show for it  than his  first two.   Not much of a record to run for re-election with.

Nobody expects the President to win every battle.  I just wish it didn't seem like  Barack Obama was so afraid of fighting the battle.   I guess what  I really would like is for  life to occasionally imitate art...

Why Prop 8 Was Completely Anti-American

The celebrations  here in San Francisco  are  still going on at this hour.   The rally which began in  the Castro District soon turned in to a  celebratory march that  shut down half  of  Market Street  as it made its way to Civic Center Plaza in front of   SF City Hall.

There  were  speeches,  (lots of speeches), music, flags, banners and lots of  joy. Even though  the decision  in  Perry v. Schwarzenegger,  won't go into effect  today.  (There is a two day  time frame for the court to consider  a motion by opponents of  Marriage Equality to stay the the resumption  of  same sex marriages  in California  while  they appeal this case  to the  U.S. Supreme Court.)  Yet the sense of vindication and  victory in  the California  LGBT community  is  clear  for everyone to see.

So what does this all mean?    Does this mean  Same Sex  Marriage  will soon be  sweeping the nation?  Well,  not so much.    The ruling  simply says the State of California  can't  ban  gay marriage  here in  CA.   Which is  largely symbolic.   There still is no Federal  recognition of  same sex marriages.  Same sex  spouses  still can't  file joint  Federal  Income Tax forms,   pass on  Social Security Survivor  benefits  or  sponsor their  husband or wife  for  immigration to the  U.S.

All of those  key benefits  associated with marriage  are  regulated on  Federal level  by the  ridiculously   mis-named  "Defense of Marriage Act".  (DOMA) and  at least for now,  that law  is unchanged.    Should  the Perry case  make it to the  U.S. Supreme Court,(which it is pretty safe to say it  most likely will),   that  law could  very well change.   Should the  nine SCOTUS  Justices  uphold  the  ruling made today,  it would  in effect  nullify  all  laws  banning Marriage  Equality  in the  United States.

So why did the  pro- Prop 8 forces  lose?   I will  talk about  the  legal  issues  in  a minute.  but  what  was  amazing about this  court  case  was  how  the  supporters of  Prop 8  were  completely  unable to  provide any real  evidence  backing up  their  positions.    I could  go on  and on about  how hollow and   empty  the  Yes On 8 arguments  were, but  Rachel Maddow does it so much better than  I could:



We''ll set the spectacle  of  the  Prop 8 trial,  and  the inherent silliness of  the attempt to use "Gay is Bad  because God Says So" as a legal  argument,  aside for the moment.   the biggest reason why the plaintiffs in this case won,  and  why Prop 8 is completely unconstitutional  is very simple.    So  allow me to  lay it out for you .

1)  Same Sex Marriage doesn't threaten or impact ANYONE ELSE'S  marriage  or family  in any way.
2) You cannot  put  the civil rights of  a minority  up  to  popular vote. Rights  are not subject to the whims of  the electorate  that is why they are  RIGHTS.
3)  Just because you don't like a particular minority,  doesn't mean you get to make them 2nd Class Citizens

Judge Walker,  puts it  even more clearly on page  116 of  his ruling where he writes that;

 "fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote, they depend on the outcome of no elections"

This  is why Proposition 8 is fundamentally un-American, and  un-constitutional.

Prop 8 took  the whole idea  of   fundamental rights laid out  in  the Declaration of  Independence and  the U.S. Constitution and said  that  they were not inalienable.  But rather subject to the mood  of  at least 51% of  whoever shows up to vote in a given election.  That is not democracy, that is electorally sanctioned discrimination,   and it was an affront to everything  our country stands for, and  everything our nation's  founding fathers stood for.

Proposition 8,  denied  basic, fundamental  civil rights  to  an entire group of  Californians,  based  solely on a desire by  groups like the Mormon Church and  Conservative Evangelicals, to put into civil law their belief that  God hates Gay people.  So therefore  the law should treat them as less than everybody else.

If the  U.S.  Supreme Court fails to uphold  today's ruling,  they will have said that  the United States of America is no better than the Taliban.