Queerty _BREAKING: Marriage-Equality Foes Ask Supreme Court To Review Prop 8 Decision Add a comment 4Print The sponsors of California’s Proposition 8 have petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn a February decision that struck down the anti-equality measure. Calling the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals two-to-one decision “misguided,” the group’s petition admitted that the Constitution does not mandate one-man/one-woman marriage but claims “it leaves the definition of marriage in the hands of the people, to be resolved through the democratic process in each state.” But Charles J. Cooper, lead attorney for Prop 8 sponsor Protect Marriage, said the Supremes have “made it very clear that the age-old definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is constitutional as a matter of state public policy.” He chastened the lower court for “essentially reject[ing] all relevant Supreme Court and appellate court precedent while attacking the character and judgment of millions of Californians.” The 9th Circuit’s ruling has been put on hold pending the outcome of this appeal for review, which requires four votes by the high court. After the filing, Rick Jacobs, founder of the pro-equality Courage Campaign, is quick to call the haters out: “The President of the United States, a majority of the American public, two federal courts and most of America’s NATO allies view marriage equality as a fact. But Brian Brown, Charles Cooper, Andy Pugno, and Mitt Romney continue to stampede over the cliff of historical irrelevance, insisting that America will cease to function if gays and lesbians can marry. The major problem with this thesis is that seven states and the District of Columbia welcome marriage for all and the country functions just fine, the sun still shines and the world still rotates on its axis. We can only hope that the Supreme Court will once again act for all Americans on the right side of history, not for a few hysterical ones scared of love.” Still, the Supremes better do what Mitt and company ask—or else they might take their toys and go home. photo by: Pargon Jump to 4 Comments BY: DAN AVERY ON: JUL 31, 2012 TAGGED: CALIFORNIA, COURAGE CAMPAIGN, COURT CASES, LAW, LAWSUITS, PROPOSITION 8, PROTECT MARRIAGE, RICK JACOBS, SUPREME COURT Email This inShare Paid Distribution Kiss And Tell: People That Tried To Out Celebrities As Gay (Bossip) Paid Distribution Men That Used To Be Women (ChaCha) Tom Hardy Has Dated Men, But Won’t Bottom / Queerty PHOTOS: Olympic Stallion Danell Leyva Likes To Send Sexy Self-Pics (Praise Jesus!) / Queerty PHOTOS: Broadway Bares XXII Wraps With A “Happy Ending” [?] 4 Comments No. 1 · Scott As I understand it, the court will not be deciding on the constitutionality of same sex marriage but the constitutionality of a majority taking rights away from a minority. If the justices find that it is constitutional I would think it paves the way for the repeal of the voting rights act, civil rights act, and gives the anti-abortion groups a plank to stand on. Am I missing misreading this? Jul 31, 2012 at 6:00 pm · @Reply · Flag No. 2 · B No. 1 · Scott wrote, “As I understand it, the court will not be deciding on the constitutionality of same sex marriage but the constitutionality of a majority taking rights away from a minority…. Am I missing misreading this?” Sort of – the ruling was with regard to the constitutionality of a change whose sole effect was to take away an existing right from a minority. Even if the Supreme Court upholds the challenge to Proposition Eight, a woman’s right to an abortion is not automatically ensured. With respect to Proposition Eight, there was what the computer industry calls a “race condition” – two processes running concurrently where the result depends on which completes first and with the timing of which completes first being indeterminate. Proposition Eight was introduced before the Supreme Court ruling that invalidated Proposition 22. Both had the same wording but Proposition 22 made it an ordinary law and Proposition Eight made it part of the state constitution. A case went through the courts, however, that resulted in Proposition 22 being invalidated before Proposition Eight was passed. If the timing was different, with Proposition Eight passing before the court case, we would not have had a window in which same-sex marriages were legal in California, and hence no existing right to take away – if Proposition Eight had been part of the state constitution at the time, the California Supreme Court would not have allowed same-sex marriages (the California Supreme Court did not invalidate Proposition Eight subsequently when it had a chance to do that). The clever thing for the pro-Prop-Eight people to argue might be that because Proposition Eight was introduced before same-sex marriages were temporarily made legal, it was not intended to take away an existing right. The counter argument of course is that it did in fact take away an existing right and that the campaign (the ads, etc. to influence voters) to get Proposition Eight passed started after same-sex marriages were legalized, and became an attempt to take away an existing right even though there was no such right when Proposition Eight was filed. Jul 31, 2012 at 8:56 pm · @Reply · Flag No. 3 · Jim H. @Scott: Yep. I think this one’s squarely within the holding of Romer v. Evans. Jul 31, 2012 at 8:59 pm · @Reply · Flag No. 4 · Ronn Does anyone know how soon or a deadline for the court to say yes or no if they are going to take the case? Jul 31, 2012 at 9:38 pm · @Reply · Flag Add your Comment Name (required) Email Address (required) Website URL It’s easier to add your comments when you are a member. Register or log in! Post comments that are relevant to the article, written in clear language and that avoid personal attacks on bloggers and your fellow commenters. And take a moment to read the Queerty Comment Policy. Notify me of followup comments via e-mail Send me the Queerty Daily Newsletter POPULAR ON QUEERTY Another Judge Takes A Swipe At DOMA, Rules For Same-Sex Couples In Pedersen v. OPM Berenstain Bears Try To Avoid Chick-Fil-A Hateration, Publisher Not So Much 4 When Kids Attack: Teen Terrors Send Lesbian To Hospital in MO 8 With Third Party Abstaining, New Zealand Parliament Closer To Approving Marriage Equality 1 FROM AROUND THE WEB Gay marriage a wedge issue in presidential race? (Fox News) Gender Benders: 15 Actors Who Play Gay But Really Are Straight or Vice Versa (Are Their Roles Believable?) (Styleblazer) Stars Who Don’t Think They’re Hot (Zimbio) Are You Making These 5 Horrible Bedroom Mistakes? (MyDailyMoment) [?] Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/breaking-marriage-equality-foes-ask-supreme-court-to-review-prop-8-decision-20120731/#ixzz22G1ZmCmF

BREAKING: Marriage-Equality Foes Ask Supreme Court To Review Prop 8 Decision
The sponsors of California’s Proposition 8 have petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn a February decision that struck down the anti-equality measure.
Calling the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals two-to-one decision “misguided,” the group’s petition admitted that the Constitution does not mandate one-man/one-woman marriage but claims “it leaves the definition of marriage in the hands of the people, to be resolved through the democratic process in each state.”
But Charles J. Cooper, lead attorney for Prop 8 sponsor Protect Marriage, said the Supremes have “made it very clear that the age-old definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is constitutional as a matter of state public policy.” He chastened the lower court for “essentially reject[ing] all relevant Supreme Court and appellate court precedent while attacking the character and judgment of millions of Californians.”
The 9th Circuit’s ruling has been put on hold pending the outcome of this appeal for review, which requires four votes by the high court.
After the filing, Rick Jacobs, founder of the pro-equality Courage Campaign, is quick to call the haters out:
“The President of the United States, a majority of the American public, two federal courts and most of America’s NATO allies view marriage equality as a fact. But Brian Brown, Charles Cooper, Andy Pugno, and Mitt Romney continue to stampede over the cliff of historical irrelevance, insisting that America will cease to function if gays and lesbians can marry. The major problem with this thesis is that seven states and the District of Columbia welcome marriage for all and the country functions just fine, the sun still shines and the world still rotates on its axis.
We can only hope that the Supreme Court will once again act for all Americans on the right side of history, not for a few hysterical ones scared of love.”
Still, the Supremes better do what Mitt and company ask—or else they might take their toys and go home.
photo by: Pargon
Jump to 4 Comments
BY: DAN AVERY
ON: JUL 31, 2

Tom Hardy Has Dated Men, But Won’t Bottom / Queerty

PHOTOS: Broadway Bares XXII Wraps With A “Happy Ending”

[?] 4 Comments
No. 1 · Scott
As I understand it, the court will not be deciding on the constitutionality of same sex marriage but the constitutionality of a majority taking rights away from a minority. If the justices find that it is constitutional I would think it paves the way for the repeal of the voting rights act, civil rights act, and gives the anti-abortion groups a plank to stand on. Am I missing misreading this?
Jul 31, 2012 at 6:00 pm · @Reply · Flag
No. 2 · B
No. 1 · Scott wrote, “As I understand it, the court will not be deciding on the constitutionality of same sex marriage but the constitutionality of a majority taking rights away from a minority…. Am I missing misreading this?”
Sort of – the ruling was with regard to the constitutionality of a change whose sole effect was to take away an existing right from a minority. Even if the Supreme Court
upholds the challenge to Proposition Eight, a woman’s right to an abortion is not automatically ensured.
With respect to Proposition Eight, there was what the computer industry calls a “race condition” – two processes running concurrently where the result depends on which completes first and with the timing of which completes first being indeterminate. Proposition Eight was introduced before the Supreme Court ruling that invalidated Proposition 22. Both had the same wording but Proposition 22 made it an ordinary law and Proposition Eight made it part of the state constitution. A case went through the courts, however, that resulted in Proposition 22 being invalidated before Proposition Eight was passed. If the timing was different, with Proposition Eight passing before the court case, we would not have had a window in which same-sex marriages were legal in California, and hence no existing right to take away – if Proposition Eight had been part of the state constitution at the time, the California Supreme Court would not have allowed same-sex marriages (the California Supreme Court did not invalidate Proposition Eight subsequently when it had a chance to do that).
The clever thing for the pro-Prop-Eight people to argue might be that because Proposition Eight was introduced before same-sex marriages were temporarily made legal, it was not intended to take away an existing right. The counter argument of course is that it did in fact take away an existing right and that the campaign (the ads, etc. to influence voters) to get Proposition Eight passed started after same-sex marriages were legalized, and became an attempt to take away an existing right even though there was no such right when Proposition Eight was filed.
Jul 31, 2012 at 8:56 pm · @Reply · Flag
No. 3 · Jim H.
@Scott: Yep. I think this one’s squarely within the holding of Romer v. Evans.
Jul 31, 2012 at 8:59 pm · @Reply · Flag
No. 4 · Ronn
Does anyone know how soon or a deadline for the court to say yes or no if they are going to take the case?
Jul 31, 2012 at 9:38 pm · @Reply · Flag

Add your Comment
Name (required)

Email Address (required)

Website URL

It’s easier to add your comments when you are a member. Register or log in!

Post comments that are relevant to the article, written in clear language and that avoid personal attacks on bloggers and your fellow commenters. And take a moment to read the Queerty Comment Policy.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail
Send me the Queerty Daily Newsletter

POPULAR ON QUEERTY
Another Judge Takes A Swipe At DOMA, Rules For Same-Sex Couples In Pedersen v. OPM

Berenstain Bears Try To Avoid Chick-Fil-A Hateration, Publisher Not So Much
4

When Kids Attack: Teen Terrors Send Lesbian To Hospital in MO
8

With Third Party Abstaining, New Zealand Parliament Closer To Approving Marriage Equality
1

FROM AROUND THE WEB

Gay marriage a wedge issue in presidential race?
(Fox News)

Gender Benders: 15 Actors Who Play Gay But Really Are Straight or Vice Versa (Are Their Roles Believable?)
(Styleblazer)

Stars Who Don’t Think They’re Hot
(Zimbio)

Are You Making These 5 Horrible Bedroom Mistakes?
(MyDailyMoment)
[?]

Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/breaking-marriage-equality-foes-ask-supreme-court-to-review-prop-8-decision-20120731/#ixzz22G1ZmCmF

Advocate.com -Barney Frank: Marriage Equality Will Be in Democratic Party Platform

Barney Frank: Marriage Equality Will Be in Democratic Party Platform
“Yes, it will be in the platform,” the out gay congressman from Massachusetts told The Advocate.
BY JULIE BOLCER JULY 30 2012 12:12 PM ET UPDATED: JULY 30 2012 3:23 PM ET
62

Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts said in a telephone interview Monday that the Democratic Party will affirm its commitment to marriage equality in the platform currently being drafted and that the move has his “full support.”

“Yes, it will be in the platform,” said Frank. “I am in favor of it being included and it will be included.”

The out gay congressman, who is retiring this year, sits on the 15-member platform drafting committee that heard testimony from advocates in Minneapolis this past weekend. According to the Washington Blade, Frank said the committee had made a “unanimous decision” to include the marriage equality plank.

A DNC spokesman told The Advocate that specific platform language was not available at this time. The full platform committee will consider the proposal next month in Detroit, and the process will culminate at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte this September. If ratified, the plank would represent the first time the party’s platform has articulated support for marriage equality. President Barack Obama announced his personal endorsement of marriage equality in May.

During testimony on Friday and Saturday, committee members heard from a range of individuals and organizations, both LGBT-specific groups and allies, about marriage equality and repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, as well as other priorities including the Student Non-Discrimination Act and ending discrimination against people living with HIV/AIDS. According to advocates and a list provided by the DNC, speakers included Marc Solomon of Freedom To Marry; Michael Macleod-Ball of the American Civil Liberties Union; Allison Herwitt of the Human Rights Campaign; David Munar of the AIDS Foundation of Chicago; Charlie Morgan, chief warrant officer of the New Hampshire National Guard, and her wife, Karen; and Aaron Zellhoefer for the National Stonewall Democrats. The National Council of La Raza, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and AFSCME, all of which have expressed support for marriage equality, also testified, as did other groups.

Solomon hailed the committee’s decision in a statement. Freedom To Marry this year launched its Democrats: Say I Do campaign, a call to include marriage equality in the party platform that has been endorsed by top Democrats and more than 42,000 signatures from the public.

“We are grateful for the Platform Drafting Committee’s unanimous vote to include the freedom to marry in its draft of the Democratic Party platform,” he said. “As I testified to the Committee on Friday, the Democratic Party has a noble history of fighting for the human and civil rights of all Americans. We are proud that the Committee is including language that will ensure the Party is leading the way forward in supporting marriage for loving and committed same-sex couples and their families.”

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which is representing Chief Warrant Officer Morgan, who has incurable stage-four breast cancer, her wife and other couples in a federal lawsuit seeking equal benefits for servicemembers and their spouses, also celebrated the move by the Platform Drafting Committee. Buzzfeed reported over the weekend that Frank told the Morgans that he “supported [their] cause” after their testimony on Saturday.

“At SLDN, we are pleased that the Morgans were able to tell their compelling story to the committee, and we share their joy in learning that the freedom to marry will indeed be included in the Party’s platform this election year,” said spokesman Zeke Stokes. “We hope that all political parties will embrace this American value and support every loving and committed couple who wishes to marry.”

In his interview with The Advocate, Frank said that the Democratic Party had already cemented its support for marriage equality at three key points in the past year and a half. He cited President Obama’s decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, the House Democratic leadership’s dissent in the 3-2 decision by the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to continue defending the 1996 law, and the overwhelming majority of House Democrats who have voted against measures to reaffirm support for DOMA, including an amendment that passed the Republican-controlled House this month.

“The fact is, by every action that should be taken, the Democrats in Washington have repudiated DOMA,” he said.

While the campaign to include marriage equality in the platform has received substantial attention, Frank said that he believed the intense focus on the largely symbolic document was “misguided.” He said it was “more important” to acknowledge House Democrats’ near-universal opposition to DOMA, while almost every House Republican had voted to reaffirm it.

“We’re talking about a vote in Congress that determines what in fact the law will be,” he said. “That does seem to me to be more important than a party platform.”

Frank, who married his partner last month, brushed back a report from The New York Post last week that suggested he had been hedging in his support for including marriage equality in the platform. He said that whether or not to include the plank had always been a matter of how “specific” the conversation became.

“If it got into specifics, marriage equality should be included, and since it’s getting into specifics, marriage equality will be included, and I’m for that,” he said. “We are including marriage equality with my full support.”

HuffingtonPost -Vietnam Considers Same-Sex Marriage

Vietnam Considers Same-Sex Marriage

By MARGIE MASON 07/29/12 05:23 AM ET

HANOI, Vietnam — Dinh Thi Hong Loan grasps her girlfriend’s hand, and the two gaze into each other’s love-struck eyes. Smiling, they talk about their upcoming wedding – how they’ll exchange rings and toast the beginning of their lives together.

The lesbians’ marriage ceremony in the Vietnamese capital won’t be officially recognized, but that could soon change. Vietnam’s Communist government is now considering whether to allow same-sex couples to marry or legally register and receive rights – positioning the country to be the first in Asia to do so.

“Our love for each other is real and nothing changes regardless of whether the law is passed or not,” said Loan, 31. “But when it is passed, we will definitely go get registered. I can’t wait!”

Even longtime gay-rights activists are stunned by the Justice Ministry’s proposal to include same-sex couples in its overhaul of the country’s marriage law. No one knows what form it will take or whether it will survive long enough to be debated before the National Assembly next year, but supporters say the fact that it’s even being considered is a victory in a region where simply being gay can result in jail sentences or whippings with a rattan cane.

“I think everyone is surprised,” said Vien Tanjung, an Indonesian gay-rights activist. “Even if it’s not successful it’s already making history. For me, personally, I think it’s going to go through.”

Vietnam seems an unlikely champion of gay-rights issues. It is routinely lambasted by the international community over its dismal human rights record, often locking up political dissidents who call for democracy or religious freedom. Up until just a few years ago, homosexuality was labeled as a “social evil” alongside drug addiction and prostitution.

And Vietnam’s gay community itself was once so underground that few groups or meeting places existed. It was taboo to even talk about the issue.

But over the past five years, that’s slowly started to change. Vietnam’s state-run media, unable to write about politically sensitive topics or openly criticize the one-party government, have embraced the chance to explore gay issues. They have run lengthy newspaper stories and television broadcasts, including one live special that won a top award.

Video of Vietnam’s first publicized gay wedding went viral online in 2010, and a few other ceremonies followed, capturing widespread public attention. The Justice Ministry now says a legal framework is necessary because the courts do not know how to handle disputes between same-sex couples living together. The new law could provide rights such as owning property, inheriting and adopting children.

“I think, as far as human rights are concerned, it’s time for us to look at the reality,” Justice Minister Ha Hung Cuong said Tuesday in an online chat broadcast on national TV and radio. “The number of homosexuals has mounted to hundreds of thousands. It’s not a small figure. They live together without registering marriage. They may own property. We, of course, have to handle these issues legally.”

Globally, 11 countries have legalized same-sex marriage since the Netherlands became the first to do so in 2001. Only a few U.S. states allow it, but President Barack Obama provided hope for many couples worldwide after announcing his support earlier this year.

The issue has remained largely off the table across Asia. In Thailand, many tourists see a vibrant gay, lesbian and transgender community, but it exists largely as part of the country’s lucrative entertainment industry, separated from politics and conservative Thai society.

Muslim-dominated nations such as Indonesia have strict laws against homosexuality. Sodomy can result in up to 20 years in jail and caning in Malaysia. But that hasn’t stopped some from continuing to fight for more rights and visibility.

In Singapore, more than 15,000 people – double last year’s turnout – recently held up pink lights in a park at night to support acceptance of the community in a modern city-state where gay sex remains illegal, even though the law is not enforced.

In Taiwan, a 2003 bill to recognize same-sex marriage failed to receive enough support to make it law, though a lesbian couple is expected to tie the knot in August at a Buddhist monastery.

Vietnam will also hold its first public gay pride parade Aug. 5 in Hanoi. The country is socially conservative, but the government restricts the kind of politicized religious movements that typically push back against same-sex marriage in other countries. Gay pride events also seem to pose little threat to Communist Party’s dominance.

The same-sex marriage proposal still has several hurdles before it could become law. The Justice Ministry will consider opinions from the public along with government agencies before submitting its draft proposal to the National Assembly next May on whether to recommend same-sex marriage or some other type of legal recognition with rights. Then, it must be approved by a majority of parliament.

“Some people told me if Vietnam could legalize it, it would be very good example for other counties to follow,” said Le Quang Binh, head of the nonprofit Institute for Studies of Society, Economy and Environment, which is consulting on the marriage law. “People think that talking about it is a big step forward already. … I hope it will lead to more openness or tolerance for gays and lesbians in Vietnam.”

As for Vietnamese partners Loan and Nguyen Thi Chi, who share a one-room apartment down a narrow alley in Hanoi, they say their love and commitment is real, regardless of whether a law exists to recognize them when they marry next month. But they hope the new proposal will ease stigma that lingers around same-sex couples.

Chi, 20, knows the pain of discrimination all too well. She recently dropped out of college after being publicly outed by a note taped to one of her classroom doors saying she was “diseased.” She was harassed and bullied for a year and a half on campus until finally deciding she’d had enough.

“Things must change,” she said. “Even though it was not a nice experience, more and more people are interested in knowing about the community. And the more people that know about it, the more people will have a different view on it.”

Associated Press writer Sean Yoong contributed to this report from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Daily News –

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos donates $2.5 million to Washington state marriage-equality campaign
Along with his wife, MacKenzie Bezos, the entrepreneur makes both a financial and a very public commitment to the cause of legalizing gay marriage in the U.S.
BY CHARLIE WELLS / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Mackenzie and Jeff Bezos, the Amazon.com founder and his wife, made a singificant $2.5 million donation to the Washington United for Marriagecampaign that is working to preserve the legality of gay marriage in Washington state.
RELATED STORIES
5 reasons gay marriage losing streak may be over
Maine churches raising money with collection plate to fight gay marriage
Obama’s gay marriage muddle
Obama criticizes Romney as ‘backwards on equality’ at Clooney dinner
Maryland won’t marry same-sex couples — but can they divorce them? Court to hear landmark case
Park Slope Food Coop’s proposed boycott of Israel is odious and idiotic

The billionaire founder of Amazon.com, Jeff Bezos, along with his wife, MacKenzie Bezos, have just delivered a $2.5 million gift to same-sex marriage advocates in the company’s home state of Washington, injecting a jolt of momentum into a statewide campaign for gay marriage. The donation establishes entrepreneur Bezos and MacKenzie as two of the largest financial supporters of gay marriage in the United States.

The gift instantly doubled the monetary resources available to backers of Referendum 74, a Washington ballot measure that reaffirms the legality of gay marriage coming before voters this November. The referendum originated this spring, when opponents of marriage equality collected enough signatures to put it on the ballot – and to urge that voters reject it. The measure’s success would validate a law passed in the Legislature this year, legalizing gay marriage in the heavily Democratic state.

“It’s an amazing gift, an amazing investment in our campaign and we’re really grateful to Jeff and MacKenzie,” Washington United for Marriage campaign manager Zach Silk told the Daily News. “It’s clear to us that they saw this as the time to step up and invest in the opportunity to make history,” he said.

Those close to the campaign, which has received big-ticket donations from the likes of Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer, were quick to point out that these large gifts represent only a portion of the campaign’s backing.

“The donation really shows how there is broad-based support for marriage equality from a broad set of constituencies across Washington state,” Josh Friedes, the director of marriage equality for Equal Rights Washington, told the Daily News.

“The size of this contribution makes it easier for us to compete with the large out of state contributions provided by the National Organization for Marriage, which has traditionally come into states when there is a marriage question on the ballot,” he said.

Friedes said conservative groups like the National Organization for Marriage tend to donate large sums of money to local campaigns very late in the game, lulling civil rights groups into a false sense of security.

Preserve Marriage Washington, a conservative organization opposed to Referendum 74, released a statement Friday on its website, claiming that “if this law goes unchallenged, voters would have no say and marriage would be changed for every person in our state from being the union of one man and one woman to being a genderless institution.”

The organization blogged that the Bezos donation would help “impose same-sex marriage” in Washington.

For his part, Friedes said the benefits of the Bezos gift extend beyond the financial.

Attitudes toward marriage, he said, change when people “talk to their friends about why marriage matters.” Still, he said initiating those conversations can be challenging.

“This donation, itself, has sparked the conversation,” Friedes said, noting the proliferation of discourse on the topic today on Facebook, Twitter, and – perhaps characteristically of Seattle – in coffee shops.