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

Reuters – France to pass gay marriage, adoption law

France to pass gay marriage, adoption law

PARIS | Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:21pm EDT
(Reuters) – France’s new Socialist government is to legalize marriage and adoption for same-sex couples, Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said on Friday, reflecting a shift in public attitudes in the majority Catholic nation.

President Francois Hollande, who took office last month, had pledged to legalize gay marriage and adoption during his election campaign but had given no time frame.

Since Hollande’s Socialists won an absolute majority in parliamentary elections two weeks ago, the conservative UMP party, which had opposed the measure under former president Nicolas Sarkozy, can do little to stop it.

“The government has made it an objective for the next few months to work on implementing its campaign commitments on the fight against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity,” Ayrault’s office said in a statement.

Earlier in the day, the junior minister for families Dominique Bertinotti told French daily Le Parisien that a law on gay marriage and adoption would be passed within a year.

The statement from prime minister’s office did not confirm the time frame, but asserted a law would be implemented.

In addition, the government would hold discussions in the autumn on ways of making life easier for trans gender individuals, whose dealings with French administration are often complicated by their change of name and sex.

A law granting full marriage status to gay couples would bring France, which currently provides only for same-sex civil unions, into line with fellow EU members Denmark, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and Sweden.

It would also mark a profound change in French society, where more than two-thirds of people still describe themselves as Roman Catholic, according to a 2010 survey by pollster Ifop.

However, fewer and fewer of them adhere to strict Roman Catholic teachings on sexual issues or back the Vatican’s condemnation of homosexuality. Church attendance has collapsed.

As recently as 2006, surveys indicated that most French were opposed to changing the definition of marriage, but now more than 60 percent support the idea, the pollster BVA said. A majority also favor allowing gay couples to adopt children.

Nevertheless, gay rights advocates say homosexuality remains taboo in many areas of public life. Media tend to use euphemisms such as “long-term bachelor” to hint that someone is gay.

“Today, it’s still very difficult to put a name on things, as if saying in public that someone was homosexual was to violate a taboo,” a group of gay professionals wrote in an opinion piece in the newspaper Le Monde on Friday, the eve of a Gay Pride march in Paris.

A gay marriage law would boost Hollande’s credentials as an agent of social change in the tradition of late Socialist president Francois Mitterrand, who appointed France’s first female prime minister and scrapped the death penalty.

Hollande fathered four children out of wedlock with his former partner, fellow Socialist Segolene Royal.

A debate on gay rights might also draw some attention away from the economic woes weighing on his popularity.

Still, there is certain to be opposition from conservatives and practicing Catholics.

“We are convinced that young people’s development requires the presence of a mother and a father,” said Thierry Vidor, head of the Familles de France umbrella group, which represents some 70,000 families, and campaigns for traditional family rights.

“We will take action to try to show that this measure is ultimately dangerous for society.”

(Reporting by Nicholas Vinocur; Editing by Michael Roddy)

New York Times

WORLD U.S. N.Y. / REGION BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY SCIENCE HEALTH SPORTS OPINION ARTS STYLE TRAVEL JOBS REAL ESTATE AUTOS

To the Editor:

Connect With Us on Twitter
For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.
Re “How My View on Gay Marriage Changed,” by David Blankenhorn, the founder of the Institute for American Values (Op-Ed, nytimes.com, June 23):

While I am pleased that Mr. Blankenhorn realizes that his earlier views against gay marriage are growing less mainstream, his logic continues to confound. According to his article, gay couples — because they cannot conceive — undermine the notion that parenthood is fundamental to marriage.

If this is the case, what of couples who cannot conceive or those who choose not to for fear of passing on a hereditary illness? Do these heterosexual couples also undermine marriage?

Furthermore, Mr. Blankenhorn remarks that gay marriage is “a significant contributor to marriage’s continuing deinstitutionalization.” How could gay marriage, which is outlawed in 42 states either by constitutional amendment or law, have such a deleterious effect on an institution as old as society itself?

Mr. Blankenhorn rightly asserts that gay couples should enjoy the same rights as their fellow heterosexual citizens. But his path to this conclusion is marred by its own contradictions.

TRAVIS C. STALCUP
Honolulu, June 23, 2012

To the Editor:

I’ve read most of what David Blankenhorn has published since “Fatherless America (1995),” and have always been impressed. His work has been a mixture of solid scholarship, moral acuity and concern for our children, in an era that devalues all three.

I have just finished his Op-Ed article and believe that he has done the right thing, for the right reasons and in the right way. This explanation of his position and how he came to it makes clear that the welfare of children remains his primary concern, and it demonstrates his continued faithfulness to the public roles of scholar, student and citizen.

His legacy will be found in the lives of those whose childhoods were made more secure because of his research.

JOHN HEARN
Jamestown, N.Y., June 23, 2012

Daily News – Gay Pride Parade marchers celebrate 1-year anniversary of same-sex marriage law

Gay Pride Parade marchers celebrate 1-year anniversary of same-sex marriage law
City Council Speaker Christine Quinn covers route three times with new spouse Kim Catullo
BY REUVEN BLAU / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Sunday, June 24, 2012, 9:51 PM

MARIELA LOMBARD FOR NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Gay Pride Parade marchers show their true colors on festive Fifth Ave. Sunday.

Thousands of overjoyed celebrants marched in the city’s gay pride parade Sunday, marking the first anniversary since same-sex marriage was legalized in New York.

Floats, politicians and dancers waving rainbow-colored flags got huge cheers from spectators jamming sidewalks on Fifth Ave.

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn marched the entire 32-block route three times with her new spouse, Kim Catullo. They joined Gov. Cuomo and Mayor Bloomberg, who kicked off the parade.

“It’s thrilling,” Quinn said before her final run. “For so long we were fighting to get marriage equality, and now that we have had it for a year, it’s hard to believe.”

The route was filled with newly married same-sex couples, including a group cheering behind Cuomo and his Food Network star girlfriend, Sandra Lee. Cuomo signed legislation one year ago to the day legalizing same-sex marriage.

MARIELA LOMBARD FOR NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

“Marriage equality meant so much to so many people, and you can still feel it resonating,” he told reporters at the end of the route in the West Village.

Cyndi Lauper led off the march as the grand marshal of the 43rd annual celebration.