Openly Gay Federal Judge Confirmed By 91-6 Vote!

And now there are four openly gay or lesbian federal judges in the United States. Michael Fitzgerald was approved by a 91-6 vote of the United States Senate on Thursday to be a U.S. District Court Judge for the Central District of California. Fitzgerald was officially nominated by President Barack Obama in July 2011 and waited for 132 days before receiving a confirmation vote in the Senate.

Fitzgerald joins 3 other openly lesbian and gay judges, all who serve in New York: Deborah Batts, who has been on the bench since 1994(!) after being nominated by President Clinton and Ali Nathan and Paul Oetken who were both nominated by President Obama and approved by votes of the Senate in 2011 (48-44 for Nathan on October 13th and 80-13 for Oetken on July 19).

The six raving homophobes who voted against the Fitzgerald nomination were (all Republicans): David Vitter (R-LA), James Inhofe (R-OK), Mike Lee (R-UT), Rand Paul (R-KY), Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Jim DeMint (R-SC).

Congratulations to Michael Fitzgerald!

Hat//tip to PoliGlot.

Saturday Politics: California In Red, Blue and Purple

The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) has a new analysis of California voters which splits the electorate not along partisan lines but along liberal-conservatives lines. Since California's electoral system is being rocked by dual political earthquakes of the incorporation of a Top 2 Primary system (the top 2 finalists in the June 2012 primary election regardless of vote totals or party affiliations will face off on the November 2012 ballot) as well as the impact of legislative districts for Assembly, Senate and U.S. House drawn by a non-partisan citizen redistricting commission The impact of these two reforms will be huge and may necessitate a change in the typical Democrat-Republican analysis of elections. PPIC used five categories of voters (loyal liberal, moderately liberal, conservative liberal, moderate conservative, committed conservative) which they define as:

Loyal Liberal: Very liberal on both social and fiscal issues (18% of the state’s population);

Moderate Liberal: Moderately liberal on both social and fiscal issues (24%);

Conservative Liberal: Conservative on social issues and moderately liberal on fiscal issues (25%);

Moderate Conservative: Moderately liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal issues (17%);

Committed Conservative: Conservative on both social and fiscal issues (15%).

The graphic above demonstrates the geographic distribution of these kinds of voters. In the report, PPIC notes that every geographic section of the state has drifted ideologically towards Democratic positions except for the inland sections.

The report ends with this these thoughts about 2012 and California's political future:

California may tend to vote for Democratic presidential candidates , but many places around the state espouse views that fall to the right of the Democratic Party’s typical positions. In fact, only the Bay Area is home to extraordinarily large numbers of people who hold opinions associated with the Democratic Party.

This could signal an opportunity for Republicans. Moderate Liberal and Conservative Liberal places contain half the state’s population and seem sympathetic to many conservative positions—yet they tend to support the Democratic Party. Still, altering this status quo could prove difficult. The small number of liberal Republicans in every part of the state implies that the party's electoral coalition is ideologically solid—but that may also make the party resistant to expansion efforts. Only time will tell.

Regardless, California’s 2012 election promises to be exciting and unpredictable. Given the inherent tensions between ideology and partisanship in much of California, the political geography that emerges after the election could look very different from the current landscape.

Very interesting stuff! I encourage you to read the entire thing, "California Political Geography," by Eric McGhee and Daniel Krimm.

PPIC Poll Says 56% Of CA Likely Voters Support Marriage Equality

Wow! The good polling news on marriage equality just keeps on coming. As this is a presidential election year, it is not surprising that there is a lot of polling going on, and I suspect more and more polls will be including the marriage equality question. Just last week we heard from the Field Poll that 59% of Californians support marriage equality (compared to just 34% who do not), the largest lead (25 points) and highest level of support for same-sex marriage ever recorded in the state by the most trusted name in California polling.

The latest poll is from PPIC and says that 52% of registered voters support allowing same-sex marriage, compared to 41% who don't a margin of +11 for the supporters of equality, which is identical to what the PPIC poll showed last September. Of course the grain of salt here is that the margin of error of the PPIC poll is ±3.8 points, so technically we can not be sure that a majority of registered voters in California support marriage equality. We can however be sure that there are more supporters of marriage equality than people who oppose it.

PPIC also attempts to sample "likely voters," and among this group support for marriage equality is even higher, at 56% with a mere 38%expressing opposition. This is a margin of +18 for the forces for equality. The margin of error on this statistic is ±4.2 points, so this time, according to PPIC, a majority of Californians likely to vote in the June 2012 primary support marriage equality (see figure, below).

Equality California immediately sent out a statement about the new poll which included the graphic at the top of this post highlighting the improvement in the "likely voter" statistic on the question of marriage in the last 3 years.

This was a somewhat curious move, since no one in California is going to be voting on the question of marriage equality anytime soon, since there is no organized effort to put a Proposition 8 repeal measure on the November 2012 ballot due to the fact that the Perry v Brown litigation about the constitutionality of California's same-sex marriage ban is still tied up in the federal courts and is unlikely to be resolved before June 2013 (at the earliest!)

All that being said, two polls within two weeks indicating near-majority support for marriage equality and at the very least significant, double-digit leads for the pro-equality forces are very encouraging and good news!

Initiative To Abolish Death Penalty On CA Ballot

Interesting news! For the third time in 40 years, Californians will vote on whether they would like to abolish the state's death penalty, converting all capital sentences to life in prison without parole. Thanks to a new law signed by Governor Brown, all ballot measures must appear on November statewide general elections, not primary elections.

This will be the first time in over 20 years that Californians will be able to vote on the death penalty, which is has not been in effect since 2006 due to a court order.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

Opponents of capital punishment said Thursday they were submitting 800,000 signatures on petitions for an initiative to close the nation's largest Death Row, which has 725 condemned prisoners. The measure needs 504,760 valid signatures to make the ballot.

"California voters are ready to replace the death penalty with life in prison with no chance of parole," declared Jeanne Woodford, who oversaw four executions as warden of San Quentin State Prison. She now heads the anti-capital-punishment group Death Penalty Focus.

It was an unusually optimistic statement in a state whose residents have consistently supported the death penalty. The most recent Field Poll, in September, showed 68 percent support - although respondents in the same survey, when asked their preferred sentence for murder, backed life without parole over death, 48 to 40 percent.

MadProfessah has long been an opponent of capital punishment, not only because of its racially discriminatory application (Black people who kill white people are much more likely to get the death penalty than white people who kill black people) but due to the principle that the legal system can never be 100% accurate and the state should not kill people to show that killing people is wrong. I have been a member of Amnesty International since college, and it works to eliminate the death penalty around the world.

Looking forward to vote YES to eliminate the death penalty and replace it with a much more cost-effective life without parole. I hope all MadProfessah.com readers will join me in voting YES on this ballot measure!

Saturday Politics: Closeted L.A. Congressman Retires

David Dreier, has been in the U.S. House since 1981

David Dreier has represented the 26th Congressional District of California as a Republican since 1981. He has also been repeatedly outed in the media as a closeted gay man. Due to redistricting in California, Dreier's district was carved into thirds and section of it moved into other districts which were heavily Democratic, leaving the longtime incumbent with no U.S. House district in which to seek re-election, so he announced his retirement from Congress this week.

Dreier is the sixth California House member to announce plans to retire when his term ends, shaking up a delegation that has built up clout on Capitol Hill because of its stability over the years.

[...]

Dreier's announcement was not a surprise. The California Citizens Redistricting Commission's new map collapsed his district into three new ones.

Two of the newly drawn districts — both based in the San Gabriel Valley — are solidly Democratic with large ethnic voter populations.

Rep. Judy Chu (D-Monterey Park) is running in one with a strong concentration of Asian voters, and Rep. Grace F. Napolitano (D-Norwalk) has moved into the other, which includes Dreier's San Dimas home and where Latinos make up 46% of registered voters.

The 59-year-old, unmarried Congressman has long been  rumored to gay. It will be interesting to see how long it takes him to come out of the closet officially after retires.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God.

AFER Head Chad Griffin Named HRC Head

Chad Griffin, 38, is board president and founder of the American Foundation
 for Equal Rights, the group that organized the Proposition 8 federal lawsuit

The Advocate is reporting that 38-year-old political consultant Chad Griffin, the force behind the Los Angeles-based group which is shepherding the original Perry v Schwarzenegger federal legal challenge to Proposition 8 (American Foundation for Equal Rights or AFER) has been named the new head of the Human Rights Campaign, the most prominent LGBT advocacy position in the United States:

A major fundraiser for the Obama campaign who began his career in the early days of the Clinton White House, Griffin will replace current president Joe Solmonese at the helm of the $40 million organization on June 11, HRC announced Friday following a board of directors vote. Solmonese, who joined HRC as president in 2005 and said in August that he would leave after his contract expires at the end of this month, will continue in his role until June. Solmonese was named a national co-chair for the Obama campaign last month. 

In its pick of Griffin as president, HRC has chosen someone who was shaped from an early age by Washington political culture yet who is not defined by it, having spent the vast majority of his career outside the Beltway. Griffin, 38, is a fervent supporter of President Obama with personal ties to White House officials, but has pushed the bipartisan case for marriage equality, notably hiring former George W. Bush solicitor general Theodore Olson to co-lead the Prop. 8 suit and aligning with conservatives including gay former Republican National Committee chair Ken Mehlman, who has raised money for the legal effort. Griffin has been openly critical of the president’s evolving position on marriage equality, calling Obama’s indicated support for states' rights on deciding who can marry “a step backwards.” And, central to the job, Griffin has a proven ability to be a formidable fundraiser.

“While there’s no doubt that we’ve made tremendous progress on the road to equality, we must not forget that millions of LGBT Americans still lack basic legal protections and suffer the consequences of discrimination every day,” Griffin said in a statement. “Today's generation of young people, and each generation hereafter, must grow up with the full and equal protection of our laws, and finally be free to participate in the American dream. As HRC president, I’ll approach our work with a great sense of urgency because there are real life consequences to inaction.”

This is very big news and should raise the profile of marriage equality even higher in the nexus of LGBT issues that enter into the mainstream political consciousness of the 2012 political campaigns.

It will be interesting to see what impact Griffin's selection will have on the other issues which America's largest LGBT advocacy organization is also responsible for advancing, such as trans-inclusive national employment non-discrimination legislation, repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, passing the Uniting All Families Act, and the multiple statewide pro-gay and anti-gay ballot measures around the country (just to name a few).

In larger terms, the question of how the movement for LGBT equality will interface with other progressive movements like comprehensive immigration reform, the pro-choice movement, the labor movement and people of color civil rights organizations when the players involved are becoming more bipartisan in nature will be important to watch. Griffin is known for defying "Gay, Inc." orthodoxy in the past and is clearly comfortable working across party lines, having personally recruited David Boies and Ted Olson to be the superlawyers leading the Perry lawsuit to strike down California's same-sex marriage ban.

LGBT Friendly Apple Worth Over $500,000,000,000!

The largest company (by stock market valuation) in the world is Apple, which also happens to be one of the most LGBT-supportive companies in the world. For example, it's CEO is Tim Cook, who is an openly gay man. It is now worth nearly half-a-trillion dollars, according to the Los Angeles Times:

The company's market value passed the rarefied half trillion mark in trading Wednesday, as its stock bumped up more than 1%, or nearly $6, to put its value at closer to $504 billion.  The stock jump came a day after the company sent invitations to members of the media for an event next Wednesday in which it is expected to release its third generation iPad. 

Apple is currently the world's most valuable company by market value -- a measure of the total combined value of all of its outstanding shares of stock.  For much of last year, Apple was neck and neck with Exxon Mobil Corp. for that title, but over the last month Apple has catapulted nearly $100 billion past Exxon, which is now worth about $407 billion.

Interestingly, Apple's rival for the top spot, Exxon-Mobil is one of the most anti-LGBT companies in the Fortune 500, infamous for eliminating policies like domestic partnership benefits and sexual orientation nondiscrimination when it merged with Mobil. It is the only company ever to get a negative rating on HRC"s Corporate Equality Index.

Analysis of Field Poll Showing 59% Support Marriage Equality

The latest Field Poll is out and it has some encouraging news for supporters of marriage equality in California. By a margin of 25 points, 59% to 34%, California registered voters support "same-sex marriage," a jump of 7  points in support from the last Field poll taken in July 2010 which had the margin at a mere 9 points, 51% to 42%. The margin of error of these polls is ±4.5 percentage points.

Although this is very good news that the most respected polling outfit in California is showing support for marriage equality well above the majority position, it should be noted that 1) Field has a history of overstating supporting for the pro-equality side and 2) this is a poll of registered voters, which means it is essentially meaningless in predicting the outcome of a voter initiative on the measure.

First I will elaborate on my first point (Field has overestimated marriage equality support in the past). In 2008, during the fight to defeat Proposition 8 and defend California marriage equality from June 15 to November 4 (173 days) the Field poll issued 3 polls, all of which had the NO side ahead, often by significant margins. On September 19, 2008 Field said Proposition 8 was losing 55% No, 38% Yes among likely voters, On August 29, 2008 the Field Poll said Proposition 8 was losing 54% No to 40% Yes among likely voters and on its first poll on the issue on July 19, 2008 Field said that Proposition 8 was losing 51% No to 42% among likely voters. According to David Flesicher's exhaustive (and definitive) analysis of the campaign published in The Prop 8 Report, the internal polls of the No On 8 campaign NEVER had the No side above 48% of support, although their daily tracking polling did sometimes have the No side slightly ahead of the Yes side when the Undecided number would get larger. Once the "Princes" ad ran on California television for 10 days without a response Proposition 8 was ahead outside the margin of error. Field has never explained why their polling was so off on the Proposition 8 question, which ultimately passed by a margin of Yes 52.3%, No 47.7%.

My second point is to note that this is a poll of registered voters, not likely voters. It is true that it does not make sense to even speak about likely voters at this point, more than 8 months before the general election, but I want to clarify that there is always a difference between polling the set of all possible voters, and the results created when the subset of voters who actually go to the polls (or return their absentee ballots) and vote. However, the fact that we finally have one data point where majority support for marriage equality has been reached OUTSIDE the margin of error, bring us closer to the pre-conditions for when I would support an attempt to place a ballot measure to repeal Proposition 8.

I repeat those conditions here, for completeness:

1. multiple polls separated in time of weeks or months indicating clear majority support for marriage equality among registered voters;
2. at least one million dollars in the bank to begin a campaign; and 
3. a clearly delineated, consensus-driven model of a campaign structure that is responsive to and supported by all (or nearly all) the various segments of the California LGBT  and progressive activist communities.

I would also note that the two putative (and abortive) attempts by Love Honor Cherish to repeal Proposition 8 (in 2009 and in 2011) by ballot measure did not meet ANY of these above three conditions. In fact, only one of these conditions has ever been met (Condition 2), briefly by Equality California. I suspect that by November 2012 Condition 1 will have been met.

Then again, it is not clear that a campaign to repeal Proposition 8 is necessary, thanks to the federal court case of Perry v Brown, which has declared that measure as violative of the United States Constitution and has been struck down by the two courts which have examined it, on August 4, 2010 and on February 7, 2012. Proposition 8 is currently only in effect due to a stay issued by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on August 16, 2010 as the heterosexual supremacists who are defending it ask for an 11-member en banc panel of that court to consider their appeal, and after that they can also appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

More comment about the new Field poll. They also ask the question about what kind of legal recognition should same-sex couples have and here the response is that now 51% support marriage equality, with another 29% supporting civil unions (or comprehensive domestic partnerships, which is what California law is right now) and a mere 15% support no legal recognition for same-sex couples (See Table 3, below). Note, this 51% is not a majority position when the margin of error is considered. It's curious what the difference is between the 59% who support "allowing same- sex couples to marry and having regular marriage laws apply to them" and the 51% who think that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry  (when given the option of civil unions and no recognition whatsoever).

This is all great news for supporters of marriage equality and just more evidence that the heterosexual supremacists are fighting a battle that they will lose; it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.

An interesting poll would to also ask specifically about a Proposition 8 re-do which Field last asked in March 2009 and the results were 48% Support Repeal, 47% Support Prop 8. But this was before even the California Supreme Court had upheld Prop 8 and two federal courts had struck it down. I wonder what the Proposition 8 re-do poll numbers are now? Inquiring minds want to know.

Conservative Federal Judge Strikes Down DOMA

Karen Golinksi legally married her partner Amy in 2008 and literally
 made a federal case of getting health benefits for her spouse

Wow! Clearly, the days for which the so-called Defense of Marriage Act will remain viable in the United States Code are numbered, and appears to be decreasing rapidly. Recall that two weeks ago the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Proposition 8. This week, a federal judge named Jeffrey White appointed by Republican president George W. Bush issued an opinion in Golinski v Office of Personnel Management in which he summarily strikes down Section 3 of DOMA as violating Karen Golinski's constitutional right to receive federal benefits based on her legal marriage to her wife Amy.

The case involves Karen Golinski, who married her longtime partner in California in 2008 when same-sex marriage was legal between June and November. She has been an employee of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for decades and so when she got married she asked that her employer put her spouse on her health benefits plan like her heterosexual co-workers have been able to do. As a federal employee, but of the Judicial Branch, her case raised a host of interesting constitutional issues. Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit, Alex Kosinski, twice issued orders to the Office of Personnel Management (in the Executive Branch) to process Golinski's request, which were ignored.

Golinski was represented by MadProfessah friend Tara Borelli of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and pro bono by Morrison Foster. Amazingly, the judge ruled based just on the briefing on motions  for summary judgment (from the good guys) and motion for dismissal (from the bad guys represented by Paul Clement and the House Republican majority led by Speaker John Boehner).

U.S. District Court Judge White's opinion is remarkable for many things, as Ari Ezra Waldman notes at TowleRoad:

First, Judge White declared that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation merits heightened scrutiny in an equal protection analysis. 

Second, the court distinguished old and outdated precedent that Judge Randy Smith recently used in his dissent in Perry v. Brown, highlighting the doctrinal vacuum that is denial of gay rights. 

Third, in dismantling the proffered and any conceivable justification for DOMA Section 3, the court authoritatively rejected House Republican attempts to buttress DOMA with recourse to certain conceptions of morality. 

Fourth, Judge White's reliance on the other DOMA cases and Ninth Circuit precedent in other gay rights cases emphasizes the primacy of a federal litigation approach in our quest for marriage recognition.

I encourage you to read the rest of Ari's insightful analysis as well as Chris Geidner's at Poliglot. What is not becoming remarkable is the sight of federal judges ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional. Judge White of the 9th Circuit follows Judge Joseph Tauro of the 1st Circuit who struck down DOMA in July 2010. The decision in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management is still on appeal before the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Prop 8 Proponents Want En Banc Re-Hearing

As expected, the heterosexual supremacists defending Proposition 8 in federal court (who have now lost twice, at the federal District Court level on August 4, 2010 and before a 3-judge panel on February 7, 2012) have applied for an en banc re-hearing by a randomly selected 11-member subset of the 29-member 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

A majority of the activie judges on the Court of Appeals must vote to agree to hear the case, and then an en banc panel of 11 judges consisting of Chief Judge Alex Kosinski and 10 randomly selected other judges will hear the case, probably issuing a ruling (if no further briefs are requested!) by the end of the summer. According to Wikipedia, at 64%, the 9th Circuit has the highest proportion of judges appointed by Democratic presidents, and is thus considered the most liberal.

Whoever loses at the en banc level can appeal to the 9-member United States Supreme Court level, where it takes 4 votes to agree to hear a case, but 5 votes to decide it. A final ruling by that court would probably not happen before June 27, 2013.

NJ Assembly Passes Marriage Equality Bill 42-33!

The New Jersey State Assembly passed a marriage equality bill by a vote of 42-33, becoming the seventh state legislature in history to pass a marriage equality bill. (The bill passed the State Senate 24-16.) Previously, state legislatures in California (2005 and 2007), Vermont (2009), Connecticut (2009), Maine (2009), New Hampshire (2009), New York (2011) and Washington (2012) had passed marriage equality bills through both houses. Of these states which enacted marriage equality legislatively, only Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and New York currently have marriage equality currently legal in their state. It should also be noted that the District of Columbia enacted marriage equality through its legislature in December 2009. California has an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples which are legally married but no more can get married until the Perry v Brown federal lawsuit is finally resolved. Massachusetts and Iowa also allow marriage equality, thanks to rulings by their respective state supreme courts.

In New Jersey, marriage equality will not go into effect because Republican Governor Chris Christie has announced his attention to veto the bill.

Garden State Equality sent out a press release on this historic achievement:

Since Stonewall, we have been on a 40-year journey toward our freedom.  Today, the legislature has brought us to the edge of the promised land.  We know the Governor won’t let us enter, but we finally behold the view of our dreams and we will never turn back.

Today’s milestone came in the face of some of the toughest obstacles in the history of the marriage equality movement.  Instead of a Governor twisting arms on our behalf, we have a Governor who twisted arms against us right up until the final votes in each chamber.    And Garden State Equality’s budget was one-tenth of what it was two years ago.

But we had the people and the passion – and the greatest leaders in Senate President Steve Sweeney, Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver, Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg, Assembly Majority Leader Lou Greenwald, Assembly Speaker Pro Tempore Jerry Green, Democratic Party Chair Assemblyman John Wisniewski, and the peerless pioneer in the New Jersey legislature, Assemblyman Reed Gusciora.   We thank the unsung heroes of the legislative process – the legislative staff, especially the Assembly Majority and Senate Majority staff.

We are exuberant advocates but also methodical strategists.  To win an override, we will take the time we need, assisted by a changing world.  Look how the world changed since the last vote two years ago.   We have until the end of the legislative session, January 2014.  The key is winning.

We could not have achieved this milestone without our partner organizations.  Freedom to Marry was the national linchpin that never stopped believing in Garden State Equality, not even after our profound disappointment two years ago, and made this milestone possible.

The Human Rights Campaign lent us a spectacular field director and was invaluable and gracious at every juncture.  The ACLU, The Task Force and Marriage Equality NY/USA gave us additional power.   Our sisters and brothers in labor, especially the Communications Workers of America, have been relentless fighters by our side.   Our state’s progressive blog, Blue Jersey, has been an unsurpassed voice for justice.

And once again, we thank our spectacular lobbying firm, the Kaufman Zita Group, including Jeannine LaRue, Tom Wilson, Adam Kaufman and Trish Zita.  They are second to none.

Pursuing all roads to justice, Garden State Equality and seven-same sex couples will continue our lawsuit for marriage equality, where we are represented by Lambda Legal and the nationally renowned Gibbons law firm.  With this victory, the courts will see the legislature’s clear intent to replace the state’s failed civil union law with marriage equality.

Congratulations to the Garden State!

Lesbian Plaintiffs In CA Marriage Case Divorcing

The landmark California ruling in Re Marriage Cases which resulted in the legalization of marriage in my home state was a consolidation of multiple lawsuits challenging legal provisions prohibiting same-sex couples from getting married. One of those lawsuits was brought by famed feminis attorney Gloria Allred and featured the lesbian plaintiffs Robin Tyler and Diane Olson suing the state of California to recognize their fundamental right to marry each other. Tyler has been a fixture in lesbian and gay activist circles for at least a quarter century.

This week came word that even though they were one of the first couples to get married in Los Angeles County on June 14, 2008, Olson and Tyler have recently filed for divorce.

NBC-LA reports:

We're human and we went through difficult times," Tyler said. The marriage ran its course, she said.  

Tyler and Olson have known each other for 40 years and were together as a couple for 18. They were the poster couple for gay and lesbian rights.

When they wed, in June of 2008, they had gone to the Beverly Hills Courthouse every year for seven years to apply for -- and be denied- a marriage license.

The ceremony on the steps of the same courthouse was a monumental moment for gay couples everywhere. 

People will also be reminded that the lead plaintiffs in the Massachusetts marriage case, Hilary Goodridge also divorced a few short years after winning the right to marry. What some people fail to realize is that these couples were often together for years if not decades before they could get legally married, which has only been available since May 17, 2004  in this country. My husband and I will celebrate our 4th wedding anniversary this August (on Roger Federer's birthday!) but we have been together as a couple since 1991 (over 21 years).

Where there is marriage there will also be divorce. But just as marriage is a happy public moment, so is divorce the flip side.

MAP: State(s) of Same-sex Marriage, circa 2012

Hat/tip to Andrew Sullivan

Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional By 9th Circuit Panel!!

As expected, the federal appellate court in California has affirmed the lower court decision, ruling bya  vote of 2-1 that Proposition 8 violates the United States Constitution.

Here's the text of the decision (hat/tip to AmericaBlog)
Ninth Circuit Prop. 8 decision

ALERT: U.S. Appeals Court Prop 8 Decision TOMORROW!

At 10:00am PST, Tuesday February 7th, 2012 the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will reveal their decision in Perry v. Brown, determining whether to uphold the U.S. district court decision striking down Proposition 8 as violating the United States Constitution by (now) openly gay federal judge Vaughn Walker.

Regardless of what happens tomorrow, the losing side will appeal to the United States Supreme Court, and it is also likely a stay will be issued so that even if Proposition 8 is ruled unconstitutional, marriages will not resume in California any time soon.

Hat/tip to PoliGlot

SATURDAY POLITICS: CA Republicans Nearly Extinct

Party	Feb 1999	January 2008	January 2012
Democratic	46.72%	42.71%	43.63%
Republican	35.27%	33.45%	30.36%
NPP	12.89%	19.38%	21.24%

 
Check out these new statsistsics about party registration in California just released by Secretary of State Debra Bowen. Democrats now have a 13 percentage-point advantage in party registration (43% to 30%) over Republicans with No Particular Party (i.e. "Independents") at "21%. This is an increase of the already-overwhelming advantage Democrats enjoyed four years ago in January 2008 when the advantage was a mere 9 percentage points (42% to 33%).

You may recall that Democrats went on to win every single statewide race in November 2010. The current results bode well for these officials re-election chances in November 2014, as well as Barack Obama's likelihood of winning the state's 55 electoral votes for president this November, and probably U.S. Dianne Feinstein's re-election as well (although I will not be voting for her).

Hat/tip to Calitics.

BREAKING: 9th Circuit Keeps Prop 8 Trial Tapes Sealed

Breaking News! The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed trial judge James Ware and issued a ruling which says that the videotapes of the Proposition 8 trial (a.k.a. Perry v. Schwarzenegger) should NOT be released.

A ruling on the merits of the appeal of the openly gay federal judge Vaughn Walker's ruling in the Perry v. Brown which struck down California's voter-passed ban on same-sex marriage can be released by the 9th Circuit at any time.

BREAKING: Prop 8 Trial Tape Ruling Tomorrow

The question of whether the videotapes of the court testimony during the Perry v Schwarzenegger case will be released tomorrow by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Hat/tip to Metro Wekly

Prop 8 Repeal Initiative Can Begin Signature Gathering

The organization Love Honor Cherish announced this week that it has been given the go-ahead by the Attorney General of California to begin circulating ballot petitions to repeal Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment which purports to ban people of the same sex from marrying in California.

The text of the amendment is:

This amendment would amend an existing section of the California Constitution.  Existing language proposed to be deleted is printed in strikeout type.  Language proposed to be added is printed in underlined type.

Section 1.  To protect religious freedom, no court shall interpret this measure to require any priest, minister, pastor, rabbi, or other person authorized to perform marriages by any religious denomination, church, or other non-profit religious institution to perform any marriage in violation of his or her religious beliefs. The refusal to perform a marriage under this provision shall not be the basis for lawsuit or liability, and shall not affect the tax-exempt status of any religious denomination, church or other religious institution.

Section 2.  To provide for fairness in the government’s issuance of marriage licenses, Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.5.  Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Marriage is between only two persons and shall not be restricted on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.

The ballot summary is:

Reinstates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Summary Date: 12/15/11 | Circulation Deadline: 05/14/12 | Signatures Required: 807,615

Proponent: Thomas B. Watson

Repeals the current provision in California's Constitution that states only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Provides that marriage is between only two persons and shall not be restricted on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. Clarifies that the initiative shall not be interpreted to require any priest, minister, pastor, rabbi, or other person to perform a marriage in violation of his or her religious beliefs. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Over the long run, this measure would likely have little fiscal impact on state and local governments. (11-0058) (Full Text)

Of course, Love Honor Cherish also went forward with a signature-gathering campaign in two years ago in Winter 2009-Spring 2010 to repeal Proposition 8 which failed miserably. Gathering enough signatures to get a measure on the ballot in California is a resource-intensive task, not one that has been achieved by a mainly volunteer or unpaid effort in years.

This effort does not have the backing of any of the state's major LGBT organizations (like Equality California and the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center). The proponents have until May 14, 2012 to gather well over a million signatures, in the hopes that 807, 615 will be valid.

I agree that Propsition 8 should be repealed but I do not think that the LGBT community of California has had a discussion about what it would take to repeal Proposition 8 and I think it is incredibly naive and presumptious of one organization to think that they can make the decision for all LGBT Californians to put our rights up for a public vote.

I will not be signing the petition and I urge you not to as well.

Harvey Milk May 22, 1930 – November 27, 1978

Harvey Milk, the most famous openly gay politician in U.S. history, was assassinated in San Francisco on November 27, 1978, 33 years ago today.

Bob Slatten of the blog I Should Be Laughing posted some of Harvey Milk's most memorable quotes today in remembrance. My favorite is:

“If a bullet should enter my brain, let that bullet destroy every closet door.”

Unfortunately, a bullet did enter Harvey's brain on that fateful day in November 33 years ago, but there are still far too many closeted people, especially politicians, often letting their internalized homophobia lead them into committing external acts of homophobia as well.